Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to the Transportation and Environment Committee. It is Monday, March 24th. There are two items on the agenda. Today, the first is Executive Regulation 1824 for Transportation Service Improvement Fund. For background back in 2015, the Council created a 25 cent per ride surcharge on transportation network companies like Uber and Lyft and these funds are used to provide transportation services for people with disabilities, for seniors and for those with limited incomes. And the regulation before us helps set the rates for procedures for just bursting those funds to taxicab operators for these really, really important services. There have been updates throughout the years, most recently, a few years ago, to make sure that those funds were dispersed and those funds have been dispersed. So we need to update them once again. and the regulation more specifically reduces the per trip wheel chair accessible vehicles reimbursement from $25 to $20. Only pays $0.40 per mile reimbursement for the miles traveled within while providing safe transportation services to a passenger in the vehicle and then it also limits reimbursements to trips less than 75 miles from the pickup location, which is in line with the county's definition of local travel. Mr. Kenny, did I miss anything? Thank you. I'll give a brief overview since we're also in the middle of budget of kind of how this fits into the fiscal picture and how that wraps into the impetus for this regulation. Very briefly. As you mentioned, the. As also we have with us representatives from DOT who manage this program, who are happy to answer questions. We, so the transportation services improvement fund is funded entirely by those 25 cents surcharges on TNC trips. So this regulation was trying to better align the expenditures of the TSIF with the revenues to ensure a fund balance. As you can see on page two of the packet, the fund balance was projected to reach, you know, negative 8 million by FY 30. So this effort, which has been undertaken with the TaxiCAP Services Commission and other stakeholders over the past couple years has been an attempt to get us back to a stable and healthy fund balance going forward. So these changes, which would reduce the per trip reimbursement from $25 to $20 and would only pay out the $0.40 per mile reimbursement on trip activities while passing, so that are serving passengers, rather than those intermediate activities and would also limit reimbursement to trips less than 75 miles. That, as you can see on page three of the packet, brings the TSI fund balance down to within the positive range and gets us back into that stable fiscal outlook. You'll also notice in the county executives FY26 operating budget under the services section, this is reflected as a $991,000 roughly reduction to transportation services, improvement fund tax recovery investments to ensure the stability of the fund. So that kind of how that graphs onto the operating budget due to this fiscal reality council staff suggest the committee recommend approving this executive regulation. Thank you for that, DOT. Good afternoon, I'm Ovalan and Deputy Director of DOT here with me today are Phil McLaughlin, our General Manager of Transit Services and Sam OG are Section Chief of, I'm sorry, our Deputy General Manager of Special Transportation. So, chair glass, as you mentioned, we have been spending the funds, the balance that was accumulated has pretty much been depleted revenue wise. This fund was pulling in revenue of about 2.4 million a year before COVID. When COVID hit, we took a few years of really downturn in the revenue, less than a million dollars. It's back last year and training this year to about 10 percent less than what was the pre-pandemic level of about 2.1 million. But again, that accumulated balance has been dispersed, and if we continue to spend on the right that we are now and accordance with the current executive regulations, the balance of the fund we would go into when negative situation over time. So this is kind of you know efforts to write the ship if the revenue increases over time we're happy to come back with adjustments to the revenue to the executive regulation to further disperse those funds and and keep a consistent balance to the fund. Thank you for that. And just want to highlight the kind of the the the give and take nature of this in which just in 2022, I believe 2023, we amended the regulation so that the funding could get out quicker, right? Because it hadn't been dispersed. Can you talk about that process and clearly that's been successful? Yes. And so a series of changes had come up to the existing regulation at the time. One of the major components that we use to draw down the fund balance was the series of grants. Like if you want to go into those in more detail, I can have Sam describe those, but some of the other provisions, particularly the amount that we reimburse for trips, what trips we reimburse for, because we were reimbursing for all trips, not necessarily when there was a wheelchair bound passenger in the vehicle. And then we were also having trips that were out of the local area and we really wanted to focus this incentive to the local trips and serving the population of Montgomery County. So Sam, if you would take a moment and try to grant that with us. So one of the things that the change that we made was when this regulation was initially initiated, We would have a car driver or a car company who purchases or retrofits a wheelchair accessible vehicle, we would pay out 15,000 in three disbursements. So we changed that by giving them the whole 15,000 for starters. And then when we came back, we proposed 30,000 and the council approved 45,000 to them. They get that fully from the moment they can present to us. Any information that shows that they have purchased or retrofitted a vehicle that's in service as a taxi cab. That's, that was a key change. And then just to give you an idea of where we were and where we are now. In 2013, we had close to 820 taxi cabs in operation. We only had 26 of them that were wheelchair accessible. Today we have closer to 200 cabs in operation and we have 80 wheelchair accessible vehicles providing taxi cab service. So the program has been really successful as you know as we can see. I'll say it again the reason for this regulation is because the program has been successful as you noted and so it just needs to be amended to make sure that funding is there for future vehicles that need the support. Makes sense. Councilman Ruffling. to be amended to make sure that funding is there for future vehicles that need the support. Makes sense. Councilman Ruffling. Thank you. I fully agree with this. I just had a couple just