 I believe we have a quorum present for this hybrid meeting of the regular board meeting of the Chittenden Solid Waste District. It is November 17th and I'd like to call the meeting to order. The first item on the agenda is the agenda itself. I have one item to add to other business and that is a request for an update on the Richmond drop-off center where things stand so there will be another business. It should be brief but that was requested to be added by Paul Stadler. Thank you. Are there any other additions or changes to the agenda as presented? Look at them. Seeing or hearing none then the agenda will stand as presented. Are there any members of the public attending the meeting either in person or by phone who would like to address the board? There are not. Seeing and hearing none we'll move on to item number three the consent agenda which consists of six items. I want to pull out from the consent agenda the minutes of October 30th 2021 that was our DOC retreat minutes. I'd like to pull that out for a brief discussion on that but are there any other requests to pull something from the consent agenda? Seeing and hearing no requests then the consent agenda with the exception of the October 30th 2021 meeting minutes is approved as presented. Moving on to the October 30th 2021 minutes of the district which was our drop-off center retreat I wanted to call the board's attention to one item on page two of the minutes which is section number three mission beginning the journey. The very last sentence in that paragraph said discussion was held on the interpretation of the charter and whether we do have a requirement to operate facilities. Sarah Reyes will confirm her understanding of the charter language and include this information in the next full board packet. It was just an unfortunate miss that that information was not included in this board packet but Sarah did research it and I'd just like to get that in front of the board and into the record what she found so I'm going to turn it over to you Sarah. Thank you and I do apologize for that I did reach out to Thomas Maloney who is is online as well excuse me just to uh be sure that I was also had the the correct interpretation of that charter language that Commissioner Malty had read out to the board and Thomas please feel free to jump in and I do have email correspondence that I have intended to include in the packet so I can make that available as well to to the board. I'm going to include that as kind of an addendum to the minutes but in essence Thomas did confirm that the interpretation that we've been operating under for low these many years does say that while we have the authorization the ability the right to have facilities to operate facilities cause them to be operated um to allow others to operate them but does not require the district to be the operator so there's not that that's the difference between the the shall and the may essentially so we are not um specifically directed by our charter to operate any facility but we do absolutely have the authority to do so if the district if the board deems that to be a worthwhile endeavor so I will include Thomas's description of that back to me that answering of that question like I said as an amendment it's an amendment to the minutes for that day. Thomas is there anything more details you'd want to clarify for the board on that? Yeah you know I think I think your analysis was as you presented in the email to me was was correct um that that the district has the power the the authority under its charter to operate facilities but not a requirement that it that it must um there are general Vermont laws that that I did identify in my response that talks about you know a town towns municipalities in Vermont being responsible for the management of solid waste and this part of that management you know needs to provide either through participation in regional entities such as the solid waste district to provide for facilities for whether it's recycling or landfilling or others but it doesn't limit or or require you know any one particular facility so. Thanks for that information and clarification it was Leslie who brought this up at the meeting and I don't see her present at the meeting I did alert her that Sarah you would be presenting an update I'll take it on myself to follow up with her with this information in the email string so the chief's fully informed in case she doesn't see the minutes. I don't know if any other commissioners have a question or comment on this clarification hoping there are none I think it's very clear since this was pulled out of the consent agenda I believe we need to have official motion to accept these minutes we're not changing the minutes this is just a clarification and there would be additional information that Sarah said presented in the in the record but if we could have a motion then to approve the minutes of the October 30, 2021 board retreat that would be welcome. So moves up all second. Thank you Ron we have a motion and a second is there any discussion on the motion there being none all those in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Thank you any opposed. The minutes of October 30th are approved and accepted thank you. Item number four we'll move on to that the FY23 preliminary budget there is a requested board action we are aware that we might lose our quorum by 6.30 Lee has to go off to another meeting and he's a heavy hitter when it comes to votes so I just want to remind just put that out in front of the board members we would like to finish this item up by 6.30 so that we can vote on it with that said Sarah please take it away. So as you may recall of the understanding know that our charter does require us to present a proposed budget for the next fiscal year by December 1 and the reason that we are charged as a district with developing our budget by that time is so that we can notify all of the members member communities within the district if there's going to be any kind of a local assessment from the district to the cities and towns and so that they can then incorporate that into their budgeting ahead of town meeting which is when most of our our cities and towns approve their their budgets for the next fiscal year. Generally has the practice has been that the staff prepares a preliminary budget so this this budget with that express purpose of indicating whether or not there'll be an assessment this budget that you see in your packet is a very best guess I am confident that the budget will change I am equally confident that there will not be an assessment needed to our cities and towns so we can certainly communicate that message to our members but with knowledge that the draft budget you will see in April and the finance committee will be working on in February and March will look somewhat different than what you see now the main reason for that is the CPI is so large this coming year that we really need to do a good dive into where it makes sense to apply that work doesn't make sense to apply that we are always very precise and and really dig into each line item as the finance committee is well aware so but our past practice has been to apply the CPI to the current budget and issue that as the proposed budget and I did not do that this year that would have blown everything out of the water and that was not not necessary so that is why I again I made reference to the the large cola that has been has been announced by the Social Security Administration the CPI that through September which is you know 5.23 percent the CPI through October I think was up around 5.75 percent so we know I know that there will be some changes to the budget however we are very confident in the cell waste management fee estimate that was done by Nancy and John using the model that we had commissioned last year so we are very confident in those numbers and you know many of the expenses are are fairly good carryover from year to year they really don't change much so I say that the budget will change I don't anticipate changing dramatically but it will change I'm happy to answer any