Board of Supervisors - Regular Meeting

Yeah. And like I was

I'll do

It's eleventh. It's our rabbi here. Okay. Hold on. You guys all your mics are hot right now, just so you know. Sue, is Brabbi here? Don't know.

Think I he said it was coming in first then.

So, you know, it would my point is I think he's online. You think he's online? Alright. It is 9AM. We'll go ahead and call this meeting, this regularly scheduled meeting of the Eldorado County Board of Supervisors to order. May we have the invocation by rabbi Yacar from Temple Bat Yam? I believe he's online.

Just threw my neck out. It don't rub.

Rabbi, are you able to turn on your camera?

Okay. We're having technical problems, we think, on the rabbi's end. We're not sure, so, we're going to go ahead and move on in the agenda. And so will you please all join us for the pledge of allegiance? And county council, will you lead us?

Begin.

My pleasure be to the god

of The United States Of America

and to the republic for which it stands in a nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Yes. The rabbi has joined us. So good to see you this morning. Would you please join us, for this morning's invocation? No problem.

Punctual.

It's Tahoe time.

Well,

I apologize. It's okay.

Thank you for the honor of providing words of invocation this morning. I'm grateful for your efforts on behalf of the citizens of El Dorado County, and I want to also thank you for holding this meeting here in beautiful South Lake Tahoe. At this time of year in the Jewish tradition, we are in the period of time called the counting of the Omer. This is a biblical command to count the days from the exodus from Egypt to the revelation at Sinai. In synagogues the world over, there is a ritual of announcing the number of the day in this period of counting every evening, and today marks the fortieth day of the Omer.

It is during this forty nine day period that the ancient Israelites first engaged in building a community, a society. As this board fills its mandate to create policy, manage budget, oversee county governance, and serve as our representatives as residents, this ritual of counting days creates an intentional awareness of the passage of time, of how we will fill each day with purpose, meaning, and potential. May you, our board of supervisors, strive towards your potential in continuing to craft the leadership and governance for our county. May your energies as the days of the Omer be counted towards positive and inclusive of all our citizens, and may the proclamations declared and decisions rendered today be inscribed for good as we value each passing day. May the presence of the divine, the source of creation, the mystery of the universe, whatever is our belief, encourage us to choose our words and our actions wisely for they become how we mark each day.

May each of us be endowed with the ability to lead lives of meaning and value, committed to learning each day. We pray, may the one who is ever present grant each of

us the ability to live up to our responsibilities and to ensure each new day is met with a commitment to one another. Amen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Moving on to the agenda. Madam CAO, are there any changes to the agenda that was posted on May 6?

No changes. Thank you, madam chair.

Okay. We'll move on to our consent calendar items. Do any of my colleagues wish to comment on or pull any item for discussion? We'll start with District 1, mister Ferrero.

No. Thank you.

Okay. District 2, mister Chernbaud.

I just no. I have

nothing to pull. Nothing

to pull. But I would like to dedicate this meeting in closing to Richard Mason, uncle Buzzy, because he was known to everybody.

Yeah. And thank you for that announcement. I think we will do that in person on May 19 as well. We'll have a a moment of silence in his honor. Perfect. Thank you for mentioning that. District three, mister Beercamp?

No changes, ma'am.

Okay. District four, miss Parlin? No changes. Alright. And district five, myself, I just want to call out item number six, which is a $7,000,000 bond that the college will be issuing in order to build a fire academy on the college campus properties, and that is something we've been waiting for for a number of years.

So that's really exciting, and I just wanted to draw that to everyone's attention. Alright. We will now take public comment on all matters on the consent calendar. Public comment on closed session items will also be taken at this time. To be specific, we will now hear public comment on closed session items number one and consent items numbers two through 26 and item number 33. If you do wish to make public comment on any of these items, please identify which item number or numbers you will be addressing to the board. Miss Runkle.

Each speaker will have three minutes to address the board. A timer will alert you when thirty seconds remain and, again, when your time has ended. We will begin with comments from individuals present in the boardroom followed by those participating via Zoom. If you're joining via Zoom, please ensure to unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining by phone, press 9 to raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest in speaking. We ask that you voluntarily state your name for the record before beginning your comments.

Alright. Are there any members, present with us here in the room that would like to address the board on consent items or closed session items? Okay. Seeing no one, may we go online, please?

Now taking public comment from online participants. Taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Good morning, everyone. Linda Campbell, Eldorado Hills. So this is on agenda item 18, which I did send an email on. I wanna thank supervisor Parlin for the response and the comments just to make sure that I understood where things were located. In addition to my question of how all of a sudden did the funding split when it was previously 100%, I had in fact gone through prior agenda items.

I didn't see it discussed there unless it was agenda item that wasn't linked in this particular item. So I'm curious how all of a sudden 55% of this won't be funded through TIFF. But then in addition, I also went back today, and in the August approval for REY, last year it was originally $508,682 So although the hourly changes are included in this agenda item, there's no new summary of the total increase that's going to be to their particular agreement. So I think those things are helpful to know how the money is being spent. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now taking public comment from Richard. Richard Landgraf?

Yes. As in please remind me if this is the appropriate time for comment on the residential waste service, or is that later for the meeting?

That's going to be our next public comment, so not not right now.

Wonderful. Then I'll just I'll wait till then. Minutes.

Okay. You so

Thank you. Now taking public comment from Dean Goetz.

Good morning, honorable supervisors. Dean Goetz speaking. I am urging you I'll go as far as to demand that you pull item number eleven twenty six dash zero seven seven five. That is the adoption of LSL CPA's fiscal year twenty five audit report. That should be immediately pulled from consent for public discussion.

Number one, this isn't a routine business item. The consent calendar is strictly for noncontroversial administrative matters and to bury a materially misstated comprehensive annual financial audit on the consent counter is a procedural trick designed to bypass public scrutiny and get the county in further trouble. It's based on a fraudulent management representation. This audit relies on a management representation letter signed by the county's auditor controller, Joe Harn. Mr.

Harn has recently admitted in writing via public records request that his office utilized a phantom unsupported math manipulation of the CFD nineteen ninety two park limits. He's admitted that the CFD adopted or absorbed a multimillion dollar park construction liability from a private developer using this math. The auditors have now made themselves complicit by signing a management representation that actively hides this unrecorded liability and the auditor controller's management letter that doesn't reveal this fraud. LSLCPAs was provided with a documented evidence of a whistleblower complaint filed with multiple regulatory agencies, including the California False Claims Unit of the Attorney General's Office. Those active investigations require the board to formally investigate this cover up, which results in an unconstitutional gift of public funds related to the Village J Parkland and the CFD manipulation, which is again currently subject to an active whistleblower complaint with the Attorney General's Office, the SEC, and the IRS.

It is your fiduciary responsibility. As our supervisors of the County Of Eldorado, you cannot legally adopt an audit report that has these sorts of misrepresentations. I urge you to pull it, actively discuss it rather than just rubber stamp the fictitious ledger making yourselves complicit on an ongoing false claim against the taxpayers. Please pull item number 11. That is 2075. Thank you.

Thank you. Now taking public comment from Nina Watkins.

Hello. Good morning, madam chair and members of the board. My name is Nina Watkins, and I'm here representing Eldorado Hills Town Center and Eldorado Hills Arts and Entertainment Foundation. I'd like to make public comment on item number 27. Is that is that part of this, or shall I wait till the next sec segment as well?

Yes. Thank you, miss Watkins. If you would please, hold that comment for right now, that'll be our next round of public comments.

I appreciate it. Will do.

Thank thank you. Now taking comments from Debbie's iPhone.

Well, apparently, I'm incorrect too, so I do wanna comment on '27 also. Hello?

Be next. Thank you. That'll be next.

There's no further public comment.

Okay. Great. Are there any staff members that would like to reply to any of the public comments or add any information? Seeing no one, we will bring this item back to the board for action. Miss Runkle?

Approval of the consent calendar with no changes and a comment from supervisor Lane on item number six.

Thank you. Is there a motion?

Yeah, madam chair. I'll move.

Okay. There's a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

Okay. Motion and a second. Is there any discussion on the motion? Yes, please. Miss Barton.

I just wanna make sure that, and I see our auditor controllers here that we're covered on item 11, because if there's any concerns, I'd like to continue that item.

K. How, Mr. Harn, you are present. Would you like to comment on that?

There was a limitation on how much, a limitation in the development agreement that expired in 2009 for CFD 1992 Dash 1, basically, Serrano Subdivision, there was a limitation on how much Mello Roos money could be spent on developing parks in the development agreement that expired in 2009. The community serviced the development agreement called for the developer to build a 12 and a well, a park near Bass Lake. We'll just call it that, a park near Bass Lake. The community service district wrote the county and said they would rather build the park themselves. Your board eventually entered into or the former board eventually entered into an agreement with Parker Development Company and the community service district where they would take over the responsibility for building the park, and we would continue to hold $3,500,000 of bond proceeds to use for them to construct the park.

The concept of that being fraud or a material omission or a a material problem with the county's financial statements, I strongly disagree with.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

So I I would urge you not to continue the item.

Okay. Thank you, mister Harn. Supervisor Parlin, is that

I'm good.

Help you? Okay. Alright. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor, say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? That wasn't a timer. Okay. Thank you. Motion passes five zero. Great. All right. Public comment, please, on the rest of the agenda items. To be specific, we will now hear public comment on items 27, 28, 29, thirty, thirty one, 32, and 34. Please identify which item or items you will be addressing to the board at this time. Miss Runkle?

Each speaker will have three minutes to address the board. A timer will alert you when your time has ended. We will begin with comments from individuals present in the boardroom followed by those participating via Zoom. If you're joining via Zoom, please ensure to unmute yourself when called upon. If you're joining by phone, press 9 to raise your hand. If you're on Zoom, use the raise hand feature to indicate your interest in speaking. We ask that you voluntarily state your name for the record before beginning your comments.

Thank you, miss Runkle. We will now take public comment on items 27 through 32, including item 34 at this time. Are there any members of the public in the room that would like to address the board on any of those items? Okay. Seeing none, may we go on Zoom, please?

Now taking public comment from online participants. Taking public comment from Nina Watkins.

Good morning, madam chair, members of the board. Again, this is Nina Watkins, and I'm here representing the Eldorado Hills Town Center and the Eldorado Hills Arts And Entertainment Foundation. I'm here to respectfully ask you for your support in directing staff to begin drafting an ordinance that would allow for the creation of entertainment zones in Eldorado County consistent with SB nine six nine. This is a first step giving the county the ability to explore and define what an entertainment zone could look like under your direction and control. Entertainment zones are already being implemented across California.

They allow for controlled permitted outdoor beverage service within clearly defined boundaries during approved days and hours and for special events or community activations. It is important to emphasize that this is not a continuous or open ended activity. It is a structured, scheduled, basically, program and can be turned on or off at the county approval based on county approval. At its core, this is about economic development and community vitality. From our research and conversations with other cities and municipalities such as San Francisco, Sacramento, Auburn, and Reading, we've seen consistent outcomes.

These zones increase foot traffic and local spending, support restaurants and small businesses, and create a reason for residents to stay local rather than traveling to neighboring regions. They also provide a safe and organized environment for community gathering. At Town Center, we have submitted a detailed management plan that outlines how this would operate in a controlled and responsible way. That includes defined boundaries, limited hours of operation, on-site security, ID verification and wristband systems, restrictions on containers, and clear signage and enforcement measure measures. In addition, the Eldorado Hills Arts and Entertainment Foundation is proposed as the lead entity.

This creates a single accountable operator responsible for coordination, compliance, and communication with the county staff and law enforcement. This agenda item is about creating structured framework where expectations, responsibilities, and controls are clearly clearly defined. Ultimately, this is a low risk and high impact opportunity. It supports local businesses, strengthens communities, and provides the county with flexible tool to thoughtfully activate its commercial act areas without requiring new infrastructure or long term commitments. As outlined in the materials provided to the board, this approach has been successful in other communities and can be tailored specifically meet the standards and priorities of Eldorado County. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Now taking public comment from Richard Landgraf.

Good morning. Can you hear me okay?

Yes.

Thank you. Thank you, members of the board. This is regarding the residential waste service. Over the span of the last few weeks, I received two communications from the county, one undated about a proposed mandatory trash service that primarily benefits a private trash company granted a monopoly control by El Dorado and Placer Counties. Second, proposed expanding benefits to a limited group of Eldorado County short term rental permit holders.

