Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agenda 2019-05-15 TOWN 01= T113[JRON Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town I]all May 15, 2019 1505 Tiburon boulcvai d Special Meeting—6:15 P.M. �X2 Tiburon, CA 94920 Regular Meeting-7:30 P.M. ,-. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA SPECIAL_MEETING—6:15 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Fraser, Councilmcmber Thier,Council member\Vchier,Vice Mayor Fredericks,Mayor Kulik CLOSED SESSION 1. CONFERENCE WITH PROPERTY NEGOGIATORS (Pursuant to Govcmincm Code Section 54956.8) Property: 500 Tiburon Boulcvard,Tiburon, California,APN's 055-093-06,07,08, 09 Agency Negotiators: Greg Chanis,Benjamin Stock Negotiating Parties: ToNvn of Tiburon and Richardson Pay Sanitation District Under Negotiations: Price and terms for possible property acquisition. 2. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE REVIEW (Pursuant to Government Codc Section 549507) Title:Town\/Ianager 3. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS (Pursuant to Government Codc Scction 54957) Agency designated rcpre��,rntatn'es: AMayor Kulik and Vice \%Iayor Fredericks Unrepresented Employee Tmvii \-fanagcr INTERVIEWS FOR VACANCII_S ON TOWN BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS • Serge Martial ADJOURNMENT— tore,-uhTnmcctln� REGULAR MEETING—7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL_ CALL_ Councihnember Frascr,Councihncinhcr Thier, Councih»ember\V'elllcr, Vice \Ia}'or f=recicricks, AMayor K ulik ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION,IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons \vishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note ho\vcver, that the Town COuneil is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission,Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future To\vn Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3)minutes. PRESENTATIONS • Art Educator Award —Heritage&Arts Commission • Recognition of Town Services—Gordon Cousins,Design Review Board CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council, public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. CC-I. Municipal Code Amendments — Adopt amendments to Chapter 3A of the Tiburon Municipal Code relating to the To�vn Manager minor contract signing authority for public vworks projects (Department of Public Works) CC-2. Local Emergency — Adopt Resolution continuing the declaration of a local emergency related to damage caused by February 2019 storms (Office of the Town Manager) ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Appointments to Town Boards and Commissions — Consider making appointment to the Planning Commission (Department of Administrative Services) AI-2. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ("UAV") Regulations — Provide direction on potential UAV, or drone,regulations and ordinance (Office of the To\vn Manager) AI-3. Mill Valley Refuse Service Rate Increase Presentation — Receive report from Mill Valley Refuse Service on two proposed rate increase applications and direct staff to hold a Public Hearing on the preferred rate increase application (Department of Administrative Services) PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. Belvedere-Tiburon Library Expansion Project — Consider revision to Condition of Approval #5, as appro\,ccl in Resolution No. 55-2011,requirin�T the Belvedere-Tiburon Library to contribute to traffic impact fres of a certain amount or waive the amount in its entirety, and the timing of any such contribution related to the project (Community Development Department) PH-2. 2000 Paradise Drive —Consicler encroachment permit application by Caprice Restaurant for the use of a portion of the public parking lot at the intersection of Paradise Drive and \1ar \\/est Street as It drop oil and picl:up valet service location. ITEM CONTINUED TO A DATLO UNCERTAIN. ACTION ITEMS AI-4. Belvedere-Tiburon Library Expansion Project — Consider the request for a financial contribution toward the library expansion project (Conununity Development Department) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • To\vn Council Wcekly Digests— May 3 &10,2019 ADJOURNMENT GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prim- to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the 13elvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, www.townoftiburon.org. Upon request, the Town will provide «,,ritten agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please .send a written request, including your name, mailing address,phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. if you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at, or prior m_ the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon CA 94920 Istefani@townoftiburon.org 415.435.7:3;77 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. s Lea Stefani Town Clerk Full Name: Serge Martial Date: 04/05/19 IN Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: X Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board Address:90 Lyford Drive Home #10 Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon, CA 94920 viLY State Z- r- Uode Phone: __4L 435-4000 _ _ Email: — smartialCathreecc.com I have spent the majority of my adult life as a Tiburon resident and property owner. For these 41 years, i have enjoyed living and working in our beautiful town. I intend to spend the rest of my We in Tiburon and would like to help preserve and protect the unique characteristics that make life so enjoyable here. I believe I can make a positive contribution to the quality of life in our town as a Planning Commission member while respectfully balancing concerns for our delicate environment with concerns for property owners. I will bring to the Planning Commission my extensive experience in executive management, my knowledge, and sensitivity to our natural and fragile environment, and my deep desire to protect our tnwn'q llninna Cettinu hiCtnry and vAh1PC fnr tha benefit of current and flltturP OPn Pratinn¢ Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized ir their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. Serge Martial A brief introduction: Serge Martial joined National Emergency Services, Inc. (NES) in 1978, shortly after the firm's inception. Working closely with the Company's founder, Mr. Martial was instrumental in guiding the growth of NES while holding various top management positions related to operations, administration, finance and technology. As Chief Administrative and Information Officer, he was responsible for developing and implementing the overall strategic direction of the company's administrative and technological infrastructure. Mr. Martial's visionary assessment and his expertise in leading-edge technologies and telecommunications allowed him to position NES as a respected leader in the world of healthcare information and delivery. He designed and programmed the first physician recruiting and scheduling software for the Emergency Department staffing company and was recognized by Database Magazine as the precursor of using PC technology and programs to handle the financial and accounting needs of NES. As a network engineer, he established one of the first Novell network and file server environment that served the company for many years, assuring a high level of integrity and compliance to the company's dataset needs. In 1998,he co-spearheaded the development of the first Electronic Medical Record for the Emergency Department physicians, working with ED physicians to maximize the design and integrity as well as confidentiality As President& CEO of ProBill, Mr. Martial was credited for the tremendous turnaround of the physician billing company. Beside the positive financial and technological impacts for ProBill, Mr. Martial instituted an aggressive compliance program that has been well recognized by industry experts. Another achievement was the constant improvement for ProBill customer financial outcome though extensive reviews and adjustments designed to meet the ever changing reimbursement landscape and the challenging maximization of medical coding while remaining in full compliance. His emphasis on continuous improvement of quality and customer service throughout the organization was recognized by internal NES accounts as well as outside clients who appreciated the value of his ethical leadership and equal treatment among all clients, Named Chief Executive Officer of the NES Healthcare Group in early 2011, Mr. Martial designed a re-organization plan for the company. His strategy included the addition of more physician leadership to the company management team and creating an enhanced transparency and expectation from all managers and employees, as well as an emphasis with patient and customer services. Mr. Martial received his education in Europe and the United States and is fluent in several languages. He holds degrees in flying, accounting, engineering and administration. He is a certified instructor in several disciplines that include flying, sailing, diving and skiing. A former Member of the American College of Healthcare Executive, he is also an international speaker about healthcare delivery and services. Mr. Martial is holding positions in Association Boards,Promotion of International Language through musical arts at the Alliance Francaise in San Francisco,is a Life Time Member of the Tiburon Landmark Society,and was a volunteer with the Burning Man Organization.As a former professional Singer/Song Writer in France, he returned to the stage in 2013 at the invitation of the San Francisco based American Band"Rue `66". His new album is scheduled to be released at the end of June 2019. Other areas of interest upon request. Serge Martial, ACHE Post Office Box 84 • Tiburon,CA 94920 • USA Telephone(415)43 544000 Curriculum Vitae Summary Date of birth: 22 March, 1950—In Rouen, France C.t e::sl;itl US C.t.Zen and FrenchNatio.nal Education— US: • Aerospace studies--College of Marin-NASA • Airline pilot school-Flightways Academy—Oakland International Airport(CA). Graduated in all disciplines in record time. All licenses current Commercial & Instrument& Multi-Engine Airplane Flying Instructor degrees • Accounting bachelor degree—Marin Business College Human Resources and Administration studies—College of Marin • Database programming studies—College of Marin • Network engineer certification • MBA Studies • Telecommunication Specialist • Medical Billing& Collections • Medical & Ethical Compliance Languages spoken: English(fluent),French(fluent), Italian(fluent), Spanish(limited) Professional work history with National Emergency Services, Inc. (NES Healthcare Group) • 2013 -- Present President-Three Continents Consulting • 2011 -2012 President& CEO—NES Healthcare Group • 2002-2013 Vice Chairman& Director of all NES entities. Chief Information& Technology Officer—President&CEO--ProBill—Chief Security& Compliance Officer (from 2008). • 1999—2002 Chief Information&Technology Officer—President& CEO—ProBill • 1995 - 1998 Chief Information&Technology Officer 1986— 11994 Chief Administrative Officer—Information System Director • 1985 — 1986 Chief Administrative Officer—Interim Chief Financial Officer • 1982- 1985 HR Administrator- Comptroller-Corporate Pilot • 1980- 1982 Corporate pilot(PT), HR Administrator, staff accountant • 1978- 1980 Assistant to NES Company Founder. Activities included physician recruiting and scheduling as well as physician payroll processing and other event duties. Town Council Meeting TOWN OF TIBURON May 15. 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - ti Tiburon. CA 94920 STAFFREPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Public Works Subject: Recommendation to Adopt Amendment to Chapter 3A of the Tiburon Municipal Code Reviewed By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager Benjamin Stock, Town Attorne SUMMARY The Council will consider a Municipal Code Amendment to modify Chapter 3A'of the Tiburon Municipal Code relating to the Town Manager's minor contract signing authority for public works projects. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Approve the adoption of Ordinance No. 582 N.S. (Exhibit 1). BACKGROUND This ordinance would amend Chapter 3A ofthe Tiburon Municipal Code relating to the Town Manager's minor contract signing authority for public works projects. The ordinance increases the Town Manager's contract signino authority for public works projects to $60,000 in accordance with state law and updates language to better match existing state law. The Town Council held a public hearino at its meeting on May 1. 2019 and passed first reading of the ordinance, waiving further readino s. 'hhe ordinance now comes to the Town Council for adoption. ANALYSIS No further analysis provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT No financial impact. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ToNvN or TIBURON PAGE 1 or 2 Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION The Council's motion to adopt this item on the Consent Calendar will constitute a motion to confirm the waiver of second reading from the previous reading and adopt the ordinance. Each Councilmember's vote on the motion to approve this item on the Consent Calendar will constitute the equivalent of a roll call vote and will be recorded within the ordinance. Should any Councilmember choose to vote differently on this item than other items on the Consent Calendar, then the vote on this item should be taken separately from other items appearing on the Consent Calendar such that individual votes may be properly recorded. Should the Council wish to discuss the item, it must be removed from the Consent Calendar and voted upon separately. Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Approve the adoption of draft Ordinance No. 582 N.S., which is attached as Exhibit 1. Exhibit(s): l. Draft Ordijiance 582 N.S. Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk TONN N of T113CRON PaGI:2 of 2 EXHIBIT NO, ORDINANCE NO. 582 N. S. AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AMENDING CHAPTER 3A OF THE TOWN'S MUNICIPAL CODE REGARDING CONTRACT AWARD PROCEDURES The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: SECTION 1. AMENDMENT OF MUNICIPAL CODE. (A) Chapter 3A, of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 3A - TOWN CONTRACTS Sections: Article 1. - General Provisions 3A-1 - Definitions. As used in this chapter, the following terms are defined in this section: "Contract" means any binding agreement between the tovvii and any individual. public agency. corpoi ation. partnership or other entity. Contract shall also mean, \-vithout limitation. anN document which purports to transfer liability to the tovv'n or in Nvhich purportedly obliges the town to indemnify; defend and;or hold harmless arty individual. public a(-)cnc\. corporation, partnership or other entity. "Formal biddi�A-)" means a contractor selection procedure that subsWntially' complies vNith the process set 1-Orth in article V of this chapter for public v-ycorks projects. "h�lormal bid�iing" meads anv nonformal contractor selection procedure authorized by this chapter. "major publc works contract" means a contract for a public \\orks project yvhose \a1ue cxcccds Mo h andred thousand dollars. 1 "minor public Vaorhs contract" means a contract fora public \\orks i)roject Nychose vcIlue does not exceed tNoo hundred thousand dollars. I his threshold oftwo hundred thousand dollars that distinLzuishcs m IJ01' Ii-0111 minor public \\orks project- shall be automatically adjusted to conform to the maximum set by section 22i)3 (b) oftli., Public Contracts Code or its successor statute l'or projects that may be let bN irnformal biddinul. ]except where othci-N\ise indicated. "public vyork:, project" means any Page 1 (?f'8 T011-11 C'ouncrl 01YflT7017Ce No. 582 N.S. DRAFT Adoplecl.x"v.v..v.v project »ncctinO the del7nition of a "public project" under section 22002 of ilic Public Contracts Code. as amended, or antis successor statute. 'A-2 - General requirements. (a) No contract shall be valid or binding upon the town unless it is entered into and executed in accordance with this chapter. (b) Notwithstanding anything in this chapter to the contrary. no contract shall be valid or binding upon the town unless it has been approved as to form by the toy-vn attorney prior to execution on behalf of the town or unless, in the town manager's judoment. there are special circumstances such that the town's interest in entering into the contract on an expedited basis render it impracticable to obtain the town attornev's approval. (c) The town need not use formal or informal bidding to aNvard a contractor except as expressly required by this chapter. 'A-3 - Contract authority of the town manager. The tovNn manager is authorized to negotiate and execute on the behalf of the to\vn, without prior approval of the town council, any contract: (a) For purchases, general services, professional services or employment. or community. social or recreational services, and the total expenditure does not exceed sixty thousand dollars. provided that such monies have been appropriated or budgeted for such purpose and there is an unexpended and unencumbered balance of such appropriation sufficient to pay the expense of the contract; (b) For the lease of town property for a period of less than six months, or for the use of towrn pn.operty or facilities for a period not to exceed five days. in accordance with town policy. which require no payment of money by the town: (c) Fi)r settlement of a claim or litigation against the tovNn, after consultation vwith the mayor. �Nhere the total expenditure does not exceed ten thousand dollars: (d) lowin(r the rioht of entry onto toNvil property. (c) In the case of Public N orks contracts. the I oxy n 1\%Ia11awer's si'('nature authority shall be in accordance with the provisions ofArticle 1V Minor Public \Yorks t'ontracts. 'ontract authority of department heads. (a) l'ic director of public works shall be authorized to 11e1-)ot1L.itc and execute contracts 1-or the toN.vii for budgeted services. public X orks. supplies. materials �md equipment rcqu11-CC by his department up to a maximum often thousand provided that such Page 2 cif 8 Towi7 Council Ordinance No. 582 N.S. DRAFT Adopued-v.v/xx/xx monies have been appropriated or budgeted for such purpose. and there is au unexpended and unencumbered balance of such appropriation sufficient to pay the expense of the contract. (b) The chief of police, director of administrative services. town attorney and community development director shall be authorized to negotiate and execute contracts for the town for budgeted services. supplies, materials and equipment required by their respective departments up to a maximum of five thousand dollars. provided that such monies have been appropriated or budgeted for such purpose. and there is an unexpended and unencumbered balance of such appropriation sufficient to pay the expense of the contract. (c) The town manager shall have discretion to lower the contract authority maximums in this section by written notice to the town official or officials involved, Nvith a copy of said notice to the director of administrative services and the to«n attorney. _,A-5 - Emergency contract procedures. (a) Except as set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of this section. the town manager is authorized to negotiate and execute on the behalf of the town. without prior approval of the town council, any contract for emergency purchases. services or public works projects, �yhere the amounts are greater than set forth in section ')A-3(a) and (e) of this chapter. If the emergency requires letting a contract before the council can be convened, the town manager shall have the authority to let the contract, notwithstanding the procedures set forth in subsections (b) and (c) of this section. In au emergency situation. this authority shall extend beyond appropriated or budgeted hands to the extent necessary to protect the health and safety of persons or property. (b) In the event of any emergency, the toNvu council mai proceed to enter into a contract h)r a minor public works project without giving notice for bids to let contracts. O In case of an emergency. the council may pass a resolution by a four-fifths vote ofits riembers declaring that the public interest and neccssitN demand the immediate cypenditure of public money to safeOuard life. health or property. Upon adoption of the resolution. it may expend any sum required in the emcrr�enc\ ��ithout compl��in�� with this Clapter. 1-6 - Rejection of price quotations and bids. lie town manager shall have discretion to reject any or all price quotations or bids presented for any contract for purchase of supplies, materials and equipment. or for services. if the town manager rejects all price quotations or bids. the tO\Nn mana1-Ier IMIN'. iii his discretion. re-advertise for new price quotations or bids. Ifthe town man(iOer determines that the amount of,price quotations or bids ��as cxcessiye. he may enter into a c,)ntract at a loN-ver price \a ithout re-advertising) for price quotations or bids vNithiu his contract authority. In the event that such lower price exceeds the contract authority 01,111C Page 3 of 8 7oirn Council Ordinance No. 542 N.S. DRAFT Adopted ss/xxixx town manager. the manager may rei-er the contract at such 10\y-er price to the town council for award or take such alternate action with respect to the purchase as he determines to be in the town's best interests. Article II. - Purchase Contracts for Supplies, Materials and Equipment 3A-7 - Purchasing procedures. (a) Purchases of supplies, materials and equipment that exceed thirty thousand dollars shall, whenever practicable. be based on at least three price quotations and shall be awarded on the basis of the price quotation most advantaoeous to the town. Price quotations may be solicited by direct mail requests to prospective vendors or b} telephone. (b) The town may consider factors other than price in determining the most advantageous price quotation. These factors shall include. without limitation, the quality and performance of the subject supplies. materials and equipment; the ability of the vendor to complete the transaction in a timely fashion; quality of the vendor's performance in past transactions with the town or others: and the ability of the vendor to provide future maintenance, repairs, parts and service. (c) Price quotations shall not be required in anN of the following circumstances: (1) In the judgment of the town manager. the solicitation of price quotations would for any reason be an idle act; (2) The purchase is for supplies, materials or equipment that can only be obtained from one vendor or manufacturer: (3) In the judgment of the town manager. there exist particular time considerations such that it appears likely that the solicitation of price quotations would be contrary to the interests of the town. 3A-8 - Optional alternative procedure for purcha,�cs xN filch exceed twenty-five thousand dollars. For purchases of supplies, materials and equipmcnt that exceed twenty-five thousand dollars, the town manager shall have the discretion to select a vendor pursuant to a formal bidding process, if the town manaOer determines !hat such a process is likely to be to the advantage of the town. or to be in the town's interest. Such procedure shall incorporate the methods used for selecting a contractor Tor a public Nyorks project by formal competitive bidding, as determined to be applicable by the toNv n attorncv. Article 111. - Contracts for Services 3A-9 - Service contract procedures. Page 4 of 8 Toivn Council Ordinance No. -582 NS. DRAFT Adopted xs./YY11:Y (a) Service contracts that exceed thirty thousand dollars shall. whenever practicable; be based on at least three price quotations and shall be awarded on the basis of the price quotation most advantageous to the town. Notwithstanding the foregoing. contracts for environmental review services may be let on the basis of two price quotations. Price quotations may be solicited by direct mail requests to prospective service providers or by telephone. (b) The town may consider factors other than price in determining the most advantageous price quotation. These factors shall include. xvithout limitation. the quality and performance of the subject services: the ability of the provider to provide the services in a timely fashion; the quality of the provider's performance in past transactions with the town or others: and the ability of the provider to provide future related services that the town may require. (c) Price quotations shall not be required in any of the following circumstances: (1) In the judgment of the town manager. the solicitation of price quotations would for any reason be an idle act: (2) The contract is for services that can only be obtained from one provider; (3) In the judgment of the town manager. there exist particular time considerations such that it appears likely that the solicitation of price quotations would be contrary to the interests of the town. Article IV. - Minor Public Works Contracts 3A-10 - Minor public works contracts: small projects. Minor public works contracts that do not c\,cced sixty thousand dollars may be performed by the employees of a public agency by force account. by negotiated contract. or by purchase order. The dollar amounts set forth in this subsection shall be automatically adjusted to conform to the maximum set by section 22032(a) of the Public Contracts Code or its successor statute regarding informal hiddinu, ordinances. 3A-1 l - Informal bidding for minor public vvorla contracts: other 1)1-0.jects. Minor public works contracts that exceed sixty thousand dollars shall be let accordin<-) to this section. (a) The town shall maintain a list of qualified contractors. identilled according to catcuories of work. This list shall comply with all criteria established by the California Uniform Construction Cost AccountinO ('0111mission. (b) All contractors ou the list for the category ol'\,ork being bid shall be mailed. faxed. or emailed a notice invitinginformal bids unless the product or serVice is proprietary. Pne 5 of 8 Town Council Ordinance No. 582 N.S. DRAFT Adorned xxlxx xx (c) All mailing of notices to contractors pursuant to subsection (b) ofthis section shall be completed not less than ten calendar days before bids are due. (d) The notice inviting informal bids shall describe the project in general terms. how to obtain more detailed information about the project and state the time and place for the submission of bids. (e) The town manager shall have the authority to award informal contracts to contractors for public works contracts selected pursuant to this section. (f) If all bids received are in excess oftwo hundred thousand dollars, the town council may, by adoption of a resolution by a four-fiftlhs vote. award the contract, at two hundred twelve thousand five hundred dollars or less. to the lowest responsible bidder, if it determines the cost estimate of the public agency was reasonable. (g) The dollar amounts set forth in this section 3A-'1 1 shall be automatically adjusted to conform to the maximum set by section 22034(4) ofthe Public Contracts Code or its successor statute regarding informal bidding ordinances. 3A-12 - Alternative procedure—Minor public works contracts. Notwithstanding anything in this article to the contrary. the town manager shall have discretion to let any public works contract by formal bidding as described in article V of this chapter. Article V. - Major Public Works ('ontracts 3A-13 - General. Major public works contracts shall be let by formal competitive bidding as required by the Local Agency Public Construction Act_ Public Contracts Code sections 20100 et seq. 3A-14 - Notice inviting. bids. The notice inviting bids shall set a date for the opening of bids and shall be published at least twice. not less than five days apart. in a ncvv spaper of general circulation. as required by statute. The first notice shall be published at least ten days prior- to the date of opening of bids. In addition to the forcLoinu. the notice shall be published in such other nexvspapers and journals as the toyy i; engineer determines are likely to solicit the most favorable bids. 3A-15 - Bids Rejection and rc-ack crtisement. The council shall have the discretion to reject any bids presentcd�md re-advertise. After refecting bids. the council man paSS a rCsOlutlon by a 101-Ir-1111115 votc OI ItS members declarinL, that the project can be perlormcd more economically bN the tovy n's own forces. day labor. or the materials or supplies furnished at a lov�Cr price in the open market. Upon Pane 6(?f'8 Town Council Ordinance No. 582 N.S. DRAFT Ac1op1ccl.x.x/Yx/Yx adoption of the resolution. the council need not rc-advertise and may have the project done in the mariner stated without further compliance with tills cliapter. 3A-1 6 - Choice of identical bids. If two or more bids are the same and the lowest, the council may accept the one that it chooses. 3A-17 - No bids received. If no bids are received_. the council may have the project done without further compliance with this chapter. 3A-18 - BiddersPresentation and security. (a) All bids shall be presented under sealed cover. (b) All bids shall be accompanied by bidder's security in an amount equal to at least ten percent of the amount bid. T11C security shall be in the ,form of cash, a cashier's check payable to the town, a certified check payable to the town, or a bidder's bond executed by an admitted surety insurer, payable to the town. A bid will not be considered unless accompanied by the required security. (c) If the successful bidder fails to execute the contract. the amount of bidder's security shall be forfeited to the town. except as otherwise may be provided by law. SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection. clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a,decision of a Court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the Ordinance. The "Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence. clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that anyone or more sections, subsections. sentences, clauses. or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of passage, and before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the Town Council, a copy of the ordinance shall be published with the names of the members voting for and against it at least once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the Town of Tiburon. This ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on May 1, 2019. and was adopted at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on May 15. 2019. by the following vote: Page 7 q/8 Town COWICil Ordinance No. 582 AI.S. DRAFT Adopted— /u/vy AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Kulik, Fraser, Fredericks, Welner, Thier NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: None DAVID KULIK, MAYOR Town of Tiburon ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Page 8 of 8 Toll>77 Coamcil 07-di77(mce No. 582 N.S. DRAFT Adopted.xy1.y.y/xx Town Council Meeti112 TOWN OF TIBURON May 15: 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: CC - Tiburon. CA 94920 :STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Declaration Continuing Local Emergency Related to February 2019 Storms Reviewed By: Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY As required by state law,the Council is asked to approve a Resolution co rtinuing the declaration of a local emergency belated to the damage caused by the storm of February 12-14, 2019. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS) 1. Approve a Resolution continuing the declaration of a local emergency related to damage`caused by the storm of February 12=14,2019. BACKGROUND A storm system beginning on February 12. 2019, arrived on the Tiburon Peninsula, resulting in rainfall totaling over 7 inches in a short time period. Several landslides occurred during this timeframe, near 1435 Vistazo West and 2032 Paradise Drive, and the Council adopted Resolution No. 02-2019 on February 20. 2019 proclaiming a local emergency in the Town of Tiburon related to the landslides. 1435 Vistazo West Slide Update This slide caused extensive damage to the road,forced a road closure that limited access for eight single family homes beyond the location of the slide, and caused an additional 150 homes in the neighborhood along Vistazo West to lose gas and power for an extended period of time. A geotechnical engineering firm is in the process of completing an investigation of the slide to determine the extent of its effects. Once complete, the Town intends to engage the company to design a permanent repair to be constructed before next winter. Gas service has been permanently restored to the area and a temporary bypass for sewer service is complete. 2032 Paradise Drive Slide Update This slide resulted in debris covering both lanes of traffic on Paradise Drive. The private property owner above the slide has engaged a geotechnical engineer and a land surveyor to investigate the area and determine what is needed to secure the hillside above Paradise Drive. The engineer is -- -- --- --------- -- TONvN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 expected to deliver final recommendations in the next few weeks. Concrete barriers have been placed in the centerline of the road as a precautionary measure in case any loose material comes down the slope before the repairs are completed. Local Emergency Status Update On February 20, 2019, the Council adopted Resolution No. 02-2019 proclaiming a local emergency in the Town of Tiburon related to the landslides, which will allow the Town to seek reimbursement from State and/or Federal sources for costs associated with the damage if they become available. State law requires the Council to review the need continuing the local emergency at least once every 30 days. In accordance with that state law, the Council adopted Resolution Nos. 09-2019 and 12-2019 on March 20, 2019 and April 17, 2019, respectively, continuing the local emergency, and will be asked to do so again tonight. On May 1, 2019, President Trump approved a Major Disaster Declaration for the State of California relating to the severe winter storms and landslides that occurred on February 13-15. 2019 and approved public assistance for hazard mitigation for 11 counties statewide. including Marin County. Next steps are still pending further FEMA investigation. The Marin County Office of Emergency Services remains involved and will inform the Town of next steps. ANALYSIS Due to the ongoing nature of the landslides and associated emergency conditions, the Council is asked tonight to adopt a Resolution (Exhibit 1) continuing the declaration of a local emergency. The Council will continue to review the need for continuing the local emergency within 30 days. FINANCIAL IMPACT There is no direct financial impact to the Town through approval of this Resolution. It is not known at this time what the final cost of repairing the damage caused by the storm will be.. nor is it known whether funding will be available from State and/or Federal sources as a result of this storm. However. adoption of this Resolution will preserve the Town's ability to seek reimbursement if funding becomes available. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt fi-om the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. and if it v cre found to constitute a project. it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CI- Guidelines Section 15061 (b)(3). RECOMMENDATION ToNN" mr Tu3t ►zoN --- P�( r 2 or 3 Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Approve a Resolution continuing the declaration of a local emergency related to damage caused by a storm which occurred between February 12. 2019 and February 14, 2019. Exhibit(s): DRAFT Resolution Prepared By: Gre.;Chanis, 'Down Manager To\N N of'I'It3t Rol' --- 1". (11.3 or 3 EXHIBIT NO. � DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. xx-2019 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON CONTINUING THE DECLARATION OF A LOCAL EMERGENCY RELATED TO RECENT STORMS BEGINNING ON FEBRUARY 12 2019 WHEREAS, the California Emergency Services Act. Chapter 7. of the California Government Code, commencing with § 8550 confers upon the governing bodies of the political subdivisions of this state emergency powers necessary to protect health and safety and preserve lives and property; and WHEREAS, § 8630 of the California Government Code.. states that "a local emergency may be proclaimed only by the governing body of a county. city and county, or city or by an official so designated by ordinance adopted by such governing body:" and WHEREAS, Section 21-5 of the Tiburon Municipal Code (TMC) appoints the Town Manager as the Director of Emergency Services and TMC Section 21.6(a)(1) empowers the Director of Emergency Services to request that the Town Council proclaim the existence of a local emergency; and WHEREAS, on February 20, 2019, in accordance with California Government Code § 8630 and Tiburon Municipal Code Section 21.6(a)(1), the 'Down Council adopted Resolution No. 02-2019 proclaiming a local emergency; and WHEREAS, California Government Code § 8630 requires that the Council review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 30 days: and WHEREAS, on March 20, 2019, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 09-2019 and continued the declaration of local emergency; and WHEREAS, on April 17, 2019, the Town Council adopted Resolution No. 12-2019 and again continued the declaration of local emergency; and WHEREAS, additional earth movement has occurred in the Town of Tiburon as a result of the storm system that caused landslides in February 2019: and WHEREAS, the landslides and associated emer,,2cncN conditions are of an ongoing nature and the emergency should not be terminated at this time:. and WHEREAS, the Town Council does hereby find: That conditions of extreme peril to the safety of persorns and property have arisen within this Town. caused by a series of severe storm systems v,ith significaut wind-driven rainfall resulting in localized flooding. landslide and road closure. commencing on or about February 13, 2019; and a local emergency is deemed to exist in the Town of Tiburon in accordance with Town Council Resolution Nos. 02-2019. 09-2019 and 12-2019; and Page 1 of 3 Town Council Resolution No. XX-2019 DRAFT 05/15/2019 That these conditions resulted in landslides on Vistazo West and Paradise Drive damaging those public streets and depositing debris causing the closure of local roadways and damaging public infrastructure and facilities; and That these conditions are likely to be beyond the control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the Town; and That the aforesaid conditions of extreme peril warrant and necessitate the continuance of the proclamation of the existence of a local emergency. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED that the Town Council has reviewed the need for continuing the declaration of local emergency and finds based on substantial evidence that the public interest and necessity require the continuance of the declaration of local emergency. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Town Council shall review the need for continuing the local emergency at least once every 30 days until the Town Council terminates the local emergency. IT IS FURTHER RESOLVED that during- the existence of said local emergency the powers, functions, and duties of the Director of Emergency Services and the emergency organization of the Town shall be those prescribed by state law, and by ordinance and resolutions of this Town approved by the Town Council, and by the Toivn of T iburonlCity of Belvedere Emergency Operations Plan, as approved by the Town Council. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this proclamation be forwarded to the Director of the Governor's Office of Emergency Services. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of this declaration be forwarded to the Governor of California with the request for assistance though California Disaster Assistance Act (CDAA) filnding, a Presidential Declaration of an Emerocncy or Major Disaster and any and all recover assistance the State of California can provide is requested. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the "hown Council on May 15, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: DAVID KULIK. MAYOR Page 2 of 3 Town Council Resolntlon No. XX-2019 DRAFT 05/15/2019 TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI. TOWN CLERK Page 3 of 3 "Town COUnell Resolution No. XX-2019 DRAFT 05/15/2019 Town Council Meeting TOWN OF TIBURON May 1 5_ 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda ]tem: Al - Tiburon. CA 94920 REPORTSTAFF 77 7 7 7V To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Appointments to Fill Vacancies on Town Boards and Commissions: Planning Commission Reviewed By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager Benjamin Stock.Town Attorney SUMMARY The Town C0111161 will consider making one appointment to the Planning Commission,Which has had one vacancy since March 28, 2019. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS) 1. Consider iarakirag�one appointment to the Plaiming Commission; or 2. Continue the item and direct staff to continue to accept applications for the vacancy and schedule ' interviews at an upcoming Town Council meeting. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission has had one vacancy since March 28.2019. when Planning Commissioner John Corcoran's resignation became effective. This vacancy was advertised according to re-ular procedure when an unscheduled vacancy occurs: in the .9rk. on the Town's website and in the Town's TibTalk newsletter. Staff accepted applications for this position until April l 1, 2019, and the Council has interviewed 6 applicants for the position: Maxwell Haning, Eric Woodward, Roy Crumrine. Mark Robilotti, Melissa Kennedy. and Ser-e Martial. The applicants' applications are attached as Exhibits 1-6. The Council interviewed one additional applicant. Darwin Hosseinyoun. who has withdrawn his application from consideration. Tonight. the Council is asked to consider making one appointment to the Planning Commission. The individual appointed will serve out the balance of Mr. CONOI-an'S term. until February 28. 2022. ANALYSIS No further analysis provided. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. TowN OF T1131 RON PAG[ 1 OF 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Consider making appointments to the Planning Commission-, and/or 2. Continue the item and direct staff to continue to accept applications for the vacancy and schedule interviews at an upcoming Town Council meeting. Exhibit(s): I. Application from Maxwell Haning(interviewed 4/3) 2. Application from Eric Woodward(Interviewed 4/3) 3. Application from Roy Crumrine(Interviewed 4/17) 4. Application from Mark Robilotti (Interviewed 4/17) 5. Application from Melissa Kennedy(Interviewed 4/17) 6. Application from Serge Martial (Interviewed 5/15) Prepared By: Lea Stefani,Town Clerk 'I'o\NN orTim im", P. c1.-. 2 or 2 EXHIBIT NO. � 1505 Tiburon Blvd., ...a ibE.. ron,, CA 940.10 415.435.73- TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Full Name: Maxwell Hanin Date: 43/27/19 Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: 1 Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging _ Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board Address: 246A Speranza St. Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon CA 94920 City State ZIP Code Phone: 608-963-9238 Email: Max@IDSISOIutions.com Between the views, history, architecture and people, Tiburon is the most beautiful town in the world. With that being said, there is always room for improvements. My goal in joining the planning commission is to see our town grow and flourish while maintaining the rich culture and history that is embedded within it so deeply. I feel that my input and expertise will have a lasting positive impact on our community. I currently own and manage an international consulting company. My day-to-day consists of working with boat dealers to streamline their finance office and increase profitability. Since a town is run much like a business, this position would be a natural fit. I understand each decision, even the smallest ones, can have a lasting impact and create unintended consequences. That is why I spend excessive amounts of time researching every problem and designing a solution that will have the highest chance of a positive outcorne. Sometimes, that solution is doing nothing. In addition to my aforementioned skills, I also possess the ability to calmly broker and mediate the outcome between two parties. My career experience has been extensively in sales, and sales training, which is essentially the art of negotiating. Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. Max@IDSlsolutions.com iXg 608-963-9238 Be First,Be Different,Be Better. 246A Esperanza St.Tiburon,CA 94920 WORK EXPERIENCE COMPETENCES VP and Owner Adobe Suite ay Innovative Dealer Services y, Office Suite Partnered with dealers to increase their Business Office profitability.Focused on introducing new products in to PHP,Visual Basic,Java,HTML dealerships and offered extensive training to guarantee success. Created and deployed an entirely new product within the Product Marketing industry.Development included market research on pricing, compiling various service data points in a coherent way and Training Development branding the product so that it would be enticing to both dealerships and consumers. Developed and deployed an interactive online dealer portal. CRM(Salesforce/ZOHO) The portal contained digital warranties,instant product ordering,and other daily resources.This greatly increased our Sales Cycle reach while also making our dealers more productive. Created interactive training modules to quickly on-board dealers or train new hires.Training was geared toward PROFESSIONAL PROJECTS professional adult learners and contained tests for comprehension. Platinum Protection Branding Campaign Designed all company marketing,including brochures,websites, sell sheets,videos,trade show booth,and branded give-a-ways. Corporate Trade Show Booth Responsible for an International sales territory that included IDSI Corporate Website both the United States and Canada.Frequently traveled to dealer locations for on-site training and implementation. Perfect Pre-Paid Maintenance Product Launch Developed and maintained an in depth company sales tracker that included historical trends and market predictions. Account Executive ACHIEVEMENTS Dex Media Designed,sold,and launched an application for the Whone. Recognized for top customer renewal and growth rate in the entire Midwest Sales Representative successfully designed,branded and distributed a new product TDS Telecommunications to the boating industry Consulted by a Fortune S00 for feature and marketing ideas on an upcoming product Account Executive Star Connection Featured in a national talent acquisition video for a Fortune Soo Achieved Google Ad Words certification Business Manager Schulz Chevrolet ORGANIZATIONS Marine Retailer Association of America Account Executive ; Rinimax, Inc. National Association of Sales Professionals Graphics Designer INTERESTS Next Level Design Sailing Scuba Diving Motorcycling Graphics Design Technology Programming Travel Social Dynamics Community EXHIBIT NO. tflvd., Tiburon, CA 94920 ` oftiburog.orE 415.435.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk M Full Name: Eric Woodward Date: 3/19/19 =1 IMM Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order- 1 Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. 2 Design Review Board Bel--T ib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing BuilcIng Code Appeals Board Address: 2 Bartel Cl Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon, CA 94920 City State ZIP Code Phone: 212.991 .8300 Email: ewoodward@gmail.com I have lived in Tiburon for two years now and we are raising our three children (ages 5, 7 and 8) with a focus on giving back and helping others. As part of that commitment my wife is the Chief Development Officer for American Red Cross California and in addition to my job, I volunteer for local events where my time and experience can make a difference. Having lived in San Francisco for ten years and�then New York City for ten years, I have seen the positives and negatives from various planning commissions and Design Review Boards. When done well, you end up with a beautiful, vibrant community like what Tiburon has created and fostered. I would take pride in being a steward of the future aesthetics and infrastructure of the Town of Tiburon. ® s . MIC ," a Over the last 10 years, I have developed, designed, renovated and/or constructed seven properties spanning multiple cities and multiple planning commissions. While this is a passion of mine, it is not my full-time job. I spend my days leading a team of talented individuals to build products for financial institutions to keep their customers safe from fraud and enabling better customer experiences. Whether in my building projects or my work, my focus is always on the end consumer and what will be most meaningful and useful to them in the long-run. would take that same lens in thinking through the needs of Tiburon residents. Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitte a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Counal meeting materials. EXHIBIT NO. From: Roy Crumrine To: Lea Stefani Subject: Re: Planning Commission Appointment-Crumrine interested Date: Saturday,March 30,2019 9:15:44 AM Lea: Hope all is well. I'd like to apply again. Since the last time, I joined a global real estate company as the head of Finance for the US. Please let me know the next steps. Regards, Roy On Thursday, March 22, 2018, 7:41:54 AM PDT, Lea Stefani <Istefani@townoftiburon.org> wrote: Dear Roy, On behalf of the Town Council, I would like to thank you for your interest in the Tiburon Planning Commission. Although another candidate was ultimately selected, I know the Council is grateful for your interest in Town service and the time you have dedicated to the interviewing process. I hope you will continue to be interested in serving our wonderful Town, and I hope to hear from you again. Thank you for stepping forward to offer your expertise and your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Please stay in touch. Lea Lea Stefani Town Clerk I Town of Tiburon (415)435-7377 Istefani(cD.townoftiburon.org .'CE-1 VE JUL 2 7 2017 O�'47,L-1R K TQG,vN OF'HURON.- Instructions and Application to Serve on a Town Board, Commission or Committee The Town Council considers appointments to various Town boards, commissions and committees throughout the year due to terns expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In an effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing both pages of this form and returning it to Town Hall, 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920, or fax it to (415)435-2438. Copies of the application will be forwarded to the Town Council and an informal interview will be scheduled when a vacancy occurs. Your application will remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Diane Crane lacopi Town Clerk AREAS OF INTEREST Please Indicate Your Area(s)of interest in Numerical Order (Ni 13611g the Greatest Interest) +r' PLANNING ll PARKS & OPEN SPACE DESIGN REVIEW RECREATION �+ HERITAGE & ARTS 'DISASTER PREPAREDNESS if 3 LIBRARY 11 MARIN COMMISSION ON AGING tF BICYCLE:/PEDE,STRIAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE 1 PERSONAL DATA Only computer-generated or typewritten copy will be accepted; Attach separate pages, including resumes and cover letters, if necessary. NAME: "y Crumrine 1 /8 Stewart Drive MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: Home: Work: 2-/9-6024FaxNo. <]l Hel­> PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOC. (if applicable)We live witnan Tiburon molls TIBURON RESIDENT: (Years)24 DATE SUBMITTED: //26/1 / REASONS FOR SELECTING YOUR AREAS OF INTEREST As a 29 year resident, and an avid reader of the Ark, I would like to coni_ribui.e to Tiburon's future. My children are now 18, and 16, and I am at a point in my career where I have more free time to devote to serving. APPLICABLE QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE My first choice is the Planr_ing Commission. At UC Berkeley, I got an A in Architecture and was strongly encourage by my Y -ofessor to pursue that Career. Irisl_ead, I went into Business, passing the CPA exam in College; and later becoming a CPA with Price Waterhouse (now PWC) . Ioi.. fun, I got rrty real estate license. This later carne in handy why , n I worked for Syufy Enterprises, a major commerial. real estate developer. I'm fluent i_n Spanish, and ? 