El Dorado Solid Waste Advisory Committee - Regular Meeting

Yeah. It's

all. Because it works on nutrition.

So the next time we have to start looking at is the dollars. Okay.

Let's get started.

Great. Okay. So we'll call the order. There you go. Okay. 10:04. Okay. So we are

Let's get on Monday.

Have a four, first of

all. We do. Let's take attendance just ahead of time. Terry is not gonna be here. Terry Latro and Mike Churchill is not here, but everyone else is. Oh. So let's do attendance.

Okay. So we'll start here. Okay. Dixon, here. Don. Here. Laurel, here. Doug. Katie? Here. Sarah? Here. Diana. Here. Can I say it right? It's Diana. Diana.

It's okay. I have it on

my I know. That's good. I'm checking. That's okay. Okay. So Michael is not here.

Yep.

Terry's not here. Christopher?

Here.

Catherine? Here. And do we have any alternates here? Nope. Okay. Alrighty. So we will okay. On this, the remote meeting approvals, do we have those?

We don't. Our people are up at an authorized remote site. Everything's good to go.

Alright. Yeah. Pledge of allegiance to the flag?

Yeah. Let's do it.

Let's see here.

Alright. I got a good one. Alright.

It's So opportunities for members of the public and their argument.

Wait. I gotta check that.

Can't

Hang on. Hang on a sec. Yeah. We got

Well, if they can't do it online, don't they have to

be They absolutely can do it on person. Okay. We got Mark Moss, who's not a member of the public for the record. Zach Smith from Power Cycle's here. He's just listening in. We talked to him. Zach, do you wanna say anything, or are you good to go? I'll we just we know you're here. You don't have to comment if you don't want.

Hey. Yeah. I looked like I couldn't use my audio earlier, but now I can. So, yeah, just here to listen in and just kind of hear the latest updates in the county. And if there's any help that you need from me or any resources you need from me, just let me know.

Great. Thanks, Zach.

Thank you. Then leave it with that.

Yeah.

The option of the agenda, the approval of the consent calendar. So we have a consent calendar with two items. So can you comment on that, or do we want to approve?

Previous meeting minutes and Skype. Any comments on Southlake? You guys good?

No comments.

Alright.

And we'll go for the minutes. Okay.

Alright. Do the vote thing.

Okay. So let's go back and do our come here. Okay. Dixon. Yes. John. Yes. Laurel. Yes. Doug. Aye. Katie. Yes. Yira. Yes. Dina. Yes. I hope it's fine. Christopher.

Yes.

Catherine. Yes. Okay. Moving on.

12. Thanks, everyone. Alright. Let me pull up these waste type cycling tonnage reports real fast.

K. So we are on item three. Management department recommending committee five, receiving files of the current Elgarada disclosed in South Topo brand use waste recycle intended reports.

Just to preface, I continue to put these in a format that's kind of a long format that allows you to give some some graphs. So we

why when we have that straight line across, do we not have data, or we not

Are you referring to EDD's report here?

Keep going down.

Sorry. To interrupt. Going the wrong way. Green waste clean. Yeah. That would be the number would be zero. So that number has been zero five. Christopher, do you think you're gonna ever update in that category again?

Likely not. Go ahead. Because, essentially, we don't everything's coming, but all of our green waste is mixed in with the food waste now. Okay. So that's why you see it as the commercial food waste green waste. So all this stuff we're picking up curbside. Basically, everything is just identified as food waste, green waste.

Okay.

So then, essentially, we don't have any specific green waste. It's all

Okay. Yeah.

I can remove that category. I just kept it for additional

context. Yeah. Yeah.

It's not good.

That kinda that kinda caught my eye too because when when this went to again into effect, when they were collection of the organic, everything flipped. So we were doing we had green waste at the 2022 over the end of the year of '18 19,000 tons, and we only had 4,000 tons of food waste. Then when we started the program, those things just flipped around. The reason being because of the method that we're reducing. Really, method we're using on collecting is that now all the green waste is, for lack of a better term, is for the contaminating food waste.

So whereas we would go into Sacramento when we clean green waste, the compost comes at a much lower rate. Now because of the contamination, everything has been shifted over to organic foods.

Yeah. Correct.

And that kinda and in one way, that kinda defeats some of the purpose of of what the two regulations are for. The purpose of the organic wastes is to cut not necessarily to cut back on on taking on landfill space, but is is on cutting back on on on gas gases, greenhouse gases. So the two methodologies, landfill gases, are different from a landfill than they are from a compost. I mean, I guess the method, whether it's aroment or anaerobic, is is different between what we've been doing composting for clean waste and then the composting for the organics waste different than normal counters. So that that method is actually increasing.

What was the

Greenhouse gases, and it's also increasing the greenhouse gases on almost double the transportation cost of trucking.

My I don't I I don't I don't write the senate bills, but Zach might be able to touch on that. But is

my premise kinda correct as to why the program has changed?

This this has been a

towards more towards regulatory compliance rather than more environmental planning.

The the issue of having to backhaul organic waste to facilities that are far away has been an issue that's been brought up repeatedly with Cowhercycle. Know, Zach can obviously weigh in, but I'll just you know, I can speak for Power Cycle in the sense that they just need more facilities. Yeah. And their goal was to eventually have identify a shortage of facilities. Their goal was to have more facilities in the long run to the near metro regional areas. Like, we should have one for Almaden County and El Dorado County and the Eastern Sacramento County. There should be one here. There should be one in Placer County with the population there, but those facilities just have not been constructed.

Right. But we haven't had a problem with having enough places to take it to. So that may be a California state regulatory thing that they're doing. But from a practical and economic standpoint, we don't have any problem finding somebody's compost one way or the other on our organic risk at this point.

We got we got really lucky. No. We're

we're Yeah.

We're good. Alright. We're good on that.

Yeah. There's other counties that are are not in this good of situations. I get calls from other jurisdictions that are So one

of the numbers I think when we talk about what we're gonna need to look at is we're gonna need to start looking, I think, more specifically at the economics of this. And, like, one key number that kinda really sticks in my mind is that the big picture like, we have a big picture on what we've we've got on these numbers here as far as recovery at the facility and the pound per person per day. The next good number is what exactly is the the overall dollars per ton of all the waste that we generate, and then how is that broken down by the various disposal methods that we're using? And then start to track those things because economics is very important on this. Price keeps going up.

Those numbers are often reflected in rates. I mean, you kinda can see that there. If the rates go up, that means the cost of disposal is going up for a variety of materials. It's kinda, you know, it's like a it's like you're looking at the CPI. The CPI will fluctuate depending on inflation and the macroeconomy. Does that capture everything? Does the CPI capture everything? I don't know. Some people spent their whole careers right, arguing about that. But, you know, I mean, elder owned disposal and STR's rates are pretty reflective of trash disposal costs.

They could get a lot more strict, and the rates will go up. We could have been a lot more strict, and the rates could have gone a lot. So we'll kinda have to you know, I I wouldn't mind doing a little project where we look at the rates over time and kind of just just actually show that. I've never actually visualized that, you know, looking at the different jurisdictions and their rates, historical rates over time and seeing how they've increased could could run-in a little analysis against the diversion rates or anything and see what looks good. But the general trend I can say right off the bat is that we see we're seeing rates going up, and diversion rates are kinda holding. There's a lot of weird reasons for that. Yeah. I'm sorry.

Because when I look at the the supporting data, when we go through the rate increase, that supporting data, then we go on the financials. Typically, it's it's based on the CPI, and and that's automatic in the meter. And whatever they calculate the CPI, that's an automatic rate increase Right. To that. But then you'll also see, like, sometimes, a couple times where they've they've gone ahead and asked them beyond that for unforeseen reasons even though we saw these things coming and what have you.

So what happens is when when we ask for something beyond the CPI, the report that the consultant usually gives justifying the cost, you know, it it shows how much more they've spent for the year. And then based on the amount of how much their cost has gone up over the transportation, whatever, beyond the CPI, then they go ahead and they ask for more compensation to account for the the rising cost of managing all that material. Right. So And then we just kinda give it to them without I've never I haven't really seen a breakdown as to, well, how do they justify that they're getting the best bang

They do do that. They we do that.

I just haven't been able to say that.

So we do that. Pro. I mean, we we do

a lot of on that. We've spent all these all these years now on the on the waste amount of thing, and now

I can start looking.

I think this isn't the item on the here. I mean, it's not what we're supposed to be. I I mean, I think we should schedule that for another meeting Oh, sure. Sure. Discussion because, otherwise, we're not gonna get through to our agenda. So this we're just receiving file.