curiosity questions. So from the perspective of they reducing the per trip from 25 to 20, I'm assuming that given that the reimbursement to purchase the vehicle in the first place, that decrease isn't gonna be less motivating for a driver to purchase a vehicle and do this or I'm just concerned that the decrease from 25 to 20 will be a demotivator to continue the program. So when we came here in 2000 when we proposed the change to the regulation in 2022, We were at a point where we had, it was $10 for a trip. And what we were proposing back then was $15 for daytime trips and then $20 to incentivize for late night trips from midnight until 6 a.m. That's what we proposed when we came to change the regulation. So that's in line with, you know, we cause absolutely. What you're basically thought about jurisdictions and all of that. So it's not, we don't feel like, the car drivers will feel anyway about providing those groups. Okay. Yeah. And then the other one was the reimbursed only for passengers in the vehicle. Just what about getting to that passenger's home? Is that going to be reimbursed? Or so only when the passengers in the vehicle. Only when the passenger is in the vehicle, what we've... Based on the fawn's availability of the fawns, we are currently paying from the moment the person gets in that car and drives to their, you know, go to post-restore for their personal reasons, order them actually transporting passengers, and that's the concern that we have. So I get the concern about them using the vehicle for other things other than the passenger trip. My concern would be whether drivers would be dissuaded to go out to areas further out to pick up a passenger if they're only going to be and reimburse for that half of the trip, the trip back, wherever they're going. I'm just concerned that some parts of the county aren't gonna be covered. Council member, back on the drivers generally out all day long getting dispatched fares. And so they're in various parts of the county. We have no way to control where they're at in one particular time. But even when they were not in revenue service, if you will, they were being reimbursed for those trips or they were being reimbursed for their mileage. So we're trying to consolidate the mileage when they're actually focusing on on a wheelchair passenger. The other elements of it, you know, we had some issues during the Inspector General's audit of the program where we were getting, you know, requests for fraudulent trips. We need something that helps us line up their actual manifest with something we can verify as a trip where they start and stop from will be very difficult to kind of pin down whether they should be reimbursed. Right, and I understand that and I really appreciate that the new restrictions I think that makes sense. I just know, you know, living where I live, where you live. Service is not, taxi cab service is very difficult in that area of the county. And so that I am concerned about that. I appreciate this and I'll support this. I just want to make sure that we don't have an unintended consequence of not having service throughout the entire county. So we will definitely keep an eye on that. Well, monitor for that if we see a change in the location of the trips and everything. that if we see a change in the location of the trips and everything and and and again this regulation would be constantly adjusted based on what revenues are coming to the fund. So if we need to make further adjustments to address issues like that, we will do that. Thank you. Councillor Paisen-Stort. Thank you. And thank you to Councillor Meher-Balcom for her questions. So mine is more in process. I do support this moving forward, but it does seem like we have over the years, pretty frequently made changes to this. And I'm just curious about the outreach and how much you're speaking to the actual taxi cab drivers. And also our commission on aging, our commission on people with disabilities to get feedback on how the program is doing and what changes they're seeing in their needs. Obviously, COVID shifted things and I know you were responding to a lot of that, but just curious. Yes. So we have a taxi cab services commission and we meet regularly with them. They were supportive of these changes. Prior to 2023, we did a really concerted effort to include the commission on aginging, Commission on People with Disabilities, and what we proposed to, you know, the county executive was as a result of input from the Commission on Aging, Commission on People with Disabilities, with the nonprofit grants that we've had for the last two years, last two years, over a million and six hundred thousand dollars given to non-profit that cater to individuals with disabilities, older adults and people with limited incomes was as a result of input from commissional aging, commissional Disabilities, regarding this fund. So yes, we have, the department does have representatives that go frequently to Commissioner of Aging, Commissioner of People with Disabilities, meetings, and provide feedback to the leadership of the department so that we're all in line. And Sam, the commission, the taxi commission has representatives on it from those commission, other commissions or a representative from those. Exactly. The taxi cap services commission has a representative that cares to all the adults, people with disabilities that came from the Commission on Aging and you know Commission of people with disabilities. So it's fully represented within the Taxic App Services Commission. So we are in line with the opiate tips, basically. Great, that's terrific. Thank you for providing that background is really helpful and Mr. Kenney at the pleasure of the chair, that could be included in the final packet that goes to the full council. I think it's important to know that you all are communicating with the folks who are benefiting from this fund and getting that feedback. And it looks like you're doing a great job at that. So thank you. Thank you for highlighting those different points and our appreciation to the Taxicab Services Commission and its diverse membership, right? And I know that all of those different communities have been supportive of the various iterations, trying to figure out how to disperse these funds and make sure they are used because I know that recently we received communication from a mother whose child has cerebral palsy and whenever they call for taxi for medical services, it can sometimes take a very long time and that they want to make sure that rights are available when they need them and that we have funding for this program moving forward and make sure those that are more vehicular dependent still are able to have their calls answered, calls for service answered. So thank you all for that. Without any objection, we'll support this regulation. