[0:00] Okay, it's 9:00 a.m. I'm going to call to order the uh August 11th study

[0:06] sessions of the custom family districts and do a roll call for us.

[0:11] » Thank you. Dr. Cheyenne Wright >> here,

[0:14] » director Nicole Welshshire, Secretary Arthur Perry, Vice President Robert Uten

[0:19] » here, >> President Michael Schaefer

[0:21] » here. >> Thank you.

[0:22] » U public comments. This is the time for

[0:27] those of you in the audience who like uh items that are subject matter

[0:32] jurisdiction and are not listed on the agenda. We have no one we have any

[0:38] virtual public comments. >> No, sir.

[0:42] » Okay. Items of study. Uh Scott, could I please add our committee record?

[0:46] » Yes. Thank you, Mr. President. Marissa for writing the given report.

[0:50] » Good morning, president and board. The district's agreement with CRNR includes

[0:55] liquidated damages provisions. Um, and this is a penalty that may be assessed

[1:00] for failure to meet certain administrative or operational standards.

[1:05] The solid waste ad hoc committee met twice to review and discuss the

[1:09] liquidity damages provisions. The proposed revisions are outlined in the

[1:13] staff report and the attached redline exhibit provides details um of the

[1:18] proposed changes. Overall, the revisions are intended to improve accountability,

[1:23] clarify expectations, and better align the provisions with customer service

[1:27] priorities. The committee generally supported the overall direction of the

[1:32] revisions and did provide clarification on a few specific items. The committee

[1:37] also emphasized that penalties should not be issued for circumstances outside

[1:41] of CRR's control. Staff and CRR are continuing to finalize the performance

[1:47] thresholds for roll out and valet service large item OHW and Christmas

[1:53] tree collection. So you'll see on the red line there's a few um kind of lying

[1:57] areas. Those numbers will be filled in once we finalize those.

[2:02] Today staff is looking for more direction and feedback and direction. Um

[2:06] following that direction, the final revisions will be incorporated into the

[2:11] bond exhibit. Um, it will be reviewed by district council and then it will come

[2:15] back to the board for consideration and approval. This concludes my presentation

[2:20] and I'm available to provide more detail if the board has any questions.

[2:30] » Yes.

[2:34] » I thought we had good discussion on it. Yeah, I kind of incorporated some of the

[2:38] discussion points that we have with the committee into the in the staff report.

[2:42] some things that the committee asked us to kind of clarify um or make sure that

[2:46] we were addressing certain things in a way that was fair to both our customers

[2:50] and DC on our >> the uh one of the things that I've

[2:55] always been concerned about is the collection reliability and I think

[3:00] they've done some really good things about getting the large item um

[3:06] take large item is the one I hear about most from my neighbors and I think CR is

[3:11] going to really good job of narrowing that down. It's funny. All these shares

[3:18] are big on this board and with the large item. I' I've used it. My neighbors have

[3:23] used it. Um trucks come around usually earlier than

[3:29] the than the regular pickup. But when the trucks come around, there's rarely

[3:35] anything left, you know, from from the resin. I'm sure you guys.

[3:41] But overall, I think we have a pretty good

[3:45] meeting with with with that. I guess we I'd like to hear from Julie

[3:51] on what she has to say. This is the time for your vote.

[3:56] » Well, me I g to you.

[4:01] » I have questions too if after it's totally fine. Do you want to

[4:07] say >> us up here first? Okay. I guess I

[4:10] shouldn't have further my senior colleague.

[4:15] » I I think what he means is the older old older more mature person.

[4:20] » No. No doubt. No doubt. >> Um I thought the meeting was good. you

[4:25] know, I had from the meeting I learned um how the

[4:31] process came about for so-called liquidated damages, which as a matter of

[4:38] fact, we changed the name of that in the discussion.

[4:42] » We we did discuss change it. We haven't officially yet. We just want to check

[4:45] with legal counsel just to make sure there's no implications with changing it

[4:48] from liquidated damages to something else. But that that is one of the

[4:52] discussion points. And then then there were a number of items and I think staff

[4:56] highlighted most of them in in the staff report that

[5:02] since since the um since that policy was developed for

[5:08] performance objectives or duplicated damages or whatever you want to call it.

[5:13] Um it came from various places and there

[5:18] were probably six or seven items that needed clarification. A lot of them

[5:23] around President Schaffer said um you know delivery of services. Um there were

[5:31] also some emphasis on needing um more more um

[5:40] um there were many many items in that so-called performance process and

[5:48] um I think we only hit on probably seven or eight items that needed to be

[5:53] clarified or changed. Um, it was informative informative to me be on that

[6:01] committee. Um, I appreciate staff and CR's input. Um,

[6:10] that's all.

[6:15] » Um, okay. So, I just have a couple questions or like feedback on this, but

[6:21] in general, I'm glad we have this sort of clause in our contract. So um I see

[6:26] that we're adding some performance categories for collection reliability.

[6:31] How do we measure just standard um pickups?

[6:36] So just like a missed part, somebody gets missed and then uh they get a call

[6:42] they still complain to us that it didn't get picked up on time and that's how

[6:46] we're drafting. >> So right now for just like a standard

[6:49] miss service just missing your card. Um CR&R needs a list of anything that's

[6:54] reported to them as a missed and so we're looking at that in combination

[6:57] with things that are reported directly to us. A lot of times there is overlap.

[7:01] So we'll account for anything that's in our records if it's already in CR and

[7:05] our system account for that. But it's through our our logs of what's been

[7:10] reported to us or NCR magic. >> Is there a time frame to uh correct that

[7:16] mistake before that fee is incurred or it's just immediately upon

[7:20] » for this particular one? If it's a miss then it's big ones. Yeah.

[7:25] » Okay. Well, I'm glad we're going to be tracking all the other ones. um

[7:28] especially since tree collections um quality

[7:33] uh clarifying that debris spills and requirements must be completed on the

[7:37] same day. That's great. I definitely support including that

[7:42] um responsiveness to our residents.

[7:49] Yes. Timeliness of submission. Yes. Accuracy of billing. So, can we talk

[7:54] about the uh additional card cost billing error and like can you play

[8:00] out for me how that would not only be affected in you know rebating our

[8:05] customers directly but then how does how does that manifest in liquidated

[8:08] damages? >> Sure. For something like this so if it's

[8:11] a billing error um if they were bill it's not in accordance with our you know

[8:16] our actual prices then it would be 250 accounts. So in this case, I think there

[8:20] was 12 or,400 um accounts that were misfilled. So

[8:25] there would be an assessment of $250 for each of those.

[8:29] » So just a onetime fee, >> no matter when we discovered how long

[8:34] ago that bill was. Okay. >> Um

[8:40] yeah, I mean I think with any contract it makes sense to have some sort of uh

[8:47] incentive for not making six, you know, especially because we are so

[8:51] contractually and long-term bound with this relationship. So,

[8:57] um, increasing delayed responses

[9:04] to us, not to our customers. So, just like

[9:09] to respond to CNS with that one business.

[9:15] Uh can you uh educate me on what is the outdated role significant deployment

[9:22] provisions for so a cleanup?

[9:26] » Yeah, I'm just looking at the move out do roll out specific deployment

[9:32] permissions. Is that just a uh >> so for that would you like? So, it was a

[9:37] it was basically saying that they needed to have trucks in place necessary for

[9:41] the three-part system, but because we've already passed that point, three-part

[9:46] system, three-part program has been rolled out, all the trucks were provided

[9:49] at that point. It's just not something that we would assess any further because

[9:52] it was specific to that date. Great.

[9:58] Is there anything proactive? I know we were talking uh a while ago about

[10:02] ensuring you know CRNR helps us ensure that customers have all three of their

[10:07] cards or can can even be our eyes on the ground if one is missing or damaged. Um

[10:14] I wouldn't how how like accountable are they to that? Because I I worry that

[10:19] people are falling through the cracks uh of just they're not proactively

[10:24] reaching out but they maybe are missing a car but they have a damaged car etc. I

[10:30] don't know that I would assume CR if they're out doing route audits and they

[10:34] know that a cart is um significantly damaged and they never very soon they

[10:38] would put in a replacement request for that and that is one of the provisions

[10:42] here is to sort of replace damaged carts within a tiny tiny dam

[10:46] » and our code force can also report that as well if if he or she sees a damaged

[10:50] card that person can report it as well. >> Okay.

[10:54] or a neighbor

[10:58] » neighbor might report my neighbors not paying attention to their

[11:02] » Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I'm just speaking from personal experience that I didn't

[11:06] even It's just one of those like things that get set on the back burner, you

[11:10] know. Um I just had to try it which like I'll survive and then they took care of

[11:17] it. You guys were in the meeting. Uh, but it just made me realize like, oh, I

[11:20] think normal people maybe don't realize how awesome we are. Not awesome CRM,

[11:25] right? That they'll get it done really quick and it's not a big deal. Um,

[11:30] but uh, okay. And then obviously I'm excited about public education and

[11:35] outreach and I'll kind of just allow that to be part of the later

[11:39] conversation in our ad hoc committee. Um,

[11:46] and

[11:49] In general, I mean, this looks good to me. I I'm a little bit curious about the

[11:55] history. I see we only have 2023, 2024. Do we have a 2025

[12:02] um estimate? >> We're in that window right now. Okay.

[12:08] » And that's common that like about one year later, we're evaluating for last.