Yeah. That's just receiving file. I can just comment quickly on Don's point that we do an analysis with Crow, who's a contractor, and they look at those, quote, unforeseen consequences. Many of them in the last fifteen years have been really unforeseen. No one expected China to just be like, we're not taking recycles anymore. I don't think a lot of people saw the pandemic coming. You know, different administrations with wildly different policies on trash and economics. It has been a pretty rough go in the waste industry. And I think a lot of people underestimated California this California state level's activism with wage. They're abreast.

You know, we didn't really s b thirteen eighty three was passed in 2016, but, you know, it kinda we weren't sure for a long time if it was really even gonna happen because, you know, OEL and a couple of other internal organizations through roadblocks up. And so we just kinda work with what we have. But, yeah, there's always unforeseen consequences and costs, Those things one thing I was gonna argue is that the CPI did not take into account waste costs. That that it was just blindsided by them. There was a lot of changes structurally that happened. But those reports are available with the rate increases. So they're public information. They just go they don't go to this group. They go to. Yeah. That's what the

reason I brought them up because I can see all the background information other than some of it, like the coroll report. Sure. I I I don't see. But then It's basically that you had the data and then environmental management setting rate increases justified. So that's that's basically the environmental knowledge that I'm down. Sure. So just the whole thing on the on the green waste now, like, all of these landscapers and tree trimmers, I mean, there's, like, hundreds of them. They are now just that stuff is just all being mixed in with the food waste and going to the more expensive method rather than just a regular composting down a second. I don't

And so if if they bring it to us, then we have an we have we have we ship it, receive it as organics, which is all all combined. You know? Wow. And, you know, I mean, again, you get into the weeds on 138 S B 1383, but, you know, the commercial businesses, if they have an organics container, essentially, they get to put they have the option. They should be putting their food and their if they have a lot out front demo, know, putting it all back in. Disposal is more for sending those organics, but it also make the argument that it's all procured and brought back. So that's kind of the way s p thirteen eighty

three is written. Piece I was gonna But

it's supposed s p thirteen eighty three is supposed is written so that it's basically a full circle. Everything comes in and goes out and essentially comes back with procurement.

And it does kind of the

missing link that's different than traction landfill cost since that is this idea that it's a reusable product now. It's not just, oh, it's a landfill. It has it in life. It's gonna continue its life purpose. And when I read s three thirteen, I don't read it in a sense of this is for us to save money or be economical. It's doing the most environmentally effective thing, and and that's a toll, not not to save money or you

know what I mean? Like, when you read it,

it's really to what are the best environmental processes that are gonna happen for us? And it's and, you know, of course, it's written California statewide, which is hard for a lot of us to adapt to because we're rural areas and things like that. But working with Power Cycle to best adapt it to our county, I think, is

our biggest goal right now. Alright. Yeah.

But our goal is specifically stated to to maximize diversion, the most technological, mission wide, most cost effective. Right? So Yeah. Estimate. Those normally look

at those notes. So so let's come back to looking at and understanding this at a future meeting where it's on the agenda agenda. Okay. So

I'm gonna move on to STR's numbers. Hi, STR. Do you guys wanna comment on your numbers? I I have two versions of yours. I plug it into the the version like this to get historical data, and we also have the raw data that I shared as well. Do you guys have any comments on that, Catherine?

No. I don't.

Okay. Cool. Anybody anybody have any comments on that share data?

I think what we're seeing is a lower diversion. So Yeah. We are not doing the they they have a three CART system instead of people pulling things out the line, and their diversion has gone down. I think that's what this show.

And wild volatility swings seasonally up there. It's always cool to see this. Recycling center volatility. People don't recycle as much in the winter.

Interesting. Nothing Yeah. There. Yeah.

Always that does. Fascinating. Okay. Cool. Well, we'll move on. Okay. Receiving file.

Four of our management department recommending the committee receive a file between overriding disposal, STR, local reporting system reports. Do we have any comments on those?

No comments from me on the RDRS for EDD.

Catherine, do you have any comments on the STR one?

No. Okay.

Comments on you. Just the usual bio style and settings for trail holds as usual. Landfill's always in flux out there dealing with a variety of different issues.

Can I guess just one general question on the? Sure. The data that we're using is based you know, the good data is basically the throughput of the two facilities, which is what we can actually control. My question is when we send the and I've asked this before, but sometimes I I still get confused. When we send out our single stream out to our contractor, go ahead and separate them out as commodities, And then they have a recovery rate staying what's left over, maybe 10% or 12% or something.

Does that get allocated over the entire facility so, like, they they they know what we're generating, and then they apply a percentage to get back to us. And then does that number go through the same process as, like, an RDS that the person is doing when we send that stuff to a so called disposal facility? Do they then have to go back and the stuff that then they send from the land to the landfill based on what they've received and recovered, does that get applied back to our numbers, or are we really getting a really good benefit by just saying we're getting a 100% recycling because all of our single stream is is going to a recycler, but a 100% of it is not really being recycled. Some of them is going to landfill. Was that credited back to us and reflected in the EAR data for the the total landfill?

Like, they used to do, like, if a some a truck showed up at San Diego Landfill, and they gave one of our ZIP codes from our area. And then we always had, like, a discrepancy we had to address and will be changed or modified. That happened with with the other the panel stuff that comes out of the the site line.

So the RDRS, the this this is just a facility report that's built out of Power Cycle. So what's reflected on this is simply material leaving our facility where it's going.

Power cycle is able to publish essentially where we're able to get a diversion a per day and extractable diversion rate as we've talked about on the electronic annual report by them looking at the diversion rates of different endpoints. So I guess if if e d if we give say, I give 10 beer cans to EDD and they pass those 10 beer cans onto a golf facility. They have a 100% diversion rate. But 50 on average, about 50% of those cans kick the bucket and go into the landfill at the disposal underrate, I believe, will get, you know, we'll get the 50% as tons created credited to El Dorado County because we are in the generator. Those numbers aren't always perfect, and I think there are a lot of aggregate coverages, meaning that, like, certain facilities get certain averages.

So if if we send completely clean material to one facility and another county sends completely dirty material to one another county, we don't necessarily always get a 100%. To be super accurate, we'd have to be, like, crazy. Mhmm. It would be very strange. It would be like every truckload would be, like, segregated.

Every load would be segregated. It would be like, your cans are over here, and your cans are over here. So there's really there are serious structural limitations we have to determining exactly what amount of waste the county produces actually gets diverted. It only can you only kinda start to see it in, like, really large macro numbers, like, with this overall state diversion. And but even then, there's, like, really oddities too because stuff gets exported out of state, and then stuff gets imported into the state.

You know, they have trouble tracking the stuff even with hazmat. So it's, like, even harder with trash. That's one of the reasons I I like the PPT number. It's a little bit more accurate than that reflects. Just waste numbers go up per person.

We kinda start to see it. But, yeah, there's some interjurisdictional issues with those kinds of things. It's it would be easier if we had a plan. Like, all the EDD and STR, that part of TTSD waste went into our landfill, we would have really controlled numbers about how we could understand, okay, what actually is our real disposal problem here. But being that we have nothing but transfer stations, it kind of goes into the ether, and it kinda can become hard to tell what actually happens.

We do our best to try to track that and see what's going on. But there is a there is one kind of safeguard of that. The facilities that people EDD sends material to, they don't love landfill stuff. Right? So they have no incentive to just offload EDD's dirty waste, dirty recycling, because they're gonna be like, hey. We had to landfill a bunch of that, and that costs us a lot of money. So there is that kind of safeguard in the waste system that nobody wants to take anybody else's trash. Like, if EDD if you're allowed if you have a relationship with a vendor and you say, I'm gonna give you material, it's gonna be this way, and it's gonna be a discontamination rate. Your contamination rates increase, they're gonna get irritated.

Yeah. Working hard to get more. Right. Yeah. Exactly.

So that's kinda how the free market of waste is supposed to work. The problem is is that we don't there's a couple of structural problems that are really obvious. Number one is we don't attach disposal to purchase costs. Sometimes we do. But, you know, if I buy something that actually has a very high disposal cost, I'm not always always I'm not always paying for that upfront as the consumer. The ratepayers catch that. The other issue is that we don't have we live in a world of guns and butter. We don't have perfect facilities that can, like, magically sort all the materials into, like, exactly the waste streams and situations they're supposed to go in. Recycling isn't always economically profitable. The Styrofoam is the biggest one. Styrofoam is recyclable.

I am encouraged that because I know we've gone from plastics to paper. Yeah. I think that's helpful.

Yeah. And that's those are kind of structural macro changes that we pay attention to because that matters. Like, we're starting to see more paper products because plastic is not functionally recycled. And it winds up in the waste stream, it winds up in bags, and it jacks up the equipment and stuff. So, you know, we don't do we do like to dive into the data, but I often caution people with the data that it's just one tool for observing the overall big picture about what's happening.

