 Welcome everybody to the Chittenden Solid Waste District Commission's board meeting for August 28th, 2019. I'd like to first acknowledge some new commissioners we have here. We have Jeremy Holsey. Is that how you pronounce it? Yeah. And we have Caleb Manna. And although he's been here before, he's now official, Lee Perry. I think that's everybody. So the agenda, you have an updated version of the agenda that was sent out by Amy. Does everyone have it so that you see that we now have 11 is the household hazardous waste contract. And there's an executive session at the end. So I see we have public. Is anybody in the, wouldn't the public would like to make a comment? Yes. I just wanted to say we're in the permitting process of a deep pack facility that we've obviously let the board or the staff know and we're going to start working with you guys on that as well. We're just trying to bring more organics reclamation to Chittenden County. So we're starting to work through that right now. And just wanted to give you guys an update on that. You'll probably hear a lot more about it from them. Thanks. I believe it's going to be next month on the agenda. Executive committee and the full board. Yep. So thank you. Where are they working on? What town? Well, in Williston at their transportation on Avenue B. Yes. We have someone else. Could you introduce yourself, your name and your town? I'm Trap Friar from Burlington. I have more of a public question and a public comment, but if you can't answer it, that's okay. So it was my understanding that CSWD and resource were going to work together to reopen the Burlington Reuse Zone. I had heard that was happening on May or June. Then it's the end of August and I heard maybe that that is no longer something that's in the works. So I was wondering if there's an update on that or whether that's still happening or the statuses. Thanks. The status of the reuse zones is that they are closed. The board has actually voted on it three times, which is and turned it down three times after the initial closing. And that is the limit of the action that can be taken by the board. We are working with the town of Richmond to help them create and get one of their own up and running. And if Burlington would like to do the same, I would suggest that you work through Lee Perry, who is the commissioner for Burlington, and see what agreement and what your expectations are. And then maybe Lee could bring that back to the executive committee next month to see what we could do to assist you. In setting up your own, because we were just not going to recreate reuse zones. No, there was an agreement. There was talks with the city of Burlington and resource to open a reuse zone down there and we're still in talks. Okay. So you are in talks? Yeah. Okay. So it's potentially. Yeah. Okay. So Lee's your guy. Okay. Yeah. No more public comment. In that case, we have three sets of minutes that I need a motions to approve for June 26, 2019, the organizational meeting. June 26, 2019, the regular board meeting and July 2, 2019, the special meeting. Yes. Second. That was a tie. Toss up those to Paul. Are there any amendments or corrections? In that case, all those in favor? Opposed. Abstaining. Okay. One. Leslie. So the minutes are approved. Next is the finance and there's a finance committee report on warrants. Number four in your packet. I also would like to introduce our new director of finance. We have Penley Dallas, who has joined CSWD. There are rules to have Penley on board. So he has hit the ground running and has been a great addition to the team. So please work with him. Welcome. Hello everybody. So just to, we had four warrants that were approved by the, they're going to be approved by the finance committee from July 2, 2013. So is there any, any questions about the warrants at all? So the second thing on the agenda is the, the cash to funds reconciliation. And it looks, the format's a little bit different than perhaps what you're used to. I've tried to break it out a little bit and make it a little more clear, you know, breaking out the checking from the short term investments that we have. And just for people who don't quite know what this is, we're basically just taking our total cash balance at the end of the month that's on our balance sheet. And we're saying, and we're asking how much of this is actually unencumbered cash, even though none of our cash is restricted to funds, meaning that, you know, we could, we can in fact use all the cash for operations or move it between the reserves. This is what of the, you know, of the $9.1 million in cash, how much we have committed to specific reserves. So at the end of July, we actually had an unencumbered cash balance of $2.1 million that could be used for operations had we, if we funded all of the funds. Any questions about that? Before we move on to the next agenda item, I have appointed Leslie Naltley as the chair of the Finance Committee. And I was wondering if you have anything you want to say, Leslie, about the last meeting or anything at all? What we're going to do is take a fresh look at the way we're managing our funds and the way we're allocating them to future anticipated purposes. I think you're all aware that the district has some big challenges, multiple, simultaneous challenges ahead from a financial point of view. And the committee is concerned and dedicated to assuring that we get the most for our money. That's what we're working toward. Do you want to say? We are now scheduled for monthly meetings that will take place to be explored and set up in the meetings. So those are, or some of these are, I don't really know. Would you like to say a bit about your idea of doing a Gantt chart, the type of planning for all of us? Yes. So I put forward the idea, which we kind of get onto, because it's really a lot of work for the committee, that particularly with respect to the challenge of going from bonding for more than or several of these, huge capital projects that we envision a likely target date when we will want to go to a bond both. And work with the staff to figure out all the tasks that have to be done in order to which they have to be done before we're ready to have a presentation. For such a bond both alive and in other towns. And from that we generate a calendar, a schedule of working meetings to get us from here to there. So that is how we're going to proceed in terms of being able to bring to you and then to a member of our member communities a credible proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Next up is the executive director report. Are there any questions on the report that was in your packet? Seeing none. We'll move on to the community fund distribution. And ask to see if has any questions or concerns, any surprises about what you have or what you don't have there. Questions about what the fund is or what it's supposed to do. I have the feeling, I'll say in Jericho, we've always just looked at the pickup and go by trash. And I look at some of these other uses here, it could be applied in Jericho. I think it's just that I didn't realize or I don't think our town manager realized that he could get involved. Right. So twice a year, Lauren Lane, our community outreach coordinator and previous coordinators before her, would summarize this kind of information and send it to the town contacts as well as the commissioners so that everybody knows what the possibilities are. We'll also be coming back in September as noted at the end of this document with a revised guidelines which the board requested so that they would have more flexibility in what kinds of projects could be funded through this program. So in answer to your question, yes, we are making that known to town managers and other contacts. And if you have alternative ideas, we're always welcome, you know, we always welcome those ideas for better ways to promote this. I've asked Lauren to survey all the towns to see who has newsletters, other ways that we can reach their members to promote this kind of information. This is a good way, this item is a very good way for new board members or existing board members to meet with their legislative bodies and the legislative bodies there. Town managers or town administrators are there and they can, you know, you can talk it up. It's much better in my mind to go do it personally than it is to send a letter out from CSWD which usually just gets looked at and then thrown in the wastebasket. I talk about this every time I meet with both boards. And he did mean waste, not mean wastebasket. Leslie has a list. All of the questions. Yes. Just so that I make sure I understand what I just heard, that after guidelines are adopted, hopefully adopted at the September meeting, that those will then be distributed to town administrators or managers or whatever, presumably with a CC to the commissioner? Absolutely. We would, these new, the guidelines would be a substantial revision from what exists. Exactly. So it would be. Broadcasting it far and wide. Because I can't be at the September meeting. So I particularly, you know, want to be able to see that and then follow up in person as I would recommend. Absolutely. Thank you. Yes. Some of the revisions that are being considered and can you just clarify again because I still feel confused about whether this is a matching grant. I don't think it is, but the container grant is a matching grant. Absolutely. Right. So that is one of the things we're going to be looking at is how those programs, the waste reduction grants, which cover containers as well as projects would potentially overlap or dovetail with this program, which is not a matching grant. So the community cleanup fund was originally established by the board of commissioners as a, literally a cleanup of illegal dumping and after the fact issues. The commissioners have expressed a desire to make it, give you the ability to be able to fund projects that were waste prevention or waste reduction. So that's what we're primarily looking at is how we can we simplify it, streamline it, make it more flexible. And then in what way would it work in tandem with the waste reduction grants, which are matching grants. Next is the consent agenda. Sarah and I have been