[12:12] » We actually adjusted the um revision period. So this current period runs

[12:18] through the end of June of 2026. So it's going to be a year and a half instead of

[12:22] a year to get us on the fiscal year schedule. So this year we'll have um an

[12:26] additional six months which takes additional time to

[12:31] » Awesome. Um I guess my only other question would be like how these

[12:37] terms compare to other cities, other clients. uh if there's anything you know

[12:43] are we below market on or do they do any type of CPI adjustment to educate these

[12:50] as time goes on etc. Yeah. for you. Can I have a question?

[12:56] » Sure. >> How did we come up with 250

[12:59] for this bill? Who came up with that figure?

[13:02] » 250 for >> number D.

[13:09] See, it's pretty excessive

[13:13] » for uh Oh, for accuracy of billing. >> Yes.

[13:16] » 250 per account. That was the amount that

[13:20] were initially put into the contract. I believe this was modeled after city of

[13:25] Newport Beach. So I would imagine that that amount came from from that model

[13:30] when they were put into the contract. >> Are there any other students that have

[13:33] passed like this? >> Um I have no I'm not sure on other

[13:39] agencies that have eliminated in their homes.

[13:49] » Good morning President. Um, just to start off, this is very common that we

[13:54] have limited damages or performance standard metrics in almost all of our

[14:00] contracts and it's something we support. Um, we're doing our job correctly and

[14:04] we're picking everybody up and we should be, I have no problem with having any

[14:08] type of performance measures and penalties that go along with it. I think

[14:11] it's the right thing. Um, I'll start the last one. So yes, this um and for um

[14:19] Cheyenne so it's very common as we mentioned the equipment damages in many

[14:22] contracts. Some of the penalties vary Newport was probably one of the highest

[14:27] one that was the most newest templated in 2021 where you made that contract and

[14:33] then we carried those over um into CMS. I will tell you, yeah, when you hear

[14:39] that number 250 and we had that villain error and on the extra cards, um it's

[14:43] usually intended to maybe be oneoffs here and there. So, yeah, that was going

[14:48] to be really big for a a change that the first processes are uh increases missed.

[14:54] Um I presented originally two options, the board of the one she didn't see the

[15:00] changed file and what was the original one that I submitted to staff. Then we

[15:04] came back and said she didn't see it. So, um, all the credits already issued

[15:08] their post on the accounts. We did that. Um, the district has to file and show

[15:11] every customer impacted and credit that they receive. Um, it just the

[15:16] inconvenience that they're getting that bill and the phone calls that generated.

[15:20] So, yeah, it is meant to be like oneoffs here and there. I don't think I thought

[15:25] about it to be quite honest that $250 and what that implication is. This one's

[15:30] going to be worth it's a crazy one. Um, with that being said, we we agreed to it

[15:35] and um put it in his spot to accept it. Um, I did want to talk a little bit

[15:42] because I wasn't sure um for director Wright your question if I felt like it's

[15:47] too hard and it was something that I've been noticing and I just had a meeting

[15:50] actually I'm writing my notes on my same page. I just had a meeting with the city

[15:53] of Costa Mesa last Friday. This is for our non-exclusive commercial franchise.

[15:58] So they brought all the haulers in. We were talking about um SP 1383. Does

[16:02] every customer have their three container system? Whether they use cards

[16:06] or they use bins and it made you think about here and

[16:13] for director Wilchshire at her facility and it was the same night that our day

[16:17] we talked about you not have your prop lid. She didn't have organic problem.

[16:21] Um, so the question is, um, I don't think we put together a method or a

[16:27] requirement. Just does a strong letter go out that says you are required if

[16:33] it's something that's build by CNSD. And I think that's maybe my question that I

[16:36] had is do I bring a couple accounts because I'm noticing that folks aren't

[16:40] using their own using an organic center. Maybe they have one and keeping it

[16:44] behind, but I was going to have you check, are you billing this? Are they

[16:47] being build by us? I was going to check the lapes, but I know that when we

[16:51] rolled out Newport Beach for two years, we had 70 residential customers that

[16:56] just we deliver their part and they go illegally dump it in the park because we

[17:02] were able to trace the serial numbers and we had an issue and then the city

[17:06] got involved and they were sending letters directed to these residents

[17:09] saying, "We are required by law. You have to have your container. This is

[17:13] what you should put in it." and we finally got it. Takes two years to get

[17:17] out of but I don't know that we have a process internally for our residential

[17:21] customers or the multifamily duplexes that are using

[17:27] wanting to be built and we had a lot of you switch as costs are going up. A lot

[17:30] of some of the duplexes are saying hey I I'd rather use carts and they want to be

[17:35] build through the district. I don't know that we have a process in place is that

[17:40] requires them to have those services and what that would be.

[17:43] since it's kind of brought up because I think I felt like your question was

[17:46] twofold. That was the note I wrote because that just came to my mind last

[17:49] week. So maybe that's something we had for a future agenda with staff. Um I can

[17:54] get new reports and what they did with those strike ones. But I think couple

[17:58] things we have when we're doing the route reviews the state the lift flips

[18:02] when our team goes out there if they notice there's not three containers out

[18:06] then we come back we looked on their car. Does it look like we delivered it?

[18:10] They had it at one time. have to call for anything or we ask the driver. We

[18:13] get full video to see do they ever put out a part. Maybe that one day they just

[18:17] didn't put it out. But I think then we determine what's the what's the process

[18:21] or what's what's the board's desire to require them to have the service because

[18:26] they're paying for it, right? It's a bundled service. They're paying for it.

[18:29] They're just not using it. >> Do your drivers

[18:34] pay attention or do they have like a a sense of their their routes? Which ones

[18:40] are not using the cart heat? >> I think it's twofold. They do. I mean,

[18:45] we could probably ask them, hey, could you identify the customers on their

[18:48] route? Our green waste or organics cards. Our percentage is very heavy. So,

[18:52] you know, we have a lot of people that use their organics cards. Even if

[18:55] they're not using it for food, they're definitely using it for their their

[18:59] greenery, you know, for still their yard trimmings and stuff like that. But, um,

[19:04] and then the recycling, that's the other part is I would like to

[19:08] do maybe participation. When we have drivers that maybe go on um life duty,

[19:14] let's say they get injured or something and they can't drive the truck, but they

[19:17] can be a rider in the truck, that's when we usually use them to do audits for us.

[19:21] Um that might be something that I do is to have them look at see my other

[19:26] concern is um I'm not sure if you're all aware with recycle from home um or us

[19:30] having OC opening back up. My concern was we implemented the three-part

[19:36] system, right? When the recycled buyback center opened up again. And I hear from

[19:42] a lot of people if they don't recycle, they say, "Oh, why I don't use my blue

[19:45] card anymore because I take my stuff to the buyback center or they have recycled

[19:48] from home." Well, that's only CRV rebate material. There's so much other stuff

[19:54] that people should be recycling. And I've heard that from people. Oh, well, I

[19:58] just go to OC, so I take my cardboard and my logs and cans. What about all the

[20:02] other stuff that you should be putting in there? So, I'd be interested to see

[20:06] how many people are not possibly participating in the recycling program,

[20:11] but we're seeing this in other cities. And I actually just had the city of

[20:13] Tustin reach out to me and say, you know what? How do you feel about this

[20:17] program? They said, I feel like it it hurts recycling because of what I just

[20:22] mentioned.

[20:25] Well, and also I don't think they know that we pay $17 a ton for blue cart and

[20:32] we pay 80 plus dollars for landfill organics.

[20:38] So, you know, and there's a huge savings using the

[20:44] blueprint um which indirectly relates to what we

[20:48] have Detroit. >> It does. All those materials when we

[20:51] process and we sell them for, you know, beneficial use and recycle material that

[20:54] helps offset our cost and keeps our cost down.

[20:58] » You're you're seeing folks not putting it in the blue cart, they're

[21:02] putting it in the landfill card because they don't want

[21:05] » because I don't need to use it. >> They're not going to haul out a third

[21:08] cart, right? um when when we do the source separations,

[21:15] have we seen that? This might see that there's a lot more in the landfill carts

[21:20] when when they do thatation with I'm curious if we're seeing more recycles

[21:26] add up, but then Mike wouldn't know. They'd have to go back to that, excuse

[21:30] me, have to go back to that audit I mentioned kind of seeing what's our set

[21:33] out participation rate on recycle cart and see if the two correlate,

[21:36] » right? >> Because he wouldn't know that. So you

[21:39] would you wouldn't actually know if that was tied to what I was just

[21:44] » excuse my ignorance, but does Orange Coast pay for cardboard?

[21:48] » Yeah, they do. >> They do?

[21:49] » Yeah. >> I think Well, no. I don't think they

[21:52] What do you do with your cardboard? I take my cardboard when I have excessive

[21:57] cardboard because I have only a 35 pound car

[22:02] » and you know, I still cut my cut the cardboard up that little blue card.