Data driven folks could get into real trouble with this process because there's a lot of inaccuracy, and there's a lot of deception in the data. Even even on a sorry, Zach. Even on the power cycles end. Remember when I did that presentation the other time that it was, like, city of Malibu's baseline number, like, 40 tons per person or something like that, and then they're all of a sudden diverting they're meeting their diversion targets by going down to 30 or something, like, whereas we get pinged for having five. I think it's like, there there is deception about Okay. Even with people that are doing their that are doing it.

Their whole program is now they're concentrating on pounds per person per day. No. Pounds per person per day is what they're concentrating on. But the state goal is in percent aversion. So sooner or later, they're have to address it so the people in the field can really understand what it is. Rather than let's just keep probably saying when they're not after it, why are we spending so much effort on it?

Sure.

Alright. I'm gonna move this on because we need to talk about what we're doing in on five. Mhmm. On the update of the FDA thirteen eighty three implementation. So who just would go first on this?

We can. Elder County Incorporated. We just sent out another. We just sent out a thing today.

Pull me out social media to get your free compost. Yeah.

We were at the as we said, we were at the home and garden show. We gave away about a 150 plus recycling organics recycling pails with sample bags. They're really popular. You know, we have our little booth over there where we give away oil pans and all that kind of stuff, but the compost bins were pretty big hits. And people like the green and the gray equally.

And the little kitchen bin.

Yeah. The little kitchen countertop kitchen bins. So, yeah, those are really popular. So we're we have, like, 400 more. So we're just gonna keep giving them away at events and then giveaways. We're not we're not gonna do necessarily the lobby giveaway that we had this time. We're trying to target it a little bit better. But, yeah, we really that wouldn't do the belt. The Home and Garden show had predictable contamination. I I went there on Friday first couple hours and poked and I headed in the green waste bins, and right away, I found a Coke can a Coke bottle and a couple other things.

And we knew that was gonna happen, so I took photographs and kinda documented it and said you know, I talked to some of the the food vendors there about using food paper. Some of them wanted to and wanted to convert, but it's hard to convert a 100% of your stuff to food soil paper, like the mustard packet issue, let's say. You know, you have all this food soil paper. Everything's perfect until you have a mustard bag. And then it all goes in the organic bin Yeah. So is the mustard bag.

Yeah. And

that's contamination. So it's really all or nothing with these kinds of things. So, also, the trash can was open, but the organic bin was closed, obviously, for good reasons. Like, what do you do if, you know, you got a kid and got a hot dog? Like, you just it's easier to just let it go.

So Okay.

So, you know, those kinda, like, weird logistical things are are the key to solving these kinds of issues. So we're gonna have to work hard with our vendors and the facility operators or the event coordinators or whatever to kinda get it right. And I think eventually, in years down the line, we'll get it right. But right now, I don't wanna blow up anybody's event because they need to have compostable mustard packets. We're not there yet. And people after the pandemic, people really want the events back. So it's not like we're trying to, like, be like, no. Because you're not composting your you know, like, we need to tread carefully. People like these public events. They they need to keep happening, but it will add restrictions over time.

But, otherwise, yeah, that's what the county is doing. We're we're spending money. We we finished our grant, our OWR three grant. And

With MOUs with 10 schools. Yeah. There's 14 schools. To renew our contract with for another 15 schools for in person learning. And then, the other schools within the county, we can provide kind of, like, kits to that they can do it on their own,

at least help them move forward. So

So that's it from the county. How

about city of Fossil Road? Fossil Road. So we had

an event on April 13 where we were taking away compost compost site. We had throwbacks that we were giving away, which everybody loved those. And then we had some leftover Geovins, and we also gave some of those out. Love that. A lot of people were saying they didn't know about it. So, you know, social media is gonna be great to get the word out. We're working still on a compost cover for our compost.

Has permit issues, but we are able to look

at permit issues, so we're working through that. And then we're doing a little bit of enforcement with health of team EDB for some of our mainstream facility. Awesome.

South Lake Tahoe, would you like to go next?

Hi there, everybody. So our biggest news is that because Katie and Lily were largely funded by the Federal AmeriCorps program, they were abruptly fired last week or two weeks ago by the feds, their program attempted to find alternative funding and rehire them back on an hourly basis, but Katie and Lily decided to forgo that and move into their private sector. So we're lucky enough to see Katie take a position at STR to continue the work that she started. And Lily is in the community but working elsewhere, yet an adjacent type work. Yeah, Katie is gonna continue to touch base with schools and to kind of move into a more higher level position here at STR working with Catherine.

But they did largely get the middle school on board with food waste diversion and kind of solidified practices at the elementary schools, and kind of moving into more commercial side onboarding and enforcement in the coming year. That's kind of where we're at. Kathryn, did you want to add anything there?

I mean, I just would add our our biggest event recently was our Earth Day celebration. So we, through the STR booth, gave away countertop food waste buckets. Those also were very popular up here. I think we gave out over 80 at that event. And then also did food waste separation as, you know, and recycling.

Three stream separation at the event, which was actually pretty it was pretty successful. Just the last update I think, STR has just recently finalized subcontracts with a local nonprofit here called Tahoe Composts that's gonna be offering a subscription based residential food waste collection program. So we're excited about that.

Awesome. Just FYI, for context, Tahoe is currently exempt. Food waste mandatory food waste collection. Right? Curbside? So this is an option.

Yeah.

Thanks,

everyone. Okay. Back down the hill,

Cameron Park. Anything? Well, we have a new CSE manager. So All Randall, which came in different directions happening. Did we were you able to meet all the schools on the individual area there or the Summitter.

They've been contact with every single school. Every single school. Yeah. Mhmm. And

I can't say that they've all been responsive.

It's fine.

Yeah. But

I oddly, though, I I I've been in contact with the main manager, and that mentioned something. But, like, they're they seem like they're pretty busy with

a lot a lot of stuff, and

I can't they haven't even they haven't really gotten back

to me with it if they wanted to meet or get an update, which is strange.

But Yeah. I think Cameron Parks I'm a resident. Cameron Parks, you know, they they had they were leaderless for some time. Yeah. Maurice is coming over as the GM, and Mark Hornstra just came over as director of Parks. So they're trying to they got a lot of stuff to do.

Just like they're treading I feel like they're treading water kind of

a thing.

Yeah. They're trying to get it fixed. So I understand there's there's kinda some there's there's a lot of pieces to pick up. So

And do think there's some changeover on the school just from the ninety percent one? There's one other reason why they have a. Yeah. Changeover in staffing. So they're

once they get steady on their staffing, I'm hoping that they will sign on for this next big team school round because this isn't the last this is it. This is the last school year this will be offered. It's the last of the grant funding we have. They're on

their own after this. Yeah. And they're on

their own with the state.

Yeah. And I I must I don't know what else

I could do other I mean, because you're you've

you've done the both of the work with the schools. Yeah. I

I'm I'm in connection with a few of those schools because I have got kids. I take them there.

Yeah.

And then I have some of the schools have accounts with my business, so I deal with their janitorial staff Yeah. Frequently. But I'm not sure what what

I think that in this case now would be to let them know that this is over this is the last one time offer on it. And beyond that, we'll be enforced by power cycle, and environmental management will not be able to assist them.

Yeah. And they need to get a you could get their they need to get an ordinance and a franchise. Those are the two things that are kind of powerful.

Which is huge because counterpart could have had their own grant funding. But because they don't have an ordinance, they did not receive the power cycle grant funding.

Yeah. So getting getting someone to write that ordinance, even if it's just somebody with you know, it doesn't have to be a contractor. Someone who it's too bad because I live in County Park.

I'll I'll just quickly add, Mike, that we're we're helping with that currently. K. So they have they have what they need. I think that was just a matter of formality and. Yeah. We're gonna be able to push through. But Jim

and I are helping them with anything that they need help us moving forward.

Yeah. I can't write their ordinance for them, but I can I can ghostwrite it kinda and help them, like, get them through it, you know, and just talk about the issues I encountered? And I mean, I shared with them,

frankly, some of their peers documents Yeah. So that they could No.

You don't have to Mimi Don't have to reinvent the wheel. I added a bunch of stuff in our ordinance that were not only was helpful, but kind of provided a protection for the jurisdiction. What

are the basic requirements of the ordinance? It has to just

basically anytime you get state law, the local ordinance has to kinda emulate that, but also pass a smell test. Meaning, it's like kinda like you can you can write something very similar as long as it enforces all the core tenets of a law. There's some this gets into, like, legal stuff. You know? Like like, I wrote I wrote our ornaments a little bit different to determine, like you know, to define recyclable materials as economically. That created a protection Yeah. Element for us that was like, look. We're not gonna recycle materials that are, like, causing disruption, public health issues. Like, you know, those are not technically recyclable according to our jurisdiction. State law thinks it is.

