[{"_1":2,"_86":-5,"_87":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6495452,"mediaKeyId","5452637-84438adee9cfa2eb69ebce20289d88e3","parentId",5452637,"title","Board cuts Phase 4 from 4‑Bay Park plan and directs staff to seek grants, study fees","audioSeconds",5508,"startMs",9088000,"endMs",14596000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5452637-84438adee9cfa2eb69ebce20289d88e3&start=9088&end=14596","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5452637-84438adee9cfa2eb69ebce20289d88e3/thumbnail_9088000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6495452/El-Dorado-County/California/Board-cuts-Phase-4-from-4Bay-Park-plan-and-directs-staff-to-seek-grants-study-fees","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6495452-2fc0368d06f716ca5cfd816bf8279556/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166521&Signature=LV20R-bk0OsWK9M0DzugkdSba8QI-F41oAbW9UB0JUtye7DPmTEce7JJ-m6nXMx0mbU1N7itgr~syUZXrKb4ER6l7AvYdaiwJ53Vi8VGLMxu8vUe1YQR7cgeDMqG84xmvdwXJvcXdmYC6E0TIrcyok71QS44iRCnRO7zbApI1XeG0LIAQscGZU7JyTeM53JSS2IPrJpXRCPrTcmJfMVIcYolUyehIpEm5d1bnA3HEsAOM~YRxGZ62HH9RmqQ1EZNMzGUc4-~m6oKq6V1rLl6P9Z58kE7um2e3mOTiDD0K-Gvq5-KLgtMBHhSClLG880acSJKEb3QmaKao0FNWKNM7Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-23T01:20:12Z","article","El Dorado County supervisors on July 22 directed staff to move forward on a package of parks‑funding actions: they agreed to a cost‑recovery framework for park services, authorized several grant pursuit steps for improvements at 4‑Bay Park, and removed a proposed Phase 4 (pickleball/basketball courts adjacent to residences) from a grant request after residents raised noise and siting concerns.

Why it matters: The Parks and Trails Division presented a financial sustainability plan to balance public subsidy with user fees and to identify new revenue options — rentals, permitting, concessions and targeted programming conducted by third‑party providers. The board approved staff direction to: (1) pursue a Land and Water Conservation Fund application and related Prop 68 and other grant opportunities for 4‑Bay Park, (2) continue a park fees/ cost‑of‑service analysis (staff to provide cost estimate for a consultant study if requested), (3) begin a request for information for contract recreation providers, and (4) implement a service‑category model that sets higher cost recovery targets for exclusive or rental services while leaving core open parks heavily subsidized.

Major decisions: After public comment and discussion, the board removed Phase 4 (the plan’s courts sited next to homes) from the immediate grant request and approved seeking funds for Phases 1–3 total of approximately $1,439,868 (phase 4 removed) rather than pursuing the entire multi‑phase package. Supervisors also asked staff to return with a firm cost for a consultant fee study before the board decides whether to contract externally or have county staff do the work internally.

Details: Zach Paris, Parks Manager, framed the division’s proposed cost‑recovery model for different service categories — open/free parks (0% target recovery), rentals/filming/structured programs (75–100% recovery), and specialized concessions (>100% recovery). Staff proposed administrative permits for each oak/park impact removal and suggested targeted efforts to increase revenue for rental and concession opportunities without directly running recreation programs.

On 4‑Bay Park specifically, the board had previously allocated approximately $1 million toward a base scope. Staff had proposed seeking additional grant funds to complete later phases. Residents and Supervisor Lane urged caution about locating loud court facilities beside backyards; the board agreed to drop Phase 4 from the current grant request and pursue funding for earlier phases while reserving siting/phase 4 decisions for a future board with appropriate CEQA review if designs change.

Grants and next steps: The board authorized staff to contact Sierra Nevada Conservancy (Prop 68), to submit a Land and Water Conservation Fund application, and to explore Wildlife Conservation Board and other grant sources for Chili Bar site work and restrooms. Staff will return with an estimate for the cost‑of‑service/fee study and a recommended timeline; supervisors asked for an option to phase fee work so initial high‑impact fees (rentals, filming) could be set sooner.

Public reaction and context: Residents voiced support for the plan’s transparency but raised concerns about park siting and impacts on adjacent neighborhoods. The board emphasized the need for more public outreach and agreed to bring back detailed fee study costs before hiring a consultant.