'm always striving for win-win situa _ons; which I h_>pe to brine to the Planni_r_g Commission. Thank you. ----------------------------------------------Town Hall Use------------------------------------- ---------- Date Application Received: Interview Date: Appointed to: (Commission,Board or Committee) (Date) Date Term Expires: Length of Term: 2 Tiburon Planning Commission Roy Crumrine Application Additional Information In addition to the information provided in my application and cover email, I'd like to mention the following: I actively follow via the ARK,the local events and issues related to the town. After we purchased our house on Stewart Drive in 1993, 1 spent many hours at the library reading all the issues of the ARK prior to October 1993 to get a better understanding of the community we decided to call home. I either bought or checked out all the Landmark Society books on the history of the Town, Belvedere, and the history of the Tiburon Peninsula. Not only has this historical knowledge made me feel more connected to our town; but, over the years, it has enabled me to share the history with the young Cub Scouts, Boy Scouts, and with newer residents of the community. Over the years, I have occasionally attended Council, Design Review Board, and Planning Commission meetings. Since I submitted my application for the Planning Commission in July, I would have liked to have attended a more recent Planning Commission meeting; but, as of today (September 91h), they have all been canceled. So,to bring myself more up to speed, I have also read the last 2 years of agendas and minutes. Throughout my career, currently Controller for Thunder(an advertising technology company), or my volunteer activities, I like to be prepared and ready to get to work. Hopefully, I won't have to use the skills; but, several years ago, I participated in one of the first CERT training classes held in town. Now that my Boys are older, I have more free time. Since the Town and Real Estate have always been strong interests of mine, I'd like to serve on the Planning Commission. As both a CPA and having previously earning a real estate license, I am familiar with both real estate and legal terminology, and codes and ordinances. I would like to think that my more than 30 years of business experience would help lead to positive outcomes, and hopefully win-win situations for all parties involved. Personally,from reading all the minutes, I like the fact that the Planning Commission has a hand in making decisions that impact the economic development of the town; on top of being involved with residential matters. Again, I think my business experience, from retail,to start-ups, to multinational corporations could be helpful to the commission. Thank you, Roy Crumrine Town of Tiburon 503 Tiburon Blvd., Tibtron8 CA 920 1stefani Jtownoftiburon,or 415, 35.7377 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Full Name:Mark G Robilotti Date: April 3, 2019 gf Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: 1 Planning Commission Parks. 01en Space & Trails Comm. 2 Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage &Arts Commission 4 Disaster advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commiss on on Aging Affordable Housing 3 Building Code Appeals Board / 1 Santa Ana Court Address: Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon CA 94920 City State ZIP Code Phone: 917 301 1506 Email: mgr201 @yahoo.com As a resident of Tiburon with a passion for urban planning and design stemming from my formative years and educational experiences in New York City as well as years participating in the Representative Town Meetings of my hometown in Connecticut, I believe it is vital to the health and growth of a community to actively participate in the institutions charged with the direction of our future development, design and preservation. I am a lawyer by training, with extensive experience in complex land use matters and regulatory schemes. I have also directed several renovation projects to personal residences in New York, Connecticut and here in Tiburon and have familiarity with the protocols and procedures relevant to architectural design and planning review boards. I am profoundly excited to have relocated to Tiburon with my family and I want to participate on the Planning Commission to ensure a spectacular future for my children as they grow and develop within this community. Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a :)ublic record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. EXHIBIT NO. Town of v S 0 Tiburon n Blvd., Tiburon, CA �1�4920 g Istefani@townoftiburon.org d � 415. 55.x.5 77 TOWN OF TIBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Full Name: Melissa M. Kennedy Date: April 6, 2019 Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: X Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. X Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board Address: 6 Venado Drive, Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon CA 94920 City State ZIP Code Phone: 415-370-0342 Email: MelissaKennedyEsq@Gmail.com As a retired real estate attorney and resident of Southern Marin County for thirty (30) years, I have a in-depth understanding of land use, zoning, and building code regulations. I have been an owner/builder of several extensive residential remodels in Marin County as well as new construction in Napa County. As a resident of Tiburon, I am mindful of, and appreciate, the attention and dedication of this community to the preservation and careful evolution of the township's visual character. Consideration of visual aesthetics, site compatability, and harmonization with adjacent uses, each serve to inform and guide any Design Review determination. A keen understanding of zoning, land use and building code regulations amply provides me with a strong foundation to readily assist the Planning Commission in assessing the comformance of any application with the Tiburon Municipal Code. As a retired and licensed real estate attorney, my expertise in land use, zoning and real estate develop- ment matters will uniqely enable me to assist the Design Review or Planning Commission in the sucessful reconcilliation and resolution of land use and regulatory disputes to astutely avoid unproductiv and expensive litigation threatened by an Applicant against the Town of Tiburon. 1. Licensed and retired California real estate attorney. 2. Owner/Builder of several extensive residential remodel projects in Marin County. 3. Owner/Builder of new construction real estate projects in Napa County. 4. Thirty (30) year resident of Southern Marin County, 5. Expertise in California land use, zoning, and building code regulations. 6. No direct or indirect, personal, professional, or familial economic interest in any matter before the Planning Commission or Design Review Board. Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute a public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Town Council meeting materials. MELISSA M. KENNEDY 415-370-0342 Mel issaKcnnedyEsq(�)gmai I.com EXPERIENCE Paragon Legal Group, P.C., San Francisco, California June 2014 to 2015 Senior'Counsel • In-house corporate counsel consulting services specializing in corporate and technology transactions. Rodan & Fields, LLC. San Francisco, CA June 2013 to Present Corporate Counsel of e-conrnerce skincare products company S250,000,000+ annual sales • Improved legal performance by drafting standardized agreements and managing contracting process. • Structured. drafted and negotiated complex commercial transactions, including payment system processing, product development, master services, manufacturing, logistics, distribution, quality, compliance, consulting,joint venture, web hosting, and professional services contracts. • Drafted, negotiated and revised intellectual property agreements including software development, licensing, website development, application and digital catalog development, intellectual property settlement and release, data privacy, and technology procurement agreements. • Collaborated with business units to identify, minimize and efficiently transfer business and legal risks. Resource Intermediaries,Inc., San Francisco, CA August, 2007 to November. 2010 General Counsel of global reinsurance inlernediary ranked thirteenth largesl in world (acquired October 2010. General Counsel and CFO functions assumed by parent organization) • Lead attorney responsible for corporate governance,transactional, and compliance functions. • Negotiated and drafted complex commercial agreements and acquisition documentation. • Investigated, mana<Led, and resolved, litigation and threatened actions. • Managed licensing. regulatory compliance, data privacy, and document retention matters. Nixon Peabody LLP, San Francisco, CA March, 2006 to August_. 2007 Associate Global Finance and Real Estate • Represented diverse client base including national and international financial institutions, hedge funds, private equity partnerships, commercial real estate developers and contractors. • Negotiated and drafted documentation in real estate asset sale and liquidation matters. • Structured. drafted and negotiated complex commercial transactions. • Revic\-ved.. negotiated and drafted capital market offerings including real estate securitizations. White and Case LLP, San Francisco, CA April. 2004 to December, 2005 Associale. 1.'imnce • Comprehensive finance and corporate practice including bank finance, bankrupted. restructurin-. real estate_ and global equities matters. • Structured, negotiated and drafted real estate finance, vendor finance, and capital market a,'reements. • Reviewed. tic,-,otiatcd and drafted secured and unsecured bi-lateral financing transaction documents. • Drafted and negotiated venture financing and project finance terms in technology financings. Cooley LLP. San Franc isco/Palo Alto, CA November. 2-001 to April.2004 9ssociale, Creclil Finance • Reviewed and ne-otiated and drafted venture financing agreements for technology sector clients. • Drafted settlement �rgreements for the restructure of technology private placement iinancin-s. • Dratted and negotWied secured and unsecured financing for emerging growth clients. _Issociwe, I Wgalion (December, 2002 to April 2004 transitioned after market crash of 2001-02) EDUCATION University of California,Berkeley School of Law(Boalt Hall) May 2001 Juris Doctor • Intellectual Property Certification • Founder: Boalt Hall Business Law Society • Berkeley Technology Law Journal United States Securities and Exchange Commission September. 2000 to May, 2001 Legal Extern • Assisted in the financial, trading, and reporting investigations pursuant to federal securities law. • Drafted memoranda presenting legal analysis of federal securities statutes and case law. University of San Francisco May 1995 Bachelor of Science,Finance,sumnm cunt laude • Alpha Sigma Nu Honor Society (Top 1%of Graduating Class) • Beta Gamma Sigma(National Business School Honor Society) International Swaps and Derivatives Association,Inc. (ISDA) • Derivatives and Credit Support Docurnentation Training and Educational Conferences Insurance Educational Association, Associate in Risk Management MEMBERSHIP ASSOCIATIONS • The State Bar of California • The American Bar Association • The Financial Women of San Francisco, Board of Directors(20014 to Present) MELISSA M. KENNEDY 415-370-0342 MelissaKennedyEsgRgmail.com REAL ESTATE FINANCING TRANSACTIONS • $75 million asset sale and lease back of ski resort properties in WA. CA, and VT. • Lender representation in $15 million financing of historical landmark building in San Francisco. • Developer representation in $15 million sale ofcommercial/residential interest in FL and NY. • Contractor representation in $50 million+merger with international investor. • Borrower representation in$10 million financing of commercial/residential development. • Lender representation in $25 million financing of commercial/residential development. • Developer representation in IRS tax audit and tax litigation matter against commercial developer. • Lender representation in $15 million Tenant in Common financing of assisted living centers. • Lender representation in financing of 100 parcels for grape growers and wineries. REAL ESTATE LEASING AND LAND USE • Landlord and Tenant representation in $1 million+commercial subleases and leases. • Developer representation for land use matters. • Tenant representation in $10 million+commercial leasing and subleasing transactions. • Tenant representation in commercial lease and land use matter in Southern California. • Lot line adjustment for country club and resort in Northern California. • Landlord representation to obtain exemption from City of Oakland Rent Adjustment Law. • Taxpayer representation for Mills Act Property Tax Abatement. • REIT representation(Landlord)regarding lease disputes in Northern California. CAPITAL MARKET AND CORPORATE FINANCE TRANSACTIONS • Vendor representation in $250 million+receivable financing transactions. • Investor representation in $25 million+private equity placements. • Representation of hedge funds and investment partnerships in$25 million debt financings. • Representation of trustees/seCUrities administrators in $500 million+asset backed securitizations. • Representation of private equity firm in $10 million+PIPES transactions. • Valuation of$10 million+ illiquid loans in hedge fund and venture fund portfolios. • Underwriter representation in $100 million+ bond issuance for military housing development. • Lender representation in $100 million+secured/unsecured syndicated and bi-lateral financings (Bank of America, Wells Fargo Bank, Rabbobank, Nordea Bank). • Negotiated and drafted $25 million+ Interest Rate Swaps and Guaranteed Investment Contracts. BANKRUPTCY AND RESTRUCTURING • Representation of large property developer in $100 million Debtor In Possession asset sale. • G-edit Committee representation in settlement of$100 million debtor claims. • Tru>tee representation following bankruptcy filing of Master Servicer and Depositor in connection with $500 million+subprime asset backed securities. LITIGATION • Isslicl' representation in SEC investigation regarding securities issuance. • NVDIA v. Microsoft manufacturing contract dispute and arbitration. • Genentech v. Amgen patent litigation matter. EXHIBIT IBI"T NO. 1 ;05 Wuru Istefani@townoftiburon.or TOWN OF T'IBURON COMMISSION, BOARD & COMMITTEE APPLICATION The Town Council considers appointments to its various Town commissions, boards and committees throughout the year due to term expirations and unforeseen vacancies. In its effort to broaden participation by local residents in Tiburon's local governmental process and activities, the Council needs to know your interest in serving the Town in some capacity. Please indicate your specific areas of interest and special-skills or experience which would be beneficial to the Town, by completing this form and returning it to Town Hall with a resume. Copies will be forwarded to the Town Council and informal applicant/Council interviews are scheduled periodically during the year. Your application will also remain on file at Town Hall for a period of one (1) year. Thank you for your willingness to serve the Tiburon community. Lea Stefani Town Clerk Full Name: Serge Martial page: 04/05/19 a Please indicate your areas of interest in numerical order: X Planning Commission Parks, Open Space & Trails Comm. Design Review Board Bel-Tib Joint Recreation Board Heritage & Arts Commission Disaster Advisory Council Bel-Tib Library Board Commission on Aging Affordable Housing Building Code Appeals Board i - _ Address:90 Lyford Drive Horne #10 ------------ Street Address Apartment/Unit# Tiburon, CA 99920 City State ZIP Code Phone: Email: PY I have spent the majority of my adult life as a Tiburon resident and property owner. For these 41 years, I have enjoyed living and working in our beautiful town. I intend to spend the rest of my life in Tiburon and would like to help preserve and protect the unique characteristics that make life so enjoyable here. I believe I can make a positive contribution to the quality of life in our town as a Planning Commission member while respectfully balancing concerns for our delicate environment with concerns for property owners. L dt{fit I will bring to the Planning Commission my extensive experience in executive management, my knowledge, and sensitivity to our natural and fragile environment, and my deep desire to protect our town's unique setting, history, and values for the benefit of current and future generations Public Disclosure Notice: Submitted application materials constitute �3 public record and may be publicized in their redacted form as part of Tovvn Council meeting materials Serge Martial A brief introduction: Serge Martial,joined National Emergency Services, Inc. (NES) in 1978, shortly after the firm's inception. Working closely with the Company's founder, Mr. Martial was instrumental in guiding the growth of NES while holding various top management positions related to operations, administration, finance and technology. As Chief Administrative and Information Officer, he was responsible for developing and implementing the overall strategic direction of the company's administrative and technological infrastructure. Mr. Martial's visionary assessment and his expertise in leading-edge technologies and telecommunications allowed him to position NLS as a respected leader in the world of healthcare information and delivery. Ile designed and programmed the first physician recruiting and scheduling software for the Emergency Department staffing company and was recognized by Database Magazine as the precursor of using PC technology and programs to handle the financial and accounting needs of NES. As a network engineer, he established one of the first Novell network and file server environment that served the company for many years, assuring a high level of integrity and compliance to the company's dataset needs. In 1998, he co-spearheaded the development of the first Electronic Medical Record for the Emergency Department physicians, working with ED physicians to maximize the design and integrity as well as confidentiality As President& CBO of ProBill, Mr. Martial was credited for the tremendous turnaround of the physician billing company. Beside the positive financial and technological impacts for ProBill, Mr. Martial instituted an aggressive compliance program that has been well recognized by industry experts. Another achievement was the constant improvement for ProBill customer financial outcome though extensive reviews and adjustments designed to meet the ever changing reimbursement landscape and the challenging maximization ofmedical coding while remaining in full compliance. His emphasis on continuous improvement of quality and customer service throughout the organization was recognized by internal NES accounts as well as outside clients who appreciated the value of his ethical leadership and equal treatment among all clients. Named Chief Executive Officer Of tile NLS Healthcare Group in early 2011, Mr. Martial designed a re-organization plan for the company. I lis strategy included the addition of more physician leadership to the company management team and creating an enhanced transparency and expectation fi-om all managers and employees, as well as an emphasis with patient and customer services. Mr. Martial received his education in Europc and the United States and is fluent in several languages. Ile holds degrees in flying, accounting, engineering and administration. He is a certified instructor in several disciplines that include flying,sailing, diving and skiing. A former Member of the American College of I iealthcar•e EXeCntiVC, he is also an international speaker about healthcare delivery and services. Mr. Martial is holding positions in Association Boards, Promotion of International Language through musical arts at the Alliance Francaise. in San Francisco, is a Life Tune Member of the.Tiburon Landmark Society,and was a volunteer with the Burning Man Organization.As a former professional Singer/Song Writer in France, he returned to the stage in 2013 at the invitation of the San Francisco based American Band "Rue `66". 1 tis new album is scheduled to be released at the end ofJunc 2019. Other areas of interest upon request Serge Martial, ACHE Post Office Box 84 • Tiburon, CA 94920 • USA Telephone(415)435.1:4000 Curriculum Vitae Summary Date of birth: 22 March, 1950 - In Rouen, France Citizenship: US Citizen and French National Education -US: • Aerospace studies---College of Marin - NASA • Airline pilot school - Flightways Academy --Oakland International Airport(CA). Graduated in all disciplines in record time. All licenses current • Commercial & Instrument& Multi-Engine Airplane Flying Instructor degrees Accounting bachelor degree-Marin Business College Human Resources and Administration studies--College of Marin • Database programming studies-College of Marin Network engineer certification • MBA Studies • Telecommunication Specialist • Medical Billing& Collections • Medical & Ethical Compliance Languages spoken: English (fluent), French (fluent), Italian (fluent), Spanish(limited) Professional work history with National Emergency Services, Inc. (NES Healthcare Group) • 2013 -- Present President-Three Continents Consulting • 2011 -2012 President& CEO NES healthcare Group • 2002 -2013 Vice Chairman & Director of all NES entities. Chief Information & Technology Officer- President& CEO- Prol'lill - Chief Security & Compliance Officer (from 2008). • 1999---2002 Chief Information &'I"echnology Officer - President& CEO- ProI3ill • 1995-- 1998 Chief Information & "technology Officer • 1986- 1994 Chief Administrative Officer- lnformationS�stem Director • 1985 -- 1986 Chiel'Administrative Officer--Interim Chief Financial Officer • 1982 - 1985 HR Administrator- Comptroller-- Corporate Pilot • 1980-- 1982 Corporate pilot (P1'), HR Administrator, staffaccountant • 1978-- 1980 Assistant to NES Company Founder. Activities included physician recruiting and scheduling aS well as physician payroll processing and other event duties. Town Council Meeting May 15. 2019 TOWN OF TIBURON Agenda Item: f 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon. CA 94920 01 STAFF REPQRT' , : To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ("UAV"), or Drone, Regulations Reviewed By: Gre<-Chanis..Town Manager Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY The Town has received a request fi-0111 the Reed Union School District toconsider an ordinance prohibiting the use of drones over school campuses during the hours of operation and school sponsored events. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends that the Town Council discuss the matter and give staff direction on further research and preparation of a draft ordinance for Council consideration at`a future meeting. BACKGROUND On April 19, 2019, the Town received a letter from the Reed Union School District requesting the Town Council consider adoption of an ordinance prohibiting the use of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles ("UAV"), or drones. over school campuses during hours of operation and school sponsored events (Exhibit 1). The letter cites an incident that occurred on March 21, 2018. in which a drone was observed flying at various altitudes over the front parking lot of Reed School during student recess. operated by an unknown individual. The letter highlights the privacy. safety and security issues imposed on RUSD students and staff as a result of this activity. ANALYSIS Staff has conducted preliminary research on local drone regulation in the State of California. Regulation of drones at the federal. state and local level has become a legitimate policy and public safety issue for many public officials, perpetuated by an exploding market of this technology. According to the League of California Cities, California cities have seen a significant rise in drone-related incidents including interference with first responders. drones crashing into power substations. flying oyer critical infrastructure without permission. and falling from the sky over TONNIN or TIBURON PAGE 1 or 3 large public gatherings, injuring people and damaging property. Challenges aside, productive uses and economic benefits to drones are increasino, as well. Cities and first responders are using drones to enhance search and rescue activities emergency medical response. firefightino. accident investigation and more. The League has published guidance for local governments seeking to impose reasonable regulations on the use of drones within their city limits that both preserve the ability of cities and towns to address local concerns as drone operations dramatically increase and enable cities and towns to welcome the economic benefits of drone operations through enforceable rules. If the Town were to adopt regulations, those regulations would need to comply with complex regulations already in place at the state and federal level. In 2018, the City of Sausalito adopted an ordinance (Exhibit 2) regulating recreational drone usage in the City based on FAA drone safety regulations. Sausalito's ordinance does the following: • Drones may not be operated outside of daylight hours, at a height of more than 400 feet above the ground, or at speeds over 20 mph. • Drones may not be operated within 25 feet of any individual (except the operator and except during takeoff and landing). • Drones must always be within the line of sight of the person operating the drone. • Drones may not be used for audio or video recording where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. • Drones may not be operated in such a way as to harass, intimidate, annoy, threaten. or vex another person. • Drone operators may not be under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Staff also found multiple California cities that regulate drones and establish regulations that include locational restrictions. For example.. the City of Laguna Beach includes a prohibition on drones flying over municipal facilities. Also. the City of Calabasas bans drones from flying over school districts without consent. Tonight, staff is seeking Council input on direction on conducting further research on local drone regulation and the drafting of an ordinance that would impose time and location regulations on drone operation over school campuses in the Town of Tiburon during school hours of operation and school sponsored events. If the Council wishes to pursue such an ordinance, the Council may also provide general input on whether or not additional regulations should he included, such as: • Specific prohibitions against careless and reckless operations that endanger life and property. • Designated take-off and landing zones within town limits or specific zones. • Permissible hours of operation. • Rules for operation during parades. public holiday celebrations or other civic events. • Rules for operation in parks. and on waterfront areas. To\N \ of� 'mi. wN c 2 or 3 • Rules for operation during local emergency conditions. • Rules for operation in certain areas of the town, including schools. the police station. busy pedestrian walkways. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by adoption of this item. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this item is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council discuss the matter and give staff direction on further research and preparation of a draft ordinance for Council consideration at a fixture meeting. Exhibit(s): 1. Letter from Reed Union School District 2. City of'Sausalito Drone Ordinance Prepared By: Lea Stefani, Town Clerk ToN «I.T113t imN llml-r 3 or 3 EXHIBIT NO. REED UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT 277 A Karen Way Tiburon, CA 94920 tel: 415.381.1112 fax: 415.384.0890 www.ree(iscliools.org Board of Trustees: A. J. E3rady Airy Jacobs Malta Linker Steele T ��� Sherry wangenheim Afsaneh Zolfaghari Dr. Nancy Lynch April 19, 2019 Superintendent Carlos Estrella Mr. Greg Chanis and Tiburon Town Council Members Chief Cosiness Official 1505 Tiburon Blvd, Tiburon CA 94920 Dear Mr. Chanis and Tiburon Town Council Members, I write today to inform you that on April 16, 2018, the Reed Union School District Board of Trustees unanimously agreed to have District representatives approach the Town of Tiburon to request that Council members consider the passage of a drone ordinance prohibiting the use of drones over school campuses during hours of operation and school sponsored events. The reason for this request is in response to an incident that occurred on March 21, 2018. A drone was observed flying over the front parking lot of Reed School for approximately 20 minutes while students were at lunch recess. The drone flew at various altitudes which means it provided a clear view of the students on the playground. This activity is very concerning for many reasons including but not limited to, we do not know the identity of the person responsible, nor their intent or purpose for flying over the school while in session. As we place a high priority an the safety and security of students and staff, this is perceived as an intrusion and a possible danger to those we are charged to protect. We are seeking a Town Ordinance that would prohibit this type of activity from happening at schools located in the Town of Tiburon. We look forward to engaging with the Town of Tiburon staff and Council members to discuss this possibility and would welcome participation in drafting an ordinance that would benefit the safety and security of our students and staff as well as the community at large. Respectfully, AJ Brady, RUSD Board President Nancy Lynch, RUSD Superintendent RUN,)Mission and vision. Lacii stwicnt will he to reg l h her or his fullest intellcmial, social-emotional and creative pote1)1i'11 to p )-itive.ly impact the world. ORDINANCE NO. 1253 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAUSALITO ADDING CHAPTER 12.40 "REGULATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT" TO TITLE 12 OF THE SAUSALITO MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, there has been a proliferation in the operation of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) or"drones" which can at times pose a hazard to full-scale aircraft and to persons and property on the ground; and WHEREAS, the City of Sausalito Police Department has seen a marked increase in the number of complaints related to the use and operation of UAS including drones flying over residences, flying over vehicles and pedestrians, and in one case flying into a residence; and WHEREAS, the City of Sausalito seeks to encourage the safe use of unmanned aircraft in a manner that protects public safety and privacy concerns; and WHEREAS, imposing restrictions on the operation of UAS consistent with federal aviation rules is necessary to mitigate such risks and to protect the public from the hazards associated with the operation of unmanned aircraft. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Sausalito Municipal Code Title 12 is hereby amended to add a new Chapter 12.40 "Regulation of Unmanned Aircraft" as set forth in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 2. The adoption of this Ordinance is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline Section 15061.b.3 as it can be seen with certainty that the action will have no possibility to cause a significant effect on the environment. Section 3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption. Before the expiration of fifteen (15) days after passage by the City Council this Ordinance shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Sausalito. Item 4D-Attach 1 02-27-18 Page 1 of 6 THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE was introduced and read at a regular meeting of the Sausalito City Council on the day of February, 2018, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of February, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBER: NOES: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBER: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBER: JOAN COX, MAYOR ATTEST: LILY WHALEN, CITY CLERK/ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER Item 4D-Attach 1 02-27-18 Page 2 of 6 Exhibit A to Attachment No. 1 Item 4D-Attach 1 02-27-18 Page 3 of 6 Chapter 12.40 REGULATION OF UNMANNED AIRCRAFT: Sections: 12.40.010. Definitions 12.40.020 Operational Requirements 12.40.030 Model Aircraft 12.40.040 Use by Law Enforcement 12.40.050 Violations 12.40.010 Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the words and phrases defined in this section shall be construed in accordance with the following definitions: "Unmanned Aircraft" is an aircraft, including but not limited to, an aircraft commonly known as a drone that is operated without possibility of direct human intervention from j within or on the aircraft. "Unmanned Aircraft System" (UAS) is an Unmanned Aircraft and associated elements, including, but not limited to, any communication links and components that control the Unmanned Aircraft that carries an apparatus that captures still (photographs) or moving images (videos) or any other payload. 12.40.020 Operational Requirements The following shall apply to the operation of any UAS within the City boundaries: A. Every commercial UAS weighing between .55 lbs. and 55 lbs., and operating in the City shall be registered in accordance with the FASS Part 107 Registration requirements. UAS operators who do not register their UAS in accordance with the FAA Part 107 Registration requirements are in violation of this section, and are subject to all applicable legal penalties enforced by the FAA. B. Every commercial UAS that weighs over .55 lbs., and operates in the City shall have the assigned FAA registration numbers affixed to the UAS as required by the FAA. C. No person shall operate a UAS to record and/or transmit any visual image or audio record of any person or private real property located in the City under circumstances in which the subject person or owner of the subject real property has a reasonable Item 4D-Attach 1 02-27-18 Page 4 of 6 expectation of privacy or without their permission (including but not limited to, inside a private residence or office, inside an enclosed yard, rooftops, backyards, and exterior decks). For the purposes of this section terms "record and/or transmit any visual image" includes, but is not limited to, video-recording, live-streaming or photographing. D. No person shall operate a UAS to follow and/or film with the intent to harass, intimidate, disturb, annoy, threaten, frighten, vex, injure, victimize, or place in extreme mental or emotional distress a particular person, whether they are on public or private property. The-eeedjdc-t-described-ifs-this-subseec4en-inGludes-but-is-net-limited-teasing a-UAS-to-#allow-and-#ilrn,-video-reEord IIive-stream-er photegraph-a-person-who-has-net censented-te-suck-aEtMty- E. No person shall operate a UAS within the City outside of daylight hours (between official local times from sunrise to sunset), F. No person shall operate a UAS within the City more than 400 feet above ground level. G. No person shall operate a UAS within the City faster than 20 MPH. H. No person shall operate any UAS in the City beyond the visual line of sight of the person operating the UAS. The operator must use his or her own natural vision to observe the UAS. Visual line of sight means that the operator has an unobstructed view of the UAS. The use of vision-enhancing devices, such as binoculars, night vision goggles, powered vision magnifying devices, and goggles or other devices designed to provide a "first-person view" from the UAS, do not constitute the visual line of sight of the person operating the UAS. I. No person shall operate the UAS within the City closer than 25 feet to any human being, except the operator and except during takeoff and landing. J. No person shall operate the UAS while under the influence of alcohol or any other drugs, intoxicating compound or any combination thereof. K. No person shall operate the UAS in a careless or reckless manner that would jeopardize the public. L. No person shall operate a UAS that is equipped with hazardous materials or any weapons or items that may be considered to be weapons. M. No person shall operate a UAS in a manner that is prohibited by any federal statute or regulation. N. No person shall operate a UAS in violation of any temporary flight restrictions or "Notice to Airmen" ("NOTAM) issued by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). O. No person shall operate a UAS in the path of any manned aircraft. Item 4D-Attach 1 02-27-18 Page 5 of 6 P. Operators may use a UAS to exercise their First Amendment right to observe and record government activities; however, no person shall operate a UAS in a manner that directly interferes with police activities, firefighting, or emergency response activities that would jeopardize the integrity of such public safety activities. 12.40.030 Model Aircraft. This Chapter shall not prohibit the use of any model aircraft as described in Section 336 of the FASS Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 and which does not transmit or record visual images or audio recordings of any person or real property located in the City. 12.40.040 Use by Law Enforcement. This Chapter shall not prohibit the use of any UAS by law enforcement or public safety agencies, provided that the law enforcement or public safety agency has a current Certificate of Authorization (COA) from the FASS to operate within the airspace of the City. 12.40.050 Violations. In addition to any other enforcement means available to the City, any operator of a UAS who violates this section is subject to fines and confiscation of the UAS by the Sausalito Police Department or other local, state, or federal law enforcement agency operating on their behalf. Item 4D-Attach 1 02-27-18 Page 6 of 6 Town Council Mccting TOWN OF TIBURON May 15. 2019 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Agenda Item: ti Tiburon. CA 94920 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Department of Administrative Services Subject: Mill Valley Refuse Service Rate Increase Presentation and Update on Pilot Dual-Stream Program Proposal Reviewed By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Council is reviewing two rate increase applications:received from Mill Valley Refuse Services,and receiving a presentation from Jim n lavaroe regarding the two applications. C01.11161 will consider which rate application it desires to consider for approval on June 5,,2019.' RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) 1. Receive presentation from staff and Mill Valley RefuseService,and receive any public comment. 2. Direct staff which application it desires to consider fora Public Heating on any proposed rate increase on June 5,2019. BACKGROUND The Town of Tiburon and Mill Valley Refuse Service ("MVRS") entered into a new franchise agreement providi�lg for solid waste collection effective July 1. 2011. The Agreement allows MVRS to adjust fees for two consecutive years based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI), capped at 3%. without requiring a base rate change application or approval by the Town Council. In the third year. or any year their- request is above the CFL MVRS must apply for a base rate change. The last rate increase request by MVRS was in July 2018, and the Council approved a 13.71`% rate increase. Prior to that_ the Council approved a 3.09% rate increase in 2015, with no rate increase request in 2016. or 2017. The significant rate increase in 2018 was in large part due to China's "National Sword Initiative'-. which accounted for approximately 60% of the requested rate increase. This initiative limits the import of contaminated recyclable commodities and increases inspection of recyclable commodity imports. The result was a dramatic ongoino tipping fees for disposal of recyclable materials from $0/ton to $72/ton. The other cities served by MVRS received similar requests for rate increases at the time. TOWN or TIBURON PAGE I or 3 Every three years. at the expense of MVRS, the agencies served by MVRS may retain the services of an outside consultant to review the application to determine the accuracy of the calculations to justify the rate increase. In 2018, the cities retained the services of R3 Consulting Group, Inc. ("R3") to review the applications for each agency. R3 determined that the appropriate rate increase for Tiburon was 13.71%, which was approved by the Council. h1 April 2019, the Town received a letter from Tim Iavarone of MVRS requesting Council consideration of two possible applications for a base rate increase (Exhibit 1). The difference in the applications relates to what type of recycling program will be utilized in the fixture (Single or Dual Stream). As a result of this uncertainty, staff has agendized tonight's item as a presentation only, with Council considering a final rate increase application at the Council meeting scheduled for Tune 5, 2019. ANALYSIS The applications both account for rising labor costs, the purchase of two new trucks required to meet California's strict emission standards, and the addition of a new compost route to meet increased demand for commercial food waste collection brought on by State regulations. One application requests a 4.21% rate increase (Exhibit 2), and would maintain MVRS current single-stream recycling collection method ("Single Stream Application"). The second application requests a 3.7% rate increase (Exhibit 3) and would offer a switch to dual stream collection ("Dual Stream Application"). In 2018, MVRS conducted a pilot program to test the viability of switching from a single stream to dual stream collection of recyclables as a way to combat the increased tipping fee. The program would allow mixed paper to be collected without contamination by broken glass and food waste, in an effort to lower processing costs and ensure that more material is actually recycled. MVRS has published a report on the success of the pilot program (Exhibit 4), and concluded that the cost difference between singleand dual stream collection is not immediately significant. but could be realized in future years. Mr. Iavarone's letter also notes that dual-stream collection produces a smaller carbon footprint, and the benefits are being discussed at the State Legislature as it considers AB 815. A fact sheet related to this proposed legislation is attached as Exhibit 5. Tonight the Council is asked to hear the presentation by staff and Mr. Iavarone on the two base rate increase applications. The Council is further being asked which application it desires to consider at a future Council meeting in order for staff to properly notice that future Couuicil meeting for any potential rate increase application. The Council will hold a Public Hearing and consider- approval of the preferred base rate application on June 5. 2019. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town by adoption of this item. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ToNv N ou-TIfit izoo ___ Rk(,r 2 or 3 Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this iter is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council receive the presentation from Mill Valley Refuse Service and direct staff to hold a Public Hearing on the preferred base rate application(s) on June 5. 2019. Exhibit(s): I. Email fi•om Jim lavarone of Mill Valley Refuse Service 2. Single Stream Service Application 3. Dual Stream Service Application 4. MVRS Report on Dual-Stream Pilot Program 5. AB 815 Fact Sheet Prepared By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager Lea Stefani, Town Clerk 'I'o\v or"I'll3lRoy P,kcl. 3 or 3 EXHIBIT NO. l From: llor)avarasc ro: er«:CW!il#eiiLNantei.faR?i!>'a�+ua�icnull;lcnuxXts.�zrt linitsta9;9±zt94,.;1fr�;nnsNktunP.I's.'eetekeAaestS�wa:�e:Eltzntat;tdia!sxsJ.sYJ;mu:a9er+;L:uulr..9.rxa;IWff.Lu:in:ausun.si:,��.+-ntneN twbA ':ULYS-V:y9Fx D.. .+2oeoa a blew Ra 2014300.ale bns ApDllcal aatc: Monday,April 1,201911:01:02 AM -uh-cu AO flls Fct Dur Sre SbaM< c32o 9 Dear City,Town and District Managers, This year,Mill Valley Refuse Service is presenting two rate applications for your consideration.Both are the same except that one maintains our current single stream recycle collection method and the other offers a switch to dual stream collection.Before getting into the single versus dual stream debate,here are the major factors common to both applications that result in a requested overall rate adjustment of either 4.21%(single stream)or 3.7%(dual stream): 1. Rising labor costs per our Union contracts. 2. The purchase oftwo new trucks required to continue meeting California's strict emission standards. 3. The addition of a new compost route to meet an increased demand for commercial food waste collection brought on by State regulations(AB 1826 and SB 1383). We believe this rate request is reasonable given these new costs and the fact that either adjustment requested is closely in fine with the Annual CPI rate this year of 3.9%.Rate adjustments specific to eachjudsdiction we service will be found within the two rate applications. Now,on to the question of Single versus Dual Stream collection: As you know,MVRS conducted a Dual Stream Pilot Program in 2018 to test the feasibility of switching to dual stream collection of recyclabl11 as a way to counter the skyrocketing cost of processing single stream material.Our report on[he success of the program has already been sent to you,and is also available online here:Wan,1,1'ttwr +.7- or his disappointing to report that the cost difference between single and dual stream collection is not significant-dual stream is just one-half percent cheaper.In dollar terms,that amounts to only an average of 20 to 30 cents per month(see Table 1 below for the cost of a single 32-gallon can in individual jurisdictions). A big reason cost savings aren't greater is the continued weakness of the recycling market.While dual stream material is cleaner and cheaper to process,prices for processed material remain depressed,and finding any buyers at all for some materials is becoming difficult.Dual stream material is still significantly cheaper to process than single steam,but the gap narrowed from the time we conducted the pilot project.At the start of the project,the cost for dual stream was$17.50/ton(versus$83Aon for single stream).Due to market realities,the cost to deliver dual stream material will rise to$40-$45 per ton in 2019/20. To be sure,the cost savings for dual stream at the Marin Sanitary processing plant remain highly attractive.Unfortunately,our ratepayers con only benefit this yearjrom nine months of those savings due to the time it would take to implement dual stream collection.That is because we would be providing a second cart to our residents to facilitate our alternating week pickup schedule.it would take three months to order and distribute the carts, plus provide our residents a"grace period"as they learn to transition away from single stream to the dual stream,alternating week collection system. A complete year's worth of lower tip fees would reduce the necessary rate adjustment request by a full percentage point as shown in Table 2 below.This is an example of how the full benefit of cheaper dual stream processing would be realized in future years. Another positive note is that we learned our trucks will save approximately 15,000 gallons of fuel annually by delivering dual stream to the San Rafael facility,rather than taking it to the Novato transfer site.Keep is mind that once dumped in Novato,our material is then loaded into transfer trucks and sent to a San lose facility,using up even more gallons of fuel.Overall,dual stream produces a much smaller carbon footprint. An interesting development that occurred just two weeks ago is that we were asked about our pilot project by a state legislator who is proposing a bill to incentivize dual stream conversion(see attached).This bill recognizes that cleaner material is more marketable,and that more is actually recycled when less is lost to contamination,a fact born out in our own pilot project.While it is impossible to say what effect this bill might have if passed,it is notable that the benefits of dual stream collection are being discussed in our State Legislature,and dual stream programs might receive special consideration. Switching to dual stream collection requires a lower rate adjustment this year than sticking with single stream,and the long term benefits make switching"feel right."However,we should also remember the survey results from the pilotproject participants that indicate half of them are willing to pay a little more far the convenience of single stream collection.Since dual stream collection did not come in significantly cheaper,we do not have the luxury of a"no-brainer"decision to make. This is why I cannot stress enough the importance of holding public hearings on the pros and cons of single vs.dual stream collection in April or May before voting on this years rate application in lune.I am happy to lay out the arguments in public hearings and listen,with you,to what the public has to say. Sincerely Yours, James Iavarone Mill Valley Refuse Service (415)457-9760 x12 Table 1. SINGLE VERSUS DUAL STREAM COMPARISON MVRS will prepare complete rate sheets in the coming weeks. The following is a comparison of the proposed rate for one 32-gallon can in each jurisdiction. 2018/2019 2019/2020 2019/2020 32 Gal Single Dual Mill Valley Can Stream Stream Flat $47.25 $4931 $48.96 Hill $54.21 $56.57 $56.17 2018/2019 2019/2020 2019/2020 32 Gal Single Dual Can Stream Stream Belvedere $55.25 $57.55 $57.42 2018/2019 2019/2020 2019/2020 32 Gal Single Dual Corte Madera Can Stream Stream Flat $36.94 $38.51 $38.44 Hill $39.74 $41.42 $41.35 Xmas Tree $51.41 $53.59 $53.50 2018/2019 2019/2020 2019/2020 32 Gal Single Dual Can Stream Stream Alto $42.91 $44.48 $44.12 2018/2019 2019/2020 2019/2020 32Ga1 Single Dual Tiburon Can Stream Stream Flat $44.37 $46.23 $46.15 Hill $52.84 $55.05 $54.96 2018/2019 2019/2020 2019/2020 32 Gal Single Dual County Can Stream Stream 2 $ 47.57 $49.67 $49.30 1 $ 57.41 $59.95 $59.50 4 $ 59.92 $62.57 $62.10 2018/2019 2019/2020 2019/2020 32 Gal Single Dual Can Stream Stream Homestead $41.39 $43.07 $42.72 2018/2019 2019/2020 2019/2020 32 Gal Single Dual Can Stream Stream Strawberry $35.21 $36.67 $36.37 2018/2019 2019/2020 2019/2020 32Gal Single Dual Can Stream Stream Almonte $34.13 $35.43 $35.13 Table 2. Comparative Rate Adjustment of the lower dual stream tippingfee for a complete year. JAM 1111 CM ALIO UR SQ IM $1 ALM Total -2.71% -194% -3.11% -1.87% -3.04% -2.76% -2.26% -2.33% -1.97% -2.77% Valley ReService, Inc . -�, �� � F {•fie" R� �,� `+�'�� ���s m I F- 111, S "O Wi I .......... 2019 :c Single D U m aApplication MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE MILL CORTE 2019/2020 FORECAST VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALMONTE DEBRIS TOTAL Revenue(net of franchise fees) $5,161,690 $ 765,777 $3,423,217 $ 364,115 S 2,866,901 $ 671,614 °' 592,5.40 1,741,320 ',-109,500 S 121,9'Z0 16,11'8,705 Add:Franchise fees 1,219,393 84,361 849,495 15,289 455,376 146,168 25,119 166,082 7,503 2,968,786 6,381,083 850,138 4,272,712 379,404 3,322,277 817,782 617,659 1,907.402 417,063 121,970 19,087,490 Total Operating Costs $4,908,979 $ 734,815 $3,339,391 $ 343,020 S 2,759,653 S 642,377 $ 560,216 $ 1,648,483 $386,412 $ 79,428 $ 15,402,774 Add:Franchise fees 1,219,393 84,361 849,495 15,289 455,376 146,168 25,119 166,082 7,503 - 2,968,786 Adjustments: Debris and street cans/(ff and profit) (21,699) (4,224) (26,316) - (14,912) (747) (409) - (68,306) Portable Toilet Overage 18,484 18,484 Corte Madera&Tiburon City Services dump (4,407) (1,469) (5,876) Recycling Dumping Fee Adjustment-prior year $ (41,262) $ (6,809) $ (29,230) $ (3,111) $ (24,828) $ (5,282) $ (5,077) $ (15,143) S (3,551) $ - (134,293) Corte Madera Officer Pension 3c (20,158) (20,158) Total gross operating costs 6,065,411 808,144 4,127,259 355,198 3;173,820 782,516 579,849 1,799,422 390,363 79,428 18,161,411 Less:Pass through expenses Excess Landfill Disposal expenselton (35,149) (66,730) (311,617) (251,005) (664,501) Franchise fees (1,219,393) (84,361) (849,495) (15,289) (455,376) (146,168) (25,119) (166,082) (7,503) - (2,968,786) Road impact fees (137,700) (39,082) ) One-half JPA fees (54,533) (8,090) (36,166) (3,847) (30,289) (7,096) (6,260) (18,397) (4,327) (1,289) (170,293) MN Valley Excess Green Waste Cap (1,234) (1,234) Mill Valley Excess Recycle Cap (3,471) (3,471) Tiburon Street Sweeping (9,472) (9,472) Admin.Fees CM/TIS/Zero Waste Cnty (9,000) (6 00)j___ (13,351) (28,351 Profit basis 4,613,933 648,961 2,920,981 336,062 2,421,679 5/6,820 548,471 1,614,943 378,534 78,139 14,138,522 Operating Ratio Allowance(90%) 512,659 72,107 292,098 37,340 269,075 64,091 60,941 179,438 42,059 7,814 1,537,623 Add back pass through expenses: Excess Landfill Disposal expenseiton 35,149 66,730 311,617 - 251,005 - - - - 664,501 Road impact fees 137,700 - - - - 39,082 - - - - 176,782 One-half JPA fees 54,533 8,090 36,166 3,847 30,289 7,096 6,260 18,397 4,327 1,289 170,2.93 Mill Valley Excess Green Waste Cap 1 234 1,234 Mill Valley Excess Recycle Cap 3,471 3,471 Return on Rental Investment 10,505 1,789 6,400 726 6,619 1,531 1,831 2,876 1,284 33,560 Actual Overweight Charges PY 16,332 1,006 3,940 417 - 21,695 Tiburon Street Sweeping 9,472 9,472 Admin.Fees CMI i IB/Zero Waste Cnty 13,351 - 13,351 Franchise fees at current rates 1,281,833 88,743 892,801 15,984 478,591 154,091 26,457 174,182 7,894 3,120,575 Total revenue requirement 6,667.348 887,427 4,464,003 393,958 3,467,147 856,061 643,959 1,989,835 434,098 87,242 19,891,079 Net Excess(Deficicncy) (286,265) (3'7,288) (191,291) (14,554) (144,869) (38,279) (26,300) (82,434) (17,035) 34,728 (803,588) Allocated debris deficiency 8,701 1,824 10,266 690 5,500 2,155 1,246 3,150 11194 X34,728) Net Excess(Deficiency) (277,564) (35,464) (181,025) (13,864) (139,369) (36,124 -- (25,054) -- (79,283) (15,840] - (803,588) Percentage Excess(Deficiency) -4.35% -4.17% -4.24% -3.65% -4.19% -4.42% -4.06% -4.16% -3.80% -4.21% Scheduled franchise fee increase A 0.00% 0.00% 0,00% 0.00% 0.00%-0.00% 0.00% __0.00% 0.00% Total Percentage Excess(Deficiency) -4.35% -4.17% -4.24% -3-65% -4.19% -4.42% -� 4.06% -4.16% 3.809 1 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE COLLECTION REVENUES FORECAST FOR YEAR 201912020 MILL CORTE VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALMONTE DEBRIS TOTAL GARBAGE REVENUES 5,403,686 720,014 3,374,141 305,778 2,765,399 683,241 502,374 1,562,021 323,333 151639,986 RECYCLING REVENUES 665,989 66,387 551,357 49,410 361,057 61,224 69,933 236,481 51,804 2,113,643 DEBRIS REVENUES 272,894 57,212 321,976 172,512 67,580 98:801 990,975 SCRAP REVENUES TOTAL 6,342,569 843,614 4,247,474 355,187 3,298,969 812,045 5`72,307 1,897;303 375,137 18,744.604 GARBAGE 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 5.00% 15.50% 18.00% 5.00% 10.00% 2.00% DEBRIS 2.00% 10.00% 20.00% 0.00% 15.50% 18.