[22:08] old machine. So, >> in good times, cardboard. So, there's

[22:13] not many things. Plastics, there was very little cost per ton. It's a wash,

[22:17] but it's not a it's not a disposal cost. But still, um, aside from the CRV

[22:22] materials, paper,

[22:26] mixed paper, um, and cardboard still can go for sell for about $200 a ton. That's

[22:32] when times are good. So that's why these facilities will still also accept

[22:36] cardboard because there's some money to the the person that takes it and sells

[22:40] it after they pay it in large quantities. Obviously you're not getting

[22:45] a whole lot for it but you're going to get

[22:52] trial and you didn't get much they didn't tell

[22:59] you. No, they just have one. It's a great program for them because in in

[23:04] Huntington Beach they have three guys working the cart system, you know, that

[23:08] put the cans in each separate bucket. You take it in, you got three guys

[23:12] sorting and they're going through pulling out stuff. It shouldn't be in

[23:15] there. But OCC, you only have one guy that takes the weight and that's it. He

[23:20] just looks in. So, they're probably saving money by having one guy work.

[23:24] It's three or four. Sure. >> Yeah. We have at our facility um in

[23:29] Stanton CRT, we have a buyback center and I mean the amount of trucks coming

[23:34] in I think they collect a lot of hard work from businesses or others while

[23:38] they borrowing out their containers and they

[23:42] bring it in and so no it roughly about $200. So they've been weighing paid down

[23:46] accordingly based off material. >> Well, I I walk a lot in the morning and

[23:53] I see pickup trucks going to various facilities to pick up the car.

[24:03] » Um so our latest audit report was going to be effective. was saying that was

[24:10] successfully recycling almost our goal and that number has been moving

[24:16] positively which was great and I think that makes sense because I do think like

[24:21] what we're all talking about takes up a lot of space so it's kind of it's nice

[24:24] to have that separation um and then where we're struggling is organic waste

[24:31] um so food and green waste and having them actually sort I think at the moment

[24:36] that they are throwing their trash in their home is like the biggest behavior

[24:40] change we're going to have to work on. Uh, and that's where we're I think we're

[24:44] declining at that point. So, I think for me, I'm always trying to think about

[24:50] like the regular person like the normal busy renter, busy income or whatever, a

[24:57] homeowner who likely isn't doesn't have the time to drive stuff to OC. But I

[25:04] think it's like it's almost like you have really good like radicals that are

[25:08] really on on top of it and they're really, you know, intelligent about it

[25:13] and then you just have normal busy people that like we're still just trying

[25:16] to cut through the noise um without before we have to resort to

[25:21] like punitive measures, you know. So, uh but I think I don't know if you've been

[25:27] reading and I I see it on social media. I've read a few um in the paper. I know

[25:32] Huntington Beach just went to penalties. What's going to happen is the states

[25:37] have required us to do it. They're not merely the city and on they have the

[25:42] jurisdiction or the district. So I saw some friends that I go to high school

[25:46] and used to live in Huntington Beach, moved to Texas and she sort of follows

[25:50] her local stuff and she's like good old California and that's where I read the

[25:53] article but she was still in Huntington Beach starting charging for people

[25:56] putting it on thing's been doing it for quite a while. I just saw another post

[26:00] the other day that they said you kidding me I had one box I had no more room on

[26:04] my recycle cart and they put it in the trash cart and they they don't they

[26:09] don't do uh physical route reviews like we do. We have the human that's still

[26:13] going lifting lids and then that way hopefully they can talk to the resident

[26:16] if if they come out and say hey what are you doing? Oh we're required to do this

[26:20] by for the state we just want to make sure we help you you know have properly

[26:24] properly sourced separate but waste management uses cameras in the hopper

[26:28] the truck. So once the material goes in um that's the whole process it's very

[26:33] extensive and then it goes to India and India has to start drawing pictures and

[26:36] they charge you back to the account but she posted it yesterday on her page that

[26:40] um you saw this one big box that was not broken down but just the solid box that

[26:45] she put in her trash can and she she posted her picture and her invoice and

[26:50] they charged her $35 for putting that box in her trash can. the state the

[26:56] legislation says that the cities need to be doing this but they have push been

[27:01] pushing the jurisdictions or the districts yet but it is not

[27:05] » I got a question we talked about we used to get percentage of Steve for recycling

[27:12] did did you talk to them we're going to get still

[27:15] » we don't have any interaction with them at all and now that they sold they're

[27:19] being brought by the company I mentioned that I'm just thinking about it that

[27:21] besides from home I I have no idea that that recycle our mom's running the

[27:26] facility. >> Are they required to know what's like if

[27:31] I go in they required to know which city we're coming from?

[27:35] » Yes. Anywhere you go they they're supposed to ask where where is your

[27:39] material coming from so that the city gets the actual at least diversion

[27:43] credit for that material. that we get that first credit back from LCC because

[27:47] they're much busier now than they ever >> I don't think it necessarily works in

[27:53] that way where they can give us the credit. They're reporting their data to

[27:56] cal and then I assume cycle is putting that into their punish numbers but it's

[28:01] not something that we would actually take.

[28:02] » We used to get OC. We used to get it. Why couldn't we get

[28:07] it again? It might carry again. >> Well, I think it's a private company now

[28:12] that's running it. it would work the same way.

[28:15] » Who would get the credit for that? >> The city overall.

[28:18] » Yeah, I think so. Just the city as a whole

[28:22] » and the district as far as I understand even though you operate the residential

[28:28] program still everything rolls up under the city. If you don't hold the belt

[28:31] separate, they directly become >> like

[28:36] » um >> but then the whole the whole city with

[28:39] residential commercial is meeting the state target.

[28:42] » We sort of got off track, see if we could reel this back towards

[28:48] the the topic. Um anything else from you guys? I mean,

[28:53] » no, just looking to see if the board has anything they want us to change, look

[28:58] at. If not, we'll take um what we have here. We're still working with CR on

[29:02] kind of finalizing the two things and then we would run that through their

[29:06] legal council, our legal council and then bring that back to the board as a

[29:10] track. >> We asked

[29:14] have we reduced any of the liquidated damages? I think we did.

[29:18] » I think we did. Um, >> are you asking on the red line if

[29:21] anything was reduced or >> anything that they anything that's been

[29:26] reduced this last year under the public outreach fund? We went from $100 a day

[29:32] to $100 in in >> right.

[29:35] » Yeah. On that particular one, there wasn't really a way to you couldn't

[29:39] really look at it as how many days behind it's either if you did it or if

[29:42] you didn't. And so I just made that adjustment.

[29:45] » Okay. So, that's one. I I I kind of agree with that directive area. The 250

[29:53] seems ownorous to me, but um it's not my business. I mean, you guys have done

[30:00] your due diligence on it, agreed to it. So, let me ask you one more question.

[30:05] What's the lowest of the liquidated damages in that case?

[30:10] You have some >> most of them around 100. That's

[30:15] 100. I don't care about I would like to see you guys

[30:26] » and I can supply that information with the different cities and tables to staff

[30:30] » that would be too busy. So I my opinion on it is I would be

[30:39] comfortable reducing and lowering it for future instances but what I don't like

[30:44] is that we committed to a number in the contract then when contract

[30:49] » no I think we have retro and I supported retro

[30:56] » okay cool but I would come about

[31:02] » so anything we're reviewing currently for a year and a half will be based on

[31:06] the living as they stand in the contract.

[31:14] » I don't know if we're position to do that. I think we're I think it's just a

[31:17] recommendation >> you can make all of this.

[31:23] » Well, I think the second part of this performance requirements toended

[31:30] is that we not

[31:34] uh pick her with them over they have cola so their cola comes irrespective of

[31:41] the problems. >> Yeah.

[31:43] » Yeah. Absolutely. >> Yeah. I'm kind of I'm kind of struggling

[31:47] with that too of like we we are always giving increases like we just did with

[31:53] our increases with the county and we're doing CPI increases

[31:59] pretty much on an automated schedule. However, liquidate damages does not

[32:03] receive the same treatment. >> It it will. So, previously it was done

[32:07] on a calendar year basis and it was very hard to take half of the year at the

[32:12] current rate and then the other half of the year at the CPI adjusted rate, but

[32:15] because we're transitioning to this fiscal year schedule for the next fiscal

[32:20] year, we'll be able to actually make that CPI adjustment and then

[32:25] I like that. And those fees, you get adjusted by CPI.

[32:29] » Perfect. Are they capped? >> No.

[32:31] » Okay. Um I think for me just speaking out loud with you guys, I'm kind of torn

[32:38] of like what is our responsibility here? Is it to the customers

[32:42] and recollecting those like literally the liquid value of

[32:48] a damage to a customer, right? Like our staff was yelled at over a $5 net

[32:54] spilling. I think that's kind of a dramatic reaction, but I'm glad that we

[33:00] have something out there for that. So, I'm kind of torn of like our

[33:03] responsibility is to be good partners and they are the boots on the ground in

[33:09] so many ways, right? So, we want to be fair, but also

[33:13] in a way I view this as like this protective measure to rebuild that trust

[33:18] with customers when something went arry. And I don't know where that

[33:26] is. You know, >> that word would go in the right

[33:28] direction. Yeah. So, you know,

[33:32] » I have a question. Um maybe because um I'm still this but these liquidated

[33:39] damages like the per like for instance per home, they feel really arbitrary to

[33:43] me because I don't know I don't know what like an annual number of instances

[33:47] is. So, for example, >> um

[33:51] » see one that you might be kind of like, okay, so for each filler to clean up

[33:56] solid waste, recycling material for the waste or be any waste. Um, it's $150 for

[34:03] each half of five. So, but like how many how many because $150

[34:10] that's not if these are liquidated damages and in a way it's kind of meant

[34:16] to be punitive because we want them to a certain standard. What's $150? Is it

[34:22] $150 times 2,000 occurrences or is it five?