You know, a bunch of people that get paid more than me can talk about that and argue about that if they want to. But, yeah, they just need an ordinance saying, yes. This is this is law. So the best place to start is to just go to someone else's and then go, okay. I like this. I don't like this. I like this. Cameron Park CSD has counsel, most likely, meaning to have somebody who's passed the bar over there, calling the shots on certain things even by contract. That person probably needs to take a look at it, and then it needs to be ratified or passed by their governance. So that's it. And then the franchise agreement, same thing. So you guys are helping Yeah. They can help you with franchise agreement. I can help with. That's where they need help. And

it's it's called Breathe. Yeah. Breathe, California. That's the that's the funding.

No. No. Our funding comes from Power Cycle.

Funding comes from the state.

Yes. Organization contracted.

Organization is a nonprofit that educates the children.

Yeah.

Okay. Yeah.

So we're contracting them to perform the service for us.

Yeah. Of the education portion? Yes. Yes. Because they're pros.

What about what what about any resources that the schools themselves need to, like, implement, like, say, containers

or

Yep. Signage and

That's what Breathe does.

That they do that as well. Yeah.

Provides all the

They're really a one stop shop.

The education, and it's not just education for students. It's education for the staff, the teachers, and then it's ongoing education as well. So they'll return to the schools, help them. And it's also building the connection with me. So now now that we're gonna have organics, so they're gonna be collecting organic. Just now we need to make sure that is on-site. There's a container there for that. So it it there's a lot of moving pieces to it, and they kinda you know, I felt guide all of that, but it's almost

And, essentially, this is available only the 2526 school year. Mhmm. That's

Yeah. Because there's no more money.

Have to get it. And not even the whole school year.

04/01/2026 is when our funding ends. So Yeah. We really haven't even get it at the beginning of this school year, so we're hoping to line up a lot of these

schools before Yeah. This school year.

This is the last shot because I don't know if you, you know, read the news. They're Deficit.

Buying their own containers. They're paying for whatever signings. They're hiring whatever consultant that they need to hire to teach or train or whatever. Right? Right.

They're all. Yeah.

And then they have to they don't get to deal with us. They get to deal with. Yeah. They're not as nice. They're not as they don't have.

Alright. We can move this on to our next one. You still have quite a bit here. A member six from the management department recommending the committee discuss conducting the twenty twenty five county integrated waste management plan and solid waste management plan updates.

Okay. Let me pull up these items. So I'll start with the first item, 25 of one thirteen a. This is just power cycle from Zach. Thanks, Zach. Telling us that we basically complied with CWIMP. You know, everything was good to go there. CWIMP is done. So I'm just

like, It's a silly name. It's a

silly, silly name. So, yeah, the CWIMP is done. So we're coming back to it in 2030. So that's it. So now the ball passes to Edswest ad hoc committee for the management plan update. K. So this is the draft we have. I'm gonna share the screen. Sorry,

So it's just kind of a disclaimer. I've been working on writing a draft, and we are meeting every other Friday for an hour on Zoom. And so what you're seeing is the latest. The committee didn't get a chance. It reflected our meeting, but, you know, was still a little rough. So we're there, but this is there were a couple of items. Just wanna make sure that Ed Zweck was with us on this. So if you want, we can go comments by page, and there's a few pages where I know that we'd like some additional discussion.

Yeah. Let's do it.

K. So are there any comments on page one other than my typos? I found them already.

That was pretty pretty straightforward.

This is basically just kind of laying it out, getting background of what's going on. So I there's so then page two, we are then looking at data that we have as far as the percent going to the birth and diversion rate. And we're basic we're just not seeing, for the most part, those gains which we would like to see on this. So the goal was a 75% diversion rate, and I think what we're finding on this is in this long plan, for the most part, we have implemented what we were to implement, but we're not yet seeing the diversion, which we need to see. So any comments on two?

If not, we'll go on to three. Here, we have information which we need to be adding in on the counts per person per day, which we don't have that information yet, But that would basically, this is explaining how it's been the 75% conversion. Right. There's a conversion for PPV, and we will then be reporting on where we are on that. One of the problems is that over the the day that takes eighteen months to get the data, and so we don't have it for all of this term. So we will be adding this in.

Right. It should be good.

Okay. Well, so I have some, but I don't have all of it. And you would said so if not

You have all of that?

Yeah. That I had, but I don't have

Oh, you're just gonna

put it in there?

Well, I did it earlier, I'm afraid. I hope it will help too. That's that's what I have readily. Okay. So then so on page four, we're talking about factors impacting diversion and, you know, that there have been some events, primarily COVID and the fires, and just also the organics legislation, which is coming into play.

So I did I'm kind of in the middle of this page, kind of looking deeply at what was in the plan because it seemed kind of crazy to me that we implemented all of these things, and yet we're not showing a bump for it. And so I looked back and, basically, before China, you know, the dinosaur where all of a sudden they're not taking our materials because they're so contaminated. And, also, then once we had to start sending them to Vault, we heard from them about our high rate of contamination. So, basically, what I think is that we had a it was still in sixty five percent. We were not at 65%.

There's a lot of garbage in there. So I think just to be honest about we probably never were as high when we started out this plan as the plan was saying because of the time frame, and I remember doing a presentation with the at that time where we were it's like, if in doubt, put it in the Procicline. And that's changed. Now if in doubt, put it in the is basically where we are and how that has changed. So I I did just you know, it it's a bit rough on this, but I think, really and I kinda did the math here on this that, basically, we were at about a 56% diversion, not a 65.

And so we have made some progress since then. Because when you look at all this and we went through and it's an attachment, which we gave you last time that we are still finalizing at this point, we pretty much we've implemented a lot of it. I mean, it's kinda like you've got through all it's like, yeah. We're we're still doing it. We've implemented it, but we just really haven't gotten that bump up yet.

And, certainly, if I may just add to that, we've we've implemented all of the low hanging fruit that are easy attainable and the things I think that are gonna

be easy to implement. Right? Yeah. Yeah. And maybe not cost less. So then there are strategies which have not been implemented in the plan. So this is kind of where we get to kind of we want your thinking in this. First one was the creating a Westlow JPA. And five years ago, ten years ago, whenever there was participating jurisdictions were asked if they would like to participate. And at that point, they said they were not interested.

So we had asked for you to go back, and this was your position to ask, is there an interest in this now? So do we know for Placerville? Is there an interest? No. No interest. Do we know for Cameron Park? No interest. Okay. Okay. Is expressive. Okay. Alright. So, just so I can confirm that. So, basically, it also didn't show those supportive it didn't include a And this was West Coast. West Coast.

Was there a comment on Southlake? No?

Okay. Sorry.

Just

yeah. Alright. Alright.

Okay. Alright. So in fact, because I rewrite it, and it was just West Slope on this. Okay. Then the there was a expanded mandatory residential collection ordinance that was projected to have a 3.1% diversion.

And our sense was the board of supervisors needs to say if they want to pursue this. This has not been done. To whatever No. That's gonna be an issue. So the you know, the plan is saying we could get 3.1% from that, but I think that is one instead of are going to implement that to say to them, this is what the report said, and it has not been done. This is something you wanna do. Is anybody involved with that? Does that make sense?

And the recommendation is But we're not The recommendation there'll have to be a recommendation. The recommendation will be the importance side of that. Recommendation is that EMD needs to make in that to the board. I

think for

If make recommendation that the board has to sign on, nothing's going to stop. It's gotta be the step that EMD has to write it before the board.

Well, I think we go first. This is for report from us. So Sure. Update that.

And then

then they can say to EMG

to follow-up. Right. Right. Right.

But with the dialysis board.

Yeah. Exactly.

But but we're just saying we looked at our plan, and this is what we're finding in them.

And to be truthful, I don't know

if the assumptions that they made in this report at three point one percent still are true or if they ever were true with that. It would be a realistic Yeah. Throughput if that actually wasn't, then we would be able to receive an additional 2% conversion.

It's hard to know. But but, I mean, we you know, the plan you know, they paid all this money for this plan. This is what plan said, and it wasn't done. But I think that that's one where they would need to say if they wanna do that. Then the other the next one was 2.14, and we haven't had discussion here, but so provide us information. And that was to prepare for possible elimination of residential yard waste burning on the West Slope. And that this strategy was not expected to increase diversion. So it said diversion was zero. And, basically, put information. I think that, you know, it was fine in 2012 to say, yes.