talking about the fact that since we have so much coming up, that's going to start pretty quick. That's pretty technical, complicated that we wanted more time for the board to have the kinds of discussions that we had. Like we did last month about the, the, the Hinesburg drop off center. Very productive and a little lengthy. So let Sarah explain this concept and how we can put it into effect. Right. So this is something that has been used by not just municipalities, but all kinds of boards, commissions, deliberative bodies as a way to streamline the process. And essentially a consent agenda can be a separate agenda, but more often as part of an overall agenda where there are certain items that are placed aside and set apart that are non controversial things. Basically what we just went over most of the things that we just went over. So things like minutes, things like the bank balances, director reports, where there's generally not any deliberation. There's not any debate. There's no vote. It's something that is just essentially takes up time needs to be refued because it's something that they do constitute. It's important, but eats up time in every meeting that could be again better used for other items that really do merits debate. It's a very, it still is a formal process and outlined the process here in this memo. And in order for the commissioners for the board to use adopted consent agenda, we do have to have something called a rule of order. So you have to actually agree as an entity that you want to start using this process. So there's been some questions, people maybe who have not been part of boards who have used a consent agenda before. There's been some questions around, well, what if I have a question? What if I want to talk about something? What if there's something on this list that is important to me? And there is absolutely the ability to pull an item off of that list. So if you look on page to the third page, so where goes sample agenda incorporating a consent agenda and see where basically taken what would be our standard agenda. And under that item number three versus consent agenda, it goes to a 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, etc. Those are the non controversial everyday routine items that we would list. If you agree to use this process, what would happen is Michelle as the chair would say, move on to item number three, consent agenda. Does anyone want to pull anything off of the section? Any commissioner can say that they want to pull something off to the vote on it. If it's required as a vote and they know they're going to vote no or to debate the item, the topic. If there's something that it feels controversial and they want to deliberate and debate on that. Pulling that off the agenda is not vote, you don't vote on that. So you can say, I'd like to pull item number four, it's off. So then Michelle would say, are there any other items that want to need to come off the agenda? Hearing none, we have before you items one, two, three and five. And then she would make a motion to adopt the consent agenda, ask for objections, hearing none, it is adopted. And then all of the items then become passed as if we had just done what we just did. So it basically takes all of those items and wraps it into one motion, accepting everything under that. And then immediately we would go to the item that had been pulled and open it for deliberation, debate or vote. So again, that pulling that off is really for those kind of specifics, not for clarifying questions. It's not to say there was a typo on the minutes of June 22nd. That would be addressed, should be addressed ahead of time. Clarifying questions, again, should be addressed ahead of time either to Michelle or myself. And it really requires everyone to be very diligent about reading everything in the packet ahead of the meeting. And that is how consent agendas work best when everyone is diligent about that. Because it really shouldn't be pulled for those kind of clerical items. And that's where they don't work. So it is incumbent upon all of the members to do that little bit of homework ahead of time and then to communicate those issues. And if there are multiple commissioners asking similar or the same questions about an item, Michelle and I would look and say, OK, that one's got to get pulled. And then Michelle can pull it. She can say, OK, I already know I'm going to pull item number two. We've had many questions. I'd like to have this talked about. Also, if there are a couple of just clarifying questions, typos, I would put that into a separate memo or a list and get that out to the board meeting so that you all know, oh, right, there's a typo on the next page. So now you know that that has been made. So it's, again, it's been a process that is being, it's being used in Chittenden County. It has been in process, it's been used for decades elsewhere. It's something where if you do want to adopt this, we could flow it through all of the committees as necessary. We could leave it for just this committee, but I think it would also would work well with the executive board. We do also have routine things that come before us like license renewals and things like that. They're generally, again, not controversial, do require a boat, but don't really have any need for debate. So we could also flow it through that as well. Finance committee as well. Again, for things like minutes, director reports. Any questions? I think it's a great idea. My only concern really is on the financial reports. We never get a question here. I only go before the finance committee, which is great. I suspect that one of the reasons why they're not discussed is because lots of us really don't like to get into numbers. But I'm a little bit worried that that, I mean, since there is so much money at stake and this relates to fees that are charged. To the haulers, to the people in the drop-offs. I think we have a responsibility. All of us as commissioners to pay attention. I think a way around this is really that. Can we in his monthly memo to put it into plain language? What changed? Call some things out. This memo really talks about what's in the report. But if your monthly report said, here, commissioners, here's something that you need to be aware of. Finance committee has seen this and they understand it. But then we're a little bit better versed in this. And then when it comes time to talk about how we're going to handle our important financial decisions, all of us have a better basis for joining. That's an excellent point. And so that's the flip side of board members. Please read your packets. It's staff be very clear in your memos and make sure that they are thorough and try to anticipate as many of the questions ahead of time as we can. So you're exactly right. Things like and really when we're talking about we're talking about routine things like we just talked about tonight. Things were if we're talking about fee structures or financial policies, I would not recommend putting that in the consent agenda. I would recommend that as a discussion item on the regular agenda. But if it is again, anything can come off by any the request of any commissioner. It's not debate that pulling the item off the agenda is not debatable and is not a voteable thing. If you want to have item number three come off, it comes off. So there is always that availability, but you're exactly right. It isn't coming upon staff to be very thorough and clear. Correct. One of our next board meeting on presenting preliminary fiscal year non-fee results. And the reason why the preliminary is because our auditors are coming so late this year. They're not coming until November to audit fiscal year non-fee. So but I'll have for our next board meeting I'll have pretty close to final financial results. Something like that could be something that would not necessarily be on the consent agenda. I wouldn't imagine that would be on the consent agenda. I envision that it would only be the warrants and the balances that would be a consent agenda item. We'll try this, see how it goes. We can adjust or stop or add. We'll start with the kind of obvious stuff, the warrants, the minutes, any licensing that needs to be approved. They're really ordinary stuff that almost never has questions asked. And we'll give it a try. So starting next time. The board does need to adopt a rule of order in order to allow us to do this. Okay. I'm assuming and I'm hoping that you're going to do that. So would someone like to move the rule of order? The rule that the board adopt, the rule of order is stated on the back of the memo. Any more discussion on this? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Abstain? All right. We'll start with the consent agenda in September. Thank you. Next, we have the diversion report. And Nancy has this. Nail down. A few things. Tonight I will first review the purpose of the report, provide an overview of the metrics we use to aid in evaluation of our programs, and then review 2018 diversion data and comparisons to 2017. Data in the diversion report are used to help track and evaluate CSWD's programs to fulfill state reporting requirements and to provide information about the district's management system for communications to the general public, the media, and other communities and organizations. It includes materials generated within Chittenden County only, and is produced for each calendar year. We went over the solid waste metrics the district uses last year. But I thought it might be helpful, particularly for new board members, to review them again. In 1993, the district began calculating its diversion rate, which is the percent of waste generated that is diverted from landfill disposal or incineration. Later, we added the disposal rate, or pounds per capita per day, disposed. You may recall that this is used by the Agency of Natural Resources to measure statewide progress in waste reduction. We also have been calculating the recovery rate for certain materials, which is the percent of targeted materials generated that are diverted from disposal. As we discussed last year, there's been ongoing debate in the solid waste industry and within CSWD on the best metrics to use to measure the impact