questions you may have Tim you've got a question I'm just wondering what our requirement is does this require action are we approving the preliminary budget you are you are approving receipt of the preliminary budget that you have have seen the budget and acknowledged the I'm guessing and this is my interpretation and I'm open to other deputations acknowledging the general direction of the budget got it and I'm assuming is it appropriate and my Paul directs to you for us to go ahead and raise some issues on early observations given what we've seen to date I'm following up on what Sarah said that there's going to be a lot of work done on the budget in the finance committee if you think your question Tim is is helpful in germane at this early stage to the board to understanding the budget or its process then I'd say go ahead but if it's kind of getting into the summit to the I don't want to say the nitty gritty but the more technical aspects of the budget since those are going to be fully discussed both at the finance committee and then ultimately at the full board level I'll trust your judgment as to what you want to ask whether or not a sure or later no I appreciate that I just a question so the Sarah is the assumption is the solid waste management fee stays stable from consistent no changes it's relatively the same yeah and the and the tipping fee at the mirf is going to be the same the so the tipping fee I have readjusted our expectations downward from the actuals upward slightly from the this year's budget the tip fee will most likely well we're looking at at lowering it slightly and we are looking at increasing the acr from the 22 budget up so the 22 budget average quantity of revenue so the rate that we were budgeting the sale of recyclables was at about $40 a ton I'm budgeting that now at about 70 to 75 dollars a ton and looking at the tip fee where we budget for this year at $80 a ton bringing back down to about 65 to 70 dollars a ton and so usually today what's our tip fee at the mirf today is 80 and where is castella in Rutland they don't like to tell us that number we have anecdotally heard that it's anywhere between 25 and 40 dollars a ton okay so I guess I mean I'll just I'll I just want to highlight to the board and again I'm not not to get into the nitty gritty and we we're looking at a P&L we don't have the balance sheet in the cash flow statement but I think directionally what we're saying is that in if we look at the July 20 to June 21 numbers we generated about a little over three million dollars in free cash when you go to that net income line because all the the every all the deductions after that are either non-cash or move into reserve accounts and so we we as a district are sitting in excess of 10 million dollars in cash I believe right now this is and I wish Nola were here but she's she's happily home with any baby again that the the amount in our bank accounts is it's not free cash it is not restricted but it is assigned and it has you know a purpose and where it's going so as far as extra that is unassigned and that's where we're looking at you know adjusting our reserves policy which was in the board packet last month but is needed to go back for a few tweaks to the finance committee to be able to move those unrestricted dollars better into the certain the other reserves so that they again are are assigned so we don't have you know 10 million kind of floating around with no purpose but we do have money in that sitting in the unassigned reserve that we do need to to read reassign thank you. Tim I was going to just if you don't mind my jumping in I thought what you were driving at is trying to identify somewhat the the market competitive pressures that we have one is we have the benefit of a higher than expected commodity revenues but we're in a in a very tough competitive environment in terms of the tip fee where we're at $80 and we're pretty confident that the private sector is charging significantly less than that so I think what I'm hearing Sarah saying is we're going to adjust those to bring them more in line but it might not affect the bottom line all that much. Well I would argue we're not in a competitive environment the fact that we've been able to sustain a 4x higher tipping fee means that there isn't there isn't it's totally inelastic demand okay which would be consistent with the results that we've generated financially over the course through the pandemic right demand stays consistent people pay that people throw stuff away regardless of what we charge they throw it away and the transportation fees would have to go ahead and skyrocket to go ahead and have it make sense for people to go ahead and ship stuff to Rutland I guess the only point I wanted to again draw to the board's attention I am going to be a as a as a a member of the finance committee I'm going to advocate very strongly that we not only think about not generating any free cash but actually returning cash in some way shape or form to our constituents I think we have ballooned the amount of cash that we put into reserves over the course of the past several years and I don't think it's appropriate at this point we really painted or put or driven into a bit of a cul-de-sac because if we went ahead and if we cut our fees dramatically I guess the one question I have in mind do any of us feel confident that Cassella and Myers and Gauthier would go ahead and reduce our their our constituents costs for the consumers who are paying for pickup and I frankly I don't think it would be passed through and so I think we've really got a bit of a very interesting dilemma on our hands so again I'm I'll get off my soapbox but I think it would behoo all board members to really pay attention to this because I think the fact that we've gone from where we were seven years ago in our cash position to where we are right now is I'd say a bit alarming and frankly I've been involved in finance committee and I'm I'm disappointed that I didn't see this the growth mushrooming over the course of the past few years. Thanks for your comments Demets. You know you framed the process well there'll be a lot to be discussed at the finance committee and ultimately again bringing it back to the board but again as we as we pointed out the the resolution that we hopefully will be acting on in a minute says we resolved that the board of commissioners acknowledges receipt of a preliminary budget. The details to be worked out later and one other point Sarah you may have mentioned it but the timing here is also important to the benefit of the towns in the development of their budgets for town meeting in March. They need an early indicator of any impact that we might have on their budgets. That's right and that is the the reason for the December 1st deadline that is in our chart. Other questions and comments before we move to a motion and then have further comments and questions. Seeing none I'd like to get this resolution on the table here or move the resolution and then then we can have final discussion on it. So moved. Okay. Thank you and just to be clear the resolution states be it resolved that the board of commissioners acknowledges the receipt of a preliminary budget to be further developed through the normal budget process. That's what we'll be voting on the receipt of the budget. No details at this point. Any questions or discussions or points that any of the board would like to make on this motion? Seeing none I believe we're ready for the question then all those in favor since a lot of folks are muted just raise your hand if you are in favor of this motion. Are there any opposed to the motion? I'll say that the motion passes. Leslie you'd raised your raised hand that was to vote in favor of it not to not to pose a question. Right. Thank you. Just want to be clear. The motion passes. We are now ready to move on to item number five the Redmond Road Municipal Waterline Extension. This is an update. No action required I believe at this point but I'll turn it over to either Sarah or Josh for bringing us up to speed please. Yes Josh if you could excuse me you might