Individually, these proposals may seem reasonable to some board members. Together, they expose a deeper problem in the community as already seen. The thinking on this seems incredibly insular and self serving. I need to be reminded this is twenty twenty six, nine 1926. You continue constricting short term permit using an arbitrary 500 foot rule in El Dorado County, locking many nonpermanent homeowners out.

At the same time, you propose expanding benefits to short term rental owners so they can host more more tourists and generate more income. On top of that, you propose lower trash rates to the short term rental owners and permanent residents while forcing non short term rental owners, who are already excluded from participation to subsidize everybody else. This is not about limiting tourism, protecting El Dorado County, or the community benefits described in the county's letter. It's about controlling who benefits, maximizing those benefits for a select group, and shifting the costs to those you exclude. The committee also understands the real issue behind the trash proposal.

For years, Eldorado County has restricted short term rentals while neighboring Placer County has broadly allowed them with mandatory service for their trash requirements. Now private trash providers know this and is effectively demanding the same economic model in El Dorado County because there are not enough mandated customers to sustain service at current levels. Eldorado has created different rules and is asking residents to absorb the consequences. At the same time, many of these residents are facing major utility water increases tied to regional fire suppression upgrades. For some cases, this is approaching $1,700 or more a year annually.

Now you're proposing another layer on top of that, which would add another 24%. Public agencies do not sell products. They provide services that depend on transparency, fairness, and public trust. The board may hold monopoly authority over these services, but it also holds a fiduciary duty to the public. The actions leading up to this meeting have undermined that trust. These are the wrong proposals and need serious

Thank you for your comments.

Now taking public comment from Linda Campbell.

Again, Campbell, Hildorado Hills. So first, actually, I want to address item number 27. I definitely also support that, particularly starting at El Dorado Hills Town Center. But I would also like to make the comment that as you're looking at it, don't make the fees for special event applications too expensive. I know fees can be attractive to try to have as much as you can get, but I would say try to limit that.

But then I want to go to agenda item 28, which is what I sent an email on if anybody hasn't read it. I have one request to potentially add in the publication of the agenda time. This is for the Planning Commission bylaws, for those that aren't aware. So it would be nice to actually have those documented so we can know how long in advance we should expect to see consistently Planning Commission agendas posted. Then the other two items were on section five ks and then five L.

Both of them have some wording that almost makes it seem like there needs to be some additional information. On the first one, five ks, it states that if an item impacts staff resources, they go to the Board of Supervisors. But there's no process outlined for that. And then actually, what would be the threshold of time or level of effort that you know, maybe if it's an hour for staff resources or two hours, maybe that's not a big deal as, you know, a ten to thirty hour level of effort. And then finally, in regards to their bylaws, we already have county code reference that states that it's not effective until the board of supervisors approves.

So maybe instead of kind of leaving that open ended, state that they can, in fact, revise or amend through resolution their bylaws. However, then also reference the existing county code that states that it still needs to be approved by the board of supervisors. I think that would makes provide some clarity in the instructions. Thank you. Thank you.

Now taking comments from 525.

Hi. This is Leo Bennett Koshan, El Dorado County resident. I just would like to note that for the record, if you do the math, I have twenty five seconds on each item, which I don't think is reasonable. But I will start and do what I can. So, about the first one, which is I don't have the presentation, and I always learn a lot, but it seems in general, be a great idea.

Hopefully, you will listen about the fees because I've experienced how, and you're in a budget crunch. You try to make money, not necessarily you, but other counties and stuff like that. So I second that thought, and then it's my assumption that all the complaints we hear about certain areas being too loud and all of that will be incorporated into your approval of these entertainment zones. And then, on the planning and building commission, you know, I hope and look forward to a good robust conversation since I've had nothing but positive experiences, but so many of my fellow citizens have less than positive experiences with the planning commission. Emergency medical services, I'm just expressing my concerns.

As I've shared, my wife of forty five years, died, and we had plenty of these emergency transports. I also know that there's a lot of corporate involvement as they're consolidating. And as I spoke to some of the people that came, they were not very happy with cost cutting and stuff like that. And I'm even concerned about the physician responsible for the patient because if you're in a hospital, that physician can change every other day. They have really no personal understanding of the patient and then you're ending up there as the concerned partner working with these wonderful emergency technicians and whatnot, but with inadequate resources driven by the corporate cost cutting.

I hope you're taking a good look at all of those different things. Item 30 certainly seems like a great idea, and and, you know, I just hope that you figure out a way to get all of us use more and more public because I was surprised to read that when I rent an EV and all of that, even go hiking, we're all contributing to the challenges of Lake Tahoe as we shed micro rubber and all of that kind of stuff. So the more we can keep less tires on the road, I think, the better for kind of the jewel of Eldorado County, which is the Tahoe Basin. And, you know, now that I live in Pollock Pines, I've got to experience the snow removal. When I've gone out to Lake Tahoe, I was actually very impressed by the city where they were clearing the bike lanes and the pedestrian walkways.

Three minutes?

Maybe some maybe you can do that in the future.

Thank you.

Now taking comments from Debbie's iPhone.

Good morning again. Can you hear me?

Yes. We can.

I am speaking on item 27 as well. I'm Debbie Manning, Eldorado Hills Chamber of Commerce president and CEO. I've already sent comments in to you all as far as the support from the chambers for its entertainment zones. I kinda just wanna touch on a vision for entertainment zones, little bit different perspective. Creating lively welcoming spaces where residents and visitors want to spend time.

Supporting our restaurants, our retailers, our wineries, our breweries, entertainment venues and service businesses through increased foot traffic. Encouraging tourism by offering unique destination style experiences in our business districts. Providing flexibility for special events, outdoor dining, live music, seasonal activities, and community celebrations. Strengthening partnerships between businesses, property owners, our local government, public safety, and community organizations. Helping Eldorado County strive to become business friendly by embracing creative tools that support commerce while maintaining safety, local character, and our quality of life.

Entertainment excuse me. Entertainment zones can be especially valuable and established in emerging business districts throughout the county, including Eldorado Hills Town Center and other areas where businesses would benefit from increased activity and destination appeal. Our goal is to work together with the county, business owners, property owners and community stakeholders to ensure entertainment zones are implemented responsibly, safely, and in a way that reflects the needs of each community. Thank you.

Thank you.

Now taking comments from 390.

Good morning, board. This is Ken Greenwood from the Triple Junction out here. Sadly, not live from some ski resort. Anyway, item number it's the trash item. Where'd it go? That

would

be item number 32. Also, this methodology of of commenting before a hearing is held is, I'll say it, ridiculous. We have no idea what is going to be discussed other than what's in the agenda item, and we all know that the presentation by staff and others is often clarifying for a number of things or confusing such that specific comments are needed. Anyway, item 32. I'm wondering, is there mandatory garbage pickup on all parts of the county?

It's a question to staff that I'm just wondering about, because not everybody needs garbage collection. Some people, generate little, if any, garbage and, to pay x amount of dollars per month, and take up space, with a huge garbage container is a little silly. Item 30, Emerald Bay shuttle. Hopefully, this works out well. It seemed to be okay last year, but, it'd be interesting to find out what the presentation is.

And we could have made more intelligent converse or comments. And snow removal, once again, hard to item 31, hard to say because we don't know exactly what staff is gonna say, but we'll see. We don't like this system, so please think about a better way to do so. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

There is no additional public comment.

Okay. Thank you. Are there any staff that want to answer any questions? The only question I really heard was right at the end, which was, our other jurisdictions. Do they have mandatory garbage? Does anybody need to speak to that? Or I think

I think Jeff can handle that when he does the presentation.

Perfect. Okay. Alright. Then let's go ahead and move on to our time certain presentation on the Emerald Bay shuttle. Miss Runkle, will you read this item into the record?

Of course. Item 30 comes from supervisor Lane recommending the board receive a presentation on the Emerald Bay shuttle and parking management 2026 pilot program.

I would like to, welcome, and I'm very honored to present, Devin Middlebrook, who I served with, on a previous city council. He has served as mayor, and he's currently works for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, and he will be presenting this item. Welcome.

Thank you, supervisor. Thank you all for being up here at the lake this morning, in this beautiful portion of Eldorado County. Here today to talk about the Emerald Bay shuttle and parking management pilot program for 2026 and recap a little bit of the 2025 season. Next slide. I just wanna start by saying thank you to this board.

It was October 2024 that you all, at least the the folks that were on the board in 2024, visited Emerald Bay with many partners in the region to look at the Vikings Home parking lot and talk about the solutions to the challenges in that area, preserving access, preserving the beauty of that area. So just wanna continue to thank you, your staff. The board of supervisors have been engaged since then and continue to be engaged in supporting solutions for this part of the county. So really just wanna emphasize that. Next slide.

And then for the members that may not have been on tour, if you wanna, go up to Vikings Home and and get shown around, just let me know, and I'd be happy to meet you up there. Just a little bit of context setting zooming out from Emerald Bay. Emerald Bay is along the State Route 89 corridor on the West Shore Of Lake Tahoe in El Dorado County. And you can really think of the solutions needed as corridor wide solutions from the Placer County, El Dorado County line in Tahoma down to the city of South Lake Tahoe 15th Street area. And, really, that has some distinct parks, Sugar Pine State Park, at the North, Meeks Bay, Rubicon Bay, Emerald Bay, and then Pope De Baldwin.

Some of those have residential neighborhoods in them, and others are purely recreation and public lands. In 2020, stakeholders came together and adopted a corridor plan for the region after extensive public input, from hundreds of community members. Next slide. And the vision of that corridor plan was to preserve this icon of the county by increasing travel choices to the area. You see on this picture, beautiful, you know, tranquil morning with bikers at Emerald Bay.

That is not always the reality. Next slide. On an average summer day, this is more what you, could have expected prior to this pilot program and still today in the bay, really more demand for those recreation areas and assets for visitors then we can really safely, and economically and environmentally con sorry? Economically, accommodate without, public safety issues that you can see here. So enter El Dorado County and supervisor Lane in 2024.

She brought together stakeholders, to talk about solutions to this corridor and specifically at Emerald Bay with the goal of launching a shuttle and parking management pilot, which we did in 2025. That program was a success, with nearly 5,000 riders taking the shuttle from both North And South Shore to Emerald Bay, blocking off 50 dangerous, roadside parking spaces, increasing signage enforcement and education in the corridor. And partners, we're so happy with the results of that program. We're bringing it back again in 2026. Next slide.

So it's not just about the shuttle. It really is about holistic solutions at Emerald Bay. So we've got the shuttle, but we also have parking management where we're trying to remove some of those dangerous and illegal roadside parking spaces, and not remove access to the public, but really shift those to the transit option, so people still have the freedom to go to Emerald Bay and visit Emerald Bay, whether you're a resident of Eldorado County or a visitor to our area. We're really focusing on education and making sure people know about the shuttle and know how to safely get to Emerald Bay without with less hassle. Working with the California Highway Patrol on added parking enforcement on weekends, and then also some long term planning.

So last year, Caltrans, who owns and operates the highway through the corridor, completed a road safety audit and are programming medium short, medium, and long term infrastructure improvements in the corridor such as additional signage, you know, sidewalks potentially connecting the different parking lot areas, and other safety improvements, throughout the corridor, not just for the recreation access, but people who commute through the corridor or transit and freight that goes through, delivering goods and services along the West Shore. And then finally, California State Parks is working on rebuilding the Vikings home parking lot, which is, at its really end of life with sinkholes underneath it. It really does need to be replaced. But instead of just rebuilding the same parking lot, they're really thinking about how to enhance the visitor experience and integrate with transit, and future potential bike path connections. Next slide.

So the 2026 program, we've changed a little bit, and improved based on what we learned in 2025. So the goal is to operate from Memorial Day, Monday of Memorial Day, May 25, through Labor Day, September 7. If you recall last year, that shuttle program ran from about mid July to the end of September. That's because we were doing the road safety audit with Caltrans in July, and they wanted to see the con current conditions. So we've moved that shuttle time up to really more align with the busy summer season.

The fare will be $5 for one way, $10 for round trip. And we also will have reduced fares for children, adults 65, people with disabilities, veterans, and Medicare cardholders. So we wanna make sure this is accessible to everyone. Next slide. Like last year, it'll operate seven days a week, and you can see the hours there, nine to five on weekdays and eight to five on weekends.

We did shift those hours there a little bit earlier because we wanted to make sure people could get out to Emerald Bay. It will run from The Y in South Shore up to Sugar Pine State Park in the North Shore with stops at The Y, Camp Richardson, obviously, Emerald Bay, and then Sugar Pine. And then the one change is the Y. Last year was only on weekends. This year, it will be seven days a week.

