 We're recording, so we will proceed. Okay, folks at home, you may have heard that there's still some technical difficulties with the recording. Not with the recording, but with CCTV. So it's a chance that you may not be seeing all of us in the room. But it is now by my watch 601. On Wednesday, June 22nd, 2022. There is a form present. So I would like to call to order this regularly scheduled organizational meeting of the Chittenden solid waste district. An agenda was sent out to all board members and there are hard copies here in the office. And I will proceed with the meeting them. First item on the agenda is the agenda itself. This is a very tried and true agenda that we follow for many years of the organizational meeting. I wouldn't anticipate any variation from this. But if the commissioner has something that they think might need to be brought up for the organization meeting. Now's the time to let us know. Program update. That's going to be on the regular regular. We're on the organization. Oh, sorry. And one other question. I don't know how well folks remote came here on zoom. So those present if you can do your best to speak into a microphone is clearly and loudly and slowly as possible. I think that would be a big help for everybody to follow at home. Leslie had a question really about the the regular meetings. So I will take it then the agenda is focused on them. No problem at all. The agenda will will stand as presented. Second item on the agenda is introduction of new board members. Actually, we do not have nameplates tonight. And there are about a dozen of us here. I think it would be helpful. We do have some new board members here. I can call them out by name, but I think we can go around the room and just identify ourselves by name and the town. Let's do that rather than zero in on just new folks. And then also staff because there are a lot of newer commissioners who may not know who's who on staff. And this is an opportunity to put a face and a name together. So I'll start and we will go clockwise. I'm Paul. I represent the town of under hill. I am concluding my first year as chair of the board of commissioners. And I'm Leslie malty rep. The principal rep from the town of Jericho. I also serve as treasurer. I'm Rick McCraw representing finance. I'm Dr. Ron Storten, ultimate for Winooski. Name 70 bond is I'm the representative from Milton Avenue. It's been here like four or five months or so. Tom Jocelyn alternate from Jericho. We'll keep with commissioners first and then go to staff. Tim Lauches, Shelbur. Lee Perry, Burlington. How and I at Essex town and was this extension and we're still waiting to see what happens with respect to that. All stapler south for me. And we'll go to staff starting with Sarah. Sarah Reeves, executive director. Amy Jewel, administrative director. Thank you all. I hope again folks on zoom are able to hear what's being said if not see it. So I see a thumbs up. So I think we're we're good. Everybody has met everybody else on zoom. So I'm not going to ask you folks to do your intro is just as a point of information. Sarah has notified me that the, the seating arrangement in this room is the maximum allowed per current or new Williston guidelines. So in future meetings that we do intend to hold in person, there may be a time when we will not be able to accommodate everybody for all the commissioners and perhaps also staff. So I just wanted to put that put that notice out there. With that introduction of both new board members and the established board members, we can proceed then to item number three, the organizational meeting process and elections. Sarah had has laid out the process in, in I think adequate detail in the memo. I don't know, Sarah, if you want to take a moment to kind of walk us through it again or we can just jump right in. Sure, I can just quickly review that that memo. So normally what we do is I send out essentially the nominations, either self nominations or nominations that have been received by a certain date. So that is what you have in your memo, the nominations received as of June 16. And the process is, is a little different this year. It's been different since COVID. So you should have received for folks who are attending. Online or virtually should receive received quote a voting booth invitation in the event that there is a contested election for an office. So that is the only time that we will use that voting booth and that will only be for the folks who are attending remotely. We do have paper ballots for use for any contested offices that we would pass out in that event. So we will open each office in turn and we will seek additional nominations from the floor, including from virtual from remote. Once all nominations have been received, we will close the nominations and then proceed to the vote and we'll do that each in turn. So that will be for first for chair and for vice chair and for secretary and for treasurer after those officers are elected. We will proceed to the executive board and we currently have three members who have self nominated for executive board. So there is still one slot open for that executive board and we tend to vote for the executive board as a slate. Thomas, I would actually turn to you if we need to vote for each executive board member in turn. You're muted, Thomas. You know, I think if you have, you can do it by by a slate. And if you get to, you know, 100% vote in favor of the slate, then they can dispense with it. If you don't, then then you can alternatively go to board member commissioner by commissioner as to who who's voted on onto the board. Thank you very much. And just to remind all the commissioners in the public that votes are weighted just like all all of the votes that we take are weighted according to population. And this includes the votes for at the executive at the annual organizational meet. Thank you, Sarah. With that introduction, then we can proceed for the first position to be elected, which is the position of chair. There is one self nomination that is Paul Roos from the town of under hill. I'd like to open up the to the floor for other commissioners who wish to self nominate. Or this highly sought after position. If you're remote, please raise your hand. I am seeing those nominations. Thank you. We have a motion to close nominations. Do we have a second second. Thank you. Now will be to close nominations not to vote on the position. All those in favor of closing nominations, please either say, I guess we want both to say I and raise your hand. Hi. And again, alternates. I think I'm not to vote. I will declare the nominations for chair closed. We're now ready to move to the actual vote on electing a chair for the coming fiscal year of 2223. Again, the only nominee is Paul Roos. Here's truly all those in favor of the nominee, please raise your hand and say I. Any opposed, raise your hand and say no. Any abstentions? I'll raise my hand. I'll abstain. I will declare myself elected and thank you for your confidence in allowing me to serve again. I do my best and I'll continue to do my best, but every one of us is different has a different style. Looking forward to working with you all the coming year. The next position is for vice chair. We have one self-nomination received that is Allen Nye of Essex and Essex Junction as of this point in time. Are there any other commissioners who wish to self-nominate for the position of vice chair? Having moved that nominations be closed. Thank you, Leslie. We have a motion to close nominations. Do we have a second? Thank you, Lee. Now the vote will be to close nominations. We're not voting on Allen as vice chair quite yet. All those in favor of closing nominations, please say I and raise your hand. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Abstains. Thank you, Allen. I declare that the nominations, thank you, are closed. And we're now ready to move to the actual vote on Allen Nye to serve as vice chair of the Chittendon Solid Waste District for the coming fiscal year. All those in favor, please say I and raise your hand. Aye. All opposed? Say nay. Any abstentions? Allen Nye has abstained. I declare the election has, the votes have been tallied and Allen Nye has been elected yet again as our vice chair. Thank you very much. Next position is for secretary. For the past several years, Amy Jewell has actually served as secretary of the board. The board does allow for a non commissioner to serve as a secretary. It is always best to have a commissioner serve as secretary. My understanding is should a commissioner put their name forward for secretary, but the lion's share of the work would continue to be done by Amy. So the workload and I believe I'm not really sure the number of meetings that one might need to attend really is not onerous. But it again would be good for representative for commissioners to fill this important executive position. Are there any commissioners who wish to self nominate or nominate another that others approval for the position of secretary? Nominate Amy. We have a nomination of Amy Jewell to serve as the board secretary for the coming year. Are there any other nominations? We have a motion to close nomination. Oh, I'm sorry. Amy, would you accept the nomination? Yes. Thank you very much and appreciate this extra duty that you've taken on for, have taken on for the district. It has been moved and seconded to close nominations will now vote on closing the slate of nominees for the position of secretary. All those in favor of closing nominations, please say aye and raise your hand. Aye. All those opposed say nay. Any abstentions? Amy does not need to abstain. She's not a commission and she does not vote. Nominations are now closed. We're ready to now vote on Amy Jewell as secretary of the board of commissioners with Chipman solid waste district for the 2223 fiscal year. All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand. Aye. Any opposed, raise your hand and say no. Any abstentions? I declare Amy unanimously voted or elected secretary of the district for the coming year. Thank you very much. The next position is that of treasurer. Leslie is now has served for several years as treasurer. We do not yet have a self nomination for the position of treasurer. No, you did. I sent you an email. You sent me the email. I didn't know if it was official, but I understood you would be. Just for clarity sake, Leslie Nolte had indicated to me personally that she would be. I did not forward that on, I think the staff. So my apologies, but we do have a self nomination and that is the best news. And that would be Leslie Nolte of Jericho to continue continue as treasurer for the coming year. And also point out the treasurer automatically serves on the finance committee. Are there any other self nominations or nominations of other commissioners for the position of treasurer? If you are inclined to nominate someone else that should be with that person's assent. Move to close nominations by Henry Vongers. Thank you, Henry. Is there a sec? Thank you, Allen. So now we're going to vote on closing nominations. We're not voting yet on the nominee herself. All those in favor of closing nominations, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Thank you, Leslie. I declare Leslie Nolte to be elected to the position of treasurer for the coming year. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you. We have just closed nominations. Thank you. And Leslie has abstained from that. Now we will go to the election of Leslie. Thank you. As treasurer for the coming fiscal year. All those in favor of Leslie Nolte as treasurer, service treasurer for the coming fiscal year, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Raise your hand and say no. Abstentions? Thank you, Leslie. Now I can confidently declare that Leslie has been elected to the position of treasurer for the coming fiscal year. Thank you very much, Leslie. The next item on the agenda that closes the election of officers. Next item is the election of the executive board, which consists of the chair and four additional members of the board of commissioners. We currently have self nominations for three of those positions. If I would just want to check my notes here. Actually, Sarah, if you can just. Allen, I leave Harry and Paul Stabler have self nominated for the executive board. We have one open spot. Henry. Name's Henry Bond is under both. Thank you, Henry. That would fill out the slate of four additional. And now are there additional? Yep. Kelton Mogasky from most of them like to self nominate. Thank you, Kelton. So we now have at this point, five nominees for the position for four open positions on the executive board. Are there any other commissioners who wish to self nominate or nominate someone else with that person's assent? I am hearing none. Do we have a motion then to close nominations? Thank you, Allen. Separately got his hand up first. So now we're going to vote on closing the nominations for the executive board. And again, to remind you, there are five candidates who have self nominated. That being Allen, I repair a Paul Stabler. Kelton Bogasky and Henry Bond is. Ready for the vote on closing nominations. All those in favor, please say off. Any opposed? Say nay or raise your hand. Any abstentions? Nominations are now closed and we'll move to the process of voting on the slate of executive board members. And because we have more than we have five self nominees for four positions, we do need to go to a secret ballot alternative here. So just to clarify, we had agreed I would be in the hallway. We would roll call each town to come out and I would document that. And then the voting booth for the folks online. Once we've done the in person, I'll open up the voting booth and admit. Okay. So I hope everybody understood that that Amy and we need a teller, I believe. I tell it to verify so you can not, you can. I will point a teller, which could be an alternate, I believe a non voting war or a member of staff. Is there any alternate present or a member of staff would be willing to serve as teller to verify the in person. And I believe also the remote votes. We do need one. So it's. So it will be Amy. As the vote counter and. And Liz has a list. Yeah, I'm sorry, as a remote person, I just have a question about the voting booth. Do I need to exit this current meeting and then enter the other one? Or what is the protocol? Yes. Similar to executive session. So you would exit the open public session and then rejoin once you are done with the voting. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. So I want to talk just for a moment on how the balloting in person, especially should work. We talked a minute ago about perhaps doing them in sequence. My thought, and I'm open to suggestions is that we should have a slate of all five candidates and ask commissioners to vote for no more than four. I think the alternative if you vote for one after another in sequence, you could wind up voting not voting for someone. And the possibility, I guess, could be that that person might ultimately be a person you would have voted for. Could be wrong. I think the process we discussed was that I have the lists of nominees and when that person comes out to meet with me, I will read and we will let me know if they're voting for those knowing that they can only vote. I think that works. Every person in the hallway will vote for no more than four. Yes. Excellent. I think that that is fair to everyone and clear for the process, my estimation. Nominations are now closed. I'm ready to declare the process to begin the process to begin. And again, the first step will be the in person voting Amy and the teller Jen will be out in the hallway. And we'll move one by one commissioners to vote with Amy and then return to your seats. And once that's done, Amy will come in and tell us and initiate the process for online voting. So, I feel like I can call each commissioner out to the hall in turn in alphabetical order to cast the vote. I have that too. That's fine. The pens going out with you to verify that. The commissioner from Bolton is not here. So, Burlington, it's first of all. Let's see. So, the question about the future. If you see them, just hear me. There are numbers of residents. Oh, there you go. Does that mean we shouldn't be sitting? I'm serious. I'd have to defer to Sarah. There are Amy to know the maximum capacity is. Questions. President Bolton. President Bolton. President Bolton. President Bolton. She didn't. Because they wouldn't they would be seen or for that. They could step up. They could go in. So, that's very much. Essex next. Thanks for to follow. So that's. Step number one, I mean, certainly we wouldn't, we wouldn't have been on one. And I'm sorry, but if we had, if we knew 15, we wouldn't meet here. Yeah. We'd probably ask. Okay, six. Yeah. Excuse me, Paul. Yes. I believe I saw room by Zoom, sociable, and not folding. That is correct. Yes. I'm over. Paul, thanks for continuing to serve here in this pretty damn office. Everybody here has a lot of comments. We have much more of the behinds us together. And we all care. Milton. Yeah. This one's been bad. This was pretty good. When I first came to York, I went through three motherboards. He was just telling lemonade. This is a number of years ago. Question for you. It's been a while. Conflict stains. Oh, yeah. It's extra. Yeah. Schilder? Schilder. My first map for years or something and it's just heavy. So I get a lighter one. It's also a little bit a little bit a little bit. South Burlington. We are next. Oh, you're doing that? That's all we have. Really? Yeah. Well, then she'll then she'll start letting people into the the voting booth. So Sarah, he actually can be able to take vacations or just summer? I have bought plane tickets. Good on you. Way to do it. Not to not to the end of our day. Because we're trying to take a better plan. We have to We have to We have to Where? In August? In August, we know. That's when two of our birthdays are. Actually, three are going to be period for us. So. But. Yeah. Yes. Most of the time. One of one dollar. Extra. Well, sprinkled over. Yeah, there. The one dollar. The city. The city. Just. Yeah. So. So. So. So. So. Where's that? Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I don't know if he's still teaching or from just research. He's very excited. So. So. You. You. You. You. You. You're not in the waiting room? Correct. We were waiting to hear when you were ready. It's. I'm ready for them to join, so they need to leave this meeting and go to the other. Good meeting. Now go to the other to the voting booth link. Got it. Okay. You know, so it's not going to cost to be prepared by the U.S. and the U.S. You know, it's getting kind of great. I'm about to go out and get a hold of this. It's all right. It's all right. It's just a twist here and everything. It's just free. It's free. It looks like a list of values. It was all caught on some sort of at the time. Put on this TV ad. I suppose it was the role of the students. I'm just making fun of these guys. Oh, no, don't worry. They see it and then it kicks right up. They eat a lot of shit here. So here is something. It's all in this. I don't know. I'm getting the entire orange. The orange. What's it's juice? I have a lot of words, and I'm a little confused about this. But it's all right. It's free. And we have a lot of bits and pieces of what? It's very easy. It's all right. It's free. It's free. to the center. Yeah. Put a stake on it. Yeah. We'll say they emit in a minute. The other one. I'm going to pee out of that. Yes. Absolutely. Around the perimeter. There's... It's actually an article, I don't know if it's down in Brattleburn. Yes, in the New York Times. And it's similar to the people who are wanting to get into our script. They consulted with that from the new Brattleburn on the business plan. Yeah, so yeah. I remember reading a historical... It was a great idea. Back in the days of Pompeii for this novelized... Your own would be collected outside the establishment of here, Jesus. Your own can turn here, blah, blah, blah. Well, I don't know if you ever read The Good Earth. No. I don't know if you ever read The Good Earth. It was a... It was back in town, the town. It was a book about pre-revolution. Where the landlords claimed access to the night sore. It was so bad that the source... You know, it's full night sore because the landlord... He had property rights. You know, I mean... I see you back. I appreciate what you're saying. That was... Yeah. Sorry. That's so neat. Yeah, she went out there for maybe four years and was looking for work. She has some friends out there. Her boyfriend was out there. And then we got there. So she's dying to get back to the East Coast. She wants to get back to the Northeast. She misses it. It's very much a culture of... Very, very... She can get tickets anytime she wants. She gets good seats. They go a lot, actually. Several times a year. You know, you get a little... Oh, I just... It was funny. Several years ago, we... Different with... Woman from Chennai, India. Now, people... She was a... And her parents came to... She had an aunt. She was thinking like... She actually has an age between June and December. She takes... So much more than they're trying to get. And you know, we want to see the big West as well. It's very... I've seen a lot of these... So we're going to get back to... Yeah. They're going to... They're going to... She's dead. She's gone through... She's gone through... That's why I say I can appreciate it. I wouldn't know it all. Just the changes you've seen. Yeah. Yeah. Very good job. Chair. Well done. Well, he was getting control. Yeah. Hyper. Yeah. I wouldn't say I'm an expert on it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. with Atlanta as you can see. Well, I wouldn't want all high school guys to be around them. Well, yeah. We're both fat. We're not going to be lost if you get to Atlanta. I'll get my food. Yes, ma'am. I've got plenty to do on that. I'll do it for him. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. You always hope that somebody with this computer can put it in his pocket. They are... I mean, if you're in the town, if you're still in the town, if you're looking back in the room, people look like the lockdowners. Okay? Like, a lot of people go, I just couldn't comprehend the writing of the book. I wrote the best for students. I'm excited. I did similar. I did my first... Are we recording? Sister, who's that? I forgot your name. Thanks. Not really. John, you can start the recording. It's on. I haven't logged in yet. I'm headed back there. It says it's recording on our end. It says recording at the top of the screen. I want to call us all back to the meeting, and I can announce that the voting is closed. The ballots have been counted. And again, these are weighted votes, and I'm ready to announce the results of the ballot. For executive board, these three candidates have been elected to the board. That being Allen 9, the chair, and Paul Stabler, there is a tie between Henry Vongest and Kelton Bogasti based on weighted votes. So we will have to go to a runoff or a revote on those two candidates to fill the fifth position. It's automatically part of the executive board. So we will see as the secretary and the teller are ready. We can resume this process and conduct the runoff election. So the folks remotely will go back into the voting booth for Brillington? I'm going to show you around if that's your answer. It doesn't have services all this week. I'm going to turn up the grand scene. I'm just going to draw something up here. My last, I need to be in two places. Three places. There isn't a lot of footnotes on the right hand side. Well, I say yes. Yeah, it would be helpful. Updates. But I do have written up. Can you finish? Yes. It's very possible. I'm going to go with this. It's fun to pick up. I'm inspired. I need to... Change to... I have meetings. I have meetings. From nine three. Well, that's good. Do you have a man where I can shut down our meetings? Jericho? The head. The head. The head. I've been thinking about doing the same thing. It's kind of so good about it. See, we have the shot. Milton? Shelbert? Yeah. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. Shelbert. So they just catch light, I've got them, so they can stay and get to everyone in Seattle. They're very, very late. So then they qualify to catch camp. They don't get home, so they flew up to catch the camp, then cruise line wanted to test for COVID. So they tested for COVID. So she had a seven-day trip to Alaska and didn't do anything. Most of the parties did the same thing. Well, it's like, cruising line tried to get her money back. Yeah. Just the first. I never heard of such a thing. It's very interesting. Maybe we need random choice voting here. Okay. That's right. Sorry. Three. I mean, there's other clear spray. That's right. My brother down in South Carolina has a motion detector. I don't know. The problem with that is, I would have to go along. I guess we just have to remember. I don't know if they like flocks. The tubers are actually very delicious. And they have a nice piece like that. They're tough. All of them. Potato leaves. But it's amazing. Pumpkin? It should really surprise me. Pumpkin leaves. Right. Well, you know, we put a solar electric fence around. Quite a huge fence. And last year, the solar battle was done. And they're expensive. It's been a sensitive place for the tear, but perhaps it's never worked. I kept seeing it about a dozen times. It's been a sensitive place for the tear, but perhaps it's never worked. I kept seeing it about a dozen times. Of course it's been a sensitive place. And I still have the old control over it. We're not saying I could do that. Of course. The ear netting is not doing most of it. It flows away. Yeah. It's not working. It's not working. But it's been a sensitive place. It's been a sensitive place for the tear, but perhaps it's never worked. It's been a sensitive place for the tear, but perhaps it's never worked. We're not saying I could do that. I'm sorry. It's been a sensitive place for the tear, So do you have a result that I do we're just waiting for the other folks to come back into the room. Okay. I think we're all back now. You just turned it off at the meeting. You turned it off. What's on mute? The lights on. It was on. Watch the light. There. There. Just off. Thank you. We're all back. I'd like to call everyone back to the meeting. We do have a final results of the second vote for the one remaining open position for executive board and I'll ask the secretary to share the results. The results the folks listed on the executive board are Lee Perry, Alan, I Paul Stabler and Kelton bogask. Along with the chair. Thank you very much. I trust everybody was able to hear the secretary with those results. Thank you very much Henry for putting your name in. There'll be many more opportunities to serve in other capacities. I can assure you in the coming years, but thank you all for considering putting your names in and for being willing to serve. We are now ready to move on to item number 3 C, which is the granting of authority, which is in the board packet. And this is for the granting of authority for expenditures. Currently, and what's before you are essentially three levels of expenditures. The executive director can spend up to $50,000 on her own authority between $50,000 and $100,000. Give or take a dollar. However, that might break the approval. The expenditure needs to be approved by the executive board. Anything over $100,000 needs to go before the full board. Proposal is that we maintain those spending levels. $100,000 is still a lot of money. And it warrants the knowledge and the ascent of all the commissioners when those expenditures need approval. Sarah, I'm sorry, I don't need to take your fire. Is there anything else you'd like to add to that? No, this is just one of our standard pieces of business that we have to do every year. Do we have a motion then to grant the authority for the expenditure levels that I just said? So moved. Thank you. Getting some feedback. Everyone's muted. It is the motion to approve this. The granting of authority for spending levels has been moved and seconded. Any discussion on the motion hearing none. All those in favor, please signify by saying I am raising your hand. Opposed? Raise your hand. Any abstentions? The spending authority has been extended approved for the coming year. Next is set the interest rate for late payment. Sarah, I won't steal your thunder. I'll let you talk. This actually hasn't changed at all since I've been here. I think it's been the same for at least 10 or more years. And this is, again, this is strictly related to member town assessments. So that's the only time that we would, so it's changing 25 years. It's the only time that we would use this as if we were, we had an assessment and there was late payment on an assessment. We are not intending any assessments in the coming year, but this is, again, should, should there be a need to arise? This is what that would be. Do we have a motion then to set the interest rate for late payments at 1% per month or 12% per annum? Seconded. Seconded. I'm going to go with Leslie. I heard her through my, through my better ear. It's been moved and seconded to set the interest payment rate 1% per month, 12% per annum. So, are there any discussion on the motion? I just had a question. If there's a late payment from a, from a hall or from somebody else who owes us money, that's a different interest rate. That is set under the authority of the executive director. Correct. Thank you. Any other questions or discussion? All those then in favor of setting the interest payment rates at 1% per month, 12% per annum, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Opposed? Raise your hand and say nay. If you abstain, raise your hand. They abstain. Interest rate is set. Seconded. Seconded. Number he, the fidelity bond for officers. Sarah, any comments? This is basically a requirement that we need to have in place and it is for everyone's protection. And again, this bond number has also not been increased in him well over a decade. I don't see the need to increase it. incident for commissioners of the Chittenden Solid Waste District, the Director of Finance, and the Executive Director. Do we have a motion to continue the fidelity bond for officers? So moved. Six. Thank you. Thank you, Leslie. We've been moved and seconded to continue the fidelity bond for officers at the amount of $500,000 per incident. Is there any discussion? I'll just one clarification. So it is actually for all, it says for officers, but Amy, in the motion it says for commissioners. Is it for? It is covered under the Vermont League of Cities and Towns. All commissioners. All commissioners. So it's not solely officers, it's all commissioners. Just a point of clarification. Thank you. I appreciate that. Any other questions or discussion? With the clarification that this fidelity bond covers all commissioners and the Director of Finance and the Executive Director. All those in favor, please say aye and raise your hand. Aye. Opposed? Raise your hand and say nay. Abstain. Please raise your hand and say abstain. The fidelity bond for officers is continued. Item number F, approval of check signing privileges. This is a motion to authorize the Chair of the Board of Commissioners, the Executive Director, the Director of Administration, and the Treasurer to sign checks and electronic transfers throughout the upcoming year and further any check or electronic transfer greater than 25,000 shall need two signatures. We do have a second. Thank you, Lee. I can tell you as Chair of the Board, it's never been asked to sign a check and I appreciate that. I don't know, Leslie, if you could hold on to do that, but we grant the authority to those whom we establish great trust. And it tends to be certainly for an emergency purpose. So if for some reason that either Amy or I were incapacitated and unable to sign checks, we would need to have the Chair and the Treasurer take over that duty so that we could continue to pair bills. I'd note the Director of Finance is not one of those included in the check signing authority so that there is distance between the money and the expenditure. Any other questions or discussion on the approval of check signing privileges? Seeing and hearing none, all those in favor, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Opposed? Raise your hand and say nay. Abstentions? Raise your hand and say abstain. Check signing privileges are approved. Item G is set the meeting schedule. This is a proposed Executive Board and Full Board meeting schedule. It's part of the packet. I would point out that in the past we sometimes have not had a July meeting. My strong preference is that we do have a July meeting. I'll talk about that with Sarah. There's a lot of important work being done in the district, particularly with the MRF, with financing, with a bond boat that's coming up potentially in November. We really don't hand it forward to take time off during the summer. So all of us who can be attending a meeting, I think it's really necessary, but I wanted to point that out. Other than that, the schedule is as usual the fourth Wednesday of every month is the full board meeting. The Monday of the week prior is the traditional Exec Board meeting. Is there a motion to accept the proposed schedule for the FY23 Exec Board and Full Board meetings? So moved. Well done. Thank you, Kelton. I think Paul seconded. Any discussion on the proposed schedule? I'll just clarify that, you know, November and December is the third Wednesday of the month. And that's what's listed here. I didn't check the calendar. We may need to make some adjustments when the time comes. We'll make sure that we double check. We're still in the discussion mode. I just want to reiterate that all commissioners are welcome to attend all board meetings. The full board meetings, of course, but executive board meetings, finance committee meetings, any committee meeting that's established by the board. And I'm really, it's very important. The more meetings you can attend, the more unknowledgeable you can be, more engaged and a better commissioner, I think you can be serving your community. So please do not feel shy about attending a meeting. And if there is an executive session, you will need to reach out for a more invitation that will be on over any time there is a meeting. That's my comment. Any other discussion or comments on the schedule? That said, then, all those in favor of accepting the schedule as presented, please say aye and raise your hand. Opposed, say nay. Raise your hand, raise your hand and abstain. Raise your hand or say abstain. Schedule is accepted. The last item on the agenda is the appointment of the finance committee. We've had only one self-nomination to date. I would like the finance committee is appointed by the chair. It is my intent to hold off on appointing the finance committee. We have discussed and recognized the finance committee having a broad range of experience and expertise and interest on the finance committee can make it make for a stronger finance committee. I would like to encourage commissioners who have not self-nominated to reach out to me or to Sarah, ask questions, connect, can talk to Leslie as well for questions. But if you do want to self-nominate, really indicate that to Leslie. I will be making the appointments prior to the July commissioners meeting. That would conclude then the items on the agenda for the organizational meeting. Thank you, Alan. Motion to adjourn this organizational meeting. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you. All those in favor of adjourning the organizational meeting, please say aye and raise your hand. Opposed? Abstentions? The organizational meeting is closed. Thank you very much, everybody. I know it took a long time, but it's important to go through this process. I think we've had a chance to get up and walk around during the voting. So unless there is a request by commissioners present, I would like to move directly into the regularly scheduled chicken and solid waste board of directors meeting. I'm hearing no objections to that. If this meeting does extend, it's now 10 after seven. If we go to 8.30, I would likely open for a brief break so that we can get up and walk around. But we will see how well we can cue to the schedule that's presented before us. So a quorum being present, I would like to open this regularly scheduled meeting of the chicken and solid waste district board of commissioners. First item on the agenda is the agenda itself. Are there any additions or changes requested to the agenda? I am seeing none. I'm hearing none. So the agenda will stand as presented. Second item is public comment period. There are no members of the public present in the meeting hall here. Are there any members of the public present via Zoom who would like to address the board? Hearing none, we will move on to item number three, the consent agenda, which consists of the minutes of our May 25, 2022 board meeting, program updates, finance update, executive director update, and castella waste systems, excuse me, waste disposal agreement. I would like to remove the executive director update from the consent agenda for brief expansion or elucidation by Sarah on a couple of items in her report. Other requests to remove any other items from the consent agenda? Paul, I just had one question on the program update. One small question. So I don't know if that means removing it or whether I can just, when Sarah makes her presentation, I can ask her my question. We'll do it then. Thank you. Any other requests to remove an item from the consent agenda? I'd point out the waste disposal agreement with castella waste systems. I think there's an adequate memo by Josh Tyler in the packet to explain why this is necessary and the right approval to be granted and didn't warrant full board discussion and taking up the time. Seeing no other requests to remove an item from the consent agenda, the consent agenda is approved with the exception of the executive director update. And I'd like to turn it over to Sarah, please. Thank you. I should go down to my... And we are on page 24 of the meeting packet. So thank you, Paul. This bonus update is, as you can see, quite heavy on updates about the MRF project. So ahead of that, though, I do want to draw attention to the budget meetings, which are complete. And a budget was approved by all of our member communities, so it's unanimous approval. So we are all set for fiscal 23. So I wanted to just, again, talk about a little bit about each of the bullets. So on the equipment selection, we are still the evaluation team, which is Josh Tyler, Jen Holiday, and myself are continuing to evaluate the proposals. We have narrowed them down to finalists. So we are working on that right now, and we will bring that to you in July, as well as a financing review. We continue to have conversations with the various potential funders. So as recently as the past week, and we'll continue to have some conversations next week. And the reason that we're continuing to have conversations is we're trying to put together, again, the best package for the district, but also for our members to keep that potential bonding need as low as possible. So we're having ongoing conversations with a number of, with each, actually, of those, and participants, each of those organizations listed. So the EPA grant opportunities are still a bit up in the air. So there are two opportunities that have some significant funding from the federal government this year as part of one of the infrastructure bills. One is specific, the one that's titled Swiffer is specific to infrastructure and essentially equipment. And the other one is for education and outreach. The, the both of these grants this year, their five year, five year grants money is available for five years. First year has 40% dedicated to environmental justice and disadvantaged neighborhoods. So there's, there's less money available in the first year than there is the out years. And it is, has not yet been decided whether the infrastructure grants will be competitive or not. The education grants will be competitive, not decided yet if the equipment grants will be competitive. We will be submitting comments to the EPA with, they're in a, a request for information period right now where we will suggest that those grants do be competitive because we think we have an excellent project. So the concern with them not being competitive is that there's so much money to be had more than the EPA has ever had to give out in any one year that, that the thought would be that it would just kind of whoever wants it gets some, it's a little bit, it's, you know, food population perhaps. And because we're a small state, we may not get enough money to justify the reporting needs that come with a federal grant. So that, that is still up in the air as far as that source of potential funding. We have not heard anything yet from Senator Leahy's office. We did submit a request for congressional directed spending. So, but those all also kind of fed fiscal year is different than ours. It starts in October. So those announcements wouldn't come until the end of September, early October anyway. So, so those two are still up in the air. The others are more set and we'll bring that also to you next month. Excuse me. As far as the ballot process, that is also, we had a little bit of a loop from Jen and I did. We spoke with the representative from the Secretary of State's office and there's been a recent change to, to the law in Vermont where the Secretary of State, we, you may have actually received a postcard on the mail and I did, saying that ballots for the general election in November will be mailed to every eligible registered voter. So the question is, our, our ballot vote is a considered a special election and it is not clear whether special election ballots will also be mailed by the Secretary of State. So Thomas and I, from back and forth, we have some response that we'd like to submit to the Secretary of State's office to certainly respectfully request that, that our ballot be allowed to be mailed out to reach as many eligible registered voters in Jitton County as possible. And we think our charter supports it. So that letter is going to the Secretary of State's office this week and I'll follow up obviously with the call to the Secretary of Condos. But that was not anticipated. And even when we talked to the representative from the Secretary of State's office, they indicated that that was amiss by their office as well, but they had not anticipated these types of special elections when they were saying that, yes, they would mail out all of the ballots. So that's a little bit unclear as to where we stand at the moment. We hope to have more clarity within the next week or so. So I'll certainly update the board in between and the interim. I will not wait until July to update you on this. I will update you in the, in the interim. It is certainly, if I could just interrupt, it's certainly in our best and greatest interest to have our ballots mailed to all registered voters in the county on this, what will be a high turnout election. With expectations having been set that all voters or no voter has to do anything to get a vote from home ballot. If the doesn't go our way, it becomes a very confusing situation and participation in our very important bond vote could be lower than what we would like. True. And certainly for anyone who votes in person, they will be handed our ballot. That is not a question. And anyone who goes to their My Voter page will see that there's a special election in their town for CSWD, and they can request that ballot. The issue becomes when everyone automatically receives the ballot, they may think they're all set and they're all done and not necessarily no. So we would then have to really ramp up our and change our get out the vote strategy to make sure to alert people that there's yet another one to request and that they do have to request or go in person for this particular election. So it's one more step that a voter would need to take and we want to make it as easy as possible. And I'm sure the Secretary of State does as well. So we just want to really bring this to their attention and I will keep you up to date as soon as we hear anything back from them in the next hopefully couple of weeks. And then again, this last bullet was is kind of old news now, but I gave a presentation to the fellow trustees and SAX about the project and that is for an article in the Milton Independent, which then supported an article in The Digger of talking about this project. So there's which then was picked up by Waste Advantage, which is a national waste magazine as well. So the year is getting out and lots of positive feedback. And I also forwarded around a note that we received from someone who attended one of our tours from Burlington, a Burlington resident who made his way up to the Murph and posted his experience on from Fort Forum and said, everyone needs to come tour the Murph to see why we need a new one. So that was really great. So those are all the Murph project. So I just want to kind of again highlight some of those, especially the ballot issue that we may be facing and what you know that I'll be continuing to update you on that. And a reminder for the board email. So everyone was sent an email from John Dorwick to sign up for a CSWD.net email. So the instructions were sent out on June 2nd. We still have some folks who have not signed up for that. And we will be sending out all of the correspondence to that email to as of July 1 to the CSWD.net email. You can have those emails be redirected to a personal email if you don't want to have multiple, you know, places to log in. So John can also help you set that up if that is a preference. But we do want to have everyone be on their CSWD.net email. And really it's, you know, it's a security issue for us. It's a way to be able to continue to maintain and have all of the correspondence to everyone in one place. It's a security measure for you. If you are using personal emails because we have had phishing attempts and scam attempts happened in the past where commissioners have had their personal emails because it's been on a list that has been somewhere in excess. So this will help to protect you as well. So I do encourage you to go back and look for that June 2nd email and reach out to John as soon as you can and have any issues setting up for it. And he will help and walk you through that. Thank you, Sarah. Thank you. Leslie, you had your question. Just a really brief question, Sarah. In the program updates, it appeared that the food scrap drop-off, the tons received at the organic diversion facility are significantly lower this year than they have been in the past. How do we under, what's our understanding of why? The D-PAC. Okay. That's what I thought, but I just, I wanted to get it confirmed. Okay. Yes. Just to explain for other board members, it's Kasella. Kasella began a D-PAC operation 12 months ago. Roughly, yes. Kasella started a D-PAC operation, so a fair amount of organic material that used to come to Green Mountain Compost went to their facility instead. Right. And to be clear, we were not accepting packaged food scraps meeting D-Packaging. And a D-Packaging facility is, I think, necessary in Vermont for everyone to be able to adequately comply with Act 148. What had happened was Kasella was diverting all of the organics that they were collecting, whether they were packaged or segregated, through their D-Packaging facility. So that was where the significant drop occurred. We are, you know, gaining back some of those tons, but that was an immediate overnight loss of over 30% of our tons, well over 30%. Thanks for the question. I have a question tagging onto that. Well, speaking about the necessity of the D-Packager, I believe that in this Consent Agenda, there's also a note about a moratorium on additional D-Packagers. I don't know if now is an appropriate time to summarize that, but I just want to make note of it and whether or not the future studies will modify the infrastructure and flow again. Yeah. So Rin is referring to Jen's legislative update and where the legislature did enact a moratorium on any new D-Packaging facilities in Vermont so that they could study several issues related, that they believe may be related to D-Packaging activities. It does require ANR to convene a stakeholder process. Jen, I don't have, they started that stakeholder process. They have not convened the process. They will be starting that up probably in July. They'll be reaching out and beginning that process and they have a very short amount of time to come back and report to the General Assembly, but they are required to make some recommendations. So they need to not only look at just D-Packaging in general, but how it contributes or not to microplastics and how it deals with or does not manage PFOS, and it doesn't, but they'll want to have some information on that as well. So this will be brought back to the next session. And the next session is the beginning of the next biennium, the next two-year session of the General Assembly. So I believe the question is about Sarah's Executive Director report. We need to move to accept this because it was removed from the consent agenda. Thank you, Leslie. Do we have a second? Thank you, Lee. Any discussion on the motion now to accept Sarah's Executive Director update with further clarifications that she presented verbally? Hearing and seeing none, all those in favor of accepting, please raise your hand and say aye. Opposed, say nay and raise your hand. Any abstentions? You can raise your hand and say abstain. The Executive Director's update is accepted as presented and further explained. Thank you. We're ready to move on to item number four, FY22 financials for quarters one, two, and three, a kind of my interpretation on top of the way is review for the non-financial board members present. But I'll turn it over either to Sarah or perhaps to Nola. Looks like Nola, you'll be... Yes, Nola is going to take over this conversation. And this is Nola's first in-person board meeting. So as, you know, not just some of the New York commissioners, but Nola was hired amid the pandemic and has not had a chance to meet in person. So this is a new experience for you as well. Go ahead. And we have on the screen then a PowerPoint presentation. So turn it over to Nola. Let's let Nola go through the presentation. Hopefully without interruption, unless there is just a very quick question of clarification. If you don't happen to understand something. But we'll wait for her presentation and then open it up for deeper questions and discussion. So this is just to sort of highlight some of the pieces from the memo that I sent. The revenue is at 91% of the projected annual budget. So just as a reminder, as I've mentioned in the first paragraph of the memo, this is the annual budget. So it's a full fiscal year, but the actuals that you're seeing are just nine months of that. So when you see 75% in the percent of annual budget, that's approximately what we would maybe assume is three quarters of the annual budget. So at this rate, we've almost reached the annual budget and we still have three months left to go. So again, this is primarily due to the recycling that's delivered to the the MRF, our tipping fees and the current rates of the recycled material sales. The expenses are slightly under budget. You can see they're at 68% and that's a mix, which we can go over a little bit in the slideshow. So here's just a highlight of the different pieces that make up our revenue. So with the exception of hazardous waste and product stewardship, all of our revenue sources are exceeding or pretty close to 75%. So frankly, it's not the worst that that's at 58%. The hazardous waste, so long as that doesn't mean that they're being dumped somewhere else, right? But the fact that maybe we're just reducing hazardous waste in general in Chittenden County. And the grant revenue, you see it's only at about 10%, but that typically comes in at the end of the fiscal year. So I think that it has arrived at the beginning of June. So that should be pretty much where we budgeted perhaps a little bit over. I think we had an additional grant from the Organics Diversion Facility and the equipment sale, that's basically going to flush out by us purchasing new equipment. So we have a cost of goods sold here and it's really the Organics Diversion Facility. That's a bit higher and that's truly because there was a significant increase in the cost of the pieces of the product that we mix. So I think things like peat moss have increased quite a bit over the past few months and some other pieces that make our cost of goods for the Organics Diversion a little bit higher than what we expected. And then I don't know if anyone will have any questions about the bin sales, but I can explain that accounting process further if you'd like me to. Oh sorry, this should just say expenses at the top. So these are the list of our expenses. So again, most of the expenses are below or within the expected budget. Our highest is supplies and that's our sort of general materials and supplies and I'm sure everyone understands that that's because those sorts of expenses have increased quite a bit. So that's you know going and purchasing sort of small material like lumber from the hardware sort of to fix a piece to repair something onsite. But everything else is pretty much within what we expected it to be. And then that's all I have for this. So I'm happy to answer some additional questions that you might have about what I've talked about in the memo. If you have specific questions, I do have my income statement pulled up so I can have some detail if you'd like. Thank you, Nola. Commissioner's President are on Zoom. Do you have questions or observations? Kim? Noel, can you go back to the materials or the revenue slide Q1, Q3 revenue? Could you present your question, Noel? I didn't see material sales in. On the Q1, Q3 revenue? In the revenue, well maybe not on the first slide. Sale of materials? Yes, that's the sale of material. Oh, on the slide. Yeah, I'm sorry it is missing on the slide. I apologize for that. I can tell you it is at 234 over budget. So we've got 234 percent for that. I apologize, I didn't add that one in there. And I apologize. I'm just looking at this slide. So the total, what would the total budget for the nine month and the total annual budget for material sales? And I'm assuming that's all Murph related. Yes, so the total material sales, as you can see in the budget, is over budget by 152 already in just the first nine months. But material sales themselves, the recycled material is at 234 percent. So we doubled our expectations in just nine months. The material sales are also compost sales. Yes, it is. And recycling. But the bulk of it, yes, is recycled. And do we know what the year to date ACR was for that time frame? For the Q1 to Q3? Yeah. The average ACR for Q1 to Q3? I don't think that we calculate the average for the combined quarters. We have the average on a monthly basis. Josh Tyler was in the office. I'm not sure if he's there. He could pull up. It's in our program updates for this month. It's a 12 month running average just because of the market fluctuations. So we've been proposing it that way. So I can read off what we... $150 who knows and $62 per ton. And that includes management of glass, which is a newer way we decided to propose it. Where did we land on the budget? 