[34:28] » I think that data was presented as a solid

[34:36] Marissa I think Marissa Marissa presented those kinds of

[34:42] numbers. So I think you could bring that.

[34:44] » So as far as like the items under section

[34:48] » it's not it's it's not a specific section. But the whole thing has her

[34:52] classes, >> right? So, but just for an example, the

[34:55] items under section A that we're looking at, that's what we're working with CRM

[34:58] to develop like what should the standard be? Because you're right, we don't want

[35:02] to just choose arbitrary numbers. And so, we're evaluating those saying what

[35:07] is the average, what are other agencies doing, what could we actually hold them

[35:10] accountable for? And so if you want us to look at the number reference for the

[35:14] other items, we can certainly work with CRM and evaluate do we have the right

[35:19] metric here or do we need to make it a fast

[35:22] » and what information would we be getting from CR to really? They'd be looking at

[35:27] kind of like what do you like, for example, how many spills are we seeing

[35:31] per month or per year? um and kind of what is a standard there's certain

[35:35] standards for a certain percentage you know is considered acceptable for

[35:38] example and so >> you get outside data on standards and so

[35:42] yeah me numbers it's just that's one of the

[35:46] factors that we're considering >> sure I'd like to get that from CNR and

[35:51] from some sort of wider industry standard so we're not

[35:56] all I would ask that is is that so every phone call that comes in I'll tell you

[36:00] the numbers are always higher than you the district task. So every phone call

[36:04] that comes in, customer service rep is required to enter an order of the system

[36:09] and everything's coded. So we have a spill, we have a spill code. If it's a

[36:13] mis pickup, it's called MIPU. So everything is coded and they're

[36:17] required. Then that's tracked for training in coaching. So every phone

[36:20] call requires some sort of a a note on the customer's account. So whether it's

[36:24] a mis pickup, they report a spill, um it could be a driver complaint that they

[36:29] maybe thought the driver was driving too fast, everything is coded system and we

[36:33] extract report and data and then we submit that data to the um to the

[36:37] district on monthly basis. So that is stuff that comes directly from the

[36:40] customer and like I said all say it's always higher because majority of the

[36:43] customer that service they call us directly some go through the go side but

[36:47] most of those call us directly and that can never be erased or

[36:51] » I'm sorry I'm not understanding what you mean. Are you saying that there needs to

[36:54] be a reconciliation between Urbana and Africa?

[36:56] » No, not at all. You have to use both because some people um the districts

[37:01] just haven't our other cities don't. No one calls the city. They all call us

[37:04] directly for everything. But for the district, they have this gov system for

[37:08] a while. So some customers use the the district gov system. They can call or

[37:13] they can go online and say you have a mispickup or they can request a card

[37:17] exchange or they can go through the districts the website or people can come

[37:23] to us and we do live chat no AI live chat um email form customer service

[37:29] phone call so we the district and mentioned she has to both a lot of their

[37:34] duplication because sometimes they'll call the district and they'll call us

[37:37] thinking well maybe I should call their voice

[37:39] » I'm not quite understanding are you saying that they're are you saying that

[37:42] the numbers are going to look deflated because there's duplicates. I'm

[37:45] » no we so we get a count for example just looking at miss pickups we get a count

[37:50] from CR& their miss pickup count includes anything that's been reported

[37:54] through goa so we can eliminate eliminate those duplicates but if we get

[37:58] a complaint that we're not putting through goup if it's like um an

[38:02] escalated complaint we're just reaching out directly to for example the

[38:05] operations manager and it's not putting a buildup we have to make sure we're

[38:09] adding those to their account but we are eliminating any duplicates so don't

[38:13] expect the numbers They should be reconciled and you said

[38:16] » they're reconciled on our end. CRN just provides their data and then we look at

[38:20] their data in combination with how you're tracking like escalated

[38:23] complaints and things like that. >> So you're saying that at the end of the

[38:26] day uh the district has correct numbers on all of these incidents,

[38:31] » right? Pretty well pretty

[38:42] committee. that final message. I think once we have the opinion back with Allen

[38:48] and we where CR to get that final iteration

[38:55] maybe we could have a meeting just to finalize it I don't

[39:02] » Scott >> I'd love to keep this conversation going

[39:08] » yeah understand more about that the greater confidence I agree I I I

[39:15] out of this study, a couple things that hit me that I I want more information.

[39:21] The valet service, do we I I'd like to see the number that

[39:26] » we actually just got them. We have only one customer signed up for valet service

[39:30] currently and I think 34 or 35 signed up for the roll out which is the no fee

[39:35] service. >> Okay. So maybe I'm thinking the roll out

[39:38] that's the one really designed for >> for seniors right that's the one that we

[39:43] are recently promoted in our new email last but we haven't seen any any

[39:50] » okay valet we charge >> valet is $40 per month

[39:54] » okay >> what's the difference between valet and

[39:58] roll out >> valet is a paid service so if you don't

[40:00] qualify for the no fee you can pay $40 and then the roll out is if you can

[40:04] provide a doctor's note that you can have that service for free.

[40:09] » You have 30 calls for that. >> We have 35 currently signed up for it,

[40:14] but we haven't had any new um signups since we sent out.

[40:20] » That's interesting. >> Yeah, I was surprised you.

[40:22] » So, I could use my driver's license. It shows how old I am and qualified for

[40:26] rule. >> You need a doctor.

[40:30] » All right. Good discussion. Thanks. Thanks for your input.

[40:35] um solid waste fund reserves. >> So I'll take that one again. So as of

[40:41] July 31st, the solid waste fund has a balance of approximately 5.8 million. Of

[40:48] that 2.9 million is unreserve unrestricted and available for board

[40:53] allocation. So that 2.9 million represents reserves above our 30%

[40:59] operating reserve target. Um so staff has identified four general areas where

[41:05] the board could consider um to choose to direct some or all of those reserves. So

[41:10] number one, customer education, which includes things like expanded outreach,

[41:14] school assemblies and composting workshops. Um number two, contamination

[41:19] monitoring and compliance. Number three, service enhancements, which includes

[41:24] things like lockable carts and compostable bags. um or number four,

[41:28] solid rate stabilization, which would minimize future rate increases. So, the

[41:34] board could choose to prioritize one category, a combination of categories.

[41:38] Um if you don't like any of the categories, you can come back with more.

[41:42] Um you're welcome to um suggest additional priorities. So, today staff

[41:47] is seeking the board's reactions on the priorities overall and then any specific

[41:52] programs you'd like us to move forward with. So to assist with that discussion,

[41:56] there are some questions that we're asking. Um, which of these four

[41:59] categories should receive highest priority? Should available reserves be

[42:03] allocated to any of the specific programs in the staff report?

[42:07] Approximately how much of reserves should be retained for future rate

[42:12] stabilization or other um solids? And are there any other priorities or

[42:17] initiatives that you'd like us to explore? Um so following your direction

[42:21] today we will evaluate costs and implementation approaches for agent

[42:25] items and then we'll come back for additional recommendation and

[42:29] consideration. So

[42:32] » that would be the great advice part of that money would be great advice.

[42:37] This is this is for solid waste. Oh solid waste.

[42:41] Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Um I'm gonna hit on this. Um,

[42:49] I wish we' had this before we did the rate the 218. I wish we had these

[42:55] numbers. May maybe I missed. >> So, this is being presented during the

[43:00] rate study um based on the rates that were presented, the options that were

[43:03] presented. There was going to be a kind of abundance of reserve funds. And so,

[43:08] part of that discussion was that we would come back once the rate was set um

[43:12] and get kind of an action plan from the board on how we want to send out.

[43:16] » Yeah. And and I'm not loving any criticism or any judgment here. Um I I I

[43:22] firmly believe that if we have this kind of money and based on landfill increases

[43:28] and all that, I would like short of this to go to rate stabilization. That's my

[43:32] opinion. I'm only 105. But um the other component and looking through this

[43:39] talking about school assemblies and and I've always I've always championed I

[43:45] think the fact that I think kids are where we get the biggest bang for our

[43:50] buck for the future. So I'm I'm a big proponent that we use funds school

[43:57] assemblies outreach at that level as well as with with older people. Um those

[44:05] would be my two biggest priorities would be as much as we can towards rate

[44:11] getting rates stabilized or I'm not calling for a reduction u I don't I

[44:17] don't think we can but I think we need to use make sure we don't have any big

[44:23] increases >> so clarification majority I I think we

[44:26] need more clarification majority you say 70% 55% what is majority to you

[44:33] » majority 30 is anything over 16%. >> Okay.

[44:35] » So I would say 16% >> towards rate stabilization would be my

[44:41] uh the question about school. Is there a cost for that? Do we put those on

[44:47] somebody else? >> No. So we would go through a contractor.

[44:49] I did include some information for one of the options um that we'd like to

[44:54] explore. That's something the board wishes for us to do the eagle hero show.

