1. July 2002 Board Meeting: Agenda Item 55 Discussion and Request for Direction on the Board Approved SB 2202 Work Plan Recommendation on Jurisdiction Diversion Rate Accuracy Indicators

2. Background SB 2202 (Sher, Chapter 740, Statutes of 2000) May 2001 – July 2001 Working Group and Synthesis Working Group Recommendations November 2001 - Board approves SB 2202 Report to Legislature March 2002 – Board approves SB 2202 Work Plan May 2002 – DPLA Committee directs staff to send “Indicators” out for 30-day review and comment period July 2002 – DPLA Committee directs staff to include Supplemental Indicators table for July Board Meeting

3. Proposed Diversion Rate Accuracy Indicators Categories:  Rural Status  Jurisdiction Size  Base-Year Age  Adjustment Method Factors  Disposal Reporting System Data

4. Disposal Distribution, 2000

5. Public Comments Made during Review and Comment Period Clarify graphs and explanations Use most recent data and include data sources Change a formula to correct a math error Add graphs showing trends over time for some indicators

6. Explain Adjustment Method and negative diversion rates Clarify how the Board will use “Indicators” Suggestions for improving DRS accuracy Public Comments (Cont.)

7. Include other indicators, such as: Visitor influx Seasonal population changes Hosting a landfill or transfer station All indicators listed in the SB 2202 Report, whether quantifiable or not Do not add other indicators Public Comments (Cont.)

8. Responses to Comments Changes made to “Indicators” based on public comments: Clarified and enhanced graphs and explanations Uses most recent data and includes data sources Corrected math error in formula Added Supplemental Diversion Rate Accuracy Issues table with all indicators listed in the SB 2202 report

9. Responses to Comments Upcoming changes to “Indicators” based on public comments: Display trends in disposal and adjustment factors Include range of calculated diversion rates

10. Responses to Comments Board will evaluate jurisdiction compliance case-by-case DRS regulations to address accuracy issues Board staff will continue to research other indicators Jurisdictions still encouraged to submit additional information related to accuracy

11. Key Issues “Indicators” is not conclusive “Indicators” is standard method Jurisdictions may add other accuracy data in Annual Reports “Indicators” is quantitative supplement to diversion rate estimate “Indicators” helps balance diversion rate data with diversion program information Indicators suggested by working group members that are not quantifiable have been included as Supplemental Diversion Rate Accuracy Issues table

12. Options for the Board Direct Staff to: 1.Implement “Indicators” beginning with the next full Biennial Review cycle 2. Modify “Indicators” and return for further discussion and direction 3. Modify “Indicators” as directed; then implement “Indicators” beginning with the next full Biennial Review cycle

13. Staff Recommendations Staff recommends Option 1: Direct staff to implement “Indicators” beginning with the next full Biennial Review cycle

14. Questions?