of diversion programs. It changes over time the characteristics of the waste that we generate. There is still no agreement. Although some lean towards the recovery rate, others believe we should focus on reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and or energy savings achieved by materials diverted. We will continue to monitor the discussion and review the statistics that we use. The State is currently updating its materials management plan and we've been engaged in discussion on new goals and new metrics to measure performance under solid waste implementation plans. We will be revising ours this coming year. We are also currently reviewing proposals in response to an RFP that was approved in the FY20 budget for an analysis of our disposal trends to evaluate whether changes in demographics and or the local economy correlate to changes in our measured waste streams. This analysis will hopefully provide us with a better understanding of our waste disposal and how we may affect it. As part of the study, a waste composition study of the C&D debris that is still being land-filled will be conducted to help us identify what opportunities we may have for additional diversion through education and new programs. We got seven proposals, which I'm very excited about. I see you guys not so much. I am. Before we review the data, I want to note an unfortunate data issue we've had to deal with that was discussed at other meetings. We discovered that many of the construction and demolition debris loads that were delivered to one of the disposal facilities over the last few years were miscoded at the facility scale as municipal solid waste, MSW. We believe that most but not all of the errors have been corrected. The total tons of MSW land-fielder incinerated is likely a little bit lower than what was reported, and the total tons of C&D land-filled is likely higher than was reported for calendar years 2015 through 2018. Consequently, the uncorrected errors can affect the accuracy of the diversion and disposal statistics used in this report by some degree. I also want to note that we collect as much data as we can, but we're not capturing all of it, and we are relying on the accuracy of those at facilities and businesses that are reporting data. Overall, generation of trash, recyclables, and organics increased over 2017. Only alternative daily landfill cover experienced a decrease, more on that later. The amounts of materials diverted from disposal increased as did what was disposed. The MSW diversion rate also increased but only very slightly. The C&D diversion and the combined MSW and C&D diversion rates decreased. The recovery rates for recyclables and organics increased significantly. The total of MSW materials diverted was of 7% over 2017. Pounds per capita per day diverted went up from 2.79 pounds to 2.94. There were significant increases in food residuals and textiles diverted as well as recyclables diverted directly by businesses. The increases are likely due to continued improvements in reporting by businesses, on-site diversion programs, and the economy. Over 6,000 more tons of material diverted directly by businesses over 2017 for a total of 17,600 tons. We used to estimate about 5,000 tons. We're being diverted this way before the reporting requirement went into effect in 2016. We are getting a better picture of the diversion activities that our businesses are undertaking and it's impressive. The amount of MSW landfill increased by 6% and the pounds per capita per day disposed increased from 2.99 to 3.13. The increases reflect Vermont and national trends. The portion of the increase in the amount of MSW landfill is likely the result of a continued improved economy, the number in 2018. The number of employing establishments was up almost 2% over 2017 with 126 additional businesses and the number of employees increased by 0.3% or 264. The average wage was up 3.8%. Households and businesses purchased more in up economies, generating more recyclable and non-recyclable materials. As I mentioned earlier, we will be delving deeper into economic and demographic factors that may affect our waste disposal. Our estimated minimum MSW diversion rate is flat at 48%. Based on our estimate of what is recyclable or compostable or otherwise divertable in what is disposed, we can estimate that the maximum MSW diversion rate we could currently achieve is 76%. So while our residents and businesses are diverting large quantities of material, there are a lot of recyclables and compostable materials that we are still not capturing. The amount of C&D reported recycle decreased by 1%. This may be due to operational changes and then the closure of CASElla's C&D recycling facility on Redmond Road last year. In spite of that substantial C&D recycling occurred in 2018. The tonnage of C&D landfill increased by 8%. Again, this may be due to changes at the Redmond Road facility, we're not sure. The estimated C&D diversion rate decreased from 81% to 79%. The maximum diversion rate is estimated at 85%. This is very impressive. We can credit the availability of C&D recycling facilities in Chittany County for our success in C&D diversion. The combined estimated MSW and C&D diversion rate is 61% compared to 62% in 2017. The maximum combined diversion rate is estimated at 80%. The bottom layer of this in 2018 is that we've diverted about 6 pounds per capita per day versus 4 pounds per capita per day disposed. For those of you that don't know, landfill cover is normally earthen material that is placed on the surface of an active face of a landfill at the end of each operating day to control vectors, fires, odors, blowing litter, and scavenging by animals. In Vermont, alternative daily landfill cover, or ADC, consists primarily of contaminated but not hazardous soil that has been approved for this use by the state. ADC was down 69% over 2017. This is likely due to changes in state rules regarding on-site management options for non-hazardous contaminated soils. To provide a longer historical perspective, this slide shows the trends over time from 2008 to 2018 in MSW diverted versus MSW disposed and C&D diverted versus disposed. Other than a slight bump in 2011, MSW diverted the blue line and MSW disposed the red line, both decreased during the recession and then increased as the economy recovered. The sharper increase in the last few years for MSW diverted is likely mostly due to the business reporting requirement that kicked in in 2016. MSW tons disposed is almost 1200 tons less than it was 10 years ago, even though the population has increased by almost 10,000. We have 1,000 more businesses and 7,600 more employees. The funky green line shows C&D diverted following a similar but more dramatic trend with the changes in the economy and a big jump in 2014 and 15 when the C&D recycling facilities came online. This slide displays diversion rates with MSW showing an increase over the last decade of 2.6 points. There are almost 6% and C&D a much more dramatic increase of over 20 points or 34%. This slide shows our MSW disposal rate decreasing during the recession and increasing in the last few years. The C&D disposal rate of course went down quite a bit but is trending upward in more recent years. The last thing I want to talk about are recovery rates. Using the diversion report data and our estimates of the components of what is currently disposed, we can estimate that our recovery rate for papers, containers and packaging, basically your blue bin material, is 80%, up from 71% in 2017. And our recovery rate for all recyclables and organics combined is 64% up from 60% in 2017. Again, some of this increase is from better reporting by businesses. Now a lot of communities conduct waste composition studies so it's difficult to compare our performance to others when it comes to recovery rates but from the data that I have seen we are well above average. However, our recovery rates also tell us that a lot of recyclables and organics perhaps as much as 59,000 tons are still being landfill. These estimates are based on four-year-old residential disposal data but more recent commercial data. After we complete our residential and C&D waste composition studies into 2020, we will update our estimates of what is currently disposed and therefore our recovery rate estimates. So overall, I think our diversion and disposal data provides some good news, great news, especially related to C&D recycling and disposal and how much material our residents and businesses are diverting from disposal. At the same time, we can see that a lot of recoverable material is still going to the landfill. Any questions? The Hanna-Fords, we've seen a drop in food scraps and I'm assuming it's Hanna-Fords taking the stuff to Maine or someplace else where they're taking it. Do we get that information from them with respect to that for this report? The C&D bump. Other than the fact that there were facilities created to receive that material, was there something about the marketing or were there other incentives that have led to that dramatic increase? It's just that most material was going to the landfill. There was certainly clean wood and scrap metal already getting recycled. Concrete, asphalt, pavement were getting recycled but there were a lot of other materials in the C&D and a lot of some of those materials that weren't getting pulled out. So when these facilities open, they're also hauling companies so they would get their customers on board with having their construction waste recycled through their facilities. So it was maybe largely the marketing and technical assistance from the haulers that changed the behaviors in the C&D generators? Marketing by the haulers. We also provide assistance on site to construction sites that have a lot of information on our website, the outreach that our outreach and communications department does to educate contractors about what's available. So a combination. Oh, yes. Good point. Right around that time, 2013-14, we added a disposal ban on asphalt shingles and clean OSB and plywood. That was at 174? No, that was our ordinance. The state for certain projects Act 175, do you remember what year that went into effect? May have also had that impact because for larger