[44:58] So there is some kind of per assembly per presentation additional cost

[45:02] included but it would really be at your discretion and you would say we want to

[45:06] spend x amount of dollars. We would give that amount to the contractor and then

[45:09] they would perform assemblies up to that point. So it's really you have the

[45:14] flexibility to decide how much you want to spend on something like that. Wait,

[45:19] » do we have a good relationship with the the school district for having

[45:23] incentives because that's the biggest pay challenge just to make sure we're

[45:27] getting a hold of the right people. But the good thing about these programs

[45:30] similar to um discovery cube is we give them the list. We do kind of some

[45:34] initial outreach to let them know that it's coming and then that contract

[45:38] really takes the lead on reaching out to the schools and getting everything

[45:41] scheduled. >> We still are we still working with them

[45:44] or is that >> that contract has concluded? So we uh

[45:47] are looking at maybe exploring an alternative option and then if if you

[45:51] elect to do that we can explore an alternative option and then maybe

[45:54] compare the two and see that program that they present

[45:59] » which one ecohero or discovery >> yeah on an online basis they would

[46:04] provide us with u data on the presentations performed and the um

[46:09] feedback that they were getting from the classrooms.

[46:11] » Do you know how many people or how many schools they represent? I want to say

[46:16] that it was like a little over 3,000 students that were um

[46:19] » Did she say like >> impacted? But I need to go back and

[46:21] look. >> Did you say like 30 schools or

[46:23] something? >> I honestly

[46:26] 34 schools that were like schools. It might

[46:31] have been 34 classrooms, but it might have been like multiple done schools.

[46:36] » Yeah. >> Yeah.

[46:38] Inherently the problem would be this discovery cube is they do have a

[46:43] relationship with the guys that drive the green and yellow trucks and I don't

[46:48] know if that conflicts with any

[46:53] they're promoting general education organics and recycling specific

[46:59] » no and we actually did ask them to include our carts so our carts were

[47:04] actually part of the presentation. >> Okay. So, so that wasn't an issue as far

[47:08] as

[47:14] » my question is what do we spend now on um

[47:21] the 2.9 million broken down cube reach code

[47:27] what do we budget now for >> so a lot of these items are not anything

[47:33] that we budgeted like the school assembly that was a 110 grant funded

[47:37] program. I think we've allocated about 30,000

[47:40] um composting workshops, walkable carts, um providing compostable bags for

[47:46] customers in excess of what we're doing now. Those are things that haven't been

[47:50] budgeted before. So those would be kind of new programs that we

[47:53] » So we budget. >> So that's what we're asking. How much do

[47:57] you want us to allocate to? What are your priorities and how much do you want

[48:01] us to allocate to those priorities? You don't allocate anything more of what

[48:06] we're granted the grant funds >> for school assemblies. We only did that

[48:11] one time grant funding program. So we don't have school assemblies currently

[48:14] in our budget. >> So we we we get grant funding 150,000 or

[48:19] whatever it is. of the 2.9 million um

[48:25] has does our budget contain any of that 2.9 million in wage to be expended or is

[48:34] it? >> So these are unrestricted funds. So

[48:38] they're to my understanding they're not being allocated towards anything.

[48:41] They're unrestricted. The rest of that 5.8 is allocated towards expenses but

[48:46] this 2.9 is not is unrestricted. Well, I think director right brought

[48:52] this to our attention um needing more potentially more in customer education

[48:59] and I think I think staff is doing quite a lot. I see many more things on the

[49:05] Facebook page or Instagram page or lots of

[49:11] all over the place. Um, and I'd be interested in

[49:18] Well, I think I have to go back. The citizen survey gave us a lot of

[49:23] information about um what what the citizens preferences were and is is that

[49:31] what staff is now using to, you know, dedicate

[49:36] um the grant funds or other funds? Um, I don't know that that's being used

[49:42] to dedicate the budget. I think that's probably informing our education and

[49:46] outreach. So, we're looking at that and incorporating that into our plans. Um,

[49:50] but our budget is currently set. The grant term is ending in a few months and

[49:54] that has will be fully expended. So, we're just looking at things we want to

[49:58] do kind of above and beyond what is currently budgeted if you want us to

[50:03] allocate any of these funds towards programs that are not currently

[50:06] budgeted. So, so the grant fund is like 150,000 or depending on the year.

[50:12] » So, that that is to my knowledge that is the last SB 1383 grant. Um, I haven't

[50:18] heard of any plans for any new grants. So, right now once that's suspended, I'm

[50:21] not anticipating any additional. >> So, so the 150,000 or whatever it is is

[50:28] not going to be available to us in the future.

[50:31] » Okay. So that's the starting point. Out of the 2.9 million, we're looking at if

[50:36] we duplicate those programs, 150,000

[50:40] » if that's your guess. It's totally up to you how you want to allocate. And and

[50:44] for example, we spent 30,000 on the school assembly program with grant

[50:48] funds. You don't have to allocate that specific amount. It could be more, it

[50:52] could be less. It's just whatever your priorities are. Oh, what

[50:57] what I'm thinking um we're getting substantially more

[51:05] um citizen awareness, you know, by by using

[51:11] $150,000 PL or whatever it is. Um

[51:18] I I I think that this should be a topic that's discussed in the uh the new ADOC

[51:24] committee because I believe

[51:29] and Georgia right have substantially more

[51:34] ideas about uh how we can uh approach the community to systematically get our

[51:42] goals achieved. And so I think we need to go back and decide

[51:47] um and maybe the committee can decide this how

[51:52] what our goals are. Is it is it the uh landfill part recyclables in that? Is it

[51:59] the organics in the recycle part? That's 1383 question. So, and and the organics

[52:07] cart is not and the recycle cart is not um

[52:14] I think that should be at the top of the list. Um I mean what's regulated and

[52:20] regulations require us to work on but if we have a 75% total uh for the landfill

[52:28] part I I think the money should be a lot of money should be spent in figuring out

[52:35] how to get those contamination

[52:39] materials out of that cart. And it doesn't sound like it's going to be a

[52:43] lot. Um we're just starting out of the shoot. There's no way there's no way in

[52:48] hell we could spend $2.9 million. Um so I think it'll substantially go to rate

[52:54] stabilization because it's going to take a year to ramp up. Um

[53:00] the spending the spending plan um I mean it's not overnight you think

[53:07] we're going to spend $100,000 on figuring out how to get the uh

[53:12] contamination out of the land cart. It's going to take

[53:17] years to figure out and implement the processes that we want them citizens to

[53:23] do. So, we've got a lot of money left over

[53:27] for RA stabilization. >> So, we went from substantial staff,

[53:34] » but it sounds like you're asking us to dedicate at least some of the funds

[53:38] towards outreach and education. Well, obviously I'll vote in the half. Not

[53:41] sure how, but >> So, let me I'm trying to help cover. So,

[53:45] I'm looking at our budget 2627 budget. We budget $105,000 in community outreach

[53:51] in the solid waste fund for this year. Doesn't $105,000. Okay. And from what I

[53:56] understand, from what I got from the board, you want us to go over that based

[53:58] on this unrestricted fund of $2.9 million. You want to spend that much

[54:02] over $100,000. What that how much more over? We don't know. We're seeking

[54:06] clarification. Now, what I'm hearing from the board is that you want to go

[54:09] make probably 6040 60% of that $2.9 million we pay for race stabilization.

[54:14] That 40% we'd come back with you with some numbers of how much that would be

[54:18] for outreach efforts. And as as Marissa identified in the staff board, that

[54:22] could be lockable containers, that could be the um um home composting program,

[54:27] that could be additional um um bags for for um uh residents, that could be um

[54:33] more advertising, whatever it is, we can bring that number back to you. But

[54:37] that's where we're trying to get some clarification from the board.

[54:38] » Yeah. And and I'm looking to you guys tell me 60%'s

[54:45] just my shot in the dark. That's not I'm not locked to that number. If it's 50 or

[54:50] 40, I mean, whatever we can realistically use,

[54:56] » I'll tell you right now, lockable carts doesn't make sense to me.

[54:59] » It doesn't work. Giving people compostable bags, I'm not I won't I'm

[55:04] not favor of that. they can go to bonds for stater brothers to get them

[55:10] and said I don't think we should be giving out recyclable bags. Um some of

[55:14] the others I'm still mulling but those are two that just I mean $245

[55:21] for a walkable cart that >> nonsense in the survey said people do

[55:27] not want lock. >> No, they said they want to walk if they

[55:30] haven't paid for it. If they got for free I bet they change their money.

[55:33] » Yeah, that's right. They wanted it for free.

[55:34] » I'm not sure how the survey said that. >> We said they said, "Will you be willing

[55:41] for it?" They said, "Yeah." And then we said, "Would we be filling it?" Then

[55:43] they said, "No." So if we said, "No, it's free." I bet they're they changed.

[55:47] » People won't pay for it. >> And I don't think the amount of recycles

[55:53] we lose, it's Yeah. I mean, we get five We get

[55:58] five We catch five recyclers, scavengers a month. And I and and they're on

[56:05] bicycles and carts and dragging bags. >> Yeah.

[56:09] » It's nothing. So we we spend way too much money

[56:14] looking for five scavengers a month.

[56:19] » Whatever we're spending so that I can see Bob on ESPN

[56:24] every night. Do we pay for those ads?

[56:28] » The spectrum that's I think it's funny. It's

[56:34] Uh and and what I'm getting to is you guys have always had really good

[56:41] judgment as far as I'm concerned about what we spend on those those programs.

[56:46] So a continuation of those over that's not over and above what you're already

[56:50] talking about with the 100,000 I assume.

[56:58] » Grant those >> for what? dinosaur

[57:01] » for the commercials on ESA. >> Yeah.

[57:03] » Okay. >> Sh.

[57:06] » Okay, I'm ready. Um, first >> jump in.

[57:12] » I'm off of it. Okay, first I just want to say fantastic step.