80? 85. I think the point of Tim's question begins to clarify, the average commodity revenue for recyclable materials is, let's say, in the $150 range. We budgeted in the $85 range. And that's a big explanation for why these numbers are looking so good. And if those prices hold up, I think looking towards down the road. Oh, in the current budget, no. It was budgeted below 85. I thought you were talking about the fiscal 23. So we budgeted lower in this fiscal year. Whether you're looking at this year's budget or next year's budget, the number we used is well below what we're currently getting. Yes, in an extraordinary year. And as I mentioned in the budget meetings, that is the line item that we feel we do have some room to move. And we did move slightly off of it after the finance committee meetings. And I think we'll certainly average. I would think we'd average in the $95 to $100 range. We are seeing some softening of the markets. Not significant, but we're starting to see a little bit of softening. Again, I think we're barring anything significant. We'll still be, we will definitely meet our goals. I think we'll be over them for this year as well. I had a question just an observation, just to confirm, looking again through the three quarters here, net income, the annual budget is $1.45 million. We're standing at $2.25 million. There's still, of course, three more months to go. Some seasonality items. But my take as a non-financial person is we're looking, everything holds together. We're looking pretty good for finishing out this current fiscal year in very good shape. And that's, I just like to verbalize that again, for non-financial commissioners, I think that's the message you would want to portray. It's up the finance committee to look a little bit harder at these numbers and make sure that those presentations are accurate and have a confidence. I think we can, as a board, can have confidence that we're going to do well this year, unless something happens. And now we're essentially only two weeks away from the end of the fiscal year. Correct. This year, we will certainly meet our goals. We'll meet our budget. And this was one of, again, one of the reasons that we reconfigured the reserve funds and to make sure that we had had a, you know, a prioritization of those reserves for the unassigned funds that, and that's really where any revenue and excessive budget kind of dumps into that unassigned fund. And now instead, it's going to be redistributed through that priority into the reserve so that we have adequate reserves, which we will, by the end of this fiscal year, those reserves will be fully funded. Thank you. I want to be careful not, let's not get too far into a discussion on reserves at this meeting and addressing that at other meetings, but it did all in all, again, characterize what I'm hearing is we're in good shape this year. Other comments and questions for NOLA or Sarah about the financial update? Josh did mention that the grant revenue was received in full. And that grant revenue is basically the SWIP grants from the state, and we have traditionally dedicated those to the environmental duty. This is really just a report and an update. There's no action required by the board at this point. I'm ready to have us move on then to item number five. Thank you, NOLA. Thank you, NOLA. For personnel rules and regulations, this begins on page 30 of your board packet. We will be, the board will be taking some requested action tonight. I'll turn it over to Sarah. Great. So thank you very much. So many of these, and I'm actually going to turn it over to Amy. Many of these recommendations that are in your packet came as a result of the conversations that the Total Compensation AdHoc Committee had over the last year. And these are the requests that we are bringing to you mainly because it changes something in the personal policy, and the board is responsible for approving the personal policy for the district. So Amy, if you could run through what we are asking to be changed. Sure. So after the AdHoc Committee met and the Finance Committee met, there were changes that are included in this memo that again, as Sarah said, are just part of the personnel policy. So it's a clarification of those changes that were approved in the budget. So one of them being life insurance, short-term disability and long-term disability insurance. The life insurance has effective July 1 will be two times the employee salary, and it was previously one time the employee salary. So that's included in there as the red line strikeout. The retirement plan for the last 30 plus years has been a one-year waiting period for eligible employees, and it was recommended to change that. And so it's now will be a six-month waiting period for new employees. So that's outlined in section 6.16. And lastly, the carryover of vacation. It was noted that the employees can carry over two times their vacation, and that is a concern for the liability on the books, and we are reducing that. But we will be reducing it July 1, 2023 to provide the opportunity for folks to know that and have a year to use that time. So that's been reduced from two times the carryover amount to one time the carryover amount. And there is a motion there for the board to approve those changes. Thanks. Let's stay with these. We're still on item 5A. I don't want to move on to 5B quite yet, but... So moved. Thank you. And we have a second to approve the motion to make these policy changes. Thank you, Paul. I will open it up for discussion and questions by board members on these proposed changes. I have a question, at least on the first two, Amy, can just share very briefly, approximately, the dollar impact of increasing the short-term and long-term disability insurance? Sure. We talked about hundreds of thousands. $6,000 annually for the entire group. And my $6,000 in change is roughly the change for the life insurance. And then the retirement, of course, it's the two employees that have just recently been hired that would be affected. And our retirement contribution is 6% of the employee's salary. So again, we're not talking hundreds of thousands of dollars here, the impact of these changes. A couple of thousand. Thank you. Any other questions or discussions on the motion to approve the changes, the policy changes for life insurance, retirement, and carryover vacation? Ron, just a curiosity question, I guess. Are the staff really comfortable with the idea of foregoing actual vacation in favor of attached bailout? That's the next item. We'll get to that one in a minute. Oh, we're just making these changes really going forward so that when we get to item B, we'll recognize that we're trying to minimize this problem from occurring again. But we're not there yet. Hold the question. Other discussion on this particular motion? Hold the question. I'm not sure we need to call the question. We don't need to go for a second about the call question. We're ready for the question. All those in favor of approving the changes as presented, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Say nay. Raise your hand. Abstain. Changes are accepted. And we'll move on to that item number 5B, the vacation buyout. So this is certainly an unusual situation. And again, I'm bringing this to the full board because it is, you know, related to personal policy and you have improved personal policy and any changes or exceptions to that policy. We did talk about this at the executive board as well and there was some good feedback there. So, you know, as I lay out in the memo, there are multiple reasons why a handful of our employees and it really was just a handful have vacation time accrued in really in excess of what they can reasonably use in the next fiscal year. And some folks are carrying over time from the persistent herbicide issue of over 10 years ago. Some are carrying over time from COVID when no one could go anywhere. It can really take any time off. There are a few folks who is one person who is a one-person department making it very difficult for them to take vacation time, you know, with the excessive amount. We are, you know, clearly encouraging all of our employees to use the time that is a lot of them for a variety of reasons and really being I don't want anyone burning out. I, you know, it's important to take care of your physical and mental health and to have a life outside of work and so we want people to use their time. But again, for a handful of folks, they've not been able to do that. So this is a one-time request that I'm making up the board to allow to pay out a few employees for some of their time and not all. I have worked with folks who happen to be my direct reports who have some excess time and we worked out a schedule for them to take their time and I have encouraged the managers to do the same with the people who are similarly effective. So there's, you know, five employees. So we had nine who were affected and four have indicated that they will do we make that that time count and then five who have indicated that they just are not going to be able to accommodate all the time that they really want to need to take otherwise they'll lose it and it is it's time that's been earned in a group. So the the impact to the budget in this one fiscal year is just shy of $44,000 and you know again this want to pay up now so that I'm not paying out later because when people separate you know from the district we do need to pay out the time that they have approved and they will be paid out at that final hourly rate versus the one that they're at now. So it is a savings and long run for folks to you know for us to be able to just kind of clear some of the decks and then it's also a bit of a mental weight for some people to say that they've got this big bulk of time and they feel badly that they have it but are stuck for a variety of reasons. So I am requesting a payout for five employees total of 1,060 hours. We will be under our budget which is benefits by $400,000 this year so that there is room in this year's budget to make this one-time adjustment. Will you be included in this payout? I am not included in this payout. I do have excessive time due to carryover from COVID and in fact when I was just discussing you know will you be able to take time? I am going to make a considerate effort to take time but I am prepared to lose time at the end of this fiscal year should that be the case. Thank you we have a motion before us I'd like to have that moved in second and then we can open up for discussion. Thank you Henry. Thank you Leslie. It's been moved and seconded to authorize the executive director to make this vacation payout for the sum of almost $44,000. Discussion questions from commissioners. I didn't hear what Henry said. He didn't hear what the full number was is that what you asked him for? The comment before the vote. Oh Henry indicated he needs to leave. Questions? Ron? Yes I'm sorry yes you did have your question. Yeah I'll state it again I'm just curious to the staff like the idea of cash payout in exception to actually having the opportunity to take time off. So it wasn't really a factor of liking or not liking it was primarily recognition that there was this excess of time that all nine agreed was going to be difficult to use in one year and generally we don't have an issue so the majority of our team is able to take the time off that they have approved which is excellent that's what we want it was just this handful of folks and again there were nine affected and four have indicated that they will be making the effort to take the time off and did not feel that they wanted the the buyout option and then the remaining five felt that they they wouldn't either had had too much or felt that it was simply going to be burdensome to try to make that move and and prefer in this one instance the the one time buyout so this and to be clear this this I did not come from staff this was a recommendation or a concept that started with me because I saw the liability on the books and and I thought actually it was going to be be larger so I was very happy to see that most of our folks are managing their time well and there's again just this handful that if not managed now we would certainly be paying more later other questions and discussion on this motion anybody in the zoom office oh zoom yes in your home hopefully it's a little bit cooler than it is here I am hearing and seeing none so I think we're ready for the question all those in favor of the motion to approve the vacation buyout is presented in the packet please signify by saying I am raising your hand any opposed raise your hand and say nay any abstentions raise your hand saying none the motion is approved we're now ready to move on to the solid waste management ordinance this was sent as a separate email by Amy on June 10th and there's a holdover from our past board meeting where it was requested to spend a little bit more time going through some of these items a methodology was laid out in that memo which makes a lot of sense to go through the the proposed changes in bulk preferably without too many interruptions or questions anything that a commissioner would like to have further discussion on remove that then have a motion to approve those that have not been questioned we can get those cleared through and then spend a little bit more time going through the questions that commissioners may have on the remaining items I point out we do need to act on this tonight the clock is ticking July 1st is coming so and I recognize the time is getting it's moving on but we do need to to devote the time to it a lot of important questions I'll stop talking and then turn it over to Josh Josh thank you so Josh will be leading the conversation so Josh if you could share your screen please oh Kelton you have a question yeah my only concern was if there was anyone on the public I just did not see it online you know I know we were emailed this report but I did not see it listed online for members of the public I don't know if we typically do or not but I just noticed noticed that when I was looking yeah the the information is the same that was in the packet last month so the only thing that I think it's different well the memo may be different we'll certainly get that up online we don't normally post the power points ahead of time but we will certainly post that as well on our website and I'd also point out the public comment period was held it is closed this time is really for commissioners to be discussing and not reopen it for commentary from from the members of the I and I think more just to follow along is all I thought if someone watching online and wanted to follow along as I did before I joined the board um that's just all the only reason I pointed that out yeah that's a valid point thank you Josh you have any trouble connecting we can't hear Josh do you have Josh's PowerPoint by Jets I do not have a PowerPoint I have the PDF that was sent on the time but I can ask him to send it to me I see like Josh is having some technical issues in the office perhaps yeah Josh your audio is not working I'm sure if John is still talking and we don't hear him I'm here and uh reaching out to Josh okay so yeah Sarah this is Ginny I'm just gonna grab him and see if he wants to come in my office okay thank you Ginny yes can anybody hear me now yes yes thank you so one of the reasons that it also that it wasn't attached is that it is a rather large file so we will work to make sure that it's it's smaller when we put it to the website and can everybody see the PowerPoint now yes great sorry about that uh interrupt thank you Paul for the introduction um as a reminder we are voting on ordinance amendments tonight um I appreciate the laying out of the process um simply gonna go slide by slide and just ask if any commissioners have comments to make on a given section um and I'll ask for Sarah to just let me know if if there are comments in the room and I'll and I'll mark them down I'll flag them so we can revisit those after we've gone through the whole presentation um given that we send it in advance I'm gonna um and not to provide any um context or narrative on on each change especially since we've we've seen them a couple times already um so we make this as uh quick as possible um and then just as a matter of uh context for next steps um we are after tonight if if approved or what what changes are approved um we'll post within 14 days a summary in a local paper um we'll post it in at least five conspicuous places um the public will have 44 days to appeal or petition the changes um and if we don't receive petition within those days it'll go into effect 60 days from tonight so just a matter of process for next steps um so I will just start um going through the the PowerPoint and again if anybody has um any section that