Don't do the burning. But at this point, when people can't get fire insurance to go and to say, you can't do burning, you need to, like, define who could who could. So if you had a flat parcel, you didn't have very much property, fine. Don't burn. But if you have a slope or you have acreage to be able to haul that material, personally, I mean, this person with five acres, we, you know, have an extra green waste part for our one acre in the front.

The the other four, it'd be almost impossible to get it there. So I you know, we have not talked about this before, but I just seemed that as far as what's realistic given what people are dealing with right now, just wondering your thoughts on that.

And if I could add thing that may be complicating this is the county ordinance about keeping your your I think within a 100 feet of

the structure. Vegetation management ordinance.

That would that would introduce additional waste that I don't think would be practical to to think about the third.

Uh-huh. Hey. I just wanted to reflect really quick on the fact that this document was not included in the agenda and only the ad hoc committee has has seen this before. So I don't

know. It was.

This this item is in the agenda. I just pulled it right off of it. It's this it's twenty five dash zero one one three b, the Solar Waste Management Plan draft.

I why am I

I'm looking at doesn't have this.

I was just Yeah.

That one

here. Might

But I pulled it off. Okay.

I I I pulled this off LEGISTR. This is this is this was on LEGISTR. If you're looking at a draft agenda are you looking at a draft agenda or a final agenda?

Maybe it's the draft.

The draft, most likely.

The draft agenda. You're

right. So the final agenda has this item. It came in kinda late. We're gonna talk about that later with deadlines, with submittal deadlines. But, yeah, the the agenda I sent out was a draft agenda, and then the final agenda had this because Dixon gave it to me, like, what, Thursday morning?

Yeah. Fair enough.

Alright. So sorry. The confusion. Back to Dixon's point about burning. Anybody have a problem with

that? Well,

this is

this is, like, one of good examples of of when we're tracking stuff. Looking at the percent diversion in a thousand per person per day that that we're we're gonna emphasize on now and what we've been tracking all along. With the issue of burning, when we look at the pounds per person per day, you know, earlier, we got 3.2 pounds per person per day in 2024. Sorry. That was.

So it was 64, and now it's down to 62. But when it was being burned when it's being burned, there is no diversion. So all that green waste that would be burned on the property never did and will not show up under the parts per of the pounds per person per day. So it's really not gonna affect the numbers really in any way at all. It only gets back to when we started talking about the percent diversion.

Right. When we did the last, you know, with the older numbers, when we went back and and we were basically tracking just from the very beginning, we were always just tracking what was landfilled and then using the population data for the who they are. So we were actually that's why it's so consistent that the pounds per person per day that we've been tracking since 8939 has been consistent. Yeah. But then we had that little glitch in there when when when we were starting to talk about, well, we need to meet the 50% diversion under s p September.

So everybody all of sudden was like, oh, man. We gotta have to come up with that number. And then that's when we looked at the past reports per day and and spent such a long time. But I think what we went ahead and did was then we were able to to determine with Cal EPA a 50% diversion based on, like, the last three or four years. And it wasn't necessarily just based on what I remember on pounds per person per day.

That's when we got into where we were able to go ahead and try to incorporate numbers to bring up to show what our diversion rate was so that we can show that we're above 50%. So that's when we started, like, saying, well, we had we have x number of tons that were burning that otherwise would have gone a landfill. So we were taking credit for that or, like, grass cycling. If we had thrown about thrown out all the grass that we cut on the Eldorado Hill Golf Course, then by saying we're doing grass cycling, we can take credit for that, but we're we're not even generating the first place. So I think that's part of what brought us up to the 50% diversion level was we started to be able to incorporate all of these these,

you know, really source reduction. They weren't really generation. So It's kinda cheating. I mean, if you think about it, it's like if you give if we do if we have green waste being created at people's properties, if they burn them, there's they don't hit the diversion stream at all, the number is zero. If they dispose of them and they get diverted, they don't get counted towards the PPD, and the PPD remain remains the same.

But if they go to the if they go into the diversion rate, they actually get credited because it's diverted material that otherwise would have gone into landfill. So it kinda pumps those numbers. So in theory, you could, as a jurisdiction, just be like, I'm gonna recycle a bunch of stuff that I know is recyclable, super clean, and just throw that into the waste stream. And then all of sudden, you have just, like, a really nice diversion rates. So that's why they shifted away from those diversion rates because you could hack them. You can essentially manipulate. PPD is a more truthful number about how much we're actually And I think

that's maybe why some of those cycling ones earlier. These early ones were higher Mhmm. Than they are now.

That's true.

If I heard you correctly, basically, you're saying with California's it gets pressures on principal space, and it seems a little egregious. Don't be the way to get burned. Yeah.

I don't think this is practical, and

I think what I wanted to ask the committee do do we agree that this is either an impractical, unattainable, and maybe not a food bowl anymore is to eliminate burning.

Well, and I think the the board would have to I mean, I think we would be seeing because that's so, Britt, it's it's our recommendation that, you know, if you were to do this, you would have to have a lot of qualifiers

Mhmm.

About which parcels, you know, would be excluded or included in this or, you know, does this make sense to do? I and I just think we're in a different environment now.

I So, theoretically, if someone wanted to have, like, large scale green waste removal, you'd have to call and get a pay in.

Yeah. We work we work pretty closely with a lot of the safe councils. Yeah. And most of the time with the fire safe councils, we do this organized community members and gather and say, you know, we we give them a dumpster at discounted rates because they're a fire safe council, and then they stage it in the community and bring everybody. But, you know, how many times can you do that in a year? If you scale that

to not to outlaw burning, that business would be a business if it's sold. Yeah. Right. That would be a lot of trucks, a lot of material. The burning really takes the edge off. The only person who doesn't like burning is car

health and area of service support. Yeah. Mean, I'm sensitive to that, but I just think, you know, for the public, I just sort of it seems unreasonable.

Yeah. Environmental management, we have no recommendation about that. We would not want people to stop burning unless there was data that suggested it was bad. So it's So

I didn't know it said it was residential. If you're in a in a suburban development, fine. You don't have to burn because you got your car and you get it. But if you're on a steep slope or you are have acreage, hauling your material out there is tough.

Is there like, would there be demand for containers if it wasn't, you know, logistically or economically difficult? Like, would people like, if there was some way to have a subsidized or low cost container, would anybody want that, or could could they is

that even feasible? Part of the issue with green waste is moving it around. Mhmm. So it's like, if I have a five acre parcel in Dixon Dixon's parcel, you know, if it's on the back four acre, how do I get it to the container without the site that can have truck access? We have enough trouble, you know, dealing with community collection sites and little private roads in this county getting trucks onto people's property. Right. Yeah. In a in

a large scale, I would I would agree with Tim. In large scale, what level point do you need equipment? Do you need to own equipment? You know, it's not as simple as just, you know, some whoppers And then so Okay. The trees and stuff like that.

I was just thinking I've seen, like like, temporary bins or temporary pods. So it's like a frame structure with, like, a really, like, a liner or some kind of poly liner of some kind. It's like a makeshift bin that's still sturdy enough to hold it, but it's not like a long term use thing.

Like, you use it, like, a four times.

Do encourage people to compost. And composting is possible for green waste. You don't have to burn it. You can compost it with certain management practices. If you're worried about contaminants going into the air, you do can offer composting. It's tricky. You have to have usually a water source to be able to keep the material wet. Yeah. It's helpful to add nitrogen in there Good waste.

But you

can also mulch it.

Yeah. Noted

them. That's probably that would probably be the Yeah. The lowest part. Yeah.

Environmental management always encourages other practices besides burning. Yeah. But we understand that that, you know, there's a certain amount of scale that make you for example, a classic situation is I have too much carbon. Like, I have too much plant material and woody material. I can't compost. It's not gonna break down. You know? Doesn't matter how many orange peels you throw. No. So it's it's like, in that situation, brain's recommended. Right? Right.

The other option is that the parasite councils do have a grant for a shipping program.

So you get a lot.

Right. We get a large. Instead. Yeah. Yeah.

So, yeah, I I I and and I saw in Camero Park, like, I've heard about it, seen about it. At one point, there was, like, a an actual piece of equipment on, like, some like, an actual shipping rig.

Mhmm. Yeah.

It was, like, brand new wax polish doesn't even look like it's ever been used because it probably wasn't ever it's like everyone's afraid to use it because it was new and expensive. It was that I don't know. It was that on it's that Elroy Hills Fire Department for years. Oh. And, like, nobody knows how to access it. Like, nobody knows how to, like, how do I

get that. You know? So if there is a program, we don't know how to That that may be a different program. It was. It was a

It's long time ago, but it was several

years ago. This one is they basically get a contractor, and they pay

for the contractor to come out

to your place. So usually, it's a community, you know, day that that they do.

It should know. Basically, have all your, you know, the bottoms that you have, like, trees, the thick bottom facing out. Yeah.