have screwed what we have learned over the past couple of months and any of the and then we want to take some questions and entertain some conversation. Sorry we're at page 29 of the board packet. Thank you. All right I hope everybody can hear me. Yes. All right good evening everybody. So I am bringing you the Redmond Road Municipal Waterline Extension. This is a cost estimate and update. Back in May of 2021 of this year we had presented our capital plan and update and we indicated that we were going to investigate bringing a municipal waterline down the road to our Organics Diversion Facility or Green Mountain Compost. The extension is approximately 2,300 feet. It would allow for the ODF to not have to truck water anymore. We have an existing lagoon. Lagoon works great when there's water in it when it gets really dry it evaporates which is exactly when we need water. So the idea was to investigate how to develop an operational water source that's more consistent. We've been kicking around extending this water line for at least a decade as long as I've been here. So we went forward we awarded the Diversion King the project development. They came back to us with a plan moving forward we've discussed this plan with the town of Williston to make sure there weren't any significant hurdles in the way. It's gotten to a point now where they gave us an engineer's estimate. The reason I'm bringing this update to you is that the engineer's estimate was about double what we anticipated. It is required to build the water line in Williston with ductile iron. The cost of construction has gone up and so I just wanted to get everybody's eyes on this. This water line will initially provide an operational benefit to the organics diversion facility. The water needs at the facility are relatively weather dependent but based on last year and the year before we're going to needing more water as opposed to less because storms are coming in more intense. So you know preliminary estimates we might need up to a third of the production requirement to be trucked in. Trucking water in is about 10 times more expensive than actually getting water from a water line. So with all that said we asked the Boising King to generate a cost estimate. Their estimate came back at about $823,000 and we had budgeted $455,000. We then asked them to take a look at what it would cost to install production well and then meet the required production storage amount. And because we're looking at the future of the district and siding facilities down Redmond Road, one of the parts of the water line extension also provided the benefit that it could add water to the potential new construction of a MRF and the potential new construction of an administrative building. So when we asked them to look at the production well installation it would also have been you know the numbers that they came back with would be to install a well at the ODF at the potential administrative building and at the potential new MRF. And that cost estimated came back at $1.5 million roughly. We kind of dug into the details on that and we asked them to provide us kind of a risk analysis on the difference between the two. It is their recommendation based on the assessment that they've done for us to move forward with the water line which is what I wanted to bring to this group. I think you know with with the blessing or at least you know a head nod I would like to get some some construction document or some construction details out and bid this project because of its price it will come back and we'll have to get approval from the board. But in conversation with the Champlain Water District Dr. Iron is a little more difficult to come by. So if we bid it sooner than later I would like to have something out maybe by the early part of December. I would bring either back in December or January an approval for this project and then we're roughly six to 12 weeks out based on supply chain requirements for Dr. Iron. So that would put us in the spring which is when we want to construct this project. So that's that's kind of the the 40,000 foot overview of this update. Thank you again you're just Josh you're just trying to get this in front of the board that the costs are different from what we originally been expecting. Correct and you'll see that in the next the next discussion we have but yeah that's really kind of to get a litmus test on moving forward with this. Paul Stable had his hand up and then I see Ron you have your hand up. And just Josh what's your best guess at a payback period given the operational savings? Operational savings the payback well the waterline you know if we go based on waterline those are good between 25 and 50 years. Payback back in the envelope which Sarah and I discussed is probably 18 years you know based on operational needs but there's also less risk you know if we do we do need to put we need to generate more water our new process does require more water. It creates a great product and our finishing is quicker and our operations are more efficient but it just requires more water. So with that there's also the uncertainty of if we put a production well in there's no guarantee we get the water we need. So that's another kind of risk that I've always kind of had in my back pocket of you know that's that's concern but yeah back in the envelope long answer to a short question yeah about 18 years is our estimate. Ron if you don't mind we know that Lee has to drop off and he's got his hand raised if you don't mind Ron I'd just like to recognize Lee. Yeah go ahead before you have to drop off. Thanks Ron. Yeah Josh one of my thoughts was originally with this waterline was there an expense that was going to be shared with the deep packaging facility that was going to be installed? There was a portion the deep packaging facility was going to consider putting a production well in themselves to the tune of about $150,000 if we brought municipal water down they would have you know they would have provided the 150 to support the waterline. Okay. So that played into our original cost estimate but that didn't that didn't pan out. Yeah obviously it's too bad and obviously I know plastics and resins are crazy to get you know there's not much of a supply for those right now I was just wondering if maybe they gave a cost estimate using plastic rather than ductile iron or they just didn't think it was feasible. Oh really? Yeah their standard requirements are that we use ductile iron when they want to approve the project unless we don't. So that was a question we had as one of the assessments and to Paul's question on that return on investment also that's just considering the ODF that's not considering the admin building and the MRF if we choose to move forward with those. So that means Josh that the payback were we to pursue those projects the time frame would shorten is that what the implication is? Yes I'm going to be clear. I think that around 10 years you know it is a pretty significant capital investment but there's also operational costs that are involved with putting production wells in we'd have to have a licensed water operator managing those systems so that's something that we wouldn't have because Champlain Water District manages you know the water that comes through. Thank you Lee any other comments or questions before you have to leave? No I'm good thank you and thank you Ron for letting me ask my question. Yeah that's fine I actually think you stole my question. On the on the issue of ductile water lines I'm presuming that it's a best choice based on its ability to withstand the years in the ground that we would hope it would last. That's 100% 50-50 really some towns live and die by you know HD high density plastics and some towns live and die by ductile iron I think it actually plays into the entire Williston system is ductile iron so that Williston water crew knows how to manage and maintain ductile iron so I think if they had different systems that would cause a problem so that's my best guess but you know certain towns in Chittenden County don't use ductile iron but that is the requirement