they want to flag for further discussions just raise your hand or um in the room raise your hand and Sarah will take note of that yes thank you does anyone have any questions on the the changes that have been omitted from the uh discussion on the preamble changes we have a question um uh for letter e I don't know if it's worth calling it out or quite how you want to deal with it um the creation of an integrated waste management system um just looking for articulation of what what that encompasses I know I'm not suggesting we remove it just clarity on what that what that means to you yeah I will ask Janine but I believe we um a lot of this language from um the state uh language as far as what the requirements of a solid waste management entity is required do you have any remembrance on that um that's correct um we did you know I think I think well if I were to just give you kind of give you what I think that means friend is you know is that it's not looking at one to the exclusion of the other in other words you know we're not doing it independent of the fact that energy conservation um greenhouse gas emissions and other environmental impacts we want to we want to incorporate that you could do one exclusive to the other so that's how I would interpret that but yes we did pull that directly from the state's knowledge great thank you any further discussion needed for section 2.1 e nothing in the room Sarah okay section 2.1 f yes yes 2.1 h 2.1 s 2.1 t 2.1 z 2.1 dd 2.1 e 1 j j 2.1 m m 2.1 pp 2.1 ss 2.1 xx 3.1 3.5 section 3.8 and 3.9 section 3.10 section 3.13 can you um I'm sorry I'm having some computer problems on my end so if you can just pause a couple seconds longer between the slides sure thank you yep are you you want me to go back to any brim I do but I also hate to do that to everybody else if you can go back to I think maybe the last um two this is section 3.8 and 3.9 okay I'm fine with that one and then section 3.10 was concerned and still yes I would like to pull this one section 3.13 section 3.14.18 section 4.1 section 4.1a 4.2 so this is one that I added for this evening and I'm certainly willing to recognize the lateness of it it doesn't will review because it's a it's a it's a minor change and it doesn't impact the general public it's 4.8 s 4.8 h 4.8 i 4.8 j oh I yeah it's not clear what the proposed language is here 4.13 that is the end Paul how do we show them back in to the to the approval yep then that's that is the second um there's a second motion to do that oh okay after discussion on the ones that pulled out okay all right so we have a motion on the table to approve the amendments as presented except the 11 that were enumerated when the motion was read out I want to be very clear this is very important document and I want to make the record be sure the record is clear what we are approving and what we are not yet approved so that we don't have controversies and issues down the road later that we need to correct but we are now I think or unless there are other questions ready to call a question and and address the the motion to approve those sections that have not been requested for the discussion hoping you're unclear anybody feel they're not clear they're voting on I think we're ready for the question then all those in favor of the motion please say aye raise your hand aye opposed raise your hand say no no thank you Allen any abstention the motion carries those resolutions that were not objected to by or questioned by commissioner are now approved uh let's move on then to a discussion of these 11 sections taking from the top 2.1 point f I'm not sure how to do this uh if the commissioner wants to raise the question uh and then have staff address it perhaps that's the best way yep so I this is me I'm not just curious what the implications of this was like if someone's driving through the district with um I don't know just the I just wonder if it's something that we have the the right to actually oversee because you know it's not generated within the district so if someone's just driving through with waste or recyclables um you know solve waste through the district are we saying we have the right to regulate it and I just worry what that means that that's just the way I read it I just wasn't sure and I'm putting over clarification yeah it's it's mostly to capture those haulers that are using our facilities primarily you know um because we do have we do have uh haulers that bring waste in from out of district and use the mark use the transfer station and we want to be able to capture them as commercial haulers to make sure um primarily that they have the insurance coverage that we look for during our licensing process and make sure that they have the coverage that would protect us when using those facilities that's that's the primary goal of removing that language I mean could you just change it to generate within district orders more brought to facilities within the district again I just worried that it it sounds like where it sounds like we're trying to govern people that we aren't actually going to govern and I feel like making a rule that we might not actually I don't I don't know just again the way I read it yeah it's uh it's it's broadening but it'll be uh limited to the folks that are actually using our facility because I mean there's generally not any way for us to know who's moving material through our through the district um it's really just to to pull in those who are using using the facilities um that's that's really the the reason we we remove that language and we we do have um we did have Steve Ellis who's uh an attorney one of our attorneys right um in support of this in this change so we feel pretty comfortable moving forward with this change any further questions on this section I've realized and I'm sorry that we have to do it this way but it's important for us to I think vote on each question section individually if we were to vote on these as a group there could be sections that a particular commissioner objects to and would be forced to object to the entire packet um it'd be far clearer and far fairer and far better than we vote on these individually so I'll entertain a motion then would be at resolve that the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amendment as presented for section 2.1.f I believe that's the proper wording no more thank you Leslie do we have a second thank you Paul is there a further discussion or questions on this section I do have a question sure um it seems odd to me that there's no geographic restriction unless there's something about the broader context that I'm not seeing here it seems like somebody who is falling within the state of california would be subject to this language what am I missing about that granted that's way outside of purview but I worry about the possibility that there's the effect of so Josh it's not really broad so well it's just a definition of of commercial hauler okay right so you know a commercial hauler um the state I don't know if the state has the same definition Josh but um you know defining that a commercial hauler is not only a person who collects transfers or transport solid waste generated within the district borders commercial hauler is someone who does this in general so the scope would actually be limited by the usage of commercial hauler also in the world I think that's that's correct and again we're just we're trying to not necessarily restrict who can call themselves a commercial hauler and the only ones who are commercial haulers are those who who transport material generated in in cswt that's not the case commercial hauler you know in in lamoille is the same as somebody here but and they may uh we want to make sure that we're recognizing someone in lamoille or adison if they bring something to one of our facilities if they're not designated somehow as something other than a commercial hauler they're still a commercial hauler Sarah for some for some clarification um you're right in saying that that's the crux of why we're defining that plus uh the piece for compensation that's the other critical of this definition and then under article four of the ordinance which is licensing the hauler's licensing which further defines what the requirements are for and section 4.1 it is actually a change to this ordinance I propose change for this time around a license from the district required for any person to manage the waste generated or collected within or through a facility within the district that further refines sort of the the geographical bounds of of where they're where we are trying to um enforce the ordinance and I see thomas as what thomas did have his hand up I was going to say is mr sd was was indicating uh you know the definition the change in the definition uh is not not the important piece it's the rest of the ordinance that says if if you're collecting uh solid waste within the district or if you're delivering solid waste to a facility within the district that's that's where the the regulation comes and so someone who might be a you know within this definition a commercial hauler but has no business uh either entering or leaving you know chitin in county wouldn't be subject to it it's the it's the section article four of the solid waste management ordinance and other provisions that talk about you know when you need a license uh and and how you are to to manage and operate uh you know when when you are collecting waste within the district bringing material you know to a facility in the district or operating the facility in the district thanks other questions on this tim so is tamra a commercial hauler tamra hauler um and believe so uh josh or janeen do they they required to have a hauler's license they have a facility license tamra is a service that uh collects it's part of the bottle bill tamra is an organization that collects all the deposit bottles within the county and manages them essentially yeah we have a pending question then is tamra required to have a license or is it considered a hauler is that the question they are both they have a hauler's license thank you josh what about what about a company like agrocycle who hauls out of state if they're they're collecting within the the the district and they're hauling within the district they have to have a hauler's license josh there are questions in the chat i can't see them um if you keep an eye on those two please no questions in the chat was just posting uh links in the state's all it was okay thank you so that's not a material question that's being asked in the chat room there's a link yeah just a link and i apologize i just i can't i can't access the meeting online so i can't keep track of the uh the questions for another discussion on the motion uh concerning uh section 2.1 point f i'm seeing none i think we're ready for the question and the motion is to adopt this uh section that had previously been accepted from adoption which is again 2.1 point f all those in favor of adopting the section please raise your hand and say aye okay i oppose raise your hand and say no abstentions this section is approved thank you again i apologize but it's important that we go through these one by one uh the next item is 2.1 point r if the commissioner or commissioners who had a question or wanted to discuss this um i just had a simple question um why the reference to meat and meat products in this uh section yeah i mean that didn't change so you're wondering why it's included in in general as as a not really yes it's because we are not requiring um residents for uh pest control or bear control reasons to to end this difficult to manage their meat or products when they're composting at home that's also part of the statute that's excluded from home composting yeah so this is this is referencing essentially referring to home composting versus commercial composting so those products could be uh put in commercial composting but we're not requiring that okay i think we're ready then for a motion to accept this section there's still a chance to uh to raise an objection for the question but i think it's been moved to adopt section 2.1 point r thank you alan well thank you for seconding you'll get you'll get your crap we'll see you next time okay um further discussion on clarification i understand but these are important we're naming the baby no other discussion all those in favor of adopting section 2.1 point r and including it in the solid waste management ordinance please raise your hand and say hi hi the post this section is adopted and included next one is 2.1 point pp that was my question elsewhere in the audience in the ordinance we talk about uh there's some language and i didn't write it down that makes provision for unanticipated potential future changes in materials and i wondered if it would be prudent to add that same kind of language to special waste uh you know when you're in you're in enumerating materials that are considered special waste shouldn't you give yourself some give ourselves some options for unanticipated future materials that could fall into the same category and i have the same observation for section 3.14 which we'll get to it's the same point so it's just a suggestion for um additional language broadening language yeah give us more latitude down a little yeah yeah i don't have to go back to this again you know three years from now or something josh do you know if there's a reason to to um have the items be specifically listed or brand are you aware it's a requirement statement i believe these are all state items that we have reflected uh the the state special waste um it's a state regulatory definition brane could you sure i would say that um it is it would be advantageous to have anything the district feels strongly that you want excluded regardless of what statute is um so otherwise simply i you know you can refer an option would be to refer to state statute or to say you know add something as leslie said or as as reflected in the state statute um if there are changes but um i do know that you know the district has the ability to have more strict have stricter requirements um than the state in in some cases so that you know would be a reason to um have or add things here yeah so and i see janine has her hand up one of those things actually is like the construction demolition debris listed at the end of this paragraph or it's it's all construction and demolition debris and not just for act 250 projects of a certain size so we have gone above and beyond i will say um that's it's worthy of a a board discussion and of going through this process of an ordinance amendment in that in that instance because it would be a largely impactful um change to the you know to the large majority of the the population in the district so um i i appreciate the the proposed language and and maybe we look at that for the next round of changes um that discussion at a forward level before we you know added a material like that to a special waste list and i wonder if janine on one or two is going to say roughly the same thing yeah i was i mean i i can't remember where it was josh just we've been through this a few times but there was a section where we we tried to do what leslie was saying and we actually got comments that people were unhappy that we had the ability to do that and they would prefer that we have to do it in board beatings you know um you know as josh says it's not just a matter of defining these but we have actual separation requirements and various things throughout the ordinance in a specific to special ways so people want to know if all of a sudden that there's going to be something that that they need to um be aware of so i i think it's i appreciate that you guys want to streamline it but i also do appreciate that folks want to uh at least a board meeting to um to know what what we're asking for so do i understand that staff is recommending against any change to the language because it would be too vague and wide open and there would be objections to that lack of specificity i would make that recommendation yes okay i mean i accept the staff's wisdom on this i i just no businesses do like yeah yeah sure okay and that of respect for those i i just thought i thought that kind of language elsewhere and i i didn't write down where so i can't i can't find it for you right now but i just thought if it was okay in one place why not put it somewhere no well i'm wondering if because uh leslie same for section 3.14 if we want to approve i didn't catch the question because uh leslie is also referring to a similar situation 3.14 yeah yeah yeah i i just said that was take a moment to look at that language as well i might be able to not it sounds like it's all moved because the staff thinks it's a bad idea and i defer to the staff they've done all the hard work so okay wrong question the matter of the inclusion of devices containing mercury such as fluorescent tubes i think that i saw something about the legislature entertaining a bill that would ban the sale of such devices i don't recall whether that bill passed or not but my question would be if it passed or will pass in the next session how does that impact this language well this is also not just for you know future um materials but it's but what in the waste stream now so we would still need this to govern what is currently in you know the potential realm of items needing to be disposed you know so for example when other types of batteries were or banned we were still receiving them for years after the ban because they're just in use so we would still want to have this language in here to govern how that legacy material needs to be managed okay thank you uh at this point in discussion any questions about 2.1 point pp just want to clarify it leslie you're willing to then accept also the same discussion to apply to 3.14 did i get that number correctly so we could have a motion then and i'll read off my understanding of the language and we'll see if that works be it resolved that the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amendments as presented for sections 2.1 point pp and 3.14 okay so let's let's just do 2.1 point pp okay so for clarity