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I actually thought most of the room was here for this conversation, but it seems the room has almost cleared. Seems the Taxi Cab Commission really filled their car for this hearing. Okay. So, now we're on to the second item of this afternoon and that is review of the comprehensive solid waste management 10 year plan. The state law, a state law requires us to adopt and submit to the Maryland Department of Environment. A plan that addresses the systematic collection and acceptance and disposal of solid waste over the next decade. And while we know that waste management might not be glamorous, it is something that our residents are paying close attention to within the system that we have here in the county. And one major issue that has sparked concern among the community, especially those in district two, nearest Sugarloaf and Dickerson is the incinerator, also known as the Resource Recovery Facility, RRF, and while the council has not formally taken a position on that facility, the plan that we are going to review today does set the stage for a transition away from the incinerator, which aligns with the county's broader goals, which have been accepted and adopted to aim for zero waste within the very near future, quite frankly. 2035 is not very far away. One of the big issues already on residents' minds is fee increases in the proposed budget. That is not the discussion that we're having today, but it is all interrelated as the proposed FY26 budget does include increased solid waste fees that go towards investments that are included in the solid waste management plan. So for me, I think that this draft plan does include foundational strategies that help move us in the right direction towards long-term sustainability while ensuring transparency and public engagement and we'll get into that as well. But there is a lot to unpack. I don't know if colleagues have any opening comments right now. Nope, okay, we'll hold those comments for a bit. But Mr. Olvchenko, I'll turn it over to you to walk us through some of the finer details and then we'll have a good conversation with DEP. Yeah, sure. And as you mentioned, I think it is important to elaborate that this plan is coming to the council for approval at an interesting time. It is, it is a three year cycle. And so we have a number of issues that are looming before the council, but this plan does need to get to MDE by the end of April. And we know that all those issues are not going to be resolved by then. So I see this plan update as more of an interim step in that direction. Some of the things that Chair Glass mentioned. And then the plan will need to be revisited once the council does make final decisions. So it's very important to keep that in mind. But with that said, there's a lot of meat in this plan, a lot of issues and very important components that are important for the committee to be comfortable with as part of this comprehensive update. And we do have, we do a DEP staff here today. We have a few slides just to, just so the committee gets a general sense of the structure of the plan and what's in the plan. And then I had some major elements to discuss a big picture stuff for the plan. There's also a lot of language issues detailed updates and things like that. some of which the staff has been working with DEP to have them updated a bit further since this plan was developed basically last year and has been run through a number of agencies including MDE staff. But now that it's to the council, we wanna make sure that it represents the latest information. So there's some elements in there as well. I don't think the council needs to spend time on that per se, but staff will work on that for the final action by the council in a few weeks. So with that, I'm just gonna bring up the slides and then have DEP. And I have, and I have my colleagues with me, I link KO, is the Chief of the Waste Reduction and Recycling Section. And Alan Poltinewix is the Chief of the Refuse and Recycling Collection for the county. So, skip. Okay. So, I think that what's very important to notice on this slide is, and as Keith like to say, and I would like to say, and I would like to say, and I would like to say, and I would like to say, and I would like to say, and I would like to say, and I would like to say, and I would like to say, and I would like to say, and I would like to say, So the waste plan will have to be reflected in an amendment to the county's solid waste plan. So basically, your viewing a picture right now of what we have right now in the in the solid waste arena. If we make any material changes to that, we'll have to bring it back to you for an amendment. This slide here shows a little bit of the history and the timeline for this Solid Waste Plan. As Keith mentioned before, the plan has been or the technical portion of this plan has already been reviewed by the Mayor and Department of the Environment. We got an approval of that draft back in September of last year. And with that, I mean, that's a normal process that we do. We don't want to go to the mayor and the Department of Environment with a full document and for them to start reviewing it from scratch. The document is so big that all the initial chapters, chapters one, two and three, they have a lot of technical data that gets updated every three years. And we send that to the Department of Environment first for them to make sure that they're okay with that portion. And they give us a technical approval. from there we start working on the other portions of the plan. And as Keith mentioned before, the Department of the Environment is expecting a full approval unsumiddled to them by the end of April of this year. The plan is divided into five different sections. As I said before, the chapters one, two and three are more technical and nature is all data that needs to be updated. Chapter four is takes care of all the facilities that we have in the county, a description of them. And chapter five is really the one that is the plan of action basically. It addresses the solubase generation issues, materials management and solubase waste, accept and facility needs. So that's pretty much the chapter that we'll probably be discussing here that has all the aiming for zero waste and the plants that we are, that are in progress right now and the ones that we're planning to implement. And we can go over these next slides. I think that we should go to chapter five, the other ones are data. Chapter five is, we're going to read from here, DEPs conducting a robust analysis of alternative options for recycling and managing solid waste materials, expanding ongoing recycling efforts