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% RECYCLING 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% FRANCHISE FEES 1,219,393 84,361 849,495 15,289 455,376 146,168 25,119 166,082 7,503 2,9.68,786 Average franchise fee rate 19.23% 10.00% 20.00% 4.06% 13.80% 18.00% 4.11% 8.75% 1.82% _ DEBRIS REVENUES 21,642 39,089 37,459 121,531 219,721 SCRAP REVENUES 21,451 4,086 13,723 1,325 13,218 3,510 4,273 4,362 3,052 69,000 STORAGE BOX RENTALS 10,068 1,439 6,794 738 5,954 1,314 1,174 3,385 835 259 31,960 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 6,995 1,000 4,721 513 4,137 913 816 2,352 580 180 22,205 NET COLLECTION REVENUES 5,161,690 765,777 3,423,217 364,115 2,866,901 671,614 592,540 1,741,320 409,560 121,970 16,118,705 PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE 32.02% 4.75% 21.24% 2.26% 17.79% 4.17% 3.68% 10.80% 2.54% 0.76% 100.00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.00, 2018 Garbage Revenue 4,684,754 617,588 3,067,912 288,094 2,680,095 602,058 460,324 1,395,663 306,815 14,103,303 Less(Plus)Res.Service Adjustment: (1,094) 5,286 1,578 (1,460) (3,870) 1,961 475 1,020 (941) 2,955 Commercial&Apartment Service Adj (36,000) - (36,000) (2,400) - - - (12,000) (3,000) (89,400) Plus Jan to Sept/Rate Increase Adj 681,838 107,712 271,807 13,823 81,435 83,144 42,525 155,378 12,577 1,450,238_ Expected 2019 Net Garbage Reveni 5,403,686 720,014 3,374,141 305,778 2,765,399 683,241 502,374 1,562.021 323,333 - 15,639,986 2 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE PROJECTED FINANCIAL ACTIVITY 12/3112018 2019/2020 ACTUAL FORECAST INCOME Collection services revenue 16,401,926 17,753,629 Debris box revenue 1,210,696 1,210,696 Storage box revenue 31,960 31,960 Recycling redemption revenue 70,805 69,000 Miscellaneous revenue 22,205 22,205 Total revenue 17,737,591 19,087,490 EXPENSES Accounting 41,230 52,250 Advertising and promotion 290 603 Computer expense 139,508 130,063 Depreciation 766,952 902,683 Dump expense 2,484,783 2,667,017 Franchise fees 2,499,117 2,968,786 Insurance 488,506 574,205 Insurance - workers comp. 886,947 809,654 Interest 142,026 160,000 Legal and professional 171,804 125,000 Licenses - other 23,148 31,200 Licenses - trucks 78,991 81,052 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 29,609 30,763 General Office expenses 240,905 299,917 JPA Office of waste management fees 250,512 340,586 Road impact fees 202,433 205,133 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,254 10,040 Salaries and wages - franchise 3,856,726 33991,822 Salaries and wages - officers/non franchise 976,587 1,054,005 Street Sweeping Costs 134,071 148,300 Taxes - payroll 363,783 388,343 Taxes - real estate and business property 53,011 55,078 Telephone 27,678 28,540 Truck - fuel 757,464 786,943 Truck - parts repairs 550,096 547,038 Truck - tires 136,790 142,125 Union - health and welfare 1,179;.009 1.288,739 Union - pension 932,239 1,042,420 Utilities 39,331 40,275 Total expenses 17,469,787 18,902,578 INCOME (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS 267,804 184,913 3 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS INCOME _........-........_._ Net Collection Revenues(rret of franchise fees) 16,1 18,705 16,118,705 16.118,705 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 Computer expense 130,063 130,003 130,063 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 Dump expense 2,667,017 2.G67,017 2,667,017 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show; 134,293 134,293 134,293 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment 134,293) (134,293) (134,293) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 Interest 160,000 160,000 160.000 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 Licenses-trucks 81,052 61,052 81.052 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 Office Rent-imputed - - - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 17uck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81 537) - Total expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,267 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 184,913 (495,855) 680,767 286,670 967,437 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 4 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d_b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED MILL VALLEY ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 5,161,690-22 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52.250 1 30.65% 16,016.11 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 32.02% 192.95 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 32.02% 41,650.07 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 8 31.29% 282,456.81 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2.667.017 9 30.731X, 819,454.90 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset Io show i 134,293 134,293 134,293 9 30.73% 41,262.09 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (134,293) 9 30.73% (41,262.09) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 30.36% 1741,333.10 Insurance-workers comp, 809,654 609,654 809,654 7 31.29% 253,347-26 Interest 160,000 160,000 1601,000 3 29.70% 47,516.34 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 32.02% 40,028.73 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052. 81,052 3 29]0% 24,070.63 Licenses-other 31,200 31.200 31,200 5 32.02% 9,981.21 Buildina/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 37..02°/ 9,851.33 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 32.02% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 32.02% 96,042.27 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 32.02% 109,065.89 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT 137,700.00 Safety PlaniDOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,0110 7 31.2.9% 3.141.71 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 32.78% 213,494.64 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 31.29% 1,249,073.45 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 29.70% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 31,29% 118,365.47 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 32.78% 18,053.84 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 30.65% 8,748.17 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530.697 3 29.70% 157,604.97 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 29.70% 42,207.92 i ruck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 29.70% 233,703.96 Union health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 31.29% 403,256.86 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042.420 7 31.29% 326,181.65 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 30.65% 12,345.49 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81.537) - DIRECT 61,083.36 Total expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,267 4,908,979.14 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 184,913 (495,855) 680,767 286 670 _ 967,437 252,711.08 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34.272 5 92.02% 10,974.77 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 5 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 201912020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED BELVEDERE ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 10.118,705 765,776.79 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,2.50 52,250 1 5.22% 2,727.75 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 4.75% 28.63 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 4.75% 6,179.11 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 8 4.84% "43,680.63 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 9 5.07% 135,215.89 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show i 134,293 134,293 134,293 9 5.07% 6,808.54 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (134,293) 9 5.07% (6,808.54) insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 4.54% 26,090.04 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 4.84% 39,178.97 Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 3 4.74% 7,581.70 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 4.751% 5,938.57 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 4.74% 3,840.71 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 4.75% 1,482.27 Buildino/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 4.75°% 1,461.53 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 4.75% - General Office Expenses 299.917 299,9117 - 299,91 7 5 4.7556 14,248.62 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 4.75% 16,180.77 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT Safety Pian/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 4.84% 485.85 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 4.74%, 30,848.60 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 4.84% 193,163.:38 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 4.74% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 4.84% 18,304.67 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 4.74% 2,608.66 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 5.22°/ 1,489.93 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 4.74% 25,147.42 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 4.74°% 6,734.69 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 4.74% 37,289.77 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 4.84% 62,361.79 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 4.84°% 50,442.47 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 5.22% 2,102.59 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537_ (81,537) - Total expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,267 734,814.99 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS _ 184,913 (495,855) 680,767. 286,670 967,437 30,961.81 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Metho< 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 5 4.75% 1,628.19 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 6 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED CORTE MADERA ALLOCATION INCOME Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118.705 3,423,217.42 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 20.75% i0,841.50 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 21.24% 127.95 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 ;, 21.24;6 27,622.20 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 8 22.60% 203,979.90 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 9 21.77% 580,495.79 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show i 134,293 134,293 134,293 9 2137% 29,229.76 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (134,293) 9 21.77% (29,229.76) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 22.80% 130,891.00 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 22.60% 182,958.05 Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 DIRECT - Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 21.241% 26,546.93 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052. 81,052 3 21.98% 17,812.93 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 211.24% 6,626.14 Bui!ding/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 21.240/ 6,533.41 Office Rent-imputed - - 5 21.24% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 21.24% 63,694.94 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 21.24% 72,332.17 Road impact fees/acirninfees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT 9,000.60 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 22.60% 2,208.82 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 601,321 6 20.99% 136,717.60 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 22.60% 902,034.80 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16'34 1 - 3 21.98% Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 22.60% 85,479.18 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 20.99% 11,561.31 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 20.751% 5,921.74 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,G97 530,697 3 21.98% 116,632.01 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 21.98% 31,235.02 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 21.98% 172,947.36 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 22.60% 291,217.24 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 22.60% 235,556.37 Utilities 40.275 40,275 40,275 1 20.75% 8,356.81 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - DIRECT - Total expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,267 3,339,391.19 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 184,913 (495,855) 680,767 286,670 967,437. 83,826.23 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34,272 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 - 30,844 5 21.24% 6,550.59 7 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 201912420 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED ALTO ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME ........... ._.-- Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 _.._..364,115.47... . - EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 2.12% 1,106.16 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 2.26% 13.61 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 Z26% 2,938.08 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 8 2.28% 20,557.26 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 9 2.32% 61,779.67 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show i 134,293 134,293 134,293 9 2,32% 3,110.80 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293 1'4,2,3' 11 2.3Z% ( � ) (3.11U.tS0) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 2.15% 12,332.72 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 2.28% 18,438.66 Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 3 2.17% 3,464.05 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 2.26% 2,823.70 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 2.17% 1,754.81 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 2.26% 704.80 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 2.26% 694.94 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 Z Z6% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 2.26% 6,775.00 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 216% 7,693.72 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (2.05,133) - DIRECT Safety Plan/DOT'Tests 10,040 10,440 10,040 7 2.28% 228.65 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054.005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 2.2.7% 14.790.75 Sa;anes and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,99;,822 7 2.28% 90,907 78 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - 3 2.171% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 2.28% 8,6 14,66 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,076 6 2.271% 1,250.76 Telephone 28,540 28,540 26,540 1 7_.12% 504.19 Truck-parts tk repairs 530,697 530,597 530.697 3 2.17% 11,489.77 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,12-5 3 2.17% 3,077.06 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 2A7yo 17,037.57 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 2.28% 29,349.10 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 2.28% 23,739.56 Utilities 44,275 40,275 40,275 i 2.12% 852.64 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - Total expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,267 343,019.67 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 184,913 (495,855) 680,767 286,670 967,437 21,095.80 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34.272 - 34,272 5 2.26% 774.18 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 8 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED TIBURON ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16.118,705 16,118,705 2,866,901.03 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 19.31% 10,091.51 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 17.79% 107.17 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 17.79% 23,133.24 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 8 18.20% 164.303.60 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 9 18.49% 493,071.72 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show i 134,293 134,293 134,293 9 18.49% 24,827.68 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (134,293) 9 18.49% (24,827.68) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 17.2.9% 99,262.07 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 609,654 7 18.20% 147,370.73 Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 3 17,44% 27,908.50 Legal and professional 125,000 125.000 125,000 5 17.19% 22,232.72 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 17.44% 14,137.77 Licenses-other 31,200 31,2.00 31,200 5 17.79% 5,549.31 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 17.79% 5,471.65 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 17,79% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 17.79% 53,343.70 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,5f16 5 17.79% 50.577.27 Road impact.feesladmin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIREC'i 6,000.00 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 18.20% 1.827.51 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 18.04°/ 117.520.16 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 18.20% 726.579.27 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 17.44°% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 18.20% 68.852.55 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 18.04% 9,937.91 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 19.31% 5,512.09 Truck-pals&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 17.44% 92.568.53 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 17.44% 24.790.62 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 11.441/ 137,264.91 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 18.20°% 234.572.34 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 18.20% 189,738.10 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 19.31% 7,778.71 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - DIRECT 10,149.02 Total expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,267 2.759.652.69 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 184,913 (495,855) 680,767 286,670 967.437 107,248.34 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 5 17.79% 6,095.60 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 101/. 30,844 30,844 30,844 9 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 201912020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED COUNTY ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM ff PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 671_613.74 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 447% 2,333.93 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 4.17% 25.11 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 4.17% 5,419.30 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 8 3.77% 34,052.38 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 9 3.93% 104,908.88 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show i 134,293 134,293 134,293 9 3.93% 5,282.49 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (134,293) 9 3-93% (5,282.49) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 3.52% 20,239.00 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 3.77% 30,543.00 Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 3 3.68% 5,882.35 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 4.17% 5,208.34 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 3.68% 2,979.86 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 4.17% 1,300.0' Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30.763 30,763 5 4.17% 1,281,81 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 4.17% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 4.17% 12,496.55 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 4.17% 14,191.12 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT 52,433.00 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 3.77% 378.76 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 4.09% 26,612.37 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 3.77% 150,585.60 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16;341 16,341 - - 3 3,68% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 3.77% 14,269.88 Tares-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 4.09% 2,250.43 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 4.47% 1,274.82 Truck-parts&repairs 530.697 530,697 530,697 3 3.68% 19,510.93 Truck-tires 142,125 142;125 142,125 3 3.68% 5,225.19 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 3,68% 28,931.71 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 3.77% 48,615.78 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1.042,420 7 3.77% 39,323.76 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 4.47% 1,799.03 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66.763 81,53% (81,5371 - DIRLC1 - 10,304.50 Total expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,1,51,2-67 642,377-39 -.....-- ..................... ......--....-- -------- INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 184,913 (495,855) 680,767 286.670 967,437 29,236.34 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34,272 5 4.17% 1,427.98 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 10 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 201912020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED HOMESTEAD ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 592,540.20 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 5.34% 2,791.45 Advertising and promotion 603 603 CO3 5 3.68% 22.15 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,0635 3,681% 4,781.25 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 8 3,70% 33,409.08 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 9 3.78% 100,829.09 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show i 134,293 134,293 134,293 9 3,78% 5,077.06 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (134,293) 9 3.78% (5,077.06) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 3.47% 19,909.40 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 3.70% 29,966.00 Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 3 3.53% 5,653.59 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125.000 5 3.68% 4,595.13 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 3.53% 2,863.97 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 3.68% 1,146.95 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30.763 30,763 30,763 5 3.68% 1,130.90 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 3.68% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 3.68% 11,025.25 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 3.6B% 12,520.30 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 3.70% 371.60 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 3.67% 23,902.47 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 3.70% 147,740.81 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 3.53% - Taxes-payroll 386,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 3.70% 14,000-31 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 3.67% 2,021.27 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 5.34% 1.524.72 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 3.53% 18,752.17 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 353% 5,021.99 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 3.53% 27,806.59 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 3.70% 47,697.35 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 3.70% 38,580.87 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 5.34% 2,151.70 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81.537) Total expenses 15,933.792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151.267 560,216.38 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 184.913 (495,855) 680,767 286,670 967,437 32,323.82 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34,272 5 3.68% 1,259.86 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 11 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED _ _ STRAWBERRY ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM ft PERCENT - AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 _ 16,118,705 1,741,319.65 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 8.39% 4,384.09 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 10.80% 65.09 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 10.80% 14,050.84 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 8 10.78% 97,322.48 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 9 11.28% 300,738.78 Recycling-Pipping Fee Adjustment offset to show i 134,293 134,293 134,293 9 11.28% 15,143.13 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (134,293) 9 11.28% (15,143.13) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 10,61% 00,897.81 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 10.78% 87,292.58 Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 3 11.03°/ 17,647.06 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 10.80% 13,503.87 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 11.03% 8,939.57 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 10.80% 3,370.58 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 10.80% 3,323.41 Office Rent-imputed - - 5 10.80% - Generai Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 10.80% 32,400.30 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 - 340,586 5 10.80% 36,793.87 Road impact feesladmin fees 205,133 2.05,133 (205,133) - DIREC-P - Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 10.78% 1,082.50 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402.,684 651,321 651,321 6 10.96% 71,363.84 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 10.78% 430,377.05 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 3 1103% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 10.78% 40,783.65 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 1 D.96% 6,034.77 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 8.39% 2,394.64 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 11.03% 58,532.79 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 11.03% 15,675.57 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 11.03°/ 86,795.14 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 10.78% 138,944.99 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042.,420 7 10.78% 112,388.18 UtiRies 40.275 40,275 40,275 1 8.39% 3,379.33 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81.537 (81,537) - Tota expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,267 1,648,482.80 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 184,913 (495,855) 680,767 286,670 967,437 92,836.85 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 5 10.80% 3,702.39 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 12 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED ALMONTE ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PE=RCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 409,560.42 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 3.75% 1.957.49 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 2.54% 15.31 Ccrnputer expense 130,063 130,063 130.063 5 2.54% 3,304.77 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 8 2.54% 22,920.75 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 9 2.64% 70,522.08 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show 1 134,293 134,293 134,293 9 2.64% 3,551.00 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (134,293) 9 2.64% (3,551.00) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 2.38% 13,654.31 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 2.54% 20,558.57 Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 3 2.47% 3,954.25 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 2.54% 3,176.13 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 2.47% 2,003.13 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 .31,200 5 2.54% 792.76 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 2.54% 781.67 Office Rent-imputed - - - - 5 2.54% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 2.54% 7,620.59 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 2.54°% 8,653.96 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT - Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 2.54% 254.94 Salares and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 2.47% 16,070.33 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 2.54% 101,359.55 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 2.47% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378.275 378,275 7 2.54% 9,605.10 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 247°/ 1,358.96 Telephone 28,540 26,540 28,540 i 3.75% 1,06920 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 2.4/% 3,115.68 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 2.47% 3,512.49 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 2.47% 19,448.54 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,286,739 7 2.54% 32,723.40 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 2.5,1% 25,468.92 lJtili;ies 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 3.751% 1,508.87 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - Total expenses 15,933,792 495,655 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,257 386,411.75 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS _ 84 913 "...095,855) --Z3680,767 286,670 967,437 ,148.67 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 5 2.54% 870.81 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 13 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 201912020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED DEBRIS At-LOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# - PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME. Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) -16,1 1 B,705 16,118,705 16,118_705 121,969.56 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 0.00% - Advertising and promotion 603 603 E303 5 0.76% 4.56 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130.063 5 0.7691, 964.18 Depreciation 902.683 902,G83 902,683 DIRECT - Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 DIRECT Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show i 134,293 134,293 '134,293 DIRECT Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (134,293) DIRECT - Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 2.89% 16,595.52 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 DIRECT - Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 3 3.27% 5,228.76 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 0.76% 945.87 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 3.27% 2,648.76 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 0.76% 2.36.09 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 O.76% 232.79 Office Rent-imputed - - 5 0.76% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 0.76% 2,269,46 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 0.76% 2,577.20 Road impact feesladmin fees 205,133 205,133 (205.133) - DIRECT - Safety PlanrDOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 DIRECT Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 0.00% Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 DIRECT Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 3.27% Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 DIRECT Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 0.00% Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 0.00°M - Truck-parts&repairs 530.697 530,697 530,697 3 3.27% 17,343.05 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 3.27% 4,644,61 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 3.27% 25,717.08 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1.288,739 DIRECT - Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 DIRECT Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 0.00% - Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - -__- Total expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,267 79,427.93 INCOME-(LOSS)FROM OPERA7-IONS 184,913 (495,855) 680,767 286,670 967,437 42,541.63 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 5 0.76% 233.40 14 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS TOTAL INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118.705 16,118,705 1ti,11f1,705 16,118,704.50 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 52,250.00 Advertising and promotion 603 603 (103 602.53 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 1'30,063.04 Depreciation 902,683 902,683 902,683 902,682.89 Dump expense 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,017 2,667,016.79 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment offset to show i 134,293 134,293 134,29: 134,292.54 Recycling Tipping Fee Adjustment (134,293) (134,293) (130,293) (134,292..54) Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 574,204.98 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809.654 809,654 809,653.83 Interest 160,000 160,000 160,000 -124,836.60 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000.00 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 81,052.13 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 31,200.13 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 30,763.48 Office Rent-imputed - - - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 299,916.67 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 340,586.28 Road impact feesladmin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - 205,133.00 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 10,040.35 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 651,320.75 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,821.70 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 378,2.75.46 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 55,077.92 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 28,539.51 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 530,697.33 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 142,125.16 Truck-fuel _ 786,943 786,943 786,943 786,942.64 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,2.88,738.86 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,419.88 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 40,275.17 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537 - 81536.87 'Fetal expenses 15,933,792 495,855 15,437,937 (286,670) 15,151,267 15,402,773`94 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 184,913 (495,855) 680,767 266,670 967,437 715,930.56 imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34,272 26,733.77 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 6.783.99 33,517.76 15 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE STREET SWEEPING FORECAST 201912020 12131/2018 2019/2020 ACTUAL FORECAST INCOME _ Street sweeping income 0 _ 0 Total revenue $ - $ EXPENSES Accounting 0 0 Advertising and promotion 0 0 Computer expense 0 0 Depreciation 100 100 " Dump expense 506 506 Franchise&road impact fees 0 0 Insurance 5,197 6,109 Insurance-workers comp. 12,381 11,302 Interest 0 0 Legal and professional 0 0 Licenses-trucks 1,070 1,342 Licenses-other 0 0 Maintenance and repairs 0 0 Office Rent 0 0 Office 2,563 3,191 Office of waste management fees 0 0 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 0 0 Salanes excluded and non franchise 70,370 73,575 Salaries and wages-Franchise 0 0 Taxes-payroll 5,296 5,663 Taxes-real estate and business propert 564 586 Telephone 294 304 Truck-parts repairs 5,755 5,820 Truck-tires 1,455 1,512 Truck-Niel 8,058 8,372 Union-health and welfare 15,872 19,738 Union-pension 4,170 9,315 Utilities 418 866 Total expenses $ 134,071 $ 148,300 INCOME LOSS FROM OPERATIONS $ 134,071 $ {i48,300 #of Customers Allocation: Billings Allocation S31ary/Bcr Else Total Mill Valley 55,223 $ 61,083 4,600 41.19% 44,604 16,479 61,083 Corte Madera 35,523 $ 39,293 2,959 26-50% 28,692 10,600 39,293 dis - Tiburon 34,010 $ 37,619 2,833 25.37% 27,470 10,149 37,619 dis= : " County 9,316 $ 10,304 776 6.95% 7,525 2,780 1"304 Totals $ 134,071 $ 148,300 11,168 108,291 40,009 14c.300 i6 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF PASS THRU SERVICES 2017 2018/2019 ACTUAL FORECAST Boxes Boxes MILL VALLEY Per Contract COSTS Per Contract COSTS DEBRIS BOXES unlimited $180,821.00 unlimited $180,821.00 STREET CANS $ - Less: Franchise Fees at 2%DB $ 3,616.42 $ 3.616.42 Less: Franchise Fees at 20%SC $ - $ - Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 18,082.10 $ 18,082.10 $ 159,122.48 $ 159,122.48 BELVEDERE DEBRIS BOXES unlimited $ 21,121.46 unlimited $ 21,121.46 Less: Franchise Fees at 10% $ 2,112.15 $ 2,112.15 Less: 10% Profit Allowance $ 2,112.15 S 4112.15 $ 16,897.17 $ 16,897.17 CORTE MADERA DEBRIS BOXES unlimited $ 87,720.00 unlimited $ 87,720.00 Less: Franchise Fees at 20% $ 17,544.00 $ 17,544.00 Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 8,772.00 $ 8,772.00 SPECIAL EVENT COSTS $ - $ - $ 61,404.00 $ 61,404.00 TIBURON DEBRIS BOXES unlimited $ 58,477.30 unlimited $ 58,477.30 Less: Franchise Fees at 15.5% $ 9,063.98 $ 9,063.98 Less: 10% Profit Allowance S 5,847.73 $ 5,847.73 $ 43,565.59 $ 43,565.59 Street Cans STRAWBERRY DEBRIS BOXES 12 $ 12 $ Less: Franchise Fecs at 10% $ - $ - Less: 10% Profit Allowance $ $ - HOMESTEAD DEBRIS BOXES 36 $ 4,086.00 36 $ 4,086.00 Less: Franchise Fees at 0% $ - $ - Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 408.60 $ 08.60 $ 3,677.40 $ 3,677.40 COUNTY DEBRIS BOXES 0 _$ 2,667.00 0 $_2,667.00 Less: Franchise Fees at 18% $ 480.06 $ X80.06 Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 256.70 $ 266.70 $ 2,400,30 $ 2,400.30 TOTAL $ 287334 $ 2r 7,334 17 -- MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SUMMARY-SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) 12/31/2018 STREET PORTABLE ACTUAL COLLECTION SWEEPING TOILETS INCOME J Collection services revenue 16,401,926 $ 16,401,926 $ - Debris box revenue 1,210,696 1,210,696 Storage box revenue 31,960 31,960 Recycling redemption revenue 70,805 70,805 Street sweeping income - Portable Toilets 1,073,189 1,073,189 Damage Waiver 68,845 - 68,845 Miscellaneous revenue 22,205 22,205 Total revenue $ 18,879,626 $ 17,737,591 $ - $1,142,034 EXPENSES Accounting $ 43,400 $ 41,230 $ 2,170 Advertising and promotion 5,799 290 5,509 Computer expense 139,508 139,508 Depreciation 780,935 766,952 100 13,883 Dump expense 2,514,567 2,484,783 506 29,278 Road Impact Fees/Flat 202,433 202,433 Franchise Fees-% 2,499,117 2,499,117 Insurance(less Director) 519,687 488,506 5,197 25,984 Insurance-workers comp. 978,907 886,947 12,381 79,579 Interest 142,026 142,026 Legal and professional 171,804 171,804 Licenses-trucks 83,747 78,991 1,070 3,686 Licenses-other 31,434 23,148 8,286 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 29,609 29,609 General Office Expenses 256,282 240,905 2,563 12,814 JPA Office of waste management fees 250,512 250,512 Porta Potty Expenses 99,142 5,989 93,153 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,254 10,254 Salaries excluded and non franchise 1,502,466 976,587 70,370 455,510 Salaries and wages- Franchise 3,856,72.6 31856,726 Taxes -payroll 403,364 363,783 5,296 34,284 Taxes -real estate and business property 56,394 53,011 564 2,820 Telephone 29,445 27,678 294 1,472 Truck-parts repairs 575,498 550,096 5,755 19,647 Truck-tires 145,522 136,790 1,455 7,276 Truck-fuel and oil 805.812 757,464 8,058 40,291 Union - health and welfare 1,291,641 1,179,009 15,872 96,760 Union -pension 1,074,094 932,239 4,170 137,685 Utilities 41,841 39,331 418 2,092 Total expenses $ 18,541,966 S 17.335,716 $ 134,071 $1,072,179 INCOME (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS $ 337,659 S 401,875 __j___(134,071) $ 69,855 18 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. CURBSIDE COLLECTION REVENUES (1) 2019 (1) 2019/2020 2019/2020 2018 Service Change 2019 FRANCHISE PROJECTED ACTUAL Adjustment 12 MO PROJ FEES PROJ NET REVENUE Mill Valley 6,305,474.74 (1,094.00) 6,306,568.74 1,219,392.83 5,087,175.91 Belvedere 848,899.87 5,286.00 843,613.87 84,361.39 759,252.49 Corte Madera 4,213,052.06 1,578.00 4,211,474.06 849,494.81 3,361,979.25 Alto 372,969.42 (1,460.00) 374,429.42 15,288.88 359,140.55 Tiburon 3,295,098.79 (3,870.00) 3,298,968.79 455,376.26 2,843,592.53 County 814,005.77 1,961.00 812,044.77 146,168.06 665,876.71 Homestead 611,871.05 475.00 611,396.05 2.5,118.70 586;277.35 Strawberry 1,886,322.83 1,020.00 1,885,302.83 166,082.17 1,719,220.66 Almonte 408,654.92 (941.00) 409,595.92 7,502.74 402,093.18 Other/Debris 121,531.00 121,531.00 - 121,531.00 Total revenues 18,877,880.45 2,955.00 18,874,925.45 2,968,785.83 15,906,139.62 Less debris (1,210,696.00) (1,210,696.0 (124,357.36)_ ___(1,086,338.64)_ Net garbage revenues 17,667,184.45 2,955.00 17,664,229.45 2,844,42.8.47 14,819,800.98 (1)Curbside garbage revenues shown include franchise fees payable to the cities and districts. 19 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE COLLECTION REVENUES ACTUAL FOR THE YEAR OF 2018 MILL CORTE VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALMONTE OTHER TOTAL GARBAGE REVENUES $ 4,684,754 $ 617,588 S 3,067,912 $288,094 $ 2,680,095 $ 602,058 $ 460,324 $ 1,395,663 $ 306,815 $ - $ 14,103,303 RECYCLING REVENUES $ 665,989 $ 66,387 $ 551,357 $ 49,410 $ 361,057 $ 61,224 $ 69,933 $ 236,481 $ 51,804 $ - $ 2,113,643 DEBRIS REVENUES $ 272,894 $ 57,212 S 321,976 $ 21,642 $ 172,512 $ 67,580 $ 39,089 $ 98,801 $ 37,459 $121,531 $ 1,210,696 SCRAP REVENUES $ 22,012 $ 4,193 $ 14,082 $ 1,359 $ 13,564 $ 3,602 $ 4,385 $ 4,47_6 $ 3,132 $ 70,805 COLLECTION REVENUES $ 5,645,648 $ 745,380 S 3,955,328 $360,506 $ 3,227,228 $ 734,464 $ 573,731 $ 1,735,421 $ 399,210 $121,531 $ 17,498,447 FRANCHISE FEES PAID: 32.3% 4.3% 22.6% 2.1% 18.4% 4.20/. 3.3% 9.9% 2.3% --M 0.7% 100.0% GARBAGE 911,601 57,788 596,982 14,015 404,176 96,790 22,393 135,790 5,970 2,245,506 DEBRIS 5,458 5,721 64,395 26,739 11,211 - 9,880 - 123,405 RECYCLING - 6,199 102,974 - - 9,423 - 968 119,563 STREET SWEEPING - - - - _ - _ TOTAL (917,059) (69,708) (764 351) (14,015} (430,915) (117,424) (22,393) 145,670 _...._._....._( ) (6,938) (2_488,474 NET COLLECTION REVENUES $ 4,728,589 $ 675,672 $ 3,190,977 $346,491 $ 2,796,313 $ 617,040 $ 551,338 $ 1,589,751 $ 392,272 $121,531 $ 15,009,973 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 31.50% 4.50% 21.26% 2.31% 18.63% 4.11% 3.67% 10.59% 2.61% 0.81% 100.00% FRANCHISE FEES PERCENTAGES:: GARBAGE 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 5.00% 15.60% 18.00% 5.00% 10,00% 2.00% DEBRIS 2.00% 10.00% 20.00% 0.00% 15.50% 18.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% RECYCLING 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.00% 0.00% 0,00% 2.00% 20 �z juelq Allei ue ui @Bed sial MILL.VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC. DEBRIS BOX REVENUES MILE_ CORTE MISE. VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALMONTE AREAS TOTAL 2018 DEBRIS 272,894 57,212 321,976 21,642 172,512 67,580 39,089 98,801 37,459 121,531 1,210,696 4 YARD BOXES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL BOX REVENUE 272,894 57,212 321,976 21,642 172,512 67,580 39,089 98,801 37,459 121,531 1,210,696 PERCENTAGE 22.54% 4.73% 26.59% 1.79% 14.25% 5.58% 3.23% 8.16% 3.09% 10.04% 1QQ.00% Actual Franchise Fees (5,458) (5,721) (64,395) 0 (26,739) (11,211) 0 (9,880) 0 0 (123,4051 PROJECTED REVENUES 2019 TO'TALPROJECTED REVENUES 272,894 57,212 321,976 21,642 172,512 67,580 39,089 98,801 37,459 '121,531 1,210,696 x2% x10% x20% x 0% x15.5% x18% x 0% X`10% _ x o% x 0% EST.FRANCHISE FEES 5,458 5,721 64,395 0 26,739 12,164 0 9,880 0 0 124,357 NET PROJECTED REVENUES 267,436 51,491 257,581 21,642 145,773 55,416 39,089 88,92.1 37,459 121,531 1,086,339 22 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF DEPRECIATION EXISTING ASSETS NEW ASSETS TOTAL 2018 2019/2020 201912020 2019/2020 ACTUAL Projected FORECAST FORECAST BUILDING $ - $ - $ - BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 24,558 27,550 3,500 31,050 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 7,643 7,003 8,088 15,091 TRUCKS 498,409 493,720 94,286 588,005 EQUIPMENT(Tippers/Cans) 151,266 136,844 39,209 176,052 SUBTOTAL 681,876 665,116 145,082 810,198 STREET SWEEPING 100 100 - 100 DEBRIS TRUCKS 65,361 65,361 - 65,361 DEBRIS BOXES 19,715 21,767 5,357 27,124 PORTABLE TOILETS TRUCKS 6;149 18,448 - 18,448 PORTABLE TOILETS EQ. 7,734 15.163 - 15,163 TOTAL $ 780,935 $ 785,955 $ 150,439 $ 936,394 23 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC,d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF DEPRECIATION 2018-2019 Price Per Basis Est.life Annual Office 2 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 5 6,000.00 Tower PC Replacements 12 $870.00 $10,440.00 5 2,088.00 D0 PC'.s,112 Stations $40,440.00 $8,088.00 Building 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 10 3,500.00 Beckhart Water Recycle System $35,000.00 $3,500.00 Tippers/Containers 56 $601.00 $33,656.00 7 4,808.00 Con Fab 2 Yd Containers 100 $53.00 $5,300.00 7 757.14 Schaefer/96 Gallon Tipper Cans 3436 $51.66 $177,503.76 7 25,357.68 Schaefer/65 Gallon Brown&Green Tipper Cans $216,459.76 $30,922.82 Debris 10 $3,750.00 $37,500.00 7 5,357.14 Con Fab 5 Yard Dirt Boxes $37,500.00 5,357.14 Truck Equipment 20 $2,500.00 $50,000.00 7 7,142.86 Front End WiFi Cameras 10 $800.00 $8,000.00 7 1,142.86 Two-way Radios $58,000.00 8,285.71 Trucks 2 $330,000.00 $660,000.00 7 94,285.71 Heil Rear Loader $660,000.00 $94,285.71 Franchise $1,047,399.76 $150,439.39 Overall Total 1,047,399.76 150,439.39 24 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC, MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF LUMP EXPENSES 2016 ACTUAL AVG 2018 20192020 FORECAST 20192020 TONS SPER TON AMOUNT TONS $PERTON AMOUNT REDWOOD LANDFILL 0.4273 FaSS through G-g, 17,614.19 50 EO 098524.(38 17,014,19 5e.tU 1,024,909.72 26,445.04 O,D4 13.83 243,OCI .5%9r0wlh Com{ws; 11,19:1.V7 43.85 COV,755.63 11414.76 4807 146,7V8.0'3 57,953.10 0.43 1 grOwlh romy m cv: 0.00 a6o 000 0.00 0.00 1%9:01,411 Deme, 2,405.'10 5653 135 902.27 2,664,59 58 19 155 f152 31 19,090.04 13.S3 30,864 1%g70lwh;shit;tonnage from MRRC to Recwood Lots:N,7'Det:ris (241 431 5x.53 (13,040.04) (287,47) 5010 (15564.32) -1,916,28 13.133 r3,700) far eo5' 12rcyclinp 8,010.43 73.35 631614.33 8,702,64 87.50 768480 C6 7462.02 Oc6r (L1a,tx;gc) D,00 000 000 0.00 U.UO Din 5,81124 D 0 0.00 5,0543.5 0.70 000 0.00 do no;pay to-cu-,dJmping T..1 45,397,56 2743,20007 40,078.OF, 2.081,(3,17 50 23$,438.44 MARIN RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER 0,00 Gor6a,ou 0.00 OSCO 000 0.00 11000 0.00 0,00 Dob,. 7.045.94 103.01 200,44081 1,045.94 110.00 214,053.40 13,606 59 05,04 '27,741' 10,12 Lcs1:N,F Ocbri (105.34) 103.01 (20,12107) (105,34) 110.00 (21,480.02) -1,365.84 ! 65.84 (12823) 0.17 Rc�ycling 207.18 1750 3,625,01 4500 0.00 Ca,hG i,rtl (153.09 1153.09 j Cmm'I Fwxlwas;e 1.00 7500 75.60 1.00 11000 110.00 35.00 Yu,d Waite 12.01 80.60 1,070.16 1201 110.00 1,321,10 241.94 2.,624.78 185,105.71 2,417.60 193,997,50 8,891.88 0.00 MARIN SANITARY SERVICE 0.00 C'In WI Footlwn Ve 367.13 06,35 24,35871 307.13 5864 27 52650 -2,530.21 Recydln0 D�bti 0.00 000 0.00 ado 0,00 (44,36) 1%g-o,,/,h:shift tcnnage from MRRC 10 Redwood Tot I 367.13 24,358 71 367.13 21,52850 -2,830.21 WEST CONTRA COSTA SANITARY LANDFILL 0,00 Green Wa 7e CAD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 STREET SWEEPING DEBRIS 0,00 Marin Reeource R--y C__ 0_00 80.80 0.00 4.80 110.00 500.00 506.00 65.64 302. Weighing Charges 0,00 0.00 WASTE MGMT DAVIS STREET RECYCLING eaitaa Cardboaml 225.44 O.OL' O.UV 225.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTALS :0,807.91 2452,673:9 49.092.86 2,897,670.59 245,006.11 j,h1t.Yf, RECAP RECYCLING Racyclhg 6,817.01 635,240.14 8,782,84 768,480.88 Fath CarJl .,C 870.43 0.00 225.44 0.00 G:aen W.v4x 11571,11 5113,269.70 1!,704A3 571,60853 21,2.08.15 1,15150684 20503.01 1,340.74041 RECAP Garbayo ;7614,19 008524.68 17,614.10 1,024,000.72 Jo6iis 4,351.10 336,409,08 4610.53 369,105.71 .s:WF'Dub,n, (430,77) (33.709.:1) (462.81) (:17951.20) S-,;,D'!b" 0.00 000 4.6D 50fi,69 Din 5,81124 -__ 0.00 5 86935 0.00 --27,339.76 1,301,7(14.6:1 27,035 D6 1,3575sD.18 48,O37 U1 bf,ji __ 14 2673AO 060388/ 55.68 280 1,670�0 25 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC, d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE EXPENSES Actual Forecast 2018 2019120 Property and General Liability 350,616 3857907 Umbrella Policy 191,365 192,698 Director Life-omitted Other 32,526 32,251 574,507 610,856 Total Non WC insurance 574,507 610,856 Workers Compensation 887,974 893,600 Total Workers Comp 887,974 893,600 Total Non Benefit insurance 1,462,481 1,504,456 Excludes Director Life Insurance 26 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE PAYROLL EXPENSES -WAGES & SALARIES 2018 2019/2020 Annual Paid Annual Paid Actual Forecast Garbage and Debris 1,511,362 1,537,927 Recycling 1,136,288 1,082,974_ Street Sweeping (separately allocated) 70,370 73,575 Porta Potties 376,148 407,877 Shop 723,113 797;718 Office 461,962 519,203 Contract 24,000 54,000 Executive 1,132,483 1,124,272 Other (76,534) - Totals 5,359,192 5,597,545 Payroll taxes 403,364 430,805 Health Insurance 1,291,641 1,441,428 Total 7,054,197 7,469,778 27 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Garbage Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Almonte Route #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6&#9 #7 #+8 #10 Total Man Hours 2.50 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00_ 1.00 0.00 20.00 Route#00 _--' Truck Hours-pick up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Man Hours 9.00 0.00 31.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 Route#1 '�-'- -'�---`-- Truck Hours 9.00 0.00 23.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 Route#2 ---... ...._-.._....... - - Truck Hours 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 Man Hours 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 32.00 Route#3 --- -- Truck Hours 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 32.00 Man Flours 16.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 32.00 Route#4 Truck Hours 16.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 32.00 Man Hours 33.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 10.50 0.00 0.00 48.00 Route#5 Truck Hours 25.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 10.50 0.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 34.50 0-00 0.00 3.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 Route#6 Truck Hours 34.50 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 6.00 8.00 2.50 2.00 26.50 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 48.00 Route#7 Truck Hours 6.00 8.00 2.50 1.00 19.50 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 40.00 Man flours 4.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 5.25 0.00 0.00 21,00 0.00 32.00 Route#8 - - _ ___ _.___..._._.__ ---- Thick Hours 4.