again this motion now will only apply to 2.1 point pp to accept that language anyone care to make that thank you all leslie you're turned second thank you okay it's been moved and seconded that we accept the language written for 2.1 point pp and include that then in the solid waste management ordinance any further discussion on this particular motion in this section nobody online i think we're ready for the question all those in favor please say aye and raise your hand i i i oppose raise your hand i'm sorry oppose raise your hand and say no abstentions section 2.1 point pp is adopted we'll move on to um well let's let's just proceed in order in order 3.10 the question from a commissioner on this particular section first that was brinn brinn we think this might have been your your your item your section are you muted i can't he's reading she's revealing okay yeah one second um so my my concern is um what what's the logistics or feasibility of the district providing standard instructions to property owners for managers um i it sounds the way it's phrased it sounds proactive um to me and so i i just want to i don't want the district to put um ourselves in a situation where um it's like well it's available online but it's you know it's like that's more passive information sharing rather than active information sharing where it's like you know do we do we get notification from municipalities of when uh you know renters turn over um so i i just i think that was something that i had mentioned last time but but i could have commissioner amnesia not remember so i don't know um but that that was the thing to me that i just didn't want to put us in i didn't want the district for themselves in a situation where there was an uh expectation for more active um information sharing and and that's outside of what's feasible or reasonable for our capacity yeah it's it that that piece of the providing information hasn't changed from the original language um the that the onus is for uh multi-unit property owners to provide that information to the tenants and that we will we will provide that we will have that information available to those owners to provide to their tenants um so not much is going to change on our end as far as dissemination of the information we have the resources available to the property owners and it's it's on them to um provide that information annually and to new tenants um and i will say that that uh we do have that position in the um outreach team um and i know for instance in burlington um we are on their annual um or we have in the past historically been on their annual all to all um landlords and and a lot of that information gets disseminated through that mailing list um so we're not we're not changing much of we're not changing any of the requirements that we have for for information dissemination yeah and i think that was also hard because you've been using red lines strikeout and this is green and so it's kind of hard to follow if it's all new what's new what's not new yeah so this was a um this proposed language number two slide three of four section three point one zero this was actually a rewrite that you suggested to to clarify some of the requirements and so i appreciate we've we've been through numerations of this uh proposed ordinance um and so it's been difficult to follow this was my attempt at making it as clear as possible didn't even i saw your hand up yeah i just wanted to um to add to that yeah i i hear i hear what you're concerned about brand and you know i think it's standard instruction standard kind of the generic word but what we don't want is we don't want people putting out information that they don't know kind of what the basic basic elements of that should be so that so that is kind of what i see is more here's a list of the basic elements of what should be included in that it could be a template um but you know and something that they can download and print off the internet or however they want to do it but um that's that was the intent behind that so if and i'll agree with leslie if the staff is not concerned then i'll defer to you guys any other questions on section three point one zero and i think we're ready for a motion that would read be it resolved that the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amendment as presented for section three point one zero thank you paul any discussion on the motion all those in favor of adopting this section please signify by saying i and raising your hand opposed raise your hands say nay thank you alan any abstentions the section is adopted we're now ready to move on to item three point one four as leslie mentioned she had a similar question about it but rick i think you had a concern about this as well yeah and forgive me if this was subsumed in the other discussion there's a list here of essentially a list of special wastes that isn't quite the same it doesn't seem to me as the one that was in section two point one p the piece that i particularly noticed is that in two point one p other rechargeable batteries would struck i believe and lithium batteries was included there's no mention of lithium batteries here but more generally i'm curious why this list is different from what's in two point one p who wants to take a crack at this one okay just one second yeah actually when when when you first brought it up i was kind of questioning why we felt the need to actually reiterate the list and why we just didn't say separation of special waste instead of kind of reiterating it i i don't know why they're different i'm looking at that too but i just wanted to kind of put that out there maybe we don't need to resize the list and we can just have separation of special waste and you look at the definition just you have it yet yeah i why not why not just have special waste where you have a set of definitions and then you don't have to have it have listed within the individual sections if you had it as a definition special waste shall mean blah blah blah when you cover it's cleaner and you won't get into this anomaly where you have different lists in different places i believe that list in section three point one for our state landfill banned items well my concern is procedural leslie if we were to go back and to redo the definitions then we have to revisit this um so at this point i'm i would suggest that we hammer out language that makes it consistent between two point one point pp and three point one four that might be a more efficient way at this point in time to resolve it but i'm open to other suggestions alan thank you aren't we sourced separating sheet rock now requiring the separation of uh gypsum yeah it's not in the ordinance just you know we require do we require the separation of sheet rock gypsum i know we we used to accept it for recycling just in general but is it required material to be uh it's a landfill ban mature one of the really bad things in landfills yeah it's not in here it's not here means it has not been in here for a while jen i can't answer your sheet rock question i i don't believe it's been in the ordinance so i don't believe it has but i will say that section three point one four statutory state law and also our own everything it's not under the state law those three items that i just named not in state law okay unless they're part of the michelle can you add something yeah i can address this so from our act one seventy five mandates recycling of all the dental ban material plywood at what the asphalt she will scrap it off the number of knots and mandatory recyclables plus drywall for dry life that needs certain criteria very criteria generally saying certain volume right and within the mileage of the end users that's in the end of the section thank you could someone clarify that i was just starting here it's on our application yeah so the the um Jen and Michelle were clarifying um you know what is included in our ordinance and then what is included in uh required by act one seventy five uh as far as keeping me certain materials especially architectural waste um out of the landfill um allen's question was about gypsum drywall center so michelle was clarifying that the information is is on our website um and we'll make sure that um their explanations were included are included in the minutes so that is reflected for the public information i think um so sarah i i just want to clarify what i i i couldn't hear michelle hardly so my my understanding is that um yeah it's a state requirement but it's not a cswd requirement for gypsum drywall is that a good summary yeah michelle essentially Jen could you come up to my phone thanks it has to be part of a um a large project if there's a certain amount of material i think it's right right so it's a state requirement under act one seventy five but it's not a district separate requirement under a smaller project no i think that our own ordinance when it was changed several years ago we included in our ordinance unpainted unstained oriented strand board asphalt shingles to the to the request of of mires and unpainted unstained plywood so that that was put in our ordinance i think at the last revision the state statue only requires it if you're within i think it's 50 miles of a a facility that will accept that material and you're generating i believe it's either 140 cubic yard or 240 cubic yard containers so that otherwise would not be banned from the landfill right my my point here is that the district does not so yes you're correct we've we've identified materials um independent of the size of the project um specifically shingles but we have not done that with drywall and i think that's alan's question but i'm not quite sure so it is still banned under state law for certain size projects but it's not banned under for every size project so smaller projects we we would not be going above and beyond that alan is that what you were asking yes so let's move i think that's resolved i still have i think i'm not clear if we've resolved rick's original question about batteries for example and the fact that these two lists and these two sections really are not fully consistent so how do we resolve that and some other examples here 2.1 pp mentions waste oil and tires which 3.14 does not could we be in a bind at some point because somebody said well it's tires aren't listed in 3.14 so they're not a special waste is it important that those two lists be consistent because right now they are not well put and if it's if they need to be consistent how do we resolve this yeah yeah and and i think my point was that the list that's in 3.14 that doesn't uh match up with the the list in the definition are items that can be reused or recycled and in omits those that may have to be disposed of because there's no reuse reuse or recycling for those materials potentially but but josh i think the the issue is that they're both called special waste right so in the definition it's expanded and yet um it's constricted in section 3.14 it just seems to me that we need to ask the staff to go back and look at these two sections together and make sure that they are consistent and not contradictory i i i don't see your inability to resolve that this meeting but the my my question josh is um to you is can we just simply say a special way shall be separated in place in the facilities that manage particular special waste as defined in section 2.1 point pp is there a reason that there are some items in 3.14 that are not included in the definition and can we just simply you know get rid of all of the items and just say has defined i guess i would feel more comfortable in rejecting this proposed change rather than try to rewrite uh in this in this meeting that's that's i i suppose how i would prefer to think all about it all right thank you so item 3.14 will not be acted on tonight we are rejecting that one but i'd remind ourselves 2.1 point pp was approved the definition the definitions like we're ready now to move on to item four oh i'm sorry i'm sorry wrong i realized we sort of dismissed this at the moment but it seems to me the reasonable solution would be to merge the two lists avoiding duplications uh and bring it back to us for that's what we'll do we'll take we'll take a look at um whether we need we need two lists if they we do need to list if they can be um combined if there's a reason to if there's a reason to not combine them we'll bring that back or we can simply say um referring to the definition so yes this will come back we'll work on that right i was talking about the time and our energy is flagging let's move on to 4.8 4.8 point a so this is the um this is the the new change right and i apologize for the the late notice um it's we minor and change and it actually reflects how the state approaches simply the decals that we issue to haulers who apply for licenses um historically we sent two decals we've asked for haulers to apply two decals to their vehicles one on each side of their vehicles the proposed change is that we are sending just one decal to each hauler and asking that they place that decal on their driver's side front door that's that's the that's the change that we're proposing so going two decals to one um janine and i discussed and we don't believe that haulers will have an issue with this it reflects what the state does um and we don't believe that the general public will have any input on this change either so that's why we felt comfortable bringing it tonight alan is this where that commercial hauler definition at the front comes back and bites us because we said that a commercial hauler was anybody that brought trash through the district whether it was stopping or not and here we're saying any commercial haulers got to have a sticker and so i think it catches up with us in this one it's a commercial hauler that's disposing of waste within the district it's collecting collecting as well so if they're hauling in the district they're collecting transporting so i don't know if that needs to be um so again if if you go back to the beginning of this article for um 4.1 license requirement um it starts out saying a license from the district is required for any person managed to always generate it or collect it within or deliver to a facility within the district so it kind of it it's almost like you can't read some of these independently you have to kind of look at the section that they're in because i think that further clarifies it um i don't know how much would you agree with that or i you know i think that said it's a commercial hauler that's that's licensed to collect transport deliver dispose of solid waste or recyclable materials within the district needs a license and this is describing how their vehicle will be identified as as being licensed so i think i think you're right it's the context of of the regulation that that fits such that you know this this wouldn't be applicable to someone who might be a commercial hauler but is not doing any transaction of business within the district thank you any other questions or concerns about this new uh proposed change that was just before the board brought before the board tonight if not then i believe the resolution for this section would read be it resolved that the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amendment as presented for section four point eight point a thank you leslie we have a second thank you leigh any discussion on the motion to adopt this section the lessons the requirement for decals hearing none seeing none all those in favor please raise your hand and say aye opposed raise your hand and say nay abstentions the resolution passes good news is we have just four more of these to go i believe the next one is eight point c point four point eight point three you're going to pull it up so i i raised a question about this there are a lot of comments from uh kasella and mires about what they feel is enforceable or reasonable or excessively burdensome i mean there are a number of different sections where um they made those kind of comments and i think uh those comments should be treated respectfully what wasn't clear to me uh about this section is whether haulers are indeed reporting this information now um if they are reporting it does it go into our diversion data and if they are reporting it why would they object to this section so i i you know i i just wanted to have have a little color to to understand you know whether this proposed uh ordinance uh amendment was reasonable or unduly burdensome it's very hard as the commissioner you know to read um a holler's objection and try to evaluate the degree of reasonableness or not and so i'd like to hear from staff on that yes this is information that we are getting currently Leslie and it includes information it includes data uh that um you know when they when haulers haul directly out of the strict that we that we look for um for instance the scale at the at the landfill um license it's information that we look for from the scale so yes they are reporting we believe and um we we have received um an opinion from steve ellis again uh one of our attorneys who uh confirmed that we are not out of our scope of authority to be asking for this information so we did do diligence to make sure that we weren't overstepping our regulatory authority on this on this issue and i see janine has our hand up again okay so the commercial enterprise you know let's say an IBM is recycling and selling their own uh you know port border any other uh stream directly to a marketer we have access to all that information that that comes out of a second section yes this is this is in particular for haulers and and the jobs that they do that they haul directly to a facility that's not designated in their license um but we do have diversion reporting requirements for those generators who market their own uh materials directly do not use a hauler so we we're trying to capture that diversion reporting um from both entities from both the generators who market their own materials as well as the haulers who may work with um you know have you know whether they are one-off jobs or or whatever the case may be we're trying to make sure we're getting the data