 is six p.m. Today is Wednesday, March 8th, 2023. We do have a quorum present and so I would like to call to order this meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the Chittenden Solid Waste District. I want to express my appreciation to everybody being able to juggle their schedules to fit this supplemental meeting, I guess we could call it in between our regularly scheduled meetings of February and potentially the end of March. Before we begin tonight's business, I just wanted to take a moment to acknowledge the transition that's happening now in our representation in Shelburne on this board. Tim Loutz has officially resigned and Margie Wiener has now taken over as Shelburne's Commissioner. She was present at the last meeting, really in an unofficial capacity as a member of the public, but I'm really happy to welcome her now as our fully installed member from Shelburne. I also want to take the moment to express appreciation for Tim's service. He was served on the board for 12 years, I believe, joining in 2011. In my experience, he always brought to the board sharp insights, genuine concern for the best interests, not only of the town he represented, but also for the entire district and all of the constituencies that we serve. I would say I know I did and I think the whole board and the community has definitely benefited from both the vigor and the rigor of his many contributions and participation in board matters over the years. Again, welcome Margie, got big shoes to fill, but we're happy to have you on board and look forward to working with you. Thank you. Oh, I'd just like to add in your thoughts regarding Tim. I really always appreciate his input. When I was chair, he always had excellent insight and asked hard questions, but good ones. And so again, I appreciate his service to our community. Thank you for that additional comment, Paul. Also, I want to take a moment. I see Brynn is on board here, has joined us. Congratulations to Brynn for her successful, I guess, re-election to the town of the city of Winnowski. Brynn, you're an inspiring example of commitment to the community serving not only your city, but also this board and the entire community. So I think I can say for the whole board, our hats are off to you. I'm very impressed with all that you do. And thank you very much for your service on this board. So with that, we'll now proceed with our regular meeting. The first item on the agenda is the agenda itself. Are there any additions or changes requested to the agenda? Seeing none, the agenda will be accepted as presented. Second item on the agenda is a public comment period. Are there any members of the public present who wish to address the board of commissioners tonight? President either on Zoom or via the phone? I am hearing none. I'm seeing none. We will then officially close the public comment period. Next item on the agenda is the consent agenda. I am aware there's going to be requests to remove one item from the consent agenda for a little further discussion, that being the legislative updates. Are there any other requests from commissioners to have an item pulled from the consent agenda? Rick, you're muted, Rick. Roller, is that just as you were saying? I'm sorry. I have a question about the SMI contract. So let's pull the SMI contract as well. It's important for us to have that discussion, I think. Any other requests? Just to be clear, I'm the one who requested that the legislative update be pulled off the consent agenda. Thanks, Paul. Hearing no other requests, the consent agenda with the exceptions of items 3.6, the process glass management agreement, and 3.7, the legislative updates, the consent agenda is approved. Well, let's follow the order of the consent agenda. So, Rick, could you express your question about the process glass management agreement? Yes, it had to do with the 20% non-glass residue threshold. Forgive me if I missed this, but it wasn't clear to me what would happen if a load exceeded that. And I also question whether if there was one test load that came in at 20%, are we reasonably confident that there aren't going to be other loads that have a higher percentage? Josh, Tyler, if you're available to pop on. Thanks. The 20% threshold was actually what I said. We came in at about, I think it was 11 or 12, so I set the threshold higher so that we wouldn't have any concerns with excessive contamination. And to be, you know, just for clarification sake, this is the material that doesn't go through our secondary process. This is material that comes straight out of the building, so it is highly contaminated and it hasn't been screened a second time. But I said it so that we wouldn't run into any problems with any contamination level. Okay, good. But to answer, they would most likely have to, my guess would be, we talked about it, typically they wouldn't be able to process and they have to throw it away, so there would be some kind of, they wouldn't send it back to us. It's too far of a trip to come back from Connecticut. They would assess us some kind of disposal cost. But that is not clearly defined because, again, I almost doubled our expected contamination threshold. Okay, thank you. I actually had another question since this has been pulled from the consent agenda. My question centered on the costs here in the memo that we had in our packet, identified that in these winter months when the quality of the glass is really poor, that we had been paying upwards of $138 a ton and this agreement would save us some significant money per ton down to $96 per ton. My question then, in the other months, when we have better conditions, what is the normal cost per ton that the district pays? My question, we currently paid $15 a ton to be received at the Wickham Quarry. And I actually have it on my list to call Tyler Wickham this week to just confirm they're still willing to take it, but it's been a pretty good partnership so far. And as I understand, they are blending certain portions of it into some sub-base per and our specification requirements, but that's we typically go to with the bulk of our material. Thanks, I'm sorry, did you have any other comments you wanted to add on that? No, but I see Allison has a hand up. Okay, thank you Allison. Yes, I too had a question more generally about this, and that was, are there plans at the Numer to have a facility for glass processing that can be entirely indoors or not affected by the weather? Yes, exactly. That's how the glass portion is being designed is to be completely contained within the building. The current setup was basically some add-ons and in order to kind of add that secondary process, the additional cleanup, there was nowhere for us to go but out. So that was why we ended up kind of half in the building and half out of the building. So the Numer will have everything contained within the firewalls. Thank you. Any other questions about the glass management agreement? Margie? Yeah, and so the three years, does that sync up with the Numer? Is it the three years on the SMI contract? Yes, correct. Allison? Is there any indication that the cost would increase from the $96 or lower? Is it for the three years? Is there a CPI on? No, we didn't CPI it, but again, it's really it's a one year and then two one year extensions. So it is the best and most economically viable and environmentally viable option for a winner. So if they did add a CPI to it, we'd bring it back to the board to discuss, or at least we'd discussed internally, but there's no CPI on it currently. And what is that acronym? I'm so sorry. I'm sorry. It's the Consumer Price Index, so it's basically positive. It's inflation and it's similar to, we would use the Northeast index, the same one that we use for to assess the cost of living adjustment, the COLA. So it's through the Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis. Thank you. Thank you for calling out the acronyms. We throw them around here, so I appreciate that. Thank you. So since this has been pulled from the consent agenda and it is a contract to be approved, I think it would be appropriate then for us to take separate and individual action on this item. And there is wording of a resolution in our board packet. If that could be read out and then we'll well actually we need a motion to approve this or enter into an agreement, I think. First, Sarah, if that could be read into the record, then we'll have our motion. Thank you. Certainly. Be it resolved that the Board of Commissioners authorizes the Executive Director to enter into an agreement with Strategic Materials Inc. of Houston, Texas for a three-year term commencing March 9, 2023 through March, and I think that should probably say eight, 2026, for the services to manage wintertime glass generated at the CSWD materials recovery facility in accordance with the attached glass recycling service agreement not to exceed $120,000 annual. So moved, Seth Burlington. Thank you. Do we have a second? Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. Is there any discussion on the motion? Hearing none. Oh, we do have a hand. Yes, Brynn. It's just one clarification. Scanning, trying to scan quickly. Is there any tonnage minimums that we have to meet? Can you hear me? I think it's 27 tons. Yeah, they won't exceed 27 tons. So when we load them, they go over our scale and the Department of Transportation limits our 27 tons of load out, but the amount of tonnage we've set up with them, they'll take whatever we send them. And because we have to send them everything we process in the wintertime, we're set up to take three loads a week per the schedule in the contract, but there's no minimum. Okay. And I've left the room for weather-dependent situations if we have to extend out of the three months we agreed on. Okay. Thank you. That's 27 ton, three times a week. Yep. Winter slows down a little bit for glass generation. We crank out about 100 tons a week. 110, I'm sorry. Other questions or discussion on the motion? I think we're ready then for the question. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Abstentions. The motion is approved. So let's then move on to the legislative updates. Paul Stabler, could you share with us what your question is? I'm particularly interested in the potential for the expanded model bill. I'd like to get the very latest on that and try to do what Jim thinks in terms of its possibility of passage, whether it'll happen this year or have to crossover and go into next year. And also has staff thought about the impact on our ability to repay the bond and for the new market that were to pass? Thank you. Sure. Good evening. So the legislators are off this week for town meeting week. Traditionally, they'll return next week and next Friday is crossover, which is where if a bill has not moved from one body of the legislator, legislature to the other body, the Senate to the House or the House to the Senate, wherever it originated that hasn't moved by that date. It cannot become law that year, but this is the first year of the biennium. So the bill will continue to be viable until next year to become law. So in terms of H 158, it passed out of the committee of environment and energy last week, 10, 10, 1. It's gone over to ways and means where it was taken up on Friday. There was considerable discussion, but they haven't had any testimony on it, or they basically reviewed the bill on that day with the intention of coming back as soon as they return next week on Tuesday and taking it up. So to answer your question, Paul, in terms of will it pass this year that depends on whether they can move it out of ways and means to the floor by next Friday? And I don't have an answer for you on that. It's possible. In terms of the impact of the bill on CSWD's MRF and the viability of paying back bond, we've done some analysis on what an expansion might do financially to our MRF, because it is pulling out the valuable commodities, including PET and aluminum. It's really hard to to estimate exactly what that cost would be because as we know the price of these materials goes up and down. And we also don't have a really clear understanding of how what the redemption rates will be. How much people will utilize the redemption centers versus the single stream lube in system. The way that the bill is being changed, it's it's it is being much more aggressive in that the producer responsibility organization that is going to be covering the management of the program will have to meet certain goals and if they don't meet the goals eventually the the the redemption rate will automatically increase. So from five cents to 10 cents or in the case of one from 15 to 20. That said, I think that, you know, eventually we'll see more materials being redeemed versus going to single stream that are going into our single stream today. My estimation was that it could impact our our tip fee is what I equated it to. Based on the tonnage that we would expect and what the tip fee would have to be increased to cover the loss was somewhere between six and $10 a ton, depending on whether glass wine bottles were in or out right now it isn't. But again, it really depends on the redemption rates and what the pricing is for all commodities in terms of what our losses are. So, it's, yeah. Have you or will you be giving testimony to, you know, to the committee. Yes, I did give testimony to the House Environment and Energy Committee, I will likely be asked to give testimony to the Senate. I don't know about ways and means. I don't know if that's a draft of fiscal note that's not out yet that will also will help us see a more clear picture of what the economic impact would be and then as stated in my memo that the PRO does have to do an analysis to determine what the impact would be on the recycling system. The PRO is, is producer responsibility organization. So that would be the manufacturer group or the group of brands would be responsible for creating an entity, this organization that would then manage essentially manage the bottle bill system in the state. So it's a, it really is a very big change to how the container deposit system is is run in Vermont. And also just on, we're going to impact to the MRF keep in mind that our MRF takes in the majority of the material that we take in our paper and fiber products, about 78% of what we process has nothing to do with the bottle bill. You know, the new MRF is again being designed to maximize those fiber products and then to be able to if we want to as well create additional products of fibers additional grades that we could sell into the market. We're also looking to specifically capture polypropylene and the new more, which has a very strong market and is growing and we're not doing that right now we just we can't because we're doing things by hand. So we are looking at, you know, we'll look at the new mark we're looking at different opportunities to be flexible to adapt to not only changes in marketplaces but changes in state lies as they may happen. So we certainly have this on our horizon. These containers do represent a small portion of the overall material that come through our facility. I wouldn't say it won't have any impact it will have some, but we're planning different different ways to mitigate those impacts. Thank you I appreciate that that definitely helps. I thought it was important to get it out on the record here so that's great. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. Any other questions questions from commissioners on this on the legislative update. I'm hearing none, since this was just informational. It was part of the consent agenda but I'm not sure we need any action to officially accept this report at this time it's been presented to the board. Looking to you Sarah to see if you would agree that I do think it's just information it was looking for some clarification on information. So I think we're now ready to move on to the next item on the agenda. Which is an executive session. The intent is to address this first and then we're going to be as part of the meeting will be of course the budget. After this executive session and hopefully an action on the on the merc contract. But we're ready now to move into executive session so if we could have the motion. Move Jericho that we go into. Oh, could someone read it because we need language, Amy. Yes, I move that the board of commissioners of the Chittenden solid waste district go into executive session to discuss the town of Wilson waterline and the Murph contract, where premature general public would clearly place the district its member municipalities and other public bodies or persons involved at a substantial disadvantage and to permit authorized staff other invited parties and the solid waste district attorney to be present for this session. So moved Westburn. Second Jericho. Thank you it's been moved and seconded. Thank you. Thank you for the executive session. Before we have a vote on it, I just want to note for. Kelton's. There are two items in here. One dealing with the, the Wilson waterline and then the Murph contract discussion. Kelton, you're, you're welcome to participate in the first part of this. It has previously discussed with. Welcome your recusal from the second part of that discussion. I'm going to move to the second part of the discussion. I'm going to move to the second part of the discussion. As we enter into a good of session. With that, all those in favor of entering into executive session, please say I. Hi. Hi. And he opposed. The abstentions will now enter. Move over to executive session. If you do. So entertain a motion to exit executive session. Don't move. Yes. Thank you. And now we have a vote on this. It will now enter into the second part of the discussion. And then we'll move to the second part of the discussion. I am not ready to exit executive session and return to public session. All those in favor, please say I. Hi. Any opposed. We are back now in public session. Sarah. Yeah, thank you. So in. And Thomas, I would ask that you. Hop in and help us some language here. We did present in. negotiate between Casellaway Systems and CSWD for operation of the materials recovery facility for a term beginning March 1st, 2023 and extending through the decommissioning of the current MRF facility. Thomas, is there additional language that we need to present in public session? I would suggest that as part of the executive