 Thanks so much and it's been forever at the same time. So additions or changes to the agenda. I'd like to add an item to other business. I'd like to review the potential supplemental environmental projects ideas that we've gathered so far. Great, thank you. And we'll make sure to add that at the end. Members of the public that would like to speak at this time, you can raise your hand or put a comment in the chat box. And I think Amy will also keep an eye on that if anything comes up during the meeting. So thanks for joining us. Any requests to remove items from the consent agenda? I also wanna thank you and Jen for adding in the testimony bottle bill. So as a policy nerd myself, I appreciate saying that. Request to remove items from the consent agenda. We will approve that and move to the next order of business which is this commissioner biographies. Sarah, can you tee that up? We're working on kind of revamping our website here in general. And for a while, I share pages and the one where we have list of the names and contact information. And really thinking that it would be great to have a bit of a more robust page. And Bryn and I were talking and Bryn had the same feeling when she came on board too was saying, it would be great to have a little bit more information about our commissioners so that the public could see the wealth of experience and knowledge and interest that you all bring to the board. So Bryn wanted to kind of bring this to this larger group to get a sense for comfort level with that. And there are several different ways we could approach getting some information about, you know, just additional biographical information about our commissioners on the website. In addition to that, something else that we've kind of been passing back and forth for a while now is there have been some concerns about maybe listing telephone numbers. And I know a few commissioners do not want to have their telephone numbers listed. Some for professional reasons, some for personal reasons. And so one of the ways that we were thinking that we could encourage and continue to support constituents being able to reach commissioners is, you know, like looking into the possibility of giving everyone a CSWD email that could be accessed, you know, through the website. So kind of having that link and it go directly to you. A benefit of that obviously is having kind of one location where one email box where all of your information as far as any communication that goes to you can be found. So it would certainly help you to kind of narrow the focus in on where was that message and where was that packet and where was that link. It would be kind of a one stop location for that. So we wanted to kind of get some feedback because we know that there's been some, either lukewarm response in the past or I've also heard some resistance to having biographies. And we're not talking, you know, haters of them. And it would be tricky to have, you know, super long biographies anyway because there's a very large board. So the information would be pretty short and sweet. The thought would be that we would provide you with a few short questions and then we can formulate that into a short paragraph. Where are there ideas that you thought about? I know you would send me a couple of different examples from different organizations that you came across and Boise you can on that. Right. You like. Yeah, so another thing is from, if you look at other organizations and how they feature boards, a number of them have a headshot or a photo that's provided to give some, you know, context and recognition of the commissioners and the board members that are seated. So again, folks may have different feelings about that. And so that's part of why we're bringing it here. We did talk about it during the executive session, executive meeting with those commissioners as well. And there was unanimous approval for the concept and that's why we're talking about it tonight. So that's, you know, just as Sarah said, it's something that we've been talking about a while and, you know, think especially as we all work, are working in a virtual setting and will be for at least a while longer that there's a lot of different value one to having the biography component to it and two to especially have access to a CSWD designated email accessing the meeting links, accessing packets and then correspond it so that we can get personal cell phone numbers and home phone numbers off of the website. So just kind of funneling all of that information into one place so you don't have to search your own personal email for all of that. I know that I have my own organizational system I've had to adopt over the last few years. So it would make things a little bit more streamlined too. So opening it up for thoughts, concerns, comments, you know, either good idea, bad idea, you know, we kind of want to just have the full discussion. And if you don't talk, great, go ahead. I think it's a good idea. I mean, I'm fine with it. I would ask that, you know, staff maybe come up with a common format, you know, certain fields or topics or, you know, short, short pieces of information that would be appropriate. And that would make it easier and more consistent. Agree. Say second. Okay, Katie, sorry. I like that idea of having it consistent and concrete, quick. Doesn't have to be a ton. Great, okay. I like the fact that, you know, all the board packet information and everything would go to that email. And it'd just be everything would be centralized. I think that would make my life a little easier. Having a CSWD email address is also beneficial that when you retire from the