uh from both entities but i've heard us before say we have no visibility to what tom reduct i'm sorry what did you say tim i've heard but before that we don't have visibility to what tom reducts the company that collects most of the bottle yeah we don't have visibility to how much they're charging um we don't have um we have limited visibility we know that obviously they're collecting material i have to double check nancy has retired um she did collect some material some information that um we have agreed to aggregate and be able to keep confidential because it would be a a i'm losing my my train of thought at this mid-hour um not just a confidential but um great secret yeah trade secret thank you very much so but as far as the exact destinations i i believe we have that information at one point i don't know how regularly maybe josh or jenny you know um they do report that information we do ask court um and that has been a struggle in receiving that information on a regular basis from all of the generators who have these kind of alternate alternative delivery processes so josh do you know if we have that level from safety yeah tom tomrah is a processor facility and they are required to report the quantities of recycled recyclables shipped and materials composted were solid waste and it's for uh two two periods in the year so essentially two six month periods that require to report the quantities of recyclables shipped essentially so that so that's the difference um i guess that's the difference right so it's it's recycling versus waste is that does that matter josh commercial hauler what it says and i guess the the larger question is what what information do we not have today that we think we are going to get access to with this change well the the short answer is that there was no real substantive change to this section we believe the comments were issued to take into the fact that that section was being changed in a rather substantial way and this was a way to make a comment on sort of a long-standing issue that the two haulers that made comments have with the information that they provided us so um this wasn't it i uh i get it further discussion then on 4.8 point c i move we accept the whatever the motion the right i think i accept it do we have a motion on the floor yet no this was just the question was great thank you so now we're ready to have a motion for 4.8 point c be it resolved that the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amendment as presented for section 4.8 point c they'll move thank you leslie a second thank you paul any further discussion on this motion all those in favor please say aye and raise your hand all right let me oppose raise your hand say no extensions yep kelton thank you kelton that's noted neyme okay the motion uh is uh is adopted uh we are now i believe ready to move on to 4.8 point i is that correct paul there was a there was a late addition after we had gone through for 4.8 point f oh okay okay so that would be next sequential that's uh tom um okay um we've discussed this item before and there seems to be a discrepancy between the proposed language and the district response to a casala comment it might just a correction is needed the proposed language starts the commercial hauler shall provide collection of mandatory recyclables at least as often as they are providing collection of solid waste destined for disposal for our residential customers the district response starts the district cannot quantitatively defend the proposed change as good environmental policy and we will therefore move forward with no change to the collection frequency change at this time so it sounds like it might just be like a minor um typo thing because the language wasn't um as it's presented now the um the controversial language is still there it is a little confusing and i i apologize for that um i should have i should have included an additional section for proposed language in that i would say no no changes are being proposed actually we shouldn't even have to vote on the section because no changes are being proposed so no changes are being proposed we don't have to vote on it right so correct so um the response is saying that we uh you know again can't quantitatively defend so we we need more data before we were before we would um bring this language back again so we are not we are we are essentially rescinding our proposed language and um we'll be retaining the original language in section 4.8 point i i apologize for that confusion there is no vote on um josh actually can we just go back one slide we do need to vote so we did change generators customers to generators because that didn't make sense so so that stands um that that is still something we'd like to change i mean it's not absolutely necessary but it's a i think if you read that it makes more sense for that to read actually generators for customers um so janine you're talking about the last sentence of the paragraph and the proposed language yeah thank you i'm sorry i'm pointing to it with my pointer but i'm realizing you guys can't see that so yes okay so sorry so there would be a um a minor change to say exemptions may be provided to the district by the district to generators so just changing the the term customers to generators who market their mentor recyclables directly to recycling workers well couldn't have fallen to the same context of the administrative changes that we're not bothering with tonight yes but we did pull this out all right sorry but yes it would have all right let's let's do it okay okay uh the motion here would be be resolved that the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amendment as presented for section 4.8 point f as can we say as recommended by staff instead of presented because it is being presented as a change that we are actually not recommending we're only recommending a portion of the proposed change the end result that the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amendment as recommended recommended by staff for section 4.8 point f very good we've never had many this many motions second thank you lea i'm going to break the record um it's been moved in second to adopt the section as recommended by staff any further discussion lea i'm sorry him just a comment i know we're not proposing any change but if a staff moves forward on this i think um trying to mandate collection frequencies as is not uh may actually squash uh haulers ability to go ahead and provide new innovative uh cost effective environmentally effective solutions for example it may make sense for somebody to go ahead and say look i'll offer a service where we collect your solid waste on a weekly basis but we're going to do recyclables and and comp and compost every other week in already done that yeah but i but this district would not let that this rule if it was if we headed down that path it would not happen so i think you know let's not try and squash uh the market from providing solutions for our for our constituents disagree question i i've lost the thread of this are we proposing to approve the original language with the exception of changing the word customers to generators yes that is the only change the only being proposed correct nothing else from the proposed language is being considered correct any other questions a discussion on the motion so the mandatory recyclables and the solid waste comment that's in here where they're going to be picked up the same number of weeks is not not okay so and you kind of contradict our consolidated collection model by offering every other week bi-weekly pickup of recycling yeah so the so i think again you know we we we heard the comment then we you know went back and we took a look at it that's that's the value of having met with the public comment system um anecdotalist we need more data to support this anecdotally we hear something but we need data so that was why we are pulling that that piece and just making no one change the generator instead of customer we listen any other discussion on the motion all those in favor of adopting this motion resolution please raise your hand and say aye opposed opposed raise your hand say no no abstention this resolution is is approved i believe we're now at 4.8 point aye yeah again i mean this was it wasn't weird to me if other solid waste uh districts or you know entities use this kind of language and whether it's practical or whether it's unduly burdensome and again this was one where it was hard to evaluate the comments vis-a-vis the proposals so I'd just like to hear from the staff on that one this is a another long-standing issue that has been raised by the whole community in particular that that word knowingly is overly burdensome and in that we could claim that they would that they knowingly picked up anything and and we have never we have never acted as far as issuing a notice of violation on this section in particular we we have seen instances where there are containers that we have internally that would be very obvious to someone collecting a container or material or a box and we want to be able to enforce upon a hauler that knowingly picks up a container that is not been separated accurately and so it gives us leeway in the enforcement but it also puts the onus on us to and prove that they only did that so there's a lot of there's a lot of onus on us to get this right when it comes to the enforcement piece of it but we think the hauler should take ownership over the container collection on their part and if there's something that's obvious when go to pick up a container that it's not separated correctly that they should be required to leave that box and work with the customer to separate it correctly and that's why we have that word in there and that's that's truly the crux of the common word knowingly. Josh I understand the goal and the purpose my question was what is the source of using this particular language have we seen examples elsewhere where this is the language that is deemed desirable and effective that that was the nature of my question yeah I don't know checking to the language and if we have a way saying hey this is used in Seattle and San Francisco and New York or wherever you know then then we have we have some basis but you can try to understand as a commissioner I'm looking at this and I'm saying are we being unreasonable or have we lined up our ducks or you know what's behind this because as you know when I think we this this board has always felt that while we want to be prudent and effective and we we also want to be respectful of our goals we want to have a comfortable dynamic with them and you know I'm just looking for some I think you clarified your question with Josh you can respond just and also a reminder that this is this is the only change here is adding food residuals so this language is currently in our ordinance and I say has been for many many years and by adding the word having the word in there keyword is knowingly we are not expecting haulers to have x-ray vision to see everything that is in a bag of trash and to have to then tell their their customer the generator that we can't pick up that bag of trash because you've got you know an orange rind in there that's not the expectation and so because they can't know right so it's that knowingly part that is key because the the word knowingly conveys some opportunity for further education by the hauler to their customer and that is critical anytime there's an opportunity because they are responsible for educating their customer so really the only change is adding food residuals and the reason that we're changing that is because act 250 right it's now banning it as a July one 2020 so it's really that's the only change okay no thank you I think we're ready then to act on this section and the resolution would be be it resolved that the court of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amended as presented for section 4.8 point I seconded Essex thank you Essex any further discussion all those in favor of adopting the resolution please raise your hand and say I oppose raise your hand say no any abstentions uh kelton thank you kelton this resolution is adopted I think we're now on to 4.8 point J yeah this is enough this is one where I felt container colors I honestly I just you know the haulers are competitors with each other it's a competitive segment of the industry and I don't know why we would have an objection to Myers retaining their red garbage cans and why we would want to pass an ordinance telling them they can't do that I can understand having requiring blue for recycling that's sort of you nationally universal um I can understand if you want to have green for food scraps but I just to me it seemed like an overreach and I just I you know yeah so we're we've removed it or from consideration we realize that we need to to take another look at this okay all right no we are we're voting on the the amended section and it's in the red line strike out version but I will just say and I see Janine has her hand up and and she actually did the vast majority of the work on this so I just want to give her a chance to talk about the the new proposed language the way well Josh where is that new proposed let me let me it's okay it's in the red line strike out that was included as part of the that packet with the powerpoint okay that's it's it's presenting differently so all of the other recommendations were included on the powerpoint so is it that it's just too large to include in it would not it would not fit all right let's say I miss them Janine do you want to so where's the language that we're going to vote on luckily do you does everybody have a copy of the full ordinance red line strike out version I did have but I didn't bring my computer I just okay my notes um well just in a nutshell um I'll try to get that to you or could I I guess I could maybe share my screen I don't know if I'll be able to read it yeah in positive so just in a nutshell basically um we we we went to lid colors only um because that that's really what we had done with recycling as well recycling originally had started as the full container and the lid back in I don't remember exactly when it was a while ago and then it and then it kind of reverted to the lid only um and we felt comfortable with that recycling container lids has that's been in effect since I think 2013 or 15 so we're doing the same thing I'm reading it now looks fine oh I'm really Amy gave me the print version of the red line strike out or green line strike out so I didn't see it on the slide so it's confusing it wasn't on the side you're right so I just want to be clear now because you're raising me a question I admire this is the red can family they would continue to be able to use the container but eventually the color of the lid would need to change after this lengthy grace period in layman's language that's that's what I'm that's what I'm hearing that is good that's correct branding is very important to a company yeah that I totally agree that is that is correct it's it's the lid color only okay I have a just a quick question is it is it for all newtons so of course if every bit would have to be changed no no replacement yeah at the end of the useful life of the container okay thank you so the 2032 report on the strong like kelton I think I'm going to add that uh that should not reply to recycling containers because that's been in effect for some time now so just to your where I know we have it in here but just you know the blue the blue lid's been in effect for some time now so hopefully you guys aren't still kind of battling that I mean I just I just think there are still pins out there that you know all cycle been out there for something I don't know yeah I still can't do that for sure so and they're not after you know they're not after their useful life so I just I wonder what the environmental policy of getting rid of those bins really is before they get destroyed you know let's only let's only there's a question in the room Tim so what what is the increased diversion rate or increased uh or reduction in waste generation that is going to be driven by this action it's reduction in confusion on the customers but which will do what okay help keep contamination out of their cycle but so I'm asking what's what's the number I mean I would argue this isn't going to confuse that it's not going to do any I don't think it's going to do anything I think it also helps with enforcement because it's easier for folks to identify when a bin is going into a waste collection truck when it shouldn't because they can identify from a distance when the lid is blue or when the lid is black so if you've seen or followed along any of the complaints that have been submitted to the district in the recent past they are relating to when there's improper disposal or improper collection and that can't be identified if both containers are the same color replacing a lid is not unreasonable it's not an undue burden and it's been in place for like not quite a decade but closing in on it so I you know while I appreciate your asking for data I I think it's kind of a reductive question and a little bit frustrating at this hour um well I am sorry if you find it frustrating okay but I find this type of ordinance a little bit frustrating when I believe in our solid waste management ordinance we spores all commercial establishments convenience stores restaurants are supposed to have waste containers for recyclables and for trash correct okay how what's our compliance rate and shitting account I mean I'm guessing it's probably less than 50 percent so you know we have major issues to deal with in our solid waste management ordinance that we're not enforcing right now and yet we're you know going after things that aren't going to drive a lot of improvement when I think we have a lot of low hanging fruit so I think we're doing something that we can do it's not going to just drive any change so I think this is a waste of the board in the district's time and energy I think I would add Tim that another another comment that I know came up uh I think when the blue lid discussion came