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 5.25 0.00 01.00 21.00 0.00 Man hours 21.75 0.00 9.50 0.00 0.00 1.50 3.75 0.00 11.50 48.00 Route#9 -- Truck Hours - 14.75 0.00 9.50 0.00 0.00 1.50 2.75 0.00 11.50 40.00 28 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Garbage Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alta Tiburon County Ilomestead Strawberry Almonte Route #1 #2 #3 #4 r5 #6&#9 #7 #8 410 Total Man Hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 1.00 0.00 3,00__ 0.00 32.00 Route#10 ��'� Truck Hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 32.00 Man Hours 24.00 8.50 0.00 6.00 6.50 0.00 0.00 :3.00 0.00 48.00 Route#11 Truck Hours 16.00 8.50 0.00 6.00 6.50 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 0.00 7.75 10.50 0.00 17.50 0.75 0.00 3.50 0.00 40.00 Route#40 Truck Hours 0.00 7.75 10.50 0.00 17.50 0.75 0.00 3.50 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 23.50 0.00 10.50 0.00 0.00 3.25 2.75 0.00_ 0.00 40.00 Route#41 W� Truck Hours 23.50 0.00 10.50 0.00 0.00 3.25 2.75 0.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 2.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 16.00 Saturday Route Truck Hours 2.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 16.00 Man Hours 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 8.00 Sunday Route Truck Hours 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 8.00 Man Hours Per Week 178.75 24.25 139.00 13.25 101.25 15.50 17.00 63.50 11.50 564.00 TOTALS Truck Hours per Week 153.25 24.25 115.00 12.25 93.75 15.50 16.00 62.50 11.50 504.00 29 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Garbage Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Almonte Route #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6&#9 97 48 410 Total SUMMARY Man Hours Per Week 178.75 24.25 139.00 13,25 101.25 15.50 17.00 63.50 11.50 564.00 multipy by Weeks in Year 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 Total Man Hours Per Year 9,295.00 1,261.00 7,228.00 689.00 5;265.00 806.00 884.00 3,302..00 598.00 29,328.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 624.00 0.00 1,040.00 0.00 104.00 0.00 0.00 312.00 0.00 2,080.00 Clean up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spare/Swing Hours 659.22 89.43 512.62 48.87 373.40 57.16 62.70 234.18 42.41 2,080.00 TOTAL. Labor Hours per Year 10,578.22 12350.43 8,780.62 737.87 5,742.40 863.16946.70 3,848.18 640.41 33,488.00 ............---._.....- - --------- -- Garbage Share 0.32 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.18 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.02 1.00 Compost Share 0.32 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.04 010 0.02 1.00 Recycling Share 0.30 0.05 0.21 0.02 0.19 0.04 0.04 0.1 i 0.04 1.00 0.00 0.32 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.18 0.03 0.03 0.11 0.02 1.00 Truck Hours per Week 153.25 24.25 115.00 12.25 93.75 15.50 16.00 62.50 11.50 504.00 multipy by Weeks in Year 52.00 _ 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00_ 52.00 52.00 Total Truck Hours per Year 7,969.00 1,261.00 5,980.00 637,00 4,875.00 806.00 832.00 3,250.00 598.00 26,208.00 Clean up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 624.00 1,040.00 104.00 312.00 2.080.00 Total Truck Hours per Year 8,593.00 1,261.00 7,020.00 637.00 4,979.00 806.00 832.00 3,562.00 598.00 28,288.00 Debris Total Hours (100%single driver) Total Labor Hours 6,240.0 less:Debris hours on Rout, 30% 50% 5% 15% 2,080 Total Truck Hours 4,160.00 Spare/Swing (one man at all times,no additional truck hours) Total Hours Labor Hours 2,080.0 One Man 1.0 Total Labor Hours 659.22 89.43 512.62 48.87 373.40 57.16 62.70 234.18 42.41 2,080.0 30 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Compost Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Seivedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Almonie R011te t2it3 tLA 'J+'S P6$#9 iz L8 #10 Total Man Hours 12.00 0.50 10.50 0.00 5.50 2.50 0.00 9.00 0.00 Routs#G1 Truck Hours 12.00 0.50 10.50 0.00 5.50 2.50 0.00 _ 9.00 0.00 _ 40.00 Man Hours 3.00 O.OD 8.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 40.00 Route#G2 Truck Hours 3.00 0-00 8.OD 0.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 12.00 0.00 w 40.00 Man Hours 21.50 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.54 0.5D 5.00_ - 5.06 2.50 40.DO Route It G3 Truck Hours 21.50 0.00 O.DD 5.00 0.50 0.50 5.00 5.00 2.50 40.00 Man Hours 3.00 0.00_ 31.50 0.00 4.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 Route#G4 Truck Hours 3.00 0.00 31.50 0.00 4.00 1.50 0-00 O.OD Q00 40.00 Man Hours 34.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 2-50 0.00 2.00 40.00 Route#GS Tnrck Hours 34.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 1.50 2.50 0.00 2.00 40.00 Mari flours 0.00 12.25 0.00 1.50 19.75 4.50 D.00 2.00 _ 0.00- 40.00 Route#G6 Truck Hours 0.00 ?2.25 0.00 1.50 19.75 4.50 _ 0.00 _ 2.00 D.00 40.00 Marr Hours 15.00 2.00 7.0.0 1.00 4.00 4.50 5.00 G.00 1.50 40.00 Route#G7 Truck Hours 15.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 4.00 4.50 5.00 0.00 ^_ 1.50 _ 40.00 Man Hours Per Week _ 88.50 14.75 57.00 7__50 50:75 15,00 12.50 28.00 6.00 280.00 TOTALS Truck Hours per Week 88.50 14.75 57.00 7,50 50.75 15.00 12.50 28.00-.-..--- 6.00 280.00 SUMMARY Man Hours Per Week 88.50 14.75 57.00 7.50 50.75 15.00 12.50 28.00 6.00 280.00 multipy by Weeks in Ypar 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 _ 52.00 52,00 52.00 52.00 Total Man Hours Per Year 4,602.00 767.00 2,964.00 390.00 2,639.00 780.00 T� 650.00 1,456.00 312.00 14,550.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 Clean up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spare/Swing Hours 32.8.71 54.79 211.71 27.86 188.50 55.71 46.43 104.00 22.29 1,040.00 TOTAL Labor flours per Year 4,930.71 821.79 _3,175.711 417.86 2,827.50 835.71 6_96.43 1,560.00 334.29 15,600.00 0.32 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.02 1.00 31 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,SNC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Compost Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Co e Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Hor7estead Strawberry ry Almonte Route it 1 #2 ti4 #5 i&#9 #7 #$ #10 total 0.28 0.07 0.21 0.02 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.03 1.00 0.04 _0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Truck Hours per Week 88.50 14.75 57.00 7.50 50.75 15.00 12.50 28.00 6.00 2.80.00 multipy by Weeks in Year 52.00 52.00 52,00 52,00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 Total Truck Hours per Year 4,602.00 767.00 2,964.00 390.00 2,639.00 780.00 650.00 1,456.00 312.00 14,5GOA0 Clean up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Truck Hours per Year 4,602.00 767.00 2,964.00 390.00 2,639.00 780.00 650.00 1,456.00 312.00 14,560.00 32 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. Mitt_VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Recycling Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Alto Tlbumn County Homestead Strawberry Nmonte lot�i Valley Belvedere Madera #9 #7 £ "�0 -45 96 Route #k1 #2 #3 ##4 a.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 20.50 0.00 0.00 10.50 0.00 40.00 Man Hours -_-__------ 10.50 0.00 40.00 Route#10 GO 1.00 20.50 0.00 0.00 Truck Hours 8.00 0-00 6,00 20.Q0 1 0.00 11_QU 0_00 40.00 Man Hours 0.00 1.Oa 1.00 .00 -- Route It 2 1 00 6.00 1.00 20.00 l.00 __ 0.00 11.00 O.OD 40.00 Truck 4-lours 0.00 _ 0.00 0.00 4.75 0.04 Man Hours 1.00 40.00 26.50 0.00 4.00 3.75 -. _ Route##3 Truck Hours 4 0.00 0.00 4.75 0.00 -1.00 40.O0 26.50. 0.00 .04 3.75 . 0.00 4.Od O.U0 40.40 0.00 4Q00 0.00 -----------..._-----•-------- 00 0.00 Man Hours - QUO 40.04 Route#t 4 O.Ofl 0.00 0.000.00- 0.00 Truck Hours 0.010 0.00 40.44 _- 00 0.00 2.Qa 1.00 0.00 0.00_ 40.00 Man Hours 37.00 -- 40.00 Route##5 0.00 1.00 0.40 0.OU 0.40 0.04 0.00 2.G Truck Hours- 37.00- - 0 dU 14.50 0.00 0.0.0 18.00 7.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours ---_-------- 0.00 40. 00 Route#6 _ _18.00 7.54 0.00 0.00 _.._ 0.00 0.00 ---_ -----•-- 0.00 14.54 - -...---___.-._.Truck Hours Hours -.._ -- 6.00 2-00 2.75 40.00 13.25 - 3.00 II.OU 1.Od 2.00 2.00O _-- Man Hours .. � �--_ - Route##7II 1. d' 2.00 2.00 6.00 "2.00 2.75.._..----40.00 Truck Hoursrs 13.25 3.04 40 - - _ _..-____ 7,00 9.00 40.00 14.00 O.a4 7.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00_ 3.00 ----- - -- Man!-lours Y -_40.00 . Route#II 0.00 3,00 7.00 9,00 Truck Hours 14.00 _ -- - --- --- .�- 2-00 0.00 0.00 4.00 - 40.00 12.00 4.00 6.50 __._. __ 1-1.00 0.50 --'---- DAan Hours 4p,G0 Route##R9 2.OD 4.00 8.00 0.00 Truck Hours - '11.46 0.50 12.00 Q.00 6.50 33 MILL VALLE.Y RE=FUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Recycilvig Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Como Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Almonle Route J✓1 #2 t13 -44 L5 tt6&; #7 iFF3 tk10. Tolal 0.00 Man Flours Route R 10 - - O.Do Truck Hours _. _ --- 0.00 Mart Hours 0.00 Truck Hours 0.00 Marr Hours _..- Truck!-lours -- -----_--------...._.._.----•---_--- 0.00 Marl Flours -- -- -- -- 0.00 Mari Hours _......... Saturday Route fl.11l} Truck I lours _ O.CO Mari Hours Sunday Route U.UO -I-ruck Flours _..-_-- - ----.._._.-_.-_..�-------- Man Hours her W ee{< 109.75 19.00 77.00 6.75 67.00 14.50 14.75 3II.i0�--_12.75 360.00 TOTALS - 77.00 6.75 67.00 1Q.50_ 14-75 38.50 12.75 360.00 Truck Hours per Week 109.75 19.00 SUMMARY 14.75 38.50 12.75 360.00 Man Hours Per Week 109.75 19.00 77.00 6.7r� 67.00 14.50 muldpy by Weeks in Year 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 _ 52.D0 _52.UD 52.00 52•DO Total Man Hours Per Year 5,707.00 988.00 4,004.00 351.00 3,484.00 754.00 767.00 2,002.00 663.00 18,720.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clean up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spam/Swing Hours 634.11 109.78 444.89 39.00 387.11 83.78 85.22 222.44 73.67 2,080.00 -- TOTAL Labor Hours per Year 6„311.11 1,097.78 4,448.89 390.00 3,871.11 837.78 852..22 2,224.44 136.67 20,800.0 34 MILL..VALLEY REFUSC SFVV10ES,INC. ALLOCATION S'T'ATISTICS Historical-2018 MILL CORTG VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURQN COUNTY HOMES"1'EAi.)S_IRA�BERItY AL.MON"1'E }'` DEBRIS CLEAN t _I'U"fA1=- 1 11 OF BILLINGS 5,500 - 934 3,732 376 3,468 810 967 1,511 673 U 0 17,97 t 2 LABOR HOURS 10,142 1,451 7,571 740 6,063 1,116 1,130 3,466 768 6,240 0 38,688 3 TRUCK IIOURS 8,294 1,352 6,708 637 5,291 1,040 1,001 3,250 71.5 4,160 0 32,448 4 CLEAN UP LABOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0 5 JtZVENUES(W/DEBRIS,W/0) 4,438,299 649,346 2,957,485 334,714 2,722,748 566,208 524,706 1,485,886 365,211 92,296 0 14,136,900 6 REVENUE (W/O DEBRIS,) 4,266,531 593,352 2,688,782 316,024 2,569,762 538,522 478,901 1,420,430 336,640 U U 1308,944 0 30,368 7 LABOR HRS(WK)DEBRIS&CIU) 9,518 1,451 6,531 740 5,959 1,116 1,130 3,154 768 a 0 30,3G8 8 LABOR HRS(WIO DEBRIS) 9,518 1,451 6,531 740 5,959 1,.116 1,130 3,154 768 U 9 TRUCK HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 7,670 1,352 5,668 637 5,187 1,040 1,001 2,938 715 0 0 26,208 3 4 5 67 8 9 10 11 -- 12 13 1 11 OF BILLINGS 37.24% 6.32% 2527% 2.55% 23.48% 5.48% 6.55% 10.23% 4.560u 0.00% 0.00% 121.G9% 2 LABOR IIOUR5 2620% 3.75% 1956% 1.91% 15.67% 2.88% 2.92% 8.96% 1.98% 16.12% 0.00% 9996°A 3 TRUCK HOURS 25.56% 4.17% 20.67% 1.96% 16.31% 321% 3.08% 10.02% 220% 12.82% 0.00°% 100.00% 0.00% 4 CLEAN 1.11'LABOR 5 REVENUES(W/DEBRIS) 32.01% 4.68% 21.33% 2AI% 19.64% 4.08% 3.78°% 10.72% 2.63% 0.67% 0.00°/ 1OL97 0 6 REVENUES(W/O DEBRIS,) 33.25% 4.62% 20.95% 2.46°% 20.03% 4,20% 3.73% 11.07% 2.62% 0.00% 0.00% 102.93% 7 LABOR HRS(W/O DEBRIS&C/U) 31.33% 4.78% 21.501/0 2.43% 19.61% 3.67% 3.72% 10.38% 2.53% 0.00% 0.00°% 99.95°% 8 LABOR HRS(W/0 DEBRIS) 31.33°% 4.78°% 21.50% 2.43% 19.61% 3.67% 3.72°% 10.38°% 2.53% 0.00°% 0.00% 99.951/. 9 TRUCK HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 29.27% 5.16% 21.63°% 2.43% 19.79% 3.97% 3.82% 11.21% 2.73% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 201912020 FORECAST MILL CORTE VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURUN COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY AF_.MONTE DEBRIS CLEAN UP l'OTAI 5it ,53, 942 3,744 382 3,485 806 964 1 OF BILLINGS 1,514 676 0 0 18,044 1,546 12,441 2,537 2,495 7,020 1,711 2,080 0 71�)> 2. LABOR HOURS-All cans 21,850 3,270 16,405 2 3 TRUCK HOURS 18,902 3,016 13,988 1,378 11,102 2,340 249 7,020 1,5"J3 2,080 0 63,640 4 CLEAN UT'LABOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a U U 5 REVENUES(W/DEBiZIS,W/O) 5,161,690 765,777 37423,217 364,115 2,866,901 671,614 592,540 1,141,320 409,560 121,970 (1 16,118,705 6 REVENUES(WJO DEBRIS,) 4,943,375 714286 3,165,636 342,473 2,721,128 616,198 553,451 1,652,399 372,101 0 0 15,081,048 7 LABOR MRS(W/O DEBRIS&C/U) 20,567 3,181 14,853 1,497 11,964 2,479 2,433 7,086 1,669 0 0 65,728 8 LABOR MZS(W/O DEBRIS) 20,567 3,181 14,853 1,497 11,964 2,479 2,433 7,086 1,669 0 0 65,728 9 "]RUCK HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 18,278 3,016 12,948 1,378 10,998 21340 2,249 6,705 1,573 U 0 59,488 3 q 5 b 7 8 9 10 11 12 _ 13 _ I tl OF BII.I,INGS 30.65% 5.22% 2(}.75% 2.,2% 19.31% 4.47% 5.47% 8.39°/ 3.38% 0.89% 0.00%% 100.00% 2. LA13OR HOURS 30.36% 4.54% 22.80% 2.15% 17.29% 3.5?.% 347% ta.Gl% 2.38% 2.89% 0.00% 100.00°% 3 'T'RUCK HOURS 29.70% 4.74% 21.98% 2.17% 17.44% 3.68% 3.53% 11.031% 2.17% 327% (1.00°A 11!0.00% 4 CLEAN I lI'LABOR 5 REVEES(WIDEBRIS,W/0) 3202°% 4.75% 21.24% 2.26% 17.79°% 4.17% 3.68% 10.80% 2.54% 0.76% 0.00% 10Q00% NU 6 REVENUES(W/O DEBRIS,) 32.78% 4.74% 20.99°% 227°% 18.04% 4.09% 3.67% 10.96% 2..47% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 7 LABOR URS(W/O DEBRIS&C/U) 3129% 4.84% 22.60% 2.28% 18.20% 3.77% 3.70% 10.78°% 2.54% 0.00% O.aa% Ia0.00% 8 LABOR RRS(W/O DEBRIS) 31.29°/ 4.84% 22.60°% 228% 2820% 3.77% 3.70°% 10.78% 2.54% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 9 TRUCK HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 30.73°% 5.07% 21.77% 2.32% 18.49%0 3.93% 3.78% €1.28% 2.64% 0.00% 0.00% 100.001/. 35 Mill Valley Refuse Services Analysis of Imputed Rent for Fair Return on Investment 114 Front Street location is owned by MVRS yet the only costs that provide any return are: Building Deprecation 31,050 Commercial Property Insurance 43,756 Property Taxes 56,394 131,200 Monthly Annual Fair Market Rent 36,637 439,644 est. 2015 Bldg Depreciation 31,050 Insurance 43,756 Property Taxes 56,394 Avoided Costs 131,200 Net Cost 308,444 Fair return on Investment CM Cost + 10% 30,844 All Others OM 34,272 AIIocCost Billings Mill Valley 30.65% 10,505 Belvedere 5.22% 1,789 Corte Madera 20.75% 6,400 Alto 2.12% 726 Tiburon 19.31% 6;619 County 4.47% 1;531 Homestead 5.34% 1,831 Strawberry 8.39°/ 2,876 Almonte 3.75% 1,284 36 I'MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICES,INC. ,',LL0CJ'Vl'I0N STATISTICS 3ILLINGS: Historical Counts 3'rf�AWBLM ALMONTE DEBIUS CLI:,.AN UT m 1, CORTY., TIBURON TOTAL VALLEY m;LvF-DERf.-- MADERA ALTO Ot)N�"J-V 110TAFSTEAD As uf'1/1 2,702 729 914 862 632 0 13,966 ResidCratial 4,242 956 2,T18 252 87 Is 4 65 17 0 661 Commerical 292, 10 149 19 0 213 67 8 39 15 52 1 2 25 Apwtm--nts 952 653 14,940 236 2.841 747 920 �.0)6 ACTUAL 4,601 874 2,966 As of 1/1 256 2,697 732 907 856 031 0 13,959 4250 855 2,775 17 50 18 0 569 Coroulcrical 267 10 118 12 73 26 3 0 214 Aputm,�,L, 66 8 39 15 54 1 2 14,742 652 0 0 TO 17 A C'T UA L 4,583 873 2,932 2,824 750 913 932 As,of 2128 873 628 0 14,069 Resideutial 4,275 848 2,794 1462 2,731 740 918 1,652 commurical 729 39 367 29 234 45 14 159 36 0 2,313 --- ApartmuriLs 527 55 583 91 520 21 32 482 12 0 �018 ACTUAL 5,531 942 3,744 382 3,485 806 964 1,514 676 0 0 18,044 262 7,731 740 918 873 14,069 Residential 4,275 948 2,794 234 45 14 159 36 0 1,652 Commerical 729 39 367 29 21 32 1182 17. 0 2,323 Apartments 527 55 583 91 520 1 1 8,N4 2019f2020 PROJECTED 5,531 .. ...942 3,744 392 3,485 806 964 1,514 67 6 0 0 Com nen iol no d Apartment counts normalized in 2019 to account for size and COMPICKiLY of 3CZOUUt and create comparability to Tes i cl-tidl- 37 MIL_!_VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE DISPOSAL EXPENSE PASS THROUGH Sweep Garbage Debris Debris _ Total Green Waste Recycling TOTAL TONNAGE - 17,614.19 - 4,147.72 4.60 21,766.51 '11,782.92 8,782.64 RATE FOR PROFIT ALLOWANCE $0.00 $0.00 - $0.00 �v - TOTAL FOR PROFIT ALLOWANCE $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,02 ,541 $506 -- a'1,379,017 570,34"1.43 768,480.88 TOTAL DUMP EXPf=NSi= 4,970 $353 TOTAL FOR PASS THROUGI 1 $1,024,970 $ 53,541- 41 - $506- -__$1,379,017_ Rate Cap for Profit Mill Valley $ 58.19 $ 58.19 $ 58.19 $ 48.07 $ 86.24 TOTAL FOR PROFIT ALLOWANCE $1,025,047 $241,374 $268 51,266,689 $566,405 $757,388 TOTAL_DUMP EXPENSE $1,024,970 $353,541 $506 $1,379,017 $570,347 $768,481 TOTAL FOR PASS THROUGH ($77) $112,168 $238 $112,329 $3,942 - $11,092 GARBAGE-ALLOCATION _ 31-29% $ 35,149 $ 35,149 Mill Valley 31_ 1,233-64 3,470.9?_ Belvedere 4.84% $ 66,730 $ 66,730 Corl.e Madera 22.60% $ 311,617 $ 311,617 Alto 2.28% $ 31,405 $ 31,405 Tiburon 18.20% $ 251,005 $ 251,005 $ 57_,021 County 3.77% $ 52,021 51,039 Homestead 3.70% $ 51,039 ,i, Strawberry 10.78% $ 148,678 $ 148,678 Almonte 2.54% $ 35,016 $ 35,016 100.OU°l° $ 982,666 982,660 Calculation based upon separate rate 38 Mill Valley Refuse Services, Inc dba 2019/2020 Mill Valley Refuse Services Schedule of Road Impact Fees and Other Flat Fees Included in Franchise Fees Road Impact Fees Jurisdiction Amount Mill Valley 137,700.00 Escalating at 2% County 39,082.00 176,782.00 Tiburon Admin Fee 6,000.00 6,000.00 Corte Madera Admin, Fee 9,000.00 9,000.00 County Zero Waste Fee 13,351 .00 13,351.00 Total Fees 205,133,00 39 ■ ■ mill Valley ReService, Inc . r 2019 Dual S ■ ate Appimication MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE MILL CORTE 2019/2020 FORECAST VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALMONTE DEBRIS TOTAL Revenue(net of franchise fees) $5,161,690 $ 765,777 $3,423,217 $ 364,115 $ 2,866,901 $ 671,614 $ 592,540 S 1,741,320 $409,560 $ 121,970 $ 16,,18,705 Add:Franchise fees 1,219,393 84,361 849,495 15,289 455,376 146,168 25,119 166,082 /,503 - 2,968,786 6,381,083 _850,138 4,272,712 379,404 3,322,277 817,782 617,659 1,907,402 417,063 121,970 19,087,490 Total Operating Costs $4,874,083 $ 727,421 $3,309,407 $ 340,290 $ 2,733,227 $ 637,651 $ 555,746 $ 1,635,034 $383,238 $ 80,310 $ 15,276,408 Add:Franchise fees 1,219,393 84,361 849,495 15,289 455,376 146,168 251119 166,082 7,503 2,968,786 Adjustments: Debris and street cans/(ff and profit) (21,699) (4,224) (26,316) - (14,912) (747) (409) - (68,306) Portable Toilet Overage 18,484 18,484 Corte Madera&Tiburon City Services dump (4,407) (1,469) (5,876) RecyciingDumpingFeeAd;ustment-prioryear $ (41,262) $ (6,809) $ (29,230) $ (3,111) $ (24,825) $ (5,282) $ (5,077) $ (15,143) $ (3,551) $ (134,293) Corte Madera Officer Pension 3c (20,158) (20,158) Tota;gross operating costs 6,030,516 800,750 4,097,275 352,468 3,147,395 777,790 575,379 1,785,973 387,189 80,310 18,035,045 Less:Pass through expenses Excess Landfill Disposal expenselton (35,149) (9,611) (44,884) (36,153) (125,797) Franchise fees (1,219,393) (84,361) (849,495) (15,289) (455,376) (146,168) (25,119) (166,082) (7,503) - (2,968,786) Road impact fees (137,700) (39,082) (176,782) One-half JPA fees (54,533) (8,090) (36,166) (3,847) (30,289) (7,096) 16,260) (18,397) (4,327) (1,289) (170,293) Mill Valley Excess Green Waste Cap (1,234) (1,234 Mill Valley Excess Recycle Cap -Tiburon Street Sweeping (9,472) (9,472) Admin.Fees CEv1/T1BfZero Waste Cnty {9,000) (6,000) (13,351} (28,3511 Profit basis 4,582,508 698,687 3,157,730 333,332 2,610,105 572,093 544,001 1,601,494 375,360 79,022 14,554,331 Operating Ratio Allowance(90%) 509,167 77,632 315,773 37,037 290,012 63,566 60,445 177,944 41,707 7,902 1,581,184 Add back passthrough expenses: Excess Landfill Disposal expense/ton 35,149 9,611 44,884 - 36,153 - - - - - 125,797 Road impact fees 137,700 - - - - 39,082 - - - - 176,782 One-half JPA fees 54,533 8,090 36,166 3,847 30,289 7,096 6,260 18,397 4,327 1,289 170,293 Mill Valley Excess Green Waste Cap 1,234 1,234 Mill Valley Excess Recycle Cap Return on Rental Investment 10:505 1,789 6,400 726 6,619 1,531 1,831 2,876 1,284 33,560 Actual Overweight ChargesPY 16,332 1,006 3,940 417 - 21,695 Tiburon Street Sweeping 9,472 9,472 Admin.Fees CMlTIB/Zero Waste Cnty 13,351 - 13,351 Franchise fees at current rates 1,272,697 88,535 891,223 15,856 477,712 152,938 26,244 172,749 7,828 - 3,105,781 Total revenue requirement 6,619,824 885,350 4,456,116 390,797 3,460,778 849,656 638,780 1,973,459 430.506 88,212 19,793,480 Net Excess(Deficiency) (238,741) (35,212) (183,404) (11,393) (138,501) (31,875) (21,121) (66,057) (13,442) 33,757 (705,990) Allocated debris deficiency 8,458 1,773 9,979 671 5,347 2,095 1,212 3,062 1,161 (33,757) _ Net Excess(Deficiency) (230,283) - (33,439) (173,425) (10,722) (133,154) (29,780) (19,910) (62,995) (12,281) (705,990) Percentage Excess(Deficiency) -3.61% -3.93% -4.06% -2.83% -4.01% -3.64% -3.22% -3.30% .2.94% -3.70% Scheduled franchise fee increase 0-00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% D.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total Percentage Excess(Deficiency) -3.61% -3.93% -4.06% -2.83% -4.01% -3.64% -3.22% -3.30% -2.94% 1 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE COLLECTION REVENUES FORECAST FOR YEAR 2019/2020 MILL CORTE VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALMONTE DEBRIS TOTAL GARBAGE REVENUES 5,403,686 720,014 3,374,141 305,778 2,765,399 683,241 502,374 1,562,021 323,333 15,639,986 RECYCLING REVENUES 665,989 66,387 551,357 49,410 361,057 61,224 69,933 236,481 51,804 2113.643 DEBRIS REVENUES 272,894 57,212 321,976 172,512 67,580 98,801 990,975 SCRAP REVENUES _ TOTAL 6,342,569 843,614 4,247,474 355,187 3,298,969 812,045 572,307 1,897,303 375,137 18,744,604 GARBAGE 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 5.00% 15.50% 18.00% 5.00% 10.00% 2.00% DEBRIS 2.00% 10.00% 20.00% 0.00% 15.50% 18.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% RECYCLING 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% FRANCHISE FEES 1,219,393 84,361 849,495 15,289 455,376 146,168 25,119 166,082 7,503 2,968,786 Average franchise fee rate 19.23% 10.00% - 20.00% 4.06% 13.80% 18.00% 4.11% 8.75% 1.82% W DEBRIS REVENUES 21,642 39,089 37,459 121,531 219,721 SCRAP REVENUES 21,451 4,086 13,723 1,325 13,218 3,510 4,273 4,362 3,052 69,000 STORAGE BOX RENTALS 10,068 1,439 6,794 738 5,954 1,314 1,174 3,385 835 259 31,960 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 6,995 1,000 4,721 513 4,137 913 816 2,352 580 180 22,205 NET COLLECTION.REVENUES 5,161,690 765,777 3,423,217 364,115 2,866,901 671,614 592,540 1,741,320 409,560 121,970 16,118,705 PERCENTAGE OF NET REVENUE 32.02% 4,75% 21.24% 2.26% 17.79% 4.17% 3.68% 10.80% 2.54% 0.76°/ 100.00% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.01% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0'70 0.0`70 0.01% 0.01% 2018 Garbage Revenue 4,684,754 617,588 3;067,912 288,094 2,680,095 602,058 460,324 1,395,663 306,815 14,103,303 Less(Plus)Res.Service Adjustment! (1,094) 5,286 1,578 (1,460) (3,870) 1,961 475 1,020 (941) 2,955 Commercial&Apartment Service Adj (36,000) - (36,000) (2,400) - - - (12,000) (3,000) (89,400) Plus Jan to Sept/Rate Increase Adj 681,838 107,712 271,807 13,823 81,435 83,144 42,525 155,378 12,577 1,450.238 Expected 2019 Net Garbage Revere 5,403,686 720,014 3,374,141 305.778 2,765,399 683,241 502,374 1,562,021 323,333 15,639,986 2 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE PROJECTED FINANCIAL ACTIVITY 12/31/2018 2019/2020 ACTUAL FORECAST INCOME Collection services revenue 16,401,926 17,753,629 Debris box revenue 1 ,210,696 1,210,696 Storage box revenue 31,960 31,960 Recycling redemption revenue 70,805 69,000 Miscellaneous revenue 22,205 22,205 Total revenue 17,737,591 19,087,490 EXPENSES Accounting 41,230 52,250 Advertising and promotion 290 603 Computer expense 139,508 130,063 Depreciation 766,952 999,111 Dump expense 2,484,783 2,429,145 Franchise fees 2,499,117 2,968,786 Insurance 488,506 574,205 Insurance - workers comp. 886,947 809,654 Interest 142,026 187,000 Legal and professional 171,804 125,000 Licenses - other 23,148 31,200 Licenses - trucks 78,991 81,052 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 29,609 30,763 General Office expenses 240,905 299,917 JPA Office of waste management fees 250,512 340,586 Road impact fees 202,433 205,133 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,254 10,040 Salaries and wages - franchise 3,856,726 3;991 ,822 Salaries and wages - officers/non franchise 976,587 1,054,005 Street Sweeping Costs 134,071 148,300 Taxes - payroll 363,783 388,343 Taxes - real estate and business property 53,011 55,078 Telephone 27,678 28,540 Truck - fuel 757,464 786,943 Truck - parts repairs 550,096 547,038 Truck - tires 136,790 142,125 Union - health and welfare 1,179,009 1,288,739 Union - pension 932,239 1 ,042,420 Utilities 39,331 40,275 Total expenses 17,469,787 18,788.135 INCOME (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS 267,804 299,356 3 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 201912020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16_118.705 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999,111 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,14.5. Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 Building!Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 Office Rent-imputed - - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 - 55,078 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 Union-pension 1,042,42Q 1,042,420 1,042.420 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40.275 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - Total expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 (286,670) 15,036.824 -------------- INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495,855) 795,210 286,t%0 1,081,880 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34,272 Imputed Retum,on Rent-Cost PIUS 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 4 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 201912020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED MILL VALLEY ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME _ Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118.705 16,118,705 16,118,705 5,161,690.22 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 30.65°/ 16,016.11 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 32.02% 192.95 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 32.02% 41,650.07 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999,111 8 31,29% 312,630.10 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429.145 9 30.73% 746,367.58 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 30.36% 1/4,333.10 Insuiance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 31.29% 253,347.26 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 3 29.70% 55,534.72 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 32.02% 40,028.73 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 29.70% 24,070.63 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 32.021% 9,991.21 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 32.02°% 9,851.38 Office Rent-imputed - - 5 32.02% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 32.02% 96,04227 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 32.02% 109,065.89 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT 137,700.00 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10.040 7 31.29°% 3,141.71 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 32.78°/ 213,494.64 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 37991,822 7 31.29% 1,249,073.45 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 29.70 Taxes-payroil 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 31.29% 118,365.47 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 32,78% 18,053.84 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 30.65% 8,748.17 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 29.70°% 157,604.97 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 2.9.70%, 42,207.92 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 29.70°% 233,703.96 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 31.29% 403,256.86 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 31.29% 326,181.65 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 30-65% 12,345.49 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 _81,537 _(81,537} - DIRECT 61,083.36 Total expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 (286,670) 15.0'36.824 4,E'7a.OE?3.48 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495,655) 795,210 286,670 1 081 880 287,606.72 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 5 32.02% 10,974.77 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 5 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED BELVEDERE ALLOCATION__ Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITLtA 4 PERCENT A M 0 UN?^ INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) -- 16,118,705 16,118,705 16.118,705 765,776.79 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 5.22% 2,727.75 Advertising and promotion 603 603 CO3 5 4.75% 28.63 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 4.75% 6,179.11 Depreciation 999.111 999,111 999,111 8 4.84% 48,346.78 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145 9 5.07% 123,155.96 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 4.54% 26,090.04 insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 4.84% 39,178.97 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 3 4.74% 7,581.70 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 4.75% 5,938.57 Licenses-trucks 81,052. 81,052 81,052 3 4.74% 3,840.'/1 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 4.751/ 1,482.27 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 4.75% 1,461.53 Office Rent-imputed - - 5 4.75% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 4,75% 14,248.62 JPA Office of waste managemeni fees 340,566 340,586 340,586 5 4.75% 16,180.77 Road impact feesfadmin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT - Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 4.84% 485.85 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 4.74% 30,848.60 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 4.84% 193,163.38 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 4.74% Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 4.84% 18,304.67 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55.078 6 4.74% 2,608.66 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 522% 1,489.93 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 4.74% 25,147.42 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 4.74% 6,734.69 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 4.74% 37,289.77 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 4,84% 62,361.79 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 4.84% 50.442.47 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 5.22% 2,102.59 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - Total expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 (286,670) 15,036,824 727,421 22 ------- 3NCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495,85 795.210286,670 1,081,880_ 38,355.5-I Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34,272 5 4.75% 1.628.19 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 6 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 201912020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED CORTE MADERA ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 _ 3,4'23,217.42 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52;250 1 200.75% 10,841.50 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 21.24% 127.96 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 21.241% 27,622.20 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999.111 8 22.60% 225.769.93 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145 9 21.77% 528.721.28 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 2.2.80% 130,891.00 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 22.60% 182,958.05 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 DIRECT Legal and professional 12.5,000 125,000 125,000 5 21.24% 26,546.93 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 21.98% 17,812.93 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 21.24% 6,626.14 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30.763 5 21.24% 6,533.41 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 21.24% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 211.24% 63,694.94 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 21.24% 72,332.17 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT 9,000.00 Safety Plan(DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 22.60% 2,268.82 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 20.99% 136,717.60 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3.991,822 3,991,822 7 22.60% 902,034.80 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 21.96% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 22.60% 85,479.18 Taxes-real estate and business properly 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 20.99% 11,561.31 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 20.75% 5,921.74 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 21.98% 116,632.01 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 21.98% 31,235.02 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 21.98% 172,947.36 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 22.60% 291,217.24 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 22.60% 235,556.37 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 20.75% 8,356.81 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 _66,763 81,537 (81,537) - DIRECT Total expenses 15,619,349 495,855 15,323,494 (286,670) 151,036,824 3,309,406.73 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495,855) 795,210 286,670 1,081,880 113,810.71 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272. Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 5 21.24% 6,550.59 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 201912020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED ALTO ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM 4 PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 364,115.47 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 2.12% 1,106.16 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 2.26% 13.61 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 2.26% 2,938.08 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 998,11 i 6 228,% 2,753.[7 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145 9 2.32% 56.269.53 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 2.15% 12,332.72 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 2.28% 18.438.66 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 3 2,17% 4,048.61 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 2.26% 2,823.70 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 2.17% 1,754.81 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 2.26% 704.80 Buildmc-/Office Maintenance arr,d repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 2.26% 694.94 Office Rent-imputed - - 5 2.26% - Generai Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 2.26% 6,775.00 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 2.26% 7,693.72 Road impact feesradmin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT - Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 0,040 7 2.28% 228.65 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 2.27!�, 14,790.75 Salaries and wages-franchise 3.991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 2.28% 90,907.78 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16:341 16,341 - - 3 2.17% Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378.275 7 2.28% 8,614.66 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 2.27% 1,250.76 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 2.12% 604.19 Truck-parts 8 repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 2.17% 11,489.77 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 2.17% 3,077.06 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 2.17% 17.037.57 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 2.28°/ 29,349.10 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 2.28% 23,739.56 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 2.12% 852.64 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - Total expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 (286,670) 15,036,824 340,290.11 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495,855) 795,210 286,670 1,081,880 2.3,825.37 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 5 2.26% 774.18 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 8 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED TIBURON ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME _ _ Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 _ 16,118,765 2,866,901.03 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 19.31% 10,091.51 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 17.79% 107.17 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 17.79% 23,133.24 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999,111 a 18.20% 18'1,855.24 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145 9 18.49% 449,094.58 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 17.29% 99,262.07 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 18.20% 147,370.73 Interest 187,000 187,000 87.UUL' 17.c#4 z7,uub.5u Legal and professional 125,0:0 125,000 125,000 5 17.79% 22,232.72 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 17.44% 14,137.77 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 17.79% 5,549.31 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 17.79% 5,471.65 Office Rent-imputed - - 5 17.79°/ General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 17.79% 53,343.70 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 17.79% 60,577.17 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT 6,000.00 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 18.20% 1,827.51 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 18.04% 117.520.16 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3.991.822 3,991,822 7 18.20% 726,579.27 Two Owner vehicles to show al{ocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 17.44° - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 18.20% 68,852.55 Taxes-real estate and business property 55.078 55,078 55,078 6 18.04% 9,937.91 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 19.31% 5,51209 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 17.44% 92,568.53 truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 17.441,1. 24,790.62 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 17.44% 137,264.91 Union-health and welfare 1.288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 18.20% 234,572.34 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 18.20% 189,738.10 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 i ;9.31% 7,778.71 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated ^ 148,300 _ 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - DIRECT 10,149.02 Total expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 (2.86,670) 15,036,82.4 2,733,227.19 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495,855) 795,210 286,670 1,081,880 133,673.85 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 5 17.79°/ 6,095.60 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 9 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED COUNTY ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 671,613.74 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 4.47% 2,333.93 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 4.17% 25.11 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 4.17% 5,419.30 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999,111 8 3.77% 37,690.01 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145 9 3.93% 95,552.04 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 3.52% 20,239.00 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 3.77% 30,543.00 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 3 3.68% 6,875.00 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125.000 5 4.17% 5,208.34 Licenses-tnicks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 3.68% 2,979.86 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 4.17% 1,300.01 Building,rOffice Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 4.17% 1,281.81 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 4.17% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 4.17°% 12,496.55 JPA Office of waste manayefnent fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 4.17% 14,191.12 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT 52,4133.00 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 3.77% 378.76 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 4.09% 26,612.37 Salaries and wages-franchise 3.991,822 3,991,822 3.991,822 7 3.77% 150,585.60 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - 3 3.68% Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 3,77% 14,269.88 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 4.09% 2,250.43 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 4.47% 1,274.82 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 3.68% 19,510.93 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 3.66% 51,225.19 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 3.68% 26,931.71 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,2.88,739 7 3.77% 48,615.78 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 3.77% 39,323.76 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 4.47% 1,799.03 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - DIRECT 10,304,50 dotal expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 (286,670) 15,036,824 631,650.83 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS _ _ 299,356 (495,855) 795,210 286,670 1,081,880 ^33,962.91 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 5 4.17% 1,427.98 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 10 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED HOMESTEAD ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 592,540.20 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 5.34% 2,791.45 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 3.68% 22.15 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 3.68% 4,781.25 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999,111 8 3.70% 36,977.99 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145 9 3.78% 91,836.13 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 3.47% 19,909.40 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 3.70% 29,966.00 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 3 3.53% 6,607.64 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 3.68% 4,595.13 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 3.53% 2,863.97 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 3.68% 1,146.95 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 3.681/,, 1,130.90 Office Rent-imputed - 5 3.68% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 3.681/,, 11,025.25 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,5811 340,586 34u,S8e 5 3.6c„� Road impact feesiadmin fees 205.133 205,133 (205,133) DIRECT - Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 3.70% 371,60 Saiaiies and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 3.6Y% 23,902.47 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 7 3.70`/ 147,740.81 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - 3 3.53% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 3.70% 14,000.31 Taxes-real estate and business proper,y 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 3.67% 2,021.27 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 5.34% 1,524.72 Truck-parts&repairs 530,69/ 530,697 530,697 3 3.53% 18,752.17 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 3.53% 5,021.99 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786.943 3 3.53% 27,806.59 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 3.70% 47,697.35 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 3.70% 38,580.87 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 5.34% 2,151.70 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81 537 81 537n - Total expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 (286,670) 15,036,824 555,746.37 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495,855) 795,210 286,670 1 C81,860 36,'193.83 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34,272 5 3.68% 1,259.56 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 i1 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED STRAWBERRY ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 1,741,319.65 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 8.39% 4,384.09 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 10.80% 65.09 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 10.80% 14,050.84 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999,111 8 10.78°% 107,718.90 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2.,429,145 9 11.28°% 273,915.84 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 10.61% 60,897.81 Insurance-workers tomo. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 10.78% 87,292.58 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 3 11.03% 20,625.00 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 10.80% 13,503.87 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 - 81,052 3 11.03% 8,939.57 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 10.80% 3,370.58 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 10.80°% 3,323.41 Office Rent-imputed - - 5 10.80% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 10.80% 32,400.30 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340.586 5 10.80% 36,793.87 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT - Safety Ptan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 10.78% 1,082.50 Salaries and wages-officers 17054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 10,96% 71,363.84 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 11,03% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 10.78% 40,783.65 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 10.96% 6.034.77 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 8.39% 2,394.64 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 11.03% 58,532.79 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 11.03% 15,675.57 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 11.03% 86,795.14 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 1078% 138,94499 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 7 10.78°% 112,388.1a Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 i 8-39% 3,379.33 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - Total expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 (286,670) 15,036,824 1,635,034.22 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495,8 795,210 286,670 1,081 880 106,285.43 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34,272 5 10.80% 3,702.39 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 12 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC,d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED ALM_ONTE ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM ft PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 409,560.42 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 3.75% 1,957.49 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 5 2.54% 15.31 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 2.54% 3,304.77 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999,111 8 2.54% 25,369.24 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145 9 2.64% 64,232.20 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 2.38% 13,654.31 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 7 2.54% 20,558.57 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 3 2.47% 4,621.53 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 2-54% 3,176.13 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 3 2..47% 2,003.13 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 2.54% 792.76 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 2.54% 781,67 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 2.54% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 2.54% 7,620.59 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 2.54% 8,653.96 Road impact fees/admin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) DIRECT - Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 7 2,54% 254.94 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 2.47% 16,070.33 Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3.991,822 3,991,822 7 2.54% 101,359.55' Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 2.47% - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 7 2.54% 9,605.10 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 2.47% 1,358.96 Telephone 28,540 26,540 26,54<) i 3.75`i° Trick-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 2.47% 13,115.68 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 2,47% 3,512..49 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 2.47% 19,448.54 Union-health acid welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 7 2.54% 32,723.40 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042.420 1,042,420 7 2.541/,., 26,468.92 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 1 3.75% 1,508.87 Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,5.37) Total expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,32.3,494 (286,670) 15,036,824 383,237,65 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495,855) 795,210 286,6!0 1,081,880 26,322.77 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 34,272 5 2.54% 870.81 imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 13 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED DEBRIS ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS ITEM# PERCENT AMOUNT INCOME _ Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 16,118,705 16,118,705 121,969.56 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 1 0.00% Advertising and prompt%on 603 603 603 5 0.76% 4.56 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 5 0.76% 984.18 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999,111 DIRECT - Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145 DIRECT - Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 2 2.89% 16,595.52 Insurance-workers comp. 809,654 809,654 809,654 DIRECT Interest 187,000 =87,000 167,000 3 3.27% 6,111.11 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 5 0.76% 945.87 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 811,052 3 3.27% 2,648,76 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 5 0.76% 236.09 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 5 0.76% 232.79 Office Rent-imputed - - - 5 0.76% - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 5 0.76% 2,269.46 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 5 0.76% 2,577.20 Road impact feesladmin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - DIRECT Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 DIRECT Salariesandwages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 6 0.00% Salaries and wages-franchise 3,991,822 3,991,822 3,991,822 DIREC-I 'Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - 3 3.27% Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 DIRECT Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 6 0.00% Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 1 0.00% - Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 3 3.27% 17,343.05 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 3 3.27% 4,644.61 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 3 3.27% 2 5,717 08 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1,288,739 1,288,739 DIRECT - Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 DIRECT Util•,ties 40,2.75 40,275 40,275 1 0.0u% Street Sweeping Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81,537) - Dotal expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 {286,670) 15,036,824 80,310.28 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS 299,356 (495_855) 795,21G 286,670 081,881f 41,659.27 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 5 0.76% 233.40 14 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC,d.b.a. MULL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME(LOSS) FOR THE PROJECTED YEAR: 2019/2020 DISALLOWED NET DIRECT SHARED ALLOCATION Projected EXPENSES ALLOWED COSTS COSTS TOTAL INCOME Net Collection Revenues(net of franchise fees) 16,118,705 _ ;6,11U05 _ 16,118,705 _ 16,118,704.50 EXPENSES Accounting 52,250 52,250 52,250 52,250.00 Advertising and promotion 603 603 603 602.53 Computer expense 130,063 130,063 130,063 130,063.04 Depreciation 999,111 999,111 999,1111 999,111.47 Dump expense 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145 2,429,145.14 Insurance 574,205 574,205 574,205 574,204.98 Insurance-workers couip. 