director's presentation that the board acknowledged that proposed contract be entered into as part of the public record of the board of commissioners as well as the memorandum that was prepared by the executive director summarizing that the material changes, the new processing fee, the CPI adjustment in particular as material changes from the existing contract with the operator of the current materials recovery facility. Well, as chair of the board of commissioners, I will direct the executive director to take those steps to place those documents in the public record. And with that, I believe now we're ready to entertain a motion to approve the contract between the Chittenden Solid Waste District and Cosello Waste Systems as described by the executive director. So, I'll move south Burlington. Second Burlington. It's been moved and seconded to approve this contract, which is there any discussion by members of the board? I think then we are ready for the question. All those in favor of approving the contract, please say I and raise your hand. Hi. Hi. Opposed? Say nay and raise your hand. Abstentions? Williston. Thank you. Williston has abstained. I declare the motion has passed and the contract is approved. And again, we'd like to say publicly on behalf of the board of commissioners and on behalf of the public, thank you very much to Sarah and staff for a very lengthy process with a good outcome, I believe, for the district and for our constituents. So thank you very much. I also would just like to express appreciation to Cosello for a good place negotiations. We've been a very good partner in our Marfa over the years and I'm still grateful for their involvement. Thank you. Yes, thank you all. Now we're, I think we're ready to move on to the next item on the agenda, which is the fiscal year 24 budget. Just by way of process, I would like to afford the executive director and staff the opportunity to make a presentation without interruption unless there's a point of clarification that a commissioner might have that not understanding something, but I would like them to be able to make a full presentation before we open it up to questions. And again, also before opening up to questions, just give the Leslie as chair the finance committee an opportunity if she'd like to offer any observations or comments that might benefit the full board's understanding. And then we will turn it over for a deeper discussion. There's a lot of material here and I think some probably some deep discussion I'll be having certainly centering around pricing potential potential fee changes, but I'd like to again get this fully presented so we see the full picture and then open it up. So with that understanding, I'll turn it over to you, Sarah and staff. Thank you very much and I appreciate, again, so many commissioners being able to adjust your schedules so that we could prepare as full a presentation as possible the first and last minute adjustments to the budget that we thought were material. So I'm going to share my screen and just run through a quick PowerPoint here. And this happens all the time. Well, let me just play this one. Okay. Thank you very much. So this is our fiscal year 2024 budget proposal. And this was a experiment in trying to get our budget done sooner rather than later. And actually I will ask some folks to mute, to self unmute just in the event that we have some additional noise in the background. So this fiscal year budget, we are budgeting our revenue to be keeping pace with our budget expenses. That is the good news. The budget revenue, though, compared to the actual in 22, is showing a significant drop for material sales, which is essentially a result of the MRF. And the actuals in 22 for the recycling commodity sales were an anomaly. No one in the industry expected the boom, the very small boom, small up mighty that we had in 22. And so the budget numbers when you see them compared to the actual will seem to be out of whack, but they are actually resetting to what is a more normalized view. So kind of to keep that in mind. And then again, we're showing some expenses that are increasing against actual fiscal 22, particularly in the administrative costs, which should not be a surprise as we're just about to enter into a new facility, a new office space. And we're also getting back to training and doing some travel associated with training our staff. We've got some new folks on board, but also just ongoing professional development, which is really important. So and a reminder too that the next five years will continue to be very capital intensive as we're looking at not only a new materials recovery or material recycling facility, but also some much needed upgrades to our drop off centers and finishing out the upgrades and to our organic facilities as well. So as a reminder for folks who may tune into this later, but also for some of our newer commissioners, these are the sources of our funding and kind of how we allocate the funds across our different programs. So we have three main sources of revenue and that is our solid waste management fee, our user fees or a tip fees and our material sales. So the solid waste management fee is that $27 a ton that is charged at the Coventry landfill when haulers who collect material in Chinning County bring that waste to be disposed in the landfill. And the hauler are charged at $27 a ton that is remitted to CFWD as our management fee. And that basically supports our, we call them the support programs. So admin, administrative, compliance, finance, outreach and communications are all supported by that solid waste management fee revenue. The operations programs are funded in large part by revenues generated from tip fees or user fees. So the fees that we charge our customers directly for managing their material directly. So at the drop off centers, at the MRF, at the environmental depot, at the organic diversion facility, those tip fees are the main source of support for those programs as well as sales of products. So the sales of their sort of recycling, paint our local color paint products that we sell and compost products. And we have another set of programs that we're calling for lack of a better term, self-funded. And those are essentially either pass-through services like our biosolids programs. So our member communities who participate, either have a wastewater treatment plant or kind of participate in that biosolids program, it's a much smaller subset of our members and they basically fund themselves. So we are managing their biosolids contract on their behalf, but those monies basically are essentially a pass-through. And then the closed landfill and facility closure. So the closed landfill was kind of pre-funded when we had the landfill open, monies were taken into support, 30 years of closure on that closed landfill. And then we had to also seed a facility, a separate facility closure fund. And that is really in the event that we need to completely close down a drop-off center or the MRF or the depot. And we have to have a certain amount of money in that separate fund dedicated for that service or for that activity. So our first source of revenue is always management fee. We are not proposing that we increase the fee. It is $27 per ton. Again, as I mentioned, it has remained $27 per ton for the past decade. And I do think that we want to as a board engage in a conversation about how we can moderate that fee. And should we start to talk about bringing that fee onto a regular schedule? Lots of costs have increased over the past decade and that fee has remained the same. So it's one of those funny fees too that we actually want to see it decrease. The goal is to not be generating as much trash being sent to the landfill. So we want to see those revenues go down. And yet, as I mentioned in the previous slide, it does currently fund our support systems, our support programs. So it is a conundrum. I think it is worthy of board conversation over the coming year. Materials recovery facility, we are transitioning into calling it the materials recycling facility just to better indicate to the public really what that function is. So we are looking to increase the fee to $85 a ton. It's currently at $80 a ton. And that is in direct response to the dramatic increase in the processing fee that we will be paying starting July 1 to Kasella. So you can see that currently we're paying about $45 per ton of recycling coming into the Merc for processing. And that will be going up to $70 per ton starting July 1st. And then it will increase in January to just under $74 per ton. The inbound times are not scheduled to increase. So that's a straight, just straight up increase in our costs in order to recover and recoup some of those costs because we're not anticipating that the material sales revenue will increase dramatically. We are looking to increase that to be by just $5 per ton. Again, directly related to the increase of that in that contract that was most just approved. And thank you very much for that. And it is anticipated that holders, they may pass it on to customers, they may not, that doesn't always happen. But we also don't control whether or not it does. And our charter does