 Yeah, I'm ready. So I'm gonna go ahead. All right, I think we'll go ahead and get started. Thank you everyone for coming out on this snowy windy night to the Chittman Solid Waste District Board of Commissioners meeting for January. The first item on the agenda, actually, I believe is a public hearing for our budget, which we're required to do every year about this time. So I do not see any members of the public unless am I missing someone? No. Okay. So if someone comes in, absolutely, we will allow them to ask questions and anything like that. So, okay. Next item, I believe, oh, are there any updates to the agenda that we ought to make? We want to add one item into executive session and another contract question about biosolids. So one other item in executive session. Okay. Yes. If you want, we can. We talked about it. I wasn't sure we really needed it, but I don't honestly don't think we do, but Amy, are you okay with that or Marianne, I should say? Okay. I didn't think so. We can reflect in the minutes that it was open and closed. Yeah. Okay. So we have one additional item on the agenda for executive session. So the next item, I believe, is the minutes. Correct. So do we have a motion? Move the minutes of the 19th. Seconded. Motion and a second. Any additions, corrections, deletions? Okay. Hearing none. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed, nay. Abstentions. Okay. Motion passes. All right. Next, I believe there's finance. Finance. We turn that over to Deke, I believe. Yes. As you can see from the memo, we have not closed December entirely, so December is still a bit in flux. The staff is doing great works in the middle of switching to a new financial software system and a new chart of accounts. So we've got a lot of things in flux. So we're a couple of weeks behind, but catching up fast. You can see from the cash on hand that where your cash and investments are, the big note is that we are starting to move the money out of Morgan Stanley as we're required to do and into the peoples. And the nice thing about that is we moved from getting .3% interest on our regular deposit to 1.8% on all of our money. Our interest is really doing well, and we're beginning to, that's looking much better than it has. So I'm pretty pleased with that. What you should know about December is I haven't, because I haven't closed it, we haven't moved money from the operating back into the fur. There will be a transfer there, so that will change. There will be more money in the fur and less money in the operating reserve when that happens. Other than that, proceeding as expected. Have we sent the preliminary budget to the select boards? Because I thought we needed to do that and tell them that there will be no increase or no question of their paying us a fee. Yeah, the assessment. I believe we did that in December. Which would have to be fold into their budget. That happens in December. We did that in December. They do it in December. Okay. Any other questions on that? Okay. We've done the finance at this point. All right. Next is General Manager's update. Yep. So it was also a reflection of the hard work that Deacon, her team have been doing as well as all of the staff now that we're transitioning into away from paper time sheets and into electronic time sheets and transitioning into QuickBooks and away from Grave Plains. So that work is ongoing and it's been amazing the dramatic amount of time that has been saved in going to an electronic time sheet system. So everyone has adapted to that very, very well and it's been very smooth. So good news on that big transition for a lot of our folks, but we've all adapted quite well. That's great news. I mean, I'm kudos to staff who's made this happen. I have a lot of work. I'm sure for a whole lot. Yes. Any questions on that on the general manager update? Okay. I believe next is personnel. Yes. Yes. So we have a few requested changes that we brought to the exec board in January and they approved to bring to the full board. Fairly minor. The motion does. I'll note the date says effective January 23rd. So we would change that to today if approved. We wanted to clarify the personal appearance of employees section and just give some more direction for employees of when they're required to wear either uniforms or for example, the outreach folks have shirts. They would wear when meeting with the public potentially, whereas drop off center folks would have high vis and they would be required to wear them all the time. So we determined that a department directive would make the most sense so that we can update that regularly. Also the safety plan. We just wanted to update that it's not a policy. It's a living document. It's a plan changes fairly regularly. It is an appendices of the personnel rules and regulations, but wouldn't require each time to come back to the board. So clarification on that as well as a few changes that Josh Estee, our director of compliance had made. And also the workers comp section has been updated. There were some duplicate wording in there and title changes. So we're requesting that that be updated as well. Any, any questions? Believe you need a motion for this. Yes. Yes. The board of commissioners approve the revised wording to the personnel rules and regulations. Document dated January 15. Second. Question on that. Questions. I guess it needs to be effective. January 30. Thank you. Thank you. Questions on that. Well, quiet bunch tonight. Good. All right. Okay. So all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Abstentions. Motion passes. Great. Thanks. Next to leave is the MRF quality control policy. Okay. So this policy, the materials recovery facility quality control policy is one that goes back to the original contract. So it's part of their contract. And what it does is it just provides a policy of what they can, what they're to do if it comes in with a lot of, a lot of contamination in their, in their recyclables. And so it provides guidance on what, what's done. And so the changes to the policy