board, you don't have to disentangle all of that CSWD information from your personal email address, nor would you continue to get communications from constituents when you're no longer on the board or responsible for anything. So I think that's a great idea. Good point, Paul. I really like having our personal phone numbers taken off and being able to respond thoughtfully to something via email. It, you know, oftentimes I'm not answering calls for numbers I don't know. So I think direct email is a better way to hear from constituents. Logan looks like he's looking for something. Isn't that sad? How many of us don't answer the phone? But you just said we don't answer the phone because if you don't know who it is, it's probably a telemarketer. Yeah, it's not the prize patrol anymore. Right, right. No publishers clearing house. The only reason I was ever nice to my mother-in-law is she keeps getting these things, say she's a finalist. So I forget I'd better be nice to her. Do you want to raise your hand? I have to say, I'm good with whatever everybody else wants. I like the idea of the centralized portal. Bookmark it and it makes it nice and easy. I think that's a very good idea. Awesome. Sorry, Ken, go ahead. I just was going to say, speaking of publishers clearing house, Ed McMahon was my neighbor growing up. So thought that was kind of weird. No, and I like the idea that people can choose, people want not, people can choose themselves to put themselves out there to the community with their phone number or whatever, but not everyone would want to do that. So I get that. It's nice to respect the privacy too. Great, any thoughts from folks that haven't spoken yet? Do we need to check in with our towns if they're cool with this? Since we're technically serving on their behalf to the board, is that something that we should run by our sort of home locales as it were? Good question, Amy, did you recall if you've ever checked in with our member towns regarding anything about our website as far as putting our Christian's names and contact our phone numbers up there? We haven't. They have links to our website, but not specific to talking about information of the board. Not that I'm aware of. As somebody that sat on a select board for 18 years, I don't think they would have any problem with it, Logan. I think it's, you know, like my phone number and email are in the town report every year. And I think, you know, the water district and a couple of others already have that kind of stuff set up. So I don't think there could be any issue with the select board, but you can always call the chair and just run it by them. One other thing that, sorry, that might be a benefit is that centralized component, and so that the access to the email will carry after with whatever commissioner is seated. So that may provide some additional benefit to and reassurance in some way that there's access to that correspondence and that history from the emails. And then I think there's always an importance to have easy access if there's ever requests, additional requests for information or, so that allows a little bit just a better flow if anything needs to, information needs to be shared. And Ellen brings up a good point too, that if it is important to your community, each community does produce an annual report. And, you know, you could always request that your, your phone number if you wanted to have that included in your local annual report, if you so. But I saw Leslie had a handle as well. I think that was left over. Okay. Tim, any thoughts or questions? Anybody else that hasn't spoken yet? Excuse me. I'm sorry, this is Michelle. I just had a question for clarification, if I may. Of course. Thank you. Good evening. I'm confused about what the request is because I'm hearing three separate things that are managed differently. So I just want to make sure I'm clear on what the action items are out of this meeting. A centralized portal that board members could access is different from our public facing website. And that would be what I'm hearing. There's been a request for BIOS to be put on the public facing website. And I'm also hearing a request for CSWD emails, which is a third also separate management situation. And we could implement that as soon as our IT department could establish those and establish the cost. We could certainly put those on the public facing and remove the phone numbers very quickly. So I'm just asking for clarity around those requests and also a request for timing because there is considerable work involved in at least two out of three of those requests. Can you offer just details on the timing component for context? Sure, sure. So for emails, I can't speak to that because we don't manage that in our department. That goes through admin and IT. But with regard to the public facing page, if we wanted BIOS, I've received an estimate from staff of something like three to four days of work or more depending on what kind of photos people want, what quality of photos we have available back and forth with board commissioners, certainly. And there are some challenges with our current website that we would have to work around. So we could implement it pretty quickly, but we'd prefer to do it when we overhaul some of the content. And as far as an internal portal, again, that's in a separate department. That's our IT staff that would have to implement that. So I can't speak to the amount of work involved in that. Okay, thank you for a little bit more context. So what I'm trying to tee up here is just the first two. So the BIOS and CSWD emails, only those two. So sorry to add any confusion about a portal