in Williston and both materials have a 25 to 50 year life expectancy so it just depends but they I asked actually two different consultant engineers to you know what's what they said it just depends on who you're talking to. Paul I see your hand raised but Kelton had posted a chat comment question Kelton. It was already answered thank you. Okay thank you Paul Stabler. I just was wondering I believe Josh that water line would run along the same side of the road that the Vermont gas line that was installed a while back is that going to be particularly problematic and was that addressed by the consultants? That was addressed by the consultants in the town we'll be putting the water line in the right away of the town and the right away takes precedent over where the where the gas line is put in. We will have to cross under the gas line once for sure to get into our new approach for the ODF and that will be a conversation with Vermont gas we've actually engaged with them and our construction plans take into account that we we're going to go lower than we need to and it has to be open trenching to do that but we're staying on the side of the road that's closest dating facility that we've built so we didn't we worked with the town on that as well they didn't like the idea was crossing the road and it's more expensive to do that so we decided to stay you know on on the side that we all our facilities will be on. Other questions or comments on on the water line extension? Ron? Yeah on the the question of installation is that going to be open trenched for the entire distance or can some of it be put by underground drilling? It'll be open trenched then because we're threading the needle between the Vermont gas pipeline and the road the actual road but there's about an 18 foot distance between the two so we've got a good width that we feel confident we'll get in and it won't mess with either but yeah it'll have to be open trenching you know because we're going to be basing our our line on you know proximity to the Vermont gas line to be honest we don't want to get too any closer than we have to and those you know those GPS coordinates are accurate but not perfect so I wouldn't want to you know underground drill any you know direct direct more anything I think we're going to move real slow and not hit not hit a gas line. I'm seeing no other comments at this point just to kind of wrap this up again board's not being asked to approve anything right now or or vote on it but this is being brought to us to our attention so that staff understands that the board will allow them to continue down this road again we'll have the chance to say yes or no to it ultimately but I think staff would be helpful if the staff heard from the board members any deep concerns about following this path I'm not hearing any there are lots of good questions and there'll probably be more hard questions about costs coming up but I'm just trying to represent for the whole board that staff can understand that the request or intent to continue down this road is is okay and with that then I think we'll ask you to come back to us in the future with hard numbers and a decision but I think we're ready then to move on to item number five the capital I'm sorry item number six the capital projects update which begins on page 36 of your meeting packet yes thank you this is also a part of the Josh Tyler show so this is a capital review essentially initially of fiscal 21 we like to kind of give a short wrap-up of the major projects that we did in the previous fiscal year and then some highlights of in the fiscal 22 updates of where we've done so far this year and then just a reminder of kind of where the five-year capital plan sits and any changes that we're seeing at this point to the early years in the five-year plan so the five-year plan that is attached in this packet is the same basically the same list that was in the budget for last year so that hasn't changed we've adjusted some of the numbers in that so Josh if you could do a run through of the memo again it's the first section is that the end of the last fiscal year overview and then where we are today no problem yeah we are in the middle of some pretty capital intensive years we're updating and upgrading a lot of our facilities that are relatively old so I'm just walked you through the major the major milestones from 2021 we completed our ODF Organic Diversion Facility phase one we had estimated it was going to cost a million dollars it came in about 50,000 less than we had 42,000 less than we had anticipated which is great we also got a full sales season under our belt and the ODF over the last two years actually has not required a subsidy and actually has made revenue which is great and that's a direct result of the investment that we've made in the operational changes that we shifted to and we look forward we've got one more big push for the ODF but that's going to put us in a really good position moving forward so we were excited that everything worked out that way um there's any questions on the ODF expansion program a project let me know what's that you said one last one last we're going to change so our scale last month uh we had improved all the new scale um that also is going to come along we're we're proposing what you'll see in the budget in the appendix or the that I have here in the plan we're going to uh uh our approach is going to change we're going to bring in a new approach to allow for the new scale because we want 70 feet in each direction and by doing that we're going to actually clear out the working yard so that we can bring wood waste into the ODF which we currently stockpile or aggregate down in Williston so the thought is to reduce traffic at the Williston Drop Off Center free up some extra space for some potential different material management shift that up to the ODF um and start collecting wood up there which is its ultimate sort it's its ultimate destination anyway so it cuts down on transportation as well um so that's that's that's kind of how the whole layout will work and the new approach provides a better line of sight for entering into the facility as well with the larger trucks um this was part of our our depackaging layout but it was something we needed to do regardless if they showed up or not so we're we're following through with it because it's going to help us you know with a lot of throughput issues so that's that's really the next big one and I'll kind of lay out those numbers when we get to the end of this particular talk all right uh drop off centers um we had a lot of a lot of capital on drop off centers but we also just had a retreat and we're kind of bringing it in because we realized let's take a holistic view of the entire system um so really we had some maintenance and upkeep and some innovation in my personal opinion um we we spent some money at the Essex Drop Off Center we installed uh we added uh a compactor um and if anybody's been to the Essex Drop Off Center lately um that extra compactor does a couple things we we built it so you can access it on three sides which increases um people coming there their throughput they can more than one person can stand there and use it um when one fills up we don't have to immediately move it we can open the other one up and so it also then decreased the requirement for us to have like overflow open tops which don't compact so that actually increased our efficiencies for hauling so we're driving more compacted material we're making less trips um so we were really excited about that the innovation for getting to the the compactor on three sides actually came from our maintenance roll-off group they did a great job they built it in and we're planning on doing the exact same thing at South Burlington to really help the throughput there so that was that big project and it was a good one uh we've received some really good feedback from from our from our public moving on environmental depot uh oh sorry oh Leslie has a question yeah I have a process question here um I appreciate all the information but the capital budgeting I thought