include just rewording to clarify things a little bit better to modernize the language. Some of it was pretty old language. And to actually reflect what's being done at the MRF today, as well as some, some slight changes in the policy itself. And the most significant change that we incorporated was instead of the holler who was dumping materials, recyclables that were grossly contaminated, having to pay a fee or remove them from the MRF, they would now have the option to work with CSWD to identify the source of that contamination and remedy it. And that is something that not only CSWD staff wanted to see happen and provide that support for the hollers, but also Cassella who operates our MRF wanted to see that happen as well. So that's been added as, as a, as another option that would be up to the general manager, their discretionary ability to be able to allow the holler to do that. Staff at CSWD including the Outreach and Communications Department as well as the Enforcement Department had some input in this and then we also operated the general manager from Cassella that operates the MRF as well. So we're looking for. I would make a motion that the Board of Commissioners adopt the revised material recovery facilities quality control policy is submitted and strike all previous versions of this policy. The motion, do we have a second? Second. We do. I don't have that for you tonight, but we do keep track of that. It's been, it's seen, we've seen an uptick recently in the last six months to a year and that's what sort of prompted looking at the policy and in revising it because it was being used quite a bit to make things more clear. Yeah, out of, I would say 200 visits a month. We saw about six to eight historically a month that jumped up to roughly 30 for a couple months in the spring. That's when this conversation started. So it's since has settled. I think a lot of the contamination fees have set knowledge to go back to their their go back to the community and say, hey, we got to figure this out. So it's not as it's slowing down a little bit, but it's not to say I won't pick back up in the spring again. Yeah. Well, the policy has been in place since the 90s. So there's, you know, we don't have any pre-policy information really. And what this did is it really it clarified things. It made it reflective of what was actually happening at the Merck. And then it gave that other opportunity for us to work with the Hauler and we'll be able to roll apart that on that to see how that's working. Right. So it's really at the point of interaction at the Merck that you'll have before and after data. I'm just wondering how, how does it translate back into the relationship between Haulers and people who are intimidated? Well, I think ongoing the Haulers are going back to where they can identify the people that are contaminating because they're incurring these fees and have been incurring these fees and either raising the price of or charging them an additional cost for those loads. Okay. And we know that that's happened. Yes. Whether they've been having or changes in fees. I know that there has been a Hauler that has gone back to identify the sources and eliminated that contamination. I know of at least one occurrence where that's happening. Have we ever had a case where the Hauler goes to the point where they refuse service due to the contamination? Where they leave the material at the curb. I would think that would happen. I don't know a lot about that. Specifically. We have Myers and they have not picked up ours because there was something wrong. We had to clean it before they would come pick it up. I believe they like leave a tag on your door. It was actually a 95 gallon recycling cart. Further further questions. I guess I watched a webinar about Massive Two Sits. Really trying to take this on and probably some of you guys watched this webinar as well on dealing with contamination. It takes a massive effort to educate and really have people failing out and doing curbside waste audits and having some sort of standardized system of feedback where you can really know that you're making an impact. I think that would be Michelle that would be looking at doing that. This is just the policy of ones that reaches the MRF. What can the operator do about it? I can address that. Our compliance department has been wanting to do that. It has plans to do the curbside cart tagging kind of efforts that you're talking about. We've been working with them, we as an outreach have been working with them because it's a delicate balance in educating and rejecting and having people understand why it's getting rejected. We're also having to be respectful of that relationship with the hauler and the customer. The work and the contaminated loads. He and this new policy where we'll have a very clear and well-defined way that we would interact with the hauler if they choose that route will help us do more of what you're talking about. I'm also curious about dumpster design, especially recycling dumpster designs, which don't seem to have watertight lids. What I notice is that lots of material gets wet. And I'm wondering, does that lead to contaminated, what's the threshold that you consider contaminated? Yeah, that's a great question and point. Moisture is a big problem at the MRF, so if there's a significant amount of moisture in the load, it will get rejected. And it's a hauler that provides that dumpster to get to the side of the line or to cover the loads when it's snowing out, et cetera. That's also up to the MRF operator and supervisor on the floor. Our goal is not to tag haulers and to not have to reject loads. You never want to do that. So the goal is to always try to use what comes in as best we can. And really, this is to give some more clarity and clarification and the ability to work with haulers who seem to be routinely having issues and to give them instead of going straight to the find and say, well, let's engage more. So sometimes, you know, if we have the space and we don't always have the space