that is not intended as part of this discussion and not part of the vision that was discussed during the executive committee meeting to bring forward to the full board. So just those two items. Sarah, is there anything else on that? Nope, I saw Logan has a hand if I end up getting a comment on this as well. Yep. Yeah, just as a quick clarification, I apologize that I missed the Monday discussion in this one earlier, but would this be for email hosted by CSWD with our names on it versus a sort of remailer service where we have a CSWD alias that forwards messages to something, to our personal addresses, but sort of masks us from just having our Gmail addresses for instance on the public-facing website. Thank you. John, if you could chime in, I think what we had discussed was having an actual CSWD email. Yeah, that's correct. It would be actually an Office 365 account. So as far as the portal concepts go, you could share documents. You could hold executive session in a Teams meeting and that sort of thing, depending on people's appetite for learning new tricks and tools. The only other consideration there is if we do publish the emails, I would ask that we publish them in a somewhat obscured manner so they're not easily picked up by spammers and also I probably would request folks to enroll with a multi-factor authentication, meaning you get a text when you log in just to protect the district's resources. Yeah, it feels like that's relatively standard at this point is multi-factor authentication. Yes, Leslie. So I have a question, if I heard Michelle correctly, three to four days if we wanted photos on the website and bios, I'm wondering if that we really want to impose that on staff at this time? Is it just a question? I don't have a view one way or the other but it really does, are we adding sufficient value by adding that time to their already very full plate? Well, I've communicated to Michelle and her team that this is in my opinion and I can tell me if I'm miscommunicated but that this is not a drop everything project and do this now. So it would be, as Michelle indicated, we do have some infrastructure and architecture issues that we want to square away first. So I think that it could certainly be, we could be gathering information along the way. It wouldn't necessarily be live in three or four days. It would be live at some point in the near future so we could stretch out that amount of work. So I think what she was saying is that if they would drop everything, Michelle correct me again, if I'm misunderstood, but if you would drop everything, it would be about three or four days. So I was not going to ask them to drop everything. Go ahead. Sorry, just to offer clarity, it would be that amount of total work regardless of when it's scheduled. And for context, we did look to see how many visits we currently get to the board page where all the packet information is. And that's, we don't distinguish between staff visiting the page or press or the board. And we get about 2,500 visits to the board page a year versus 85,000 visits to a drop-off center page per year. So just looking at relative return on investment. But if we had photos of each man, those page visits. If you build it, I'm sure they will come, right? Exactly. So thanks Leslie for the question. And making sure we're all on the same page as far as expectations go. No, this would not be something that would happen immediately. This is definitely not high priority. It's not urgent, but something that has been discussed over time with Sarah and has come back up again, I think because of the virtual nature that we have. And again, because of some of the emails, so the BIOS one, it's been a conversation over a period of time, we're revisiting it. And then the email suggestion for having a designated CSWD email account was also in response to meeting to send packets and links to the meetings multiple times. So folks can find that more easily. And most especially the fraudulent text messages that commissioners were receiving from another commissioner's phone because it was posted. So those being two different things and some of the reasoning behind it. So no, is everybody, how many people really go to any boards, bio page, maybe it's just some nerdy people like myself. But to the extent that there are folks that are interested, it adds a component of transparency that I think is also important in this time where we want to make sure that we have just offering fewer barriers to access to knowledge as possible. So, all right. Sarah, I think we're not, there's no need to vote on this. Abby, it sounds like you might have a question. Yeah, just regarding the photographs, I don't think I recollect that any of, there are any staff photographs on the website. So I don't really see why there would need to be board photographs. We do have staff photos on, but it was the employee option. So there, and there are that many. Okay. We actually removed all the staff photos because nobody ever visited those pages. I mean, literally they got zero visits. And we're trying to minimize unused pages that aren't visited because of the weight and the management burden of those. But at any rate, that's the status currently. Okay. Thanks. Thankfully for, you know, the commitment to the board of commissioners, there's not much turnover. So that's a bonus. Less maintenance work, perhaps. So, yeah, we've got time. It's not urgent. And I will, you know, leave the option to have a photo correlated or just honestly, if you, if you don't feel comfortable having a photo or a headshot, then having maybe the logo for the municipal, probably you're