of the aiming forIN for Zero Waste Initiative. The AIMIN for Zero Waste Initiative encompasses waste diversion and reduction considerations, recycling and composting, facility upgrades and operational modifications, including the planned closure of the resource recovery facility. education and outreach and associated policy and programmatic changes. And we go into the aiming for zero waste initiatives and we're going to be able to talk here about all the good things that we're doing and the ones that we're planning to do next, including commercial food scraps recycling our partnership program, the residential food scraps pilot program, the save as you throw program that it's coming to us very soon. the edible food Recovery Program, the municipal solid waste management system analysis that Arcade is completing, that report is gonna be ready very soon. The material recovery facility upgrades that we discussed last week, that's the recycling facility. The organics management facility development that has, I mean, the CIP has been approved by Council. Thank you. And we keep working on that. Construction and demolition degrees recycling program that is something that we are still, it's in the works, we are trying to get more information on how to develop that program. And the substricht vehicle consolidation that is an item that has been discussed many occasions, some very difficult item and that we still, it still on the works. And again, if county council approved this Solid Waste Management Program, it will be amended if there is a material change to whatever is in this particular programs. Keith, you have some. Yeah, I think that's it for the slides. I do have some items I'd like to go through quickly in the packet and then we can focus on Q&A with the council members. First we did get comments from both WSSE water and the planning department staff. And the WSSE water comments came a bit earlier and DEP has already affirmed that they will incorporate those into the plan update. So those will be reflected in the final draft plan that's approved by the council. The planning department staff comments came barely recently early last week, I believe. So DPS not had an opportunity and I had not an opportunity to work with them on those comments. But those to the degree, there's affirmation of that those elements will also be incorporated into the draft plan. And if any issues arise from that, we'll let the committee members know. So those are more, tend to be more informational types of comments or clarifications of information in the document, not so much policy-related issues. For instance, with WCC water, they deal with septage and biosolids and how those are treated and kept out of the waste stream. So that's more, it's their venue and it's their area of how they want it represented in the plan, I think, and they've suggested more of a reference to the 10-year water and sewer plan since that's also an evolving document rather than trying to codify specifics in this plan. So it references the other document a bit more in several cases. The planning department staff comments focus a bit more on land use related issues, thrive, things like that, and making sure that some of the background information in the draft plan reflects the latest philosophy at the planning department. So like I said, we'll be going over that to make sure there's more consistency with their understanding of those policies and practices in the plan. But in terms of issues for discussion, I do have several issues in the packet starting on page three. We've talked briefly about the potential closure of the resource recovery facility and you've already heard that we have this management that's MSW analysis that we'll be receiving shortly. That'll give staff an opportunity to get more familiar with that and begin to develop both the short-term approach for the council in terms of how to deal with the budget, which is before us now. And we have about, let's see, six weeks, we sell to deal with that. So we have to get some elements of the budget done, solid waste fees, for instance, are approved by resolution before June 1st. So we have a number of issues we have to deal with. On the other hand, we may have some unfinished business on the broader macro side of this. And we have to figure that out as well. So once we have this analysis before us, we'll have an opportunity to start to to flesh out those issues and work with the committee to figure out how to get all of that through the council and resolved, however it does get resolved. So that's sort of the first big element here, but the plan itself speaks to the analysis, it speaks to this information being provided to the council, but it does not commit the council in any particular direction at this point. So that's why I really would call this an interim document. I'd like to pick up where you just left off. Mr. Lovechenko specifically with regard to the MSW, right? And the report that is forthcoming, but it's all intermingled here. And what is the timeline for when that report comes out and in your understanding or estimation, how does it interplay with all of the other decisions that are before us? Right now we have this waste management plan, is based in some part, or large part, quite frankly, on the budget decisions regarding the fees, and then we have this other issue looming out ahead of us. So talk to us of how we are supposed to make independent decisions when there are lots of variables ahead. Thank you for that question. And there has been some briefings with staff members on that plan, on the MSW plan. My understanding is that council members from the T.A.N.E. Committee Committee will be receiving that draft report in the next few days. After this, after this, this committee session though, right? After this committee session. Yes. So, while we have not received either the briefing or the report, what, what should we be looking for? Are there, let me ask you this, it's hard to engage in conversation, right? That is somewhat hypothetical yet determined. The decisions that we are making today would the future information and the future MSW plan give us pause on our discussion today? I think that the fact that this solid waste plan is showing our current conditions, our current operations. There is a goal stated in the plan to close the incinerator and replace it with some other alternative MSW process. That's the way, and that's why what I said before, that any decision that comes out of the MSW alternative plan, because there will be a number of items to be decided, different ways of manage the waste. Whatever decision we make and the council makes at that time, we will have to amend this solid waste plan to reflect that particular decision. That's