say that when we have solid waste facilities that they should actually rely on their user fees or their tip fees for their operation. So this is again aimed at keeping these facilities self-supporting. And the Organics Diversion Facility. Also looking at a tip fee increase from 65 per ton to 70 per ton on the material coming in, the food straps coming into the ODF. We do not charge a tip fee for residential leave and yard debris. So that may be something that the Board will want to consider over the course of the year. And we were, you can see in the fiscal 22 Actuals we were practically flat, not needing a subsidy. And this current year budget, we were looking at about a $200,000 subsidy. That's what that income negative is on the bottom. And essentially the same level on the current proposed budget. And that is also directly related to a loss of time. So when Cassella opened their deep packaging facility right next to the MRF, they also took in source separated material that had been previously coming to our compost facility. So we've recovered a good number of those times, but we are still far below where we were in fiscal 21 and fiscal 22. So we are budgeting for about just under 5,000 inbound food scrap tons. We really would like to be up between six and 7,000 tons inbound. That would be a good place for us to be. And there is an activity at the legislature and at the Agency of Natural Resources regarding deep packaging rules. So this could be changing over the course of this next year, but for right now we are looking at going back to having a subsidy for this program. Our drop-off centers, we do have an additional supporting memo that I included in the packet regarding drop-off centers anticipation of common conversation about pricing here. And so we are proposing in this budget in order to again eliminate the subsidy for the DOC's we are proposing increasing bag prices to $3 for what we're calling a small bag, $8 for a medium bag and $11 for a large bag. And what I think I forgot to mention or write in the memo was before COVID, the small bag was priced at $2.75 a bag. And when we went through COVID protocols, we wanted to avoid handling coins. So we either went up to a near whole dollar or down to a whole dollar. And the decision was made to go down rather than up in to reflect that there was so much uncertainty in the local economy at the time and we didn't want to add an undue burden to folks who would be struggling and through COVID. So we dropped it down to two. So really we would, if we had stuck at that $2.75 we would only be bringing that smallest bag up to 25 cents. But it does, reality is we're now at two and we're recommending jumping to three. What this does is it does eliminate the subsidy needed. So you can see the actual 22, the DOC is needed just under $400,000 in a subsidy. And this current year budget is just over $420,000 in subsidy, it would be the same roughly amount of subsidy needed without a bag increase. And again, we have additional memo supporting what we may see as a conversation to have them further down the road. So I just wanted to kind of review again those major, the major revenue generating operations. And just like any municipality we do need to get down to net zero. So this is just again a review of where we're seeing the revenue and the expenses lining up. And then below that line, below the income from operations, the expense line shows the transfers kind of the in and out of the different reserves to get us down to that net zero. And this is just a few selected items as far as the change compared from 24 to the 23 budget. And this is comparing 24 budget to 23 budget. And you can see some of the highlights there. And again, you're noting that the solid waste management through revenue we're seeing a decrease or a budgeting a decrease. And again, that is the direction we want to go and we want to reduce waste generation. And I highlighted again, a few of the expenses changes sometimes for a large dollar amount in the example of the materials management increase the materials management is hauling services essentially and then or percentage increases. So you can see the administrative cost increase is not overall is not super high but the percentage is high. So just different ways to look at at these different types of increases but overall the revenue change nine almost 10% expenses change just below 9%. Did you want to also highlight some staffing changes? You know, actually that should be a 1.4 94.4 change. My apologies. So that the, even though we have a recommending a 7% cost of living adjustment when you look at the total benefits package for each employee that actually again should say 1.4% total compensation package increase. And we are looking at there we had some unfilled positions that were budgeted that we're filling, trying to fill now we are, we continue to have a great deal of difficulty like many, many other renter palli and many other businesses in locating certain finding certain employees we have been looking for a maintenance to fill maintenance position to be a driver or a mechanic we really could use both for over a year. And I was listening to the Champlain Water District to give their annual reports to the town of Williston a couple of weeks ago and he was saying that it took him two years to fill an electrician position. So this is not at all unusual and we're still struggling but we are budgeting for that. And we are hopeful and we're going to try a couple of different approaches in trying to beef up our recruitment. Just a quick touch on the capital plan and we always like to reiterate and acknowledge to the board that the plan is not an authorization to spend it is how we intend to use our capital dollars and do the capital projects but the large projects always come to the board for review and authorization. And again, we have anticipated this heavy years certainly three heavy investment years back to back between 23 and 25 but really it's the capital investments are running out to fiscal 29 and 30. So we have a heavy year section of years these three to four years and then we are still going to have some additional work mainly on our drop-off centers. We'll be doing one or so a year after 25 and 24. We're looking to improve the Milton drop-off center and the Burlington drop-off center. And again, just some new Merff site prep and activities. Those are more activities they will be financed through the bond revenues. So there's not coming out of the capital plan but it's a capital related project. So we're proposing for this fiscal year spend in the capital budget 2.7 million. The balance at the end of that if we do all of those projects would be about 3.35 million in the capital reserve. And I do want to highlight one of the funds essentially because the board approved authorized the reserve fund priority list basically everything that is any end revenue that is in excess of expenses goes into the unassigned and reserve and then from there flows through the different reserve funds in order of that priority that is described in the packet. The one fund that we've been really keeping an eye on is the landfill post closure and commissioners who've been on the board for a while when I was first hired almost seven years ago this was the one that I highlighted as I really wanted to keep an eye on because any landfill manager will tell you you can never have enough money in your post closure fund and this is proving to be the case. So we are now projecting that reserve will be short by about $375,000 and the reason that we're projecting that is we are doing some really intensive analysis and investigation and testing and of the current closed landfill because we want to move it into custodial care. And so backing up a little bit when you close a landfill the federal government requires you to maintain that landfill for a period of 30 years after it's closed post closure. Once you attain that 30 years past your closing you can apply to the state for what's known as just kind of known as custodial care and it's a lower threshold, a lower level of care for that closed landfill. And the rationale is that by 30 years any problems that could occur would probably have occurred. So what we're in now is in the last three to four years of our post closure plan and we are seeing some signs. We would have expected at this point, for example the leachate to start had really been dropping off and it just isn't. So we are working with some engineering firms to identify the areas that are going to need attention and that's going to take about 18 months. So staff is working on the plan right now and doing some ongoing evaluation and testing but we are anticipating that the fund will be short. So we'll also be bringing to the board a plan to how we propose to make sure that the post closure fund is fully funded. So that will be coming to you in the next several months. So we are hoping for adoption by the board that you will approve that the fiscal 24 budget be submitted to our member legislative bodies for approval as presented. And again, as a reminder for some of our newer commissioners our charter requires CSWD for the board to authorize the budget