Next slide. I wanna thank, this county, and the air quality management district for supporting this program with a grant. And, additionally, the county and Tahoe Transportation District received a grant from TRPA, and additional funding support from Placer County, El Dorado again, which thank you again. Keep Tahoe Blue and the Tahoe Fund, Sierra State Parks Foundation, and many other partners. This year, we're gonna accommodate a non reservation walk on passengers to really fill those seats and grab people.

Hey. Maybe you didn't plan for, going to Emerald Bay on the shuttle, but you're at Camp Ridge or Sugar Pine State Park, and you see the shuttle, and you're like, oh, that looks convenient. I'll jump on. So we really wanna make sure we're filling those seats and being accessible to the public. As I mentioned, the Y Transit Center will have seven day a week service.

We are looking at potentially boosting cellular connectivity on those vehicles, but that's still to be determined, and really promoting connections to main fixed line transit services and micro transit services on North And South Shore for that seamless experience. So folks can if they're staying in any of the hotels in the Stateline area here in South Shore or up in Tahoe City or Kings Beach, they don't need to drive, park, then get on the shuttle. It can really be a seamless experience where they can walk out of their front door or their hotel room, and get on a bus and get on transit to Emerald Bay. Next slide. As I mentioned, parking management is also a big aspect of this.

It really just is frankly dangerous in that corridor in the summer where people park, and they frankly ignore any signage that's there. We really have found that no parking signs don't discourage people as much as they should. So during last year's pilot, we blocked off about 50 parking spaces with those temporary barriers you see there in that picture. And in those areas where there was were parking barriers, it was a much calmer experience driving through the corridor, traveling through the corridor, and there was a lot less chaos going on in that public safety. But we did see that people moved to other areas and parked in other areas, so we are looking to expand the parking management and barriers for the summer, a little bit north of Vikings Home along that viaduct where it's a really small shoulder, and people walk through.

So we wanna make sure we're targeting the areas where public safety is the biggest issues in the corridor. Next slide. In terms of the shuttle and reservations, hopefully, the the shuttle reservation portal will be opening soon, and we'd love to work with this county and your public information officers to get information out to residents of the county, and visitors to the county, so we'll share that information with staff when it's available, and we really would look to your support in spreading the word about the shuttle. And then finally, on parking enforcement, I got these pictures from, CHP here up at the lake. Next slide.

Sorry. And just really just, again, illustrating the challenges there. You see this vehicle on the image on the right. He's not just parked on the shoulder. He's parked in the highway and just leave their vehicle there. There's challenges with towing capacity. You know, a tow truck has to come from South Shore, drive all the way up to Emerald Bay, hook up the car, turn around, drive all the way back to South Shore. So, unfortunately, you know, the towing capacity, you can't really get all these cars, and CHP officers will tell you. They pull that car out of there with a tow truck, and instantly someone pulls right back in. This county has already, and this board of supervisors, has already increased the illegal parking fine, which you have authority over, from $50 to a 100.

And, really, that still isn't changing behavior. People will be like, oh, a $100? That's fine. We'll pay that on the Nevada side. It's up to $305 with that amount posted on the no parking signs, and that's where we've really started to see that behavior change.

But I really wanna emphasize this isn't about just going and riding a bunch of tickets. We really wanna use the ticketing as a last resort. We want the infrastructure to just make it where people can't park dangerously and illegal and provide those alternative options like transit and off highway parking. So, really, this enforcement is last resort, but we did have contracted overtime CHP support on weekends last year and plan to do that again this year, and that really made a huge difference. Just seeing the officers out there in person really does change behavior and stops people from at least doing the most egregious of the parking violations that you see in that corridor. So, really, this is the the public safety component of the plan.

Before you leave that slide, I'm gonna interject a couple times. That could exactly be that vision right there. Could be the same thing on State Route 49 at the Confluence up in Cool. And so I'm gonna have a request at the end of this presentation, but I want everybody to see that that that photo and the prior one with the cars could've interchanged with at the Confluence. So I will have an ask probably with your ask just so you know, Devin.

Yeah. I really appreciate that, supervisor Parlin. I think there are solutions we're testing here that could absolutely be applied elsewhere in the county, especially at that intersection of highways where Caltrans' job is to deliver people through the highway and have travel through the highways, not necessarily that recreation access. So there is a conflict there that, hopefully, we can, share with you and and get solutions down to to other parts of the county as well. You.

Comment.

Next slide. That's actually a great transition to my last slide for county support opportunities. I think just continue being a partner and an active partner in solutions. It's been great having the county participate, not just supervisor Lane, but staff from multiple departments in the county and really appreciate all of them. So just keep keep doing what you're doing and supporting the corridor.

You know, I mentioned the illegal parking ticket amounts. The county does have control over that. So increasing that to get closer to what we see on the Nevada side to discourage the behavior of parking. And then if you do increase those again, working with Caltrans to then post that amount in the corridor to really be that discouragement for people parking dangerously and illegally. And then we haven't even mentioned the boating aspect side of it, but we have been working and having conversations with the sheriff's office and the boat crew up here.

You guys have a boat crew on the water during summers for public safety. And they have mentioned, you know, needing to work on Emerald Bay boating safety. Right now, there's conflicts with county code saying 15 miles an hour, local TRPA code saying five miles an hour, so coming to a compromise at 10 miles an hour there, and then more importantly, also banning the towing behind boats in the bay. So wakeboards, wake surfing, water skiing, tubing, you get little kids on a tube there, and there's just conflicts there that the sheriff has identified. So another opportunity for the county to improve public safety in the bay, on the water side.

So next slide. Wanna thank you all, for allowing me to come speak to you today and for you all being up at the lake this morning and this afternoon. And with that, I'll turn it back to supervisor Lane with any questions from the board.

Thank you, mister Middlebrook. That was a lot of information, and thank you for getting through it so so quickly. But I do wanna give an opportunity to my colleagues to make any comments or additional questions if you have them. Miss Parlin, do you wanna start us?

I do. So thank you for acknowledging we did in 2021, increase the fines to the $100, and, that's as high as we could go as a county. To go any higher than that, to increase the fines, we need state legislation. So, supervisor Novosel and I, in 2021, explored that, and that's why that's as high as we could go. So I would like to see our county go and try to get some legislation because these two areas have been problematic, dangerous.

COVID, you know, brought everyone, and both supervisor Novosel and I at the time were just struggling with trying to make it safe there. I am still getting complaints. This beautiful weather, we love it, but the visitors come, and then the complaints start. And we have the same issue with the towing, and it it it's problematic. So the only other place in the state of California where the parking fines are higher is what is that? Ocean we've looked it up before. Ocean dunes or something. So if we could maybe get some direction today from the board to look into advocating for legislation, I think that'd be great.

Well and I think, mister Middlebrook, you might wanna share with where we're at on that.

Yeah. We have been working closely with Rafael Martinez in your guys' office and your staff. We actually took your advice when you shared that with us a few years ago and went to the legislature and got actually opinion from legislative staff, assembly transportation committee staff, and they said that they had no the state did not limit what counties could set. I think there is some precedent around not being too out of whack with other areas. So if you look at the Nevada side in Tahoe, I don't know.

You hit it on the head. Yes. Agree.

So we can do this? Let's do this. I wanna do this.

But, yeah, long story short, we we did take your advice and went to the legislature and got clarity that you do have more control over setting those ticket amounts.

Okay. So let's do this.

It took us two years of finger pointing to get that finally, to get that

I'm so happy to hear this. This is great.

Yeah. So So how higher how what do you think is the right number?

Well, the 305 seems to work. Right?

305 is on the Nevada side. Correct.

Let's do it. Alright. I love it.

I know.

Supervisor, do you have other comments, questions?

No. That was very exciting. Thank you for that news.

I think it's well overdue, especially and what you're talking about is Pismo Beach. That's down there. That's ocean.

It's in a specific park. I I have it in my notes somewhere.

Well, anyway, there's a lot of deal with fines high fines down there, especially because of the sand cars and everything like that.

Oh, that might be a separate parking lot. Yeah.

So big issue.

Other comments, questions? Okay. Well, thank you for hearing this presentation. Thank you, mister Middlebrook, for being here. This is there's an opportunity here in the basin around transit, some energy that I haven't seen, in a long time. Really wanting to connect corridors, the basin, really a desire to get people out of their car. And, thank you to Eldorado County, specifically the air quality, department for their support of this pilot pro project program or project. Project.

It's a project.

That works. But really wanna thank everyone for list allowing me to constantly speak about this at board meetings because it really is important that we are successful this time. So thank you, mister Main. You all. Thank you.

You.

Okay. It is little bit before ten, which we have a time certain on the snow removal, presentation. But since we have a few minutes, let's ask miss if she would be willing to jump in on item number 34 regarding the Ad Hoc Community Choice Aggregate Committee. Miss Runkle, will you read this item into the record, please?

Of

course. Item 34 comes from the chief administrative office recommending the board establish a Tahoe Basin Pioneer Community Choice aggregate Ad Hoc Committee comprised of the district five supervisor and the supervisor representative appointed to the Pioneer Community Energy Choice aggregate board to work with staff and the Pioneer Community Energy CCA Joint Powers Authority in collaboration with the city of South Lake Tahoe to pursue implementation of a CCA program for the Tahoe Basin area.

Could you read that one more time? Thank you, Ms. Frantich, for being willing to run on the fly here and fill in a little time for us.

Of course. Jennifer Frantich, chief administrative office. Good morning, board. So, yes, today, for your consideration, we have an item regarding the community choice aggregate, which is, an alternative way of procuring power, an alternative to those investor owned utilities, and that includes both PG and E and Liberty Utilities, which serves the basin. So under a CCA, the electricity source is chosen on behalf of all the customers, and this can lower costs and allows greater control over the energy mix.

The investor owned utility still transmits the electricity. So the city of South Lake Tahoe, reached out to the county because they have engaged with with Pioneer Energy. We are already, a part of the joint powers authority with Pioneer for the West Slope. So and and we went into that effort with the city of Placerville also. So we've kind of gone down this road before.

We thought we'd bring this to the board to see if you would want to, work with the city of South Lake Tahoe to explore options for, joining the, the CCA, for the basin. So we're asking for that direction, and then we're also asking if the board would like to appoint an ad hoc committee of the board. And if so, we would recommend that be, the district five supervisor and the supervisor that's appointed to the Pioneer Energy JPA, which at this point is supervisor Parling.

Okay. Thank you for that presentation. Are there questions, comments of my colleagues?

No. Just a quick comment. I think I already reported out, but I can't remember that Pioneer board did already give direction to their staff to start exploring all this. So they've already started on it. And so I think I think it's good that we create the ad hoc to interface with that staff too.

Yeah. And I'm not sure if you said it and I it, but, you know, currently, Liberty that services the unincorporated part of the county up here in the basin, including the city of South Lake Tahoe, they have been getting their energy from Nevada Energy for a long time. And because of these data centers that are popping up everywhere, and there's a number of them in the state of Nevada, Nevada Energy is is has made the choice to make sure that they can provide the energy needed for the cooling of those data centers and therefore will no longer, at some point, be supplying Liberty. And so that's what kind of opened up the opportunity for us to look at our options. I have talked to supervisor Parlin about this extensively, and she has shared what some of the potential difficulties could be, and that is definitely the infrastructure.

So we're just exploring options at this point, and I would appreciate your support on letting us see what our options are. And Liberty, of course, on their own, is doing the same thing. So more to come on that. Okay. So seeing no other questions or comments, I'll bring this item back to the board for deliberation and or action.

There is a request by staff to to create the ad hoc,

and so

that's what we're looking for.

We need public comment? No.

Oh, we already did this point. Yep. Yep. Yep. It's a department matter. You're right. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah. I'll move that we do this.

I'll second.

Okay. There's a motion in the second. Is there any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five o. Okay. Great. Or a short break. Which one?

Two minute. Yeah. We have two minutes. Okay.

We're gonna go ahead and just take a short break. Two, three minutes, and we'll be back at 10:00 to reconvene on the snow removal item. Email your comments to and we can still distribute that with all the board members. Okay.

Has gone?

Do I get that?

And specifically. Okay. Let's go ahead and call this meeting back to order. And we have a item 31, which is the Department of Transportation regarding snow removal presentation. Miss Runkle, can you read this item into the record, please?

Of course. Item 31 comes from Department of Transportation recommending the board receive and file a snow removal update presentation and provide direction if necessary.