projects there were certain materials that statewide had to be diverted from disposal. So thank you. And clean wood, we also added that ban separately ahead of the state. I guess the question for me is just, are there lessons learned from that success that are transferable either to businesses or to homes that are maybe not performing as well with resource recovery along that chart? Well, the mandatory recyclables are mandatory and we already have a ban on all those materials. Some businesses, a ban is in effect on food scraps, but certainly not all of them. And come next July 1, it will be for everyone. So hopefully that will also provide a ban on additional incentive. As the handout, the list of businesses on the diversion table, do we receive payment for all the materials that these people are diverting or is it only the material that comes to our facilities? Well, we only receive payment for waste that goes to the landfill or is incinerated. So no, we don't receive any money for any recyclables that businesses are diverting. So people like Fredx that take their materials somewhere else, we receive no payment. Unless they have wasted the facility, if they pull out contamination, things like that, they would get charged. There's always management fee, but not on anything that they recycle. But they report to us the total tonnage that they're in. They do. They're a licensed processor. That's how we get a lot of the data. Does it suggest to you what new or better focus for activities you're going to take in the coming year? What you've done this coming up? Well, to change your thinking in any way about the activities of your department? Well, I'm a department of one. Actually, I'm... Well, but you interface with others. I think it provides information for all of our staff, whether it's for facility programs or for education outreach marketing. So, yes. I know Michelle has already been talking to John Doorwood about putting some of this data on our website. So it's available to the general public as an educational tool. But also looking, you know, that staff is also going to be looking at, well, okay, what are the big components here that don't seem to be decreasing? And what can we do through outreach? Or, you know, certain materials, maybe we need to think about, you know, delving into markets again and seeing if there's a new recycling program we can add. But, yes, I think it definitely, you know, helps, it provides information to staff for planning. I guess what I'm trying to get at is, you know, the gap between what we're diverting and what we could be diverting is about 90% increase or the percentage, right, from 48 to 76. That's where the opportunity is. Oh, you mean the gap between the maximum possible rate and the current rate is? Absolutely. So, I guess what I'm trying to understand is that when the staff sees that, where do they go from there? Is it doing more of what you're still doing or thinking differently? Or what do you do when you see that? Has that changed over the last five years, that gap? Has it narrowed? Has it stayed the same? You know, I mean, data by itself is nice, but what I'm trying to understand is what does it do in terms of refocusing or concentrating our activities and thinking? Yeah, the staff use the information in their planning of programs, yes. Yes, Michelle? Sorry, since I'm... We've heard about how we use communications, I thought lady, I should just stop. Okay. So, I think what you're saying, Leslie, is reflected in this, right? So, one of the recommendations that the legislature heard from ANR and with input from the districts is that organics are the biggest wedge to be addressed and that's not new, that's been ongoing. So, that led to Act 148, and the banning of food scraps and organics in the landfill because that is one motivator, just like with C&D, when you say, you can't put these things in the landfill anymore, you have to provide something else for people to do, that's the incentive for diversion. So, that's the kind of... It's not exactly programming, but programming in part flows out of that ban. So, the ban targeting food scraps informs how we're gonna be directing a big push on food scrap diversion and your options coming up in the coming year. Does that help answer what you're asking? Yeah. So, in a way, it is analogous to what Abby was referring to with the C&D. So, I noticed, as you know, that the reporting of the state on the C&D from the 2018 report that they did, the total generated C&D that that report had is less than the amount that we know we diverted. So, my question is, since this kind of data impacts legislation, how, why is there such a wild diversion from the accuracy of the state's data to ours? That's number one. And number two is, what impact does that have on us via legislation? And is there anything that we can do to maybe assist the state in getting better data? Obviously, they were not counting ours, or their total generated C&D would not be less than what we diverted. Facilities in the state that are required to have a solid facility certification. There are a number of other facilities that divert materials like Secure Shred, someone had mentioned. Like Pike, who recycles a lot of asphalt pavement. Neither of them, they are required to have a state certification, so they do not report that tonnage that they divert to the state. We in our ordinance require that they be licensed by us as a processor. And part of being a processor is required to report to us. So we get that data. There is no read upon methodology in the state on how to divert their course. And the state and other solid waste management entities all vary in what they're looking at and what data is available to them. I think that as the disposal data of trash is probably pretty accurate. Not perfect, but pretty accurate. And that's, I think, maybe one end of the moment when everybody comes per capita to dispose at a certain moment. C&D isn't as complicated as there is, you know, some activities that happen on the site that we don't know about. It's but nearing to get a lot of data that they can through all of these. So I guess what they could, I mean how it impacts legislation. How does it impact? We're licensed. Why wasn't our data on the C&D that we generated total and diverted total? Obviously that was not in their data for that report. Well, what about us? They did not have our totals in there. They only hired to report all of the facilities that have certification of them. So the Merck, the Drop-off Centers, the composting facility, the hazardous waste depot, those all report, you know, is it online, web-based data? So it's just like we're not capturing what's happening in Chittenden County than they are. Now, one thing to maybe talk to them about is sharing our data somehow if they could work it in with the current database somehow that we could provide additional information they could include. Or it would be in a state starting to require that more facilities, businesses, they don't require businesses to report, which we do. They only have since 2016. They have more. So they need, you know, that kind of discussion on whether they need to report it. So there are, you know, some things that they were doing on their own. I assume we think that it would be better that the state has the most total and most accurate data for all of these categories? Absolutely. Because as you said, they're using that data to play. Yes. And the study of the performance standards are just sort of something like that. So possibly it would be better if they had a better data. Thank you. So maybe this ends up shifting onto James's point. Thanks. Any other questions? Yes. This is to comment. You know, the state is focused on MSW and, you know, we show that we continue to rise in MSW and you've taken the attack now that it's because of the change in the economy. And I've tried to say for four or five years that we need to work with the state because we have, you know, some number of tens of thousands of people coming to the county every day, having lunch, working here, generating waste at work, and those people are not doing that in the county that they come from. And we just, you know, continue to, you know, look bad in the MSW area because we're rising and we're at 3.13 or 3.23 now. And I just think that we've, you know, somehow got to get the state to give us some kind of a factor to allow us to really show what we're generating per person per day. And soon it's going to be delving deeper into the economic factors and the social and demographic factors. Some might not know that, but we should be sure that they have their goal of the 2.7 pounds per capita is a statewide goal. They fully admit that we have much more financial activity happening in the city and the county. It happened that when we adopted our SWIP last, we included that goal. We don't have to have a goal in our SWIP. So this would be good discussion when the next SWIP is drafted, is whether we include our own goal or we just continue to work with the state on a statewide goal. But they are aware. They never say, you know, you're not doing well. They know how much material we're diverting. So, but I really think this study, you know, may bring some light that we can show them. We'll find out. Any other questions? Thank you, Nancy. Next is a bit of a drop off center discussion revisit. There's, I've gotten a distinct sense from the commission that we're dying to get some better grip on our docs and how, how to improve them. Are they where they belong? You know, we had the retreat that we spent quite a bit of time and energy thinking about what we thought about them, what we wanted them to do and the issues associated with them, which were safety, crowded facilities, car lines that extend out into the road and the improved flow and what to do with bulky waste. We kind of put it to, we did not pass a resolution or give any definite direction to management on what we wanted to do about all that. It was kind of, we got done with that and we said, okay, management, go north without telling them the town or the hut that they were looking for. So, what I'd like to have you consider is that we kind of focus this down onto some specific goal that