the point I was getting to, that the future conversations and forthcoming analyses will require us to come back and amend the proposal that is before us today. Correct. Okay. We're victims of our timing with the three-year cycle. Actually, we're a little bit past three years. I did get an extension, but the timing is what it is, and we do need to get this out by the end of April to meet the state requirement. Understood that. I understand that. I'd go a step further in saying that within the administration there has been a determination particularly by the county executive to close the incinerator and we've been waiting on this for six years. And so while the timing might have created this rush as Mr. Lovchenko you noted, it didn't necessarily have to be this way. There could have been a longer planning, more engagement, and have this adopted or at least working towards it in various budgets, not just the one that's before us that we will have to approve, presumably within six weeks, Madam President. So, let me move on, but I stated my concern there. In order to move on and do what we need within our waste management plan, a large part of reducing our waste stream is clearly within our food system. And you've talked a lot about that. And I'm excited about that. And I know our youth are excited about that. Mr. Boyko is excited about that. That's why he's here. Fact is we have 97,000 tons of food that is wasted every single year. And so we need to streamline those processes. One of the very first ZTAs or the first ZTA I ever introduced in past was to expand on farm composting. But more broadly, what are the plans right now for more composting? I know that we've allocated money in the capital budget. What is the status of that and is that even enough? Thank you for that question. So what goes first? The processing of the food scraps or the collection of those food scraps. And what we've done in the meantime, because we don't have a process in facility, although it has been approved by Council, we have about 27 million dollars. Thank you so much for approving that. For a processing facility, we keep unfortunately, we cannot build that processing facility in our yard-trim facility at this time because I will require a negotiation with Sugarloaf too, be able to site that facility in that county property. So what we're doing in the meantime, as we are trying to locate other available sites, is we have started a food scraps, residential curbside program. We're actually doing in three areas right now. It's very successful. But the problem that we have is that we need to take that the food scraps to print George's can, which is a long way for that grab to go and come back. So even though we're doing this, it is a pilot. We cannot expand it countywide because that will require probably 34 trucks to put on the street to do that. And it doesn't environmentally, it doesn't make a lot of sense. So the other portion that I mean we started three different programs, one commercial partnership program that I lean is the one managing it, the residential pilot program that Alan is managing and we're going to start a pilot save us your throw program that will be another way of dealing with food scraps. And at this time what we're going to be doing instead of segregating food scraps for collection we're going to combine those food scraps with yard trim which is I think the way to do it in the future because instead of putting more trucks on the street, which is not an economy on conscious way of doing it, we're going to combine both and use the resources that we have right now. The same trucks that we're using for collecting yard trim are going to be the ones collecting the combination of food crops and yard trim and hopefully being brought to a county facility inside the camp which we are looking for the sites. So that's the answer to the foot crops, the combination of all those things, the commercial, the residential, save us you throw. And during the last CIP, just a few months ago, last year, when we approved the funding for the composting facility, we recognized the process and the complications involved. What is the status of it? For the process in facility, what we have been doing is trying to locate a site. So we have a number of sites that are possible sites. We are ready to present that information internally. And I make a decision of which one of those sites is the one that it's going to be the one that we choose basically. I have a lot of other questions and I have an amendment I'd like to propose but let me turn it over to Councillor Marblecombe who represents this. Thank you. Thank you, and I have other comments. I just wanted to interject on this. So will one of those sites be the. The. Site with the sugar love citizen's association site. One of those sites will be that site. That will be the preferred site. Okay. So my understanding, and I know that the discussions got tense as we were talking about the contract for the incinerator. But my understanding directly from them is that they're ready to move forward with that site with the county. So I'm hoping that that's that's what you what you're thinking as well. Yes, we we keep negotiating with them. It's been very clear that what the group wants is a certain date for the closer of incinerator to be able to move forward. And hopefully we can, we're gonna be able to give them that. Yeah, so in my understanding is that the two aren't necessarily tied together. Yes, they want a date certain, but they're also ready to move forward on the site for the composting. So hopefully that can happen. And that will be the preferred site because we have the infrastructure already in place. At any other site, we will need to have utilities, infrastructure. That will be our preferred site. Okay, great. I have other things, but if you want to do that, yeah. Yeah, we all have a lot of questions. Do you have anything on this point? More broad or let's keep? On this chapter, but not on the incident. Do you, yes? We're, so we're on comp, if it's related to composting, let's keep it. No, it's a bit broader than composting. Okay, so hold that fucking. No, no, no, no, no, we all have a lot of big questions and thoughts. Let's keep it. No, it's a bit broader than compost. Okay, so hold that thought then. Yeah, no, no, no, no, we all have a lot of big questions and thoughts. That is right. And again, the reason why there are only three sites, community sites for the residential composting is because that has to be taken to print storages. Their capacity is full as I understand it. And so there's just no more capacity. And so if we want to increase our residential composting, let alone commercial and everything else, we need another facility, which is why you all