for the reasons we've discussed, if it's slightly wet and might be on the border, we can move something to the side. Maybe we can wait a little bit, see if it tries out, try to run it. So if it's soaked, then that's clear. The hauler should know they get it. They don't fight it. That pretty much goes to the find and they pay. So this is just to give everyone, like Jen was saying, more clarity, some options to bring us in in a more structured way. I think it's a good move. I was just wondering, I'm just going to jump in. No, sorry. Can you just clarify that you said it's an option. So instead of paying a fee or removing the material, then they basically work with you to identify the source. Right, so then I might just to finish the question. So my question is, so what happens with the material? So the options are you either remove the material from the floor, right, for the hauler, or they pay an associated fee. Or if the general manager or operator at the MRF thinks that we can work with this hauler to identify the source, then they give them that option. And then that hauler would contact CSWD and there's going to be another separate document that we're working on that's the action plan, the termination action plan that will outline, as Michelle said, how we would interact with the hauler and try to remedy the situation. That's not your question. No, actually there's two different types of. So there's the contaminated load that still gets processed and you get assessed a contamination fee for that. And then there's rejected loads. We don't see a lot of rejected loads. Maybe one a month when it's real bad, two a month when it's real bad. They don't want to reject the loads. But if you've got certain materials that are really bad for the equipment or that will wrap or that are just blatantly garbage, then they'll reject it. And that happens sometimes a split pack or a dump garbage on accident, or we'll have sections, sometimes people have sections of garbage cycling and they're sitting on the tip floor and it's like you can't do that. So that's the piece that Jen's talking about with the extended action where we can go through the outreach group. That's for the rejected loads. And that's really to kind of hit that one particular route that constantly has an issue that kind of everybody knows about. It gives the hauler the ability to use our resources. So that's the difference. I was just wondering about once it hits the floor, what's the option of working with youth to do source identification? What happens to the stuff that's on the floor? I'm just curious about the logistics of that. So that was my question. Oh, it goes through the process. Yeah. I've seen this problem from the other end being a landlord and having tenants and having established a dumpster for garbage and a dumpster for recycle, trying to teach the tenant what to put in which place and it never seems to work. I did seem to find that if they had children who were instructed at school by our staff, those tenants seemed to comply better. But it is a problem of education at the family level and I'm not sure how the district and the haulers can get involved in this other than trying to push back as best they can. I think we did see, for instance, Wanda and her team came and presented about how they reached out to the schools and did great stuff. Further questions or discussion? Anybody? Okay. So I think, I'm sorry, did we already have a motion? We did. Yes. All right. If we're done, all those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Opposed nay. Okay. Great. Thanks very much. Next is the community grant program discussion. Yep. And that's Michelle. Michelle. So in preparation for the budget, I was prompted to review all the ways we're providing funding to support the member community. And, thank you. I, it stood out to me that we have two funds, the community cleanup fund and the, how we support green up day, that directly support funding for cleaning up illegally or improperly disposed materials. And then we have one fund that I oversee the container and project grants that is really more designed at prevention of waste and illegally or improperly disposed materials. I've had several board members express a desire to do more in the way of prevention and asking, and specifically sometimes about the community cleanup fund, can we apply those funds toward things that would prevent illegal disposal? And that's not what that fund is intended for. So the point of this memo is just to make really explicit and clear the funding we're providing for cleaning up materials that shouldn't have been littered or disposed the way they were versus the funding that we're providing to prevent that. And also some of the inconsistencies that I uncovered specific to green up day funding. And I can speak more about that in more detail if you'd like. I've also realized in retrospect that one of the questions I posed to the board probably did not have adequate context and that was the question about partnering with social services agencies so I can provide more context on that if anybody likes. Would you like me to read the specific questions? Talk about what the problem is. I mean a lot of us are using the community cleanup funds. And I mean I... So the first question I have is does the board want to continue funding this funding of these efforts at this level? So as you see between community cleanup fund grants and green up day donation and fee waivers for the FY19 budget it's almost $30,000. And that's specifically targeting cleaning up material that shouldn't have been littered or disposed. And then we have $25,000 that we budgeted for prevention. If the board feels that's appropriate then that's great, I'll use that information going forward for the FY20 budget season. The second question is does the board support or is the board interested in changing that balance any and diverting any of the cleanup money that we're currently putting into community cleanup fund grants or the way we support green up day some of