Great. Thank you. And I'd like to, welcome mister Haynes from the Department of Transportation. Welcome back. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Hello, madam chair, fellow members of the board. My name is Nathan Haynes, soon to be deputy director for maintenance and operations for Department of Transportation. I am here today to present to you our biannual snow removal presentation.

Next slide, please.

As I'm sure you're aware, snow removal operations in the basin and Tahoma can be difficult at times. We cannot predict the cumulative severity of the winter storms during the planning phases in summer and fall, so we budget and prepare for severe winters from previous experience so that we're able to hopefully uphold high service levels to the public that remain constant through the storms that we received. In order to effectively do this, we need a minimum of 26 full time employees, 12 for the day shift and 11 for the night shift for South and three for Tahoma. Currently, we have 18 full time positions in the basin, three of which are allocated to Tahoma during the winter months. That leaves us with 15 full time employees in the basin.

To make up this deficit, we attempt to hire 10 full time extra help or, sorry, 10 extra help positions annually from November to April. In the last decade, unfortunately, we haven't been successful in securing all 10 positions. When fully staffed, our goals are always to attempt to plow all the roads within twenty four to forty eight hours once the snow accumulates to plowable levels. Next slide. Speaking on last winter, transportation started with eight extra help positions.

By the time we reached April, we had just one remaining extra help, employee still working for us. To as an incentive to help retain these positions, we, the Extra Help receives an additional allotment of $230 per pay period. In addition to the Extra Help positions, we also utilize four rental loaders budgeted at $250,000 from the general fund. The department owns the blow blower and plow attachments for these loaders. This additional equipment is essential to helping us ensure that we meet our snow removal goals.

As we've been replacing the aged equipment over the last several years, we've been able to circumvent catastrophic failures due to equipment age and the fact that they work in extremely hard conditions. We still have some antiquated equipment that we're working on getting replaced, including a mountain blower in the basin from the seventies, two blowers in Tahoma that are 20 and 30 years old each, and we have three graders combined at both locations that are reaching end of service life. Next slide, please. Looking forward to this upcoming winter, we will begin recruiting for our extra help positions in July in hopes that we will be fully staffed by November. We currently have contracts pending for our rental houses in Tahoma and South Lake Tahoe.

Last winter, we added our second new mountain blower along with two new graders fully equipped with new plows and snow gates, and we were able to put all of them into service that winter. This equipment was solely funded by Measure S. We also have our snow condition, no parking ordinance under review, which is based on info and feedback received from the March public meeting from here in the basin along in conjunction with our county procedures and protocols. Next slide, please. Pending approvals for fiscal year twenty six-twenty seven, we will have an additional mountain blower to order funded by Measure S.

From the general fund, we are again requesting the $250,000 for the rental loader program along with an additional $250,000 for the two upfits on our newly acquired four by four bobtail plow and sander trucks for snow removal operations. From the road fund, we are requesting $337,000 for the 10 extra help positions along with an additional $475,000 for the remaining operating expenses for materials such as sand, salt, snow stakes, cutting edges and tire chains, along with the monthly rental fees for the houses in the basin and Touma from November to April. Next slide. This concludes our presentation for today. We will return for an update on the snow removal efforts at our next South Lake Tahoe Board of Supervisors meeting.

Excellent. Thank you for that. Questions or comments from my colleagues? No? Okay. I I have a couple. First of all, the county has eight zones for the unincorporated part portion of the county that you plow. And it's just a suggestion that maybe every season, we we consider which zones are gonna be priorities first because you only have so many plows. So you start in zone I'm gonna make it up three. Every storm, you start on Zone 3, and then you go whatever order through the zones.

It might be something to consider changing that up every once in a while so that the Zone 8 isn't always the last zone on every storm every year. It's a suggestion. The fact that we hired eight extra help and we ended up with one, one left by April, extra help, are they only paid if they if they are called in to help on the storm? No. Okay, can you explain how that works?

So they're full time employees for in an extra help status. So they're working forty hours a week, and their purpose, obviously, is for snow removal. When their snow removal operations don't kiss aren't there, we utilize them for normal road maintenance operations. So the the issue that we've run into is most of these guys come from the construction side, and they're taking up extra work in the winter because during winter months, construction isn't going. And when we have winters like this last one where the construction season starts up early because there's been hardly any winter at all, they'll return back to their normal jobs that typically pay more.

So it's completely outside of our control as far as being able to retain the staff sometimes. And it's not just for that reason. You know, some of them leave for family or whatever else. So we'd like to obviously start with as many as we can in hopes that we're able to retain them for the full time. And during the snow removal, they're getting the overtime hours just like the rest of our staff.

Yeah. I got a question now. So you have a brushing crew that goes out in the summertime and, you know, spring and whatever brush. Can you use some of those employees and and would could it help with the snow removal in Tahoe?

Which employees are you referring to?

I'm talking to you have a crew that just does brush alongside the road roadways and stuff?

Oh, yes.

Yeah. Can you take some of yeah. Exactly. Can you take some of those people and move it up to help with the snow removal in Tahoe, especially when there's none of that going on, basically, in the wintertime?

Yes. So we utilize our staff from the West Slope to help supplement the Tahoe Basin staff when needed, which is one of the reasons why we have the rental houses here. So when they come up from the West Slope, they're able to stay here and work.

Okay. Alright. Good. Thank you.

Thank you for that. Alright. That was a informational item only. So if there's no further questions or discussion, thank you for the presentation. Very much. Thank you. The next time certain is 11:00, so we are going to go ahead and do some of our department matters. I'd like to call on item number 29, the emergency medical service, medical transportation ordinance. Miss Runkle, can you read this item into the record, please?

Yes. Item 29 comes from emergency medical services, a division of the chief administrative office recommending the board, one, approve the introduction of ordinance five two six three to repeal and replace ordinance five one three two, county emergency medical service and medical transportation to allow for nonemergency interfacility transports to be staffed at the level of service determined by the physician responsible for the patient, which includes basic life support level of service, And two, waive full reading of the ordinance by the clerk of the board and continue this matter to 05/19/2026 for final passage.

Great. And I'd like to welcome, Emma Owens, who is our principal management analyst out of the chief administrative office. Welcome.

Hi. Thank you. So pursuant to the state emergency medical services act, the county EMS agency, which is housed in the chief administrative office, is the local regulatory body for EMS services within the county. So outlined in our ordinance code section 8.74, the county EMS agency regulates emergency and nonemergency ambulance and a medic and and medical transports, which includes the provision of nonemergency interfacility transports, also called IFTs. So today, we're asking the board to approve the first reading of an update to our EMS ordinance.

This will allow for nonemergency IFTs to be staffed at the level of service determined by the physician, which would include basic basic life support services. If the physician doesn't specify, then it'll revert back to the higher level of care, which is advanced life support services. This change will help preserve critical resources within the nine one one system and emergency EMS system by keeping a l a ALS ambulances free to provide ALS services and allow permitted providers to provide nonemergency IFTs at the appropriate level of service as long as those transports are eligible for that level of care. So the ordinance also updates the California code of regulation references, which was updated in 2025. So we had to go through all those references and update them to the state regulations.

So if the board approves this today, we ask you to continue this to the nineteenth for final adoption, and then the ordinance will be effective thirty days after that, so that would make it effective July 18. And that's all I have unless you have questions. Okay. Questions?

Yeah. Madam chair, I know I know the executive director for service area three missed the opportunity to speak. But since he's a contractor to the county, I would love for him to be able to make a comment on this item.

Yep. That's great. Ryan Wagner is the executive director for the Cal Tahoe JPA and is with us this morning. Welcome.

Morning. Thank you. Morning. Yeah. I would I would like to just offer my support for this. It it seems like one that was, the reason I support is because there's probably a need for Marshall Hospital, to assist with this and county the being able to take that into consideration. Meanwhile, just making sure that the the contracts are, you know, funded appropriately, and and this wouldn't affect that. So I I do I do like seeing changes, when it when it affects the agencies that we serve. And if there's any continued support for that in the future, we'd like to continue to offer that and, support this county working with the local hospitals and the agencies.

And, mister Wagner, what do you mean when you say you'd like to see Marshall help with this? What does that mean?

Oh, just the communication. You know, they Marshall had a need. And and at times, you know, we're all in an EMS system where sometimes our needs, might not necessarily line up. But in in this in this case, I'm sure there's a need for additional support in transporting these patients to other facilities. With additional, resources being able to do that, then, you know, the nine one one units can be kept in service in in the service area that they're gonna respond to first at an ALS level. So, you know, there's the ALS and the BLS, and there's also nonemergency transports. And just communication from the hospital and what their needs are, it's it's just it's effective and and needs to make sure it continues to happen.

And these, do you have experience using any of these? I I guess this is private sector.

Sure. So the county does permit outside agencies to come in and perform those that are permitted within the county, and it's currently at an ALS level. In in this area right here, there's needs at times for transports to go further, outside of our area, you know, all the way to Southern California at times, and it's a resource to be able to allow those resources to come in and do those transports. You know, we don't wanna take a nine one one ALS unit and and take it all the way, you know, outside of the area on a regular basis. So, there's only a few trans or permitted up here that I'm aware of. It's definitely a different, flow up here compared to the resources down there. It's a little bit further away, but, it's it's a good supplement to the system, especially in times where the the hospitals are busy and and they need those beds to open up.

So when you talk about these permitted transport agencies, do they have, like, sirens? Do they have radios? Do you know?

Sure. They're they're they're fully they have to be permitted within the state and then by the county. So they're they're very similar unit. I mean, you've probably seen wheelchair vans, and then there's there's ambulances. So it's just really their staffing level. So there would be two EMTs on there instead of an a paramedic and an EMT, and that's just a little bit lower cost for that service. It's appropriate cost, you know, instead of having a service that had, you know, employees that were maybe more expensive. So, yeah, they're permitted. They operate. There's ones that come from Reno that that assist Barton at times when our flows, when we have don't have any available units to come in and do it.

It should be noted, and I I did mention this to you, is that when they provide those transports, that revenue goes back to them and not necessarily back to the county. So, you know, it's it's the flow of the hospital that that's really, you know, probably that's that's asking for this. Up here, we don't have that issue. We've had the, you know, similar volume for the last six years, both in inter facility transports and nine one one.

And so from a budget standpoint, having these inner facility transfers going out to these private agencies, is that gonna are you gonna do as much as you can? And

I don't see how it's gonna I don't think there'll be any effect in this area, at least in in in this region. The the amount of transfers that go out at a BLS level are fairly low here, so there's not as much of a need for it here.

K.

So I don't see and there's not a provider that's here that that can get here fast enough for Barton to utilize them, BLS transferred. I think there's other providers. I think there's two or three. I'm not sure who's permitted, but I think it's two or three that are still coming and doing those.

K.

So I don't think it's a huge revenue. It's definitely not huge revenue loss. I think it's really it's balancing what the hospitals need to continue, that that good agency support with balancing the the need for nine one one responses to be available here.

Got it. Okay. I understand better. Any other questions, comments?

No. I I think this is a good thing. It's gonna, if nothing else, free up the ALS units, for when they're really needed.

Yeah. Precisely. Yep.

Okay. Then I will bring this item back to the board for action.

Move. Second.

Okay. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five o. Okay. Great. Alright. Let's, call on item number 27, planning and building conceptual approval establishing entertainment zones, which we heard several commenters and public comment earlier this morning. Miss Runkle, will you please read this item into the record?

Item 27 comes from planning and building department economic development unit recommending the board receive a presentation by staff and provide conceptual approval to amend title five county code business taxes, licenses, and regulations to add a new chapter 5.6 to allow for establishment of entertainment zones within unincorporated El Dorado County.

And welcome, mister Peters, from planning and building.

Very much. Good morning, madam chair, board of supervisors. Rob Peters, deputy director of planning, representing our economic development unit with within our housing and community housing economic community and housing development division. I'm joined here by Karen Gardner, director of planning and building. So as Kim sorry. Excuse me. As Kim stated, we're we're asking for the board to consider a conceptual approve I'm sorry. Not Kim. Kaylee. Kaylee stated, we're asking to consider conceptual approval, to amend title top five of the county code, to allow for the establishment of entertainment zones within unincorporated Eldorado County.