Yeah. Write all lined

all left and You get it.

Who does the fireside council? So if you go to Oh, the fireside council. They've got a grant program. They don't always it's not always funded. I think they tend to run out of money maybe at the end of their year. I'm not sure if this would be good, but you can go to the website, and you can find a. Yeah.

So are we comfortable with this? You'll probably see this again, but just wanted to update our intel, because it's not something we've ever discussed.

Yeah. There'll be a final version before you guys go to the board so you can take back some more.

Certainly. And, James, or just one of the things to kind of consider is just because this is a the burning issue is it's an air quality issue, and burning has no effect on on on the version numbers when you pass the person per day, but it's definitely generated. Might we wanna consider that rather than just tell the board to to look at it, maybe just pass on or suggest passing on this suggestion to the air quality management district so that if and when they decide that they need to do something as far as burning, that responsibility falls on them. They're they're they're very aware. This takes

us out of the complete Air Quality Air Quality is very aware of their responsibility juggling the cost and benefits of burning to the county. We're making rec I believe you guys are making a recommendation basically saying it's not gonna affect diversion. So that's the end of the line. So you guys say it's not affecting diversion rates. You did your job. The board and heir can have their own discussions about whether they determine if that's politically or environmentally appropriate. So, I mean, I think this recommendation is appropriate. You're you're basically saying, no. It's whacked at our job. We don't this isn't gonna affect your but air quality is they know that it's their responsibility. Their their their they they have those discussions with the foreigner team. So

moving on to the next one. This was the strategy 2.2 that means your is greater pay as you grow. Understanding was this is really this it's a state issue. I mean, we're not we don't have those kinds of regulations. So they said, you know, we could do a study and have a cost for that, but basically just recommending it's a state level strategy, not a county strategy. We don't manage that. Yeah. Does that seem reasonable? Perfect.

But we have we actually have the objective conversion. Of

Point two. Point two.

And so it's not rushed, but it's really not based on the state requirements. This is one of

the worst. No. Well, this is requirements are the pay that you throw. So it's like if you buy something, you're paying Oh,

I'm sorry. I'm thinking the pay as a throw was was a program that that we implemented to go through the the three quart system in the smaller in the smaller garbage. Yeah. Yeah. Recycle more so you would could use a smaller garbage. Okay. I'm saying.

Okay. So moving on to 3.2. This was to develop a West Slope Eco Park. So this was the most expensive strategy and strategy that was expected to do the most.

I know. You're thinking.

This was a 7% diversion at 24 to $39,000,000.

And that's $39,000,000.2012. Right? Double.

That's Doug? So I don't

know that there was ever a serious look at this. I mean, at least not that Ed's what I've heard about. It's expensive. But at the same time, kind of I think what we're seeing is that having the lack of sorting at a facility is really negatively impacting our diversion rate because people don't know where to put things. And if they put it in the wrong place at their house or their business, it goes all the way through in the wrong place.

And so I that's kind of what I've come to, and we're discussing at our meetings that when we have more sorting, and we're seeing just recently, I think, with South Tahoe Rec is that their numbers have come down quite a bit, but because they were mandated to go to a three park where people are putting things in and they're not doing the pictures pulling out.

I'll just comment from management's perspective on 3.2 that not only would that cost obviously be significantly more, but any kind of eco park worth the on the West Slope would be a regional thing. Even if it was founded in El Dorado County, there's no way the ratepayers would absorb massive costs here. It would have to be it would have to be a a regional thing. It would have to be absorbed this cost would have to be absorbed by ratepayers Folsom, Pomona County, Eastern Sacramento County, even Placer to to be able to be fiscally even possible.

And that

and that one was written kind of as a contingent to building apartment at the West Slope JPA. Yeah. If if we went ahead and opened that one, then the next logical step was to to see if people outside the county wanted to join and then expand and Yeah. The West Slope JPA. So it wouldn't have

It's it's theoretically possible. There's actually a lot of land out in the Western, you know, in Alderman Hills down by Latrobe and stuff at this site as could have, but it would require a lot of road upgrades. There would be more traffic on Highway 16. But so I've never thrown out the idea. Definitely. And it would yeah. Con, actually, good point. It would probably require the. Yeah.

So this may be another one. I mean, I think just to have that awareness. So the strategy that was supposed to do the most, we're not doing. So

Yeah.

You know, we were looking at that time. It was a 10% more improvement, which wasn't it's really more than that. But the biggest thing would have been to do this eco part, and we don't have the eco part.

Yeah.

And, therefore, that's one of the reasons why we haven't made these. What's an eco part?

It's it's basically this. It's like a solid waste paradise. Or, like, everything gets sorted perfectly. I mean, think of the Murph on. It would be like, you know, everyone it would take be a bunch of regional facilities coming into the same place. It would have education centers. It would be an attraction in, like, Sacramento. Like, you would have schools from the city coming up and doing tours up there and stuff. It would be an eco park, like an actual, like, an actual public facility where the public had access to and stuff. I know. It sounds silly. It's not a crazy idea. I mean, they have pawn.

Yeah. Smelliest smelling is actually

I mean, they've they've pulled this off in certain places. I mean, the Rancho has that, like, safety bill place where they do, like, safety training, and there's, like they do kids tours there. Think a zoo is kinda like a zoo itself. It's like it's like, you know, there's conservation. There's education. There's actual work being done. It's not it's not crazy. It's just really expensive. I mean, realistically, I've actually thought about this that, you know, if if you really wanted to get this going, it would need to it would take venture. You would need venture capital. You would need people that were like, alright. Or this is gonna be a public private partnership, I'm and gonna make a lot of money off this. That way, I can fund $50,000,000.

So I think just to say I mean, I think the board of supervisors should be aware of this was the big ticket item that we do it, and it's expensive. And, you know, if they decided that, okay. Let's pursue it. You know, they can, but I think just for them to have that awareness. Yeah. This was our big ticket item, which we didn't do.

Okay. Amusement park. We had a recycle material.

That's right. Not scary at all.

Strategy 3.3 was to reopen union my plan. Mhmm. My bill open up and bill. It's just. Not

terribly contaminated. It's not practical.

There's road issue. Redo the road. I could go on about this for how worse Yeah. It's not gonna happen.

And they also didn't show an increase in diversion from it. Yeah. So it's like so, anyway, basically, just saying, not gonna

work. No.

And we need to fully back on 3.5 to develop the small volume rural transfer stations. I remember when this was first approved, and there was a lot of effort trying to get people to wanna do this, and they all said, no. This was back

in 2008.

Yeah. Yeah.

I think it

was way back.

Way back. And they're like, no. I do. So they don't want it they don't want it.

Yeah. So No. There were place I remember they were because I was on that committee back then, and so it's the hundreds there. Yeah. You publicly hated it. Yes. They said everything was going every place they wanted to put something was gonna cause a traffic jam or it was gonna smell terrible or I mean, there were

some They need to scaffolded. There's Sure. Issues, dump illegal dumping issues. Yeah. So we we gave

it about bodies. Yeah. There are two dumps.

No. Not evil. People don't want Okay. So then we were looking here at the most impactful strategies, and that would basically be the the modernized transfer station to a recovery facility by a water disposal. We're sure we want some text from you on that.

Yeah.

And then the second strategy is initiation of s t thirteen eighty three, and Catherine's gonna provide some text on that.

Thanks, Catherine.

Does this make sense? Is these are the two big things in the last five years that we've done? Yeah. Anything else?

So that

covers it. Okay. Okay. So then we had the recommendations for the next five years. As you can see, this is a little bit ripped, but we have ideas here.

We did not think that the county should do another expensive contract with consulting firm, but we did think that having a swap report every five years would make sense. So we also think to this is like we had all of these strategies, and it's like a more focused here's the things that we think are gonna move us in the next five years and to have strong measurement system and targets for that. So we're working on developing that. So and then we just had basically, we're sort of still developing text on this. But I think a big was this idea that diversion rates have been higher when we have more sorting by people who know what they're doing.

So possibilities, implement a little little data tracking system, do a waste stream characterization to understand materials that are in the wrong place, public education about materials. So it needs to be easy. We need to increase publicly because they don't know. I mean, I get these questions all the time about, okay. I have this thing.

Where does this one go? So that needs some improvement there and then also some technology. And then the board of supervisors would have some next steps. We would have two attachments and a table showing the status of each strategy and then So data.

Scroll back up a ton. Sorry.

Any comments on this? Because we're this would come from Ed's Web.

We did look at those numbers comparing anticipated and expect. Okay. I mean, it was just really just really quick. I'm not interested in that. Initially, when you looked at the action plan, you could see it in the schedule and then the perceptive version and anticipation. So we're working off of that schedule. Initially, they they chose 42 strategies that were worth looking at. Right? So from those then they went ahead and they paired those down to concentrate on those that were producing an effective return on investment. So anything that had that showed that it it would probably divert 10 tons per thousand dollars invested.