could lead to information that could help us improve those functionalities and the issue of safety with the existing docs. And that would be to task management to simply go to the docs and evaluate each one of them individually for those issues that we brought off as the salient ones for us that came out of the retreat. Have management do an analysis of all of them and then report back to this board on what they found. Are they safe? Which ones aren't safe? How efficient is the flow? Report back to us by the end of this fiscal year and then we can look at each individual doc and decide on what we do about the issues that the report shows or shows no issues at all, that we're good to go. But we need to have an inventory done here on their status for efficiency and structure, flow, et cetera. So if this commission is agreeable, I have a resolution that I would like to propose to ask management to do that over the next what would be nine months and bring that information back to us so that we can move forward with a basis of knowledge and in fact. So, yes, Jeremy. I think... Good point. Definitely a good point. Abby Beachapal. I think it's also just important to sort of hear from consumers of drop-off centers what their expectations are, why they use them as compared to haulers. Well, I think that that would be a very useful progression of this. I mean, I'd like to have us do kind of a physical analysis of what our professional staff thinks about their functionality. And then the next step that I would see happening is that some of these docs are going to be better performing and have a better flow than others. We will look at the ones that have safety issues or flow issues and try to figure out a way to improve them without making, unless we absolutely have to, without moving the fixed infrastructure. And in that course, that would be the proper place to be asking people, okay, how do you use this? What do you think? What are your ideas here? Paul? I believe one of the ideas that came out of the retreat was the possibility of creating a, say, bulky waste facility that would then free up space at the existing docs so that we could reconfigure them. And also, given that, and hopefully not too distant future, we'll be constructing a new MRF. My thought was, you know, maybe that's something that gets combined there since we're having to purchase a pretty big parcel. So will this be a consideration in your analysis over the next nine months? Absolutely. I see that having a bulky waste facility that is specific to that, maybe one or two, it might be a standalone that is placed at the new MRF, or there might be a couple of drop-off centers that it would be appropriate for now. But we need staff to look at all of this and come back and say, okay, here's what we see. Here's the potential. Something that's actionable, actually. I guess is the right word. Any other? Yes. I just wanted to add one item that I'd like to see reviewed, and that'd be hours of operations for the DOC's and do those current hours meet the needs of the public and the general views, or should we look into amending or changing those hours as needed? Absolutely. That would be up for discussion and review, yes. That would be an important part of this, actually. Any other comments? Yes. Are you proposing a date certain for having the report delivered? I am, because I'd like to have an endpoint to this so that we can... But I also don't want to... We have a lot of other big issues on management's plate, so I don't want a timeframe that's going to crunch them, but a timeframe that's going to be reasonable, which I asked Sarah what her opinion was on that. It's not mine. And she suggested that by June 30th that they come back with this comprehensive review. At the latest. At the latest. Yes. So this is sort of a question for Sarah. I have to presume that there's already been some perhaps informal conversations on this topic amongst the staff. Do you have a sense of any or a couple of drop-off centers that might be candidates for quick fixes? That where that sort of work could be done without waiting for the report to be approved and accepted? In other words, there's stuff that can be done in the normal course without holding it up for a report? Certainly. And one of the areas where we don't wait to write reports about is safety. So... Is? Safety. So we've recently completed, or nearly completed, quite a lot of work at Milton, and quite a lot of that work was safety-related. And just repairs that had slipped down the list because other things had risen up. So none of this work would stop any of that work. So clearly where there are issues that need to be repaired, replaced, that would all continue to go on just as part of normal activity. I think what we're looking at, though, is, in addition to that, how would other... When we're talking about safety, we're not just talking about a rickety rail or a broken staff. We're talking about flow, material flow, traffic flow, pedestrian, et cetera. So that's what we'd be looking at with regards to that. But absolutely. So we have, you know, a list of needed repairs at each drop-off center or upgrades, and that would continue. So Milton really was one that needed a lot of work. So that work is nearly complete as far as what had been... We've been waiting on. I guess I was thinking more in terms of... Because we've had these conversations about reorganization to improve efficiency. Are there... Has staff perhaps already identified some opportunities there that could be acted on without waiting for a report? That was what I was trying to get at. In some of the conversations about how to repurpose the old rezone sheds has revolved around that. Can we use them for some of the special waste materials for the electronic waste that would free up some space in different areas of the different docks? So yes, we are constantly evaluating, looking, and saying, can we do something a little bit better, a little bit more efficient? What is a quick fix that is low-cost, low-labor, can be done relatively soon that would represent a material difference to our customers and to our employees? So that's kind of part of our normal evaluation. Okay, I just want to make sure and set... Oh, absolutely. Well, the report's not done. No, no, no, no, no, no. Thank you for asking. Any other comments? In that case, in consultation with Sarah, I have a resolution that I'd like to propose. I do want us to be putting our intent to words for management so that they have some real guideposts in direction. So here's the resolution I propose, and I'll be happy... Before I actually move it, I'll be happy to take any revisions or improvements from you folks. So it would be be resolved that the Board of Commissioners instructs management to assess such things as but not limited to the safety issue of cars waiting to enter impeding street traffic and the efficiency of customer flow and the ease of disposal and material for each dock over the next several months until June 30th, 2020 and report their findings to the Board at that time. Thank you. Anybody want to improve wordsmith? Anything there? In that case, I propose this resolution I'd like to have a mover. Leslie, did you second? In that case, all those in favor? Aye. Post. Okay. We have a refinement there. Next, we have Jen with the Bottle Bill report. All right, thanks. Apologies for not having this prepared for your packet. So this is all new and it's a lot of information, so I'm sorry it wasn't too in advance. But this is kind of the first conversation we want to have about the subject. We'll bring it up again in future meetings if you walk away with questions or come back later with suggestions. This is, as I say, the beginning of that conversation and so why are we having this conversation now? The Bottle Bill is a perennial conversation at the legislature. Every single year, there is typically some proposal to make changes to it. And it is usually a change to expand the existing Bottle Bill to include more beverage containers in the system and sometimes also to increase the deposit that's involved with it. And we have weighed in in the past with kind of facts and figures about how that might impact our system. Sometimes we've suggested, hey, why don't you look at all packaging and get creative and look at solving some of the problems we're up against with diversion and keeping this material out of the landfill other than just beverage containers. And these proposals haven't gotten a lot of traction, but two years ago there was a change made and that change was to take the unclaimed deposits that normally stick with the distributors with that money and move it over, have them remit it to the state of Vermont for clean water funding. And so that has really given the expansion conversation some momentum. And I'll remind you we're in the second year, we're coming up on our second year of the biennium. There's already been three bills that have been introduced to expand the Bottle Bill. So it's coming, the conversation is coming, and we really felt like it was time to start educating you all about the specifics of the Bottle Bill, how it works with a little bit more detail and how it might impact our MRF and take into some other considerations like how it works in terms of diverting material from the landfill and what the costs are. So that's what this presentation is about tonight. As I said, we're more than happy to come back and have more conversations about it. If you feel that we should weigh in more strongly one way or another on the Bottle Bill, we'd like to definitely hear that. So I'll also just talk about some alternative proposals at the end that have been suggested but that haven't quite been fleshed out enough to really get on board on. So first the basics. The Bottle Bill was built in the Anti-Litter Bill many, many years ago. And as you know, there's a deposit associated with it that gives the public the incentive to bring back their beverage containers. That deposit has not changed since the initial passage of the legislation. But what a lot of people don't know is the how the money flows and the two fees that are part of the system. There's a handling fee that's part of the Bottle Bill. The handling