Senate bill nine six nine, effective 01/01/2025, authorizes California cities and counties to create designated entertainment zones where individuals aged 21 and over may legally possess and consume open containers of alcohol beverages within prescribed geographic boundaries and purchased from licensed participating businesses. The goal of this legislation is to stimulate local economies, enhance cultural and social activities, and promote downtown vibrancy, through well regulated, inclusive public spaces. County ordinances adopted under this legislation must consider and meet several conditions following, for each approved entertainment zone. So some of those considerations are defined geographic boundaries, defined days and hours of operation, safety and notification, and requesting feedback from law enforcement, implementing system to identify 21, plus, individuals and ensuring alcohol is prohibited to minors, allowing open alcohol beverage containers, identifying the alcohol types allowed, signage, reporting requirements. So there's a every two year requirement after an initiation of an establishment zone so that we can and that those, requirements, for having those reports available to ABC upon request.

And then, the rules for the sale of alcohol consumption, again, only non glass, non metal containers may be used, for these open beverages. Alcohol consumed within the zone zone must be purchased from a licensed business within the zone, meaning each individual, restaurant or bar must be licensed through this entertainment zone through ABC, and then, outside alcohol being prohibited, of course. So as you heard in public testimony this morning, and throughout the the public comments provided in writing. The request for the board is to consider an entertainment zone, comes in response to receiving a request a formal request from, potential formation of an entertainment zone within the Eldorado Hills Town Center to enhance visitor experience. Although the town center has special events that serve alcohol, current state ABC regulations create some challenges.

As an example, during the center's outdoor concert series, patriots, can purchase alcohol from the restaurants within the district and the bars, but can't take it off-site, if you will, of the restaurant premises. So allowing an entertainment zone would provide flexibility to allow the patrons to participate in special events while drinking alcohol beverages under this program, that the restaurants and the local businesses have sold and providing more options for patrons and and also not having to bring in outside, food and beverages. And so staff is aware that there have also been some, investigations into creating entertainment zones in other areas of the county. So I'll, highlight such as the community of Georgetown, which does a lot of community celebrations on their main street. And so, however, no formal request has been made, but this request, this conceptual review is to sort of discuss all areas of the county, and then each individual district would have to come back to the board to be codified.

So I wanna make sure that's cleared. So each one has to be, individually assessed. So we've been as staff, we've been reviewing other jurisdictions within, California that have adopted these entertainment zones, and there are now many. It started with the city and county of San Francisco, but, some of our more locally, geographic communities, city of Sacramento, city of, Auburn, and then also or sorry, and also the city of Reading. We're using some of those as examples of how we might put together our ordinance.

Staff has been coordinating closely with the sheriff's office, and they may, be listening now. But to understand their position on the matter and to, identify any areas of concern, I won't speak directly for them, but they are in generally in support of the concept, but wanna, you know, coordinate closely on each individual one to make sure all the aspects of the entertainment zone have been met for safety and and and law enforcement consideration. Let's see here. So, yeah, should the board, direct us to prepare ordinances to allow entertainment zones within the county, staff will continue to collaborate with the sheriff's office, and, we will continue to conduct and seek inputs from local businesses and community members to inform those entertainment zones and, ensure that they're alignment with public safety and operational needs. And then, again, of course, in in accordance with s b nine six nine, we would be establishing a procedure for doing the biannual review and making sure that those, materials are available for, the ABC should they wanna see those.

And then, so as far as environmental review, the potential adoption of an entertainment zone would, we anticipate to be exempt from CEQA pursuant to, California Environmental Quality Act guidelines one five zero six zero c two and one five zero six one b three as the passage of an ordinance will have no foreseeable direct or indirect physical changes to the environment. Again, we're asking for your conceptual review of this item, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Great. Thank you for that presentation. Questions, supervisor Parlin? No idea you have.

Thank you, Rob, for mentioning Georgetown. I know I've been a broken record, but this is exactly what we need for Founders' Day. And it's coming up, I think in I think it's in September of every year. So I'm just can we have this done by this year, September for Founders Day? Is that even doable?

There's a couple components of these programs, that we have to ensure that we have covered, which is there's generally like, in Town Center's example, there's a an agency or whatever that is Yeah. The lead on it. And we're just identify

On that. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. Who's gonna take responsibility? Who's gonna be the one that, you know, pursues an application? Who's gonna be the one that prepares the reports? Those types of things. Yeah. And just to be clear, you know, the town center example is a little bit different than what we've seen in other jurisdictions because it isn't, you know, a a center, and it's not a public roadway like the Georgetown. But we wanted to have the board consider both of those because we could have either of them sort of happen within the county. But September

I'm just checking because

Actually, you know

Yeah. You

got it in order?

Yeah. I don't know if you guys know, but the I appreciated you putting in the staff report this way that the current alcohol beverage control regulations are extremely challenging lately for trying to do these events, and these poor folks are trying to know, they're these events are typically fundraisers and, you know, that kind of thing, and they're trying just to get all the food permits done for the vendors and all that stuff. And then these things pop these recent regulations have made it just crazy if you own an actual, like, say, a a restaurant where the event is, people can't take their beverages out and walk around to do to see the vendors. And then then that means the restaurant has to police people and say you can't take that out, and it's caused some really icky situations. And it just doesn't make sense.

So this is really, a nice thing for, you know, these kinds of events. And so I think Town Center is a perfect place, of course, for it. That's a no brainer. And I was trying to think if there was any other areas, besides, do they have events like that too in Cameron Park?

Yeah. They have events like that.

Mike, please. If you're gonna speak, Mike.

Well, yeah, I guess the, you know, the board would have the decision of making you could do multiple zones in one ordinance. You could you know, but I in this instance

wondering how we

know, town center sort of has a good package of information that we've been, considering, and we we would, you know, sort sort of take a formal application for.

Okay.

You have to define the boundary. You have to put the safety plan together. You have to so they have some of those pieces in place where we don't necessarily have those in the others.

But Founder's Day has been

doing it for years. They have already have to put in applications to close the street and stuff and all that. So they Yeah. I think they have it dialed in. I I don't wanna misspeak about who the rep will be, so I wanted to confirm that. But I definitely want, you know, Georgetown included in this effort.

We are willing to work with and as I said, they would be individual or so they could go separately. They don't have to necessarily be connected. Absolutely. We'll work with you.

So once we have one done, it'll be easier to do others is, I think, the point. Right?

Believe so.

Okay. Yeah. That that's very exciting. And especially for, like I said, these community groups, they're they have the stress of putting on these events anyway, and they don't mean these extra China ridiculous regulations. So yeah. And and I saw the the town center, PowerPoint was sent in with their plan and everything. Well done. That could just be maybe our template even. It was it was great.

So And I will be honest. They have a lot of good materials that we have, but we wanted to get the board sort of up or down on moving forward before we brought forward a presentation and went through all the, you know, the nuts and bolts of their proposed that would be part of the, you know, the first reading of the ordinance when we come back.

And I've been to Auburn. Have you guys seen where how they have their area designated off? It's really clear with big stickers and signs where the the area is designated and all that. There's, it's very clear. They've done a great job. So, I think we can just copy that model or something close to it. So I'm all in favor of this just so you know. Can you tell?

I can tell. That's great. Supervisor Chernbu, did you have anything you want? No.

That's I've already said what I had to say, so I think that's we need to look at other areas too besides Yeah.

Supervisor Chernbu all in favor of it also. I know, I it's a good idea county wide. I think town center is an excellent place to start. Yeah. Town center, they they do dozens of events a year. I mean, starting in May with our concert series every Friday or Thursday night. I forget which one, but I'm I'm usually there almost every time. And they they actually sell sell alcohol, but they have to bring in trucks outside the area oftentimes to to sell it. They do a very good job managing that with the roped off areas where you can have alcohol. They have security on on-site.

This would be an expansion to that and allow the businesses that are are paying rent and and trying to thrive to sell more sell more alcohol that people are gonna buy anyways or to sneak in on their try to sneak in on their own.

That part's

So it will it will provide more options. I think town centers would be, like I said, optimal spot to start. It is important to know that this is revocable. If it's not working on the county, we can revoke it, but it is it is approved by state law and the ABC. But, you know, a while ago, I did do a cursory, you know, speaking to our law enforcement leaders, the sheriff, I think at the DA and and CHP. I didn't get any immediate opposition. Obviously, you're gonna, you know, include them. I would I would you you didn't I would definitely mention or include CHP during the formation of that ordinance and get their thoughts. But, no, I support it, and and hope you all do too conceptually.

Great. Any other comments? No. Madam CAO? Sure. I just thought

I would address a couple of comments during the public comment period about fees. And just as with any other service that we provide, we can only recover the cost of providing that service. So this will not be viewed as a revenue source for the county. It will the fees will be minimal to cover the cost only.

Yeah. Thank you for that. I appreciate you addressing that.

Excellent. Thank you. Mister Peters, my question is with regards to the two cities that are within Eldorado County. They will manage this program themselves?

That's correct. I think, the the state law allows cities or counties to initiate these zones, and so I I do believe the incorporated cities would do it on their own behalf.

Okay. The only thing I regret about this particular legislation is the fact that it mandates non glass, which I support that. But the non metal containers I mean, aluminum is a perfect way to you know, they make beer and wine in aluminum, and they're highly recyclable. It's so much better than a plastic red cup or you know, I don't know what the the the various vendors will use, but I regret that that they eliminated that as part of the legislation. I think that's an error.

Alright. Any other comments, questions? No? Okay. I'll bring this item back to the board then for action.

I'll move approval for, conceptual approval of item 27.

K. Thank you. There's a motion and a second. Any further discussion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed?

Motion passes five o. Alright.

Thank you. We'll go ahead and move to item number 28, which is also from the planning and building. This is the planning commission bylaws. Miss Runkle, will you read this item into the record?

Yes. Item 28 is from the planning and building department planning division recommending the board consider the ad hoc committee's proposed amendments to the planning commission bylaws by taking the following actions. One, approve the bylaws as revised by the ad hoc committee. Two, direct staff to provide a final version of the approved bylaws to the planning commission for ratification. And three, discuss and provide direction to the ad hoc committee on further review and potential revisions to the codified duties of the planning commission to further clarify the roles and responsibilities of the planning commission, or if no further action is needed, disband the ad hoc committee.

And written public comments received by 4PM on the day prior to today's meeting were distributed to all board members and included with this agenda item.

Thank you for that. And, mister Peters, it's been a long time since we've seen you. Welcome back.

Wearing a different hat this time. Thank you again for reading that into the record. Yeah. So Rob Peters, deputy director of planning with this item related to the ad hoc committee's proposed amendments to the bylaws and some follow-up on, our previous meeting. So on September, tenth twenty nineteen, just to give a little background, the board, approved amendments to the PC bylaws as modified by the planning commission in July 2019, and that action and that resolution has been in place since.

The on 06/10/2025, the board considered the amendments proposed by the planning commission. The proposed changes were not adopted, and the board created an ad hoc committee to further review the bylaws and make recommendations, regarding the roles and responsibilities. On 08/08/2025, the board considered amendments to the proposed by the ad hoc committee, composed of supervisor Ferrero and Parlin. And, the proposed amendments were not adopted, and the board directed the ad hoc committee to review potential revisions to the codified duties of the planning commission and to further clarify the roles and responsibilities of the planning commission. And and as of that agenda, the ad hoc review of the bylaws and reflect the committee's understanding of roles and responsibilities, streamlined revisions to the bylaws and proposed, by the ad hoc committee highlighted, as establishment of a meeting start time of 09:00, simplifying some special meeting language, clarifying procedures for agendized items and adjourning, cancel in in the canceling meetings, and then requiring the board of supervisors approval for items with potential impacts to staff resources.

As you heard, we had a couple public comments and, and one in writing related to a couple specific sections on, agenda, when the agenda goes out, you know, the staff resources and kind of what that means and then, related to, the board's approval and the procedure for doing that. So we heard that in the public comment earlier. The recommendation of the ad hoc committee is for your board to approve the updated bylaws and send them back to the planning commission for ratification. Should the proposed bylaws not be adopted, the existing bylaws will remain in place. Aside from the recommendation, the committee also wishes full board input on the future reviews and roles of responsibilities of the planning commission, including an examination of the applicable provisions of the county code.

This review could include establishing a vetting process for planning commissioners. Any proposed code changes would be brought back to the board for conceptual approval, resolution of intent, or or potentially both depending on which sections of the code we are touching. And so with that, I'll take any, questions that you might have. And, again, both of our ad hoc members here as

well. Excellent. Yes. Thank you for that. And I noticed also the chair of the planning commission is with us today in the audience as well. Questions, comments by my colleagues? Supervisor Parlin, did you have something?

