[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.