809,654 809,654 809,654 809,653.83 Interest 187,000 187,000 187,000 139,913.81 Legal and professional 125,000 125,000 125,000 125,000.00 Licenses-trucks 81,052 81,052 81,052 81,052.13 Licenses-other 31,200 31,200 31,200 31,200.13 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 30,763 30,763 30,763 30,763.48 Office Rent-imputed - - - General Office Expenses 299,917 299,917 299,917 299,916.67 JPA Office of waste management fees 340,586 340,586 340,586 340,586.28 Road impact feesladmin fees 205,133 205,133 (205,133) - 205,133.00 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 10,040 10,040 10,040 10,040.35 Salaries and wages-officers 1,054,005 402,684 651,321 651,321 651,320.75 Salaries and wages-franchise 3.991,822 3.991,822 3,991,822 3,991.821.70 Two Owner vehicles to show allocation 16,341 16,341 - - - Taxes-payroll 388,343 10,067 378,275 378,275 378,275.46 Taxes-real estate and business property 55,078 55,078 55,078 55,077.92 Telephone 28,540 28,540 28,540 28,539.51 Truck-parts&repairs 530,697 530,697 530,697 530,697.33 Truck-tires 142,125 142,125 142,125 142,125.16 Truck-fuel 786,943 786,943 786,943 786,942.64 Union-health and welfare 1,288,739 1.288.739 1,288,739 1,288,738.86 Union-pension 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042,420 1,042419.88 Utilities 40,275 40,275 40,275 40,275.17 Street Sweepinq Costs Allocated 148,300 66,763 81,537 (81 537) 61,536 R7 Total expenses 15,819,349 495,855 15,323,494 (286,670) 15,036,824 15,276,406).07 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIC NS 299,356 (495,855)_ 795,210 286,670 1,081,880 842,295.43 Imputed Return on Rent-Operating Margin Methoc 34,272 34,272 - 34,272 26,733.77 Imputed Return on Rent-Cost Plus 10% 30,844 30,844 30,844 6,783.99 33,517.76 15 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE STREET SWEEPING FORECAST 2019/2020 12131/2018 2019/2020 ACTUAL FORECAST INCOME Street sweeping income 0 0 Total revenue $ EXPENSES Accounting 0 0 Advertising and promotion 0 0 Computer expense 0 0 Depreciation 100 100 " Duma expense 506 506 Franchise&road impact fees 0 0 Insurance 5,197 6,109 Insurance-workers comp. 12,381 11,302 Interest 0 0 Legal and professional 0 0 Licenses-trucks 1,070 1,342 Licenses-other 0 0 Maintenance and repairs 0 0 Office:Rent 0 0 Office 2,563 3,191 Office of waste management fees 0 0 Safety Plan/DOT Tests 0 0 Salaries excluded and non franchise 70,370 73,575 Salaries and wages-Franchise 0 0 Taxes-payroll 5,296 5,663 Taxes-real estate and business propert 564 586 Telephone 294 304 Truck-parts repairs 5,755 5,820 Truck-tires 1,455 1,512 Truck-fuel 8,058 8,372 Union-health and welfare 15,872 19,738 Union-pension 4,170 9,315 Utilities 418 866 Total expenses $ 134,071 $ 148,300 INCOME(LOSS)FROM OPERATIONS $ (134,071 $ 148,300 #of Customers Allocation: Billings Allocation SalaryBer Else Total Mill Valley 55,223 $ 61,083 4,600 41.19`'70 44,604 16,479 61,083 Corte Madera 35,523 $ 39,293 2,959 26.50% 28,692 10,600 39,293 dis Tiburon 34,010 $ 37,619 2,833 25.37% 27,470 10,149 37,619 dis County _ 9,316 $ 10,304 _ 776 6.95% 7,525 2,780 10,304 Totals $ 134,071 $ 148,300 11,168 108,291 40,009 148,300 16 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF PASS THRU SERVICES 2017 2018/2019 ACTUAL FORECAST Boxes Boxes MILL VALLEY Per Contract COSTS Per Contract COSTS DEBRIS BOXES unlimited $180,821.00 unlimited $180,821.00 STREET CANS $ - Less: Franchise Fees at 2%DB $ 3,616.42 $ 3,616.42 Less: Franchise Fees at 20%SC $ - $ - Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 18,082.10 $ 18,082.10 $ 159,122.48 $ 159,122.48 BELVEDERE DEBRIS BOXES unlimited $ 21,121.46 unlimited $ 21,121.46 Less: Franchise Fees at 10% $ 2:112.15 $ 2,112.15 Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 2,112.15 $ 2,112.15 $ 16,897.17 $ 16,897.17 CORTE MADERA DEBRIS BOXES unlimited $ 87,720.00 unlimited $ 87,720.00 Less: Franchise Fees at 20% $ 17,544.00 $ 17,544.00 Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 8,772.00 $ 8,772.00 SPECIAL EVENT COSTS $ - $ - $ 61,404.00 $ 61,404.00 TIBURON DEBRIS BOXES unlimited $ 58,477.30 unlimited $ 58,477.30 Less: Franchise Fees at 15.5% $ 9,063.98 $ 9,063.98 Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 5,847.73 $ 5,847.73 $ 43,565.59 $ 43,565.59 Street Cans STRAWBERRY DEBRIS BOXES 12 $ - 12 Less: Franchise Fees at 10% $ - Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ - $ - HOMESTEAD DEBRIS BOXES 36 $ 4,086.00 36 $ 4,086.00 Less: Franchise Fees at 0% $ - $ - Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 408.60 $ 408.60 $ 3,677,40 $ 3,677.40 COUNTY DEBRIS BOXES 0 $ 2,667.00 0 _ $2,667.00 Le:s: Franchise Fees at 18% $ 480.06 $ 480.06 Less: 10%Profit Allowance $ 266.70 $ 266.70 $ 2,400.30 $ 2,400.30 TOTAL S 287,334 S 287,334 17 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE FINANCIAL STATEMENT SUMMARY-SCHEDULE OF OPERATING INCOME (LOSS) 12/31/2018 STREET PORTABLE ACTUAL COLLECTION SWEEPING TOILETS INCOME Collection services revenue 16,401,926 $ 16,401,926 S - Debris box revenue 1,210,696 1,210,696 Storage box revenue 31,960 31,960 Recycling redemption revenue 70,805 70,805 Street sweeping income - - Portable Toilets 1,073,189 1,073,189 Damage Waiver 68,845 68,845 Miscellaneous revenue 22,205 22,205 Total revenue $ 18,879,626 $ 17,737,591 $ $1,142,034 EXPENSES Accounting $ 43,400 $ 41,230 $ 2,170 Advertising and promotion 5,799 290 5,509 Computer expense 139,508 139,508 Depreciation 780,935 766,952 100 13,883 Dump expense 2,514,567 2,484,783 506 29,278 Road Impact Fees/Flat 202,433 202,433 Franchise Fees% 2,499,117 2,499,117 Insurance(less Director) 519,687 488,506 5,197 25,984 Insurance-workers comp. 978,907 886,947 12,381 79,579 Interest 142,026 142:026 Legal and professional 171,804 171,804 Licenses-trucks 83,747 78,991 1,070 3,686 Licenses-other 31,434 23,148 8,286 Building/Office Maintenance and repairs 29,609 29,609 General Office Expenses 256,282 240,905 2,563 12,814 JPA Office of waste management fees 250,512 250,512 Porta Potty Expenses 99,142 5;989 93,153 Safety Plan/COT Tests 10,254 10,254 Salaries excluded and non franchise 1,502,466 976,587 70,370 455,510 Salaries and,,vages-Franchise 3,856,726 3,856,726 Taxes -payroll 403,364 363,783 5,296 34,284 Taxes - real estate and business property 56,394 53,011 564 2,820 Telephone 29,445 27,678 294 1,472 Truck- parts -epairs 575,498 550,096 5,755 19,647 Truck-tires 145,522 136,790 1,455 7,276 Truck-fuel and oil 805,812 757,464 8,058 40,291 Union - health and welfare 1,291,641 1,179,009 15,872 96,760 Union - pension 1,074,094 932,239 4,170 137,685 Utilities 41,841 _ 39,331 418 2,092 Total expenses $ 18,541,966 $ 17,335,716 $ 134,071 $1,072,179 INCOME (LOSS) FROM OPERATIONS $ 337,659 $ 401;875 $ (134,071) S 69,855 18 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. CURBSIDE COLLECTION REVENUES (1) 2019 (1) 2019/2020 2019/2020 2018 Service Change 2019 FRANCHISE PROJECTED ACTUAL Adjustment 12 MO PROJ FEES PROJ NET REVENUE Mill Valley 6,305,474.74 (1,094.00) 6,306,568.74 1,219,392.83 5,087,175.91 Belvedere 848,899.87 5,286.00 843,613.87 84,361.39 759,252.49 Corte Madera 4,213,052.06 1,578.00 4,211,474.06 849,494.81 3,361,979.25 Alto 372,969.42 (1,460.00) 374,429.42 15,288.88 359,140.55 Tiburon 3,295,098.79 (3,870.00) 3,298,968.79 455,376.26 2,843;592.53 County 814,005.77 1,961.00 812,044.77 146,168.06 665,876.71 Homestead 611,871.05 475.00 611,396.05 25,118.70 586,277.35 Strawberry 1,886,322.83 1,020.00 1,885,302.83 166,082.17 1,719,220.66 Aimonte 408,654.92 (941.00) 409,595.92 7,502.74 402.093.18 Other/Debris 121,531.00 121,531.00 - 121,531.00 Total revenues 18,877,880.45 2,955.00 18,874,925.45 2,968,785.83 15,906,139.62 Less debris (1,210,696.00) (1,210,696.00) (124,357.36) (1,086,338.64) Net garbage revenues 17,667,184.45 2,955.00 17,664,229.45 2,844,428.47 14;819,800.98 (1)Curbside garbage revenues shown include franchise fees payable to the cities and districts. 19 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE COLLECTION REVENUES ACTUAL FOR THE YEAR OF 2018 MILL CORTE VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALMONTE OTHER TOTAL GARBAGE REVENUES $ 4,684,754 $ 617,588 $ 3,067,912 $288,094 $ 2,680,095 $ 602,058 $ 460,324 $ 1,395,663 $ 306,815 $ - $ 14,103,303 RECYCLING REVENUES $ 665,989 $ 66,387 $ 551,357 $ 49,410 $ 361,057 $ 61,224 $ 69,933 IS 236,481 $ 51,804 $ $ 2,113,643 DEBRIS REVENUES $ 272,894 $ 57,212 $ 321,976 $ 21,642 $ 172,512 $ 67,580 $ 39,089 $ 98,801 $ 37,459 $121,531 $ 1,210,696 SCRAP REVENUES $ 22,012 $ 4,193 $ 14,082 $ 1,359 $ 13,564 $ 3,602 $ 4,385 $_ 4,476 ;; 3,132 5 70,805 COLLECTION REVENUES $ 5,645,648 $ 745,380 $ 3,955,328 $360,506 $ 3,227,228 $ 734,464 $ 573,731 $ 1,735,421 $ 399,210 $121,531 S 17,498,447 32.3% - 4.30% 22.6% 2.1% 18.4% 4.2% 3.3% 9.9% 2.3% 0.7% 100.0% FRANCHISE FEES PAID: GARBAGE 911,601 57,788 596,982 14,015 404,176 96,790 22,393 135,790 5,970 2,245,506 DEBRIS 5.458 5,721 64,395 26,739 " 11,211 - 9,880 - 123,405 RECYCLING - 6,199 102,974 - 9,423 - 968 119,563 STREET SWEEPING - - - - - TOTAL (917,059) (69,708) (764,35-lj_ (14,015) (430,915) (117,424) - (22,393) _ (145_,67.0_)__,__(6,938) _ _ 2,488,474) NET COLLECTION REVENUES $ 4,728,589 $ 675,672 $ 3,190,977 $346,491 $ 2,796,313 $ 617,040 $ 551,338 $ 1:589,751 $ 392,272 $ 121,531 $ 15,009,973 PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL 31.50% 4.50% 21.26% 2.31% 18.63% 4.11% 3.67% 10.59% 2.61% 0.81% 100.00% FRANCHISE FEES PERCENTAGES:. GARBAGE 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 5.00% 15.50% 18.00% 5.00% 10.00% 2.00% DEBRIS 2.00% 10.00`% 20.00% 0.00% 15.50% 18.00% 0.00% 10.00% 0.00% RECYCLING 20.00% 10.00% 20.00% 0.00% 0.00% 18.00% 0.00% 0.00% 2.00% 20 This page intentially bian� 21 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC. DEBRIS BOX REVENUES MILL CORTE MISC. VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALMONTE AREAS 1'Ol'AL 2018 DEBRIS 272,894 57,212 321,976 21,642 172,512 67,580 39,089 98,801 37,459 121,531 1,210,696 4 YARD BOXES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTHER _ 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 TOTAL BOX REVENUE 272,894 57,212 321,976 21,642 172,512 67,580 39,089 98,801 37,459 121,531 1,210,696 PERCENTAGE 22.54% 4.73% 26.59% 1.79% 14.25% 5.58°/a 3.23% 8.16°/ 3.09°/ 10.04% 100.00% Actual Franchise Fees (5,458) (5,721) (64,395) 0 (26,739) (11,211) 0 (9,880) 0 0 (123,405) PROJECTED REVENUES 2019 TOTAL PROJECTED REVENUES 272,894 57,212 321,976 21,642 172,512 67,580 39,089 98,801 37,459 121,531 1,210,696 x2% x10% X 20% x 0% x15.5% X18% x 0% _X10% x o% xo% EST.FRANCHISE FEES 5,458 5,721 64,395 0 26,739 12,164 0 9,880 U 0 124,357 NET PROJECTED REVENUES 267,436 517491 257,581 21,642 45,773 55,416 39,089 88,921 37,459 121,531 1,086,339 22 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF DEPRECIATION EXISTING ASSETS NEW ASSETS TOTAL 2018 2019/2020 2019/2020 2019/2020 ACTUAL Projected FORECAST FORECAST BUILDING $ - $ - S - BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS 24,558 27,550 3,500 31,050 OFFICE EQUIPMENT 7,643 7,003 8,088 15,091 TRUCKS 498,409 493,720 94,286 588,005 EQUIPMENT (Tippers/Cans) 151,266 136,844 135,637 272,481 SUBTOTAL 681,876 665,116 241,511 906,627 STREET SWEEPING 100 100 - 100 DEBRIS TRUCKS 65,361 65:361 - 65,361 DEBRIS BOXES 19,715 21,767 5.357 27.124 PORTABLE TOILETS TRUCKS 6,149 18,448 - 18,448 PORTABLE TOILETS EQ. 7,734 15,163 - 15,163 TOTAL $ 780,935 $ 785,955 $ 246,868 $ 1,032,822 23 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF DEPRECIATION 2018-2019 Price Per Basis Est.life Annual Office 2 $15,000.00 $30,000.00 5 6,000.00 Tower PC Replacements 12 $870.00 $10,440.00 5 2,088.00 Dell PC's/12 Stations $40,440.00 $8,088.00 Building 1 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 10 3,500.00 Beckhart Water Recycle System $35,000.00 $3,500.00 Tippers/Containers $675,000.00 7 96,428.57 Carts for Dual Stream 56 $601.00 $33,656.00 7 4,808.00 Con Fab 2 Yd Containers 100 $53.00 $5,300.00 7 757.14 Schaefer/96 Gallon Tipper Cans 3436 $51.66 $177,503.76 7 25,357,68 Schaefer/65 Gallon Brown&Green Tipper Cans $891,459.76 $127,351.39 Debris 10 $3,750.00 $37,500.00 7 5,357.14 Con Fab 5 Yard Dirt Boxes $37,500.00 5,357.14 Truck Equipment 20 $2,500.00 $50,000.00 7 7,142.86 Front End WiFi Cameras 10 $800.00 $8,000.00 7 1,142.86 Two-way Radios $58'000.00 8,285.71 Trucks 2 $330,000.00 $660,000.00 7 94,285.71 Heil Rear Loader $660,000.00 $94,285.71 Franchise $1,722,399.76 $246,867.97 Overall Total 1,722,399.76 246,867.97 24 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b- MU.1.VAil Y REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF DUMP EXPENSES 2016 ACTUAL AVG 2018 2019/2020 rORECAST 2 01912 0 2 0 REDWOOD LANDFILL TONS SPER TON AMOUNT' _ 70N5 SPERTON __AMOUNT u r^ 04273 pass,throuCh ,rc, Cuilxlo 7614.19 5669 906,5_46" 17Ct4,;9 58.,9 1024,96072 2,44,,.(14 0.04 13.83 243ff1 A4!'Uu,1h ('um rt 11,100.9! 43 ds, 4fH),755.63 11. 79 4Il.07 540,700.93 57 9)4.11; 0.43 lc Growth Coipyard L3 1, O.cO 0.00 0.09 D.00 1��grow111 Debris ?405.16 5653 135.902.27 2,6G4.59 5610 155,052.31 19,090.04 1389 1i5.53n i i`%c wowih:shift tonnage`roT!MRRC.o Redwood Loss:NIF Debra (24743) 56.53 (13,646.6) (267.47) 58.19 (15,5134 12) ',916.25 � 13.83 (3,70C) toGOSt i2ecyd'.Ig 8610.43 73-15 531614.33 '+,195 fib 67.50 278,745.13 1,402621 Debris(yartv2Re) 0.0'0 0.00 0.00 0.00 U.CO i Dirt 581;24 0.00 0.00 5,000.35 0.00 OAO_ 0.00 do not Day for dirt durnpirlG Tom[ 45300.56 2.243,209.07 40,401,10 :,991,911.75 -251,297.31 MARIN RESOURCE RECOVERY CENTER 0.00 Garbago 0.00 05.00 0.00 0.00 110109 000 0.60 Dcb,L 1.&55.94 103.01 200,44081 1,945.94 110.00 214,053.40 13,606.59 65.64 127,741 i 10.12 Los::NIF Dobr'a (105.34) 103.01 (20,121.07) (105.34) 110.00 (21,486.92) -1,365.84 65.64 (12826) 0,17 Recyd g 207.10 17.50 3,825.8; 5,506.00 45.00 251,85.1.10 Cards-M 653.9r., 653.99 Cmnii Food- I-DO 1500 75.00 1.00 110.00 110.00 35.01 YaN Vfa:l© 12.01 Mee 1,D70.18 12.01 110.03 1321_10 241.94 2,624.76 105105.71 8914.56 445,061.68 260,755.96 1.00 MARIN SANITARY SERVICE 3,185.66 0.00 C-flFoodwo5lo 367.13 66.35 24,358.71 367.13 50.54 21,528.50 -2,830.21 Reryciirg I Debra 0.00 0.09 o.U9 0.09 0.00 14M1.36; - 1%y'ovnn;shift 10nnage(rem MRRC to Red,00d To'l 367.13 24,350.71 307.'13 21.52850 -2,830.21 WEST CONIRA COSTA SANITARY LANDFILL 0.00 G'l WevY 0.00 0.00 C.CO 0.00 0.00 C.00 0.00 0.00 STREET SWEEPING DEBRIS 0.06 Marin Rr;'ourca Recovery C O.OU 60.00 D.00 4.60 110.00 508.60 506.00 E5.64 302 wegld:g Cmucxs 6.99 _W 0.00 , WASTE MGMT DAVIS STREET RECYCLING Baikal Cardhwlnl 225.44 0.00 0.00 225.44 0.00 090 0.00 TOTALS 48,607.91 2,452.67J40 49,022.86 2,450,807.94 7,134.46 RECAP RECYCLLNG Recy4;I"rj 6,617.61 635,240.14 6,782134 530,609.73 0e1'-1 CatdYv d 879,43 0.00, 225 4.1 0.00 G-Waste it 571.11 516.268.70 11 70.:.03 571.668,53_ 21268.15 1,1•v1`08.84 20,80301 `.,102,277.76 RECAP Gnr5l:gn 176;4.10 906,.514.56 17,614.19 t,C24.9fi0.72 I]M"is 1,351.10 336400.08 4610:53 369,105.71 _nom NIF Debre (4'3L'77) (33.769.11) (462.81) (37,05124) Sweep Cebra 0.0C 0.90 4.6C 506.00 Di:: 687124 6.vU S Uf59.35 T_-- 0.00 27,339 76 1.301.164 65 27.635.86 !,357.530,16 48.607.21 57.31 2457.673.40 46,436.87 50.78 - 2,450807.94 25 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE SCHEDULE OF INSURANCE EXPENSES Actual Forecast 2018 2019120 Property and General Liability 350,616 385,907 Umbrella Policy 191,365 192,698 Director Lite-omitted Other 32,526 32,251 574,507 610,856 Total Non WC Insurance 574,507 610,856 Workers Compensation 887,974 893,600 Total Workers Comp 887,974 893,600 Total Non Benefit Insurance 1,462,481 1,504,456 Excludes Director Life Insurance 26 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC. d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE PAYROLL EXPENSES -WAGES & SALARIES 2018 2019/2020 Annual Paid Annual Paid Actual Forecast Garbage and Debris 1,511,362 1,537,927 Recycling 1,136,288 1,082,974 Street Sweeping (separately allocated) 70,370 73,575 Porta Potties 376,148 407,877 Shop 723,113 797,718 Office 461,962 519,203 Contract 24,000 54,000 Executive 1,132,483 1,124,272 Other (76,534) - Totals 5,359,192 5,597,545 Payroll taxes 403,364 430,805 Health Insurance 1,291,641 1,441,428 Total 7,054,197 7,469,778 27 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.cl.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Garbage Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Almcnte Route #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 tib&#9 #7 #8 #1.10 Total Alan Hours 2.50 0.00 16-00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 2.0.00 Route#00 Truck Hours-pick up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Man Hours 9.00 0.00 31,00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 Route#1 1"ruck Hours 9.00 0.00 23.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 Route#2 Truck Hours 0.00 0.00 30.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 Man Hours 0,00 0.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 32.00 Route#3 - Truck Hours 0.000.00 16.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.00 0.00 32.00 Man Hours 16.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 32.00 Route#4 Truck Hours 16.00 0.00 1000 0.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 32.00 Man Hours 33.50 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 10.50 0.00 0.00 48.00 Route#5 Truck Hours 25.50 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 4,00 10.50 0.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 34.50 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 Route#6 Truck}-lours 34.50 0.00 0.00 3.50 0.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 6.00 8.00 2..50 2.00 _ 26.50 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 48.00 Route#7 - -� Truck Hours 6.00 8.00 2.50 1.00 19.50 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 40.00 Mari Hours 4.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 5.25 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 32.00 Route#8 �'---- ----- - Truck Hours 4.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 5.25 0.00 0.00 21.00 0.00 32.00 Man Hours 21.75 0.00 9.50 0.00 0.00 1.50 3.75 0.00 11.50 48.00 Route#9 .._. ._...� Truck Hour, 14.75 0.00 9.50 0.00 0.00 1.50 2 75 0.00 11.50 4000 28 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Garbage Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alio Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Almcnte Route 41 #2 #3 #4 45 "6&#9 47 11 Fs k_i Q Total Man Hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 32.00 Route#10 - _..._...._._._._._ Truck Hours 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28.00 1.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 32.00 Man Hours 24.00 8.50 0.00 6.00 6.50 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 48.00 Route#11 --_. - -- -� Truck Hours 16.00 8.50 0.00 6.00 6.50 0.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 40,00 Man Hours 0.00 7.75 10.50 0.00 17.50 0.75 0.00 _ 3.50 0.00 40.00 Route#40 Y Truck Hours 0.00 7.75 10.50 0.00 17.50 0.75 0.00 3.50 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 23.50 0.00 10.50 0.00 0.00 3.25 2.75 0.00 0.00 40.0_0 Route#41 Truck Hours 23.50 0.00 10.50 0.00 0.00 325 2.75 0.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 2.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 16.00_ Saturday Route Truck Hours 2.00 0.00 3.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 16.00 Man Hours 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0._00 0.00 2.00 0.00 8.00 Sunday Route _ Truck Hours 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 0.00 8.00 Man Hours Per Week 178.75 24.25 139.00 13.25 101.25 15.50 17.00 63.50 11.50 564.00 TOTALS Truck Hours per Week 153.25 24.25 115.00 12.25 93.75 15.50 16.00 62.50 11.50 504.00 29 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Garbage Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Almonte Route #1 �2 #3 #4 #5 #6&#9 #7 #8 410 Total SUMMARY Man Hours Per Week 178.75 24.25 139.00 13.25 101.25 15.50 17.00 63.50 11.50 564.00 multipy by Weeks in Year 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 _52.00 _ 52.00 52.00 _ 52.00 Total Man Hours Per Year 9,295.00 1,261.00 7,228.00 689.00 5,265.00 806.00 884.00 3,302.00 598.00 2.9,328.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 624.00 0.00 1,040.00 0,00 104.00 0.00 0.00 312.00 0.00 2,080.00 Clean up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spare/Swing Hours 659.22 89.43 512.62 48.87 373.40 .57.16 62...70 234.18 42.41 2,080.00 --- --- ---- - TOTAL Labor Hours per Year 10,578.22 1,350.43 8,780.62 737.87 5,742.40 863.16 946.70 3,848.18 640.41 33.488.00 'Druck Hours per Week 153.25 24.25 115.00 12.25 93.75 15.50 16.00 62.50 11.50 504.00 multipy by Weeks in Year52.00 52.00 _ 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.0_0_ Total Truck Hours per Year _ 7,969.00 1,261.00 5,980.00 637.00 4,875.00 806.00 832.00 3,250.00 598.00 26,?08.00 Clean Lip 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 624.00 1,040.00 104.00 312.00 2,080.00 Total Truck Hours per Year 8,593.00 1,261.00 7,020.00 637.00 4,979.00 806.00 832.00 3,562.00 598.00 28,288.00 Debris I otal Hours (100%single driver) Total Labor Hours 6,240.0 less:Debris hours on Rout 30% 50% 5%, 15% 2,080 Total Truck Hours 4,160.00 Spare/Swing (one man at all times,no additional truck hours) Total Hours Labor Hours 2,080'0 One Mari 1.0 Total Labor Hours 659.22 89.43 512.62 48.87 373.40 57.16 62.70 234.18 42.41 2,080.0 30 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Compost Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Alrnonte Route #2 #3 lI5 A--k#9- #7 (6 #10 Total Man Hours 12.00 0.50 10.50 0.00 5.50 2.50 0.00 9.00 0.00 40.00 Rout©#G9 Truck Hours 12.00 0.50 10.50 0.00 5.50 2.50 0.00 - 9.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 3.00 0.00 6.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 O.OU 4U.uu Route#G2 truck I luuc; 3.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 17.00 0.00 0.0012.00 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 21.50 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.50 0.50 5.00 5.00 2.50 40.00 Route#G3 Truck Hours 21.50 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.50 0.50 _ 5.00 5.00 2.50 -40.00 Man Hours 3.00 0.00 31.50 0.00 4.00 1.50 0.00 O.DO 0.00 40.00 Route#G4 _....__._ - Truck Hours 3.00 0.00 31.50 0.00 4.00 1.50 0.00 - - 0.00 0.00 ^-_40.00 Mari Hours 34.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 2.50- 0.00 2.00--- 40.00 Route#G5 Truck Hours 34.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.502.50 O.Oo 2.00 40.00 Man Hours 0.00 12.25 0.00 1.50 19.75 4.50 O.UU 2.00 0.00 40.00 Route#G6 Truck Hours O.00 12.25 V 0.00 1.50 19.75 4.50 0.00 2.OD 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 15.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 4.00 4.50 5.00 0.00 1.50 40.00 Route It G7 Truck Hours 15.00 2.00 7.00 1.00 4.00 4.50 5.00 0.00 1.50 40.OU Man Hours Per Week 88.50 14.75 57.00 7.50 50.75 15.00 12-50 28.00 6.00 280.00 'TOTALS --Y Truck Hours per Week 88.50 14-75 57.00 7.50 50.75 15.00 12.50- 28.00 6.00 280.00 SUMMARY Man Hours Per Week 88.50 14.75 57.00 7.50 50.75 15.00 12.50 28.00 6.00 2.80.00 multlpy by Weeks in Year 52..00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52-.00 _. - _..- --- ---------... -- --- Tota!Man Hours Per Year 4,602.00 767,00 7.,964.00 390.00 2,639.06 780.D0 G50.00 1,456.00 31200 14,500.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.UO 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clean up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 SparelSwing Hours 328.71 54.79 211.71 27.86 1BB.50 55.71 46.43 104.00 22.29 1,040.00 TOTAL Labor Hours per Year 4,930.71 821.79 3,175.71 417.86 2,827.50 B35.71 696.43 1,560.00 _334.29 15,600.00 0.32 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.18 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.02 1.00 �1 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Compost Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Almonte Route #1 #22 7t3 #4 tR5 #6f6&#9 �ff 0_ Y1 g Tota{ 0.25 0.07 0.21 0.02 0.21 0.04 0.04 0.10 0.03 1.00 0.04 -0.01 -0.01 0.01 -0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Truck Hours per Week 88.50 14.75 57.00 7.50 50.75 15.00 12.50 28.00 6.00 280.00 multipy by Weeks in Year 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 Total Truck Hours per Year 4,602.00 767.00 2,964.00 �~390.00 2,639.00 780.00 650.00 1,456.00 312.00 14,560.00 Clean up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total Truck Hours per Year 4,602.00 767.00 2,964.00 390.00 2,639.00 780.00 650.00 1,456.00 312.00 14,560.00 3'2 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE,INC,d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Recycling Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Aimonte Route #1 �#2 #t3 #4 #5 #6&#9 E7 #10 #10 Total Man Hours 8.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 20.50 0.00 0.00 10.50 0.00 40.00 Route#1 Truck Hours 8.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 20.50 0.00 0.00 _........10.50 0.00 40.00 Man Hours 0.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 20.00 1.00 0.00 11.00 0.00 40.00 Route#2 Truck Hours 0.00 1.00 6.00 1.00 _ 20.00 1.00 --0.00 1'1.00 0.00.._.. 40.00 Man Hours 26.50 0.00 4.00 3.75 0.00 0.00 4.75 -- 0.00 1.00 - 40.00 - - - -- - Route#3 Truck Hours 26.50 0.00 4.00 3.75 0.00 0.00----4.75 _,- 0_00 _......---)•00---.�4U.U0 Man Hours 0.00 - 0.00_ 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 _ 0.00-- 0.00 40.00 Route#4 - 7ruckHoursQ00 0.00 40.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0_00 0:00 ---. 0.00- --40.00 Man Hours 37.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2_00---- 1-00 --- - 0.00 -.---0.00 40.00 Route#5 Truck Hours 37.00 0.00 0.00 -- 0.00 0.00 - 2.00 1.00-----_-�- O.00_,0,.00 40,00 Mari Hours 0.00 14.50 OAC 0.00 18.00 7.50 0_00 _ 0_00_0.00 40.00 Route rf 6 1 ruck Hours O.OQ 14.50 0.00 0.00 18.00 7.50 _0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 Mari Hours 13.25 _ 3.00 8.00 1.00 2.00 2.00- 6.00 2.00 __._.. 2.75 40.00 Route It 7 Truck Hours 13.25 3.00 8.00 1.00 - 2.00 2.00 6.00 2.00- 2.75 _40.00 Man Hours 14.00 0.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 7.00 9.00 40.00 Route#8 Truck Hours 14.00 0,00 7.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 3.00 7.00 9.00 _ 40.00 Man Hours 11.00 0.50 12.00 0.00 6.50 - 2.00 0.00 8.00 0.00 40.00 Route#R9 Truck Hours 11.00 0.50 12.00 0.00 6.50 2.00 0.00 8.00 -- 0.00 _- 40.00 33 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE.,INC.d.b.a. MILL.VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE(Recycling Collection) DRIVERS ROUTES AND HOURS Mill Corte Valley Belvedere Madera Alto Tiburon County Homestead Strawberry Aimonte Route #1 #2 #3 #4 95 416&#.9 #7 #8 1100 Total 0.00 Man Hours -v Route R 10 0.00 Truck Hours __..... 0.00 Man Hours 0.00 Truck Hours Man Hours _,- __._._ �_...__ 0.00 0.00 Truck Hours 0.00 Man Hours -....... ---._._.-----__---- - ------ 0.00 Man Hours .- --..__ ------- - -------..-.- Saturday Route - 0.00 Truck Hours ----.-.........------- --- ---- .. 0.00 Man Hours -- --- -- - --- ...-.....-..,.. ---------- --- Sunday Route _ 0.00 Truck Hours - ---- ---- ............ --- ----..... Man Hours Per Week 109.75 19.00 77-00 6-75 67.00 14.50 14.75 38.50 - 12.75 360.00 TOTALS Truck Hours per Week 109.75 19.00 77.00 6.75 67.00 14.50 14.75 _-_ 38.50 12.75 0 360.00 SUMMARY Man Hours Per Week 109.75 19.00 77.00 6.75 67.00 14.50 14.75 38.50 12.15 360.00 mulGpy by Weeks in Year52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52.00 52-00 Total Man Hours Per Year _ 5,707.00 988-00 4,004,00 351.00 3,484.00 754.00 767.00 2,002.00_ 663.00 18,720.00 Debris driver hours on Routes 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Clean up 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 Spare/Swing Hours 634.11 109.78 444.89 39.00 387.11 83.78 - 85.22 222.44 73.67 2,080.00 TOTAL Labor Hours per Year 6,341 A 1 1,097.78 4,448.89 390.00 3,871.11 837.78 852-22 - 2,224.44 - 736.67 20,800.00 34 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICES,INC. ALLOCATION STATISTICS tiistorirait-2078 —--- MILL CORTE VALLEY BELVEDERE MADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALMONTE U_EBRIS CLEANUP TOTAL ;1 OF BTLI..[Nt}S 5,500 934 3,732 376 3,468 810 967 1,513 673 0 0 17,971 1,030 3,466 768 6,240 0 38,688 2 LABOR HOURS 10,142 1,451 7,571 740 6,063 1,116 3 TRUCK HOURS 8,294 1,352 6,708 637 5,291 1,040 1,041 3,250 715 4,160 0 3'2,448 4 CLEAN UP LABOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 REVENUES(W/DEBRIS,W/0) 4,438,299 649,346 2,957,485 334,714 2,722,748 566,208 524,706 1,485,886 368,211 92 2966 0 14,136,900 6 REVENUES(W/O DEBRIS,) 4266,531 593,352 2,688,782 316,024 2,569,762 538,522 478,901 1,420,430 336,640 0 0 13,208,944 7 LABOR HRS(W/O DEBRIS&CIU) 9,518 1,451 6,531 740 5,959 1,116 1,130 3,154 768 0 0 30,368 8 LABOR HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 9,518 1,451 6,531 740 5,959 1,116 1,130 3,154 768 0 0 30,368 9 TRUCK HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 7,670 1,352. 5,668 637 5,187 1,040 1,001 2,938 715 0 0 26,208 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 I #OF BILLINGS 37.24% 6,32% 25.27% 2.55% 23.48% 5.48% 6.55% 10.23% 4.56% 0.00% 0.00% 121.69% 2 LABOR HOURS 2620% 3.75% 19.56% 1.91% 15.67% 2.88% 2.92% 3.96% 1.98% 16.12% 0.00% 99.96% 3 TRUCK HOURS 25.56% 4.17% 20.67% 1.96% 1631% 3.21% 3.08% 10.02% 2.20% 12M% 0.00% 100.00% 4 CLEAN UP LABOR 5 REVENUES(WlDEBRIS) 32.01% 4.68% 21.33% 2.41% 19.64% 4.08% 3.78% 10.72% 2.63% 0. 0% 0.00%% 102.93% 0.00 101.97°/ 6 REVENUES(W/O DEBRIS,) 33.25% 4.62% 20.95% 2.46% 20.03% 4.20% 3.73% 11. 2.62% 0.000% O.OU% 99.95% 7 LABOR HRS(W/O DEBRIS&C/U) 31.33% 4.78% 21.50% 2.43% 19.61% 3.67% 3.72% 10.3388%% 2.53% 0.00% 8 LABOR HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 31.33% 4.78% 21.50% 2.43% 19.61% 3.67% 3.72% 10.38% 2.53% 0.00% 0.00% 99.0.00%% IOC.00% 9 TRUCK IIRS(W/0 DEBRIS) 29.27% 5.164° 21.63`%• 2 3% 19.79% 3.97% 3.82°/n 11.21°0 2.73`% 0.00% 0`%n 2019/2020 FOR MAST MILL CORTE VALLEY BELVEDERIi MADEiZA ALTO TIBURON- COUNTY �10MESTEAD STRAWBERRY ALTION_I'E DEBRIS CLEANUP 1;0"I -1, i5 31 942 3,744 382 3,485 806 964 -- 1,514 676 0 0 18,044 1 OF BILLINGS 5 2 LABOR HOURS-All can4 21,850 3,270 16,405 1,546 12,441 2,537 2,495 7,633 1,71 f 7.,080 U 71,968 3 TRUCK HOURS 18,902 3,016 13,988 1:378 11,102 2,340 2,249 7,020 l,5"/3 2;080 0 63,648 4 CLEAN UP LABOR 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U 0 U 0 O 5 1tf--VEN1UES(W/DEBRIS,W/O) 5,061,690 765,777 3,423,21? 364,115 2,866,901 671,614 592,540 1,741,320 409;560 121,9'10 0 16,118,705 6 REIVENUES(W/O DEBRIS,) 4,943,375 714,286 3,165,636 342,473 2,721,128 6 16,19 8 553,451 1)6`2,399 372,101 U 0 15,031,048 7 LABOR HRS(W/O DEBRIS&CA J) 20,567 3,181 14,853 1,497 11,964 2,479 2,433 7,086 1,669 0 0 65,728 8 LABOR HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 20,567 3,181 14,853 1,497 11,964 2,479 2,433 7,086 1,669 0 0 65,728 9 'TRUCK 1-116(W/O DEBRIS) 08,278 3,016 12,948 1,378 10,998 2,340 2,249 6,708 1,573 0 0 59,488 3 4 S 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1 4 O BILLINGS 30.65% 5.22% 20.75% 2.12% 19.31% 4.47% 5.34% 839% 335% 000% O.GO°o 1{)0.00% 2 LABOR I-IOUPS 30.36% 4.54% 22.80% 2.15% 17.29% 3.52% 3.47% IMI% 2.38% 2.39% 0.00% 100.00% 3 TRUCK HOURS 29.70% 4.74% 21.98% 2.17% 17.44% 3.68% 3.53% 11.03% 2.47% 3.27% 0.00% 100.00% 0.00% 4 CLEAN UP LABOR 5 REVENUES(W/DEBRIS,W/O) 32.02% 4.75% 21.24% 226% 17.79% 4.17% 3.68% 10.80% 2.54% 0.76% 0.00% 100.00% 6 REVENUES(W/O DEBRIS,) 32.79% 4.74% 20.99% 227% 18.04% 4.09% 3.67% 10.96% 2..47% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 7 LABOR HRS(W/O DEBRIS&C/U) 31.29% 4-84% 22.60% 2.28% 18.20% 3.77% 3.70% 10.78% 2.54% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 8 LABOR HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 31.29% 4.84% 22.60% 2.28% 18.20% 3.77% 3.70% 10.78% 2.54% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00% 9 TRUCK HRS(W/O DEBRIS) 30-73% 5.07% 21.77% 2.32% 18.49% 3.93% 3.78% 11.28% 2.64% 0.00% 0.00% 100.00° 35 Mill Valley Refuse Services Analysis of Imputed Rent for Fair Return on Investment 114 Front Street location is owned by MVRS yet the only costs that provide any return are: Building Deprecation 31,050 Commercial Property Insurance 43,756 Property Taxes 56,394 131,200 Monthly Annual Fair Market Rent 36,637 439,644 est. 2015 Bldg Depreciation 31,050 Insurance 43,756 Property Z-axes 56,394 Avoided Costs 131,200 Net Cost 308,444 Fair return on Investment CM Cost+ 10% 30,844 All Others OM 34,272 AIIocCost Billings Mill Valley 30.65% 10,505 Belvedere 5.22% 1,789 Corte Madera 20.76%. 6,400 Alto 2.12% 726 Tiburon 19.31% 6,619 County 4.47% 1,531 Homestead 5.34% 1,831 Strawberry 8.39% 2,876 Almonte 3.75% 1,284 36 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICES,INC. ALLOCATION STATIS'T'ICS BILLINGS: Ilistoritvl Counts MILL. CORTE --�-�- VALLEY BELVEDERE M.ADERA ALTO TIBURON COUNTY HOMESTEADS'Mj\WBERRl ALMONTE pEBIUS CLEAN LIP TOTAL As or t/1 Rcsid Y',tial 4,242 856 2,778 252 2,702 728 914 862 632 0 13,966 Commerical 292 10 149 19 87 I8 4 65 17 0 661 Aparanents 67 8 39 15 52 1 2 25 4 0 213 2016 ACTUAL 4,601 874 2,966 286 2,341 747 920 952 653 0 0 14,840 As of 1/I Residential 4,250 855 2,775 256 2,697 732 907 856 631 0 13,959 Commerical 267 10 118 12 73 17 4 50 18 0 569 Apart;nents 66 8 39 15 54 1 2 26 3 0 214 2017 ACTUAL 4,583 873 2,932 283 2,824 750 913 932 652. 0 0 14,742 As of 2/28 Rcsidmtial 4,275 848 2,794 262 2,731 740 918 873 628 0 14,069 Commerical 729 39 367 29 234 45 14 159 36 0 1,652 Apartments 527 55 583 91 520 21 32 482 I2 0 2,323 F- 2018 ACTUAL 5,531 942 3,744 382 3,485 806 964 1,514 60 0 18,044 Resideutia 4,275 848 2,794 262 2,731 740 918 873 628 0 14,069 Commerical 729 39 367 29 234 45 14 151) 36 0 I,o5,2 Apuuneuts 527 55 583 91 520 21 32 482 12 0 2,323 --- --- ------ - ----------------------------- 2019/2020 PROJECTED 5,531 942 3,744 382 3,485 806 964 1,514 676 0 0 18,044 Con>>uetrial and Apartment coums uormali,-Xd ill 2018 to account for si7z and complexity of account anti awtc t:ompambility to rtaidcuual. 37 MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE, INC.d.b.a. MILL VALLEY REFUSE SERVICE DISPOSAL EXPENSE PASS THROUGH Sweep Garbage Debris Debris Total Green Waste Recycling TOTAL TONNAGE 17,6'14.19 4,147.72 4.60 21,766.51 11,782.92 8,782.64 RATE FOR PROFIT ALLOWANCE $54.23 $54.23 $54.23 TOTAL FOR PROFIT AI-LOWANCE $955,213 $224,930 $249 $1,180,392 TOTAL DUMP EXPENSE $1,024,970 $353,541 _ $506 $1,379,017 570,347.43 530,609.23 TOTAL FOR PASS THROUGH $69,757 $128,612 $257 $198,626 Rate Cap for Profit Mill Valley $ 58.19 $ 58.19 $ 58.19 $ 48.07 $ 86.24 TOTAL FOR PROFIT ALLOWANCE .$1,025,047 $241,374 $268 $1,266,689 $566,405 $757,388 TOTAL DUMP EXPENSE $1,024,970 $353,541 $506 $1,379,017 $570,347 $530,609 TOTAL FOR PASS THROUGH ($77) $112,168 $238 $112,329 $3,942 ($226,779) GARBAGE ALLOCATION Mill Valley 31.29% $ 35,149 $ 35,149 1,233.64 0.00 Belvedere 4-84% $ 9,611 $ 9,611 Corte Madera 22.60% $ 44,884 $ 44,884 Alto 2.28% $ 4,523 9,523 Tiburon 18.20% $ 36,153 $ 36,153 County 3.77% $ 7,493 IS 7,493 Homestead 3.70% $ 7,351 $ 7,351 Strawberry '10.78% $ 21,415 $ 21,415 Atmonte 2.54% $ 5,043 $ 5,043 '100.00% $ 171,622 $ - - -171,622 Calculation based upon separate rate - 38 Mill Valley Refuse Services, Inc dba 2019/2020 Mill Valley Refuse Services Schedule of Road Impact Fees and Other Flat Fees Included in Franchise Fees Road Impact Fees Jurisdiction Amount Mill Valley 137,700.00 Escalating at 2% County 39,082.00 176,782.00 Tiburon Admin Fee 6,000.00 6,000.00 Corte Madera Admin. Fee 9,000.00 9,000.00 County Zero Waste Fee 13,351.00 13,351.00 Total Fees 205,133.00 39 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM PROGRAM SUMMARY EVALUATION e: 1MR TABLE OF CONTENTS Background 2 ��` Method 4 Results 7 I Participation 8 Weight of Material Collected 10 '" m � f Quality of Material Collected 16 Participant Survey Summary 19 ` Goals 25 �" ' e � Lessons Learned ` Residential 29 Business & Apartments 31 Case Study: Two Complexes 32 Final Pros, Cons & Conclusion 34 Appendix 36 � o � `` ,I LD �c fi !D :rD �o < , W I .............. DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM BACKGROUND BACKGROUND Prior to 2017, collecting recyclable material was a revenue generator for Mill Valley Refuse Service (MVRS). Those revenues helped to offset costs and keep rates down. Then ;p fa= China, California's largest recycling customer, upended the NX0,000 marketplace with new policies that required drastic It n,n.n-. S reductions in contamination, and virtually ended that 1 " , � � r country's imports of many recycling materials. ` Efforts to clean up contaminated material and find new markets for its recyclables drastically increased the costs at mixt ,�. �,:,<; . . . r.: Processing Plants statewide. Tipping fees (the price charged for dumping collected material at a processing plant) skyrocketed as a result of the new market conditions. MVRSN + which saw recycling revenue shrink to zero in April, 2017, �"'curea��mc�r �abc� t�N��o�al,Sword,����r.�te of the suddenly found itself paying per ton tipping fees of$4, then �,re �l�ng in�c�try�end s��news Mips frartS lraca( m�d3a, see $59 (in a single price increase in October), then $72 in o February, 2108. That price continues to rise, and 3 stands at $83/ton today. ^J C N n m 2 DUAL-STREAMru"" UAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM BACKGROUND DUAL-STREAM OPTIONS EXPLORED Our efforts to find a better deal at various processing plants Single-stream recycling has been an industry favorite because in the Bay Area failed. Some plants closed their doors, while the convenience of putting all recyclables into one cart others refused to take on new customers. MRS now produced the greatest amount of participation and highest dumps its single-stream recycling material at a transfer point levels of material collected. However, material collected this at the Redwood Landfill in Novato, where it is loaded into way is often of lower quality due to the difficulty of semi-trucks and sent to a processing plant in San Jose! completely separating material streams at processing plants. One local processing plant at Marin Sanitary Service (MS) in Rising levels of contamination—i.e. when trash items find San Rafael exists as an optional destination for recycling their way into the recycle carts—exacerbate the separation material collected by MVRS. However, they primarily process. process dual-stream material. The tipping fee at MS is currently $40/ton, less than half of what MRS pays now for For years, the marketplace didn't care about low-quality single-stream material. Given this considerably lower cost, bales of processed material (for example, paper with glass MRS embarked upon a Dual-Stream Pilot Project at the shards or contaminated with food waste from metal cans or end of 2018 to learn if switching to dual-stream collection plastic containers). With markets now demanding cleaner would be a viable way to address the increasing costs of material, processing costs for single-stream material have single-stream collection. skyrocketed. S CE'OCYt CyCiin, 5AOen�'all recyclabl6s Adding to the problem, markets for even well-processed 3 material have dwindled. China has severe) cut back on < ;reaper,plastrc,glass and cans'=- are �uf in, �r�e�r��� y imports, and other markets in Asia and elsewhere have not DUf�1StiC3+ t�i recycling ►s_v�hen" aer i5 }3ttt IC� Q been able to absorb the flow of material still being collected - Orae'Cart,anCJ Cil ostler recyCla6les irta a separate Card ; at the curb. All of these factors led MRS to explore <. 0 ,i ti.: ..� alternatives to single-stream collection and delivering rDz w material to currently available processing facilities. 3 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM METHOD � r Most companies that collect dual-stream material typicallyO, T� �� / use split-body trucks and split carts. Customers put paper in 7, acrd one side of the cart and all other recyclables in the other. / � tlettxaIr' ��h + ��'t1� S routes ✓.%r'�'� r�Z 3 `"tt\`�3Y\�fiF 61f S f•FF-.j, r H ( `y\ f �! / "�/` i When the cart is dumped, the contents spill into the trzstto�res1 t bc� y trr�tl�s rs mcarethai� $3 rriClron IKS tiv `" �y� i1 rit F xrt separate hoppers of the split body truck so that the material remains separate. With split body trucks all recyclables canxtprl $��ISp ` 6 �ORIt�w,;I4,€�0�3 = be collected weekly. re �} � tverecy -esrde ;" %'^eta �• 'n,`�` ��..�r�' - sF c�� \���\\6 �` � "o�a� �+a� ts�N ;�o�rn�r���vt��o�plrt boded trues and MVRS has no split body trucks, nor do its customers have split carts. Buying new trucks and carts would have cost millions (see right), so we decided to test a plan to collect dual-stream material using existing equipment. This required us to collect material on i � £ say+ v alternating weeks—paper one week and other eft� z g d recyclables the next week. ' CD . Making the alternating week collection schedule work waste , the greatest challenge of the pilot program. Not only did y� • '� ,•'',, �awe r �` ,iR�1�, participants have to learn to separate recyclables into two A streams, they also had to figure out how to store material b that wasn't being picked up weekly, and keep track of which Example of current MVRS truck (left) and asplit-body truck (right). 1 n material was being picked up from week to week. w 4 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM METHOD To conduct the pilot project, we chose four routes that �d covered mainly residential neighborhoods in a representative cross section of our service areas. The neighborhoods were in Belvedere, Tiburon, Mill Valley, Corte Madera, Strawberry and unincorporated County (see Appendix 2). a Each household was given a 22-gallon bin for cans, bottles, and plastics; and told to use the 64-gallon cart they already ' \� had for paper. It was explained in an introductory flyer (see `10 nV Appendix 3) sent to all participants that these bins/carts would be picked up on alternate weeks beginning in September. A program timeline can be viewed in Appendix 4. r r H„ o - The firsfi lesson we quickly learned was that many parrcipants were unhappy 3 with the bin because it=had narc>, �a:wheel , adf was nc�t dig enough.. /r U .� ^"' ' ,' ..'r ,.,.,....,' ,,,... „,._ - .......>M,au,.�,.,.,.,... ,��.fi✓,��4�s"5a:�< spa:A� k� lu��an�. �`� ..a«uri,.+ .veer r. ..��..,a.,_ .,. n.,,.,.r...,, ,,.i,aM� ..,_,�,.,_... ...... m c ; m rD n ro w 5 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM METHOD RECORDING THE DATA CUSTOMER NOTIFICATION At the start of the project, the regular route driver was For the first three weeks of the pilot, the driver dumped all accompanied by a route auditor who examined the contents bins/carts no matter what was in them, but bins/carts with of each bin/cart put out and recorded whether or not those single-stream material were tagged after being dumped, and contents were separated according to the dual-stream the resident was notified that starting in Week 4 bins/carts directions. with the wrong material would not be dumped. From Week 4 until the pilot's end, bins/carts with wrong materials were The route auditor recorded participation levels in each pilot tagged and left full at the curb. neighborhood in Weeks 1-4, 7 and 8, and 14 and 15. For each address, the auditor recorded either N/O (no cart out), SS (cart with single-stream material), DS (cart with SERVICE NOTICE dual-stream material), DSX (cart with dual-stream, but You are part of a Dual Stream Pilot Project, and we need your help to make it succeed. ❑ SINGLE STREAM RECYCLE MATERIAL IN RECYCLE CART- Grace Period wrong material for that week), DS-TAG (tag left on cart Your recycle cart was picked up this week as a courtesy, but in following weeks we must leave it unless materials are sorted properly for dual-stream collection(i.e. paper one week and all other mixed recyclables—cans, glass bottles and jars. and plastic containers—the explaining why it was not picked up) or C (cart next week).Sorry,but our trucks can't mix single and dual-stream material together. contaminated with trash). ❑ MATERIAL NOT SORTED FOR DUAL STREAM COLLECTION We were unable to dump your cart because your recycle materials are not sorted properly for dual-stream collection("i.e. paper one week and all other mixed recyclables—cans: glass bottles and jars, and plastic containers—the next week). Sorry, but our trucks can't mix single and dual-stream material together. ❑WRONG DUAL STREAM MATERIAL THIS WEEK " Thanks for participating and separating your recycling!However,you put out the wrong material this week, and we were unable to pick up your cart. 3 Please contact MVRS ASAP to correct the situation. Office hours:Monday-Friday,7:00am-3:00pm Phone:415-457-9760 Email:customer@millvalleyrefuse.com Learn more:www.milivalleyrefuse.com/pilot ro CD w t 6 J i§ DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS To determine the viability of our alternating week dual-stream collection method, we needed to measure three things: PARTICIPATION WEIGHT OF QUALITY OF on MATERIAL MATERIAL 10 3 COLLECTED COLLECTED See Appendix 5 for complete route data for each jurisdiction. n fD A fD w 7 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS \m.Y errs.... .,. �����. .. .\ � / ��\.a ur /..,,¢•,rir. .r ..:,,, ......::... ... ,..., .,.. ._, ....,, .. ...�,: r, .,,< t... l,,:m:,i....,ri.. �.Ss: / �T?.. cmu.....\ r<.zs➢.¢ \r \ S \ yy r ., ,.. .... ...,.. .... \ r wive .��Ca�; `z:,�.v ...;� T�- \\�\ t✓�. \ _� t ab u;S. 0 O �D 3 Graph 1 Graph #1 shows a steady increase in participation (defined as putting out at the curb properly separated materials ID in separate carts/bins) during the pilot period. Beginning in Week I, overall participation was at 68%, but b Week 3 participation rose to 92% and peaked in the upper 90% range thereafter. CD 8 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS , ..:. .., .:,.; ..,;:: \ ,v-/ .< "• `sem' ...,_... IM ......... ...... .. .. :,.:: ....a\... .\Rr. .. .. ..rl. r .$ a, .. ., 1, ,. /rr r/. ::. .: .. ... ,. .... ., ,,,...,... .. ,.,,,.,,. .� .�`..���`.,. �� e.F-, .>.. ;.., •;�;,, � / w mom.:: r ^ .; �. ,r, Mxt� F As Graph #2 shows, there was confusion (or resistance) to Ve dual-stream separation in Week 1,with a significant percentage of participants still putting out single-stream material.This percentage steadily declined in the first month as single-stream carts were tagged in the first three weeks, and then left full at the curb in Week 4. By the second round of audits in Week 7, . „• a ._. -_ a..= single-stream putouts became negligible and remained that way to the end of the project. Graph 2 x -av o Graph #3 indicates a level of confusion about the N CD 1 3 alternating week pick up schedule.Throughout the , EL project, a small percentage of participants put out either the wrong material (i.e. paper on the cans/plastic/glass / rD week or vice versa), or both dual-stream materials in separate carts/bins on the same day, indicating uncertainty w as to which correct material week it was. Graph 3 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS .... ,,. ,;.✓• /?',� �. ice.. ..,,.�; rk: 7 .Z\ / f "There is data that show that recycling participation rates drop when customers are asked to separate materials themselves because it requires more work." --Fred Stemmler, Manager of Recology Sonoma Marin, The Marin Independent journal 7/14/18 The quote above represents the generally accepted industry A measure of the viability of switching to dual-stream opinion that single-streim collection of recyclables results in collection can be found in a comparison of tons collected on the greatest amounts of material collected—and therefore the pilot project routes before, during and after the pilot diverted—from the waste stream that ends up in landfill. project, as well as our experienced differences in residual Single-stream material, however, is harder to separate at rates between the single versus dual-stream recyclables we processing facilities and exposes paper to contamination collected on routes in the pilot area neighborhoods. from broken glass and food waste spilling out of improperly rinsed containers. O N It is MVRS's experience that single-stream processing fees 3 have skyrocketed to meet market demands for cleaner material, and that residual rates (the percentage of material rD separated from the single-stream recyclables and sent to rD landfill) have increased as a result of the effort to meet the rD new market standards for uncontaminated bales. z . W 10 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS 1 l f F 3 may_ f t Tables 1-3 below show the average tons collected of dual-stream material during the pilot project as opposed to the average tons of single-stream material collected on the same routes during the month before and month after the pilot project. WEIGHTS OF LOADS DURING Weights of Loads August 2018 DUAL-STREAM PILOT PERIOD* (Month Prior to Dual-Stream Pilot) Route -> 2202 2302 2403 2502 Route 2202 2302 2403 2502 WK-4 3.23 2.6 2.27 2.01 WK-1 4.33 4.54 4.46 3.38 WK-5 4.31 4.68 4.56 3.76 WK-2 4.2 5.03 4.8 3.86WK'-6 2.25 2.9 2.25 2.21 WK-3 5.32 5.51 5.28 5.75 WK-7 4.83 5.18 4.54 3.66 WK-4 5.78 4.97 5.33 3.8ell WK;-8, 2.5 2.75 2.53 2.31 average 4.91 5.01 4.97 4.20 1�/K-9 4.87 4.94 4.28 4.01 Table 1 WK-1.02.51 2.92 2.25 2.29 Weights of Loads WK-11 „ 4.81 4.78 4.47 3.83 January 2019 (Month After to Dual-Stream Pilot) WK-12, 2.43 3.01 2.45 2.35 Route 2202 2302 2403 2502 WK-13" 5.11 5.98 5.39 4.21 WK-1 4.48 5.25 5.7 5.15 WK-2 5.52 6.02 5.71 4.94 WK-,14 3.05 3.82 3.26 2.71 WK-3 4.36 5.05 5.53 4.63 WK-15 5.36 6.17 5.15 4.14 3 WK-4 4.93 5.98 5.45 3.92 WK-16 2.64 3.31 2.72 2.44 average 4.82 5.58 5.60 4.66 WK-17 5.24 5.54 4.77 4.64 Table 2 rD average 3.79 4.18 3.63 3.18 *First three weeks of material are not shown because they included Table 3 n single-stream material picked up during the grace period. w ' II DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS F � avf g WEIGHT DATA ANALYZED At first glance, it seems that the weekly average weight of apartments/businesses on the route to determine the material collected dropped significantly during the pilot number of yards of material removed from the pilot route project timespan, but this is NOT true due to the following each day. We then used the EPA's Volume-to-Weight reasons. Conversion Factors (Appendix 6), which estimates that one cubic yard of commingled recyclables weighs I I I lbs., to convert the number of yards taken off the pilot routes into pounds. All apartment and commercial accounts were taken OFF each pilot route, leaving only residential stops. MRS madeR-Z �� t ✓y�� Rs*a" the decision to do this because it recognized the special challenges apartments and businesses would have with the 2202 11 0.6 alternating week pick up schedule and in notifying tenants of 2302 18.2 1.0 the requirements of dual-stream separation.* As a 2403** 31.5 1.75 3 consequence, the weights of the apartment and commercial 2502 23.6 1,3 stops must be taken into account when comparing the Table 4 r average weights during the single and dual-stream collection 'The MVRS plan to address the challenges of dual-stream collection at rD apartments and businesses is addressed on page 31 of this report. months. To calculate these weights for each route, we Route 2403 is the only route in the pilot program that received material from counted the number of carts or containers at the from our small recycling truck that services narrow streets and long driveways, and dumps off on big trucks during the day. Route 2403 could not accept single stream material from the small truck during the pilot program so the yards 12 removed total includes a dump load from the small truck. DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS z With the average daily weights of the missing apartment/business tons added to the average daily weights on the dual-stream routes we see the following: 2202 4.39 4.82 -0.43 2302 5.18 5.58 -0.4 2403 5.38 5.6 -0.22 2502 4,48 4,66 -0.18 Table 5 O _ N .. 3 .. y ro C fD rDN n , (D , W 13 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS y t WEIGHT DATA ANALYZED There was a dramatic difference between reported residual levels of single-stream material sent to GreenWaste in San Jose (16.7%) versus the dual stream material delivered to Marin Sanitary in San Rafael (7%). This indicates that collecting cleaner dual-stream material results in more tons ACTUALLY recycled than collecting an equivalent number of tons of single-stream material. 10 tons x 16.7% 10 tons - 1 .67 tons = 1 .67 tons residual 8.33 tons actually recycled 10 tons x 7% = 10 tons - 0.70 tons = 0.70 tons residual 9.30 tons actually recycled 3 rD d m Put another way, it takes 1 1.2 tons of single-stream material with 16.7% residual to actually recycle as much as 10 tons of dual-stream material at just 7% residual. z W 14 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS r y S . ..: ..,,,.. .•..:: '. .: \ / raw . �\ WEIGHT DATA ANALYZED daily numbers of N/O's on the dual-stream routes significantly different from those numbers found during route audits of some Although it is impossible to quantify, some percentage of the lower sample single-stream routes. tonnage collected must be due to efforts by MVRS to educate the public about what constitutes contamination in recycling. We see \ x \ r � this from the survey answers in Appendix 7 pg 54 where 57% of -�� �«-•��-% /�aA -,-••• -.,,.!.. . . -.w'.