Well, there's a lot here, actually. I don't think this process was as straightforward as we all thought it was gonna be. The bottom line was that we wanted to change the meeting time is what the planning commission really wanted to do is change it to 9AM, and then we started looking at everything else, and it got there's in my mind, there's still some questions that we didn't get to. So I know Linda Campbell asked about, the publication of the agenda and having that in the bylaws, and we did talk about that, I believe. And we talked about how we we generally know that, you know, two weeks prior to planning commission meetings, you guys do often get the agenda out, but we didn't wanna put a deadline in the bylaws in case, you know, you guys needed some flexibility.

So that's that's I think that That's what we're about. That's what we're about. Like, that was why we didn't wanna do Yeah.

I mean, there's there's there's minimum requirement to get the Yeah. Agenda published, and we

Seventy two hours.

Yeah. And you guys typically give close to two weeks. And Yeah. We didn't wanna we didn't wanna compel you to do that.

Yeah. That seemed

Because of the one off.

So Yeah. So that's kinda why. And I I do think that, generally, you do get it out two weeks ahead.

Yeah. We generally try to do it on the Friday after the planning commission Thursday

Okay.

So that

we don't have two agendas out at the same time. Oh. And so it's approximately thirteen days in advance of the next meeting. Okay. And so we had talked about whether or not to put that in there, but, you know, kind of not necessarily any sooner than that, but it's we strive for to put those out on that Friday. Now sometimes in certain months, there'll be an extra week, and, you know, we have to decide whether to put it out earlier or wait. A lot of times, it's also based on when the public noticing, some notices have twenty days, some have ten, and so we try to coordinate all those pieces.

Right. So that so that that's kinda why we left that out. And then there was, my recollection was where I keep getting hung up is on it's number five j

You like me to share it?

Oh, okay. It's up to you. Can you share it?

Think so.

Tell me the section.

5 J. 5 J. 5 J. Yeah.

I'm not sure if it's with the setup.

The Zoom okay. Maybe I can.

So well, okay then. We'll have to just talk about it for the public, I guess. But it it says that by majority vote of the planning commission, the commission may agendize items through the resolution of intention process. And then in parentheses, it says, used for hearing items, I. E, rezoning initiated by the commission, ordinance amendments initiated by the commission, etcetera.

And in my mind, this conflicts with the fact that the board of supervisors is shoot. What's the word the right words? We're the planning, you know, authority of the county. In my mind, if there's any, rezoning initiated or ordinance, that should come from the board to the planning commission. And this particular item says the planning commission can do it.

Now we've I don't remember ever seeing the planning commission do that, but there's been some planning commissions in the past where it sound like they were gonna do that. And so when we've asked about this, we were told that this is their authority in another ordinance somewhere, but we weren't tasked with looking at that. And so county council's looking at and, he can help with this.

I will try. Yeah. Supervisor Parlin is correct that the basis for that provision in the bylaws is your county zoning code. Section one thirty point six three point zero two zero contemplates that either a text a text amendment or zone change can be initiated in a variety of ways. The typical way is the resolution of intention by the board, but it also specifically lists a resolution of intention of the commit the planning commission.

So that is currently provided for in county code. Now that's up to your discretion as to whether you wanna keep that. But to ensure that the bylaws were consistent with the county code, the bylaws did provide that ability. Right. I think that if you look I think it tried to build in some, you know, safeguards against that by having the you know, since such a request would likely require the use of staff resources by requiring that there be kind of a preliminary request to the board of supervisors. But, again, ensuring that the bylaws are since they're have to be consistent with county code, that that and since the county code allows for it, the bylaws included that provision.

Yeah. And this j section was we left it as written. Yes. We didn't make any changes to that. But, yeah, we're wondering kinda why it was in there, but it I mean, it seems like it's not hurting anything to leave it in there, in my opinion. I don't

know to say. But Mhmm.

Yeah. Yeah.

Well, no. It's still that the it having it in the county code to me is troubling that the the planning commission could, initiate ROIs. I'm not sure. I don't know why that would ever be an accounting code, to be honest. You guys have any idea why that's in there? Is that typical? Yeah. And so unless there's a good reason for it, I would like to see the board give direction to remove that from the county code, which would then later be reflected in the bylaws. I just don't know why you would want your planning commission to have that authority above and beyond the board. It seems like it should come from the board and go to the planning commission. So I don't know.

What do you guys think?

Yeah. I I mean, I I have questions on a on a few of these. But Yeah.

That was the the biggest one that we we, like, literally couldn't take this out because it's in the county code over here in another document. So we had to leave it so that they match. Right. But in my mind, it just I don't understand. And maybe maybe that's what we should do is and if you guys wanna change the ad hoc, that's fine. But ex you know, direct the ad hoc to go back and explore whether other counties do this and why you would want it or if they should recommend taking it out. I don't get it.

I I think that makes sense. There may have been a reason for it, David, maybe in ad hoc, and you can research when and and try to come up with why. But if not, then Let's we could take it out.

Yeah. And I think leaving it for right now so that they do match because if

Yeah. Yeah.

Come back and you wanna make a change to it, we would wanna change both.

Okay. Need to be consistent.

Yeah. So, yeah, I think we can come up with that direction Okay. At the end of questions and clarifications.

I think that's a good idea. Do you have more? Well, I think that I mean, Linda Campbell raised a a good question in my mind that I kinda had similar as far as the the vagueness of or that's the safeguard we were trying to put in was to say if they're if it's gonna impact county staff, then they need to get approval of the board, which you know, because the board directs gives direction to staff for their time, you know, resources. So that's what we were trying to do, but you know, without anything specific, which is hard.

We we did that. We did put that in k. Yep. Five k where if if there's gonna be any impact to staff resources Yeah. We need to approve it.

Yeah. And I think that, to Linda's point, it's that's a a vague kinda statement, but I don't know how else we could put it in there. I mean, that that would be basically, I think staff would have to say, this is gonna take some resources, and we need to go check-in with the board. I guess that's how it would work.

It's Not the most efficient thing in the world,

but Yeah.

But but we are the final authority.

So Yeah.

So the the staff would actually bring it to the board? I believe so. Maybe did did you had you

guys thought about how we would do that, Rob, to make this more

of the conversations was that, you know, if a commissioner wants to request to agendize something under five f, they would speak first to the executive secretary who is the department director. That might be where you determine the staff, you know, the the whether it has impacts to staff or not. And that's you know, and then that would be the the time at which the whole planning commission would then discuss whether or not to bring something to the board of supervisors. If I recollect that was sort of the procedural way as opposed to doing it outside of having first spoken to the director. But I I think, you know, I think again, so there in my time serving as the deputy, there have been different nuances, but mostly related to workshops and presentations that the planning commission would like to see as an example, and and then that the board would, you know, that might may or may not take staff time, but some of which, did and and some that we actually did, and then after the fact kind of went, why'd you guys do that?

We didn't tell you to do that sort of things like that, myself included. So Yes. You know, just trying to make sure that we as all of our staff is sort of directed by the board of supervisors that we're acting appropriately and and that the commissions aren't, you know, sort of directing staff. That was the intent.

So I think that

I think this is clear enough. This right for me.

Yeah. It should work. And then and if you're not sure, then you guys would just come check-in with the board, I guess. Right? And I do recall the one workshop that did happen. In my mind, I was like, after it happened, I went, woah. That would have been a cool workshop for one of the joint meetings that we've had on occasion. I actually you know, then that would have been a board decision. So, you just gotta be efficient and thoughtful and all that. So, I mean, if you think this will work, we'll leave it. And if it doesn't, we'll bring it back.

Yeah. We could do. You said

for a supervisor's approval. So Yeah. They move forward. So I think it's I think we can work with that.

And then did you have I I think those were the big ones, really, that were questionable.

That you guys did you put in place looks good.

Yeah. I personally, when I was reading through these, I was thinking, to my dozen years on the city council where we had a city planning commission. And, you know, it just seems like there's a lot of rules that we're placing on the planning commission that, you know, maybe they're necessary. I think it's I think we have these commissions. We nominate.

We appoint people to serve on these, and, you know, we expect them to do the job to the best of their ability. And I just think there's so many rules in here about, like, you can or can't do. And I like leaving it a little bit looser, but I don't know all of the history with the planning commission in El Dorado County. So I've learned to tread lightly in that regard, and I'll I'll follow your lead on this one.

Well, and I think too, one of the things that differentiates the planning commission is they actually have, what do you call, authority.

Yeah. So city planning commission.

And so we you do want to make sure that they yeah. There's some guardrails on it. And with that, there's also in, the legislator staff report, we had had some talk about there's been, situations in the past where, we thought, well, maybe because of the importance of this position that we, talked about, a vetting process for the planning commissioners rather than just putting them on consent. And I will tell you, when we just throw them on consent like that, it's I don't think it serves anyone well. We don't talk about their qualifications for this particular one.

You know? Like I said, this one has a lot more authority. Mhmm. Mhmm. And, therefore, to me, it seems like there should be a vetting process of some kind to make sure we're all on the same page and understand, you know, where we're coming from. So that would not be in the bylaws. That would just be a separate process. And I did talk director Garner about it, and she had some thoughts on how to create that. It wouldn't be too big of a deal, but, it is a a higher position with more responsibilities for sure.

Yes. I agree. Alright. Any further questions, comments? Okay. Seeing none, then I'll bring it back to the board for action.

Right.

I'll move to approve this item with another add a add a add a With direction. Tab with direction to staff to, I I guess we could do we could stay on it. Just

I think so.

Use this ad hoc, continue with this ad hoc, continue, to have the, planning commission by a lot of ad hoc, look at the, consistency or or explore, the county code for the, resolution or planning commission being able to, create a resolution of intention. Is that there is mud?

There is mud. Is there a motion? Is there a second?

Should we also add the director should the ad hoc work with the, planning director for a vetting

process? Staff.

We oh, no. For the planning the vetting process too.

Oh, gotcha.

Because that was the county code. Correct?

Is that part of your motion?

It can be.

Okay.

Okay.

Yeah. Let's let's do that.

Yeah.

Okay. So the the additional part of your motion would be to have that same ad hoc work with planning staff

Consider a vetting process for the planning commissioners. Okay. Alright. Because it is so important. Yeah.

Okay. So there's a motion to approve the bylaws, as presented, and to, work with staff on a vetting process. And what was the third one?

And explore the Yes. The county code That

counts. Yep.

Or the opportunities for the planning commission to be able to, agenda as a resolution of intention.

Perfect. Okay. There's a motion. And is there a second? Second. And is there further discussion on the motion? All those in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion passes five o. Alright.

Yeah.

Alright. Let's, it is 10:50. Let's go ahead and take a ten minute break, and we'll reconvene at 11:00 for our time certain on the Tahoe Truckie seared disposal.

Okay. Yeah. Stretch.

Yeah.

We go out of the car and play that on world.

Oh my god. There you go. Perfect. Sprouts, George Sprouts.

We're gonna go ahead and call this meeting back to order. We are doing great on time. We have an 11:00 time certain item number 32, which is the environmental management department, solid waste management ordinance. Miss Runkle, will you read this item into the record?

Of course. Item 32 comes from environmental management recommending the board, one, approve the introduction, first reading of ordinance five two six two to amend chapter 8.42 of the Colorado County code of ordinances entitled solid waste management. Two, wave full reading of ordinance five two six two read by title only and continue the matter to 05/19/2026 for final passage. And written public comments received by 4PM on the day prior to today's meeting were distributed to all board members and included with this agenda item. Thank you, miss

Management department, mister Jeff Warren. Welcome.

He's sitting over there. Okay.

It's a

privilege to sit here today. So thank you, Cherilyn. Good morning, board. Jeff Warren, director for environmental management. Also, I have Timothy Engle with me as my solid waste supervisor to assist in the presentation and help answer any questions that come up. On March 24, your board authorized staff with conceptual approval to revise a solid waste management ordinance chapter 8.42 to modernize requirements, simplify processes, improve consistency, and address service needs in the Tomahawk Meeks Bay Area. Staff has completed the revision of the ordinance, and we also have a presentation to outline the changes.

K. And do we have a are we

we'll do. Oh, perfect. So the objectives, for mandatory service is to change, section eight point four two point two hundred. There's an addition of mandatory collection to the Tahoma Meeks Bay Area for Tahoe Truckee Sur disposal region, section 8.4218 our proposition two eighteen language. Other changes for section eight point four two point five four zero is remove the exceptions for yard waste and plastic bags, 8.42 dash two zero zero, carefully defining recycled materials, eight four two point eight hundred, consolidate enforcement under code enforcement for section 9.02.