have been working, have been trying to identify. And Mr. Wainer, you, when I asked the question about the composting, understanding it's a complex question, yet all of this is complex. You responded and say, what goes first, right? That is the perfect phrase, right? Because we're trying to tackle this from all these different sides and angles, and looming before us, which we have not yet talked about, is the incinerator in the RRF, what to do with that. And the community, as Council Member Bauchem noted, has lots of questions about what comes first, where goes, what goes where, and how we accommodate for all of this. And one of the things that has frustrated me and I know members in the community is what It seems like a sequential process when the sequence of events either has stalled or is slow. And that is the nature of this work, trying to identify sites, trying to identify vendors and systems to literally pick up trash or food scraps and place it somewhere. And that has stymied other progress that folks would have liked to have seen. And in the plan that is before us, it refers to the sequential order of things. And colleagues, I would like to introduce an amendment under section 5.3.4 for the resource recovery facility. Inserted on page 161, circle 161 in the packet. So halfway down, it's section 534 and what I would like to amend is the inclusion of that second paragraph and amended to this. As the county evaluates options outlined in the finalized solid waste management system analysis, it will concurrently, keyword there, it will concurrently explore feasible waste aversion and disposal alternatives while advancing efforts toward the closure of the resource recovery facility. In simpler language, and I think that's pretty straightforward, it means we're going to explore all options at the same time, because the order is not moving as quickly and is I think hindering other opportunities. And so I would like to introduce that colleagues have any thoughts or questions. They're both good. Okay, great. Easiest amendment ever. Great. So that is unanimous for that adoption. And you should have the language, but I'll hand that over that way. I'll take a pause. You want to jump in? Thank you. And thank you for that amendment. I request because there are so many moving pieces to this that I think also when this does go before the full council and as we're going through budget. Slide eight gave, you know, over 10 bullets on all the things we're doing on aiming for zero waste initiatives. And I think what would be very helpful is to have this laid out in a table. To say here's the effort. It's in planning's this is the start date this is this is the funding we're we have or or requesting we could discuss this in more detail but I think because we have so many moving pieces to this not and it would be helpful for looking at this plan but but then also benefit us as we move forward on this committee and the full council to be thinking about this overall and like what are all the pieces here? Where are they in motion and the costs for each of these? You know, what investment we've already made in the county towards this? And what is the request moving forward. I think laying that all out in a table would be incredibly helpful as we proceed in finalizing this plan and again looking at the budget. If I could just pick up on that. Yeah. And then I'll turn the river to Councilor Malcolm. So putting even a finer point on that. In the FY26 budget, there is approximately $35.5 million for RFF maintenance that is also predicated on the proposed fee increases. So what do you have that breakdown already? Do you know where the fee increases necessarily go that were residential and commercial property? Again, we're getting ahead of ourselves talking about the budget, but it's hard not to talk about that in this context. Well, the fee increases that came out from the executive in March. We do have the full array of where they are increasing and which sector is affected by them for the entire budget, not broken down by how much of that is related to the RRF maintenance issues. That's what we're all up with. We need staffs in the process of getting that we don't have that today. Okay. I think that's going to be incredibly important for full council consideration. Again, I know it's budget related, but we need to know what's possible here. Okay. Council member, welcome. Yes, thank you. And I would suggest that the table also look in terms of capital and operating because some of this has is very heavily capital and others are operational and that maybe years down the road but I think we need to be thinking about this particularly if we're looking at these significant increases in fees. So I think that's important. I do want to I I'll celebrate the positives first. And that is the, this list of things that are happening. It's very exciting to think about curbside composting. I appreciate the gentleman here. I believe from Northwest. No, all right. Today to talking about composting. I think that's fantastic. We need to do that sooner, rather than later. I'm also saved as you throw. I think it's going to be really important in hopefully changing people's behaviors. I mean, to me, that's the whole point of that. And then the construction debris is another one. So I think that all of these are great and exciting. And I look forward to just seeing the progress that we're making. And then from the item that we're not talking about, that everyone's talking about, and that's the fee increases. So I think that, you know, it's a very, we're talking about changing the entire way that we deal with our trash in the county. Something that was promised many years ago, but not acted upon. And so I think that it's very difficult to have the body approve the changes in our entire solid waste system. Right in the middle of budget, right when we're trying to in a time when we're all looking at the budget, looking at the federal implications of what's happening today. We're being asked to make a significant decision that is going to impact our residents very significantly in this fee increase at the same time that we've been presented with a budget and with a tax increase. I just wanted to lift that up. We're not talking about it today, but I think it's a very big ask to ask the county council. Most of whom haven't been briefed on any part of this conversation. The first time that many of our colleagues have heard about this was when we got the budget and we saw the size of the fee increases. And we take our job very seriously in terms of approving the budget but also approving this path. So I look forward to seeing the plan that's going to come across. And do think it's important for staff, Mr. Lovchenko, to when we look