normally gets discussed in the finance committee and we haven't done that and the other thing that I'm seeing is that we are we we're looking at the expenditures divorced from the financing or payment thereof and uh to me this this is just in in such a vacuum I mean it's good information I appreciate it but I'm not sure that we're using the right process just a footnote that we can think about we don't have to discuss it now I'd like to take this up in the finance committee I'm just sharing my concern with the board that's all no thank you Leslie I just want to be clear that what Josh is talking about now are projects that were completed in the last fiscal year so we have been asked um by previous boards to provide a an end of the fiscal year wrap-up of our capital projects and then to come to the board on a quarterly basis with updates on current year capital projects so that's what this is this is the wrap-up from last fiscal year and then the the year to date on current projects so this is not projecting but I was looking at the five-year idea but you've included the five-year capital plan and that's that's sort of what perhaps confused me okay yeah that and that was just for context um so so yes you're right as far as um when we get down to that point I agree you know that the finance committee has um traditionally taken that up first and that is still the intent and well we were including that so that um the board and the public could see kind of where the current year projects are sitting and then what had been presented as part of the budget this past year so so it is definitely not the the intent of either Josh or or me to go through any of the out-year projects that is simply informational and um and certainly up for for discussion and and debate at another time and in another process okay thanks sorry sorry for the interruption but I was just getting a little confused yeah I know I appreciate the opportunity to clarify thank you and I think this is a benefit to board members who are not deep into the numbers really giving us an overall sense I believe of of how we're doing it kind of goes back perhaps to Tim's comment earlier that um in the next budget you know where he's coming from it's helpful I think for the board to have kind of a broad background of knowledge um and a sense of what we're doing what we're about before we get deep in the in the in the details but it's still beneficial at least to me it is Josh I think we were heading into the environmental depot environmental depot we replaced the roof but that was a big one because we've been wanting to replace it for about eight years so we finally did it but I wanted to point that out um the Murph had a one moment Josh Tim what's our is that a leased facility the depot yes on on this as well Josh speak up if I'm wrong but it is a leased facility uh no we own the building we lease the land from the city of South Wellington the way around okay good thank you um all right moving through this this one's uh pretty mean you know um the the Murph needed a loader we've got approval to purchase it in FY 21 it didn't show up till FY 22 so you'll see that that's just a footnote when I when I show you the next couple tables um or when I walk through the next couple tables so really to come down to it in FY 21 we proposed $1.7 million we actually spent $1.2 when I say program input the Murph contributed $256,500 so the amount that we actually paid out in FY 21 was $965,000 to date which was presented last month our capital reserve has $3.7 million in it um I'll walk you into kind of the update on our what was already approved for FY 22 capital Josh can I we can be possible to share your screen oh absolutely that would be helpful all right let me know oh I have to push the share button okay um how's that that is we've got a couple of question our hands raised um before we get into this um Tim took his hand down Leslie uh yeah in your description of the ODF work you mentioned a grant but I don't see how that appears um in the table that that's where I think I'm getting confused about the financing part of things and Josh we're seeing a blue screen now and I can't see oh sorry right it was screened too thank you Sarah um I didn't mean it so okay let me yeah Leslie great question let me explain that so in this table here under ODF the $1,041,500 that included that grant that $500,000 grant it was a 60-40 match um what we wound up spending including the the funding from the grant was $999,727 does that help I'm sorry I'm not what when you say including the grant meaning our own funds were $999 and there was a $500,000 grant on top of that correct okay so the cost all right a little bit backwards to me the project costs all in were just about just shy of 1.5 million right and honestly to me that's how it should be shown that the total project cost is 1.5 of which 500,000 came from a grant and the balance came from our funds okay this is not the right way to present that in my opinion understood I think we were looking at it from a cash out perspective but I totally understand your perspective from um the the actual cost of the projects right so for just for example we're talking about a pretty expensive water line extension maybe there'll be grants available for that you you've got a cost estimate now now it's time to go see what kind of financing can we get for that so that's the way I think it should be presented going forward okay yeah no matter take that note whether or not that that grant money I'm looking at the ODF of a million 41 in the the actual of 999 whether or not you included or excluded the $500,000 in grants the difference would still be the same 41 773 so if we perhaps even though the presentation might not work for everybody we can still stay focused on that that item that line for an overall understanding of how the capital spending went for fiscal year 21 and I and I will presume shortly we'll hear about fiscal year 22 correct correct so again uh just to bring you back to this land the proposed capital expense was 1.7 million we spent 1.2 we had program input from the MRF that was the couple that covered the capital cost of the MRF of 256,500 which got us to uh the amount of money that came out of our capital reserve which was 965,287 dollars to date that was brought up last board meeting we have 3.7 million dollars in our capital reserve currently the approved budget I'm just going to jump down here the approved FY 22 proposed or I shouldn't say pro was approved capital budget was 3.2 million dollars program input was coming from the MRF again at 450,000 dollars the amount that would come out of our capital reserve at the end of the day or at the end of the fiscal year would have been 2.799 million there has been some adjustments we had to move the MRF loader into FY 22 because that's when we received it so that's when it hit the books this 368,000 dollars this is taking into account the extra cost of the water line that's what that is right there roll off and maintenance will not see a couple rolling stock come in this fiscal year which is why we see a reduction in spending and again our DOC's we had anticipated upgrading the Richmond drop off center significantly and that will not take place in FY 22 that this current year so that was the big big difference there also based on our drop off center retreat we were going to do some significant upgrades at Milton but we're holding off on that for kind of the consensus on what we're going to do moving forward based on what we're talking about in that retreat so those are the big ones so really the estimated capital again is 3.2 same program input for the MRF our estimated capital is relatively the same it's about $3,000 difference but I just wanted to point that out to the board so Paul you were focusing on the 40 41,000 we saved but if you look at this table it's been done in reverse so guys we've got to be consistent here you've got negatives for where the actual cost is higher so you know I'm really having trouble with the presentation here we need to see and the other thing I would like to again stress