that into more preventative types of programs such as maybe containers in public areas such as for instance Jericho use some funding to provide trash and recycling station on the town green and at the cemetery. Efforts like that, potential cameras or like game cameras have been mentioned as something to put in place at illegal dump sites like where tires are dumped and things so that you could actually see who's doing it. And then the third question would be the partnering with social service agencies I put in there because we have had requests for potentially things like vouchers that sort of thing to provide assistance to people who are under financial hardship or have transportation limitations or disabilities and can't get their items or afford to pay for their items and then they end up potentially possibly on the curb or illegally dumped. And this would be some an agency such as Agewell which deals with senior citizens and refugee resettlement or something like that would be the potentially vetting agency since their expertise is in identifying need and verifying that we would not be involved in that we would partner with them once the people are identified or the population is identified we could potentially provide vouchers or something like that to enable proper recycling or disposal of these materials that are being improperly managed. So if I understand correctly you're looking for guidance in three areas first being do we want to continue the programs? That's correct. Second being if we do do we want to change the balance? Correct. And third is do we want to enter into a new initiative to potentially help low income people? Exactly. Or others? I'd like to suggest we take it one at a time rather than so let's just, if you don't mind let's talk about do we want to continue these programs? So let me just see if yes. Well, Heinsberg last year used their cleanup fund and we basically had three years I believe and it had accumulated so it allowed us to do a project. The town by town it's not a huge amount of money to put towards these projects. And Heinsberg I think did one other one a number of years ago that was similar where you know the people weren't financially able to clean up in the property. The town health officer determined the property was condemned or whatever. Pretty much the case of this last one. So as far as the town's cleanup fund I think we should certainly continue that program. It's not I don't believe it to be a financial burden to the district and it does help these special circumstances as to funding preventative things I think that that is a good idea because eventually if you don't do that then someone else has to pay for it and you know the solid waste district is responsible for solid waste in Chittenden County and we should take the lead on preventative measures. Heinsberg has not had a huge problem with illegal dumping in the last few years but back in the maybe 10 years ago we did have a big problem and our highway crew put up barriers and stuff so people couldn't pull off to the side of the road in those areas and dump couches and refrigerators and tires and stuff because every year the town would go and have to clean that up and we'd have to pay for disposing of it. So I think that those two areas are good. The third area about vouchers for low-income people or something I think that it would be better that each community handle that on a case-by-case basis that would be my call on that one. Let me again I'd like to at least for this first discussion see if anybody has any concern do we want to keep these programs the cleanup fund and the prevention so let's see Allen. Right behind Lynn I think the two programs that we have going are valuable programs we should keep them going. S6 is used them and whatever and I don't believe that we should start getting involved with social services as a municipal organization that's the local community's responsibility and they can work through that process. I believe Leslie. I second Allen's comments and I would say that our experience last year in Jericho we did use a small amount of community cleanup fund and it had to do with solid waste on a property that the homeowner did not have the means to clean up so the two things work together we didn't have to involve social services our communities are small everybody knows everybody and I don't think we need to go in another direction and honestly the amounts involved are so small relative to our budget I have no problem with the proposed amounts for fiscal 19 for the current year I don't understand the green update issue what's the problem? It's a $10,000 thing is it something we need to deliberate here? Let me ask it this way is there anyone here that would like to see us get out of the community cleanup fund or the prevention to stop those expenditures? I'd like to hear what the utilization of patterns have been in the last five years across the town and what the staff feels has most efficacy? For which fund? For which grant? For which fund? Prevention Looks like the green update is used this capacity area I think pretty much so but the first two funds Well just to clarify for green update the reason that's included here is because it's inconsistently used for instance one of the issues we've had we see something like 300 tons of tires come in and the green update coordinator reports there were 34 tires from that community for example so we suspect and I pulled other solid waste management entities around the state and there's a great suspicion that for instance town garages are hoarding their tires and they're bringing them in and then green update we're funding those that disposal via our green update fee waiver and that's okay if the board wants to fund tire town garage disposals that way but I would like it to be overt and known this is what we're funding this isn't tires found by the roadside my concern is that if it's listed as towns found by the roadside and included in that is state V-trans tires that they're collecting and bringing in