on because I was reading back through a lot of those comments I know there's a lot of discussion about the color blue and fellow blue versus other blue but the colors actually find that having the different color lid is helpful to them oftentimes both cans are out on the same day so you know when they have the automated systems going it's not always clear to them which can so they actually solve some value in that um I'd be happy to kind of if you have questions regarding you know percentages of who has what just try to answer those or you know find some information for you I'm just I'm hearing a lot of things coming out about you know what commercial establishments have and don't have and um you know I'd be happy to kind of if you if you want to just maybe submit those to try to give you some answer from what I see on the ground but I know it's not going to be perfect but I can at least give you some some information from what I see out there well if the whaler wants to do it we don't need to mandate it in the ordinance office so and each of us as commissioners that certainly has the opportunity if not the responsibility to vote as they think see fit on this particular amendment so appreciate the comments and perhaps they've had an influence on other commissioners Ron I have seen cans that are pink in color which I believe signifies awareness and support for cancer issues is this clause going to impact that usage no is it just governing the lid color so that customers and haulers know whether it's a recycling bin or whether it's a trash bin or something different it's just the lid the top of the cart not the body Michelle I just wanted to offer it I was part of the original data gathering and presentation materials when this was originally put into the ordinance in 2013-2014 we had the data we presented from other communities where it does affect disposal in the correct bin contamination rates and all of that we could dig that up and represent it one of the representatives of Kasella actually noted that it was easier for their drivers when they had colors of the cans I also want to correct the misconception that we're not limiting any colors that can be used for trash for branding except for the recycling blue so the intent was to make sure that there were not blue trash cans so that people were mistaking them so red's not covered pink's not covered none of that is banned from being used as a trash can no the the confusion arose because the difference between the redlining language and what was in the summary of sure so I just wanted to make sure the record reflected that okay we just are trying to keep blue from being used for trash we'll have one more chance to have discussion once we have a motion I don't think we've had yet no do you mean all blue for clarification do you mean all four do you mean just the recycling Michelle's coming in to respond our original move to lid was in response to Kasella's concern about their branding blue and so we designated as recycling blue and we even had pms colors and other specific colors indicated so it would not be conflicting with Kasella's branding but the lid itself must be a recycling blue or recycling cans that clarified your question commissioner bagasky yes thank you and the motion would the motion would read be it resolved that the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amendment as presented for section 4.8 point j thank you South Burlington second thank you Jericho any further discussion on this section I want to be clear on what language would be enacted with the notebook or what language will be left and it's a little bit hard to wait through the strike through this here sorry it's it's the language as presented in the red line strikeout version of the ordinance that was sent the Friday before the board was sent out so on the PDF it's page 74 thank you it's not that I think this is the website so if people have access to the board packet on the website it shows clarifying that that the packet this is contained is contained on the website items so if you have if it's easier to access the specific item on the website looking at the full ordinance that was in packet and what appears to be on page 74 is the proposed change I'm curious what would happen with the notebook what's on 74 would be adopted with the yes vote correct adobe would retain the current language which is what is that where does that start yeah so page 75 so yep so keep on going down so the original j is just label it doesn't refer to color there's labeling of containers and then what was struck is the language on page 75 I'm not following it I don't work right in the meeting other questions on this resolution so just just to clarify I mean the and I don't know if I'm going to clarify anything at all actually it's it's shortening up the it's combining the coloring and labeling sections so the the previous language went on into significant detail so is the attempt to basically combine that and and shorten it to make it easier to read but if that's not coming through then your vote should reflect that and all trash containers will have black lids so the red can family will be black lids on top I don't know being added cost in manufacturing I know they do carts and lids separate yeah but don't know if it'll impact them like that hi so can I just recommend having Michelle just speak to what she just said um about the trash can lids again so there's a crest Michelle Peter repeat what you said about the trash can trash can lids so I believe what um Commissioner Perry just said is correct that um all trash cans red can family Kasella would have black lids and to the earlier point made that this has been in place since roughly 2013 many of those cans toters carts should have gone out of service by now anyway and had that replacement made um so we're not asking for a lot of new purchasing and manufacturing of materials unless they've been ignoring that requirement and need to go out of service coming up or replace lids that were replaced in error with the wrong color in violation of our ordinance thanks for clarifying you're welcome are we ready for the question again the question is be it resolved the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amendment as presented for section section 4.8 point j all those in favor please raise your hand and say I and keep them up in case this is not a unanimous it's a weighted vote so I want to give the secretary a chance to record those votes including online South Burlington has raised its hand and there is a lot of weight so I think you can confirm that those opposed please raise your hand and say nay abstentions thank you well student shelbert have abstained uh I declare this at this resolution has passed uh last one I believe I lied before this is the very last one though the truth 4.13 and I apologize to my fellow commissioners for having put out so many but this one bothered me because in my opinion the district's proposed language regarding exceptions for endangering health and safety weakens the current language contrary to the district's assertion my reading of the proposed change in language weakens the protection of health and safety of the workers and so I would be opposed through the proposed language that's just my opinion I think what I will do again is have a motion and then I'll put it up for further discussion and questions and we'll proceed from there so so this motion would be at resolve that the board of commissioners adopts the solid waste management ordinance amended as presented for section 4.13 thank you South Burlington thank you Rick discussion further discussion or do you want to lose state in any way your concerns yeah what the the proposed language simply says that the the hauler should abide by all relevant health and safety regulations laws etc I have no I you know I don't know what the extent of the law might be the current language gives the hauler an exception if the hauler believes that some kind of process would unreasonably endanger their employees and to me the existing language is stronger than the proposed language and I would not want to see the district weakening that kind of language response from staff Bryn I see your your hand is up but I will say that that that provision existed in the original language as well and so we we are just continuing to include it in this new version no but the original language had additional language which is being eliminated as I read it again I only looked at the PowerPoint I didn't look at the full strike out so maybe I missed something again for which I apologize but it seemed to me that well yes the original language included the reference to law and regulations it had additional language that this that we are proposing to remove yeah I'll refer to our second comment which is we believe we're still allowing for boldness that we allowed for that exception in the case that you know someone who made the argument that an employee's health or risk health their safety was at risk and we maintain that language in there so I don't believe there's a significant change between the two versions Further discussion Bryn yeah thanks can you just confirm those last that last section in order to provide for the administration through the effective date are you still proposing to break that we are so is the proposal for the entire fee to be retained by the all our transportation yeah okay I can't I said that the previous time we review this I can't support that I don't feel like we should provide the entire fee to third parties without any guidelines around what that funding should be for I think non-appropriate use of funds not judicial other discussion I think then we're ready for this question be it resolved that the Board of Commissioners adopt the solid waste management ordinance amendment as presented for section 4.13 all those in favor please say aye did I move have we had a motion to we don't I'm sorry it's getting late yeah I don't remember okay no okay thank you I'm sorry I apologize well I've read it again be it resolved that the Board of Commissioners adopt solid waste management ordinance amended as present for section 4.13 anybody when care to move it thank you Paul second thank you Lee now we'll open up further discussion I guess I would just like to ask Leslie specifically can you say specifically why you feel less the actions I think it's appropriate to allow the entity that is managing the actual work to make a determination about whether health and safety might be at risk about whether health and safety might be at risk in any particular instance and the proposed language seems to me to remove that but maybe I'm misinterpreting it that's just the way it reads to me and by proposed entity pardon me and by proposed entity what would that mean the hauler I mean you know a supervisor you know you know one of their employees who makes a determination about oh you know you know okay no I appreciate that you know and I guess I would just ask Josh do you have a specific response to Leslie's you know that particular concern yeah this is just to remind everyone this is under the transfer and disposal facility license requirement for collection of banned material fee the language that we are proposing says if an employee's health or safety is at risk operators of the transfer slash disposal facility shall manage materials in accordance with applicable law rules and regulations the only the only thing we're proposing to strike from the current language is that operators of transfer disposal facilities shall make a reasonable effort to remove and then the certain categories from any load in violation of this provision if and or safety of employees are not at risk proposing to strike that last small section because we believe it's redundant we believe that last sentence accomplishes the same thing where we're giving the transfer disposal facilities the ability to make that call when it's the health and safety of their employees as long as it's in compliance with federal rules right yeah but sometimes state and federal rules are inadequate okay you know and that's I read it the same as Leslie I mean I read it the exact same way as Leslie's reading it when I got changed yeah I just and it looks like some of the changes are related to health and safety and some are not so just putting that out here yes there are there are several changes in this section it's not just health and safety and material fee retention now so if we go with this down is it it's not going to greatly affect their operation our operation no because this is for transportation right I mean it's not going to it's not going to change anything from what's been going on for the last seven years so Josh can you speak to if this section does not is not authorized what what that would mean it would mean and material fee would continue to be assessed and collected as it has been since its inception which would be a 50-50 split of that fee transfer station and CSW so no it wouldn't it wouldn't change by striking down changes we would continue as we currently have been operating that's great and I Brent's had her hand up and and then Janine also had her hand up yeah and I I want to just reiterate my reluctance and my reasoning for the reluctance of allowing the facility to retain the entire fee is it feels as though there's then there's no oversight there's no opportunity for review there's no frequency of reporting when these fees are collected and and why and I given that the majority of facilities that are privately operated may or may not be by one particular company or others I just I think it's who's us to have continued oversight of when the fees applied how frequently um so that that's my that's the reason that this is standing out to me is something that I yeah I sorry Brent I will push back a little bit we will we we get this data as part of our monthly reporting data from our transfer disposal facilities because they document that payment and and it's laid out in in the second paragraph of section 213 that they will continue to document that and that information will still be made available to us we we want we the the intention was to never stop receiving this information we we want we want to continue to receive the documented incidents of the band material fee being assessed and that's that's sort of all we really want is is that information and those examples of the transfer disposal facilities receiving um loads that either have band materials in them or 10 greater inventory recyclables and sir I just don't see it as a de minimis amount it's not like 10 cents on a bag band understood uh Jeanine I just wanted to kind of um understand is I mean so there's two different issues here there's Brent's issue with regard to splitting the band material fee or the no longer splitting of that um but then there's also the issue with regard Leslie's concern about the hazardous is there a if you guys and Alan I don't know where you fall but is it something that you know you don't want to change it at all or is it half and half or um you know I think just for my two cents on the reason that I kind of talked about this band material fee is that this is again this is under the licensing for a transfer station so it's their duty to be doing that and so it seemed to me if we were giving them the responsibility it is their responsibility to do it under state law that they should be able to take that money for purposes related to that whether it's education or whatnot as Josh said we get that information monthly if we see a trend we certainly can go out we get the pictures we can can check on that as a regulator um and then I also think you would hear a lot from other from haulers if all of a sudden they started getting tagged you know significantly more than they are currently that that's we would probably hear from them as well so so that's kind of in response to your concerns friend um but I just did want to throw out there that if if it's the other part that Leslie's more concerned about it uh if we want to consider maybe accepting part of it and not the other part or not either way I just didn't want to cancel one out because we had two different issues really going on here we've had a lot of discussion on this particular resolution I'm not sure we've resolved all the questions I think the commissioners have the information they need if it's voted in the affirmative it would be adopted if not it will be rejected and they'll go back for further work but I think at this late hour um we're losing folks and I think it's time to take action on the resolution um and move forward with the meeting so unless there is objection we now have the motion in front of us to approve and adopt stalled waste management ordinance amendment as presented for section 4.13 I suspect again this may not be a unanimous vote one way or the other so I'll ask you to keep your hands raised so that the secretary can try to get an estimate of or get the proper count of the weighted votes all those in favor of the resolution to adopt this section 4.13 please raise your hand and hold it I'm not sure Amy saw you that's fine I have two in the room I'm not seeing any online all those all those you're set Amy yeah okay all those opposed to this motion please raise your hand and keep it raised bring in Liz I think you can put your hands down now and I think the answer is clear that this motion is has failed so that leaves two sections to um to be further refined and brought back to the board I believe we're now ready to move on that that concludes this section six of the um of the agenda there is no executive session tonight is there any other business to bring before the board it's not motion to chair I would like to make a comment that's meant to be humorous relating to the ethics of our organization I found a point of my homeland on the floor I wanted to be noted that in no way should this be considered payment for my attendance that I found worth 21 cents in the United States but 25 cents at my homeland thank you thank you we have a motion to adjourn thank you there are all those in favor of adjourn please say hi