Outcome: Vote to proceed with the modified package (phase 4 removed) carried by the board; staff directed to pursue grants, prepare a phased fee study plan and draft administrative permit language, and return with more detailed cost estimates to inform budget decisions.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","EDC Board Meeting 7-22-2025","oneSentenceSummary","Supervisors gave conceptual approval to a parks cost‑recovery framework, removed Phase 4 from the proposed Pollock Pines/4‑Bay Park expansion, and asked staff to pursue specific grants and a phased fee study while exploring recreation contracting and rental revenue.","taxTitle","El Dorado County, California","taxId",12694,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6495457,"Board delays vote on Eldorado Disposal 6.36% rate request, asks for public briefing",2626,4380000,7006000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5452637-84438adee9cfa2eb69ebce20289d88e3&start=4380&end=7006","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5452637-84438adee9cfa2eb69ebce20289d88e3/thumbnail_4380000.jpg","/articles/6495457/El-Dorado-County/California/Board-delays-vote-on-Eldorado-Disposal-636-rate-request-asks-for-public-briefing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6495457-b0cf9ef61a5f099e3fcc2e8463812e4b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771166521&Signature=nJbgG8IMekOmu-G5ggsPfZgoBPxBYIg8uZRDe2c6NL1ZernyS~BXE9yLT2JU~lbiUDKJIeeF1pEQZhLNbw5WDTxCMqZK~JirfwS9K04ThIjGcbYscq~TgYT~OrIDJJ9jp6C7sRmKcUbWhwyDCJwVlkB4xS-7i8CQVzdeNz5ecsj~WcRM1RDloXijO-zKdjLOZ282Nj-Kz~4sEP1vlgVEAFJvXUFsjCo9t7eOWRJ2kk4FA6kVWyvnm1Czjs9h6Exysdw4sWgSpjY2xOnX0lHrL2CLKi4OdbOPYv6SZH161gDYaUHA~ahhvxhiYuWS~fSOkyNczMajwyysSp7kWbvmTQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on July 22 paused consideration of a rate increase request from Eldorado Disposal Service, asking staff to bring a fuller legal and operational briefing and a public presentation before voting.

County staff and a third‑party consultant had presented a combined request of 6.36% that would raise residential and commercial collection and material recovery facility (MRF) rates. The increase includes a 3.62% interim-year adjustment tied to the U.S. “garbage and trash collection” consumer price index and a 2.74% surcharge to recover construction cost overruns for the new transfer station/MRF, which the consultant reported rose from an original 2014 estimate of about $12 million to roughly $38.7 million.

Why it matters: Commissioners and many residents said they understand the mechanics of the CPI adjustment but are uneasy about passing large project overrun costs to ratepayers amid household affordability pressures. The board asked county counsel to deliver an opinion on whether the board has discretion to deny the overrun portion and directed staff to prepare an information presentation next week about MRF operations, cost drivers and options to reduce impacts on ratepayers.

The case for the increase was presented by Jeff Warren, Director of Environmental Management, and Eric Nylund of Crowe (the independent rate reviewer). Crowe’s analysis described two parts of the application: the 85%‑of‑CPI interim adjustment that produced 3.62%, and an additional 2.74% requested under the franchise agreement’s “unforeseen circumstances” clause to cover actual construction cost increases that Crowe validated by invoice review and site inspection. Crowe’s report showed the latest construction estimate at about $38.7 million and said supporting documentation had been provided. The consultant also summarized that the added 2.74% was calculated using a 10‑year payback period with a 10% internal rate of return consistent with the franchise terms.

Supervisors and public commenters questioned whether the ratepayer should shoulder full responsibility for the contractor’s cost overruns. Supervisor Parlin said, “I could easily support number 1 because it follows the criteria, but I I don't think I can support number 2,” distinguishing the CPI adjustment (which follows the rate manual) from the MRF overrun charge. Other board members urged additional review of whether the county has discretion to refuse the overrun portion, and asked for a public briefing that explains why costs rose and whether alternatives exist.

Several residents said increases are already stretching household budgets. John George, speaking as a 30‑year resident, said his residential bill had risen from about $73.46 in 2021 to $98.19 today and warned that an added 6.36% would push a four‑year total increase near 31%. Chris Payne of the Taxpayers Association emphasized separating the routine CPI adjustment from the MRF capital surcharge.

Outcome and next steps: Rather than vote on the resolution before them, the board voted to continue the entire item to the next meeting and to request staff and county counsel provide a written opinion on the board’s legal discretion regarding the construction‑overrun surcharge. Staff will also schedule a public presentation next week describing MRF operations, cost drivers (including labor, materials and regulatory requirements) and possible customer options. The board asked staff to consider whether a different start time would be needed for that hearing to allow time for questions.

Public documents: The county agenda packet included the Eldorado Disposal application, Crowe’s independent review, and a table showing proposed monthly increases for typical residential and commercial service levels.

What’s next: The board expects to revisit the item the following week after the requested additional materials and presentation; no rate change took effect before the board’s next action.","The Board of Supervisors paused a proposed 6.36% rate increase request from Eldorado Disposal Service — a 3.62% CPI‑adjustment plus a 2.74% surcharge to cover material recovery facility construction cost overruns — and directed staff to return next week with additional legal and operational briefings and a public presentation.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board cuts Phase 4 from 4‑Bay Park plan and directs staff to seek grants, study fees

Board delays vote on Eldorado Disposal 6.36% rate request, asks for public briefing