that we're paying for then that data is going to be seen somewhere down the road and oh my goodness look at all these tires that people are littering we should do something about that and it's not littered tires but that's how it's categorized because it's called green update so those are some of my issues and we are the only solid waste management entity in the state that is donating to green update at their suggested rate and nobody else donates to green update on behalf of their member towns except for LaMoyle and that's at $100 a town for $1200 so if the board is fine with that then that's my direction but I just want to be clear this is what we're funding with regards to green update and I'm happy to explore and just contact them if they have a question about how our funds that we're providing are being used and that information to be attract so that's green update I can discuss the others separately I don't have a broad experience in sitting in Canada but I think in Charlottes it's not the town where maintenance people it is people however they're reading tires because they know that they're accepted so it's not that they've been littered they're being you know they're just being brought by homeowners to the truck and put in there and some of those might end up on the roadside if that weren't happening if that opportunity were available to them on green update I don't know about other towns further comment on their question just the support of all of this the only comment I would make we have a lot of turnover in Milton in the last couple of years and I've found that when a new manager or a new administrative person comes in they often don't know that these funds are available and it isn't until it comes up and I mention it to them so some outreach to make sure that the towns actually know these funds are available would help so we do contact town managers twice a year about the community cleanup fund and our new outreach coordinator has been doing that every January and every about May in preparation for the end of the fiscal year for that cleanup fund we will be doing a better job on the waste reduction grants I would also suggest contacting the public works directors because my experience has been town managers been so busy I don't think he's communicated the availability of this to the public works director so I contact the public works director you know, directly it's easy to do and I've gotten more response other comments yes comments on this regarding the balance in terms of how much we're spending could you review that again what we're spending on the two funds well so in in the memo the chart at the front just has for FY 18 we spent just under $14,000 on cleanup fund and that's a $19,000 rotating fund the board voted to cap each town that's how that works green up day last year we spent just under $11,000 and with the waste reduction container and project grants we spent about $11,000 last year and that's varied wildly depending from $3,000 to $13,000 actually close to $20,000 depending on the year so does anyone have any trouble with those level of expenditure and just to be clear the cleanup fund as approved by the board is not for preventative projects it's for cleaning up problem areas and that was one of the other questions we wanted to kind of take the temperature of the board to say do we want to expand the scope of what the cleanup funds can be used for it's fairly narrow but I mean as the projects come in I've had two or three of them we can expand it a little bit or draw it down if the board member thinks it's a good thing to do and I think it's worked well in the past and I don't see any reason why we can't follow those similar guidelines in the future I think the question is around consistency yes so for instance staff is uncomfortable with rejecting a request by a board member if the staff feels that it is outside the purview of the cleanup fund should feel uncomfortable okay so I will duly note it and we will explain why we feel that what the board approved is not what the member is requesting if that comes up I don't know I might have a question they should feel concerned if they don't want to approve what a board member wants to have done I agree I agree so then the board would need to approve that the cleanup fund is available for an expanded application is what I'm saying because under the current policy we're not allowed to use it for preventative projects that's all recently in the past few years of requests to do something a bit different because there aren't those issues every year where there's an emergency in the town needed to be used so what we're looking for is is there a sense that we do want to be able to have some flexibility and to be able to expand the scope right now we're restricted lastly so what kinds of requests have not met the criteria for cleanup funds but do meet the criteria for waste reduction project grants I mean somebody comes and say I want to use cleanup funds to do this and say no that's really a waste reduction project so big deal you say okay we're funded under this other heading this is if it's a non-issue we can move on I don't understand why these are such big problems it's because we have very clear scope under one and not so clear under the other direct somebody to the other one what's the big deal I personally have had projects inquired about projects and have been told them because of the strict parameters so I think that was practically a year ago so I can't give you examples but because of the guidelines the eligibility factors project ideas that I had were not within the guidelines I think you're getting a sense from the board that flexibility is desired I can bring the community cleanup fund guidelines back for revision and approval to expand the scope so that the staff will feel comfortable and giving the commissioners full authority I'm on the line I was rejected on one and I agreed with Michelle in the end and that the fire department had a I forget whether it was a fire damage or a small