Section 8.4215 is clarifying the board authority on rate settings, and 8.42 dash eight ten, eight twenty, and eight forty were removed from the ordinance. So if mandatory service, the addition of mandatory collection area to Tahoma Mesa Bay Area and the Prop two eighteen language, these sections were added to incorporate the areas identified on the next slide with the map. We'll show the area of the service area just above the Emerald Bay from Chalmette Meeks Bay. And the question would come up is why is mandatory service? To answer the question that was posed during public comment today that other areas that are serviced by mandatory, mandatory service is always present in South Lake Tahoe Basin within the city limits and the unincorporated areas that South Tahoe refuse services, and that has been mandated since the mid nineteen seventies.

Mandatory service also has conscious efforts to balance the refuse collection, wildlife protection, and nature preservation. Mandatory service would provide a path to stabilize collection rates, provide extra services for bulky item disposal, and enhance the green waste service for defensible space.

Mister Warren, can I can we back up a second on the the question that was asked about mandatory? Is it also not true that the Tahoe Truckie Sierra disposal in Placer County, Tahoe City, also has mandated?

Yes.

Yes. So really, this area is between two other areas that mandate it.

That's correct.

Okay.

K. Can we do one more slide, please? There we go. So the survey survey was sent out to in August 2025 to an email database that we had on the county, and two zero eight responses were received. And the slide up here in the infographic will show that 50% of the respondents support mandatory service with 31.25% opposing and 18.75 were neutral or had no opinion.

The current satisfaction rate with PTSD is seventy five point nine six percent. Seventy nine point three three percent favor stabilization of rates. Fifty percent are in favor of protecting wildlife, 51.92% are in favor of expanded green waste, and 45.19% are in favor of expanded recycling programs. Proposition two eighteen, this will be a new section that's added, and we the county currently follows this for the mandatory service rate collection for South Tahoe Refuse in the basin. This section, apply would apply if it's adopted to go through in this area as well.

But the section is the county must provide written notice to each affected property owner at least forty five days before the public hearing describing the proposed rate adjustments and its basis, supporting studies, hearing details, and requirements for submitting a valid written protest. The protest must be written, signed, and delivered by mail or in person before or at the rate hearing. Electronic or unsigned protests are invalid, and only one protest per parcel counts. At the public hearing, the board accepts oral comments and written protest. After closing the hearing, the clerk counts the ballot protest, and a majority of the protest, more than 50% of the affected parcels plus one, would prevent the approval of the rate adjustment.

If that were to happen, it would be brought back to staff to work with the franchisee to come back again to entertain a different rate structure.

And with that, I'll go all

the changes, I'll turn it over to to mister Angle here.

Hi. Thanks for having me. I just wanted to go over some of the other more housekeeping related changes to 8.42. It has been updated. So I wanted we wanted to put some stuff in that was kind of overdue and needed to be changed.

These including a risk removing an exception for yard waste bags, plastic yard waste bags, carefully define a more a better definition, I think, of recyclable materials, consolidating enforcement from eight point four eight point four two under code enforcement's nine point o two section, and clarifying board authority on rate setting. Okay. I'll just go over these one by one real briefly. The plastic bag plastic bag exception, basically, in 08/1942, there was an exception written for plastic bags for yard waste. This no longer applies.

The haulers cannot accept them. The contamination is too high, and the end facilities can't take them. So and we have more options now with these paper bags and with BPI based bags, so basically compostable bags. And it depends on the hauler. Each hauler has different requirements, what they can accept at their transfer stations and at curbside. But the system has been working pretty well. We just can't take traditional plastic bags anymore. Fortunately, the bag quality has also improved a lot, so they're not tearing on people. They stack really nicely, and they tend to work really well. We've had a lot of positive responses.

The next section going over is a change in the definition of recycled materials. This actually came to me, when we did the organic waste ordinance, and I used, CalRecycle's basically their model ordinance to define, you know, write our ordinance and compare and contrast to it. And they define recyclable materials as basically anything that was recyclable. And I saw kind of a trap there, and I didn't like that language because the recycling markets fluctuate so much. You have things like asphalt shingles that are what sometimes recyclable and sometimes not.

You have things like Styrofoam that is in theory recyclable, but not economically recyclable, not practically recycled. So I and then there was things like, for example, like fats, oils, and grease that were included in the organic waste ordinance that I felt like weren't necessarily always recyclable depending on the market. So I included this definition that basically highlights in bold here and highlights that sorry. Technologically, economically, and culturally practical manner as determined by the department. So that gives us some more flexibility to determine what are recyclable materials and true recyclable materials.

So that definition is an eight eight point four five, the organic waste ordinance, and now it's being added to 8.42. Next the next section, nine point o two is this is a common thing throughout the county consolidating under code enforcement. Nine point o two is the code enforcement section. It'll standardizes things like lettering, notifications, hearings, the whole process with any code county code violations. This section is excellent.

I did some homework, and the board had endorsed moving, and county council had endorsed moving. I mean, any kind of enforcement to this section, and we like it, and it's appropriate. So we wanted to consolidate, any enforcement under nine point o two. So now the, ordinance cross reference cross references that. And then the last thing was, on the board's authority. There was some link oh, sorry. That's it. Oh, thank you. I'm gonna turn

it back over to Jeff. Thank you, Tim.

So and, also, we're adding a section in here for the board's authority on rates to help clarify, the role when we bring rate increases throughout the year of either interim year or base year rate increases. So a while back, the board did approve within the franchise agreements the rate setting manual, which was followed through our third party consultant that helped develop that. It's a staff review the franchise rate applications to identify any deficiencies before the public hearing and board consideration. If a proposed rate application meets all the criteria in the rate settings manual, the board does have has little to no discretion to deny the request under franchise agreement unless deficiencies are identified. We do this with a third party auditor, and our staff review it to help weed those out before they come to your board for approval.

Like I said, if deficiencies are found, the board may direct staff to do further review and application return with an updated rate analysis. And for the rates subject to proposition two eighteen, the board may approve the rates provided there is not a majority protest of 50% plus one. And with that, we're going to move into the Tahoe Truck Easter disposal presentation with mister Collins.

Welcome. Good

morning.

Morning.

My name is Jeff Collins. I'm with Tahoe Truckie Disposal. Thank you for hearing us today. We appreciate the opportunity. I am, I am a local myself, born and raised here in North not here, North Tahoe, the other end. The, this company has has served this area for a great many years. We've been honored to do so. These are our neighbors. Our office is located on the West Shore. We share the same schools.

We share the same grocery store. It's in we all have similar interests. We we we go to the same concert in the park, and we jump off the same at Lester Beach and hike the Bliss Trail together. So we have a real tie in. We are integrated in this community, and we care about it. The

I'm

actually, I'll probably I don't know if I need to read verbatim. I think you probably had the opportunity to look at that. So I'll I'll synopsize as I go, if you don't mind. So, the the area we serve is unique. This area of Eldorado's, well, I should back up and say we are the contracted, waste removal or waste hauler for adjacent areas in Placer County, town of Truckee, and and and we have served this El Dorado County for a great many years.

The the difference with what makes El Dorado County or this particular section unique is its geographical location is blocked in the winter months at Emerald Bay, going to the slides that occur there. So so it has to be serviced from the from the north. And and, of course, along with that, there's the there's some very steep terrain, narrow roads, and then there's a great amount of seasonality to this. The mandatory or nonmandatory nature of this also creates some issues. We have to be ready for we have to have the manpower and the equipment available to at all times, for the greatest amount of time, the greatest demand at the so oftentimes in the summer and and then and then carry that through even the slowest periods.

So the investment in infrastructure is is is has to be there to meet the greatest demand despite the fact that it's not always not always necessary. Many of our Eldorado customers start and stop service in the summer months. Many many are winter skiers that come up. So we can't just turn off the service after Labor Day. We have to leave that on.

We have to service. We have to drive through every street no matter what. So there's a there's a built in natural expense there. Whatever the demand, the responsibility we accept as franchise holder is to always be prepared to meet that at any one time. So that is unique because we don't see that anywhere else in the basin.

We elsewhere, there's mandatory service. We it was just mentioned, Placer County, the adjacent area just immediately north of that is is mandatory, as is Truckee, as is in Killeen Village and Sao Tahoe. The the those ordinances were placed put in place for the same reasons that we are that are proposed here. Enhanced programs. So so environmental stewardship, we all care love and care this about this lake.

That's our first and foremost. But in addition to that, the wildlife protection. There's, of course, rate stabilization, but also enhanced programs that benefit the preservation of the community through health and safety standards. Defensible space needs being one of the primary concerns I, as a resident, am facing, and I know my neighbors do as well. And then the related positive impacts to property values.

So what currently happens to garbage here in El Dorado County for those who do not have service? Despite claims that are made, we'd like to believe that that this garbage is is taken back to the Central Valley. But the truth is, do do we really believe that it's pinched between the luggage and the Tahoe T shirts and the sugar pine cones and the and the Tahoe snow globes and then in the trunk of the car and taken back? We have that is not in our experience. Our experience, I, for one in our office on the West Shore, I, for one, have intercepted many a person at our dumpster throwing garbage on the lid.

And I'll I'll walk out there, and I'll I'll talk to them, and they'll say, why, you know, why are you doing this? You should have service. And they say, well, it's right there on pinned to the refrigerator door. How to shut down the house was instructions to drop my garbage off here on the way out of town. Now we're not the only commercial business that suffers from this.

There's a lot of commercial businesses that have have this burden of of illegal dumping upon them. There's also illegal dumping we know that occurs within other bear sheds, residential bear sheds. Many years ago when Placer County went mandatory, they had the same complaints from The business owners approached them and said, please make this mandatory. And it worked. It cleaned things up.

So even if I I've also seen and it's and it's sad that on the way out of town, again, there's that natural geographical break. On the way out of town, a lot of people will dump it at Blue Canyon. There's a steep cliff there. And it's sad, but it's just pitched over the side. And it's just tragic to see that.

So it's true that there are people, there are good people, that are responsible, that they do the right thing, they have the service, but there are also those who are irresponsible and don't. And and then there's also that that that third element, the ones that would do the right thing if they if they knew what to do. And I think that's bridging the gap here, why we would like to why mandatory service becomes a natural solution to filling those gaps. Also, as we look at some of these other programs that are proposed, such as defensible space, we we can't simply turn off and on programs. So defensible green waste is huge.

If we are running a green waste program, it's obviously weighted towards summer. It but it has to be paid for throughout the year. It it can't be just turned on and relied upon for those who were to participate with it to cover the expenses of running trained the purchase of equipment and training and maintaining staff to to to cover it. That's even though it's weighted towards summer, it has to be paid for naturally throughout the year. And I I think the what we want is we want participation.

We want clean neighborhoods. We want to protect wildlife from our bad habits. We want to alleviate fire risk through responsible defense space practices. And and mandatory service, we believe, is the best solution to get those those who are responsible from those who are not or who would would be if given the chance. So one of the again, going back to the reason why we're here, the the difficulty again is, I think we've it's been mentioned here that we've forgone rate increases for the last two years.

And it's been problematic because every time we have a rate increase now, we have fewer cut people cuss fewer customers sign up for service. And and then that impacts surrounding areas, surrounding customers, and the environment itself. So we can't keep raising the rate because it's it's a regressive strategy. It's not working. The rate goes up.

We lose customers. Our our our expenses are still there and climbing, and we cannot it's it's just not working. So that's why we are here today. I appreciate your your ear through my stumbling comments. I will I will say, I did mean to have another person with me today. He had a medical emergency and and so can't be here. But in his place, we've asked for our CFO, Ray Labady, to step in. And so you'll have to excuse his not being able to be here, but he I believe he is available on on the what do you call Zoom?

Zoom. Yes. Ryan's on Zoom, and he does have his hand raised.

Yeah. He's probably saying, Jeff, okay, sit down. Shut up. But so I'm sorry for that. I don't Bubble. I

don't can you hear me right now?

Yes. Loud and clear, Ray.

Oh, okay. Great. And here, I'll turn my video on too. I apologize. I didn't know if I'm Ray Labady, the CFO for Tahoe Truckie Sierra disposal, and I did not wanna interrupt because I didn't know what the procedures were for speaking. There were a couple charts in there that Jeff had presented. I don't know if oh, here we go. Okay.

Yes. I didn't I didn't really go through this in any format, and I apologize, Jeff. Yeah. There was

a rate chart or two in there and some other parts of the presentation and some additional background that I'm not sure if you have questions that we could respond to those or if you would like us to go through some of the pertinent parts of the presentation as a second pass. Either either way.