at those fee increases, what part of it is required for the upkeep for the incinerator versus what part of that fee increase is looking at the future, the change in the future waste, solid waste. So that's kind of where I'm at on that discussion, whose name shall not be named. Thank you. Thank you. You summed it up very nicely. And I agree with that. And again, it's hard to intermingle allle all of this, but it is all part of the same conversation. You have an either? No, I have some on later, but no. Well, where can I just say in terms of intermingling, the combingling, let's work on that too. I think they're done presenting. So if you would just want to help. It's the, I don't're done presenting. So if you would just want to. It's the I don't know if Mr. Lechenko has something. I did have a question on the consolidation of sub districts. A and B. Before we get to that. Right. So I didn't want to jump all the way there. I did have some suggested language we could put in the resolution that makes clear that the council is expecting once it gets the analysis from DEP that will make decisions on these broader issues If if that's something the committee wants to you know put in the resolution that's fine It just it's clear laying out that that decision is coming after this plan and not part of this I don't know if we need to include it in the resolution. It's on the record and it's yeah process. That's plenty of discussion about it. It's an issue. That's that's fine. And yeah, if you'd like to talk about the sub-district issue, that was another item in my packet that I wanted to make sure we did. Well, before we before we leave the incinerator, Let me leave it behind, right? Let me just ask a question because I know that back in 2016, there was a fire that happened at the incinerator and by my understanding, it was a very large fire, about 85 feet high and there were fire and rescue personnel that were there for the better part of two days just after it was put out making sure it stayed out and for the safety of the facility. And we don't want that ever to happen again, of course. But if it were to happen again or something else were to happen and you know, I just watched Zero hour zero day, right and who knows what happens in the world out there But if something bad happened at the incinerator what are the alternatives? What would we do during that time period that it was a non-operational Well, thank you for that question Yes, that 2016 fire was before my time here with the county, but decide remain close for a number of weeks. And the county took, DEP took some emergency measures to be able to move that waste from the transfer station. There were a number of things that were done at the time, which could be feasible to do So now things have changed in the area area in terms of facilities that are accepting waste in terms of distances and but the research that I was able to do it was not at easy records were not kept that tightly from time. But a number of trucks were diverted to other transfer stations in the area. They were not even coming to our transfer station. They were sent to other, just to release the transfer station from all that volume which would have been almost impossible to move. So there was a combination of measures that were taken at the time. There were transfer traders that were loaded and were sent to at the time time, Covantas, now re-world, sister facility in Fairfax. So they were taking the most of that volume but in the other incinerator that they operate in Fairfax County. Tracks were sent to Annapolis Junction, which is another transfer station in Howard County that takes that material to King George Landfield in Virginia. So there were a number of things that were done just to alleviate the if the question is can we still do the same thing today? Most likely, it has to be different because the incinerator in Fairfax County is full. It's up to the production is already full there. So that will probably not be an alternative for us. So we will have to rely on transfer stations in the area and send in that that trash to landfills either in Pennsylvania or Virginia. Thank you and I know you were not there but appreciate you having the institutional knowledge of what happened and how times are different over the last 10 years or so. Thank you. Subdistricts. Mr. Chank. Yeah. And then I'll ask my question. Sure. The sub-district issue has been around as long as I've been working on environmental about DEP budgets. As you know, we do have a sub district A and a sub district B in the county for trash collection. Now, that's not true for recycling where we have a single unified district for recycling, but for on the trash side in sub district A, the county contracts with haulers to provide once in the trash collection for folks not in municipalities, but in the January and sub district A. And those folks, by the way, can opt in for a second day of collection if they want, although very few people do. Meanwhile, on sub district B, it's it's up to the property owner, or if they live in a HOA, the HOA may contract for services on behalf of the property owner, but DEP is not involved in determining who collects the trash for folks in sub-district B. And that creates a lot of interesting issues, especially when you're looking at county-wide initiatives. That's one of the reasons where we have a single unified recycling district is because that greatly simplifies that issue. But it comes up in terms of food waste composting and other things where the county, if they can contract directly with a hauler, they have a lot more ability to scale things up in an area and have continuity of service and so forth. And such as should be, while there is some regulatory authority over the homework, it's not a direct contract authority. So it creates some issues. And in 2016, I'm sorry, 2019, there was an Office of Legislative office of legislative oversight report that was looking at a broad number of issues with regard to solid waste. But one of the ones I looked at was the sub district issue. And noted their suggestion that if we were starting from scratch, we would probably want to have a single unified district, but it recognized that we're not starting from scratch. it had some suggestions for how we might transition areas more systematically into Subdistrict A basically through a county initiated petition process But the short answer to this is that that study the OO report was not Disgust at the Teeny Committee or at the full council. It got a briefing at the full council, an introduction, but it was not then revisited. So it has not been pursued or none of the initiatives in it have been pursued. More recently, we had an Amy for Zero Waste Task Force in 2020 that also