representing as an alternative. So options, we've got options. All right, Sarah, I think that wraps up the conversation. If we want to move on to the next order of business. Which is the NOAV settlements. Yeah. So in your packet, you have a now that outlines several different options for essentially where we would book the expense of the fines portion of the NOAV settlement. So the $178,000 to the state and then the $393.24 to the NOAV settlement. So those checks have been sent to the state and received by the state. They were due to them by the 18th. So they're up in mail. So the booking of the items is what we're discussing here tonight. So we had included in the memo. Six different options. And I described how much money was in the different balances. If there were reserve funds and how much money was there, what the effect would be on other programs. For example, if number three, we wanted to book those to current operating budgets that, you know, what would the effect be on any fees? We need to raise them, et cetera. And then our recommendation of where we would. Refer to book these expenses. So I welcome questions, comments, input and open up to the group. And I wanted to say that there was a good amount of discussion with the executive committee on this. And then. And that there was unanimous support to approve. Approve the recommendation from the staff. But of course that's, that's what the executive committee came to. And it requires the full board to vote on, on the decision. So there's any questions or clarification? Go ahead, Paul. So I just, I'm not a mistake to bring this up, but I do, I do feel it's, I should, you know, I'm not a mistake to bring this up. But in the past, this board has, you know, insisted that expenses for a particular program that are incurred by a program be, you know, basically charged against that program. And at times the money hasn't been available, but it's been an arrangement we've made to, for instance, you know, pay it back over time. So, you know, one of my thoughts was, you know, yeah, we can use the undesignated fund balance to, to pay for this, but perhaps we should, you know, pay it back out of the mirth over time, of course. But, you know, given it was a glass, you know, directly involved in processing or lack thereof of glass, but the handling of glass, it seems like it might be appropriate. So, of course that's passboards. That doesn't mean that ties the hands of current boards by any means, but I do want to just highlight that is a policy that in the past, this board has adopted. I'm going to clarify a little bit that wasn't, I want to be very careful when we say that things have been a policy or not, I think it was a practice. So I haven't been able to find the actual policy of the board that said this is how we should book these funds. Yeah, let me pray about that. And a pushback a little bit, Paul, you know, mine on this being truly or totally a mirth issue. The mirth did its job, in my opinion, and produced a process class advocate. And it was the decision right or wrong to use that material produced by the mirth in projects, according to the guidance at the time of the state. So I could probably see where maybe it would make sense to book a portion to where the material was used. So, probably a portion to compost, probably a portion to the closed landfill, possibly even, you know, just to capital in general. But I would push back on the mirth. Again, in my opinion, the mirth did what it was supposed to do. I understand that. I mean, it's just, you know, the way string here is through the mirth. And, you know, we have at least in some discussions had discussion of, you know, maintaining the true cost of that way stream. So that's kind of where I why I go to the mirth. But I see your points there. Thanks, Paul. And Nola, I know you weren't able to attend that meeting, Paul, because you had a conflict. And one thing was that Nola had a good comment. And I don't know that that was teased out in the memo. So, Sarah, I don't know if you want to reiterate that or if Nola want, if you want to have Nola reiterate that point. Yeah, thank you. One of the, and apologize, no, it was on vacation last week. So I wasn't able to get that information from her, but Nola had made a comment that when she was analyzing the fund, Nola had made a significant. Fund balance. That the majority or a good portion of that. The money in that reserve fund. Is from the mirth. So it was revenues in excess of our expenses that didn't need to go towards our capital reserve. So already in that fund. It is largely. Then supported by the mark over the years. Well, I don't know if you had a chance to. I don't know if you had a chance to get that information. Or just in. You were doing your analysis as far as how much. You realize or recognize was actually more. Excess funds. Unfortunately, the way that our files are set up, it's been a bit difficult to actually locate that detail from previous fiscal years, but I can say that. In fiscal year 20, it certainly was the majority. Of the funds that were put into the undesignated and. I would assume that that's probably been. You know, the, the going. And. You know. I'm sorry. I'm increasing. That undesignated funds so far because they're. You know, our other locations aren't really making. Any additional revenues above and beyond their capital. Contributions. That is correct. So the, the MRF has been. For years now, probably about at least 10 years. Has been. Almost solely supporting the reserve event in that fund. So. Most likely it is a huge majority. Of the dollars in that reserve fund are from the MRF. I see a hand