Those were the ones that actually we picked and were put on the schedule. So it turned out that there were really 15 strategies that had perceived diversion of. So it was 15. We implemented all 15 of those. And assuming we had a 100% effectiveness on that, we could have expected 7.6% on diversion based on on those infrastructure and program strategies.

And then there was another just on the infrastructure itself, there were the three big ones, which were basically modernization of the earth, and then there were two others on there. The West Slope, and then, like, a smaller modification from there. So for the big infrastructure, we could have expected a 6.9% increase in the. So what they were saying initially was that if we implemented all of those 42, they were projecting that we could bring our our earning rate up at about 77%. What what we're showing here based on on the ones that we picked, we could've brought it up.

We could bring it up to about 14 and a half percent based on the 65% is what they used for all the calculations with all of the program development back in 2010, so they were starting with the 65% conversion rate. That's our base. Yeah. And that was based on the part pounds per person per day conversion. So just looking at what we would have hoped to have seen was another 14 maybe on 65%.

And then it's just explaining the numbers that we have now. It's just using this a consistent measurement system that we choose from the very beginning and then recognizing that there were all of these things that a lot of it is anecdotal, but a lot of it is just good professional judgment. And that's best we can do.

Mhmm. So so the 14% to seven through to the 7% from the equal part?

Don, your No. That was taken out. Your 14 number is just the the strategy.

Adding adding the 15 strategies together? Yeah. Yeah.

The 12 that we've had that we we chose that had

And that brings us up from 65 to 79. Yeah. Yes. So if we should have 79% diversion rate by implementing the 15 strategies that we had,

and that's assuming that, you know, using the same way we calculated numbers. We

need on Friday because I think patients sort through this.

Oh, sure. Sure. This is indefinite. I'm just since you don't get a chance to meet, they only have

two minutes to talk about it.

No. It's fine. I I would I would encourage the ad hoc committee to dive into whether that, you know again, looking at implementing those 15 strategies. If you did implement those 15 strategies, was a 14% erosion rate realistic even when the consultant says it was?

Yeah. Alright. I I I concerns. How much is that? Catherine, on b right there where it says do waste waste stream characterization. We already do those. Yeah. Cool. So maybe we say continue to do those. Or but but we do waste stream characterizations currently, and I can gather some data points for you guys too on that.

Okay. When I send you. Okay.

Yeah. I think we're gonna be making that information request from you and Please. Yeah.

Just to

I would

I would specify along for service point. I would specify more in like, more details in this category and then element a, a local tracking system. That just needs to be more defined, whether that is gonna impact staff time, staff costs, who's gonna do it, what kind of data you're expecting, those kinds of things. Yeah.

And this isn't Yeah. All developed yet. As you can see, Texas should be developed in this section. Yeah. So it's

It's a it's a it's a good go. It's getting there.

Thank you for your time. May I

have my name?

I have a question on seed.

You bet, sir.

Just a question about increased public education. I had a bunch of neighbors come to me the other day, and they asked someone someone had told them not to put their recycled material in plastic bags. They were told not to

do that.

Yeah. And they were told they were asking, you know, is that real? And I said, oh, yeah. It certainly is. Mhmm. And, well, a lot of the people in Eldorado Chad Kevin Chad is involved in this subject a lot. Yeah. And and some of them came back with, well, hell, all the soil, all the trash. Mhmm. You know, they they'll probably if I can't put it in bags, it's gonna make my my black my yellow top can all smelly and awful and horrible. Public education absolutely needs to be done. I mean, these people after all this time, and this was several neighbors, didn't know that they couldn't use bags. I got red tag for it several years ago. Well

Educated.

Yeah. But we I can't I can't Stress enough. Stress enough. Yeah. That's a public point out

because we do a lot of reeducation. Mhmm. And that could just be something we add into the

Which is that one, I guess, is a big Yeah. Eminent.

Well, I'm hopeful to hear that kind of

feedback because those little pieces, you know, like, when we're especially when we're making a diagram with all these pictures. Yeah. Tell me the stuff that's the top stuff needs to be in those pictures. You know? Yeah. Well, like

moving target, and I think it will constantly have to reinvent how we educate people, particularly with the website we talked about, being a little bit more robust. But this isn't pointing fingers. This is just yeah.

No. Yeah. Yeah. It's

Yeah. It's

tough tough having having a a little. Little. Yeah.

So Yeah. Well and you're now supposed to put all of your garbage is supposed to be bagged. So then I ran into people saying, well, put my recycling also bag because I was told bag. Uh-huh. It's like, no. That was that. Can you bag? This can you don't. But, you know, people are busy, and they're doing Yeah.

Can choose if you want a bag or not, but it has to a

special bag. It's like they they're they don't digest well the change. Okay. Alright. Well, thank you for your feedback on this.

Awesome. Sounds like any other feedback on this document?

Didn't give Sarah much of a chance or different of a chance. So

Okay. Cool. Thank you.

So no comments? I mean, they're on the committee also.

The the committee does not have to take action at this point on this item. Taking action. We should continue to continue to add it as a line item. Yes. Needs be done before the 2015, though. So you only got three more meetings to to green light it.

Yeah. Whatever you guys need, like, specifics, email.

Or Yeah. Consider that you need a six week notification ahead of time to do the board of supervisors presentation. So this should be done by so you guys should be have a final version ready to present by the September.

Yeah. We'll have it done.

Alright. Ed Swipe survey. So, Dixon, you created this item. So is your shelf. From

several people just that it would be helpful to just get some feedback. We've been meeting for a long time. And so just sort of a few questions, open ended to be kept confidential, but just to have some feedback on how we're doing and how we could make the time that we spend together working on this most productive. So I could I mean, you could send them to me. First of all, I guess you'd have to say, do you wanna do it? And then if so, it's like, what would the logistics be for doing it?

So this is tricky. It's kind of an internal matter. So, Dixon, you could you could solicit this from EDSWAC members and accept it for your personal use. I think if you wanted to, like, you know, extrapolate this data and present it to EdSwack, I think it would be best to probably just call a vote to say we're gonna do this or not. You can make it mandatory or not, but it's really a tremendous discretion. On the safe side, I usually towards doing motions, this kind of stuff.

Yeah. I think the motion would probably be better. Yeah. But discussion. But Is

that is it just the two questions there?

I have no questions. So, basically, it's four questions in and other comments.

What is the most beneficial part of the VEDSWAG? What is the worst least beneficial part of VEDSWAG? Could we do more to increase the operation value of VEDSWAC, or could we do less? Other comments?

There's some sort of issue or something that not that you think that

NTG I I just heard from a couple of people that it would be just good to look at how we're doing. And I've been I you know, we only meet for a limited amount of time every two months. So if we could make our time more productive, that'd be beneficial. So that's where it's pretty open ended, and, basically, I would just summarize and not nothing would be attributed to anybody. Confidential in terms of comments. So then we would just kind of be looking at overall what we're hearing. So you just see it sort of a summary where it would be attributable. You couldn't attribute anything to anybody.

My first thought when I saw this was to see if this was cc'd to Elon Musk. Tell me what you did the last five weeks or

something. What? Organization development.

I had.

Okay. Alright. So I think first we would have to say we'll all be doing it. So if you take a motion to do this or not orgize, there's not a motion.

A motion that that we take these five questions under consideration as a committee.

Okay. So under consideration or that we would respond to them?

No. I think the committee should take another consideration, and I move that we go through the survey. Okay.

Okay. Alright. Okay. Give me a second. Alright.

You second it.

Okay. So we are You send it as a mail to everybody? Yeah. I'll do that. Does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. And if you

wanna be completely confident, so we could set up a survey monkey. But if you feel comfortable with Dixon and Molly.

Okay. Well, if you want it.

No. I'm I'm just

It's a

good way to do it.

Yeah. Actually, we'll compile it for you. Okay. Can do it.

Sure. SurveyMonkey. Okay. You wanna help with that? Sure. He's my tech man. It's not

a very high volume.

Yeah. Never done it. Voice vote.

I have done them, but I don't have the account, but I'm not Oh. Not the same associations. Okay. So Dixon, yes. Don. Yes. Laurel. Yes. Doug. Hi. Katie?

Yes.

Sarah? Yes. Tina? Yes. Michael? Yep. Christopher? Yes. Catherine? Yes. Alright. K. So we'll Cool. Once we figure this out, we'll send you a survey. Think we'll figure it out.

Okay.

Okay.

Final item.

Final item.