which I've done before is the proper way to do this is to have a table called sources and uses of funds so you should list all your uses and you total them and then you list all your sources of funding for those uses and you total that this is not the right way to do this kind of work I hope if you this is not the first time I've had to raise this but we we really need some consistency and clarity on these these kinds of presentations it's fine that you've you've walked us through I'm sure everybody understands it but really we can do better and you have your hand raised I do I have a question I noticed in in the estimate for fiscal 22 we've got 249,000 allocated for the new MRF how much of that has been spent none of it currently right none of it none of it to date that was more consulting fees so none of that has been spent yet and then there's so and then there's I believe 55,000 in the admin section for a new a new admin building I already in the same situation none of that's been spent either but we did contract that and we that's we're working with member on Dickinson right now to do to develop a site work civil site site civil work and permitting to see what that would cost and if we could actually do it okay I guess it just I'm not sure if I missed one of the meetings or not but I'm not sure exactly where we stand on building a new admin building and whether or not we're clearly we need to spend money to determine whether or not we can we we need to spend a little bit of money to determine whether or not it makes sense to spend a lot of money to make a capital investment and if that's where we are on the new admin building then you know I support that as one of the options I'm assuming that but obviously we haven't approved the new admin building converse when it comes to the MRF I'm a little bit concerned we we as a board approved pushing forward and spending money to go ahead and scope the project there was a caveat there I know I certainly I think I stated it pretty clearly and it wasn't either implicit in the in the motion that the expectation was that we were going to go ahead and review alternatives we have not reviewed any alternatives to the new MRF at $249,000 is a lot of money where do we stand with respect to the alternatives I'd heard a rumor that we were going to go ahead and outsource the analysis of different options but I haven't heard anything about that yeah it was not subject to rumor but yes that was um what we ended up doing we are bringing those alternatives to the board next month right and are we doing that analysis internally or do we do we contract for an outside firm to do I can do that no we contract it with an outside firm with scf's engineer would it be possible to go ahead and get the RFP and any details on on that analysis today well the there was there was no RFP because it did not rise above the level of needing to be competitively bid they're able to do the work under that threshold so we did not need to go out today for that service and they have done this kind of analysis for us in the past and we're comfortable and confident in their capabilities to on the work I want to tell you how many alternatives are they going to propose and are you do we did we tell them what to what the alternatives were or did they develop the alternatives no we developed the scope of services for them and with them and the first alternative they're looking at is the do nothing to your point Tim you want us to take a look at you know what is the do nothing option so that's the first one that they're looking at and then the next is excuse me to look at retrofitting the existing facility and then it's a couple or two or three more we're still finalizing that alternatives for green fields being built great okay thank you I wanted to jump in offer my my recollection Tim to your question about the admin building my recollection and please Sarah or others correct me if I'm wrong this has been under discussion for at least a year I believe I said one of the finance committee meetings last year when some initial numbers came in about building versus leasing and directed the staff to go out and take a look at what leasing costs would be like in Chittenden County is understanding there's a lot of office space that had been built I know I saw some numbers and I believe they were presented to the finance committee I could be wrong but those numbers were were unattractive very unattractive and I believe Sarah and staff had indicated that it would be better to move down the road of pursuing construction and I my understanding that's still in process that that evaluation is still underway with no action yet no presentation of the board no action yet by the board that's right and we did present that that alternative whether it was rent lease build certainly to the finance committee and I I'm not calling to present it to the full board of the executive board but it absolutely went to the finance committee um and you know again the process we we want to be sure we're doing things right so to Josh's point the small amount of money was um spent to do the civil site assessment um just to make sure that you know again our assessment of the the available property on Redmond River that we had the right spot um and that it could be done so you know it was a small amount you know for for the engineers to confirm that and now we're on to the next phase of confirming with our staff who would be mainly utilizing the building what the needs are and bringing that now to the next phase which is again getting some initial design initial construction costs so we're not anywhere near yet bringing a construction contract to the board so we're we're still in a somewhat preliminary preliminary phase but I've moved a little bit forward and there's a lot of good value in having this discussion right now again to remind the board that this is something that has been under discussion um we'll be coming back to the board um so just being aware of it so that you know when it does come um you'll have that background in history knowing that this was in the pipeline and coming up to being presented I think there's um but the current office I'm just speaking for myself is totally inadequate had a meeting there it's it's it's not an adequate facility something needs to be done what the answer is that's up to the board Leslie um I'd be curious as to what proportion of the admin staff are still working remotely so I was in the office yesterday and we had nearly a full office um so it does vary we have two two of our um employees who had elected to uh and then three actually two to three they were elected to work from home pretty much all the time um and the rest having staggered schedule based on their needs but I'd say on any given day Josh you can you know correct me if I'm wrong but on any given day there's at least 10 to 12 people in the office like I said yesterday we were we were nearly full okay thank you Michelle you had your hand up and then it came down I think thank you Paul I just wanted to offer that I am currently working predominantly from home primarily because of the crowded um situation at the admin office as is virtually all all of my staff and also other inadequacies of the current admin building thank you Michelle Ron your hand is up you're muted there you go yeah I I think that uh looking forward there are maybe a couple of questions that could be revisited about leasing opportunities as I look around the area I do see quite a bit of commercial space that is vacant and uh if that is an indication of a glut on the market uh it might be the case that owners of that commercial space uh would be very amenable to discussions about better leasing costs uh you know so I think we shouldn't probably turn our back on the idea of leasing and maybe just investigate uh a gain a little bit more closely we did do a very rigorous and thorough investigation we um talked with several property managers had at least two throw up some um some uh fit ups for us on some design specs essentially for the commercial space and so you know again I think