•-. ' respondents admit to throwing away items they had previously 19% 3% recycled. However, the reasons given in some cases demonstrated a new awareness of what constitutes contamination. "Trying to WEIGHT ANALYSIS CONCLUSION follow new contamination rules"was the reason given by 259 Our conclusion from all of the above is that there is little reason to respondents {68%}for throwing away some items. Clearly, stories be concerned that switching from single to dual-stream collection n the news media and publications put out by MVRS and others will have an adverse effect on the number of tons collected. While have heightened awareness of the fact that many items previously studies showed that the convenience of single-stream collection thought to be recyclable actually are not. Also some participants boosted participation back when people needed encouragement to No didn't want to spend time or use water to wash food residue from recycle, we are not aware of any studies done to measure how 3 otherwise recyclable containers so they chose to trash those. some loss of convenience affects the behavior of a population already well accustomed to recycling. It seems that the battle Lastly, we found no particular evidence of residents opting to against contamination,which has led to much public enlightenment discontinue recycling during the pilot program. Route audits did - but also confusion and frustration --will necessarily result in less not find a large number of"No Carts Out," nor were the average tonnage collected overall, but cleaner material means more of rDn what's collected will actually be recycled, so this is a battle that must continue no matter what collection method is employed. 15 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS ass ' t r r r � a I \ i 4. i 5.5 sem»:. , :` ✓.�.x�G�// .za.„. .. 5 / /' r ,✓ C Y M Of major concern to MVRS was whether the quality of the shows the monthly tons of Containers (cans/glass/plastic) material collected during the pilot period would meet a and Fiber (paper) delivered during the pilot period. standard of"purity” (i.e. sufficient separation of material types into the two designated dual streams) that was Overall, there were 130.95 tons (63.2%) of fiber and 76.23 acceptable for delivery to the dual-stream processing plant tons of containers (36.8%) collected. Marin Sanitary was at Marin Sanitary. As noted earlier, we gave the pilot "very happy with the material stream as it was really clean and participants a three week grace period to properly separate well separated," according to Facility Manager Nicholas and put out their recyclables on the correct, alternating Minton. "I would say your residual rate is 6% to 7% or under week. During the first three weeks, drivers picked up all based on the loads that I saw. I would say about 2-2.5% was non- carts/bins, no matter how well separated, but left tags on recyclable #I-7 plastics, 2-2.5% mixed paper contamination, and those carts/bins that still had mixed materials, warning that the rest of the total is true residual such as waxed cardboard and they would be left at the curb the following week if not glass residual in the fiber. There was very little or no plastic bogs separated properly. On Week 4, we began delivering and absurd contamination like diapers and food, which was CD separated loads to Marin Sanitary, and the table below great." 3 , CONTAINER A 8.1 21 .71 17.7 28.72 (ALL OTHER MIXED RECYCLING) r < FIBER `° (PAPER & CARDBOARD) 0 40.39 50.11 40.45 rD Table 6 16 U L-ST PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM 5 k ... :;. y L ,: ,. ..... .... ... .. .,- ..-... � \ \. ,.,.�,r.,�6i, m �ca\,,... �„-/.. rd� Ate__. \tea,.�.�:., ,: -?Ywa. x.;;.., :.✓ �..,..,..-., -' t t t, r. .�,:. \ ,'" ,a 'fir !,•; x�;'.a^ r-„ c r r .. ns ., .... ,,; ,. .,< >� \\�\ �x+,�, /,�/x '.af tea\�\C'.���\�,�•�-�`ara' /„ sc� �\\\a :-z�,r/,ice :� �` / rub m\ fa mm w s ri✓� z ,,;, s. .,:.a. \ .�,..:.xaY .;... .,:-' '� ;,,a _ ..-. / s;a=..-� v �w', .. � /..e/� �? =\\a\�\\,..\,•; '�`�>`�� ,.�` ;Pa...:x.�m\�a��.--.,.: 1,, ��I..;e y.\ v/•., a � i Al s \�f 4 � a L E��• Dual-Stream Rec clin g Note the quality of the /° eNote the clamp,food soiled Single-Stream Recycling clean, dry fiber material " condition of fiber material +�. •' ,� �, >;y gy1�4k) m� ��',n „.� 'k a sy�,.I I v ', � ,l 4 H x ro rD - rD ,z m i DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM RESULTS < fRii Won 9 � l .,,w'. .\,azs ,t <�% i',. r.:,5 ate.; '✓krt"?., i Yu 1"' ,�/ v'-k \.. , ,�� ,�. .. ��� \\ �� yrs ✓ ,„ � < . .. � Fan -.<.a., .r.. r✓ ,..... \a�.� :::l�l� ,z �<„ye•� ",���. ,s.,:_.r :,lir a a� •� E� C r n: 0 r vg way Dual-Stream Recycling r f/ z Single-Stream Recycling move lot 41 71 NA , i 5, „1,.,�,rw ..nn..`,... .... Taz✓.,w' ros ...,.,. _<<.m..,1 r.3m. DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS SUMMARY BY R3 CONSULTING GROUP COMPLETE SURVEY RESULTS IN APPENDIX 7 Survey focused on: Survey emailed to 140 ® Problems experienced. by (out of i pilot study accounts) participants in the program ® Solutions that could address the Survey received % response problems identified rate and was taken by 680 participants ® Overall public opinion about whether or not to go dual stream Margin of error o . z ` c m N n N rD W 19 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS PROGRAM DIFFICULTIES x i y _, _. `�, � r �i< ,.�, ,�..���,_ '� use.r.•,\�\�.: � � E, x .:,. .. ..... .. ...0 .....:.. ... ....:. .... . .s:.... .. ..,.. ..__....� ,..«.,...: ,�,:.vA>;v>.w �-sem �.:.aa.<..'l��.�,��� �ti✓uw".�z�d�a..�a.�.�.-y`,�.w«��..<cc:r>,�✓r .,a..<.�._,..,...:, �.,..e,„..✓.f ,.d.� .......,,...,.,.. ._. ... ...,.., _ ... -.. How was your experience adjusting to the dual-stream recycling system? Nw ,.fCHI,.f_t^>-;,. �£ r�^,kit f�:%/% s�X•e��\��. 4001x, µ01s 60 � Sr N ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES O 46,1 M 678 CD Note: the 4% difference between those with difficulties and those without is not statistically significant ` 20 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS PROBLEM INDENTIFICATION ,;,.. ,:': �,_�"-moi-r N ys rs✓� �Z a\m <_:�aw��,v:/,s'i�,�:�+. ,.:�ta\y�\,a r v //.:���� ;�� fr.,-- �. 7: �� ��x r res. �,� s•.i r�„��g9��t,.<i� '�" 's a Fi < ca.. \ z � r s✓�% d l� �F> \ ,� i i rr Via,� \ l :. - .... .; -r s s., •\ \.x /.'yam M ✓' f ,� .M.^� ,.,,, ;' � '�. \ �'"S ✓ � ./� t \ \ baa � rr Q3 'ghat difficulties did you have with the dual-stream recycling program? (check all that apply) wkh O ` N0 100 00 200 300 `,a 00 5 O ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES rD rD (D v 2.24 r ..0 W 21 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS STORAGE SOLUTIONS 'v c Iz/ c f Fibers: Paper/Cardboard No, Mixed: Bottles/Cans N w ID m 1 rD w Note: 15% of participants responded that they do not have space for another outdoor bin 22 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS SCHEDULING / SORTING SOLUTIONS u y f r � � a z. , z 05 acs you have regular access to a smart phone or internet? 98% of respondents have ....� , aa: �... ,.., �. �.,...... . �ti smart phones/internet access Y 08 Through what medium would you most prefer to receive education about sorting and pickup of your recyclables? 0 Emails and mailings 3 were the most preferred forms of communication LDrDn A (D w 23 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY OVERALL PUBLIC OPINION r "V 1 r i r r Q14 Would you be willing to pay up to more on your overallmonthly garbage bill to have a single stream recycling system c M,00, 6Ti• O 3ANSWER CHOKES RESPONSES 1 ra ., rD Note: the 1.5% difference between those who would pay more for single stream and those who wouldn't is not statistically significant. w - 24 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM What we'd originally hoped to accomplish with this pilot:to learn if we can substantially reduce the cost of recycling, while at the same time maintaining, or actually increasing our level of recycling. There are few ways dual-stream recycling might achieve this goal: { r� 10 ,..: 3 REDUCED REDUCED INCREASED TIPPING FEES CARBON RECYCLING FOOTPRINT RATE 25 In 2018, MRS collected about 9,370 tons of single-stream recycling material.At the current tipping fee of $83/ton, the cost of delivering 9,370 tons of material to the processing plant in San Jose is $777,710. ' The same amount of material delivered to the dual-stream processing plant in San Rafael for $40/ton would be just $374,800 — a potential savings of approximately $402,910 in the first year. 26 Currently, MVRS drives seven trucks daily to the Redwood Landfill in Novato to dump its recycling loads, which are then transferred into semi-trucks and hauled to a recycling plant in San Jose! It would be difficult for us to estimate the fuel costs of the transfer trucks because we do not operate those trucks, but we can provide estimated fuel cost savings for our own trucks hauling recycling to Novato. CURRENTTRAVEL DISTANCETO REDWOOD LANDFILL It is 34 miles round trip from our San Rafael facility to the Redwood Landfill recycling dump site. Each of our trucks makes the trip 260 times annually, which for all seven trucks amounts to 61,880 annual truck miles. Marin Sanitary is about half a mile from our facility, and our trucks would drive just 910 miles annually to dump there. Since our trucks get an estimated six miles per gallon of diesel fuel, fuel savings will be significant if we discontinue dumping at Redwood and instead dump at Marin Sanitary. ANTICIPATED SAVINGS IN FUEL COSTS WITH DUAL-STREAM COLLECTION Now that the pilot project is over, we have some actual fuel figures to compare by which we can determine potential savings in fuel costs. During the pilot project, when our trucks were dumping at Marin Sanitary, they burned an average of 14.85 gallons of fuel daily. In January, 2019, when their routes returned to raged 23.05 gallons of fuel daily-a difference of 8.2 gallons more per dumping at Redwood Landfill, they ave day. ` If we multiply 1820 trips (7 trucks X 260 trips each) by 8.2 gallons per trip, we get an anticipated savings of ' 14,924 gallons of fuel annually. At the current cost of$3.50/gallon, that equals a savings of$52,234. ONE CAVEAT As discussed in another part of this report (see page 32), we will need to add one commercial route to our fleet to service apartments and businesses that lack the space to store material on an alternating week pick up schedule. This would add 3,861 gallons (260 trips X 14.85 gallons/trip) of use, so actual anticipated - savings would be $38,720 . 27 LESS RESIDUALS EQUAL MORE RECYCLING If you reference Table 5 on page 13 of this report, you'll note that the average weight of a dual-stream load is less than the single-stream sample set frorn January 2019. We offered sorne reasons for that, but most importantly, when you subtract the reported residual levels of single-stream material (16.7%) and dual-stream material (7%) from the weight totals, dual-stream actually produces up to 7.2% more reeyelables than single-stream despite weighing less. r +✓ p✓.! + s t t � r c 2202 4.0 4. 0 0 0% 2302 4.81 4.64 .17 3.6% 2403 5.0 4.66 .34 7.2% t=' 2502 4.16 3.88 .28 7.2% Table 7 28 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM LESSONS LEARNED Residential During the pilot project, certain mistakes made and hurdles to overcome were revealed. Lessons learned from the operation of the pilot routes, and survey results from pilot participants,would help in the expansion of dual-stream collection if our jurisdictions vote for it. . The second bin we provided was inadequate. 3, Make information readily available. Survey results Complaints about the 22-gallon bin we supplied to residents to hold showed that most residents preferred direct mailings or email mixed recyclables rolled in immediately. It was too small for many, notifications to keep track of the alternating week pick up schedule. and it had no lid or wheels. Survey results make it clear that most Going to our website—which is a really valuable source of people want an extra 32-gallon or 64-gallon recycle cart to store information—was not favored as much as we'd like it to be. Creating material for alternating week collection. (Larger families may even a phone application was listed as much as our website as a preferred want a 96-gallon cart.) Providing second carts of the sizes method of receiving information, and we would look into doing that. indicated will increase the initial cost of moving to dual stream, but it's necessary and the least expensive way to solve the 4• Step up efforts to explain contamination. Many weekly storage issue that the alternating week pick up schedule of the complaints received about dual-stream collection during the creates. pilot project really were complaints about how to recycle correctly given new rules about what is and isn't truly recyclable. It is clearly 2. Not everyone has room for a second large cart. necessary to continue our anti-contamination efforts to reduce o While everyone seemed to manage to find space for the small bin we confusion and "clean up" our recycling stream. 3 provided, many didn't like that it had no wheels (or lid), and it was w often too small to handle material for two weeks. Many participants rD rD asked if they could use their large cart every week so long as only the correct material for that week was in it. We quickly realized this was a good solution for people who didn't have room for a second cart, continued ID rD and we issued a flyer describing this "alternating bin" method of 29 sorting material (see Appendix 8). DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM LESSONS Residential 5. Increase efforts to explain how to "recycle One complaint, for example, came in from the Strawberry pilot area right." Hand in hand with #4 above, we learned that people want after the pilot program had ended. The customer was angry that his recycle cart had not been picked up (it had been tagged for clear messaging about what they CAN recycle, rather than just being told about contamination. We are already stepping up efforts to put contamination). The customer said he thought when the pilot project ended he "could go back to recycling like normal." out positive "can do" instructions on our website and literature, and would make this a big part of rolling out a new dual-stream plan. It seems possible that some negative reactions to dual-stream collection indicated in the survey could have been caused by this 6. Dual-stream project was confused with general confusion. Perhaps there would have been less animosity towards anti-contamination efforts. Unfortunately, the dual-stream dual-stream collection if people better- understood that anti- project started simultaneously with our efforts to address contamination efforts applied equally to single-stream collection, and contamination with ALL of our single-stream customers. MRS sent that those efforts were not an extra burden brought on by dual- an anti-contamination flyer (see Appendix 9) within weeks of the flyer stream collection. 0 we sent announcing the pilot project, and some customers on the N .. pilot route thought the two flyers were linked. Apparently some 3 participants felt they were being hit with a "double whammy" of new rules to learn and follow. ID n CD 30 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM LESSONS Businesses art ents At the start of the pilot project, we knew that the alternating week We can still require that apartments and businesses separate paper pick up schedule would create special difficulties for apartment from other recyclables in their carts, which would be labeled with managers and business owners. Communicating a new recycling these stickers: system to tenants and employees is especially challenging, plus apartments and businesses usually lack space to store material for an ��� alternating week pick up schedule, especially since some of theseR Cons,NO Bottles, or Plastic, �h« ` NO L fi s, Botches, o Plrisfico4 accounts are actually picked up multiple times per week. �,ir eva,®W,®p Sty-4— Moak Pm;shg,e:®<cais. t44o en ahv-dm by bartas P.4-iir na(unicoip Y y a matcna4 d pla tuo da'Sit poxc Theapartments and businesses on the pilot routes were removed ti �� � � '` � " '� from those routes for the duration of the pilot project, and a plan to y T, service these accounts needs to be in place if we move to dual-stream collection. Over time, we would endeavor to convert to dual-stream recycling any apartment or business that was able to handle the In that way, we might still have adual-stream truck pick up one alternating week schedule. For those that can't, we considered two material or other on the proper week wherever practical (i.e. if the options: continue picking these up single-stream with existing trucks, dual-stream truck is passing an apartment or business on its way to a or eventually purchase split trucks for these accounts. Both options residential neighborhood). This would enable us to gain the benefits O require the creation of a new commercial route. of the cleaner dual-stream processing fees and higher recycling rates N O At the start, MVRS would create a commercial route that continued from these accounts, but still ensure they were fully serviced as often to pick up single-stream material using existing trucks. This route as they needed on a weekly basis. EL would work in tandem with an already existing commercial route that Ultimately, it may make sense to purchase one or two split trucks C picks up cardboard-only containers. MS has agreed to accept the for this commercial route, but this could be done in the natural single-stream material at a part of their processing plant that is rD course of replacing old trucks with new ones, and would not require separate from where they process dual-stream material. an immediate capital expenditure on any new equipment. 31 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM CASE STUDY ale of Two Complexes There were two condo complexes on separate Park Terrace— Mi{{ Valley pilot project routes—one in Mill Valley (Park The Park Terrace complex consists of 65 condominiums, and the owners of each subscribe to service individually. Each condo has its own Terrace) and one in Corte Madera (Mariner small closet for trash cans and storage of recyclables. Not all of the Townhouses). It's worth noting the differences condos have sufficient room for traditional 64-gallon recycle carts, so between the two complexes that made the dual- most residents collect their recycling in buckets and shopping bags. stream experiment successful in Mill Valley, but On the day of recycle collection, all residents bring their recyclables to a communal area that our truck can access to service what has much less so in Corte Madera. been put out. Because Park Terrace residents subscribe to service individually, MVRS was able to send announcements and explanatory flyers (including by email) to each resident, ensuring that they were notified of the pilot project and informed as to how it worked. Their homeowner association president also contacted MVRS for O CD , clarifications, and made sure through its own newsletter that residents 3 understood how to put out the correct material on alternating weeks. From day one (and honestly to our surprise), there was never a CD problem with dual-stream collection at Park Terrace. rD 32 QUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM CASE STUDY ale of Two Complexes Mariner Townhomes— Corte Madera At a subsequent meeting with the Mariner Townhome HOA and property manager, the HOA requested that the separate carts be The condo complex on the Corte Madera pilot route has 144 units, different colors as well as having the stickers to distinguish which and its trash, recycling and compost carts are placed within 14 stream should go in each. While this seems like a good idea, we were communal trash areas scattered throughout the complex. Most not able to do this during the short project time period. We did significantly, there are no individual service accounts at the Mariner agree, however, that a flyer would be sent to each resident (See Townhomes. Instead, trash service is paid through a single property Appendix 10) to explain dual-stream collection. This was still not manager, and that manager was the only point of contact MVRS had to immediately or entirely successful. In a few of the enclosures, used by announce the pilot project and convey information about how it was more engaged residents, we found properly separated recyclables to work. MVRS went to each trash enclosure and labeled carts with according to the stickered messages on the carts, but most enclosures the aforementioned stickers so residents would know what to put in did not have properly sorted materials, indicating it would take extra each cart, and we relied on the property manager to contact residents time and effort to get residents in any multi-family complex to comply in the complex so they would know what to do. with dual-stream collection. Not surprisingly, this was wholly inadequate and completely failed, as the stickers were ignored by the uninformed residents. What we O CD == learned from this was that far more engagement with management *Incidentally, this experience served as a warning about the pending 3 was necessary to introduce the dual-stream collection system.` challenges to the implementation of SB 1383. rD n A 33 QUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM FINAL PROS & CONS FINAL CONSIDERATIONS Overall rates of participation in the pilot project were extremely high, We continue to believe our reasons for not proposing to replace our but this did not translate into a clear mandate to continue with dual- existing fleet of trucks and carts for split-body trucks and split carts is re split nearly evenly on the sound even though this would permit weekly collection. There is a stream collection. Survey results we question of willingness to pay more for the convenience of single- growing amount of cardboard in residential recycling, and stuffing that stream collection. Cost savings versus convenience will cardboard into the cramped confines of a split cart is an issue, plus the be important, but should not be the only factor to `Wastefulness of removing existing carts and the cost of replacing trucks have obvious negative impacts. consider in deciding between these two methods Of collection. Projected savings in tipping fees are significant, but these savings in the first year will have to be spent on new carts and the establishment of Storing recyclables for two weeks was a major difficulty for a majority anew commercial recycling route. In subsequent years, ongoing of participants. There's no getting around the fact that the alternating savings from the tipping fees should continue to hold down recycling week pick up schedule is unusual and problematic. It may be that costs for ratepayers. providing a second cart will solve this problem for a majority of people, which is why explaining this and other details of dual-stream MVRS will present rate applications on April 1, collection in a public meeting will be important. A final decision should 2019,that will compare the costs of switching to be made only after people have had o chance to voice their opinions in a 3 dual-stream or sticking with single-stream = public hearing. EL collection. rD rDn A w 34 DUAL-STREAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM FINAL PROS & CONS MARKET DEMANDS CONCLUSION The different residual figures for single-stream material (16.7%) versus Anti-contamination efforts must continue no matter what method of dual-stream (7%) must be given serious consideration. Take the time collection is chosen. However, MVRS is not in a position to demand to read the Notionol Waste & Recycling Association issue brief entitled better pricing for cleaner material when that material is delivered to a Recyclables: Changing Markets (Appendix 11). Especially note the large, regional processing plant where material from different first bullet point under Actions to Take (Ensure High Quality communities will be mixed with ours. That means the overall output Recyclables), and the second to last bullet point under from the plant will continue to affect the reported residual levels of Communications Strategy (This is a good time . . . ). It seems clear MVRS-collected material. This issue is minimized at the smaller, local that in the future market conditions will increasingly favor the cleanest MS processing plant. material streams that processing plants can produce, and dual-stream delivers that advantage. We believe the Dual-Stream Pilot Project successfully demonstrated that switching to dual-stream collection using A contributing factor to the high residual rate of MVRS's single-stream existing trucks and an alternating week pick up schedule is a material is that the transfer dump site at the Redwood Landfill is not viable option to single-stream collection IF a second recycle fully protected by a covered ceiling. In rainy weather, uncovered cart is provided to each residential customer. portions of dumped material waiting to be loaded onto a transfer truck are exposed to the weather. This exposure wets the paper, MVRS needs the support of its governing jurisdictions to meet the damaging its arketability and increasing the residual rate. Waste new demands and realities of the recycling marketplace. We hope this m 3 < Management, which operates the Redwood Landfill, is considering report provides sufficient information for each of our jurisdictions to plans to improve the dump site, but as of this writing, there is no make a choice between dual-stream or single-stream collection. MVRS A is not recommending one method over the other. The only goal of the timetable for- when the improvements might occur. Paper loads at the rD MS plant, however, are all dumped within a completely covered Dual-Stream Pilot Project was to determine if a viable option to A single-stream collection exists. We stand ready to continue providing building and are thereby protected from rain damage. . rD recycling services no matter what decision is made. 35 Appendix I BACKGROUND RESOURCES & MEDIA COVERAGE August 19, 2018 - Marin IJ March 13, 2019 - NPR CalRecycle.ca.gov MVRS MEDIA COVERAGE v r Plastics Recycling Update (A Resource Recycling, Inc. =w.. publication) July 13, 2018. - Marin IJ fln e� .,...�,.,,.....��w, ti Waste 360 �i� �L e� � i �r...em' A.v .�. _w._. _ .� __bins _..gym December 04, 2018 -ABC 7 Waste Dive O N O 7. 3 Bloomberg oeu Science Advances 36 Appendix 2 NEIGHBORHOODS PARTICIPATING IN THE PILOT PROJECT The neighborhoods chosen for this pilot project are shown in the accompanying maps. • They are primarily residential neighborhoods with few apartments or commercial businesses. • The selected neighborhoods represent a statistically meaningful number of residences across most of the jurisdictions we service: Note that the number of homes listed here was accurate at the beginning of the study, there was flux among residence over the pilot period so the final numbers are slightly different. BELVEDERE CORTE MADERA COUNTY I I I homes 407 homes 85 homes Tuesday Service Friday Service Wednesday Service MILLVALLEY STRAWBERRY TIBURON 407 homes 448 homes 309 homes Thursday Service Wednesday Service Tuesday Service N 3rD -' r c " 1 - n (D ,. < 37 Appendix 2 t5ELVEDERE I 1 I homes, Tuesday Service F <A ,r t o' 3 ` y Rj G T m 38 rn M 1. a .k! C n� Y` :,t:s prt9ll i ur;r3E, 4y 1 T lit Ui r U ' L N t �i _ _ p^y 7 VL 3[u CL ;zp3 a= ©2019 Mill Valley Refuse Service Rev3 CD v- *;€p, PO �10 'E i Y �P, pa- r J Yis 6j. f TiJ 00 V � v � r rty ir1 i h _ Y cc N LJ �dJ CL D— ©2019 Mill Valley Refuse Set-vice Rev3 Appendix 2 1 LL VALLEY 407 homes, Thursday Service `y fI' Vg v� r Or q Dr ; Ln V ct- �''b 41 Appendix 2 STRAWBERRY 448 homes, Wednesday Service ,3 CD 42 rr v r, >:_ fig` i�'r r� t r�� .,�� ..,u �" �i 1 m+ • s w - _ 4 TIBURON Appendix 2 309 homes, Tuesday Service Alc 1,14 v✓ F- �EI? cz F v.w X a 1: ,SES ti � 4 { M rT .u..^. f N S °.ss/"`r+.�� �€V < ✓ 4• rD rho `S° W 43 Appendix 3 Introductory Flyer Page I & 4 (printer spreads) yp YOU WILL. BE F'ARTICII�'ATING �:u J r w A DUA,L:-STREA' `RE YCLI PILOT PROORi?M FO Box 3557 SanRafael ;;A 94912-35H7 THE CONTAMINATION In response to skyrocketing fee,recycling plants are charging to process PROBLEM . single-stream recvclables.Mill Valley Refuse Service has selected your neighborhood to participate in a pilot program to test dual-stream � `� ����w Recycling contamination increases. collection of recyclables starting Monday,September 3,2018. labor costs at processing plants as Your net hborhood Will be: workers try to separate materials. T lie c urien'i ethod of collection we use is called single-stream recycling 9 c]t t1C1 cause all recyclables aremixed in one cart for collection on the samep paling in a Dual-Strealii Contamination oCCUfs when. ay.Dual-stream recycling is the method in which mixed paper Is put into Recycling Pilbt,Program�starting ' Non-recyclable items are put in ons can.and all other mixed recyclables are put into another can. Sa�7t�lYtbEr�% collection Carts See rnsrde fdr details. Food waste (solid or liquid) in WHY DUAL-STREAM RECYCLING? �� � recyclable containers has not Processing fees have Skyrocketed because China,a major market for been thoroughly, cleaned or 0IJr rucyclables.imposed slnci new regulations this year requiring bales rinsed, soiling paper products sent from the 1,f,'..contain only 0[, contamination.The added labor into which)it comes iif)contact.` i costs required to meet these new regulations have increased the tipping Bags of recyclables" are fees(,the amount we pay to dump at a processing facility)for single- dropped into carts rather than stream material from SO/ton in April of 2017.to S80/ton today.Since dumping the recyclables in contamination of single-stream recycling(see side bar),and reduced loose.Bags are NOT torn opal} demand for mixed paper and plastics have made it difficult for us to at the processing plants so the secure;processing at reasonable and stable rates for our customers, �a /� /^► bag,and all its contents,end uo! we want to find out if dual-stream collection is a viable option.We will �UA L *QTR EA,M' RECYCLING CAN-OPTIONS in the trash, damn tnr Jr;nrrr material it florin Sanson-Service Ir San Rafael for the Pleas Use your c rrent BB gallon recycling oart'fcsr.Mixed p?per&�Oar lbo"' ONLY,as it is big enoughAo onsiderably reduced fee of only$17.50/ton. holtl-flattened cardboarillprevent,paper from gettir g wet,ortlyino away to toad weather. Dual-stream collection may be the solution to the problems posed by current market conditions.You will help us learn more by being part of this ^-' n--� -- - -' •••• �- - - - pilot program.Thank you for your cooperation. Option 1 Option 2 THE BENEFITS OF USE YOUR OWN CAN REQUEST A BIN DUAL-STREAM �� f� p ` t Use any old garb ace can or bin you nay already MI!I Valley R7'fLJSc Service will f;rov:o m - clallor RECYCLING �A �.� ave arohna the House that's big enough or your bin for m:xea rF,y;lables pen equest `yogi have r 0 In•- plastic, n ' C. i ., .r� ,�.� t. �-,I Separated streams of paper'"" ��`���������";� � ������ ;;, glass, and m;;tal recycling.Our drivers will no spare can as mentioned a .,r,t o r 1 ��..I sur o can't be Contaminated by c n ,. a y orov n-e a recycling sacker for the can co they can office to reiauest a bin to be diorioec e at y,;:-u A distinguish it fiom your regular trash,or.You may home. � broken glass and food waste'. c��� ;n �. Separatetl streams of all other "' � also request a sticker from our o`flce ronich will be mixed recyclables are easier to THE PILOT PROGRAM BEGINS SEPTEMBER 3 delivered out to your home You may I ebue - 2 ga w pr©cess when not mixed with Starting on September 3,please roll out your current 68-gallon recycle mire yelled bin r nlir.r or ,k paper, cart with mixed paper and cardboard ONLY it.The following week, 1__ We:ar;;o nage this option as by c3�i,.g cur"Request-a-Bin" Cleaner streams of material place a different can of your choosing(see back page for options)at the " it allows ou � a F ur rose an hotline at 415-457-9760,X25. ��-�� A ole;an ✓I ich , n keep nig tea: 3 n e sa with r,r pig lowers processing Costs alts curb with your other mixed recyclables(cans;glass bottles&jars:and cillo the Zero wasthie of mai o o J 'r s o e pan �4 ensures that more is actually rigid plastic containers), recycled and less ends up in. - Reduce,REUSE,Recycle.' include y��„,.n ori i,Ilya V ID the landfill. Learn more at millvalleyrefuse.com/pilot auto 1 n ' < 44 Appendix 3 Introductory Flyer Page 2 & 3. (printer spreads) DUAL-STR AIN RE YCL�N �IIETHt D UF' RE YCLINO N, E GY S 1 = - 3 ALl`ERI TING WEEKS? We re all accustomed to theconveniencef o single-stream recycling,and we realize the new system creates '�. -'\. \�`\ �\ •��\c i \ "� �\ \ \-� `_'"' ` >` k a sorting challenge within your homes and a requirement to remember thenew alternating week rolleclion schedule.Most dual-stream collections stems utilize split carts and split-body trucks so that paper and other Y• Y p mixed recyclables can be picked up by one truck on the same day. \ .r` 'y .;.��-\�\\�\\�-\\\�.�� .�-• ' C�`\ �\��� Unfortunately,the alternating week pickup schedule is necessary so that MVRS can continue using the same carts and trucks in current use.Swapping cut existing equipment,vith split-cans and split-body trucks would cost millions of dollars and could not be fully achieved for several years.The cost of new carts and trucks would Wipe out the savings we hope to achieve--and ass on to You--if this pilotprogram is successful. `� \ ��' � V``•`h� �v<< > .�-��. r, � tyu.1 b'� ._. -�`���"� . - p 9s p P Y P i ` -..:. ` `" F \:' `�\\�� :'�,°•� '` ;? The iveeak o�Aa,ciusf 27 is y mir?easf sin.glo-s;r0arn c:ottec:rtu•!vicor. _ DUAL-STREAM RECYCLING PICK UP SCHEDULE This pilot program begins September 3,2018 and concludes on December 29,2018. 0 . a vi.,,�ti�� ... .�•.w�.v.�A�va`t.�'c...'�.,, _�'a\ .A�eA��:AA4:�a's23d�.�..•x���?��Ma.AO,� 2. A�L:�THE� I� XE ? RECY LI��L ES„ KEY SEPTEMBER OCTOBER MIXED PAPER& CARDBOARD 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 GOES INTO �15F'Af� 1TE2' 3 1 12 13 BILI CC}R CI�RT l 8 7 9 10 1 ' ALL OTHER 10 12.1 ,13 14 I 14 15 16 17 1s 19 2.0 �€ Saeback{ageP000Prmns MIXED ; RECYCLABLE. s 16 17 1S 19 20 21 22 2 22 23 24 252627 ✓ 3 24 26 26,27,28 29; 28 29 30 31 GIaS bottles&jars Elastic boY3ies anti conn nerst�epPlyfabel�d v�tht i Pace your Mixed Paper& 30 Alramin Alumin�um,cans '. ApsbiuCely NL3 ptastPc Crags pl�s�c Wrap of SiyCoit)attR Cardboard Cart or All Other um fotfand fond trays yr NOVEMBER i x Mixed Recyclable Can/Bin DECEMBER at th curb b 6:00am on the n designated alternating week along with your Garbage � Can and Green Yard Waste/ 1 2 3 1 Compost Cart. c�� �rr�m ,\`*�\\\\\ \ ,z a� yah \ 3 � �� � F2�� �'� � \� wC � 4 S '6 7 8 ,9,1- 10, 2 8 4 5 6 7, v e a \ a Visit\. \\ ` \� a ` \\� sit us online to see your < \ � \� a ��\ �\\� : ., . . schedule and learn more 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 \. about dual-stream recycling 1€3. 19 20 21 22 23 2� 1 17 18 '19 26 21 22 milivalleyrefuse.com/pilot x as �3 \ € \ \\ � .com/p \\\,\•• 27 28 25 2 2 .. Fi 9 30 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 MM wvy � n . rP w 45 Appendix 4PILOT PROGRAMTIMELINE JULY AUGUST PTEh1BER 7/3 Program announcement 8/2 MVRS begins delivering 9/3 Pilot Program starts flyer mailed to all participants bins/stickers on regular route 9//3 Week of no stickers, picking up as single stream 7/3 MVRS begins taking 8/14 Reminder postcard mailed requests for bins/stickersto all participants 9/1 1 —Week of grace period reminders of contamination or wrong recycling left on bins/carts, picking up as single stream 7/9 News release distributed 8/29 Email sent to 1,187 participants 9/18 —Week of grace period reminders of contamination or 7/14 wrong recycling left on bins/carts, picking up as single stream 9/25 — First week of dual-stream pick up - reminders of contamination or wrong recycling left on bins/carts CTCBER � b ER , y BER' JANUARY . All Month All Month Program runs All Month Program runs -` I/l b End of program postcard and Program runs survey prompt sent to --1720 11/27 Holiday Newsletter 12128 Pilot Program ends participants emailed to all customers, N included dual-stream Survey developed by R3 Ill 7 End of program email and survey CD program information prompt sent to 1,144 participants 3 1/24 Final survey email prompt sent to 660 participants who hadn't opened z original L 113 1 Survey period ended rDn A w ,.. 46 Appendix 5. ROUTE SUMMARIES (ARIES N/O=Nothing put out for collection Single Stream=Mixed recycling put out for collection DS=The right dual stream material put out for collection DS-TAG =Dual stream materiaf put out,but it was the wrong material for that week's collection;tagged and not picked up C-Tag=Contaminated material put out for collection,tagged and not picked up No Data=No information recorded for that house Total Homes on Route=Total homes on route Total Dual-Stream=DS+DS-TAG PART RATE=Total Dual-Stream/(Total Homes on Route minus N/0,No Data,Contaminated) PART RATE=Total Dual-Stream/(Total Homes on Route minus N/0,No Data,Contaminated) DS Got It Right=a of dual stream participants who put out the right stuff on the right day that week DS Percent Right=%of total dual-stream participants who put out the right stuff on the right day that week DS Got It Wrong =#i of dual stream participants who put out the wrong stream or both streams that week DS Percent Right=%of total dual-stream participants who put out the wrong stream or both streams that week ALL JURISDICTIONS N/0 Single Stream DS DS-TAG C-TAG No Data Total Homes an Route Total Dual-Stream PARTRATE WK-1 308 377 773 6 32 0 54 93 1643 811 68.27% WK-2 250 170 913 63 123 0 110 14 1643 1099 86.60% WK-3 248 104 1106 21 102 0 55 7 1643 1229 92.20% WK-4 124 32 831 62 74 0 47 74 1244 967 96.80% WK-7 174 32 1292 23 62 0 29 31 1643 1377 97.73% WK-8 179 23 1226 55 81 0 20 59 1643 1362 98.34% WK-14 178 9 1277 49 76 0 14 41 1644 1402 99.361%, WK-15 151 14 1378 14 34 0 11 41 1643 1425 98.96% 1612 761 8796 1 293 584 0 340 360 12746 9672 92.70% N/O Single Stream DS DS-X Both Out DS-TAG C-TAG No Data Total Homes on Route Total Dual-Stream PART RATE WK-1 S2 74 144 1 4 0 10 22 307 149 66.82% WK-2 53 45 147 7 17 0 35 3 307 171 79.17% WK-3 44 26 201 7 13 0 16 0 307 221 89.47% WK-4 37 5 194 19 22 0 18 12 307 235 97.92% WK-7 33 3 248 5 6 0 6 6 307 259 98.85% WK-8 35 6 222 16 15 0 6 1 7 307 253 1 97.68% WK-14 36 2 235 10 9 0 4 11 307 254 99.22% CD WK-15 30 1 261 3 4 0 0 8 307 268 99.63% 320 162 1652 68 90 0 95 69 2455 1810 91.78% 3 p1 N/O Single Stream DS DS-X Both Out DS-TAG C-TAG No Data Total Homes on Route Total Dual-Stream PART RATE WK-1 28 32 42 0 2 0 0 0 104 44 57.89% WK-2 14 12 46 6 16 ra 0 9 1 104 68 85.00% WK-3 14 8 65 1 6 0 5 5 104 72 90.00% WK-4 6 6 66 8 4 0 4 10 104 78 92.86% LD WK-7 13 1 79 1 5 0 5 0 104 85 98.84% ' WK-8 12 1 1 75 5 9 0 1 1 104 89 98.89% ;;0 WK-14 11 0 73 4 11 0 1 4 104 88 100.00% WK-15 7 0 83 1 4 0 3 6 104 87 98.86% w777777 105 60 529 26 57 0 28 27 832 611 90.92% 47 Appendix 5 ROUTE SUMMARIES N/O Single Stream DS DS-X Both Out DS-TAG C-TAG No Data Total Homes on Route Total Dual-Stream PART RATE WK-1 89 100 211 3 11 0 11 5 430 225 66.96% WK-2 70 44 223 23 26 0 39 5 430 272 76.62% WK-3 79 27 278 7 22 0 17 0 430 307 87.46% WK-4 48 14 279 20 25 0 18 26 430 324 91.01% WK-7 1 50 15 336 6 13 0 9 1 430 355 93.67% WK-8 52 11 313 15 19 09 11 430 347 94.55% WK-14 53 5 334 13 18 0 3 4 430 365 97.86% WK-15 48 6 354 5 9 0 3 5 430 368 97.61% 489 222 2328 92 143 0 109 57 3440 2563 88.56% N/0 Single Stream DS DS-X Both Out DS-TAG C-TAG No Data Total Homes on Route Total Dual-Stream PART RATE WK-1 16 20 49 0 1 0 8 4 98 50 64.10% WK-2 15 22 49 4 6 0 1 1 98 59 71.95% WK-3 18 9 59 1 8 0 3 0 98 68 85.00% WK-4 12 2 59 2 8 0 3 12 98 69 93.24% WK-7 6 2 73 0 3 0 1 13 98 76 96.20% WK-8 17 0 57 4 11 0 11 8 1 98 72 98.63% WK-14 13 2 66 0 5 0 11 11 98 71 95.95% WK-15 12 3 67 1 1 0 3 1 11 98 69 92.00% 109 60 479 12 43 0 21 60 784 534 86.83% •' N/O Single Stream DS DS-X Both Out DS-TAG C-TAG No Data Total Homes on Route Total Dual-Stream PART RATE WK-1 69 90 201 1 7 0 25 6 399 209 64.51% WK-2 60 39 231 18 27 0 22 2 399 276 81.90% WK-3 60 25 260 5 37 0 11 1 399 302 89.35% WK-4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 #DIV/0! WK-7 40 10 309 7 22 0 4 1 7 399 338 96.02% WK-8 39 3 302 5 16 0 4 30 399 323 97.88% WK-14 36 1 320 14 21 0 3 5 400 355 98.89% WK-15 36 4 340 3 9 0 3 4 399 352 98.05% 340 172 1963 53 139 0 72 55 2794 2155 89.83% N O N/O Single Stream DS DS-X Both Out DS-TAG C-TAG No Data Total Homes on Route Total Dual-Stream PART RATE 3 WK-1 70 81 175 1 8 0 8 60 403 184 67.40% G WK-2 53 30 266 9 37 0 5 3 403 312 89.91% WK-3 51 18 302 1 24 0 6 1 403 327 93.16% WK-4 33 7 292 15 23 0 7 26 403 330 95.93% WK-7 38 3 320 4 16 0 5 17 403 340 97.70% WK-8 41 2 314 14 22 0 0 10 403 350 99.43% m WK-14 42 1 315 8 17 0 3 17 403 340 98.84% WK-15 30 3 340 2 8 0 2 18 403 350 98.59% 358 145 2324 54 155 0 36 152 3224 2533 93.33% w 48 Appendix 6 �[.artrlxt°e'k�'�rrttrtricata'>-'F4`¢i;�ht C,�ei1'a+r�:i�r❑ i'aktor� Ric { tdtaxerra$s laus et £i rated t L��Q k1f1 - JYSP�i oR r2(SIb} rt:;t��(', 1rht Loci Sour , er Gat��ary Y'c._ LIS. En ironii1-iental Frog jos l r gefll:',, isrees 9d}r,rtsppl nrr Mce ofR;.3so u(Ce Corker a ioil and Recovery Apd 2W _ :.n Er 1 �.� - .... ._., r 1 i1't to:s:Aikste s madowdliv 0 it 0 '=ati J r.'in c rrLlu0 Itrb>l 1 aul, 11 iUi,in C JZd-L"d � I A�iT�YtYt4 ._. __ ._.. ,. -. .__ t�[! tv ea E 4YE8 r ri`au tf' 9 �t _.al n ah MIC 1 wa�m:,._r_..ts ����rl �r.�th to n.tt<rJt,a.t„r,mv 1 _._ ,,.. "r i,� dsr.,tF L"Xr Cd in IT.", s stlsaattnabk many; 1 �� __.v �._._„ � '' 3k7 �n r .�..r_,4�e .r:sd7rZ ,rr,es. a i <� } _ ra11 Dice 'ht 1 ur-C ter.;°.iw.. _. .. tih crnvc r.;i_n t a.,tor,J"otrrnt, ,.i,r '49,' t e"rf"I r I. r e in se ,.,tr - inv 1`D a. 1�c, d r.r I . _ lcn E ,t,., ,: ❑d_>�. 3 r:t�:t_r it n<6� .� pi s i say .. _ C j {iuicLs - ,Et h ::la r,t_ :,i ar } u: { r 3 1 h;; r, n n e 7 Its e tU circ (li se t � ga ion K +.v 6 n Q t 0 i_is_,h,s 7 ht.:.'.r..gay .m d tsrrl.rl err.tAnn n 4.a+...,.9.:r;i a W dug on Ma-:rgmW t,.t..o a! ,��i^t i�r_��'u ... .... in�a�d _._. .._.... ..... n r � I'lor Y i' Ft i ,.L'e W 0 mx o! not ailct 1^a�_ � '. �MhuAukomot=« .......�. .�G m 1 h i i .al I l WWI u_: r,ai e_p�ais�<,.ra tt}��1�...�.tta:,la s. iir�=l..i�r:,jai h r rrr - � 3 00 pup"N S F'A,Cts 5 1 1 I�a i I a ,. � ,x':°i�lt.: n_:":C GSf�C-Ltt�Fi Lat�T' udi and y,x i l t,r:,L _ • F"1rI..:.L- �.:f,Gr.t E'..uKr yt7 LL's - ��wsn���tee3'- ..`"�riCalrte �"°lastr���e1taP,, �flurninur pay,sym cant GLr,;1.'eotYhyr arc`Pair,� , e 1 asl n:a ♦ iA.WJ f, ,r;.�e,.U�S a L'tN;Ict � r R Yciatste G� n 'P C material tomsi n_ rPla^tacdat.�_ ,..lti ,i un�ukn_, tr„ swan '"n _ ` er t,i3(essF�','k>n,],tr-rrru�ate�; r. .� . _ ,'.`�z �c�trt tnlii+n '7�:•rr>;�lii ;Uir 2 . ; Ccvnttjrrets and Pape. Wjc le min zrn t t'c,st�--,l an_.GIR No Pt x r m i r aSWT _�i a �rtrt nt�,C u' OL*'n ci b r I 1 a 1 P r*_ - •• I .;.i _I Rei 0 ova F _ r n o -- �p •:v , .I (.r l i t i ti :f ... L `� i -�( i 1 i it 1 8�n $ lL _.. AI VW� - - - 4 rat i t.€� pl qt j. ski �r-d a rt tlsal:t 3 u.:F,`sr i ( •r _. r�} _ LI °ic tl s^ w � qua t.t_' t, t.<e _ nt83 rs ICsn..,PI •.ir_t and Pl '"r N, a 1 CI. . .,' ._ 4Yri c__._. ....... �...,,......_ ..13Ir'a'md - .. ;,(; ,v ',11 t31�:: S t��I li, `f?f` 9{'S 1�_'t•' .4t �_ N _. r_rntam r P E o -age, GW50 C mirk.rad Cin a ^m end t`2pe ' ir_ aid srr;t .,c.E,rr:�r_ .dr.�,.,n iu t. � ..:L,�, : I�•,, LJ r v t r h ki yn i � a r tp f2� ELY'F�rE r �r,hr4 � h�.c.k3 �: �rti °;�urC�a;; �}•n �trc:k�r�4:i r'ubic ?r:3 `.1 i '1 2 m _ w 1 49 Appendix 7 DUAL-STEAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS Q1 What area of the pilot program do you live in? A0, 601"1", ANSWER Ci-,"N ES RESPONSES N O 3 32 3 22 Cs c .. rD rD n m , w .., 50 Appendix 7 DAL-STEAM Pi LOT RECYCLL _ PR®GRAM SURVEY RESULTS Q2 How was your experience adjusting to the dual-strum recycling system? -M,2111M NAN Q3 What difficulties did you have with the dual-stream recycling program? (check all that apply) iplg ` OR yr - y n EN3 , c 6a24 a_ fD W - v ,'�.._'x_F.``•A.A.fi�,:a�13s+.x", e1,.k'- .d.£.:"Yn �St J 35;1 Appendix 7 DUAL-STEAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS 04 Did you receive the calendar communication and/or notification from MRS in preparation for the pilot program? �h 05 Do you have regular access to a smart phone or internet? 3r$a� N O y (D C ANSWER t G#t?k ESRESPONSES w ..: 52 Appendix 7 DUAL-STEAM PILOT RECYCLING SURVEY RESULTS Q6 If your jurisdiction votes to adapt dual-stream recycling,would you be willing to check the MRS website for your weekly pickup schedule and use the"What Goes Where"search toot which provides specific disposal instructions for over 1.660 unique household items" Q8 Through what medium would you most prefer to receive education about sorting and pickup of your recyclables? 4 ��'Com.. rr �� .w..v�a,.-=4 Ge htrF 2 f2 v, Q7 Would you download.a"What Goes Where"and scheduling app on your phone? 1F 1' N O r"ttm ke. or R;v�a. v fD am, .vim x"s F i^e .. :rt - a.:z.a'K$,� c m .. w 53 Appendix 7 DUAL-STEAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS Q9 Did you put any items you would normally recycle into the trash during the pilot program? 010 Why did you thaw away items you used to recycle? (check all that apply) g a 9 erns t W ,�/�" �: a . 10 y (D (D " C � " NrD ., n ` 54 Appendix 7 DUAL-STEAM PILOT RECYCLING SURVEY RESULTS Q11 Ideally, if an extra outdoor cart (with lid)were provided,what size cart would you want to store your paper and cardboard stream recycling? —Your current outdoor recycling cart is 64 gallons- 012 Ideally, if an extra outdoor cart (with Cid)were provided, what size cart would you want to stare your other mixed (bottles, cans, containers, etc.)stream recycling? -Your current outdoor recycling cart is 6 gallons i w 40 o ANSWER CKCHCES RESPONSES Q 4 els TjT w 1 � r c m n w .. 55 Appendix 7 DUAL-STEAM PILOT RECYCLING PROGRAM SURVEY RESULTS Q13 if an additional outdoor recycling cert were provided, would you need it to have wheels? Q14 Would you be willing to pay up to more on your overall monthly garbage bill to have a single stream recycling system? 'Iffl,101 G�� e 30", 4151 Y ' fD C rD N TOWS (D r r 56 EAa'd a)iA_DS asnjab Xz)ll!n IIIW 6102 OO DUAL STREAM PILOT PROGRAM UPDATE _ -o is Your 22-Gallon Bin Too Small for Two Weeks? Early feedback suggests a better way to-put out you stream recycling. Som e p« t if, is in thi t oiog ar h we asked If ti:ey c u:d r .. :f .. :..x o, a ro ralln ., C:;. ;.;lo ca cr ick..rp of both recycling streams(Paper&Cardboard and All iei''.Nixed Recvclab es; o I.^ , they put )( ^,rt:hc:'ght mate al on'he right week.We think.they've com -jo . t :a �=.< . a,r 00 PAPER& CARDBOARD RECYCLABLES WEEK Foy this example. let's assrirrie next week's pick up is `ot the Papel& Cardboard recycling stream. fA This week. collect your Paper&Cardboard recycling T�� in vour existing 68-gallon brown recycle cart Collect your other Mixed Recyclables(rigid plastic f .' containers. metal cans, &glass bottles and jars') in a separate container, such as the 22-gallon f brown bin we provided. ,. - PAPER&CARDBOARD RECYCLABLES PICK-UP DAY On your Paper&Cardboard pick up dav, oil on,,✓the 68-gallon hrovvn recycle cart with your Paper&Cardboard to the street::^y&00 atm for c ck Up. z ALL OTHER MIXED RECYCLABLES WEEK .n;. NOW you switch. Now that your 68-gallon brown recycle cart is empty, simply transfer your week's worth of Mixed ; Z Recyclables into it and continue using it for Mixed Recyclables the next week. Now use the 22-gallon broom bin to collect your Paper&Cardboard stream. ALL OTHER MIXED RECYCLABLES PICK-UP DAY On your Mixed Recyclables pick up day, roll only t"e 68 gall- ^ recycle cart containing your Mixed Recyclables to the street by 6 D0 a.m. for picil< S,WVITCH;ANCA REPEAT THIS PROCESS EACH WEEK �iStt.` r.Pf.Ill for more information. cn v Appendix 9 Box RECYCLING CONTAMINATION WHAT IS CONTAMINATION? IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM a s �,... �'�..A..w.�_.. :iC; h.�,:wd it J Nor .. � � .h e. �.k..�_ ..,_.... Ed :Ilcctl� Important information about new ✓ h �� p t j'C t, r V II a1 u r U r h l r recyinstandards for Mill Valley e ,. ` :—olds rt-Ye _ s� T d 7 h cylab e rn ,ei al„ t /.Refuse Service CUS$OTerS. 'I "d G`JIcr`ne1 -no r.. than '.J' U 3r. -f t�L`n See inside for details. I , ,Inc r „cls roc o ✓ ac of P .;iab a ..'e di ed .n r ualr ,r.:e c : - tc Y� ,. or recoveie,d r j i ai Add llii aI.;i)rYl y s'<v�;. r.ie iv(' Ion eepeh ,h r. .. i., ��„n added to. eine;..Mate!;a are now often Plat`s s< the bag, ono All Its .,,r en.a -r ;y processed and then�e.�proce;ssed a sccc^d tmto, tin the trash. produce cleaner bales. ......... __........ ......... . OUR RECYCLING CONTAMINATION LEVELS ARE ALARMINGLY HIGH The demand for clearer materials has filtered down=ro^China to do restic oiocessors to"auler,.Ilse ourselves.and fl,rally do,r✓r to yo�,the original source of this haste s'rea-n INcm we must takeccScn to "police”individual recycle carts because,'fie process ng plant reports cui loads consist r f about? h. .......... — -.._...._ ---_--- .............. __ .................. TAKE THE GUESSWORK OUT OF RECYCLING I helo i s t ny 31 r ori a bo t, xh it i te ins ss rr u ld' g n e 10W re r e a millvai�ey e r r as the i c II-d What Goes Where n v _ nosy Is LkLs re0.L[.� We are dismayed that it has come to this but� s tyrp� ,;r u Y:r +[t n lik 'ex Y r he �� u must be the res ponsibillt of each r;f us to ensur K _ my x rec�cLabie: I y e a � � �, t,�.. a te;r,n. `oa n:,,ill, leas re r,r €;ei.ray to cleaner stream o' ecyclable material's delivered ��� ) ' 0 plants , to:hc prcc�ssrng , y:.it in i€lvalley refuse.corn/what-goes-where Ic r r.,:;t EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY,RECYCLE ow• a �. CAPE`S WILL NO LE)t�GE BE DUMPED �,R < ,.�. yah�, o-• r Tho IF THEY ARE HEAVILY CONTAMINATED WITH TRASH,O ? Oinstead.oUr drive: vl leave i i.n i ha I r, r sir 3 , e ✓ in the calt.and c di g a p,p 7 rt i t d e y rp I �cK 'c _ . �s � � e ul h f I� c•k :J a 7 -1 j s..-- r -( ,.. r:. )of r„L.an n.h. m � ..,.... ry,� � Jr. e i[I.;lC f) ,�.;3s rn e In' iF Jar r F,.r.ate For more information Z:1 rl .^ r Ir r : t .ii e, about proper recycling .Nr .,f„r a Y, e.. ,. „ "•,�, visit mlllvalleyrefuse.com w 58 £Aa)A aa!AaaS asnlab X@11LA II!W 6102 OO NU�Iiuse P.1JR9 NEW DUAL—STREAM RECYCLING COLLECTION PLAN In response to skyrocketing fees recycling plants are charging to process single-stream recyclables. Mill Valley Refuge �(> Service has selected your neighborhood to participate in a pilot program to test dual-steam c,lection of recyclables.The goal of this pilot program is to determine if we can collect cleaner recycling streams and sicificantly reduce processing costs for our custcrners. C) Starting immediately,you will sort your recycling into two streams: 1)Mixed Paper&Cardboard 2)All Other Mixed Recyclables As you collect recyclables in your home;separate them into two containers,one for each stre:,ml.Your complex will have two,clearly-marked containers for you to empty the appropriate recycling stream into for collection. MIXED PAPER & CARDBOARD ALL OTHER MIXED RECYCLALES STREAM STREAM I 1 i ^` Ae ►� III ,> • '� Mixed Paper& • • For All Other Mixed :y j Cardboard • Recyclables 0. 111,e cartvrc:c Bottles,or msa"Aic. look for tire cart ma Keri r vv;:/,,U.s sticker. rvith the stick,,. r. NO PAPER,sr>3s.,, g a>r,,ao Paper and cardboard material only.Remove all packag- Rigid plastic containers,metal cans,glass bottles ing materials made of plastic or Styrofoam.No food-soiled and jars only.Food waste must be wiped clean or rinsed. terns.More material examples: liquids poured out.Absolutely no plastic bags,plastic wrap Office Paper(any color) or Styrofoam.More material examples: 1 Cardboard boxes Glass bottles&jars Newspaper Aluminum and tin cans Magazines&catalogs Aluminum foil and food trays Paperboard(like cereal or shoe boxes) Rigid plastic bottles&containers Junk mail&envelopes(plastic window okay) Paperboard tubes(like toilet paper or paper towel rolls) , Paper egg cartons Paperback&phone books Please help us produce clean streams by putting the right stream into the right collection container! Visit miiivalleyre%use.cion?for more information. Enaa OD!A.laS asn;aa daIIEA IIIW b I OZ OO D -v �� (�aticsnal V'das1�s t���y�jln� Assocaatianti_ x. I't?t}lc'3s 90W I Juno'_& n, ltrailasrrt �rr;j�,ui,m-tll� U�rs�(si ,.ic ar�r��:';rb��9 t=. .i_r,.0,..f a.�t_si;.. ::rl�la�.t�_r���.��❑ r rF�,� -:ewl z:...ut r-. ,r ir:iEt r .:vel :)I Tirn13 r. 'r n.:i='.t„ r Nr i! J-1 },.s'iai r rj,; e ,:c:7tra'.v�,,.4 }r. -E-9; d}...•z,`,a li .I j,�. o— it ti.rnwi a.;:;:•t 1 z:,l shy r Ir 1-;;�.a tii_,,;<�#�¢7 x,et(;r�t.t")tt?r��.rJ1.,`tli>,� rel`-?. . t cJL It.:;1=a Ill aai>E lz - iti,_x Sr i�q ..air;� r r.aeza. a. r.4tzras Ye'?t+tst ah'nJa x~�lt��thvt tr^.,h�+rxt�a rarrnl*tern. lrerts ;xc atl,xliusrrgr rfs itti^ i r >(3'<I; Clenm It, tit r3.s,xi.r�i [is i5st3in„lm��>ri tau r yr=,ttr pla [l6' r;iit,'L.�ui..,.r.r r r.ra, r�,..o�...r:��', t=a.�. retvc9wt,t65, v i u - -s a P�`�r� '�r tp'rra rnn ar rres if ill rw.t a a't ls.atle 1 jpr cs- ts..��e¢� I ,rr,. fanal. r ;itl.. .r_rt,ia..,,r..a 9...1':a_'dt,.l . I r..nr l*:r t r:„,.;1 i'Lt'<", R..