and then each of our legislative bodies and each of our member cities and towns must then approve our budget. And we need 50%, well, 51%. So we need 10 of our communities to approve our budget before it does become effective in the next fiscal year. So once our board approves the budget to go to our member towns, I then have 45 days to visit each town and ask for their approval. So I'm going to now stop Sharon and ask for questions. Alan, you're still needed. What is the large increase in the organic diversion facility? So it's not necessarily a large increase at the ODF. It is rather a decrease. So it is a decrease in the revenue that we had from a couple of years ago during the COVID years. So it is the decrease in the tons due to the DPAC, deep packaging operation and a decrease in sales, which is really a leveling off of the sales that we, the high sales we experienced during COVID. We had two years of really robust compost product sales as every composter did when people were staying home through COVID and we're gardening and growing, growing food. So it's that combination of a resetting to pre-COVID level sales expectations, but really is the drop in the inbound times that affected our inbound revenue. So it didn't come not extensive. Correct. Thank you. Thank you. Leslie, I wanted to give you the opportunity to offer any comments if you care to the finance committee met weekly in January and picked, it wasn't entirely a line by line analysis, but it was a deep dive on the budget. We spent a lot of time on a number of different issues, but I'll just give you the opportunity if you wanted to share with the commissioners. I would say I think this was a fairly challenging budget in part because of moving out of a COVID environment into an environment of economic uncertainty. So coming up with revenue projections for the various revenue streams was challenging and could well prove to be, you know, maybe too optimistic based on recent moves by the Federal Reserve, which reserve board to continue to raise interest rates with a view to choking up the economy, whether that will affect in the county of Vermont remains to be seen, but it's a very, very difficult environment for projecting the various revenue streams. I would also say that there was a lot of grappling with the issue of changing pricing at the drop-off centers and not changing the pricing for the solid waste management fee. And that's really a larger philosophical question of principle that I think in retrospect, the finance committee is not the right place for that conversation. We did feel that we didn't want the DOC's to be an ongoing operation that requires constant subsidy. But whether the user fee is the right place to fund that is a question that we should all find a time to grapple with. In my view, a case can be made that raising the solid waste management fee as a deterrent to generating solid waste could be another angle, another approach for the overall budget, but I do think it requires a conversation at the board level. It's not something for the finance committee to make a decision on. The other thing, of course, that was very difficult is the capital budget because we have several significant upgrade initiatives. The two DOC's as mentioned, the Burlington and Milton, and then the usual equipment replacement schedule, which I'm pleased to say we're now, the staff have now created a calendar for heavy equipment replacement, which should make these conversations a lot easier going forward. So I think that was a good development. There's one non-budget issue that I initially like to bring to the attention of the board, and that is the investment of idle funds. As a result of a bad experience that is now maybe five years ago in terms of the management of some of the investable funds that are in reserves, the district simply stopped doing that and just basically left everything in bank accounts. And now we're looking at what portion of our reserve funds we could use to place into allowable investment instruments such as treasury bills to generate some investment revenue for the district, which is not in the budget and which is not going to be budgeted for. It will simply be a supplement if and when we succeed on this and the finance committee is due to meet next week to dig into this conversation. But I just wanted to make the board available that this is on our horizon. Thank you, Paul. Thanks, Leslie. I do have a couple of things, but I want to get commissioners out and discussing it. Paul Stabler. Yeah, I just wanted to, first of all, I want to say I really liked the write-up this year. I thought staff did an excellent job. I appreciate that very much. And one thing I wanted to just maybe have Noah or Sir comment on briefly. I believe you're still in the process of transitioning our budgeting and software or accounting software. And just in the past, I'll just note that it used to be a real mess we had. We're just doing it by spreadsheet and with links to everybody's spread and those things would always get broken. And so it was a mess. And so could you just speak to a little bit of where you are in that transition? I think it is important for future budgets and actually it has impacted the way you do this kind of thing. So thank you. Yes. Thank you. We are in the second year of our next week transition. And this was the first full year, first full stab at the budgeting module. So we learned a lot. And my team did a great job. My managers and my budget managers did a great job of budgeting much earlier in the year than had been previously done. So our charter requires that the board present to the district a budget for the next fiscal year by December one. And that has always been a challenge. And this year, you know, we always presented a proposed budget, but it is not the actual prepared budget. This year was very close in the prepared budget to what the finance committee deliberated over. So I want to give some real strong kudos to my budget managers for utilizing the budget module in net suite as extensively as they did. And certainly to NOLA for her training and for really the support that she provided and for pushing us into the 21st century when it comes to using these budget modules. And what they will do is make it much, much easier, not only for managers to track budget actual in real time, but to be able to produce these kinds of reports again in real time for the board for managers and then to be able to have the budgeting process be very, very smooth as opposed to like you said, Paul, you know, worrying that don't touch a cell, don't touch a link, the link is broken and just having page after page after page after page. So this year was the first stab at it. We did notice some formatting difficulties that we will work on over the course of the next few months. But we were because the module worked well and my team did such an excellent job, we were able to have the finance committee review the budget two full months earlier than had been normal. So I also want to thank the finance committee for doing a super speedy job. It was much more, much quicker than had been in the past and you all dedicated a lot of time and I appreciate that. And, you know, again, the purpose of having it done by this time and having at least the proposed by it done by last month was to give our member towns adequate notice for any changes that would affect them ahead of town meeting day and ahead of their budget systems, budget processes. So that's the point for having it done in December and having our hearing done in January to be able to allow for the member towns and cities to make any changes that they need to. So I feel that we, we have actually accomplished that goal in reality for the first time in a very, very, very long time of ever. So looking forward to even next year's budget, which we, you know, we're not going to wait until September to do it. It should be something that we can do on going and that's, that's, you know, the change, the big change that we've been making is having our budget managers get attuned to and accustomed to monitoring these things and adding things and adjusting throughout the year in preparation for the next year's budget. And if you don't mind, Paul, just a quick follow-on. I'm hoping that this, this new software and I will allow us in the future to better understand the expenses related to all the various materials that we handle at drop-off centers because I personally don't believe those have to be completely self-sufficient for some, some materials that we handle. And I think if I understand in the past, it's been really hard to break that out. So I'm hoping that will help us understand that in the future and then we can come back to the board with a, you know, a further discussion on the drop-off centers and how those are funded. So I'll leave it at that. Thank you. And Paul Stabler to that point, I just had a conversation with our IP director today with John today about, you know, what are the questions that we need to ask so that we can make sure that we're feeding the information systems correctly, so that we can get the data out that we need to get out to be able to do the analysis we need to