fee is anywhere between three, it's either three and a half cents or four cents depending on whether the distributors participate in a commingling program or not. Well, just for ease of this presentation we'll just call it three and a half cents. And then there's the S Sheets and that is the unclaimed deposits. As I said, that's what was changed a couple of years ago. The S Sheets is a pot of money that used to stay with the distributors and now is going to be moved over to the Clean Water Fund. And the S Sheets value is estimated to be at about $3.75 million. That's based on a 25% of the beverage containers that fall under the law not being redeemed. So 25% of those beverage containers create this pot of money. And that's for you? For you. So I'm going to explain a little bit of how the money flows to understand the system. This probably can't, you might not be able to read this. I'm not sure I can make it any larger with it not showing up. I will just tell you what's behind you. So first box is the distributor selling the beverage containers to the second box, the retailer. The distributor, when they sell to the retailer they're going to charge an additional eight and a half cents to the beverage five cents for the deposit, three and a half cents for that handling fee I talked about. The retailer third box is it on to the consumer. So the distributor has eight and a half cents in hand. The retailer is made whole. The consumer is out eight and a half cents when they purchase the beverage container. If the consumer doesn't return their beverage container to that point for their deposit back that's where it ends. The distributor has the eight and a half cents and the retailer is made whole. The consumer is out eight and a half cents. And that's where that five cents is sheets with that distributor and they'll be remitting that in the future to the state. If the consumer does return their beverage container to either a retailer or a redemption system they will get their nickel back. The redemption or retailer that takes that container back will report that back to the distributor I'm managing this container I gave the consumer their nickel back please give me a nickel and also three and a half cents for managing that container. So in the end the consumer is out three and a half cents and the other two parties are basically breakeven made whole. So that's how the money flows in the system and most people don't understand that aspect of the bottle bill. So consider yourselves part of the newly informed elite. Okay so go ahead please. I go to a different firm when I turn it in. That's okay. How do the nickels get passed back and forth? Right so when you bought it from the corner store they passed the deposit charge on to you. You paid the eight and a half cents on top of the beverage so the retailers made whole they're okay they got their nickel out of you right. Then you can bring it anywhere in any redemption system ask for your nickel back and that redemption system will go back to the distributor to be made whole to get their nickel back. You understand that? Two different pockets inside. It's out of the distributor's pocket. Basically the distributor charge for it way back in the beginning and they get to hold on to it unless you redeem your container. And it is hard to understand. I understand that. Maybe you can look at this later on when you see it posted and review it again. So what happens to that material that's collected through the bottle bill? That material is picked up either by the distributors particularly the distributors of beverage containers that go into the bars and restaurants. A lot of them go around and actually pick up those containers they're required by law to manage those containers or they will contract with a third party to manage those containers that are turned into redemption systems. And that is what's done with the majority of them and that's done by a company called Tomer and if you ever use those reverse mending machines Tomer owns those machines and the grocery stores lease those from Tomer. What Tomer does is they consolidate the material the aluminum, the pet, the glass and they market it out of state. So none of this material goes through our recycling system. It's a completely independent system. Another thing that a lot of people don't understand. So when there are proposals for expansion they generally cover everything else every other beverage that is not already under the current bottle bill and that's wine, hard cider and other non-carbonated beverages. There's always typically an exemption for dairy products. So you're talking about aluminum, glass, plastic. So I think back in the 70s when this was passed there wasn't bottled water. There weren't any sports drinks, ice teas, things like that. It was soda and beer. So now when folks are looking at expansion they're looking at all the other beverage containers that are now in existence. So next I'm going to go through some data on what the effectiveness is of the bottle bill, what the cost is of the bottle bill and what the impact might be for an expanded bottle bill to our MRF. And most of this data came from this 140-plus page report that was done back in 2003 which is a systems analysis of the impact of Act 148. It was actually part of the law that required the agency of natural resources to look at the cost of the bottle bill and different scenarios of either what would the cost of the recycling system or the implementation of Act 148 be if there was an expansion or if it didn't exist. So there are several different scenarios and a lot of the data is from that report. So first we'll look at the effectiveness of the bottle bill. According to the report there's a 75% redemption rate of what's sold for bottle bill containers. Consumers redeem 75% of those containers. We know that there's more recovery of bottle bill containers than just 75% because a lot of consumers opt to put it in the recycling bin instead. So we don't have data on that number but we certainly know that they're getting a recovery rate higher than 75% between those two systems. To put that into perspective you can look at the mandatory recycling from Nancy's data that she just presented of all the mandatory recyclables generated in Chittenden County. We're recovering 80% of them. So we're in the same ballpark with these systems. The mandatory that recovery rate will include the economic recycling, the businesses that do back calling. It also includes the bottle bill and it includes the materials that are recovered at the MRF. So it's several different things but all in all as a whole we're getting about 80% recovery rate of all the mandatory recyclables generated. So they're pretty comparable systems. Another way of looking at this is looking at what's disposed that includes bottle bill material and with that we look to the 2018 waste characterization study that was done at the state level and they actually had two categories one for a bottle bill material so when they were doing waste sorts at the landfill they were sorting out bottle bill material as well as what would be covered under an expanded bottle bill and what was found was 0.7% of the material that's being land filled is subject today to the bottle bill and when they looked at what that was comprised of it was 0.3% aluminum and PET and 0.4% glass. I thought that was kind of interesting that 0.4% of the 0.7% is actually glass and then when you look at what would be subject to an expanded bottle bill what's being currently thrown away is 1.1% of the total amount of material being land filled today and 0.5% of that is aluminum and 0.6% is glass. So 5,489 tons is the maximum amount of additional capture rate that you could get with an expansion of the bottle bill. That's what's being thrown away for the entire state of Vermont. Around 500,000 tons of waste is being thrown away and 5,489 of that would be subject to an expanded bottle bill. So we're not going to get 100% capture rate with an expanded bottle bill but back to the systems analysis report they actually did estimate what would be the estimated additional capture rate if the bottle bill were to be expanded and they estimated that we would get an increase of about 2,480 tons moved out of the landfill and captured because of the additional incentive that an expansion includes. Is everyone following me on that? Next I want to talk about its impact on the MRF but before I do that I just want to put it in perspective because this shows the different materials that are managed at the MRF the light blue portion of the pie is mixed paper the dark blue portion of the pie is cardboard. So we're really managing mostly fiber at our MRF and only about 25, a little less than 25% is containers and even less than that around 5% is containers that are not bottle bill containers but they're either Pat and aluminum is about 5% and within that small fraction is the bottle bill material either being considered for expansion or otherwise. So I thought it might be of interest to just kind of compare what our MRF is collecting on an annual basis to what the bottle bill captures on an annual basis to just give you a little bit of a level of perspective. So the data that I have is from that systems analysis report unfortunately it's 2011 data there is no requirement for reporting from the distributors to the state of what's sold in the state or what's captured so this report really is what we have to go by. If you look at aluminum we collect on average about 173 tons per year and the bottle bill captures 2,206 tons so that's significantly higher than what we're managing at the MRF. Is that statewide? That is statewide. Pat is about the same we're at 1,100 tons the bottle bill is at 1,300 tons and then glass 6,000 tons the bottle bill is a little bit more than twice as much as that. So then I thought it might be interesting to just see if we were to potentially capture that material if there was no bottle bill and we were getting that material instead what would that mean for the MRF in terms of revenue and in order to do that you have to look at half of that material that's being managed right now under the system because we're managing about half of the recyclables in