Yeah. I think at this point, I think we should finish up with the presentation, and then we'll get into some of the details and the questions. Is that okay? My colleagues good? Okay. Yeah. Please go ahead and carry on. We'll circle back. Thank you, mister Labady, for being available.

Of course.

So, yeah, I believe that was the, the end of the PowerPoint presentation. It would be the end of our staff presentation. But just to reiterate that the ordinance revision that we were tasked with bringing back is countywide. The one in specific up here is the 8.42 dot 200, which for the mandatory collection only. All the other items that mister Engle had brought up will be, implemented through countywide through the ordinance update.

Thank you for that clarity.

And and just this one final thing because I I know I didn't, follow script here, but the, the monthly rate, it can be seen. We we are, able to reduce that single can rate, naturally as we expect more participation to be feeding into the the the infrastructure needed to to serve the area. So on that note, I'll I will invite questions or or be happy to respond to questions.

Okay. Perfect. Thank you. Mister Ferrer?

Regarding the reduced work rate, do you what's your anticipation? How how long will that last, or how long can you at least maintain current rates or or reduce rates in the in the future?

There are Yeah. That Well, Ray, I I like since he's the

Yeah. So so that rate is the projected and the calculated rate for 07/01/2026. So the operating year from 2026, 2027. And then annually, there's an adjustment methodology in the contract. What we envision is that we prepare that on a cost basis, and it was interesting.

The the base rate for single can service, we were able to lower that a little bit from where it stands right now and even more so from where it would have been if we had taken our rate adjustments annually over the past year or two, which we passed on those rate increases because each as Jeff mentioned, each year as we've been increasing the rate with the normal COLA methodology, we've had fewer people subscribing to service, and it's become somewhat regressive and counterproductive. And so for that reason, you know, we've been talking for a number of years about the need to take the area mandatory just for practical purposes. The contract was up for renewal in September of last year, and we know that it's a a longer involved public process. So we put language into the contract extension at that time that we would have the option to to to not fulfill our obligations, which we don't that's not what we wanna do. But if the if the area were to not become mandatory by this July 1, then we have the option not to fulfill our obligations on the residential side of the contract.

So that long way of saying what we would envision is we've calculated that rate internally. That's the base rate, and we've also taken an adjustment at the maximum that's the contractual maximum for the supplemental residential rates at 6%. And the reason we did it that way in our math and our calculations was that so the base rate payers that are on mandatory service will pay an amount that is sufficient to cover the to defer the fixed cost of running the routes. And then the supplemental residential rates for toucan service or overages are charged proportionate to the usage by those people that use the service more than just the base rate or having the availability of the service. And what we would expect is that for this first year to put those rates in place, which is a reduction to the current single can rate and a a 6% increase to the supplemental residential rates, which has been deferred.

It's that's less than what it would have been on those rates if we had taken the annual rate adjusters, put those in place, and then under the contract rate setting methodology, it's a mix between interim years where we use the COLA versus, they call it, I think, a base year where we do a bottoms up with Crow, with the consultant that the consult that the county hires. And what we expect to have then after the first year of operating is an even better handle on what the actual costs are, the actual usage, the actual disposal that will occur in the area compared to what our projection is. And so to answer the the supervisor's question, how long do we expect those rates to be in place from July 1 until 06/30/2027? And then July 1 will be subject to the normal rate setting methodology, which we would envision and believe will be a base year with the consultants confirming our math against the actuals, if that if that helps.

Yeah. I think so. Thanks.

Other questions?

Yeah. I got

a question.

Turn,

though. Yeah. I can see where it went down from $38.44 to $36.10, so that is a little bit of a decrease. The thing with the mandatory, there's a lot of these people that have cabins in that particular area. They're never you know, they're even in the the wintertime. You know? Usually, they just come up in the summer and stuff, and they're not BHRs. So will that impact a lot of those people that that are only here on a certain times per year? Or is there a way that, that if you knew that they weren't there or whatever, could give them even a reduced rate, or can they not be on mandatory pickup?

That the these rates again, going back to what Ray was saying, a lot of that will be vetted out when we when we look at data and, as far as as for for next year. But to to but there is a certain element where as we, as a hauler, we have to stand at the ready. So the the person that comes up, there there are those who use it full year round. That's one thing. There are some that use it for three months or four months in the summer.

Mhmm. There are there's some that use it during the Christmas holidays. We have to be ready to meet those needs no matter what. And so so it's a so to be to have that, it's very difficult to flip that on and off and and to make the adjustments in in our infrastructure to have the equipment ready. This is and this is not inexpensive equipment. It's all four wheel drive vehicles and and and then to have the staff ready. Again, we all know the the issues with Yeah. Hiring trained drivers. So I

would offer this also. You know, when we have people to go on and off service, it's very difficult for us to schedule, to open an account, to close account. We prorate it to the month currently, which is terribly inefficient. A lot of the people that go on service for, let's say, four months of the year, they use the defensible space, the green waste quite a bit while they're on service, and it's disproportionate the cost is disproportionate to the amount of rate that they pay during the whole year. And on our end, it's also the case that in the summer, it's the most expensive time for us to be able to provide the service because it's difficult to be staffed with the summer.

During the summer months, we just went through our seasonal hiring, and we're not there, to be honest with you right now. And the way that we get through the summer is to pay a lot of overtime to to to to cover the summer months. So it it doesn't, you know, Jeff had said, doesn't really work for us to be able to purchase equipment, try to have staffing levels to make accommodations to service the summer months at a rate that doesn't make sense because the costs are really spread across the full year.

And I would add, especially to the green waste program, which is is a very

Supervisor, can I dovetail off of your I did notice that you provide exemptions in Placer County for different quarters that people can apply and say, I'm not gonna be there for this quarter? If they're there for one day during that quarter, they get billed automatically. So, you know, there is something there, but is that would you be offering that same exemption process to Tahoma and Meeks Bay?

At this point, no. And I'm going to allow Ray to chime in with this. But that there is there are some problems with that. It's a it's a difficult program to administer and difficult for customers to understand. And it's not just by month.

It's by quarter. And they have to in that program, they have to ask for it, in advance and and and also those if we look at Placer, the the numbers of that we serve can absorb those a little bit more than than El Dorado County area we serve. The so at this point, no. Ray, if you'd like to

Yeah. I would

just add, it's it's a difficult program. It's basically of the three surrounding areas, we service Placer County, Tonitrucki, Nevada County, and all three of those are mandatory adjacent, and and in the basin. And Placer County, that area three is the one that has an opportunity for an exemption. People apply on a quarterly basis, and the administration administration of it is not satisfying either for us ourselves as a company or the customers just because there's a lot of issues in terms of expectations and having to do it each and every quarter. And then the question becomes, a lot of times, there's evidence that properties are being used, but then an exemption has been applied for.

And it's just a tough position to be in to become the enforcers of the, you know, the police to say, well, the property was obviously being used. Service was provided or turned on, and it it it causes a lot of issues, if you will.

Madam madam chair, may I interject something to help answer maybe help answer supervisor Turnboo's question? In reviewing this with county council, they kinda like me some legal terms, which I can kinda go over that might help clarify some of the questions that mandatory service would mean that everyone gets billed, and the billings would be, remain consistent with the data showing what benefit is being provided to the parcel or is immediately available to that parcel. And that would be under, article 13 d section six b four, which states that the fee or charge may not be imposed unless the service is actually used by or is immediately available to the owner of the property subject to the fee or charge. And that is the point where it would be spreading it out equally to all the parcels up there to make that mandatory service charge be consistent with all the parcels up there.

And what are you reading that from? Is that something we have?

No. This is from county council that, was brought to me late just as far as a, to help understand what the, questions would be with mandatory service, and the structure of it to make it consistent. So it does state that even though if a parcel if someone does not currently have service and does not want to use it, that service is made available to them, which then may be subject to the mandatory fee.

I'm not sure that

that clarified anything I believe that's just language from the state constitution. Oh, okay. But that we know as prop two eighteen. Okay. Got it.

I I know that in, for example, Truckie, where we also serve, everyone must pay, And it's recognized that there is benefit to the community, even for those who rarely use their home, that, the fact that there is something available made available for all to use at any time. They they don't have to turn it on or off or or deal with the complicated matter. They can if they're up, they can put it out. It's done. It benefits the environment.

It benefits the community. It maintains the the the positive impact to property values by not degrading the neighborhoods. I think it was it was viewed as a community if you're a member of this community, this is the investment you make. And especially with the defensible space. Again, going back to the those who are those who do come up in the summer are usually using those defensible space programs and good on them because that's what we want.

But, but as Ray said, they you can't just ask for them to pay for it. If you, in those few summer months, it will be if if it will be too expensive, and then they won't use it. So

Other questions, supervisor Parlin?

Yeah. We got a last minute email, so I don't know if I already saw it. Mhmm. But it it's from a cabin user on the Forest Service tract, and he says that they don't have a a paid paved road to their cabin. And it sounds like this little tract of cabins just doesn't have access. So would they be exempted from this ordinance the way the ordinance is written that they don't have a road to the cabins? Do we

know that?

I I'd we'd have to take a look at it. The our first my first response to that would be, I'd like to see this and go out to it Yeah. Talk with the customer and see if we can find some way that they could use the service. Because that I and that's probably an outlier.

That's my thinking, but but that's why I wanted to bring it to your attention.

Yeah. Because you're you're gonna have some outlier I would I would want to work

with that customer to see what we could do. Because even they would probably want to have a defensible space program. If they're that far out, they might wanna have some items they wanna clean up.

Yeah. So

Just bring that up that we did

Same thing with multi waste. If they have a you know, that's a great program. Very popular in our other areas. So those things can can be used. So

Yeah. And getting back to that a little bit, you know, and concern, especially with these cabins that are in that particular area, like like Lori brought up, a lot of those roads are not plowed, especially during the wintertime. And how in the you can't even get out or even get into them areas, and it's basically because it's non county maintained. So there's there's some issues to that, you know, like Lori was talking about. These cabins sit back a long ways because I've been up to Tacoma. I know a couple friends of mine that own cabins up there, and they're having those kind of issues because, you know, especially during the winter months, it's hard for them to get in and out. That's why they close them down is what they do.

And we have to we obviously function on county maintained roads, and and to veer off of them creates well, in some cases, we do where the the resident will take care of it, and and we will charge an extra charge to retrieve that garbage for them. Yeah. But but generally speaking, yeah, it needs to be roadside. And, again, I would those in those circumstances where they're during the winter months, they're inaccessible. In the summer, they are accessible. And

Right.

And and the hope is that they would utilize the service much more so with all of these other programs included.

Yeah. Yeah. And and

sometimes we do a common collection area too at the bottom where the where the county maintained road meets the unimproved road. And we we actually go on some hand improved roads, by the way.

Yeah. In those cases, we just ask customers to mark their cans. But I'll put it on the service out on the service day and mark the cans so we can identify and and record them.

It's alright. Other questions? Okay. I still have, some issues that I just wanna bring up. There's a reference here, to 9O2.

There's several references to 9O2. I didn't have time to look up 9.02, but it has to do with wildlife getting into trash containers and making a mess. And it says here in this proposed policy that TTSD actually cleans that up and bills the customer however however you do that. How does this work with short term rentals where we have a very tight policy around, garbage and the the fines are a thousand dollars, and it can jeopardize your even being able to keep your permit if it happens on multiple occasions. So how does how do these two ordinances work together in a logical way?

Do do you want me to respond?

Or okay.

Yeah. Again, I'm sorry. So the consolidation of nine under nine point o two allows us to basically follow the steps under code enforcement. It allows any enforcement official to enforce any codes throughout the county, whether it be director Warren or building and planning or anybody who's enforcing codes for under the salt waste ordinance.

Yeah. But that's that's what I don't like. I mean, that's what we really tried to clean up with the vacation home rental ordinance, the one that applies here in the basin. There were EMD was getting reports from Clean Tahoe, and then environmental management was sending a letter, a settling, a $75 fine. I mean, it doesn't work.

Let me rephrase. We're trying to avoid exactly that under code enforcement. On consolidating under nine point o two allows code enforcement to to function as to enforce things like the solid waste ordinance under like this ordinance, but be code enforcement and and removing the job from e and d. That way, if someone's working with VHRs, they're able to, you know, work with one party and deal with one process. We wanna we wanna expand nine point o two consolidation under as many codes as we can because it allows code enforcement to everyone to follow one process under one hearing you know, one type of hearing officer, one type of letter, notification procedures.