do. So, you know, I want that to be an active project this year. We, you know, we have a lot of data, a lot of information, but is it the right information in the right place gathered in the right way? And we have some that we need to update. So, you know, we did some, quite back of the envelope work about 20 years ago, but you know, we first developed our process for how we price bags 25 years ago. And it might still be correct and accurate. It might not. So we're going to take some time this spring and early summer and test the current methodology just to make sure that we're starting from the right place. So that's, you know, that's what I mean about, we do need to do some additional analysis. And again, you know, the thought process, the philosophy of the board has long been that certain materials should be subsidized to encourage proper disposal. That's why the facility that receives the largest subsidy from the district is the environmental default by design. And that has been something that the board has been very strongly in favor of because we want to make it easy to get rid of household hazardous waste. And then other programs have been seen as, no, you need to be self-supporting. And we've seen that with the mark from with the compost facility. So it is a good conversation to have. And it's a necessary conversation to have to say, you know, do we want to parse this out further? Do we want to be material by material, program by program? Is there a methodology? Yeah, we want to apply those kinds of things. I have a question that has the finance committee or the executive committee talked about having. Ad hoc committee. We haven't, but what would you propose? I do think it's, it's weedy. It sounds like it's been a couple of decades. I think there are a lot of factors now that are kind of beyond the materials management realm, but look at some of the equities that, that I think would be valuable to consider incorporate. So not that I'm excited about the idea of an ad hoc, but since it is my idea, I would want to participate in that. I do, again, I think having additional folks from the board have a deeper dive on that before it comes back to the executive committee. And then to the full board would be worthwhile because I just think having an updated plan of action with face thresholds would, would be worth that investment of time. We'll take it under advisement. I had a couple of questions. I don't want to jump in ahead of other commissioners, but I don't see any other hands up. So my first one is I was trying to look at risk areas in, in, in a budget. And I want to go back to the average commodity revenue. I think there might have been a typo in your PowerPoint presentation, Sarah. So I wanted to clarify that, but also just to, to have a little bit of discussion about the ACR. My senses that Sarah and staff turned out to be very conservative. I know I was pushing for a little bit higher looking, following the ACR last year. I thought that there was room to goose that up higher than what it was finally settled on in the budget, which I think is $84. But again, that deck, I think said last year, I think it said it was in the $84 range as well, rather than a hundred and something. Well, the last year's budget was 85. Oh, so then it's comparison budget to budget. Okay. So the deck, deck, deck was, was correct, but I just wanted to call that out. That's one of the riskier areas of prognostication. You know, my sense is you can have a good handle on volumes of waste and of recyclables, but nobody, it's a commodity market. It's up and down monthly. It is. It's up and down monthly. And as I mentioned, no one saw the highs from last spring coming. We all benefited, which helped our capital reserve, but it is then now resetting back to what had been the year before, which seems to be a bit more normalized. Leslie, your hand is up. Yeah, Paul on that issue. My recollection is that when we started the budget discussions, I believe it was Josh Tyler who called our attention to what he seemed to be seeing as a slowly declining materials prices at the time that we were grappling with the issue. And that's why the, the finance committee was comfortable settling on an ACR close to what we were seeing, what we had in the prior year. This is just by way of, of letting the board understand how monitoring market conditions feeds into the budget is a big part of what we're seeing. And it's a big part of what we're seeing as we're seeing the new deliberations. That's correct. Thanks for that clarification. I want to be clear. I'm not, I'm not arguing for a higher budget at ACR. I'm really confessing that I thought it should have been higher. And now I'm much more comfortable with it. With the number that you settled on. We love it to be higher. I guess I could share with the full board. I sat in on the Cosella's quarterly earnings report. And they asked some questions specifically about. Cosella's view of the ACR going through calendar year. 2023. And they saw some firming up of prices, modestly in the second half of the year. So I took that was an interesting point of information that. Other people who monitor this. Not projecting that the floor is. The floor is going to drop out from under us in terms of commodity pricing. I think that's a good point. I do have some other. Something else that I wanted to raise, but again, I don't want to monopolize the discussion here. But I see nobody else's hand. I just wanted to focus our board's attention again, back to the drop off centers. Two key issues just to make sure we're aware of it. And I think this is where we as commissioners representing our communities. First off is the proposed change in, in operating hours. I think Sarah probably touched on it. But again, just to bring it before us that it's. I think that. We'd be going through a Tuesday through Saturday schedule for all the drop off centers, no longer Monday. At, at Williston. We'd be adding hours, some of the drop off centers. But there's a change there. And I just. Wanted to call that out again. We want to be careful how this plays out with our respective communities. And to that point that we only have right now to. Facilities open on Monday. So we're lifting in South Burlington. And we are only allowed to operate one day a week in Heinzburg. So that facility would, would remain open on Saturday only. And, but everywhere else. We will be adding service. So it will be Tuesday through Saturday. And everyone would have. And I see you bring, but again, you've identified some, some costs saving Sarah that we're improving service. We believe, but also there are some efficient operational efficiencies that are achieved through this. Absolutely. And. You know, as much as we can do at a facility when customers are not there, it's, it's always more efficient and certainly safer for both, you know, our customers and for employees. And it just allows us that, that space. Literally a space to be able to do the work without having to be concerned about, about, you know, interfering with, with daily business. And the schedule also provides two days off in a row. For our office. Which I feel strongly about, you know, particularly coming off of a very intense COVID situation where, you know, not just physically, but mentally our folks were, were stretched. So I think this provides them. More normalized schedule. And. You know, I think it's, it. It's well deserved. It also, it, you know, allows for clear communication to the public. You don't have to kind of go to the checkerboard to say, okay, well who's open where and when and what day. And Tuesday through Saturday. So I think it's much easier to, to communicate that one. Thanks. Yeah, thanks. Just as a reminder on Heinsberg that Saturday restriction, that's because the DPW operations money through Friday. Okay. I also, I think the consistency between the facilities is, will be nice. I definitely have had to look up the checkerboard more than once so having some better predictability there will, will be helpful. Yeah. Thanks friend, Alan, then Liz. Since you're talking about hours, I get it costed at least once a month. From a landscaper who, you know, they go to work and at, they work until three 34 o'clock and they can't get into the organic facility because it's closed. And they need to start the next day off with an empty truck. And they would like to see if there's something we can do about that issue. Dan is still on Dan. I know that we during heavy leap in yard season, we do have extended hours for residential drop off. And I am on. Yes. I don't know if you want to talk about that for, I know we have Sundays that are available to residents during the fall, fall season. So we do try to commercial guys basically. Yeah, the commercial guy, I know, but I didn't know if we had anything similar. If there's any seasons, which I know there are. Yeah, well, we, many of our changes have been delayed over the last 12 to 18 months, but one of them is the rerouting of traffic and we are, we've got a new person who's going to be monitoring yard waste drop off and all that. That's been very late to come. It's taken very long time to get there. But by this summer, we anticipate having