suggested looking at a potential consolidation. And then even more recently than that, the Solid Waste Advisory Committee, which is one of our formal advisory committees with DEP, they also have suggested they sent a report out about a year ago, suggesting some ways to consider transitioning while also dealing with some of the issues that have often come up, especially from property owners in sub district B small hallways that feel they would be disadvantaged if they were to go into a sub district A environment. So the Solid Waste Advisory Committee had a number of suggestions for how those issues could be alleviated. But that report also has not been formally discussed by the council. So what I have suggested in my packet is that this council, consider after budget, taking this issue up, having initially a briefing and listening session with the interested parties with DEP and others to re-acquaint itself with the issue and begin to figure out some next steps to consider. Great. And I think my question is given the date of these particularly the OLO report was from 2019, in order to set us up for a good conversation that is informed, should we request or ACF OLO can do an update of that report or does the Solid Waste Advisory Committee report from November 2023 is that updated enough in your opinion, Mr. Lachango? Well, I don't think a lot of the broader issues have changed per se. Some of the numbers may change. Oh, oh, had some difficulty getting some information on sub district B because it is independent of most of the county control. But we can certainly ask OLO if there were elements of that report that could require revision. I don't think it would require a full bloom. Right, right, yeah. But we could certainly do that in advance of a T&E committee meeting to make sure that was updated appropriately. No, that was my only question because it looked like that this was a good thing to revisit, but given the date of when the OLO report was done and the Solid Waste Advisory Committee just thinking about how while we're going through budget, there may be some prep work to set us up for success. Yeah, well, so I'll add to Mr. LeBchenko's recollection and that the T&E committee did have a brief discussion on the report and the two major items that were expressed to us were concerned from the independent small haulers about being incorporated into a larger county-wide system and then concerned from residents who currently might contract for multiple pick updates during the week, having to reduce that collection if they subscribed to the counties one day a week. And so those were the two main mitigative actors, yeah. And just to note, there is currently a petition process for folks in sub-district B or A to switch sub-districts, either from A to B or B to A. They do have to meet certain requirements in terms of forming a logical petition area that could be served and have be sufficiently adjacent to the other area to make it work logistically. But there is that petition process and I would say those happen every maybe one every four or five years or so typically from B to A. I don't think I've seen one from A to B. But that process is available, but it doesn't happen very often. And that was one of the issues in the OLO report. They suggested that the county take more of a proactive role in establishing some of these petition areas that would be logical to be served in in sub-dissue day. If the community in that petition area so chose to do. That's a wrap. Thank you. I appreciate that bringing this up and I do think that we should talk about it particularly with this with other infrastructure issues coming online. online. What is the curbside composting and it makes sense if we're going to it similar to recycling if we're going to do curbside, a county wide curbside composting, it makes sense to have a similar district, same district, or at least. curbside, a county-wide curbside composting, it makes sense to have a similar district, same district, or at least look at it, right? But then also I would be interested in how the save as you throw program would work in the sub-districts, right? Because it would seem like it would only work in A, not in B, but I'm not sure about that. So I think that given that we are going to make significant changes in all aspects of how we dispose of waste, I think that this topic should come up again. Again, speaking of how this is all combing gold, right? Yes, there you go. Any other comments, colleagues? Mr. O'Chenko, anything else you want to address? Yeah, I also did suggested my packet that we get an update on the Save As You Throw initiative. That's also been under study for quite some time with DEP. It is complicated because we have a fairly complex charging structure now and it would be certainly a significant change for anybody going from the current structure to that. Going from a volume-based, from house-based to volume-based, has all sorts of general fee-related issues regardless of the subject area you're in, whether it's water and sewer or trash or electricity or whatever. You know, a volume based approach has built in pros and cons to it in terms of the rate pair. And who benefits, who pays more, who pays less under that model. And then all the different ways you can actually roll it out in terms of communities that have done it, in the aiming for zero waste task force some years ago, looked at some communities that they've generally been smaller, much smaller than us, but there are different ways to administer it. That's one of the advantages of doing some sort of pilot project, like with the food waste, we'd be to investigate some of those approaches as to how you would physically do it. How does the haulers involvement in it? What is the homeowner have to do in advance in terms of purchasing bags or a certain size bin? So that kind of structure is very important, I think, to work out early. So you don't have a major problem when you roll it out across the county. Okay. So thank you for this good conversation. Talking about as much of it now as we can within the greater context. That's going to come the road with with the budget in particular, Mr. Olvchenko teeing up other items that will pick up after after the budget. And I will not predict what the council president how she wants to put this on the agenda, whether it is on consent or standalone. I suspect that some colleagues will have some questions. So we can, I know she will use her best judgment and determining the will of the body, but should this come back for discussion at the full council in any way, the questions that we've asked, I would anticipate you have some answers for as many of them as possible. So, right? Not good. Thank you. With that, we're adjourned. Thank you.