the state and we're making a big assumption that from not having that incentive as the bottle bill has but just to look at that if we receive this material we would see about an increase of about one and a half million dollars in revenue so next I'll show you what it would look like with an expanded bottle bill what the potential impact might be and back to a few different sources of figuring out that we did a we did a waste of bale sort last year bale sort of PET we're looking at what is in our bale's at the MRF and we separated out material that could be would be subject to an expanded bottle bill in 2013 and we also looked at aluminum back in 2013 so we know of that material what we might be losing with an expansion so our my projection for an expansion of what we would lose for revenue at our MRF on an annual basis would be about $151,000 so with an expansion we would lose some aluminum and PET but we would also lose some glass which is a cost to us so that's shown in those calculations and just to put that in perspective that's about 6% of our total commodity revenue that we see at the MRF today so what does that mean and it turns out the cost to our customer at the MRF how does that translate to the haulers we have two sources of revenue at the MRF one is the commodity sales and the other is the tip fee we don't have any control over the commodity sales obviously we do have control of the tip fees so if we're going to lose money in commodity sales we're going to increase the tip fee and losing $1500 today how that would impact our ACR we calculated it'll be about a decrease of $5 in 20 cents per ton of all the commodity average commodity revenue that we see every month so in July we were at about $45 per ton revenue for all tonnage that we were selling at the MRF can you what's your assumption about quote unquote expansion expansion in order to generate data you're making some assumption about what other commodities would be subject to a deposit so what's that assumption right so the center column is the projected CSWD tons lost okay the first as you can see the aluminum is projected based on a sort that we did in 2013 and how much aluminum that we were that was potentially subject to an expansion okay so I mean this would be aluminum containers that have juice in them for example the energy drinks, the hard cider things that currently don't fall under the bottom of it the same sort for PET so you're assuming a bottle bill expansion that covered every possible container fluid container that is not now taxed or on which to another part so it's like a 100% expansion without no exceptions yeah that's what's been proposed that is what has been proposed so how does the average oh Abby it's germane to me what happens with the material that Tomra takes what happens to all that so as I had said they're not required the distributors are not required to report to the state what happens to material how much material was removed from the system any of that information we don't know if it ends up what happens to the glass we know the aluminum is reused what happens to the plastic does it end up in landfill somewhere highly doubtful need to get some more information but these things are commodities to Tomra just as their commodity to us so they're not making money on the recovery part of the reverse vending machines they're making money on the sale so they would probably be going to very similar vendors that Cassella brings our materials to so they are absolutely making their money the same way that we would be yeah it's getting recycled it's definitely it absolutely is Nancy can speak to that as well it seems strange to me you said before that the expanded bottle bill would reduce the amount of landfill material statewide by about 1.1% I think that's what you said and yet here our revenue is projected to go down by 11% seems to me the only explanation for that would be that we're just basically taking material that we already collect taking out of our MRF system and putting it over into the bottle bill system so these numbers in the center column is that material that would be moved out of our system and into the bottle bill system that's correct the bottle bill was passed a lot of bottles were reused are any bottles reused today there's some companies that reuse their bottles very very few that are subject to the bottle bill system really the main bottles that are reused would be things like growlers and they are not subjects to the deposit so I'm not aware of many if any refills that are happening in Vermont and that would be where that would occur so probably not probably not so back to translating this loss in revenue to the tip fee that we do have control over we estimate and it's a complicated system with a lot of moving revenues and costs in our MRF but we estimate Josh and I looked at this and estimated that the tip fee would probably increase by about the same amount as the ACR would decrease in today's market okay so we would see an increase of about $5 a time with a loss of that $1,500 in revenue from materials moving out of our system into an expanded market yes you said $15,000 you said $15,000 thank you $150,000 zeroes thank you so another thing to consider with the bottle bill system that I think is important and this comes from again the system analysis report is what is the bottle bill the cost to consumers right and the cost per ton is estimated to be about $459 per ton and keep in mind this was calculated using numbers that were generated in 2013 back when markets were very very good and we are no longer in that world so the $459 is likely to be a little bit higher in today's market was that prior to recycling really being universal throughout the state so that there wasn't the access to drop off our curbside then that we have now okay thank you what I'm trying to show here is $459 seems like a lot of money but how does that compare to a recycling system and that report did not get to those numbers exactly for residential recycling but it did have this table for industrial commercial institutional or business recycling and the two numbers over on the right are cost per ton for the first one drop off recycling and the next one is curbside recycling probably pretty comparable to what residential costs would be typically residential costs are a little bit higher than business so you might take that into consideration but the drop off is $110 per ton and the curbside is $171 a ton so comparing that to the $459 for the cost of the bottle so all of these numbers are based on the system analysis report back in 2013 same dates so they're apples to apples so in summary the pros and the cons and this is in our solid waste world obviously there's pros and cons in a lot of other worlds that are listed here the pros would be that if there was an expansion we certainly would have a lot less glass to manage at the morph we'd have about half as much or 3,000 tons less and that as you know is a difficult material to manage and there would be a small increase in diversion as I showed you maybe 2,500 tons to 5,000 at the most according to the system analysis report the cons would be that there would be an increase to our recycling system because of the lost revenue at the morph that this is a duplication of systems and there's inefficiencies with that when the bottle bill was passed back in the 70s there wasn't a recycling system in place now there's a recycling system in place and to Sarah's point Act 148 has been passed there's now a requirement for all the transfer stations and all the public spaces and curbside collection to take recyclables with trash so it should be just as easy to recycle for consumers as it is to throw away their trash so times have changed it's certainly less convenient to bring your beverage container to a redemption center or retailer where the bottle bill system is more expensive as I have a question so you made the point that this would increase the volume of glass which is a negative negative revenue or is just a net cost to our operations but we would lose 3100 tons of glass and that's estimated from the systems analysis report so but if there were no bottles I guess I'm not so we would we say many no no I'm looking at the reverse scenario suppose there were no bottle deposits what would that table look like because the value of the aluminum is so high so high here's another question so why who is pushing the expansion of the bottle bill and is there anybody saying why do we need it other than us good question there is a lot of interest in expansion a lot of our delegation is in favor of expansion it's perceived as a system that captures more material than the recycling system and now with the funds going to clean water that's a motivator where somebody may not have really been concerned about the bottle bill capturing more material they might just want more money going to the clean water and so that's their motivation so V. Perk has definitely been out there advocating for an expansion they're the ones that push expansion every year there's some pretty you know legislators that have been legislators for many years that would like to see an expansion and they have been pushing for that and with this change the distributor is no longer keeping that money and it going to this fund this is coming so basically there's nobody on our side yeah so going back I think when Act 148 got passed the reason that they put the study together was part of that was saying we don't need to competing recycling systems so if we have two competing recycling systems what could happen is that we're not getting the higher value commodities the tip fees are going to go up which basically has happened with the marketing the markets being where they're doing that so our thought was if you can get the valuable material back into your stream you should be able to keep those tip fees more reasonable and that's why I think when they looked at Act 148 they looked at this to say hey let's not have competing streams multiple systems driving trucks because you got to look at the carbon impact as well the legislators when they passed Act 148 so they were actually looking at this to say hey if we're going to pass universal recycling