our wood waste depot relocated alongside the yard debris. And part of the expectation there is that we will be able to start earlier for that stream of material. So specifically for the landscapers, probably a half hour earlier start. So yeah, we've heard that very loud and clear and that's, that's the hope that by perhaps July, depending on how the other things that we're waiting to roll out, finally firm up, that will be the new schedule for that material. Thank you. Thank you again. Yeah, I was just going to voice my support for the consistency of Tuesday through Saturday. And also for the two days that provide staff, the ability to have two days off. So that's all. Thank you. I would just like to personally voice just a little concern, not having an option for residents to dump off or have a place to go on Mondays. I just think it's definitely worth looking at, you know, people do a lot of work over the weekend, clean outs, everything like that, not having somewhere to go on a Monday at any of our locations. So, you know, there's really not, not many options in Chittenden County for them to go and dispose of their trash on a Monday. I would be curious to see what the usage rate is on a Monday compared to the other days of the week before I, I personally feel comfortable moving ahead and voting in favor of that, of that part of this budget. Well, I did. And this, if we have two quick questions, I did ask that question of Josh and Brian to say, okay, let's, and John, let's take a look at usage on Mondays. And it's not any more or less than kind of an average day during the week. And additionally, keep in mind too, many holidays do fall on a Monday. So folks are, are used to having to figure something out, you know, hang on to materials until the next day that, that their local VOC is open or to find an alternate disposal or whatever it is, they must dispose of on a Monday. But generally if, if we're closed on a Monday, other locations are also closed on a Monday. But we did take a look at that. And it was, it was not this giant swell of, of untapped on net need on Monday versus. Any other day of the week. Josh. Myers is also open on Mondays from seven to four. As I read on their website, and they do take residential material. So that's a place that people could go if they were, you know, looking to get rid of something on Monday. And I'd also point out in, in the board packet on page 81, you actually have the chart of January and February 20. Well, it says January 2013 to February 2023. I'm not sure if that's correct. But anyway, the, the trip count per day of week is in the packet. Thank you. Yeah. I mean, I'd still like to express my. Just concerned with, with that move. I don't think it's, I just don't see it as positive to raise our rates and then cut, cut a service day out. I know there are other options between Myers. That could solve the facility and Richmond as well, but I just still think it's, or actually I don't know if Richmond's open that day, but I just think it's tough to, to cut out a entire service day in the middle of the week for people to dispose of their residential trash, bulky waste and everything like that. And just a reminder for the board that the, the hours. Are actually a part of the budget. It was really informational that this is what we're looking to do. So it wasn't necessarily budget related other than to showcase some efficiencies and, and the economies and why we needed to additional capital center offers. Additional. On the budget. Sorry, I just didn't take my hand down. That's only good. Thank you. Thanks. Left over hand. Thank you. Any other discussion on this budget. Bryn. I just wanted to revisit in your slide deck. You said a 12% decrease in the budget for. Promotion. An outreach, I think. What's the budget for that? An outreach, I think. What's, what's the reasoning for the reduction there? So most of that is actually salaries and, which is the benefits. So Michelle Morris is retiring. And part of her duties are being transferred to a new position that we hope to hire in the IT department. She had taken on Nancy. Like it's duties. Nancy retired the year before. And Nancy was working on special projects, research data analysis. She did the household survey. She did work on. Swift. She did work on the cell with magic. The analysis. Those duties would transfer to this new person who would also be able to assist in database building database analysis. So I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I think that's a good point. I'm hoping John. You know, you were such things as going out to the drop off centers. Making sure the cameras are working. You know, other kind of IT related things. So the reduction in that budget is mostly related. To that. There's also some readjustments and, and we thinking of where we're spending our advertising dollars. We're kind of getting away from some of the more. You know, traditional. Uses. Not focusing on TV, for example. Using radio less and really doing some more targeted work with. So there's some TV, but it's more targeted with cable more targeted to social media, things of that nature. Kind of a lot of information. If assuming that the board approves the increase in the bag fees and the changes in the drop off center hours. It feels like there's going to need to be some pretty aggressive messaging that's going on. Particularly given that there had been some. Some concerns raised about, well, we approve this new Murph. And of course the rates are going to go up. And sure enough, the rates are going up. And we know that that's not due to the Murph, but that's not the conclusion that some people are going to jump to. Can you speak a little bit to the way that you might approach that messaging? I'm sure you've discussed that. Yeah, it's a great point. And, and there's been a lot of conversation. You know, among managers and how do we kind of convey that. You know, completely separate from the new Murph, which is not built yet. We haven't even paid any bill on it yet. Is that all of our costs for all of our facilities have gone up, just like everyone's costs have gone up over the past two, three years, pretty dramatically. Our costs for fuel, our costs for transportation. You know, the benefits, the healthcare benefits have gone up. Worker's comp has gone up. Everything is, is rising and we've held off on the increases through the bulk of COVID. So we wouldn't adversely affect folks who were, were being, you know, in a tight spot during the bulk of it. But we do, again, if we're keeping with the philosophy of having our, our facilities be self-supporting, we have to recognize that we do need to recover some of these, these increases somehow. And we do have multiple ways we can do it. And you know, to Leslie's point, we could really significantly raise the solid waste management fee that, that the haulers pay at Coventry to eliminate across the board subsidies. It would have to be an extremely large increase to do that. In the $10 to $12 a ton range. We hear screams about that for sure. You know, there are other ways and I, we put out a couple of different options of how to approach the needs for different facilities in that DOC memo. There are a couple of different ways we could address it. And I think one of the things that we want, that we're going to talk about doing is saying, you know, that our, our bag pricing, particularly on the smallest bag has been underpriced for a long time now. And we're kind of right-sizing that bag. The other two are, you know, can we moderate that? Maybe not. You know, we want to, we would have to go back to handling coins and we think about that. But we're hopeful that the balance in the increased hours and days of operation will help to kind of offset that modest increase in the fee. We've actually heard from some of our, our customers that they feel that the prices are too low. We definitely have heard from the operators that there's a sense that we are not covering enough of our costs. And in comparison to curbside service where that is available, we are still a very, very affordable option. And I think we will have customers who will continue to do that math. And some may decide that the curbside option is better for them, but I think most will stay with us because we really are an affordable way for residents in particular to manage their solid waste. So we will, we'll point out, you know, the pros this may be seen as a con, but we will certainly point out, point out the pros and what we're trying to do and how we're doing. My point is simply that I think that'll need to be done very deliberately and cautiously for the sake of a certain portion of the population at least. So thank you. Thank you. Liz. Yeah, I just had two questions and it's a little bit in the weeds, but a question just about, I mean, you've mentioned Sarah that the pre COVID price for a small bag was $2.75. Now it may be three at three. What are the costs. Before pre COVID for the middle and the large one, just as a point of reference. Not that I'm too concerned about it, but I also do as a person who's in a two person household, think about, and I do the math about getting an outside hauler versus going to the DOC and understanding like my own fiscal responsibility of what, how much garbage we make and recycling and taking those things. So I'm just putting that out there that the people who are already doing that probably are going to continue to do that. And I hear Richard's point though, as well, I think it is potentially a messaging, but if we all understand what the costs pre COVID are and everybody knows things are going up, you just have to go to the grocery store to understand prices increasing across the board. But I think knowledge of what pre COVID pricing was and where we may be is an important part for me anyway. Yeah, I know that's a great question. I, I have some numbers in my head that I think I remember from three years ago, Josh Tyler, I don't know if you remember or Nola. Again, the small bag was 275. I want to say the median bag was 550. And I want to see the seven. 