fire within the fire house and they had a lot of material that they wanted to had to dispose of in order to clean it up and they wanted to use the cleanup funds that the Waste District had and Michelle and I discussed it and in the end it was turned down because I think the fire department was not I mean it's a separate entity between the towns of Jericho and the town of Underhill and they have their own budget from the towns so the financial support would have been in a civic manner helpful to them because they wouldn't have to use their own funding but in the end we didn't feel it fit the criteria of the district it wasn't trash sitting by the roadside and I think this is the type of question you get into when you say you want to expand this to other requests is to who is the person or what is the group that's asking for it and what are the circumstances of how the trash was accumulated and that leads you into a big open area and I see that as a problem I don't believe you're going to be able to quantify every possible scenario but I think you're seeing the board would like some flexibility in the use of those community funds and so I would suggest that you take a look at it and bring it back at some point and not to disagree I mean I just think that the towns are budgeted a certain allotment what's the problem with allowing a little bit more discretion for the town if they expend it all then they do I don't know it's not necessarily hurting my municipality if another's already kind of burning through their allotment so we used the money for Milton so it allowed them to dispose some tires that were in a tire warehouse so I mean the flexibility's there you followed Bert's guidance with respect to the thing in Jericho I think the board member has a big role to play in this I think that discussion with the board member is key I think that's really great that you could have that I think I think some frustration just feeling like I've bumped into a little bit of a bureaucracy for some good ideas that have come from my town and the example is not just wanting to have what are they called the just collapsible waste clear streams not have people drive all the way from Charlottes to Redmond Road to Barrowland for free why can't our town or all of the towns be given those those containers to be housed and circulated by the town and libraries have a training attached to it some sort of environmental I mean I just think ideas like that I don't know what Winooski's idea was but if a town comes up with an idea that they're invested in and it somehow doesn't fit right then it's a shame to lose that motivation I think we would like to come back with a proposal on how we may possibly want to reshape the criteria with that thank you we have a new lawyer here tonight oh yes I apologize sorry I was a couple minutes late Russ McCracken from Paul Franklin Collins William Ford Thomas thank you I'm sorry and so and just towards the last item I believe I mean I've heard it three people express that we do not want to enter into the business of subsidizing the low income at this point unless someone else has something to say it would be interesting if there was some record keeping or some kind of assessment we need that over time we show an increase when we can revisit it okay can you are people appointed to resource or some sort of you know like maybe that some of those groups might offer that service at cost or even for free just add one other so part of what we've seen is the occurrence of free dumpster days being funded in different neighborhoods that we were trying to address in part through this with a more targeted support so that the dumpster day would go away and wouldn't just be free for all where people are encouraged to get rid of whatever they have accumulating for free which is not in the district's mission of propagating the concept that this stuff is free just one quick comment back in the beginning when we established this town's cleanup fund was basically to offset the tipping fee for the towns to take stuff to the landfill that was the basic premise for it and you know it's maybe changed over the years but that was the idea of setting it up and it's not a lot of money we're discussing a lot of this and it's just not that big a budget item okay should we move on to any other business at this point I believe anything else okay and how about program updates any questions okay and lastly we do have an executive session we need two items I believe it is we need to discuss so did you give someone the wording for that Amy do you have a wording for that okay alright you want to do the honors or not a board member I'm sorry I'm sorry I move the Board of Commissioners the Chints all the way six go into executive session discuss GMC contracts where premature general public knowledge would clearly place the district its member municipalities and other public bodies or persons involved at a substantial disadvantage and to prevent staff to be present and was there another item the biosolids contract and the biosolids contract motion in a second all those in favor signify by saying aye high five okay just got a moment to thank you okay alright we are back in session after the executive are there any motions that anyone would like to make Allen with respect to the biosolids management service agreement be resolved that the Board of Commissioners authorizes the executive director to extend the existing residual management service agreement with Cassella organics that was scheduled to end on 31 January 2018 to no later than 28 February 2019 and to adjust the start and end of the five-year term of the accepted residual management service agreement to reflect the signature date second discussion on that motion did you want to say something now all those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye okay great do or are there any other we have a motion to adjourn motion to adjourn all those in favor signify by saying aye okay we are adjourned thank you very much everybody good discussion