we'll agree with it if you look at the bottle bill and not have competing systems in some sense the increase that we would have to make with the tip fee the 11% what what is that so it's 11% of our tip fee would be $5 and something which brings our tip fee up to a total $70 would be about $70 as of today okay and is that compelling for some maybe for others not really well it depends on is there if the bottle bill goes through and we're collecting less material that helps pay for the operation of our MRF and again this involves Kasella what incentive do we have to be taking any out of district if taking that is going to or does it have an impact on the cost of operating a MRF if we're going to build a new one you know what would work best for us CSWD and in county if you could have whatever you wanted well I think obviously if we didn't have a bottle bill that would be but if we do then what do you see as the future for our MRF I think that all MRFs the same issue so our tip fee would go up Kasella's tip fee would go up that would be how we would have to respond to it if I'm not mistaken the reason why we were taking out of district material into our MRF was to because of the value of the material that would come in to help support the cost of operating MRF to keep it up to its maximum capacity for efficiency so is this there has to be an impact here one way or another I think there's like economies of scale potentially with that out of district material covering some of the costs you know because we have control over the tip fee we're going to cover our costs and whether it's out of district or in district we'll make sure those costs are covered so I don't see the downside of continuing to take out of district material even with an expansion yes I want to make an observation I think it was when Newport was here we had a lot of information about glass the glass that we put through the MRF is very challenging because it's all mixed by color it was glass that was put through the bottle bill was much more valuable because it was sorted by color and presumably cleaner and so it was a much better market and that actually had the chance of being repurposed into glass that kind of changed my opinion a bit I have a strange proposal which would be to add the bottle bill expand it to glass and plastics but remove it on aluminum since it's highly recyclable and easily pulled out of the process so it's kind of to the consumer you got to win on the aluminum slide which is the proposal it was a mind melt there these are things that have been thrown out in stakeholder meetings to legislators by us or others hey how about a glass only bottle bill that would be really helpful of course we talked about extend producer responsibility on all packaging beverage containers really aren't a problem but there sure is a lot of other packaging that is a problem that we are managing how about just a recycling fee on glass containers if you want to fund clean water and hey why not some solid waste infrastructure let's just put a recycling fee on glass containers because they're the most problematic or an environmental fee for small beverage containers to support the clean water initiatives and recycling system so those are some of the ideas that have been thrown out there the problem is that they haven't quite been gotten to the point where it's really clear how that would work and I think if we could come to some proposal that was really clear that people could get on board with we would have some traction but it's they're complicated systems and it's really hard changing something that's been in place for so many years and to get people off that that's incredibly difficult and as you probably are aware there's a lot of passion behind the bottle builders a lot of people that really really love it and are really you know just reluctant to let that go so that's our challenge and I had pointed out that's a leap maybe we wouldn't have quite that same capture rate but we are capturing 80% of the mandatory recyclables in Chittenden County so it might be you know close without that incentive yeah right Burlington's cost of the solid waste generation tax that we charge the haulers in the city to pay for the recycling if our tip fee goes up is that what you're saying yes yeah I think one thing to point out too about the bottle bill when you look at New Hampshire they don't have a bottle bill so you look on the border of Vermont on those states and you look at the redemption rates and the collection rates some of them are over 100% it's some of those redemption centers so some of those bottles from New Hampshire might be getting into the Vermont system where they're getting redeemed so hopefully you understand the bottle bill a little bit more clear if there's you know if the board feels strongly one way or another about us taking a position other than giving legislators factual information and suggesting them to look at through the larger picture and we'd like to hear that for sure and if you want me to come back in the future more information happy to do that as well but I think it's coming could you post could you email out these slides to all of the commissioners and the alternates and anyone else who's on our list of distribution yes with the alternate of increasing the bottle from a nickel to 10% or up to 15% 15 cents are there any projections of how much more capturing or how much more volume and tonnage the state would collect in terms of tons so if we expanded the bottle if they expand the bottle bill obviously a sheet's pot will grow right there'll be 25% potentially of the expanded containers would be left on the table that those deposits so that's why obviously there's a real drive to expand the bottle bill at this point in terms of the I forgot what you asked for the amount so if the fee were raised 15 cents and more are there any numbers as far as what the revenue would be there another factor to consider would be what would consumer change look like so if all of a sudden water bottles, single use had 15 cents tacked on would consumers continue to buy those maybe not or with consumers would there be a 25% check it in my blue bin instead of going and getting 15 cents back 15 cents maybe I'm not going to recycle it anymore maybe I'll go get it redeemed and get my 15 cents back so that's sort of the line that they've been talking about well if we raise it there's going to be more incentive and we actually don't want people to redeem as much because there's more money that would be left on the table for clean water where does it whether it comes to us or whether it comes to us it sounds to me like it's desperate to find money sources for water cleanup and this is already made one and it's easy and it doesn't require a big change of systems and the way that legislatures work is they always want the easy way and I don't see this as a battle we can win right now unless you can show unless we can find some other allies and if you've got V-PURG and the entire Chittenden County delegation on the other side of the issue I don't know if the entire delegation is on the other side of the issue I thought that's what you said No, I said some of our delegation Oh, I misheard I haven't pulled our whole delegation but Well, I mean it's it just doesn't sound good Well, we will as things continue to develop and Jen is on another a special committee that is looking at single use plastics and so I think this may be part of that conversation we'll come back and we'll give another report as things start to shift and as we're hearing more and get more feedback but again, as Jen said let us know if this is something that you do want us to really focus on and take more of an advocacy role rather than an informational role that has been our our tactic in the past is just to be seen as a resource and not necessarily always pushing for something like this but we will do what you want us to do I'd like you to send this out to all the commissioners and next a month this is going to be on the agenda as a follow-up discussion item first with any additional information that you folks may have as things go along and maybe some idea of how this would tie in with our MRF the new MRF does it change anything so you'll see this again in September okay thank you that was a great description of a really messy item really well done so now we're going to move on to the household hazardous waste contract and I'm going to let Josh Esty take care of this so hopefully this is a quick one last board meeting in June we asked you all to pass a resolution for Sarah to sign a contract with two hazardous waste disposal vendors since then we have received one signed contract with one of the proposed vendors and then the other one we have reached a point where we are no longer going to be able to pursue a contract with so we're asking you all to pass a resolution tonight to enter into a contract with the third ranking vendor from the RFP process Clean Harbors Environmental who we've worked with in the past and are happy to work with in the future actually very similar in pricing to Triumvirate who was on the last go around so just looking for the resolution as listed in the memo as distributed tonight the executive director enter into a contract with Clean Harbors Environmental for a contract not to exceed 225,000 per year three years per year for three years seconded any discussion any questions it's 8 o'clock so people want to go all those in favor aye proposed abstained okay you have a contract well hopefully yeah okay we need one nothing in no new items in any other business so program updates any questions on program updates in that case I move the board of commissioners of the Chittin and Solid Waste District go into executive session to discuss ongoing and pending litigation involving CSWD's material recovery facility where premature general public knowledge would clearly place the district its member of municipalities and other public bodies or persons involved in the substantial disadvantage and to bring in staff and the solid waste district attorney to be present for this session second all those in favor executive session as soon as the camera is off and the room is clear and the room is clear