[57:17] » So, this is really good. This is, you know, I think a really good start and we

[57:22] do off and everything we talked about. I want to bring your guys's attention to

[57:26] the financial review section and staff report. So

[57:31] » uh >> which shows us where the reserves are

[57:35] going to be at the end of our current increase because we did look into uh

[57:41] supplementing via reserves and we did do that. We just

[57:46] went conservative with it because right now we're going to lose money on our

[57:49] increases every year for the next five years. So really,

[57:54] if we want to do and we know we're going to have to do an increase in the next in

[57:58] five years again, we just and you and it was Bob actually who said it's way

[58:02] easier to take it all out than to put it back in because then we're looking at

[58:07] what profiting off of increases, which we don't want to do. So the way I

[58:12] realistically look at this is if we want to have money left to supplement our

[58:18] increases in five years, we actually have less than 1.6 million to play with

[58:25] right now. So right now if we want to leave so let's say over the next five

[58:30] years we're going to be supplementing uh what total is this 150 260 3 410 5

[58:41] 5 560 we're pulling about 560 grand or more from reserves over the next five

[58:46] years. >> You're saying cumulative ones from the

[58:49] staff report? Yeah, I roughly just >> put the shortfall number.

[58:55] » So planned use of the reserve shortfall is over the next five years we're

[58:59] supplementing over $500,000. Let's say we even want to be more aggressive with

[59:03] that and the next time we do a rate increase. We want to supplement 750,000.

[59:10] Okay. Well, that means we have about 900,000 to spend over the next five

[59:14] years. We can either start with a big jump and then taper that off because

[59:19] then maybe city or the city the state is going to force us to find people

[59:24] whatever. But to me that's the number is okay at the end of this if the most we

[59:31] spent was x amount we want to make sure we have a million dollar right let's

[59:36] give ourselves cushion. We want to make sure we have a million dollars to

[59:39] supplement increases via reserves. And even then,

[59:44] guys, I'm hesitant to say every 5 years we're just pulling from the reserves

[59:49] because eventually there will be nothing left. That's concerning to me. So,

[59:56] so no, I don't want to spend $2.9 million. We've already agreed we're

[59:59] going to spend $560 on rate stabilization for the next five.

[1:00:04] So, that's already out the door in my head because it's not going to get

[1:00:08] replenished because we're losing money. And then I

[1:00:12] want to leave at least 750 to a million for rate stabilization by 203031.

[1:00:18] So then that gives us our number. Okay, over the next 5 years we maybe have

[1:00:23] 200,000 a year to play with.

[1:00:28] I don't know if it maybe high level as a board member it's wise to just stick to

[1:00:33] something like that rather than super going into the granular of like how it

[1:00:37] would split because the way I see it is our needs are

[1:00:43] evolving. It's really great that we do these

[1:00:47] audits because we're learning that people are listening

[1:00:51] and they are changing their behavior and then we're also going to figure out

[1:00:54] where they're unwilling to change their behavior and where we need to push a

[1:00:57] little more. >> I know Sarah, you said 200 a year for

[1:01:00] education and out that's what you're saying

[1:01:02] » for any of these programs that go towards the goal of of our diversion

[1:01:09] rate goals. To me, that seems like the imperative goal. Uh,

[1:01:15] I'm not I I'm similarly not as concerned about uh recyclables getting stolen, for

[1:01:21] example. I'm more concerned about before we start charging people for not sorting

[1:01:28] their parts. I want to know that we tried everything we could and we threw

[1:01:33] everything at the wall to change and motivate them. Um, and you know, it's

[1:01:38] funny like because we are I'm just going to use this example with organic waste

[1:01:42] because we are struggling there and behaviorally it's going to be such a big

[1:01:48] change for people. Funny enough, I'm almost more

[1:01:52] comfortable with putting our money into trying to get them to have kitchen pales

[1:01:58] and maybe the kitchen pale comes with the compostable bags one time rather

[1:02:04] than, hey, for the next five years, you get $3 off your bill. Like to me, I at

[1:02:09] least want to try to change their behavior as much as possible before I

[1:02:15] give them like a small incremental discount over time. Um, and then if it

[1:02:20] doesn't work, it doesn't work, you know, then we we we move on to the next great

[1:02:24] idea. Um, so, so yeah, I feel like the big thing

[1:02:30] to to really talk about is like the rate stabilization. That's how I'm thinking

[1:02:35] about it. I'm not looking at the money we have now because we already committed

[1:02:39] to putting over 500,000 into the rate stabilization. I'm looking at the real

[1:02:46] number we have is the number that's left at the end of five years from now

[1:02:52] and maybe we go we go conservative which would be about you know

[1:02:59] 150 to $200,000 a year and then so I'll just pause there then I'll get

[1:03:05] into like the ideas in the actual staff report but what do you guys think about

[1:03:10] that that does that kind of clarify how I'm thinking about the balance

[1:03:14] » there's say keep a higher rate stabilization. Is that what you're

[1:03:17] saying? >> I'm saying I we kind of know how much we

[1:03:22] want to have left in 5 years. At least a million.

[1:03:26] » You would know if you kept a percent of the race compensation money, not spent

[1:03:30] out of anything else. That's basically what you're saying.

[1:03:32] » Uh yeah, we know we will have 1.6 million left.

[1:03:37] » I know it could be greater if we don't spend that extra money.

[1:03:41] » Yeah, at most it will be 1.6. At a minimum, I'm saying I think a

[1:03:45] million 750 to a million is fine. >> Um, and and that's actually it could end

[1:03:52] up being more if certain costs aren't incurred, right? Or CPI,

[1:03:57] » right? >> Uh, liquidated damages.

[1:04:01] » Are you suggesting to wait until the end of the fiveyear term, look at that 1.6

[1:04:06] and then see how we can use that to stabilize for the next fiveyear rate

[1:04:10] study? Is that your suggestion? just buy anything.

[1:04:13] » Yeah. Because what what we're saying what we're saying look you already have

[1:04:17] a fiveyear plan right to increase the rates. I think next year is nine years.

[1:04:20] What we're saying that maybe look at some of this money that's in that's

[1:04:24] unrestricted. Maybe instead of a 9% increase we can do a 5% increase. You

[1:04:29] see what I'm saying? By using offsetting that cost through this stabilization.

[1:04:32] » I mean I'm happy with the results of our most recent study and our current

[1:04:36] fiveyear plan. >> So you're you're open with a 999. You

[1:04:39] don't want to lower that at all? >> No. I'm happy with what where we're at.

[1:04:42] I don't want to deplete our reserves anymore as of now.

[1:04:47] » What I want to make sure is that when we get to the end of five years with

[1:04:52] additional investment into education, outreach, schools, um trying to change

[1:04:58] our customers behavior. I want to make sure we have at least a million dollars

[1:05:02] left. So when we look at the plan that they gave us with several different

[1:05:08] ideas, I'm saying over the next five years, let's spend 600k,

[1:05:14] leaving us a million dollars in reserves that would go towards

[1:05:19] uh rate stabilization.

[1:05:24] What is the percentage increase of a million over 1.6? Let me try. I'm

[1:05:29] guessing if that's a Look at that. It's 62%. So, it's about

[1:05:35] it's about an alignment with with your back as well.

[1:05:38] » Or could you high 60?

[1:05:44] » Yeah. For the sake of like for the sake of compromise, we could start small. We

[1:05:48] even start with 100 grand a year. Then that's only 500 pay over five years.

[1:05:54] I think it's better than that.

[1:06:00] » Um, and then as far as the actual like substance of the of where the spend

[1:06:05] would go, um, obviously I'm I'm a big supporter of

[1:06:09] outreach and education, I think it's way more nuanced than even like a broad

[1:06:14] category, which is why we're doing this at Penny. Um, and I think we'll be able

[1:06:19] to come back to you guys with some real like data backed ideas that have souls

[1:06:24] associated with them. Um, a section on here that isn't included I think is the

[1:06:31] actual like physical representation on the bins themselves, like the stickers

[1:06:36] on the trash cans. I think they're provided by you guys with QR codes like

[1:06:43] just the actual physical interaction they're having with their trash cans.

[1:06:47] Um I think it's a big one. Obviously I I love investing in the schools even that

[1:06:52] I want to think a little bit outside the box though. Um

[1:06:58] and then yeah if organic waste continues to be like

[1:07:02] our leading indicator if that's where people are struggling then uh diving

[1:07:07] more into the kitchen tales composting education there. But to me that also

[1:07:13] basically overlaps with public outreach. Uh and then

[1:07:21] contamination inspection.

[1:07:26] Uh that seems to me that it's already going to be built into like our existing

[1:07:31] compliance. It's already going to be mandatory and

[1:07:35] then unfortunately it's going to be required that we find people. So I'm not

[1:07:39] really thinking we need to send more there.

[1:07:41] agree with you guys on lockable recycling carts. I'm not really worried

[1:07:45] about people's recyclables getting stolen. Um,

[1:07:53] no. [laughter]

[1:07:58] So, yeah, that that's kind of that's how I'm thinking about one. The leading

[1:08:02] indicator here is like we are currently uh stabilizing the rates for the next 5

[1:08:08] years. How much money do we want to make sure we have left for the next time? And

[1:08:13] then what's what's at least a minimum amount we're comfortable investing more

[1:08:20] into for for our diversion goals over the next five years to make sure we

[1:08:27] still end with that million dollars in five years.