(r.,r:Am in,.M 1 TO Fm qwn i r o , A taiPw WS It i' ',nE:L+. ;I:;- . a, i'hinx.Sr�t�p.c=tnrilt§!m l�•l�o'clit.lc51%iklxp;2y. i 4 1 It nr ,I r s ray_-rte.# !41wti,jtrcj+9 .iilj�oir tc�flk€ium =•�;t 5 ,i E l..:. , LF, ...!a.,j.: ..�r. rr,_if :;I I i', ti.x r ia;t+., "Alle SI s.a '„r sl alrx i�>uin(x irral,+ort ii.r.ne<;x>"err su�a�laLle lrlaxtit.x, k•.4"s ,: E ji�..i(:5`.I a,6:t! inti::! ....�,��I53tt le, 7 il, 'i' 1.'t"�'S's. ,�r�e'h� � ,1 + Nlrtlrr:rcrsr.;,rttlJura'rr _r9aaut^�: � E.oFsa°a'ic>a.urazyr9�at�ic�rJejrr���::ut�e�acran�ie7�l� (rr��'cs. ..:.,.a F,. .t.�.,tx �. ia::-:*r�.=;wr r..': �r:: d t:.;::�r :i�.�.(�.. ,�I-re r t rr.,_e-.y�,, r•x=:�s,r ( .r`irv;iYCzi I.l l%' t,i.i. _ . 1-tif G s u ' {{{{ r4r ?+rtl 1 u .ti,3 t7.tttvlr stir# 1. f* t i tr 3 R$ 7a NN!it€C{xui. br i islt.i iuiren.1 r", ,, °twinil r mrat n t�.rvr«CIff"trtaanai�ir-c au xcere-�r..-e - ---- -r Ym Ja -UAW Z SI3 t�Jauii7 1u7� 1 t rci�r n E J;+nrr at"2iS16 S Irrxiu hum 2,i eras# iiiik fioni _ r � r, r.-�� ir,tr rl ltxiz�i_rls•d.-(hr . . �r. �*r r ni_.:! z . nn ii a (h,i? `,`a gti,Aii+ 53 armui u'J for UrtrfsiS7itista i,ri,rs oiW ru tr n ilWi eco.t'tr i.a.::,r.. r.taap'i.�: :I ;.a i iasr_.aAv. ci;nr..t I:_1tlu 1. rrki°i la. 11rC.hirars Gua ii mita>sd a , tr1i+ ir.ra=t.. rI .runs, E acB3runamgr.ci,,.e.atoki-i Rooth} t-9.; 6muAd f i 'v •4ics. On tli tatY€131 lUA SiHl] .iii', tai,=a•i a aa_t ._, U0u; .aiii,. TW. ::.4w i. Mnp t w;t + .,t:.r>sl:. r.." 4 llj'Aiii*rf(V'h 1'-;J 3U1N 1'�"r�c•.c. t_ "I'ff: 0. ' tacillar,xis l.frt t:alumilmm 4rz�;u�rtR. O� Co Enaa a:)!/uaS asn;aa ANSA II!W 6102 OO t F D -v -v .•.-,:c Eii„t_n;.;pus ta.a�;�.. . '_'� �-t7,it ,i.a ra t i rn1,a :< CD COMPtOGIflori and Value of Arlington's Rscycitirig C9rt . t ,'.€fs�a xi..J`.moi? 14{.3:^fa Ct *..3tt�vm is an Yire i3roi axN.rfai` - ...s ., l,rssair Ilr„la ttsatti_ }.:�..^ttl4tics-1dt I ;fit;�8as .,;_!is :�3) ”'_8:•:�: 1.'Pow ft 4. a�ggty�y„ t f _� l L-tit l a ! i, tar „. �yT''. `4•.; �„ .�: F14rWAq ~� �a�r�4 •'" ° ,.� \Y:,,Ia 16431 tit,vtsrtire ini3cslt;� I't.r ..>i,'.,,.' ,t :a. u rr"9t:at-e t !.r.:a,t t, r w �m •. .x � •�, -x ..�..� a.x >.... e.,e�'.':tt elil iY'. -. a!" ;'t'.YI r.�t.s' f..... tea. ._l ilt:,f�: _. __. is r v 1,t2'ttzIn. l.t r t iY tr,f.,r'-.iar s nj t,,- hl ,*I,t s_.a,r't t:;-t t"tr r.. ,mall a �:rtr.f...t,s.'r:`t ..t�si,;.,_p:�,_:..... :.j,h,s 4-k,.':§a': it x" t,l.a t.'.;ct .F.`'t: .i a.:,;n 3 i.r t•ril'.:.. :7tr,r':e t:<i,,c —"MOTMAM.Mca•a W".�:';�.1. &•:�.; f <. �tls j< .S�trl -t3.,:w.;it,.r; .r, s'-9. rt t,r- .,. ..e-tk; a <�.., ,,;.t t!S ,i+t$�,$i. ,."t;. Y. � ..:.I.ti . .,.__,.. .,t . ., itaf,.re. [1: za r tw,,�.nYs.tin r,�•.0 ir,., lai�t, a<.,.;"d It i ai„� _ w tY<r to ,f 'r.sc�-i�..��t. IHOO ,; €tsrx3tt_riadmj kwtr. h»�,t, �si:a, � ., rears. a ,.tc -ii ..E..tY+:r�..:.r 3G�.r,a.t_ tt rrp t �, a!>x�: ,-,ii e t tr.N, vv h ............( �•: 1. .. 'I all.with rcrula€ t v.):'. ItsOwr;rrpdrd r.i,e( .. I'; K,",h A t l e.t.;i' t, ru",X :r>!'v .. Lhn t,j.n :,uox w w”too s r.main, �,It M10, s._ ,r:o rs <.._t ri.* ard Kv on . ;-:S,t; s lrxie•uat rtrra rerr.im(�rryr�{�rirznls...,.;I= t,.<-1t do_t.=.W�, - • -t.l xilstOil@�` _)� 6ttttc ii. ;.1 z ai.iaie;- ,. e th.;r ;c.. a,�t. �.*I. sae i�.-,, 't.c::ca r,�t,-�r-t,r to rpt:t t��r.;.t .,t,<_..�st... 3�art�-:i;,.,;e;3 tltr rr,:r ❑-c-rir,;tc.na . .-rt7 tb.:,;;:int-:, _�`L'I:� e:L'.-.;r .-,..hr+,,K` trt�§.ta;*• 1, _ii+_r.ia�t.t tns.rrt.:,h �, nc`kuu u.tla.�.;I€. �1ac,, ,t _€' c_ r. ir.r-.,rt 1 ._nrr�( ;",j. a�;.ita ..:-_.�=;.t. _ .rr-rar,r' i'�ni•$ ..:e' �.. r 7ra r�I�_ !, ,,},� 'p! te:I„�: 111k 4o,.w t t lk,ry,.. i u rpt In [;t# i m t_u i ute i) ;a i I ,�. o f� v e9trr e✓n,.=�unrattr i n-ra r an.n � lat..ua.�i t,rrr,t.tnttn.`il. .uat•'. , ,rv<E1z�.t, oe,t.y, 7�.:� a F Y�ltrt trdt. It;r t t u.trit_'1 .•- �t l->7.$i S -,i.:t I� u<�a t,.i rr r,,: l.: �7q;; i "<.Ics.r r t h.y._oi€r„r ec,.,.a,rit a hxrs..ti:�,1 e r to i;i i vC5 I:-,,,,! _.,_ .ar.� t i�,,u,t..i rt h,—aka i-'il <+Lett tx ,..i.t,,:re t ,. _..t ��>l,.a�at.' � -•3t ,�r,tnrtnw,. ',t+:lt.,.,*r. i i ._feast 1 s .r d ua o r # +v tr;, q �h 1,lu .x unci nl tl t ;xtrhl t s artt.tttcui:I ttutl.t�.ier�s I —P ,t :. wK mat,Lw fu L:inmw1aho I a AS .�:} t rt zxt t t Ic r>o i 1 a i u fizi t i-:z+ _r,U y t uu[rsrti.rc�ular7�:try a,�rnt;^,'Li Ctr<pr tit•t,ttsi�5&z. ll..�.rrt',i tt,4��i I ��i.tl a s i L_tar 4 .x.ev:; r� .rl�r^` rtr��exra„a rt, f-,ntrr.}'t.ts r 1.t �._;z°!,..:k�i.,•-.ra .,.:1:rt•. n4i<l r rn,agint III I Ind r r� hr-uu s t laclgt+lith ttaa 11 .) sn -LDV. -INOD W! 'O'C' T'Iol'Y tt� II-1 5"Xz� S,If I q:Vxii I I I. I,qjm:q eIIgod I cq Ulf rig jei zf 71'M'li I Yq I All"twin I I q lw.t 2019 Mill Valley Refuse Service Rev3 EXHIBIT NO. - 1 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard May 15, 2019 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Itcm: PHA STAFFREPORT �' To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Consider revision of Condition 95 of Resolution 55-2011 regarding traffic impact fees for the Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library Expansion Project. ✓; Reviewed By: Greg Chanis, Town Manager Benjamin Stock, Town Attorney SUMMARY Council is reviewing a revised condition regarding traffic innpactfee for the Library expansion. RECOMMENDED ACTION(S) Staff recommends the Town Council receive Staff Report,take public coninient deliberate and provide direction;on any amendments to Condition 5 to be adopted at a subsequent meeting. BACKGROUND The Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency (BTLA) has been planning a library expansion project (Project) since 2006; and the "l-own is currently reviewing a Building Permit application for the proposed Project. As part of this review. on Mav L. 2019, staff provided an update to Council on several Conditions of Approval related to the Project After considering the item, Council directed staff to notice a Public Hearing to consider revisions to Condition 5, which was first adopted as part of Council's November 2. 2011 approval of Resolution No. 55-2011 (Exhibit I). This Condition relates to potential future enhancemcnts at the intersection of Mar West Street and Tiburon Boulevard. and NNas imposed in order to implement a mitigation measure contained in the certified Environmental Impact Report (EIR) prepared for the Project The relevant language from both the EIR and Condition 5 are as follows: EIR Language (Mitigation Measure Trans-8) The intersection of M(ir yhest Street and Tibanron Boulevard satisfies a peak hour hraffic signal 1+,car7an1 [Funder the czimulatire btaildout scenorio](ind shall be included in the T own's list of intersections that are considered for n-clffic sigmal installation. The Toi,i n shall employ their on7n criteriu,.foi"ranking Land priorilLution, inchiding Other signal l4,arronts and accident histol):. 1,1'hen considering the need and timin,for traffic si��Zrnr/ installation. Resolution 55-2011-Condition 5 Prior' to issuance of a building permit, the Tot-nn and Library Agency shall agree upon, and the Library Agency shall pc�y to the Toirn, a reasonable monetary contribution /01)(17-6/sig1?611izc11i077 or other sc7f'ljl 073d/07- capacity% itnproi,emenis, including possible installation of a rolary/trclffic circle, at the Tiburon Bol.devard/hilar Files/ Street intersection. ANALYSIS As noted above, the EIR prepared for the Project anticipates the intersection of Tiburon Boulevard and Mar West St. which is largely in Caltrans Right of Way, will eventually need to be modified to accommodate increased traffic volume.. a portion of which would be attributable to the Project. In 2016, preliminary concept plans were explored for several roundabout configurations to show how these could fit within the exiting right-of-way. Neither design nor any construction plans were furthered; there is currently no estimated time within which plans will be furthered. As such, it is difficult to ascertain the scope and estimated cost of signalization and/or installation of a rotary/traffic circle at the Tiburon Blvd./Mar West Street intersection. Therefore, staff has requested that the Council consider revising Condition 5 in order to address this issue on providing payment prior to obtaining a building permit. There is additional information Council may want to consider in determining how best to revise Condition 5. On August 16. 2017, Council adopted Resolution No. 25-2017 (Exhibit 2), which updated traffic mitigation fees.for new development within Tiburon. The updated fees were based on the 2017 Traffic Mitigation Fee Updale-Final Report, which was completed by traffic consultant Nelson/Nygard. This report. which is attached as Exhibit 3, identifies the Mar West/Tiburon Boulevard as one that will eventually need enhancement to mitigate the effects of increased traffic. and estimates the cost of the upgrade at $559,201 (in 2017 dollars). The report also identifies the Project as a potential source of increased traffic. Using the fee schedule adopted by Council, the traffic mitigation fee attributable to the Project would be approximately $293,000. However, it is important to note that in addition to adopting an updated fee schedule, Resolution No. 25- 2017(Exhibit 2) also included a list of projects that would be legislatively exempt from imposition of the fee, including those projects associated with `inunicipal and other governmental uses'. The relevant language reads as follows; 4. Exemptions. Projects to be esempled fi onl the imposition of t1°cffie lniligolion fees include: Q) Man7icipal and olherg0Per77171ental u.Nes. I)) ReCo77strZ7Clioii or remodel prOleclswhere there is 170 717CreaSe 117 USC 07' hamSi1J' CaZ1S717g all rncrease n7lraffC. 0 Accessorl% 17SCS CI-Mln7g 170 increase in lraffic. d) Affordable housin,units, as defined in the Tihuron Municipal Code Chapter 16 (Zoning). e) Accessory direlling units and j1117i0r accessory dii'elling units, as defined in the Tiburoi7 11imicipal Code Cheipler 16 (Zoning). The BTI-A. which is structured as a Joint Powers Authority between Tiburon and Belvedere_ meets the criteria for a governmental use. and therefore. would be exempt from imposition of the fee. However, staff believes the information related to the value of the traffic impact fee. were it to be imposed, may be valuable for Council to consider in determining what a reasonable contribution under Condition 5 may be. Tonight. staff is seeking direction on how Council would like to revise Condition 5, with possible options including the following: • Waive the requirement for a contribution to a future intersection improvement project. • Postpone the determination of what a reasonable contribution from the BILA would be until such time a project to improve the intersection is actively being planned. • Establish a formula for determining a future contribution based on a percentage of the cost of the project when it is being constructed. A variant of this option would include Council placing a cap on any contribution amount. The options provided above are not meant to be an exhaustive list of the possibilities, but rather a starting point for Council deliberation. Once directed by Council as to their intent on this matter, staff would plan to draft a Resolution based on that direction, which we would bring to Council for consideration at a future meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT Staff anticipates no direct fiscal impact to the Town. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental impact report (E1R) for the library expansion project was certified by the Town Council on October 5, 2011. Town staff reviewed the proposed scaled-back project with respect to environmental impacts associated with the originally-approved project, and determined that an addendum (July 2018) to the certified EIR was appropriate under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Modification or removal of Condition 5 would not require further environmental review and likely would not create changed circumstances under which potentially significant impacts from implementation of the Project could arise. This is because implementation of Mitigation Measure Trans-8. as originally drafted. remains viable. The Town intersection of Mar West Street and Tiburon Blvd. will still be included in the Town's list of intersections considered for traffic signal installation regardless of the changes. if any. to Condition 5. The Town will still employ its own criteria for rankino and prioritization including other signal warrants and accident history when considering the need and timim, for traffic signal installation at Mar West Street and Tiburon Blvd. All of this remains true even if the Town Council determines to reduce or vvalve the Library's traffic monetary contribution requirements. Depending upon the direction prov ided by the Town Council, staff will conduct an appropriate environmental analysis and will rciurn with a resolution memorializing the Council's directions regarding Condition 5. Said resolution will include findings regarding any potential for changed conditions giving rise to further environmental review or potentially significant impacts of the Project. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Receive the staff report and ask any clarifying questions. 2. Open the public hearing and receive any public comment. 3. Close the public hearing. 4. Deliberate and provide direction on any amendments to Condition 5 to be adopted at a subsequent meeting. Exhibit(s): 1. Resolution No. 55-2011 2. Resolution No. 25-2017 3. Traffic Mitigation Fee Update Final Report July 2017 Prepared by: SLIM' 11. Kwon. Director of Community Development EXHIBIT" Cie RESOLUTION NO. 55-2011 A RESOLUTION Oh TME "TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIB13RON APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDiiNJENTS ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPOSED EXPANSION OF TIH? BELVEDERI?-TIBUIZON PUBLIC LIBRARY LOCATED AT 1501 TIBURON BOULEVARD The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby resolve as follows: WHEREAS, the Town of"Tiburon is in receipt of an application (File#GPA 2008- 02)for general plan amendments to modify the text of Policy OSC-20 of the Open Space and Conservation Flenflent regarding setbacks from wetlands, and to re-designate certain lands on the Tiburon General Plan Land Use Diagram 2.2-1 as follows: 1. Approximately 16,250 square feet of land located north of and directly behind the existing BTLA property at 1501 Tiburon Boulevard and the Town Hall property at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard from Open Space to Public/Quasi-Public for the purposes of expanding the existing Library facility, and 2. Approximately 11,750 square feet of the existing Tiburon Town Hall parcel at 1505 Tiburon Boulevard from Neighborhood Commercial to Public/Quasi- Public to correct a prior mapping error; and WHEREAS, the Tiburon Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on September 14, 2011. heard testimony from interested persons, and adopted Resolution No. 2011-15 making recommendations to the Town Council concerning the proposed general plan amendments; and WHEREAS, the Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on October 5, 2011, at which testinionywas received and considered from interested persons. The Town Council also received and considered the rccommendations o.fthe Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the"lova Col"'cil has previously by separate resolution certified an Environmental Impact Report for the Library expansion project, including the general plan amendments cornteml;lated hcrcii ; and WI-A REAS, the 'fowil t_'m"Icil has previously by separate resolution adopted I--findings of "act pursuant to the Calii-01-111a JAmmiunental Quality Act and has adopted findings of ovenidin ' cr>nsiderr(ions to alaprove thr project despite remaining significant .euviromncntal effects, aml Tiburon 7'otinr Council i(� �ohr;irm .`.,� 5? '111 /1/2/2011 I WHEREAS, the Town Council agrees with the Planning Commission's recommendation that the proposed amendment to Policy OSC-20 regarding a 100-foot buffer between wetlands and development is unnecessary, because the Council finds the following: I. The policy is intended to be sufficiently flexible to permit a project that encroaches into the 100-foot sethack, if the biological impact to the nearby wetland (Railroad Marsh) would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The Council agrees with the EIR that the proposed mitigation measures will mitigate the impact on the Railroad Marsh to a level of insignificance. 2. The project is consistent with Policy OSC-20 because the 100-foot setback specified in the Policy is not feasible at this location. A 100-foot setback line from the Marsh shoreline is depicted at p. So of the Final EIR, and demonstrates that approximately 30 of the 52 spaces depicted in the proposed parking lot would encroach into the 100-foot buffer. Fui-ti,crmore, there would be insufficient space to create a workable circulation flow for the remaining parking spaces, resulting in the virtual elimination of on-site parking. Even if Town required the Library to reduce the size of the expansion, the Library could not significantly reduce the extent of the encroachment. Accordingly, neither the original project nor any of the "build" alternatives examined by the EIR would be feasible if the Town requires a I00-foot buffer. 3. The presence of a 15-foot wide utility easement directly behind the existing Library building, said easement holding the outfall pipe for the multiple-agency Sewerage Agency of Southern Marin (SASM), further limits other opportunities for structural expansion behind the Library building. WHEREAS, the']'own Council finds that the proposed General flan amendments are, on balance, consistent with the goals and objectives of the Tiburon General Plan, as set forth in the certified EIR for the project and the staff reports dated September 14,2011 and October 5, 201 1. Specifically, the Town Council finds that the public library use would serve a very broad segment of the Tiburon Peninsula's population and is reasonable just,fication for the necessary general plan amendments. NOW, THEREFORE RF. IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby intend (Icncral Plan Diagram 2.2-1 (Land Use Diagram) to re- designate the approximately 16,25(-1 square feet of land, as depicted on attached Exhibit "A", comprising a portion of 1-ot 10 of the Point Tiburon Subdivision, from OS (Open Space) to P (PubliclQuasi-Public). BE IT FUR7HER RI SOI-VED that the *]'own Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby intend General Plan Diagram 22-1 (Land Use Dia-ram) to re-designate the approximately 1 1,750 square feet ofland, as depicted on attached Exhibit "B", comprising a portion ofrvlarin County Assessor Parcel 55-171-92, from NC (Neighborhood Commercial) to P (I'uhlic%Quasi-Public). Tiburon Toinit Council Rc.mlufll"! AV 5J-'0J/ 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the above amendments are approved for the purpose of construct]M4 an expansion to the Belvedere-Tiburon Public Library facility, and that such expansion shall be subject to the following conditions, said conditions to be fulfilled as part of or incorporated into any approval of subsequent detailed site plan and architectural drawings for the library expansion project: 1_) "The conceptual expansion plans associated with these approvals are the drawings (1 4 sheets) dated October 5, 2011, prepared by EHDD Architecture, depicting the Refined Alternate D project. Said drawings, date-stamped "Received September 28, 2011 Planning Division" are available for review in the offices of the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department. The building design and architecture shown on said drawings shall be revised to reduce the excessive mass, bulk and scale as viewed Isom Tiburon Boulevard. These revisions will likely require square footage reductions prior to approval of detailed site plan and architectural drawings by the Town Council. The Town Council intends that these design and architectural revisions will reduce the significant view blockage impact of the Tiburon Ridge from Tiburon Boulevard. 2) A Native American monitor and a qualified archaeologist shall be present during construction grading and trenching. In the event that additional subsurface archaeological resources are encountered during the course of grading and/or excavation, all development shall temporarily cease in these areas until the'Town's Planning Division is contacted and a qualified archaeologist properly assesses the resources and makes recommendations for their disposition. Prehistoric archaeological site indicators include: obsidian and chert flakes and chipped stone tools; grinding and mashing implenlernts (c.g., slabs and handstones, and mortars and pestles); bedrock outcrops and boulders with mortar cups; and locally darkened midden soils. Nhidden soils nrly contain a combination of any of the previously listed itc:nls with the possible addition of bone and shell remains, and fire affected stones. Ilisloric period site indicators generally include_ fragments of Mass. ccr<unic, allld metal objects; milled and split lumber; and structure and fcaturc,renlains such as building foundations and discrete trash deposits (e.��., vyells, privy pits, dumps). Construction activities could continue in other arras. If any findings are determined to be significant by the archeologist, they shall be subject to scientific analysis; duratlon/dispositloll of archaeological specimens as agreed to by the dative ;\mcrican community, land owner, and the Town; and a report prepared according to current professional standards. The project sponsor shall bc.rr all reasonable costs associated \vith such monitoring, assesslllent, and dlsposilloll of artlfacts. Tiburon TMr11 ("will,11 Resoiwiou N') )-200 1 ll/2/?0/1 3 3) If human remains are encountered, excavation or disturbance of the location shall be halted in the vicinity of the find, and the county coroner contacted. if the coroner determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission shall identify the person or persons believed to be most likely descended from the deceased Native American. '!'he most likely descendent shall make recommendations regarding the treatment of the remains with appropriate dignity. 4) fo secure an additional water entitlement, the project sponsor shall connplcte a Water Service Application and pay any required fees or the project sponsor shall transfer an unused entitlement from another site. 5) Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Town and Library Agency shall agree upon, and the Library Agency shall pay to the Town, a reasonable monetary contribution toward signalization or other safety and/or capacity improvcnnents, including possible installation of a rotary/traffic circle, at the Tihurorn Boulevard/Mar West Street intersection. 6) Any detailed site plan and architectural drawings subsequently submitted pursuant to this approval shall depict parallel parking spaces along'fiburon Boulevard in front of the pedestrian plaza area proposed between Tiburon Town I-lall and the Library addition. The Town Council may, in its sole discretion, choose to establish a"no parking zone" along Tiburon Boulevar(j, approximately 40 feet in length, in this area. 7) The project sponsor shall absorb all reasonable costs for tine relocation of the Landmarks Society's pictorial exhibit located near the intersection of Tibt.rron Boulevard and Mar West Street to another appropriate location, if' leasihlc, to approximate the vantage point shown in the pictorial exhibit. 8) A miuirryunn of two (2) handicap-accessible parking spaces shall be installed alone the Tiburon Boulevard frontage of the project to off-set the ;oss of such spaces in close proximity to the Town Hall front entrance. he Library AOcricy shall be responsible for all costs associated with instail,ttion of these parking spaces, including any ramps between the street and pL,za levels that may be necessary to accommodate wheelchairs. �)) Prior 10 issuance of a building permit, applicant will create or fund additio]yal parking spaces that shall be available to Library and "Down Hall visitor during business }-yours. This may be through a long-term parking �ygrccrycnt whin other property owners; through the securing of a long- tel In ,ygrccn�ent whcrch_y short-term parking for public use will be available in the adi'lcernt Iot at 1525 Tiburon Boulevard; through the creation Of new Tiburon Town Comdr No4 ?5-21)11 Il%212011 4 public parking spaces proximate to the project on nearby streets or elsewhere, or through other equivalent methods. The number of parking spaces to be created or funded shall be based on a ratio of one space per each 1000 gross square feet of Library addition constricted. BE IT FUR7]ll--.R RESOLVED that the Town Council hereby adopts a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) for the Library Expansion Project, said MMP being attached as Exhibit "C"hereto rind incorporated herein. Said Library Expansion Project includes applications GPA 20US-02, R 2008-01, 30804, 40801 and all trailing and/or subsequent permits issued pursuant thereto and in reliance thereon. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the "Town of Tiburon on November 2, 201 1, by the following vote.- AYES: ote:AYES: COUNCII_,MHN413ERS: Collins,Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell & Slavitz NOES: C0UNC1L1v11:MBERS: None ABSENT: COl JNCILrvi l MBERS: None 1EF S' AVITZ, MAYO TOWN OF TIBUI � ATTEST: - f, DIANE CRAM IAC0P1, "1 i AVN CLERK Attachments: l:zhibi?s "A" B", and 7ihirrott Tntin c�n:nui( R sulurron �'a. 55-201:1 11/2/201/ 5 EXHIBIT NO. RESOLUTION NO. 25-2017 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON UPDATING TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES FOR DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE TOWN OF TIBURON WHEREAS,the Town of Tiburon first established Traffic Mitigation fees through the adoption of Ordinance No. 232 N.S. and Resolution No. 1125 in 1980; and WHEREAS,the Town of Tiburon periodically revises its Traffic Mitigation fees as necessary following updates of the General Plan Circulation Element; and WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has adopted enabling legislation, codified as Chapter 14B (Public Facilities Development Fees) of the Tiburon Municipal Code, authorizing the establishment of and administration of such fees,including traffic mitigation fees; and WHEREAS,the Tiburon General Plan Circulation Element,updated and adopted in February 2016,identifies impacts of contemplated future development on existing circulation facilities in the Tiburon Planning Area,along with an analysis of the need for new circulation improvements to accommodate new development; and WHEREAS, based upon the identified circulation system improvements in the updated General Plan Circulation Element, the Tovvn's traffic mitigation fees must be adjusted correspondingly; and WHEREAS, in December,2016 the Town retained the transportation consulting firm of Nelson/Nygaard to prepare an analysis and update of its traffic mitigation fee program based on the updated General Plan Circulation Element, and WHEREAS, in July 2017, the Tiburon Traffic Miligation Fee Update report (hereafter"Update"), was completed by Nelson/Nygaard and released to the public; and WHEREAS,the Update has established the relationship between contemplated future development, the needed facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Circulation Element, Update, and other relevant information referenced herein were available for public inspection and review for more than ten(10)days prior to the public hearing at which the fee update was considered for adoption; and WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a duly-noticed public hearing and provided notice as required by law pursuant to the update of the Traffic Mitigation fees, and Ttbl<ron Town Council Resolution No. 25-2017 Adopted 08/16/2017 E lecave 10,'15/20.17 J WHEREAS, the Town Council additionally finds as follows with respect to the herein proposed fee program: A. The purposes of the traffic mitigation fees are to provide funds for increasing street capacity to accommodate additional traffic generated by new development,and specifically to maintain major intersections within the Tiburon Planning Area operating at acceptable levels of service as set forth in the General Plan Circulation Element; and B. The traffic to be generated by projected levels of development in Tiburon will exceed the Town's adopted traffic level of service standards for various intersections in the absence of substantial improvements. There is a substantial government interest in maintaining a system of local streets which can satisfactorily accommodate projected levels of traffic; and C. In order to project its circulation needs,the Town of Tiburon undertook a comprehensive review of the Town's streets and traffic patterns as they currently exist and as they are projected to exist in the fixture. This study is embodied in the Future-Yeas°Traffic Analysis with Proposed Circulation Network Improvements,prepared by Nelson/Nygaard and dated November 2014, the Town's current General Plan Land Use Element, and the Town's Vacant&Underdeveloped Parcel Inventory updated through September 2014. Information contained in these documents was used to run the Tiburon Traffic Model and generate the results obtained by the 2016 Circulation Element and the Update. D. The 2016 Circulation Element provides a basis for estimating Tiburon's projected traffic needs and identifies the street improvements necessary to accommodate that traffic. Cost estimates of these improvements have been developed by the Town and its consultants. The Tiburon Traffic Model provides a basis for determining a fair allocation of costs among the users of the streets by factoring trip generation and distribution of new development projects, and assessing their pro-rata contribution of new trips through affected intersections; and E. Based upon extensive traffic studies and the Tiburon Traffic Model, the current circulation system in Tiburon will not be sufficient to accommodate the amount of traffic projected to be generated by new development. Without significant circulation improvements,the level of service available on the streets in the Planning Area will seriously deteriorate, resulting in a decrease in land values, a decrease in tax revenues, more traffic accidents, ?ower levels of employee productivity, and lower resident quality of life; and F. The estimated cost of accommodating the increased traffic through intersection widening, installation of traffic signals and other local traffic mitigation is approximately$10,270,216 based on the Update. Traditional transportation improvement funding sources will not keep pace with the need for and cost of transportation improvements caused by new development. The Town therefore seeks to require all new development to contribute to the cost of mitigating traffic problems by imposing traffic mitigation fees for circulation improvements. Tiburon Totivn Council Resolulion No. 25-2017 Adohled 08/16,2017 Iiffeclive 10/15/2017 2 G. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the improvements to be funded by the fee and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed. Specifically, every project on which the fee is imposed generates increased traffic throughout the Town. This generation of traffic in turn requires that, in order to maintain acceptable levels of service, traffic improvements be made to accommodate the increased traffic. There is a reasonable and direct connection between the need for the improvements and the type of development project upon which the fee is imposed. H. There is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development for which the fee is charged. The fee will be used exclusively to construct circulation improvements, such as roadway and intersection improvements and the engineering, planning and administrative costs directly related to such improvements. The use of the funds will therefore directly relate to and benefit the development projects upon which the fee is imposed; and 1. The Town Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the projected required improvements. Cost of improvements has been determined using standard engineering practices. Using the Tiburon Traffic Model, a project's share of the improvement costs has been determined by multiplying the improvement costs by the ratio of the number of PM peak trips generated by the project to the total number of PM peak hour trips generated by all projects within the limits of the Tiburon Traffic Model. Thus,the fee per project is proportional to that project's contribution to increased traffic. J. The Town Council finds that Tiburon's circulation system is almost totally dependent on Tiburon Boulevard,the major spinal roadway through which the vast majority of vehicular traffic enters and exits the Town. Therefore, for purposes of establishing a Zone of Benefit for circulation system improvements, it is logical and reasonable to designate the entire Tiburon Planning Area as a single benefit zone. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby establish updated traffic mitigation fees for new development within the Town of Tiburon as more particularly set forth hereinafter. 1. Definitions. (a) "Building Permits"means a permit required by and issued pursuant to Chapter 13 of this Code. (b) "Circulation Improvements" includes but is not limited to the construction of or improvement to street rights of way, traffic signals, overcrossings, underpasses, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, street pavement, and drainage improvements incidental to street improvements necessary to provide traffic circulation consistent with the Circulation Element of the Tiburon General Plan. For purposes of this definition street includes highway or road. Tiburon Town Council Resolulion No. 25-2017 Adopted 0811612017 Effective 10/15/2017 3 (c) "New Development"means any new construction or use that requires the issuance of a building permit,zoning or subdivision entitlement and which generates additional traffic trips above that generated by the previous lawful use of the land. (d) "PM Peak Hour Trip"means a vehicular trip generated by a given land use during the one-hour period of highest traffic volume during the PM peak period of 4-6 PM as defined in the Tiburon Traffic Model. (e)"Tiburon Traffic Model"means the Synchro and VISTRO Model-based program utilized by Nelson/Nygaard in their above-referenced analyses. The Tiburon Tra1f c Model projects future traffic through defined intersections and determines Levels of Service of the defined intersections based upon existing and projected levels of development. (f) "Subdivision Entitlement" means a permit issued pursuant to Chapter 14 of this Code. (g) "Zone of Benefit"is for the purposes of this resolution the entire Planning Area of the Town of Tiburon as set forth in the Tiburon General Plan, including those portions of surrounding county and municipal governments that generate traffic tributary to Tiburon Boulevard for traffic assessment purposes. (h) "Zoning Entitlement" means a permit issued pursuant to regulations set forth in Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 2. Fee Imposed. (a) A traffic mitigation fee shall be charged and paid at the time of issuance of a building permit for development. 'The amount of the fee shall be as set forth in this resolution, which upon taking effect shall supersede all traffic mitigation fee amounts set forth in prior resolutions of the Town Council, including specifically Resolution No. 02- 2007. (b)To the extent permitted by law,the fee established by this resolution shall be paid prior to occupancy for any project not required to obtain a building permit from the Town of Tiburon. 3. Fee Amount Calculations and Distribution. (a) Fee calculations shall be based upon the fee amount of$7,174.76 for each new PM peak hour trip generated,as determined in the Updale. This PM peak hour trip fee shall be multiplied by the number of new PM peak hour trips generated by the project. PM peak hour trip generation rates for various categories of land uses are identified in attached Table L Trip generation rates for land uses not defined in Table 1 shall be defined based on the latest edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers'Trip Generation. For unique land uses not covered by the above-referenced publication, a special study of comparable locations shall be made to the satisfaction of the"Town Engineer. (b) The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be distributed into the following traffic mitigation fee account: 'I iburon Circulation System Improvement Fund (CSIh). Tiburon Town Council Resolu[ion No. 2.5-2017 Adopled 08/16/2017 Effective 10/15/2017 4 (c) Construction Cost Index. The PM peak hour trip fee set forth in Section 3(a) above is calculated in December,2016 dollars and shall be adjusted on July 1 of each year in accordance with the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area, which cost index sat at 11609.44 as of December, 2016. 4. Exemptions. Projects to be exempted from the imposition of traffic mitigation fees include: (a) Municipal and other governmental uses. (b) Reconstruction or remodel projects where there is no increase in use or intensity causing an increase in traffic. (c) Accessory uses creating no increase in traffic. (d) Affordable housing units,as defined in the Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 16 (Zoning). (e) Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, as defined in the Tiburon Municipal Code Chapter 16 (Zoning). 5. Payment of other Fees Required. Nothing in this resolution exempts any new development from payment of any or all other applicable fees adopted by the Town. 6. Use of Fee Revenues, Public Facilities Accounts. From and after the effective date of this resolution,the revenues raised by payment of the traffic mitigation fee shall be placed in a separate and special account as provided herein and such revenues, along with any interest earnings on the account, shall be used for the following purposes: (a) To pay for the planning,design and construction(including administration of construction) of designated circulation improvements; (b) To reimburse the Town for designated circulation improvements constructed by the Town with local funds from other sources (unless the Town funds were obtained from grants or gifts),and provided that such reimbursement is proportionate with the impact of the new development; (c) To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed designated circulation improvements having size,length or capacity beyond that needed to mitigate impacts of that developer's individual development project; (d) To pay for and/or reimburse costs of development and ongoing updating and administration of the traffic mitigation fee program. Tiburon Town Council Resolution No. 25-2017 Adopted 08/16/2017 EIfictive 10/1.5/2017 5 7. Expenditure of the Fees.. Fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be expended only for those facilities identified in the General Plan Circulation Element and only for the purposes for which the fee was collected. 8. Review and Reporting, Annual and periodic reporting and making of required findings shall be performed as set forth in California Government Code section 66000 et seq., or any successor sections thereto. 9. Fee Adjustments; Appeals of Fee Determination. Fee adjustment requests and appeals of fee determinations shall be governed by provisions of Section 1413-8 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution and its associated fee shall become effective sixty (60) days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon held on August 16, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fredericks, Kulik, O'Donnell NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: Fraser ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Thier 1 JIM S Ii, MAYOR TO I�yOF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFAM, TOV«1 CLERK Attachment: Table 1---Trip Generation Rates for Various Land Uses Tiburon Town Council Resolimon A'o. 25-2017 Adopted 08/16/2017 Effective 10111,512017 6 TABLE 1 TRIP GENERATION RATES Land Use Units PM Peak PM Peak Total PM Rate In Rate Out Peak Rate_ Single Family _ DU 0.70 0.44 1.14 Multi Family DU 0.46 0.25 0.71 Accessory Dwelling Unit* DU 0.15 0.12 0.27 Retail 1,000 sq. ft. 1.80 1.80 3.60 Office 1,000 sq. ft. 0.25 1.24 1.49 Library 1,000 sq. ft. 2.28 2.46 4.74 Community Recreation 1,000 sq. ft. 7.0 6.0 13.0 *Exempt from Traffic Mitigation Fee Source: Town of Tiburon and Nelson/Nygaard, 2017 Tibia-on Town Council Resolution No. 25-2017 Adopled 0,/16/2017 Effective 10/15/2017 ryy y �� 3 gra f S i A n r� a a a e a f TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE— FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon Table of Contents Page 1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................l Background and Purpose......................................................................................................................... 1 StudyProcess.............................................................................................................................................. 1 FeeProgram Design.................................................................................................................................. 1 StudyArea.................................................................................................................................................. 2 2 Methodology......................................................................................................................4 ExistingProgram........................................................................................................................................ 4 SignificanceCriteria.................................................................................................................................. 4 TechnicalAnalysis...................................................................................................................................... 6 3 Analysis Results.................................................................................................................9 Capacity Needs to Accommodate Future Growth.............................................................................. 9 Needed Improvement Projects and Costs............................................................................................. 9 Existing Deficiencies on Local Network................................................................................................13 Development Projected Through Build-Out........................................................................................14 Project Costs Attributable to New Development...............................................................................14 Determinationof Fees.............................................................................................................................16 Appendix: Proposed New Development & Estimated PM Peak-Hour Trip Generation.............17 Table of Figures Page Figure1 Map of TMF Study Area......................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria..................................................................................... 5 Figure 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Level of Service— Future Projected Build-Out Estimated Conditions................................................................................................................................... 9 Figure 4 Improvement Projects and Estimated Costs.......................................................................1 1 Figure 5 Circulation Improvement Locations...................................................................................... 12 Figure 6 PM Peak Hour Traffic Level of Service— Base Year (2005) Conditions.....................13 Figure 7 PM Peak Hour Intersection Deficiencies Analysis— Base Year (2005)........................13 Figure 8 Estimated PM Peak Hour Trips from New Development................................................. 14 Figure 9 PM Peak Hour Trips Per Intersection from New Development...................................... 15 Figure 10 Costs Attributable To New Development........................................................................... 16 Figure 1 1 Total Fee Amount by Intersection & Fee Amount for Each New PM Peak Hour Trip............................................................................................................................................. 16 Nelson`,Ny aard Consulting Associates Inc. I i TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE - FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon I INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE The Town of Tiburon first established a Traffic Mitigation Fee(TMF)program through the adoption of Ordinance No. 232 N.S.and Resolution No. 1125 in 198o,in order to help fund improvements to the Town's transportation network. The fees have been updated multiple times over the intervening years.The current fees are imposed under the authority of Chapter 14B of the Tiburon Municipal Code,and are periodically updated by Town Council resolution. Traffic mitigation fee update studies to assist the Town in updating the Traffic Mitigation Fee program were completed in 1995 by RKH Civil and Transportation Engineering and in 2oo6 by Fehr&Peers Transportation Consultants.The 20o6 fee program update followed the adoption of the Tiburon 202o General Plan in 2005,which identified future development impacts and circulation improvements necessary to offset those impacts. In 2o16,the Town of Tiburon adopted a comprehensive update to the General Plan Circulation Element.This update amended the list of circulation improvements deemed necessary to maintain acceptable levels of service for roadway intersections in the Tiburon Planning Area.An update to the Traffic Mitigation Fee program to account for these changes is therefore required. In 2016,Nelson\Nygaard was hired to complete a new Traffic Mitigation Fee Update Study.The purpose of the study is to provide the Town with the technical analyses required to update the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program in a manner that complies with state law.This report describes the results of the study,and documents the methodology used to determine the nexus between the recommended fees and the traffic impacts anticipated to be created by new development. STUDY PRCSS This study was prepared in consultation with Town of Tiburon Community Development Department and Public Works Department staff,and is based on future development and circulation improvements identified in the Town of Tiburon General Plan(2005)and the Circulation Element Update (2016).After the results of this study are provided to the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon.the Town Council will be asked to adopt a resolution establishing revised fees. FEE PROGRAM SV-J California's Mitigation Fee Act (.AB 1600,adopted in 1987)establishes the legal requirements for exacting certain fees, including traffic mitigation fees,from development projects. State lav,7 requires that traffic impact fee }programs comply with certain requirements,including: • Identify-ing the purpose of the fee ■ Identifying hmv the fee will be used and the facilities to be funded through the fee N, son`.Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 11 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE— FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon ■ Determining a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development on which the fee is imposed • Determining a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed • Determining a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility(or portion of facility)attributable to new development To establish a reasonable relationship(or"nexus")between Tiburon's projected traffic demand and planned mitigation improvements that satisfies the above-mentioned basic requirements, this fee program update maintains the essential methodology used by the existing TMF program. "The current TMP program estimates fair share contributions based on the anticipated impact of motor vehicle trips from new development on the transportation system at the PM peals hour of demand.These impacts are assigned on a percentage basis to all traffic analysis zones (TAZs) based on the number of PM peals hour trips. Assumptions about the amount of development anticipated to occur Arithin each TAZ are based upon the build-out land-use information provided by the Town of Tiburon General Plan EIR (2005),as periodically updated.Existing and forecast intersection traffic volumes are based on the analyses conducted during the preparation of the 2006 Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update.The circulation system improvements necessary to offset the impacts of anticipated new development were initially provided in the 2oo6 Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update and were updated during the 2016 General Plan Circulation Element,and finalized at the direction of Town staff.Town staff also updated the Town's Vacant&Underdeveloped Parcel Inventory as part of the 2016 General Plan Circulation Element update to reflect current land use projections for build-out. Fee Accounts Currently,the fees generated by the Town of Tiburon TMF program are placed into two traffic mitigation accounts: 1. Tiburon Circulation System Improvement Fund(CSIF)-For improvements located within the Town of Tiburon's corporate limits. 2. "Tiburon Planning Area Mitigation Fund(PAMF)-For improvements located outside the Town of Tiburon's corporate limits,but within the Tiburon Planning Area. This report recommends simplifying the fee structure by establishing a single impact fee rate, charged on per p.m.peals hour vehicle trip basis,which is applied universally(rather than having the fee varY by traffic analysis zone, as it does currently).This change will allow the two traffic mitigation accounts (the CSIF and the PAMF)to be merged into a single new account going forward,and all future fees collected should be placed in that new account. STUDY; E A The study area for the fie program update is the Tiburon Planning Area,which consists of land within the Town of Tiburon itself,as well as certain portions of unincorporated Marin County that are within the sphere of influence of Tiburon proper.The Town of Tiburon and the unincorporated portion of the Tiburon Planning Area can be seen in Figure 1 below. Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 12 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE—FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon Figure 1 Map of TMF Study Area Sar Francisec aay — N1AD,E R.A C 10. � t�� �•�`� ^�� ,.: ., r d3 x°5+1., I„�^ .