Item. Okay. Let me give you some background. Sorry. There's no attachment here. There's nothing really to attach. Yeah. So, basically, I had a system where I was posting our drafts annually ahead of time. That way, you can see and go, like, on the November Headswack meeting. You're like, hey. What are we doing in November? Like, I thought it was, like, really transparent. Everyone seemed to be digging it. Everything was put on Legistar. As I got files, I would update the draft agenda.

You know? So, basically, everyone would see it would always stipulate draft. Like, meaning draft basically means subject to change. But, ultimately, people were getting able to view stuff way earlier because, you know, if if you guys sent me your waste recycling tonnage reports last week, I'd throw them up on the draft in last week and stuff. I was I had a discussion with the clerk of the board. They didn't like that. So they basically said no drafts on legislatures. So and my heart kinda sank a little bit, and I was like, that stinks because that was a really good system. I thought it was really transparent. They claimed that it was transparent to not have the drafts on there. I don't know why. Okay? I'm not gonna get in an argument with them about it. There are shock collars on this kind of stuff. So I said, okay.

So what do we have to do? We have to go back to circulating the draft speed. So this is what already had some confusion. People using the draft agenda even though the final agenda is posted on the site. So what we need to so the only legal stipulation under the Brown Act is that the final agenda has to be posted seventy two hours before the actual meeting takes place, which is Friday at 10AM. That's our actual legal deadline that everything has to be submitted. Any other deadline is created by a committee. So for example, I can't walk into the board of supervisors, like, seventy two hours before their meeting and be like, I wanna put an agenda item. Because, like, they don't have that system. They have legal counsel go over everything.

They have clerk go over everything. So they have their own deadlines that are way longer than seventy two hours to get agenda item. So EDSWAC can do that too. You guys can set deadlines for submission or submittal of documentation. So you can say, look.

One week before EDSWAC, all agenda items and submissions must be in. Now it's give and take because the earlier you set it, the older your data become you know, your items become, and they become out of date or it's it's harder and you can't get stuff in in its time. But the earlier the submission deadline, the sooner I can post the final agenda and get and everyone looks at the same thing. Right? So if I wanted to review the EDSWAC final agenda on the Wednesday before because I have a weekend, and I don't wanna spend anything on EDSWAC, I need the submission deadline that's earlier than Friday.

So I'm I'm I'm recommending to the committee that they discuss the idea of a submittal deadline that's potentially beyond seventy two hours. If there is no if there is no agreement, the submittal deadline will be seventy two hours. But you will not see a final agenda before seventy two hours because people always wanna turn in stuff the last minute. Sometimes you have to. If you wanna create a submittal deadline that's before that, you'll see a final agenda on Letastar at that date, but it might not capture everything or put pressure on people that do reports. So discuss amongst yourselves. Question. Yes.

If we posted a final agenda on on, say, the Tuesday or Wednesday before our meeting and something came up, not even an emergency, if we post a final, are we is that in concrete? In other words

So I can do something called amendment. Mhmm. It's basically saying, like, oops. It's like an oops and stuff. I have to

Emergency business comes up or something?

It's it's a pain. I have to go in there. I have to basically submit a new attachment, create a new item, and then keep the old item, but kinda, like, scratch it out and say, like, this was changed at the last minute. I have to write a justification. It's absolutely totally reasonable with emergency stuff, but I don't wanna do it because I had you know, somebody didn't get the report on On

a regular basis. Yeah. Understood. Yes.

How long does it take from the deadline to when you receive insurance? So you've got the seventy two hour and a hour. Right. I mean, just because often people get them, and it does mean you're reviewing your.

Yeah. So I get materials flowing in a variety of times. You know? Some people get them to me early. I send out reminder emails, like, before. I have, like, structured reminder emails that I send to, like, Catherine and Christopher and stuff like that to get their reporting in. I send out I try to send out some that's gonna be integrated into it. If you guys choose a week before deadline, I'm gonna have structured reminder emails that say a week before the submittal deadline, and then the submittal deadline has passed. The agenda has been posted, those kinds of things. So I don't think it's gonna be a problem to notify HeadSwack members. But it's

But but, I mean, just in terms of what's that timeline. So if you did everything at 10AM on Thursday, when do we get?

If I upload it to, and it's visible to the public within minutes.

Okay. So, yeah, I think at least a day earlier. I mean, go farther. I mean and we we're gonna have something to do with, you know, which is a heavier lift for us. But that's a one time. I mean, we're doing that for five or years before that comes out.

The thing is is that, again, if you set it if you set a submittal deadline on the Thursday before meeting, or this would be seventy six ninety six hours before the meeting. That would be within the specs of the Brown Act. It would be legal. But, you know, people coming to NSWAC on Monday, there would not they would not wanna be like, oh, I didn't have time to read this. It's like, we want people to come into this meeting prepared to see the material, but it's kind of a balance. Like, we could set it a month before, but that would be crazy. Like, that would be we would we would not capture the most up to date data.

Tim, are you asking would you like to have it on Wednesday or Tuesday? What's your feeling?

I think it's the interest of the committee and the interest of of, what's it called, transparency and to prepare people for the material. I would like it at least Wednesday, probably closer. I honestly, I would really like a week because I think that you should just have an agenda open for a week and but that's a little early. I don't know. It's somewhere between Monday at ten, which is a week, and Thursday at ten, which would be ninety six hours. I I think seventy two is pushing it because you don't you don't I don't want people to review stuff on a weekend. Like, you guys shouldn't have

to do that. Like, you

should just be able to review it during the week and then go to your meeting next week and have a so it it's really Ed Swag's decision. I work within the scope of the product, which means that I I will publish it Friday at ten.

So I think Chris and Catherine are Yeah. Regularly get me when

You guys gotta weigh in on the network. It's it's really up to Catherine. Obviously, you know, it's if you guys don't feel comfortable getting the data in that early, again, I send out reminder emails, but it's it's a balance between what they're comfortable with, what I'm comfortable with.

Thanks. So

But do in mind that you won't sorry, Katherine. Go ahead.

I was just gonna suggest, you know, maybe we set Monday at ten as the deadline for the submittals. And then

yeah. That's what I'm One

week before?

Yeah.

Okay. So that's STR's recommendation. It it's again, I'm not it's just a balancing act.

Mondays are often holidays that I

recommend going on Tuesday. Tuesday at ten? So six days before? Mhmm. Six calendar days before?

Yeah. That's a good point. Sure.

Yeah. That I I I

mean, we're we're good with that. You know? I think hopefully,

we get all the the information from If if you don't make it, you don't make it. Right. And then we kinda can say, okay. If someone's not making it repeatedly, then the deadline needs to be changed. Yeah. So it's just for those things. Like, the board deals with that too. They they wanna get items on the board, but they they have pretty stringent strict submission guidelines, submittal guidelines that people get. Most of the time, we can. We get everything done. So six days is the recommendation I'm hearing from Doug, Catherine, Christopher, anybody else?

Yeah. It's not an action item. So

I'm sorry. No. I I would I would definitely make this a vote because it's an internal policy. And, frankly, in the long run, if it works, I would put it in the bylaws.

Is it an issue to say because the the item says to discuss. So is that an issue? That's not a Brown Act issue. I mean, I know better Sorry. You're not saying it's a decision.

If you guys are making a decision on submittal deadlines that affects everybody in the committee, I would definitely make an I wasn't recommending a motion because I wasn't deter I wouldn't I wasn't sure if the motion should be. I wasn't proposing a timeline that's really up to heads. So discuss if you guys come out of the discussion with a motion, sure. That's fine.

If you wanna make a motion.

If recall if I recall, I think our bylaws I know it had the the seventy two hour requirement, but I think we had something in there also about in order to give us time. I I think there was, like, five days or something.

I don't something in the bylaw that

we addressed it that we hadn't been followed. As far

as I'm concerned, that's not in the bylaw. I don't see that anymore.

I don't have I I can give you an for sure. Thought I hadn't done that.

My last name is. Oh.

But, I mean, yeah, it can be coded into the bylaws, whatever you choose. I would say

We're up for review. You understand it myself. Whatever we want to put it in the revision.

Do we have a motion on this? Because we can change the

bylaws, please. I'll make a motion for the deadline for Tuesday before the meeting.

I'll second. Okay. We're gonna go through the list again. Name right and who joined today. Okay. Dixon. Yes. Dawn. Yes. Pearl. Yes. Doug. Hi. Julie. Katie.

Yep.

Sarah. Yes. Tina? Yes. Michael? Yes. Christopher? Yes. Yes.

Very cool. Thanks. Okay. Tuesday at ten.

Yeah. It's nice to buy

seventy two hours, but we also said that it's too practical, but I know it's it's less than seventy two hours.

Yeah. So flexibility thing. The brown accents

puts