[1:08:33] So what you're saying is keep our reserves rather than give people $3 off

[1:08:37] their bill. My understanding is I'm saying right now we're already well

[1:08:42] right now we are already giving people discounts by putting some of our

[1:08:49] reserves into the cost of our services and we're actually going to be losing

[1:08:52] money over the next 5 years. That was intentional. We planned it because we

[1:08:56] have $3 million. So what we have to do is keep in mind

[1:08:59] the number we'll have left in five years which is 1.6.

[1:09:04] But we don't want to spend. It's kind of like working backwards like how much do

[1:09:09] we want to make sure we have in five years because we're gonna have to raise

[1:09:12] the rates again, right? >> We want to keep trying to give them a

[1:09:15] discount without depleting our reserves all the way because then we have to

[1:09:19] start rebuilding them back up or then we stop buying left for nothing. So your

[1:09:23] goal is to have a million in reserves, use that 600 for

[1:09:27] » Yeah. But if they even want to have a little

[1:09:31] bit more of a commission, maybe I was saying 500 because then that's kind of a

[1:09:35] clean 100 each year for five years. And at this point, I think it's also

[1:09:41] more about like the quality of the work, which you and I can make sure it's good

[1:09:46] quality versus quantity, right? Exactly. Consultants

[1:09:51] consultants will spend 100k real quick, but right we can get something good done

[1:09:56] for however much you guys comfortable with. And also I think that given the

[1:10:02] recent uh study results saying that we are getting much much closer to

[1:10:06] recyclables, our goal for recyclables. I think that it's I think that we should

[1:10:10] probably establish just to like uh establish expectation for the rest of

[1:10:15] the board that probably a lot of the stuff that we're going to be talking

[1:10:17] about in the committee is going to be related to organics

[1:10:21] because that's number that we want to raise. I mean so things like and I don't

[1:10:26] mean to beat a dead horse but like recycling cards we probably wouldn't put

[1:10:30] a lot of discussion into something like that because it's not as much of an

[1:10:34] issue as it was before. Well, I think I would like to leave room

[1:10:40] for uh what's the word a v the variability

[1:10:45] of our results informs our outreach and our spend and what we're talking what

[1:10:52] we're talking to people about what we're planning into. So, and we see that

[1:10:58] seasonally even with you know Christmas time and Christmas trees and people are

[1:11:02] moving all that stuff. So, um

[1:11:09] But that is even more the staff responsibility. It's our

[1:11:15] responsibility high level be like this is the money we want left for this

[1:11:21] purpose at the end of the five years. This is what can be worked on also. I

[1:11:27] mean we're not even thinking about what if everything goes right. If everything

[1:11:30] goes right and people do successfully change their behavior for years, then we

[1:11:36] can all say, "All right, we we're willing to pull back on public outreach

[1:11:40] and spend because it's clicking or they're getting fined by the state now

[1:11:46] or required by the state for to find them." So I think eventually we may even

[1:11:51] see an inflection point where >> behavior will be forced to change and

[1:11:56] then we we could preserve that we can just put that final 200 the last two

[1:12:01] years aside that it'll just not get allocated you know

[1:12:06] » well and I well what I think ought to be done is um

[1:12:13] in preference in in preparation for the ad committee to meet and I'd like to

[1:12:19] know when their first meeting is and I think it's this my opinion it's as soon

[1:12:23] as possible is to go over the citizen survey. Um and I believe CHC should that

[1:12:32] should be one of the priority items for their 9 their 9926

[1:12:39] meeting. My suspicion is there well there's a lot

[1:12:44] of new me CHC members and they don't have

[1:12:49] the work that we've done and facilitate you know and and that's

[1:12:58] the emphasis on the top items that would make recycling easier in the survey were

[1:13:05] magnets recycle coach social media tips and recognition And I think you know in

[1:13:14] the report here somewhere recognitions um for people that are doing well or

[1:13:21] areas are doing well is mentioned um they they want collection containers or

[1:13:28] their batteries. 69% of the people want collection containers. I don't know how

[1:13:35] far we've reached with that. And my my problem with the collection containers,

[1:13:41] it only says take take them to the take them to Huntington Beach. Um,

[1:13:47] take it should also take take them to the schools. giving your paper to the

[1:13:52] back and >> yeah and those other schools benefit

[1:13:57] from those battery processes and and the mail and email are the first ways that

[1:14:06] citizens want to get their input. Text is way down the list. Websites way down

[1:14:11] the list. Social media posts are way down the list. Public events and mediums

[1:14:16] are way down on the list. And I also have a uh as they looked at the citizen

[1:14:23] survey, 95% of the people want the information that we provided to

[1:14:30] them in English. 5% want it in Spanish. So, we're spending

[1:14:38] 50% of our media coverage on Spanish and English penetration.

[1:14:44] and that's way out of whack with what the demographics show or uh the citizens

[1:14:52] that we that we serve. So I would say that we need to rethink that policy uh

[1:14:59] to where so we can recover some of the space that uh goes out in the in the in

[1:15:06] the quarterly newsletter. It shouldn't be half Spanish and half English. It

[1:15:12] should have a a marker on top that said elabor

[1:15:28] and and then we then we recoup 50% of the space

[1:15:32] that we are talking in the newsletter to people for what we want them to do or to

[1:15:38] educate them or whatever. Um and

[1:15:43] thank you for letting me talk. >> You're always welcome to talk. Now you

[1:15:48] guys join the committee as soon as possible.

[1:15:54] » I think we're waiting on this the September space meeting. So they'll

[1:16:00] people and then yes, we'll try to get it done ASAP.

[1:16:05] » So maybe like late September or something depending on everyone's

[1:16:09] availability. Um,

[1:16:13] and I guess I wanted to clarify like we really just need to make we really just

[1:16:17] need to show we have a working plan, right, for the reserves. That that's the

[1:16:23] that's the true or that's like the uh administrative purpose and goal of this.

[1:16:29] I want to say this this is not going to be written in stone. like if things

[1:16:34] change, if things get better, if the state is harsher on our customers, this

[1:16:39] can absolutely uh evolve, we can pull back. Um

[1:16:44] but I think roughly maybe like 100k for this year and next year would be a

[1:16:50] good place to start. And then we can at least have in writing, hey, this is our

[1:16:54] plan. We want a million dollars left for rate stabilization in the five years and

[1:16:59] then we're planning on spending about5 to 600 over the next five years into uh

[1:17:05] SB1 1383 efforts and uh investing into educating customers to try to get their

[1:17:12] behavior change through a myriad of ideas. But if that's kind of enough to

[1:17:17] keep to to give ourselves that strong answer of why we have these reserves yet

[1:17:22] also then internally staff can sort of start working on some ideas based off of

[1:17:27] the ad hoc committee. I think that relatively meets all the criteria we're

[1:17:33] trying to hit. Uh what do you guys think about that?

[1:17:42] » Yeah. Yeah. Do you have what you need?

[1:17:47] » I guess my question is is there a consensus um that we do not want to do

[1:17:52] anything with the reserve towards rate stabilization for 5 years? Is that

[1:17:56] consensus among the board or do you want us to come back and show you what it

[1:18:01] would look like if we were to not raise the rate as much as we're anticipating

[1:18:05] for next year? Do you want that information or

[1:18:08] » I don't know what sense this is, but I still firmly believe that we need to

[1:18:13] have some great stabilization with that money. I I understand the numbers and u

[1:18:19] if if we increase our public outreach by another 100,000, it still allows us

[1:18:26] historically this board since I've been on it has looked for ways to lower

[1:18:31] rates, excuse me, to keep rates affordable. We we've always been

[1:18:38] committed to being better than the average in account.

[1:18:43] Um $3 doesn't sound like a lot, but I guarantee you there's rateayers out

[1:18:49] there that $3 means a hell of a lot. So, I still believe that we need some

[1:18:54] component like you said, Scott

[1:18:58] years with rates. um this reserve once it's gone. I mean, we have money coming

[1:19:05] into this reserve account every year, don't we, Caitlin? Do we have some

[1:19:09] component that in that comes into this res that accounts for these reserves?

[1:19:14] It's not like we're we're deleting it over the next five years completely.

[1:19:19] No, over like um director right says if you look at the the matching review over

[1:19:28] the next five based on the rate study that we just approved

[1:19:32] for fiscal year 26 27 the end of the year we're projecting $100,000

[1:19:40] in defensive and um we reserve above the 30% the target 30%

[1:19:50] above this 3.1 million. So over the next five years, let's say if you want to

[1:19:57] break out the um 500,000 for the next five years addition to what's already

[1:20:05] » in the rate study, then it will be negative 200,000

[1:20:10] for the plan used for the short ball will be 200 in this year 6* 7 and then

[1:20:18] 56 in fiscal year 27 28. So, so by the end of the five years study, you'll end

[1:20:27] up with 1.1 or 1 million. So, it's not like we're depleting reserve completely

[1:20:36] and now we're getting more money in is from the rate study from the rate that

[1:20:42] um res are paying. >> Yeah. So if we don't prop it right, how

[1:20:50] how do the reserves get built up without is that when you do okay so when you do

[1:20:56] the prop 218 you have to justify why you're profiting and that would be to

[1:21:00] say we want to reach our reserve goal or is it only from unexpected revenue

[1:21:06] incomes like liquidated damages? Typically

[1:21:09] » it it could be from investment earnings. It could be savings from unspent money

[1:21:14] like you you plan in your budget to um for 100,000 in outreach and but you only

[1:21:20] spend um a 100 um half of that. So then you

[1:21:25] that's where the savings come from. I guess like the consultant did show us a

[1:21:33] range of of three. It was four scenarios. three were more aggressive

[1:21:38] into this and because we already went through that whole process and decided

[1:21:43] on this one. That's my hesitancy to not want to do it all over again. But then

[1:21:49] also my question would be like what would be a good goal you think to be

[1:21:54] able to uh to be able to stabilize future rates,

[1:22:00] right? like what is a good amount to chip away at over time to leave some in

[1:22:05] the future versus going more aggressive. Now,

[1:22:10] » I think I think that's really hard um to to narrow that down that based on the s

[1:22:19] based on the surprises we got. I mean, it was totally out of character to get

[1:22:24] the landfill increase. I mean that that was so far off the off the rails that if

[1:22:31] we have another >> situation like that going into the next

[1:22:34] five years uh it's going to be challenging. I mean it's going to be

[1:22:39] really challenging. So I I think trying to look that far ahead as much as I'd

[1:22:45] like to uh is going to really really hard.