25. I know we went, we went up to the next whole number of the medium and the large and down to the next whole number on the small after we stopped the 10, $10 round fee, $20 round fee. But we will, I will get that specific information unless, unless Nola can look it up to the boss that I'm seeing. She had to drop off, but I will get that information for you. It's a great point. Okay. You just refresh my memory on where we are with the credit card. Install installations. Another conversation that Josh Tyler and I had this this morning. Yeah, so Josh. I'm going to kick it over to you. I'm sorry. Because you've got all the updated information and you know, the kind of the pitfalls that were currently facing. So currently we upgraded all of our facility internet connections so that we could actually run credit cards continuously without interruption. That was completed probably in the fall of this last year. So 22. Right now we're looking at vetting which credit card we use. We have taken credit cards at Heinsberg. We use Cayenne. That was kind of a pilot to see how expensive they were for transaction. It is relatively high. I know NOLA is looking into what other companies are out there and John Dorward has done a lot of work that will work with our point of sale system, which is keystroke. We also have a back end because we're using that suite on how to get that data kind of. Yeah. So that's kind of where we're at. We got a couple more, I'd say a month or two before. Yeah. My goal is to roll it out as soon as possible. I'd like to see it July one, but we do have some pretty, pretty key back in the house needs to be reconciled first. So we're close, but we're, you know, we're getting there. I know I have been saying this for probably five years. Coming soon. We're almost there. Coming soon. We're almost there. We're almost there. We're almost there. We're almost there. So then you were four years ago. We are significantly closer and a lot of that work was done by John Dorward to make sure that as Josh said, that the network would not be interrupted because that is a federal requirement. That, that nothing get in that way. Between, you know, the split seconds that it takes to, to make the transaction happen. So that has been accomplished. And that has taken a lot of work, particularly for Williston for some reason and for Essex. So that has been done. We can get the units as far as the swiper units, you know, any time. And it really is making sure that the costs and thank you, Josh for that. You sparked all the memory for the fees that are associated with taking those cards can be kept as low as possible because in this budget, we do have a, it's not quite a pass through, but we're trying to recover some of those fees. We can lower that as much as we, as possible. We can either, again, that might be part of the subsidy that we just say, this is part of the cost of doing business or any fee that we charge out to customers will just be the minimum. I just wanted to reinforce that the intent would be that the customer using a credit card would actually pay for the privileges using that. And it would not be spread to those who pay cash. That is correct. That is the intent. Right. I mean, just looking at the, the way back machine. And according to it, the drop off center fees, and I think it was April of 2018 were 250 for an 18 gallon bag for 75 for a 33 and 7.5 for a 45. I mean, that was 2018. That's what I think I asked it for. And I think 2019 they went. Up. I do five cents or something. I did grab that. Sarah was going to put it in the chat, but it Rick was right on the FY 19 FY 20. I have 275, 525 and 750. Okay. Thank you, Amy. Mike. Yeah. Our debit cards allowed. They will be. I believe, right? Josh. So we're looking at debit, but debit as a charge. Exactly. As long as they're backed by a Vita or a master card, they'll be allowed. We're taking those currently at the Heinsberg center. Yeah. Which I think it's pretty ubiquitous through all debit cards right now that they switched over to not just only debit. And it's a lesser expense to us. If we run it as a credit card, which is what we do. It's lesser as a credit card than it's as a debit card. To the district as I understand it. Now don't quote me on that. I will, how about this? I will look that back up, but I remember we had a conversation. And I think that it is less financially restrictive on the person taking the card. If you run it as a credit card. Okay. The only thing I was wondering about, I guess, along those lines is that sometimes you are presented with an option that you pay cash. Then, you know, it's cheaper. I don't know if those are, I have to imagine it's much, it adds complication in and of itself, but that, you know, it's just an option to, if we want to avoid the fees of the credit card, and apparently so the debit card, then that's an eye, just a thought. Right. Okay. Okay. Locations, like some gas stations, you go inside, you pay cash, you get, you know, 5% off or something like that. So that is, that is the, the way that those. Institutions are. Recovering or covering those costs of accepting the credit cards. You're right. Okay. Additional discussion on the budget where we're hitting, getting close to our. Scheduled hour, but this is a very important discussion to have and an important decision we're about to make. And then we might be ready for a motion to approve the budget as presented. So moved. Brin. When you ski. Second, South Burlington. It's been moved and seconded that we adopt the FY 24 budget as presented. Is there a further discussion. On the budget. Or on this motion. Yeah, a quick question. Okay. Does this mean that we're a. Does this mean that we're proving the reduced hours on the drop off. With this vote. Well, again, that's. That is not a, a budget. I know that was. That's essentially an operational. Decision. So it's not the hours are contingent on the budget. So, so it's not, it's not the voting in favor of that necessarily. That's correct. All right. Thank you. Right. So to be clear by passing the budget as proposed. That is including changing the tip fee, changing the drop off center bag fees. That's all part and parcel of the budget. Correct. That's correct. Thank you. And to be clear, the board is authorizing the budget to be approved by the board. So it's not, it's not, it's not official yet until we get that. That's that threshold. Over discussion on the motion. I think we are ready then to vote on the motion, which is. Waited vote. Yes. Yes. All those are waiting votes. Yes. Thank you. I just for clarification for the newer members there. Towns representing a larger population have. A way that's higher than towns with, with a lighter population. I think you should just clarify. I mean, our vote here is the board is weighted, but I think the town's just, it's one vote per town and we need a majority of towns. Yes. That is correct. Right. Okay. Other discussion. Again, it's been moved and seconded to approve the FY 24 budget as presented. All those in favor, please say, hi, hi, hi. Hi. Well, opposed, saying, Hey, Abstentions. No, this board has approved the proposed budget, Sarah. Thank you very much. Thank you. And again, thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. And again, thank you. Everybody's staff, Sarah. Finance committee for putting in. Umpteen hours to, to, to get us to this point. Thank you very much. And again, the reassurance to the towns that there is no assessment that will be made to them. If should this budget be adopted? We're now ready to move on to item number seven on the agenda, which is other business. Is there any other business to be brought before the board tonight? The only item I would have is that we had, we have, we have a tentative meeting scheduled for March 22nd. I think Sarah and I can convene and discuss and see if we need to still have that meeting. And we'll inform the full board. By email as to whether or not that, that meeting will happen. And if we have it, you will be there, Paul. I will not be there. So you will be. In the very capable hands of Alan Nye as, as our vice chair. All right. I hear nothing else to come up under other business. We'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Don't move Jericho. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Aye. Thank you.