� `^'� Y01 ..rvGE. rs^) -f ,t R'ic;haardson Ba{ , + , x a ,rt ROAD CLASSIFICATIONS Free�;aay Town of Tiburon Major Arterial f.4 lanes) c_ Unir�ro:poraPrc# t E, :-; i I — Mite*arterial(2 laIlk , es) poflions of Tita„n CO)IQC20r(,2 la nes) Planning Area Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 3 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE— FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon 2 METHODOLOGY This section describes the methodology Nelson\Nygaard used to determine that a reasonable relationship(or"nexus")exists between projected traffic impacts from anticipated development in the Tiburon Planning Area and the fees associated with capital improvements intended to mitigate those impacts. EXISTING PROGRAM This analysis maintains the essential structure of the existing TMF program,and continues to use the basic study methodology used in the 20o6 Traffic Mitigation Fee update study.The amount of PM peal: hour traffic on each of the improved facilities that would be generated by anticipated development in the Tiburon Planning Area's Traffic Analysis'Zones (TAZs)was determined by running the Town of Tiburon Traffic Model,prepared for the General Plan EIR.The fee rate was then based on a"per trip"basis for PM peals hour conditions,using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers trip generation rates as applied in the Town of Tiburon Traffic Model. For projects at locations that were operating at an acceptable level of service in 2005 but are projected to be operating.below Town standards at projected build-out,the entirety of the project cost was included in the fee program.At project locations determined to have existing deficiencies,the cost share attributable to anticipated new development was calculated and included in the fee program. The Tiburon Traffic Model includes 3o TAZs,representing the Town of"Tiburon and the unincorporated portions of its Planning Area and the Strawberry Peninsula,as well as one each representing the City of Belvedere,a portion of the City of Mill Valley, and the(predominantly tourist)traffic generated by Tiburon,attributed for simplicity and for the purposes of this study to the Tiburon Ferry Terminal. Because it is not possible for the Town of'Tiburon to charge fees for traffic generated in these areas,traffic from the Belvedere,Mill Valley,and from tourism was excluded from the fee calculations.Although the Town of Tiburon does not have authority to collect fees in the unincorporated areas,TAZs in the unincorporated areas were included in the report in the event those areas are annexed and/or included in the fee program at a future date. SIGN 1FICA CE CRITERIA Traffic operations are typically evaluated based on intersection level of service(LOS)standards and the methodology described in the Highway Capacity Manual(HCM). LOS is a qualitative measure based on average delay to vehicles during peak travel periods —particularly the morning and afternoon commute periods.The HCM methodology is based on average delay during the peals 15 minutes of the"peak hour."A standard definition of the relationship between LOS and control delay for signalized intersections,as defined in the 2010 HCM update,can be found in Figure 2 below. Nelson'Aygaard Consulting Associates. Inc. 14 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE —FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon The LOS standards and traffic signalization standards for the Town of Tiburon are identified in the Circulation Element update(2016),and are as follows: ■ Level of Service. For signalized intersections in the Tiburon Planning Area,the Town shall strive to achieve and maintain the average peals hour level of service(LOS)at LOS C, with the exception of: 1. Intersections from U.S. Highway 1o1 interchange to E. Strawberry Drive/Bay Vista Drive(inclusive),which the Town shall strive to achieve and maintain at LOS D. 2. Locations where Complete Streets roadway engineering improvements are necessary to ensure safe access for pedestrians and bicyclists,which shall be evaluated on a case-by-case basis,weighing safety with traffic delay considerations. The Town acknowledges that actual conditions may not meet the above LOS levels during certain peak periods. ■ Traffic signals.At such time as any unsignalized intersection along Tiburon Boulevard meets signal warrants,the Town shall approach Caltrans to approve and/or provide signalization or other appropriate improvements. Figure 2 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria / 8 1 A Stable Free-flow conditions with negligible to minimal delays. Excellent progression < 10 0-10 Flow with most vehicles arriving during the green phase and not having to stop at all. Nearly all drivers find freedom of operation. B Stable Good progression with slight delays. Short cycle-lengths typical. Relatively > 10-20 > 10—15 Flow more vehicles stop than under LOS A. Vehicle platoons are formed. Drivers begin to feel somewhat restricted within groups of vehicles. C Stable l Relatively higher delays resulting from fair progression and or longer cycle >20—35 > 15—25 Flow lengths. Individual cycle failures may begin to appear. The number of vehicles stopping is significant,although many still pass through without stopping. Most drivers feel somewhat restricted. D Approa i Somewhat congested conditions. Longer but tolerable delays may result from >35—55 >25—35 Ching unfavorable progression,long cycle lengths, and/or high volume-to-capacity Unstabl j ratios. Many vehicles are stopped. Individual cycle failures may be noticeable. e Flow Drivers feel restricted during short periods due to temporary back-ups. E Unstabl j Congested conditions. Significant delays result from poor progression. long >55-80 >35—50 e Flow I cycle lengths,and high volume-to-capacity ratios. Individual cycle failures occur frequently. There are typically long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection. Driver maneuverability is very restricted. F Forced Jammed or grid-lock type operating conditions. Generally considered to be >80 >50 Flow unacceptable for most drivers. Zero or very poor progression.with over- saturation or high volume-to-capacity ratios. Several individual cycle failures movement, ov c occur. Queue spillovers from other locations restrict or prevent me - - ------- ----- - -.._.....---. --!-- ---- ___ -- - Nelson'Aygaard Consulting Associates. Inc. 15 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE--FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon TECHNICAL ANALYSIS The technical analysis for this study was completed through a series of six tasks described in detail in this chapter: 1. Determination of capacity needs to accommodate future growth 2. Identification of improvement projects and costs 3. Identification of existing local-network deficiencies 4. Identification of new-development impacts on the local network 5. Calculation of project costs attributable to new development 6. Determination of fee amounts based on project costs attributable to new development Task 1 — Determination of Capacity Needs to Accommodate Future Growth Future estimated future traffic levels calculated as part of the development of the 20o6 TMF program update were used to determine the intersections with projected deficiencies that are to be addressed through the updated TMF program.These levels were calculated using the Town of Tiburon Traffic Model,which used future development land use and transportation network information to produce estimates of future travel demand and usage of roadway facilities. For the General Plan update,model runs were conducted to estimate future build-out traffic demand in the Tiburon Planning Area based on official land use forecasts.This procedure was consistent with that used in the 1994 General Plan Circulation Element and associated TMF program. Based on the results of these model runs, LOS analysis was prepared to summarize expected future traffic demand at intersections and along corridors that serve local travel in the Tiburon Planning Area,specifically focusing on the Tiburon Boulevard corridor.This analysis was used to determine what additional capacity would be needed to accommodate the expected future demand.The results of the determination of capacity needs to accommodate future growth can be found in Figure 3 on page 9 of this report. Task 2 — Identification of Improvement Projects and Applicable Costs In order to achieve the future transportation capacity identified in Task 1,a series of specific improvements were developed in the 20o5 General Plan for the Tiburon Planning Area,and were later reestablished in the Tiburon Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF)Program Update (20o6)and the Circulation Element Update(2016).The improvements were selected based on their ability to provide the capacity estimated to be needed.The Town of Tiburon also prepared cost estimates for each improvement at the time each improvement was identified. As part of this update,the identified improvements were reevaluated to determine the status of and current cost estimates for each project. Nelson\Nygaard updated the initial estimated construction costs to account for inflation using the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area.In some cases,the initial estimated construction costs included only hard costs,leaving out soft costs (i.e.,non-brick-and-mortar costs such as engineering fees,environmental reports and permit fees).In these cases,Nelson\Nygaard also updated the initial cost estimate to include soft costs. Soft costs were estimated using the 2016 California Multi-Agency Capital Improvement Project Benchmarking Study.These initial and updated project cost estimates are shown in Figure 4 on page 11 of this report. NelsoWNygaard Consulting Associates. Inc. 16 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE - FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon Task 3 — Identification of Existing Local-Network Deficiencies As the Town of Tiburon's land use program has not changed since the 2oo6 TMP program update,the Town of Tiburon General Plan FIR(2005)was again used to determine the status of the facilities identified in Step 2 as needing improvement. If the General Plan indicated that a facility identified in Step 2 was not meeting its applicable LOS significance criteria in the 2005 base year,then that facility was flagged as an existing deficiency.The results of the existing deficiency projections at facilities included in the fee program are shown in Figure 6 on page 13 of this report.Further,the traffic volume analysis of facilities that were determined to contain an existing deficiency is shown in Figure 7,also on page 13 of this report. Task 4 — Identification of new-development impacts on the local network The Town of Tiburon General Plan(2005)included a forecast of land uses for 2020 in the Tiburon Planning Area,and both residential and non-residential uses were estimated in terms of dwelling units and square feet,respectively.In the 2oo6 TMF program update,the number of future PM peals hour vehicle trips attributable to the future developments was estimated using standard industry trip generation rates,as utilized in the Town of Tiburon Traffic Model,and were then summarized by TA-Z. Using the Town's periodically updated land use projections,the number of future PM peak-hour vehicle trips attributable to future residential and non-residential land uses was forecast for this update.The projected PM peals-hour traffic impacts on the local network from new developments are shown in Figure 8 on page 14 of this report. Task 5 — Calculation of Project Costs Attributable to New Development in the Town of Tiburon For improvement projects at intersections that did not have an existing deficiency in 2005(as defined in Task 3),all of the project's costs may be attributed to new development and were therefore included in the feeprogram. For improvements on facilities that were estimated to have existing deficiencies,the costs of improvements were divided between existing development and new development.The cost share attributable to new development was calculated for each intersection in the following way: 1. Existing deficiencies were identified 8 the current traffic volumes that exceed the available capacity(if any).Example: a facility with a theoretical capacity of 2,000 vehicles that is currently carrying 2,200 vehicles has an existing deficiency of 200 vehicles (calculated as Vehicles —Capacity= Deficiency,or 2,200 — 2,000 = 200). 2. Future traffic growth is then determined by subtracting the current traffic volumes from the forecasted future traffic volumes. Example: if the future demand on the aforementioned facility is projected to be 2,500 vehicles,the future traffic growth would be 300 vehicles (calculated as 2,500 — 27200 =300). 3. The overall benefit of the improvement project is then estimated as the number of trips that must be reduced to correct the existing deficiency(from number 1)phis the accommodation of future growth(from number 2). Example:the overall benefit of improvements in our previous example would be to correct the existing deficiency of 200 vehicles and to accommodate the future gr0 VVth of Soo vehicles,for a total benefit of 500. 4. The share of costs attributed to new developments was then calculated by dividing the result of number 2 (future traffic growth attributed to new development)b,T the result of number 3 (overall improvement project benefit). In our example,the share of the benefit Nelson,Nygaard Consulting Associates. Inc. (7 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE - FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon to new development would be 60%,or 300 divided by Soo.Therefore,60%of the project cost would be included in the fee program.The remaining 40%of the project cost would need to be funded through other sources. The results of the analysis of the share of project costs attributable to new development is shown in Figure 9 on page 15 of this report. Task 6 — Determination of Fees The total project costs attributable to new development (Step 5)were then divided by the total number of new PM trips attributable to new development(Step 4)to determine the per-trip fee amount. Results of the analysis of the fees attributable to new development are shown in Figure lo,and Figure 1i,both of which can be found on page 16 of this report. NelsonlNyca��!d C011su1t o Associates. Inc. 18 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE—FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon ANALYSIS RESULTS CAPACITY NEEDS TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE GROWTH Figure 3 shows the results of the LOS analysis of projected build-out conditions described in Chapter 2,for intersections that are projected to require improvement to accommodate the impacts of future growth.The table shows estimated delay during the PM peals-hour time period. The analysis did not assume the completion of any already-funded intersection or roadway improvements except for improvements planned at the intersection of the Southbound 101 ramps/Tiburon Boulevard. As shown in Figure 3,both of the signalized intersections are projected to operate deficiently (LOS E or worse near the US 101 interchanges and LOS D or worse elsewhere)under projected build-out conditions.The intersections without signals are also projected to operate deficiently,as they would meet Caltrans signal warrants under 202o build-out conditions. These findings are consistent with the results of the Town of Tiburon General Plan EIR(2005)and indicate a need for improvement projects. Figure 3 PM Peak Hour Traffic Level of Service-Future Projected Build-Out Estimated Conditions t Trestle Glen Blvd &Tiburon Blvd Signal(LOS C) E 74.5 Mar West Street&Tiburon Blvd 2-way stop sign(N/A) F >50 Redwood Highway&Tiburon Blvd Signal(LOS D) F >80 Cecilia Way&Tiburon Boulevard 2-way stop sign (N/A) F >50 Reed Ranch Road&Tiburon Boulevard 1 2-way stop sign(N/A) D 27.7 NEEDED 1 PROVES° EN* PROJECTS AND COSTS The capacity needs analysis results were used to identify appropriate improvement projects to accommodate projected demand. The improvement projects and the estimated costs associated with each project are shown in Figure 4. Each of these projects was included in the 2006 TMF program update. Several other,projects that were included in the 20o6 TMF program or the 2016 Circulation Element update were not included in this study for one or more of the following reasons: I At the Southbound 101 ramps/Tiburon Boulevard intersection,the analysis assumed an additional right-turn lane would be in place at the southbound off-ramp,consistent with Caltrans planned improvements to the intersection. Nel,on'"Nygaard Consulting Associates. Inc. 191 TRAFFIC MITIGATION! FEE UPDATE— FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon ■ The project has been implemented or the intersection no longer requires mitigation • Tiburon Boulevard/Gilmartin Drive improvements were not included because they will be covered through a condition of approval on a development nearing construction ■ The project called"Limit Driveway Access along Tiburon Boulevard in Downtown"in the 2016 Circulation Element was not included because it is not a project to address a projected deficiency related to new development ■ "Signal Optimization"was presumed to carry minimal costs All non-capital projects identified in the 2016 Circulation Element were also excluded. The cost estimates for each project shown in Figure 4 were identified from a number of sources, most notably the 2oo6 TMF program update and research done for the 2016 Circulation Element update.The initial cost estimates have been adjusted to account for construction-cost inflation from the year the project was originally quoted(the"project benchmark year")to the most recent year for which construction cost index estimates were available(2o16).Nelson\Nygaard updated the initial estimated construction costs to account for inflation using the Engineering News Record's Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area(SF ENR Index).In some cases, the initial estimated construction costs included only hard costs,leaving out soft costs (i.e.,non- brick-and-mortar costs such as engineering fees,environmental reports and permit fees). In these cases,Nelson\Nygaard also updated the initial cost estimate to include soft costs.Soft costs were estimated using the 2016 California Multi-Agency Capital Improvement Project Benchmarking Study.According to that study,as of 2016,the average ratio of soft costs to total cost for streets projects in California was 50%of hard costs. One of the improvement projects(Reed Ranch Road/Tiburon Boulevard)has been completed since the previous update but remains in this study because fees collected through the fee program in the future are to help defray the cost of all improvements included in the program over its full life. Three of the improvement intersections analyzed for this study are within the Town of Tiburon, including the already mitigated intersection at Reed Ranch Road/Tiburon Boulevard.The remaining two improvements analyzed are within the unincorporated portion of Marin County that is within the Tiburon Planning Area.The locations of each of the circulation improvement projects can be seen in Figure 5.The total estimated cost of these improvements is $10,270,216. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associate s. Inc. 110 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE—FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon Figure 4 Improvement Projects and Estimated Costs 1 9 k B B Ongoing&Planned Trestle Glen & Add a second westbound Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon Boulevard through lane and extend it back from Trestle $5,000,000 Glen Boulevard as far east toward Stewart Drive as practical:or construct other intersection 2014 (hard cost 10915.84 1 11609.44 0.064 $5,317,703 $2,658,852 $7,976,555 improvements of similar effectiveness at only) reducing delay and/or congestion. Mar West Street& Convert from two-way stop controlled Tiburon Boulevard intersection to a single lane roundabout OR 2006 $438,750 9108.66 j 11609.44 0.27 NIA NIA $559,209 traffic signal improvement included in the previous 2006 Traffic Mitigation Fee study. Tiburon BoulevardImprovements identified through multi- Intersections with jurisdictional process, including an additional Redwood Highway westbound lane on Tiburon Boulevard identified $1,100,000 Frontage Road, in the Circulation Element and improvements to $1,100,000 $550,000 $1,650,000 North Knoll Road the Frontage Road and North Knoll Road 2017 (hard cost NA NA NA and roadway identified in the previous study. only) between intersections Cecilia Way& Add a merge/acceleration lane for traffic turning 2006 $30,625 9108.66 11609.44 0.27 N/A NIA $39,033 Tiburon Boulevard left from Cecilia Way onto Tiburon Boulevard. Implemented Reed Ranch Road& Add a merge/acceleration lane for traffic turning Tiburon Boulevard left from Reed Ranch Road onto Tiburon 2006 $45,419 $45,419 Boulevard. 2 Inflation Factor = (SF ENR Index 201 6/SF ENR Index Benchmark Year)— 1. 3 Current Estimated Hard Cost = (1+ Inflation Factor) "' Benchmark Project Cost.For current-year estimates that do not require an inflation adjustment the value in this column is the some as the Benchmark Project Cost. Per the 2016 California Multi-Agency Capital Improvement Project Benchmarking Study,the average ratio of total soft costs for streets projects in California is 50%of hard costs. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates, Inc. 111 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE—FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon Figure 5 Circulation Improvement Locations r Sari Francisco Cay r r,• t V. a n �.. VEDORE 1 10 " 1 ` 3 R ichardson Say k c ryr YK " v "w, 4 D 0.2.5 05' 1 M1185 Zl •��,�c;Win:-�;,:,rcr:�;,;� LEGEND: 62rVdns.CrtLV t}.T:burorr-ci Location v itnin ';rr.-n of Tiburon 'Town of Tiburon 6,4 ® =Location v-ita€n unincoroorated Tiburon Panning Area tin;r.carp ratad po knst�fTiburnn Plar,nir��Area Nelson\Nygaard Consulting Associates. Inc. 12 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE—FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon EXISTING DEFICIENCIES ON LOCAL NETWORK As described in Chapter 2,the results of the existing conditions analysis from The Town of Tiburon General Plan LIR(2005)were reviewed for the 20o6 TMF update to determine the base- year status of the facilities identified in Task 2 as needing improvement,as shown in Figure 6.The results of the analysis showed that the intersection of Redwood Highway and Tiburon Blvd was the only signal-controlled intersection that was operating with an existing deficiency.Two of the three stop-controlled intersections operated at LOS D or worse but did not meet signal warrants. Therefore,these intersections were considered to operate acceptably based on the Town's LOS criteria and were not deemed to be existing deficiencies. Figure 6 PM Peak Hour Traffic Level of Service-Base Year(2005)Conditions Trestle Glen Blvd&Tiburon Blvd Signal(LOS C) C 34.3 Mar West Street&Tiburon Blvd 2-way Stop-sign(N/A) D 29.8 Redwood Highway&Tiburon Blvd Signal(LOS D) E 78.0 Cecilia Way&Tiburon Boulevard 2-way Stop-sign(N/A) D 30.1 Reed Ranch Road&Tiburon Boulevard 2-way stop sign(N/A) C 21.9 � nFee F ,ate Study_Fehr&Peers(2006) As the Redwood Highway/Tiburon Blvd intersection is the only intersection that was deemed to have an existing deficiency,the method for determining the share of costs for improving the intersection is treated differently than the other intersections.As calculated in the 20o6'1'MF update and shown in Figure 7,the amount of existing traffic in the base year(2005)that exceeded the available capacity was determined by decreasing the volume at intersection-critical movements until the intersection operated adequately. The number of vehicles removed was considered the existing deficiency volume. Figure 7 PM Peak Hour Intersection Deficiencies Analysis-Base Year(2005) r • Delay LOS (Seconds) Redwood Highway Frontage D Signal 1,025 D 54.8 RoadN& Tiburon Boulevard Nelson`!\.ygaard Consulting Associates.. !nc. 13 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE— FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon DE-VELOPMENT PROJECTED THROUGH BUILD-OUT Land-use forecasts for projected build-out conditions (for both residential and non-residential uses)were estimated in terms of dwelling units and square footage in the 2005 General Plan. Motor vehicle trips attributable to future developments in the PM peak hour were generated from these forecasts for the 2006 TMF update using the Town of Tiburon Traffic Model.The proposed new development trip generation estimates by TAZ group are shown in Figure 8.A detailed list of the proposed new land use developments and their trip generation estimates is provided in the Appendix. Figure 8 Estimated PM Peak Hour Trips from New Development Town of Tiburon5 509 499 1008 Belvederes 11 7 18 Mill Valley' 56 35 91 Tourism8 50 50 100 Total 626 591 1,217 ,., _b.,�u;, <.:rc 4diiCr :,,n Fee Prutram Update Str;�ly, r hr.��< PROJECT COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT As mentioned previously,if a facility does not have an existing deficiency,then the need for improvements to that facility will be generated by new development alone.'Therefore,for any intersection without an existing deficiency,the entire cost of improving the intersection will be covered by the TMF program. For improvements at the one location with an existing deficiency, the proportion of costs attributable to new growth was calculated using the method described in Chapter 2. Traffic volumes from new developments in Belvedere and Mill Valley,as well as increased tourism trips,were forecast for the year 202o as part of the 2oo6 TMF program update study,to control for additional background traffic generation related to these locations that could affect the study intersections.The Town of Tiburon Traffic Model includes TAZs that represent this background growth from new development in Belvedere(TAZ i),Mill Valley(TAZ 31)and a TAZ(Tourism) for tourist traffic generally to and from the waterfront in downtown Tiburon.Traffic generated by these three TAZs is not included in the calculations of costs attributable to new development. Belvedere and Mill Valley developments are not included in the fee program because the Town of Tiburon does not have jurisdiction to charge mitigation fees in other cities,and the tourist trips 5 The"Town of Tiburon"consists of TAZs 2-30 and 32.Note that several of these TAZs are located in unincorporated portions of the Tiburon Planning Area,including all of TAZs 1 1,30, 18, 27, and portions of TAZs 3 and 8.Although the Town of Tiburon does not currently have authority to collect fees in the unincorporated areas,TAZs in the unincorporated area were included in the report in the event those areas are annexed and/or included in the fee program at a future date. 6 Belvedere is TAZ 1. 7 Mill Valley is TAZ 31. .8 Tourism refers to trips generated by increased tourism. Neison",Nygaard Consulting,Associates. Inc. 114 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE — FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon are not included because the Town of Tiburon cannot charge mitigation fees to visitors.Although the Town of Tiburon does not have authority to collect fees in the unincorporated portions of the Tiburon Planning Area,TAZs in the unincorporated area were included in the report in the event those areas are annexed and/or included in the fee program at a future date. The PM peak hour traffic volumes resulting from new development(by TAZ group)at the improvement locations and the percent contribution of new development to future deficiencies (after subtracting trips related to existing deficiencies and background groNN'th)are shown in Figure 9. Figure 9 PM Peak Hour Trips Per Intersection from New Development MISOMMM Town of Tiburon9 397 340 469 368 368 Belvedere 10 14 0 12 14 14 Mill Valley" 5 5 11 5 5 Tourism12 100 100 100 100 100 Total Trip Growth 516 445 592 487 487 Existing Trips 2,597 1,341 4,315 2,674 2,675 Total Cumulative Traffic 3,113 1,786 4,969 3,161 3,162 Existing Deficiency Trips 0 0 1,025 0 1 Total Mill Valley, Belvedere,and 119 105 123 119 119 Tourism Trips New Development Trips for Fee 397 340 531 368 368 Calculation %of Total Growth Attributable to 77% 76% 37%1376/° 76% New Development 9 The"Town of Tiburon"consists of TAZs 2-30 and 32. Note that several of these TAZs are located in unincorporated portions of the Tiburon Planning Area,including all of TAZs 1 1, 30, 18,27,and portions of TAZs 3 and 8.Although the Town of Tiburon does not currently have authority to collect fees in the unincorporated areas,TAZs in the unincorporated area were included in the report in the event those areas are annexed and/or included in the fee program at a future date. 10 Belvedere is TAZ 1. 1 I Mill Valley is TAZ 31. 12 Tourism refers to trips generated by increased tourism. 13 Contains an existing deficiency. Nelson`,Nygaard Consulting Associates. inc. 115 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE — FINAL REPORT Town of Tiburon DETERMINATION OF FEES The total cost to be covered by TMF contributions from new development was determined by multiplying the cost of each intersection improvement by the percentage of the improvement cost attributable to new development within the Town of Tiburon,as shown in Figure 1o. Figure 10 Costs Attributable To New Development f f f® n Total New Development Trestle Glen Boulevard&Tiburon Boulevard 77% $7,976,555 $6,137,001 Mar West Street&Tiburon Boulevard 76% $559,209 $427,261 Redwood Highway Frontage Road&Tiburon Boulevard 37% $1,650,000 $604,082 Cecilia Way&Tiburon Boulevard 76% $39.033 $29,495 Reed Ranch Road&Tiburon Boulevard 76% ( $45,419 $34,321 Total Costs $10,270,216 $7,232,159 As the Town of Tiburon's TAZs have been combined into a single group for purposes of fee assessment,the determination of a separate per-trip fee rate for each individual TAZ is not necessary.Figure 11 shows the appropriate fee amount per each new PM peak hour trip,which was calculated by dividing the total intersection improvement costs attributable to new development(S7,232,159)by the number of PM peak hour trips attributed to new development in the Town of Tiburon(1oo8 trips). Figure 11 Total Fee Amount by Intersection&Fee Amount for Each New PM Peak Hour Trip 177 Town 2727 Tiburon 14 $6, 3 ,000. 8 $4 , 60.5 $604,081.63 $29495.23 S34.320.72 $7,174 .76 Belvedere 15 Belvedere trips(not part of fee program) Mill Valley16 Mill Valley trips(not part of fee program) Tourism 17 Tourist trips(not part of fee program) Total $6;137,000.78 $427,260.57 1 $604,081.63 1 $29,495.23 1 534.320.72 $7,174.76 14 Town of Tiburon is TAZ's 2-30,32. Note that several of these TAZs are located in unincorporated portions of the Tiburon Planning Area,including all of TAZs 11,30, 18,27,and portions of TAZs 3 and 8.Although the Town of Tiburon does not currently have authority to collect fees in the unincorporated areas,TAZs in the unincorporated area were included in the report in the event those areas are annexed and/or included in the fee program at a future date. 15 Belvedere is TAZ 1. 76 Mill Valley is TAZ 31. 17 Tourism refers to trips generated by increased tourism. NelsonlNygaard Consulting Associates. Inc. 116 TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE UPDATE-FINAL REPORT Torn o'TiGuron Appendix: Proposed New Development & Estimated P Peak® aur Trip Generation INB TAZ Land Use Amount Unit Rate In Rate Out T"Ps ln Trips Out Total Trips; %ofTotal7rips 1 Single-Family 16.0 DU{ 0.70 0.44 11 -__-7 18 1.5% 3 Single Family 33.0 DU 0.70 OA4 1 23! 15 38 31% _......... ..._..- 4 Multi-Family0.0 DU 0.46 1 0.25 0 0 0 00% --- -_ __. .------T-_-_ 4 Retail 3.9 1,000 SF 1.80 1.80 j 7 7 4 1.2% - - 4 Office 1.3 1,000 SF 0.25 1.24 0 2 j 2 02% - -- - --- ------------ 4 --- 4 Single-Family 1.0 DU 0.70 0.44 1 0 1 0,1% --- -- 5 Multi-Family 10.0 DU 0.46 0.25 5 3! 8 07 5 Retail 9.0 1,000 SF; 1.80 1.80 16 16 32 2,6% 5 Office 5.9 1,000 SF 0.25 1.24 1 ......._.7_,....___. 8 ---- 0 7% 6 Multi-Family 57.0 DU 0.46 0.25 26 14? 40 3.3% 6 Retail 6.5 1,000 SF 1 1.80 1.80 12 12 24 j 2.0%j 6 Office 3.0 1,000 SF; 0.25 1.24 1 4 5 0.4 --- 6 Library 17.1 1:000 SF 2.28 12.46 39 42 81 6.7 6 Community Recreation 8.0 1,000 SF 7.00 6.00 56 48 104 8.5 -- ---1--- --F y 8 Single-Family 9.0 DU 0,70 0,44 6 4 0 08% 9 Single-Family 16.0 DU 0.70 0.44 11 ! 7 18 j 1.5% 11 Single-Family 16.0 DU 0.70 0.44 11 7 18..1..............................1 5%j -- -------- -- ------------------------ ..-_.._.._-r-. --___._ _._.._._•__-. -- - ------ 12 Single-Family2.0 DU 0.70 0.44 1 1 2 i 0.2%j 2 Community Recreation 0.0 1,000 SF 10.00 8.00 0 0 0 0 0/ --- --- 13 Single-Family 18.0 DU 0.70 0.44 13 8 21 1,7% 13 Second Unit 2.0 DU 0.15 j 0.12 0 0 0 0,0%j 13 Multi-Family 18.0 DU 0.46 0.25 8 5 3 -- 16- Single-Family 16.0 DUI 0.70 _- 0.44 11 7 18 - - 1 5/ -- _ : - . 17 Single Family 15.0 DU 070 1 0.44 1 11 7 18 17 Second Unit 2 0 DU 0.15 0.12 0 0 0 0.0% {i 18 Second Unit 44.0 DU 0.15 0.12! 31 19 50 4.1% 18 Single-Family 2.0 DU 0.70 0.44 0 0 0 00% ----- - -- - ---- * - ---- ............... 19 Single-Family 1 0 DU 0.70, 0.44 1 0 1 0.1%j 21 Single-Family 3.0 DU 0.70 0.44 2 1 3 02% 22 Single-Family 13.0 DU j 0.70 0.44 9 6 i 15 12%! - ------- 22 Retail 22.9 1,000 SF80 80 41 41 82 - 6 7� 23 Single-Family 33.0 DU ! 0.70 1 0.44 2315 38 3 19% 24 Office 100.0 1.000 SF 0.25 1 124 25 i 124 149 12,2% 25 Single-Family 64.0 DU . 0.70 044 45 28 73! 6 0°° 26 Second Unit 19.0 DU 0.15 0.12 1 3 8 21 4° 26Single-Family 20 DU 0.70 0.44 0 0 0': 0 0% 27 Single Family 7.0 DU 0.70 0.44 5 3 8 0 7% Retail 2.3 1.000 SF 1,80 1 80 j 4 4 ! 8 0 7 27 Office 2.0 1.000 SF 0.25 1.24 1 1 2 3 0 21° 28 Single Family 3.0 DU 0.70 0 44, 2 1 3 0 2% 28 Second Unit 2.0 DU 0.15: 0 12 0 0 0 - 0 091 28 Mulh Family 10 0 DU 0.46 0 25 5 3 8 0 7°°; - --------------- 28 - ---28 Retail 1 1,6 1.000 SF 1.80 1 80 3 : 3 6 0 51° 0 Single-Family 47.0 DU: 0.70 0.44 j 33 21 54! 4 4°c - 31 Single-Family 80.0 DU 0.70! 0.44! 56 35 91 7 5°° 32 Single-Family 100 DU 0.70 044-� 7 - 4-- 11 -- 09°o 32 Second Unit 2.0 DU 0.15 : 0.12 ! 0 0 0 0 0°-0 32 Multi-Family 00 DU 0.46 025 j 0 0 : 0 0 0°° Tm;nsm Tourism 500 Trips 1.00 100 50 50 t00 82°°'. -- - ales - Q, i TOWN OF TIBLJRON Town Council Meeting ` Ma � 1505 Tiburon Boulevard 1 15, 2019 r Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda ILci STAFF PO . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Manager Subject: Consider Request for a Financial Contribution to the Belvedere/Tiburon Library Expansion Project. Reviewed By: V ✓ Greg Chanis,Town Manager Benjamin Stock. Town Attorney SUMMARY Council is considering a request from the Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency for a direct financial eoiAribution to the upcoming Library Expansion Project RECOMMENDED ACTIONS) 1. Receive the staff reportand presentation by Belvedere/Tiburon Library, Agency representatives. 2. Hear any public comment. 3. Determine whether,,and in what'amount the amount, the Town will contribute to the Library Expansion project, or, 4. Continue the item to a future meeting, and direct staff as to what additional information' is required before Council considers the matter again. BACKGROUND The Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency (BTLA) has been planning a library expansion project (Project) since 2006, and the Town is currently reviewing a Building Permit application for the proposed Project. On May 6, 2019, the Town received a letter from the BTLA requesting a financial contribution from the Town towards the Project. (Exhibit 1). The letter includes an attachment which provides a detailed estimate of the cost to construct exterior features. described by the BTLA as `shared public space', and asks the Town to `confirm its intent to join the Agency by making a contribution to the cost of the shared public facilities'. For Councils reference. these shared public facilities are depicted in Exhibit 2, and include the public parking lot. public spaces between the two facilities and the redesigned Zelinsky Park area. ANALYSIS Although the request by the BTLA is for a direct financial contribution, it is important to note the Town is supporting the Project in other significant ways including the following. • On July 5,2007,Town Council approved an `Agreement To Convey Real Property". Under this agreement, when the BTLA meets certain conditions, the Town agreed to convey a parcel of land necessary for the project to move forward. An appraisal of the 16,000 square foot parcel was completed in March 2018, with the market value of the parcel estimated at $880,000 at that time. • Waiving all direct Town fees associated with the approval and permitting process for the project. The total of these waived fees is estimated at $150,000-175,000. In the letter requesting a financial contribution, the BTLA references the Town's contribution to shared capital costs when the original library was constructed in 1997-1998. At that time,the Town contribution was based on an agreement approved by both entities on July 1, 1998 (Exhibit 3). This agreement explicitly stated the Town would share the capital costs of construction along with sharing the ongoing costs of maintenance, utilities and insurance. For the current Project, Council has conducted numerous public hearings, and adopted a number of resolutions containing various Conditions of Approval. After a careful review of the record of these meetings,various resolutions and associated conditions,staff can find no indication the Town intended to contribute financially to the capital costs related to shared facilities constructed as part of the the current Project. FINANCIAL IMPACT Any funds allocated by the Town towards the Project would likely come Unallocated General Fund Reserves. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An environmental impact report (EIR) for the library expansion project was certified by the Town Council on October 5, 2011. Town staff reviewed the proposed scaled-back project with respect to environmental impacts associated with the originally-approved project, and determined that an addendum (July 2018) to the certified EIR was appropriate under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 5. Receive the staff report and presentation by Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency representatives. 6. Hear any public comment. 7. Determine whether, and in what amount the amount. the Town will contribute to the Library Expansion project, or, 8. Continue the item to a fixture meeting. and direct staff as to what additional information is Z:11 required before Council considers the matter again. Exhibit(s): 1. Request letter frorn Belvedere/Tiburon Library Agency 2. Common Area Exhibit 3. 1998 Agreement. Prepared by: Greg Chanis,Town Manager ....... ......... _ : e -� Tiburon Library Mr. David Kuiik, Mayor Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 May 6, 2019 ()car Mayor Kulik and Members of the Tiburon Town Council, As you know,the Library Expansion Project includes improvements to our shared exterior areas, namely the public parking lot,the public plaza areas and 7elinsky Park, When these were created in 1997-1.998 the library and Town worked together to plan, construct and pay for these community spaces. The current estimate--last updated in February 2029--of the costs to create;and improve our shared public;space, is approximately$2,271,000(see attached). The Library Agency anticipates that construction,which will commence with the exterior site work, will begin in the next few months. Therefore, we request that the Town confirm its intent to join the Agency by making a contribution to the cost of the shared public facilities. 1hank you for your consideration of this request and for your ongoing support of our Library E=xpansion. t'iease contact me if you have questions. Ctc:.apecifull� z I homas Cromwell, Chair Belvedere Tiburon Library Agency CC: Deborah Mazzolini, Library Director, Greg Chanis, Town Manager 507 Tiburon ncmievLirci, I iburori,CA 94920 ('41.5.789.2665 www.bellihhbrmy.org Belvedere Tiburon Library Estimated Cost of Shared Exterior Public Improvements Environmental Review $375,000 @ 25% $93,750 Design and Professional Civil engineer 168,200 Landscape Arch. 29,000 Signage 2,000 Soils Eng. 20,000 Survey 10,000 Legal, WRA, Tribe 100,000 @ 100% 329,200 Construction Site demolition 90,091 Survey and stake 22,000 Earthwork 339,941 Asphalt paving 103,140 Storm drains 112,500 Habitat fence 16,450 Landscaping 315,971 Pavers 222,224 Site concrete 280,759 Flag, sign, bike racks 17,550 Site lighting 159,800 1,680,426 @100% 1,680,426 Sub-total $2,009,628 General requirements 801,998 @ 10% 80,198 Overhead and profit 609,658 60,000 Insurance 75,217 7,500 Project Management 200,000 20,000 167,698 Total Allocated to Shared Exterior Public Improvement Costs $2,271,074 GI/CMA 05/06/19 Includes elongated left turn lane but not median restoration nor traffic calming devices at the intersection of Mar West and Tiburon Blvd. eh nr�, o c�^� r r..••..I•+'rc x;crrt o`s k , A C 3 tti 'y` ors- -: i .. s Af -1hu u.,..h,...� Uv�..�:.,:ad.�,.rs;'`fit -t •` .__ '.',� .. r Dnp i.' j r .:.. �-,_. �� r;vn'"nam=•a0 - t , 1.,r ti. dE � e I AGREEMENT FOR SHARING CERTAIN CAPITAL COSTS AND FOR MAINTENANCE This Agreement is made this —L---day of 1998 by and between the Town of Tiburon ("Tiburon") and the Belve ere-Tiburon Library Agency ("Agency")- Agency is a Joint Powers Agency created by the Town of Tiburon and the City of Belvedere ("Belvedere"). The purpose of this Agreement is to arrange for the equal sharing of certain capital costs as defined herein, for the maintenance of common areas of parking and landscaping, and for the payment of certain lighting and irrigation costs on and between the sites of the new Library and the new Tiburon Town Hall on Tiburon Boulevard in Tiburon, California. RECITALS: 1. Tiburon has constructed a new Town Hall. 2. Agency has constructed a new Library. 3. The new Town Hall and the new Library are immediately adjacent to each other. They have certain common parking areas and facilities, including entrances and exits, lighting and landscaping as indicated in Exhibit A attached to this Agreement. The lights for the common parking areas are connected to both the Agency's electric meter (6 yard lights) and Tiburon's electric meter (9 yard lights and flagpole spots). The irrigation for the common landscaping areas is connected to Agency's utility meters. Also, the Agency has need for certain other ongoing landscaping and maintenance services. 4. Capital costs for common areas and facilities are set forth in Exhibit B attached to this Agreement. 5. Tiburon and Agency agree to enter into this Agreement in order to: (a) allocate the capital costs of the common areas and facilities set forth in Exhibit B. (b) establish a procedure for the efficient and economical performance of the maintenance of their common and separate areas and likewise to establish a procedure for the payment of fees and charges for lighting and irrigation of their common areas. (c) establish a schedule for the performance of certain other maintenance services. 6. The term of this agreement shall be from July 1, 1998 to Jure 30, 1999. This Agreement continues yearly thereafter automatically subject to either party's right to give written notice of termination to the other. If such notice is oven hereunder the Agreement shall terminate thirty (30) days thereafter. AGREEMENT: 1. Capital costs (a) The capital costs for the common areas and facilities defined in Exhibit B shall be borne equally by the parties hereto. (b) Said costs total $242,243, of which Agency has paid $172,527 and Tiburon has paid $69,716. (c) Agency shall receive a credit from Tiburon in the arr.cunt of $511405.50, which credit amount shall be applied towards payment of Agency share of the Maintenance Costs described in Paragraph 2 of this Agreement and as payment for its share of services described in Paragraph 5 of this Agreement. B _/ Tov✓n of Tiburon maint. agreement 09/16/9£3 Page 1 of 3 (d) In the event one of the two parties hereto desire to alter a common area, the other must give its prior written approval. (e) Any additional capital expenditures required under this Agreement in the future will be shared equally by the parties. 2. Common Areas (a) Landscape and Maintenance Services The parking facilities and landscaping area outlined on the map in attached Exhibit A (Site Improvement Plan) shall be maintained by the Tiburon Department of Public Works at the joint cost of Tiburon and Agency, each to contribute one-half of the ? w total costs. These costs shall be reviewed and adjusted annually and are for regular maintenance only. (b) Lighting and Parkinn-g Areas c; Agency and Tiburon shall pay the monthly cost of lighting the parking areas and flagpole. The ongoing electric power usage for both the Library and Town Hall common areas is approximately equal and actual costs offset each other. (c) Water Use for Irrigation Agency shall pay the monthly cost of irrigating the common landscaped area. The total yearly charges will be shared equally by Tiburon and Agency, with Tiburon's portion being reimbursed to Agency. See attached cost sharing formula, Exhibit E. 3. Responsibility of Maintenance Generally Each owner is to keep, maintain, repair and restore its parcel, excepting such portion thereof as may be within the common area, and the improvements, landscaping and paving thereon in a sound, safe, clean and attractive condition. Each owner shall also keep, maintain, repair and restore its parcel and the improvements, landscaping and paving thereon in compliance with all valid laws, ordinances, and regulations of any governmental entity having jurisdiction over the parcel. The combined owners shall not be responsible for maintenance and repair of the common area arising out of or caused by the willful or negligent act or neglect of a party, its guests, tenants or business invitees. 4. Maintenance of Library Building and_Landscape Tiburon shall provide landscape services and maintenance services to the Agency as described in Exhibit C. Charges shall be credited by the Agency against the moneys owed by Tiburon to Agency as described in Paragraph 1(c), as part of the annual accounting, as provided for in this agreement. Tiburon shall provide the services referred to herein promptly upon request for same by Agency. Tiburon's estimated costs that will be charged to the Library for the fiscal year 1998-99 are $6,700 for the services detailed in Exhibit C attached (Maintenance of Library Building and Landscape). 5. Accounting There shall be a yearly accounting of all costs, prepared at the end of each fiscal year (June 30) by Tiburon and Agency showing the above charges and resulting in an adjusted credit figure for the start of the following year. When the credit is exhausted, an amendment to the agreement between the Town and Agency shall be written to cover joint expenditures and any additional services that Tiburon may provide to the Library. 6. Parking Lot Insurance The parties intend to share responsibility for the parking lot on an equal basis. Exhibit D defines the responsibility of the signatories with regard to insurance deductibles and claims in excess thereof. 13T LArrown of Tbwon maim.agreement C9116i98 Pace 2 of 3 7. Termination Clause If either party to this Agreement shall fail to fulfill its obligations in a timely and proper manner, or in the event that any of the provisions or stipulations of this Agreement are violated by either party to 'this Agreement, either party reserves the right to terminate this Agreement with thirty (30) days written notice. Any remaining financial obligations will be calculated and resolved at that time. Dated thise .�"` day of 1998. _ _ ! TAency Z , Town o Tiburon Belvedere-Tiburon Library Harry S. Matthews, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM; Ann R. Danfort , own Attorney t3Tl_A/Iown of Tiburon maint. agreement 09/1,6/9£3 Page 3 of 3 Exhibit A _ - BULL � =KW BLL -,\ - __ � iN1 Ml rSiP r+r4 i,aLL w0 a G i Guf*ER" oo nL uv.�11'c v�CnC.\D+UC Ail VNI RIPLEY __I�in _`✓ -�;moi - r<,. •• BRACC'KtIN :..iMAN, GEMFAL NOTES pr ,4 i Y _— _ op^� •' Zt Iv.'. may— -=g.v = ___ O R± C TIGN 7BUPON BCkLEVARD DOCUMEW PACKAGE t, '„ ?QoSFr --- - - - - ' — pr SITE IMPROVE?AENTS PLAN IXlTr CONTROL MoT-e3 . ..cr-srcws sEuex�x PLANrom+�/1.✓".tP6!h M nrx Ww,2 un+a r+�•�J. vw rt� .O� pQ' YlIE f•LY �¢�✓�O�0 0•(62 n'_a,�- r, Tiburon Towyn Hall Belvedere-Tiburon Library Common Area Construction Costs Exhibit B Component Quantic Unit or Lump Sum Cost Cost Library Town Hall Library Town Hall Library Town Hall Estimated Construction Costs Rough Grading 17500 7450 ,i $1.00 S1.00.`: $17,500.00 $7,450.00 Construct Berm @ Bike Path Behind Lib. & Parking 0 1 $0.00 $6,666.00 r j 50.00 $6,666.00 Storm Drainage PVC Pipe 435 55 $20.00 520.00 $8,700.00 $1,100.00 Catch Basins 11 0",. $750.00 S75000 " $8,250.00 $0.00 Street Tie-In 1 OI:''. S1,000,00 $0.00 $1,000.00 Sewer System Street Tie-In 1 0 55,500.00 Saw $5.500.00 $0.00 Paving12930 6160 $1.75 51.75 $22,627.50 510,780.00 Striping 12930 6160 $0.10 SO 10 $1,293.00 $616.00 Curb &Gutter 630 335 $15.00 515.00 $9,450.00 $5,025.00 Pavers -1425 930 "'. $4.00 54.00 $17,700.00 $3,720.00 Driveway 280 0 $3.50 50.00 $980.00 $0.00 Bollards 8 6 $425.00 S425.00 ' $3,400.00 $2,550.00 Flagpole 1 0 S2,500.00 50.00 $2.500.00 $0.00 Site Lights 6 9 _;, S2,500.00 $2.500.00 $15,000.00 $22,500.00 Landscaping &Irrigation 1 0"' S4.000.00 50.00 ' $4,000.00 $0.00 Streetwork Original Scope 1 0 ' S6,000.00 50.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 htidstate's Gen. Req'mnts 6.15% 6.45% .`:. S123,900.50 $60.407.00 $7,991.58 $3,896.25 Vlidstate's Bonds, OH & Profit 4 48% 4.48% S131,892..08 564.30325 $5,908.77 52,880.79 Actual Change Order WorVCosts Scecification on Flagpole 1 0 $113.00 SO 00 5113.00 $0.00 Sleeves to Future Fountain 0 5902.00 SO 00 $962.00 SO.00 Modify Turn-Lane 0 55,079.00 50.00 55.079.00 50.00 Concr. Edge Band @?avers 0 $582.00 50 00 5582.00 -ncr. Substrate @ =avers 1 1 S1 3,311.00 5253200 $13,311.00. 52,532.00 vicdify Retaining Walla P?L 1 51,117.00 50.20 S1,11.7,00 $0.00 ^.stall Handicap Van Stnpping 1 0 54.581.00 SO DO $4,581.00 50.00 Ceep Right" Sign 1 0 5400.00 50.00 $400 00 50.00 Ac:uai Re-Design Costs, ESAR 3SAR 0 58.641.00 SO 00 $8,6- ".00 50.00 Total Costs $172.527 $69.716 =2-2243 Share of Total Costs, Percentage 71.22% 28.78% Futur=!Anticipated Chanes -x.-and Curb Cuts� Drive-in0 0 50.00 SO �O S6.00 50.00 7 SHARED$ Updated 7-23-97 Conversion Management Associates, Inc. K Shemll Exhibit C Maintenance of Library Building and Landscape 1. All building and landscape maintenance will be performed on a time and materials basis. The hourly rate will vary depending on the Public Works personnel involved. 2. Estimated time for regular maintenance and repair does not include special projects. 3. The Public Works Department shall provide services to maintain, repair, replace, install and improve the building and its systems in a first class manner equal to the highest standard of urban, mixed use office and retail developments, and in any event, in a condition consistent with the quality of construction, maintenance and repair as of the date of the agreement, reasonable wear and tear expected. 4. A daily log will be kept by the Public Works Department, recording personnel and time spent, work performed, and materials used. 5. The Library Director will meet monthly with the Town Manager and the Public Works Superintendent to review and approve the log report. 6. The Town Manager and Library Director will review bi-annually the costs and remaining balance. Building Maintenance On a weekly basis, usually every Monday, the Tiburon Public Works Department will inspect the library building and premises and register on the library log/checklist, noting any specific problems or deficiencies. Estimated time for this inspection walk- through and minor repairs/maintenance is 1.5 hours per week. 2:. The Library Director or representative will post work that needs to be done and the Superintendent will perform or discuss as appropriate. 3. The Public Works Department shall perform maintenance and repair on the building's systems, including mechanical, electrical, plumbing, irrigation and lighting. The personnel shall also perform routine repairs on the building exteriors, interiors, walkways, sidewalk and planters. 4. The Public Works Department will also be available to respond to unscheduled service requests for maintenance work as required. The Public Works Department personnel shall respond within a reasonable period of time to perform the work or advise the Library Director as to what course of action should be taken. 5. The Library will provide the Public Works Department a list of service providers for the facility. 6. The Public Works Department will provide a list of local contacts in case of emergency and the Public Works staff is unavailable. Landscape Maintenance 1. Landscape maintenance will be performed on a weekly basis, usually on Mondays, by the Assistant Superintendent of the Public Works Department. 2. Weekly landscape maintenance will include inspection, weeding, trash pickup, and general maintenance. Estimated time for weekly maintenance will average 2.5 hours a week annually, adjusted on a seasonal basis. >. Other landscape services -- planting, removing trees —will be done on an as needed basis and will be discussed with and authorized by the Library Director in advance. B I L/[rown of Til mon maint.agreement 09/16/98 Exhibit D Parking Lot Insurance The following represents the understanding of the parties to the Agreement of the responsibilities of the parties under two examples, one involving a claim under $50,000 and the other involving a claim over $50,000. Claim disposed of for $50,000: Tiburon - $25,000 —All within deductible. No insurance payment. Library - $25,000 - All within deductible. No insurance payment. Claim disposed of for $100,000: Tiburon - $50,000 — All within deductible. No insurance payment. Library - $50,000 - $25,000 within deductible, $25,000 paid by insurer. 13TLAJTown of Tiburon maint,agreement 09/16/98 Exhibit E Utility Cost Sharing Formula Irrigation Water: The total square footage area of landscaping which is irrigated by the Library is approximately 12,030 square feet, of which 2,100 square feet is directly related to parking. This equates to approximately 18% of the irrigated area. The water consumption as measured by the new irrigation meter will be used to develop a total annual cost for irrigation, as determined by multiplying the number of gallons consumed by the cost/gallon of a typical water bill from MMWD, which will then be split 82% for Library irrigation and 18% shared area irrigation. The shared area irrigation cost will then be divided amongst the parties. 13T'A'Town of Tiburon maint.agreement 09/16/98