[1:22:49] » Scott, you know what do you anticipate the rate will be from this county? Well,

[1:22:54] the land the landfills are going to continue to go away and until they come

[1:22:58] up with an alternative to the landfill where it's going to go, that's to me

[1:23:03] that's the unknown factor that that we can't plan.

[1:23:06] » Well, before before we were negotiating with the county, they were projecting

[1:23:09] typically over $100 a ton. >> Yeah.

[1:23:12] » You know, and so because we got involved with the city managers and um negotiate

[1:23:16] with them, we were able to stabilize off a little bit. I mean, it's still going

[1:23:20] to be up to $81 here in about 5 years, but it, trust me, it'll be over $100

[1:23:24] eventually. Um, so >> yeah,

[1:23:28] » I mean, maybe that's why the efforts for diversion are becoming basically

[1:23:34] heavy-handed is they see the writing on the walls because landfill spaces

[1:23:39] » on that diver on when we start doing penalties,

[1:23:44] do we get to keep that money? >> We should. I want to say 80% similar to

[1:23:50] um additional cart revenue. We retain 80% of that revenue. So if CR isue um I

[1:23:57] think I want to say more than 80%. >> So CR needs 20

[1:24:02] nothing goes nothing goes >> for managing the program but none none

[1:24:08] of that money goes to the state. No, >> even though

[1:24:13] » that's great. That's gonna be great for hopefully stabilizing costs.

[1:24:18] » So I guess >> even though people will hate us.

[1:24:19] » So I guess I guess the point is we don't do any education. We let people continue

[1:24:26] and we make a lot of money and I do that completely physicious. I'm not right.

[1:24:32] Um, >> no, I think that's a valid dope even of

[1:24:36] like, do we just let people let it blow up in their own faces or do do we have a

[1:24:42] responsibility to try to help them before they get their hands slashed?

[1:24:47] » 100% have a responsibility. >> And just so that everyone is clear, we

[1:24:51] 100% have a responsibility to avoid finding residents for government

[1:24:56] services. >> I will say that process isn't like a one

[1:24:59] time examination in your mind. do get education multiple times before

[1:25:06] » they have no one to blame with themselves once they they really don't

[1:25:10] » oh they fact of the matter is and I've seen this many times and played out in

[1:25:16] many different ways these citizens have in the programs that

[1:25:20] we um try to train or educate people they

[1:25:25] have to see it three times yeah >> before it registers

[1:25:29] » I was driving through neighbor to pick up my wife when she was professor at

[1:25:33] Sana College and I had to see the signs about ch, you know, be go slow through

[1:25:42] these neighborhoods because there's children here and when I saw that the

[1:25:47] third time then I then I paid attention to

[1:25:51] » Yeah. >> As an insurance agent I paid attention.

[1:25:56] » Oh. Uh you >> voters have to see your name seven times

[1:26:00] on average to know >> to vote for you. So you're you're

[1:26:04] definitely right to game numbers. Um cool. I mean I I love I love it.

[1:26:12] Exploring these sort of philosophical debates would be nice.

[1:26:16] » Well, we I we need uh some some direction from the board. First off, I

[1:26:20] think um what uh director Wright mentioned is I I I want to

[1:26:25] kud kudos to what she said because what you just demonstrated is, you know, it

[1:26:29] was good governance. You you're having a a dialogue about discussion, asking

[1:26:33] questions, and it's a it's a great model for other districts to see how good

[1:26:36] governance works. So, I commend you for for doing that. Thank you. Um but I have

[1:26:40] one board member who says that um no, keep the rates increases as we approved.

[1:26:46] And I have another board member says, "No, let's use some of the uh reserves

[1:26:50] to lesser those rates, whether fibs or whatever." I What does the board want us

[1:26:54] to do? I need some directions. I I've got some conflicts on the on this board.

[1:26:57] So, I need we need some direction. >> You want to vote?

[1:27:02] » I don't listen to vote because it's, you know, I don't but just give me, you

[1:27:06] know, >> what's

[1:27:10] » Well, I think you guys should follow that question in the end. come

[1:27:16] back recommending or should >> so that would be a kind of a separate

[1:27:21] item. So we're looking at in addition to education and outreach which I'm

[1:27:25] sounding like the consensus is we do want to dedicate money to ed and

[1:27:28] outreach but we need to know how much or do we want to dedicate any rate

[1:27:33] stabilization at the same time and then we can look at the how and what's of the

[1:27:38] outreach and the committee. there there's going to be more money left over

[1:27:43] for both these processes. Right stabilization, you know what? Because

[1:27:48] staff is has to be and is conservative in their budget.

[1:27:54] » So, you know, I don't know if it's 5% more or what from the fines.

[1:27:59] » Yeah. Well, I for me it's like if we think that the rates are for sure going

[1:28:04] to go up in five years, then I want to know what you guys are comfortable with

[1:28:09] reserving for those like how aggressive do we want to plan to those

[1:28:15] I think answers that question. >> At least 60%

[1:28:22] » that's about a million. But once we find out there's

[1:28:26] a a hu another huge increase let the county put on us you know we got time to

[1:28:32] change the rate. Yeah, we'll have to

[1:28:36] » course five years with six year plan

[1:28:43] seems >> and also we we're going to do another

[1:28:46] solid waist grade um survey citizen survey I think we do them every two

[1:28:51] years. So once the ADOP committee and the board decide on where we're going

[1:28:57] with this processes um that those question should be

[1:29:04] within the citizen survey. >> Yeah.

[1:29:06] » In in a meaningful way. So we we get some

[1:29:10] » and this time it'll include our renter. So at least try and [snorts] reach out

[1:29:14] to them too. So maybe we'll get some more accurate

[1:29:19] languages too. Uh

[1:29:25] » answer your question. >> Yeah, I think I think I' I've uh have

[1:29:28] some direction what we can do. We we'll um we'll present uh so is is the solways

[1:29:34] ad hoc comm is going to be meeting again too, right? So we have the solways ad

[1:29:37] hoc committee and the public outreach committee, right? So okay um I think

[1:29:42] what we'll do is we'll um present to the committees um if we're going to let's

[1:29:49] say for next fiscal year we're going to consider lower lowering the rates

[1:29:53] instead or increasing the rate instead of 9% we can look at 5% and how much

[1:29:57] money would that come out of reserves can we share that with you and then

[1:30:00] whatever's left over we can spend I think you want to spend $500,000

[1:30:04] additional on outreach efforts is that right there

[1:30:07] » for five years >> for five years 1.1 million for rate

[1:30:11] futures rate stabilization. >> Okay. So, we can and we'll we'll come

[1:30:15] back with some some um programs with the numbers too. I think it's good for you

[1:30:19] to see the numbers too. You need to see the numbers and um see where that

[1:30:24] » Yeah. Okay. >> You know, I I think to draw you're

[1:30:29] drawing for a consensus. I think there's really two factors that out of all of

[1:30:34] this. This was a good report. I this was really good. But I think out of all of

[1:30:39] it, education and rate stabilization are the two areas that we're asking you to

[1:30:45] overall. No matter what numbers we use, those those are the areas we're asking

[1:30:49] you to focus on. >> By the way, Echo Hero, you click on it.

[1:30:54] Did you notice that it's almost completely yellow and green?

[1:30:58] » Oh, there. Yeah, they have a lot of yellow, white, yellow, and green.

[1:31:02] » So, that changed the colors. >> Yeah. So you guys,

[1:31:07] » yes, we [clears throat] we're clear. >> Okay. Thank thanks for thanks for the

[1:31:11] discussion. It's really thank you for your work. So

[1:31:15] » thank you. >> And and I'm sure the numbers lady had a

[1:31:18] lot to do with this because >> I think Jenn

[1:31:26] [laughter]

[1:31:28] all right. Uh any oral communications and any director comments?

[1:31:34] Okay. So we are uh board meeting make sure

[1:31:41] » 31st >> knows that it's the week

[1:31:44] » board meetings was postponed to the annual

[1:31:49] » the 31st. >> Oh wait 31st.

[1:31:51] » Yeah it's the week after the conference. >> Okay

[1:31:54] » the 24th meeting is now on. >> Yes.

[1:32:01] » Okay. So we'll uh we'll adjourn to move August 31.

[1:32:08] » Thank you.

Board of Directors Study Session

Transcript