we could continue to to look and and see if there are other options out there but I don't think that we would get what we exactly need and that was what we found for for the price it was still extremely uh and to say we've got the nicest raised ranch on redmond road I don't deny that um even though I might have a little quibble as I spent some of yesterday cleaning some mouse droppings out of my desk drawer but we did do a very extensive and exhaustive look throughout to new county and we immediately did focus much of the attention on the central part of the county that is where most quite a lot of the available space was located and it again it's central to all of our facilities um if we're looking at kind of a hub and spoke model for wanting to be near as an admin administrative function near the different facilities um and there wasn't as much space as as you would think that there should be vacant so it is not the amount of space that we needed or could be retrofitted affordably um so again you know we can send out that that um we can include that memo that was presented um in the next packet if you like for some information um and we can take another look at it josh and and Amy and I um and Tim and see if much if anything has changed I think we would still land on the same conclusion Tim no I just I certainly can't speak for the board but I don't think that there are too many people who would disagree that we need a plan B right it's time to move out of our current dates and whether or not we we lease or we build on our own that's that's the economic analysis so we've had to go through obviously since we're we're land rich and land is really pricey so yeah and I don't I think we're moving in the right direction I would only offer the comment um concern that I think the nature of work in office buildings is is changing um and we just have to be very careful that we don't lock ourselves into an outdated uh configuration um I wouldn't advocate going back to the old uh you know partitions and in a bullpen sort of setup but um we need to to keep our minds open that the office of the future may not look like anything we've ever seen before agreed totally definitely agreed and the same process that I kind of approached the water line bringing you the engineer's estimate will be the same approach we bring with the admin building we'll have the site civil development costs the standard construction costs and then the building erection costs that will bring to you based on the professionals we work with and then we'll have to go to bed you know at that point if we choose to move forward um so uh moving forward on this we jumped right into this five-year plan so um for not wanting to go line by line through this you guys actually have touched on a couple of the largest things um one of the things that paul had asked is um phase two is what we're calling it that's the odf construction project and the only number that's changed in this from the approved budget was this 823,000 I had 455,000 and again we'd assumed 150,000 um in kind addition from a potential partner so that's what we're talking about the scale itself for 150,000 has been approved but we still need to go to construction bid um to get to get bring that back to the board for approval um if anybody has anything that jumps out of them please let me know the admin building is here at the bottom uh I'll scroll down to it is here so we have 55,000 for site design permitting we've currently used about half of that to do civil side assessments to make sure that we can put the facilities and and meet our permitting requirements um we're moving forward with that uh there's about two more weeks of assessment before we move into the architectural phase um and that will be the rest of the amount that we allotted for this um we do assume or we have assessed on a on a larger scale that 1.75 million will be the cost requirement for the new admin building it started out at one and a half but construction prices have increased but again that will be refined once we get our engineer's cost estimate and then again once we get the big the bid results back if we choose to move forward Josh I have a question can roughly the square footage I don't know much a little bit about construction I know residential you know at a 2000 square foot home is a 400,000 or 4,000 square foot home what kind of square footage has been under discussion so we've we the the site civil said can we put a 10,000 square foot building in this space and the answer is yes we'll have the amenities will will be able to treat storm water will that that property provide storm water treatment will we have adequate um uh septic space um will we you know will we have adequate parking and the answer in the civil site development is yes we will do we need 10,000 square feet I am not convinced we do the the next step is to do a fit up estimate and assessment and work with an architect my guess is we'll wind up around 7,500 to 8,000 give or take and that will probably be dependent on if we go with a conference room and what size it'll be because that will be I would be nice to have our own conference room but if that's a deal breaker you know we'll we'll we'll assess that I can tim your hand has been up I don't know if that's just a holdover where you have a new question you're muted all over thank you leslie your hand yeah um it would seem to me that the question of the right square footage would also depend on sort of conceptual thinking about the organization and use of office under new circumstances so uh you know uh it's not clear how that's being that kind of thinking is being fed into this you know I I think uh when and if you bring something to the board even and it should be I think in a preliminary manner there should be some some discussion or explanation about your thinking as as paul uh roost said about new ways of working because to simply uh go forward with the design uh based on you know obsolete design principles or working principles would be a big mistake so we'd want to hear I certainly as a board member I'd want to hear a conversation about uh your deliberations and and the advice you get from professionals on that well we're we have had some of those conversations and again I apologize if it has been which committee was at whether it's finance or exec board or board but we we certainly have um had these conversations with I know paul and has brought this up um in previous meetings and leslie you had made comments about energy efficiency and making sure that we are um looking to get um you know the the greatest bang for our buck as far as the energy efficiency is possible whether that is you know looking into different options for for that whether it's solar or you had mentioned geothermal and so certainly uh you know we've had these some of these conversations a while ago and they were a while ago so we're certainly not looking at um replicating any old system and if we learn anything from COVID it is that we do need to be very flexible in our um working environments and our working arrangements for our staff in order to be to be able to recruit and retain high quality staff um and to paul's point we don't know what the future will hold and and how the next generation of employees may prefer to work want to work work best so we're looking at different ways to make sure that the working environment can be as flexible for the future as possible and there are multiple ways to do that and that does get in clearly into the design um but so it's not just the the internal workings but it's also how does the building function and how do we want it to function for the very long term in the long future and how can we make sure that it is as sustainable as possible um a critical component to how flexible internally flexible they the walls can be if you want to get into a movable wall system it really does play into the HVAC and again the big COVID lesson is air exchange and airflow um and the health the internal health of the building for its occupants so we are absolutely having those conversations as staff when we you know go to give some architectural assistance and design assistance that will be a focus will be you know create for us a very healthy environment um internally and externally so yes we are we're not looking at the cubicle farm we have heard that loud and clear from all of the staff who will be working in the building please no cubicle farm um and we are again getting input from them on how do you like to work best and also asking the question given the fact that um so many of us have been working from home how likely is it do you think you will be in the building um will you be maintaining a work from home um schedule if you do want to work in the office how uh how many days per week do you anticipate being there how many days per week do you participate needing to meet in person so we're asking all of these questions are our current staff because that's really all we can ask we can't ask you just talk about and and that sounds yeah that sounds great um if none if you and none of the people working on this project have done so I would urge you to make a trip to Green Mountain Powers facility in Colchester and have a look at the work stations and organization of that facility it's really impressive and was way ahead of its time it must be 15 20 years old by now but um please have somebody make a little field trip that's good thank you yep we've kind of zeroed in on on the the admin building just staying with that for a second other board members who haven't spoken up um you know sometimes those of us who are a little bit more familiar with it kind of dominate the discussion but I don't want to miss the opportunity for other board members you can have a concern question or comment on on the admin building since we've been talking about that for the last 15 minutes I'm hearing none which is fine uh Josh are you pretty much done with your presentation then on the capital budget we pretty much go in on the admin building and it's great to get that out on the table um build our awareness yeah the just the you know the end was the two biggest projects are going to be that um the the cost for the new approach at ODF which will be the spring um and the admin building which is budgeted for FY 23 those are the big kind of take-homes that you're pretty focused on so thanks for asking those questions and again point out as Tim pointed out the MRF um is not on this that's that's a bond project most likely and not a not being funded totally by the uh capital reserves which is a big explanation for why we don't see that in this schedule but clearly that's something we'll be coming up for intense discussion or deep discussion too any other discussion then on the capital um um capital projects update seeing none um moving on to item seven there is no reason to have an executive session tonight just confirming that um we can move on to uh item eight other business and as I already identified uh if sarah could update us on the status of the Richmond drop-off center right so i'll bring josh in there as well so um the the status is that um we had been working with the town to coordinate the decommissioning of the site and um we had prepared a list of items that we were uh felt that we could could potentially sell to the town as assets that we did not need to redeploy so the town authorized to sell out their um future vendor to talk with us about those those assets and what they may be interested in what they were not interested in um and the last conversation was several weeks ago so i asked josh to reconnect with the town and just ask for a status update josh if you could fill in some of those blanks um yeah currently we we've negotiated with uh kasell's representatives and they um they are not comfortable with pricing on two of our assets that we're going to leave in place um and we said okay speak with the town they're the one broker in the deal let them know your your concerns and we're waiting to hear back from the town but as it stands now um we will be taking the booth um one of the compactors uh all of the roll-off boxes and all of the blocks on the site the rest of the infrastructure will stay on site and we're still that's presuming that kasell does not want to purchase those assets if um if they if they do purchase assets if they do not want to purchase the assets which basically we're talking about the asphalt um and so we would need in the concrete and we so we would need to remove that so that's really what we're waiting for um so there was a question of well how it is good is it going to cost to decommission the site and that's the big ticket item right is have we have to tear that up and bring it back down to um dirt which is how we were presented with the site and that's the agreement that we have when with our all of our community our DOC's our host communities um is that if we are to leave the the location and decommission the operation that we will return the property to the condition in which we found it um which is basically dirt so that's that's the one and it is big it's it's it's a big ticket item but it's also a significant asset um to the location um it does need some work if we that was as josh mentioned we were planning on um doing some regrading and repaving of the sites so it does need some work um you know kasella talked a little bit about maybe they would just resurface that's fine um but the underlayment that is there right now has a lot of value particularly in the winter uh it's pretty difficult much more difficult to have to try to pave anything in which time and generally in vermont because you know you can't so it would present um uh some some difficulty but kasella has indicated that you know they will be they're prepared to manage that situation if they decide not you know not to buy that asset from us but we're just waiting to hear from the town what what the direction is we are scheduled to continue to um to staff and serve the Richmond community through december 30th that's our last day of operation there according to the standard schedule that we have um so we would take the next several weeks of january and the town is aware of this um to remove the items that we're going to remove well stabler did that answer the questions that you had yes it does i would ask that we again get an update in december when you know more appreciate it tam here we go um have we taken any steps to uh see if we can make sure that we have access to the the data uh for the facility obviously we're gonna have a whole you know we're gonna have one less drop-off center but in i'm just wondering can we should we be offering an incentive on the purchase price of these assets to make sure that we get in exchange for that we get the data so that we have better visibility to how the district is performing overall tim i'm not clear on your question data going forward as yes data going forward how many visits what time of day average you know cost per visit etc getting the cicella further getting that from cicella well getting it from the asking the town i don't have it they won't have it yeah no they i'm always positive with that world is not part of um their contract with cicella i mean i haven't seen it but um i don't it don't recall them having that requirement in the rfp josh do you require that no no we're not going to have any of that information we don't we don't get that outbound material we'll have we'll have information on because they have reported a transfer station like we'll get that but but as far as trip data in we won't that that will be cicella's information we can request it from them but it's not something they typically share with us yeah that's unfortunate other questions or comments about the drop-off richwin drop-off center hearing none is there any other business that the board would like to address tonight hearing or seeing none that could entertain a motion to adjourn so moved westward seconded well thank you all those in favor of adjourning please right again or say hi hi good night everyone and everybody happy thanksgiving please happy thanksgiving every day thank you stay healthy so long everybody