for Bert. Is there a. Impact at this point on any. The specific program. Either in the near future or in the. Three year future. That this, these funds would not have been available. So. That's a great question. So. The short answer is not that we are foreseeing. Right now. So in the current budget. Work that we're doing now. We are. So far as far as long as we're in the process, not. Anticipating needing to draw down out of the undesignated fund. Reserve. So. So. I think we're going to look at when we look at. Compose and when we're looking at the DOC's, which are, those are the three main revenue producing. Operations. Not talking about the solace management unit has its own reserve funds. Not touch that. The MRF is looking to again, put money into. This fund access revenue into this fund. This year. So. So. The. Compose program does not look to be needing to draw any. From either the solace management reserve or this fund. So we're looking good. This year. So we should be adding more into this fund. This from this current fiscal year. Going into next. So I do not anticipate. On this fund being. Either. Significantly. We do want to, in the, in this budget process. Be mindful of where we. Want to assign or book the supplemental environmental project. Costs. So those, those costs will stretch out over the next. Approximately so into March of 2022. So we will need to plan that. So. I think we want to have some more conversation around where those funds. Right. That'll be a follow up conversation. Is that answer your question, Bert? I believe so. Great. Anything else. From commissioners. Paul, you seem to have an inquisitive phase. So. You're referring to Paul roots, I guess. I'm recalling at the finance committee meeting yesterday. I believe it was stated, I may have misheard it that. In fiscal year 21. We had saved or had not spent approximately $300,000. In trucking. Glass aggregate because we did not have to transport that. Product nearly as far as we thought. And if that's what I heard correctly, I'd say that. In the current year, it looks like. The trucking of glass, which is. What we would have done with this material had we. I guess not done what we did with it. So in that sense. We've got, we've got, I would say, we've got some money in fiscal year 21. Accounts that would cover this. And to me, that leads to saying. Pay for this out of the undesignated fund balance. That's correct. We have not run, run down that particular line item for the out of state movement. Thanks. All right. So I think at this point, I'm not seeing or hearing any other. Questions. So I'll enter. Yes. Yes. One of the things that I'm hearing is to distribute it at the different places. I want to go with the undesignated fund balance for this reason. That we keep. Keep honest about what each department costs. So that in the long term, we can look at this dysfunction pay for itself. And if we muddy that up by designating some part of this expense. To. To trucking over. And Paul has a probably a good idea there. But in the way it normally works, that'll wash into the fund balance. Anyway. At the end of the year. So. I think that's a good idea. I'd hate us to muddy up the cost of the Murph or the cost of. Of any other area with this expense so that in two years from now, or three years from now, when we're looking back, how much is this function cost us? We would have a true picture of it. So that's my reasoning for saying, let's go with the un-designated fund balance. Which seems to be the majority reason, but. I don't want to muddy up what things cost in the long run. So that when Sarah is doing her budget analysis, and she can look at that and say, well, this, this area is something we need to tighten up on. We're not. That's mine. Yeah. Thank you, John. And I think it's a similar point that we're starting to explore with finance committee. Even just. You know, looking usually we look at previous year, um, actuals for, for the upcoming budget forecast. And, uh, it, we really need to look at FY. 20 rather than FY 21 for the. FY 22 budget development. Um, Cause. Hopefully we are out. We are well on our way out of this pandemic. Um, Anybody else. Don't want to cut the conversation off. Okay. Seeing or hearing none. Um, I will entertain a motion, uh, to approve the allocation of settlement fines to the un-designated fund balance as recommended by the CSWD executive director and director of finance. I moved Leslie. Second. Any further discussion. All in favor. All right. Any pose. Any abstain. All right. Motion passes. Thank you all. Great discussion. Uh, and Paul, I see your hand. Paul Stabler. I see your hand. I just wanted, uh, Any thoughts on where we'll take the money for the supplemental environmental project or whatever. Have you thought of the, I mean, not that we have to decide tonight, but it's just curious. I think that's all we have. We have not dealt, built into that yet. Um, so in the consent agenda, I do provide the, um, the schedule as far as when things are due. Um, so you'll see that it is small amounts that are due roughly every 60 days from, you know, March or May of this year to March or next year. Um, so there is definitely time to be addressing that. And I think in the finance committee, we'll talk about that and we'll have recommendations for the board. Um, but if you have thoughts and ideas, please get them on to Leslie as chair and she'll pass them on to me. Yeah. Feel free to throw me out as a CC as well. All right. Uh, I believe the next item is the executive session. Uh, Sarah, Amy, would you be willing to read the language for us? Yeah, I'll move that. I move that the board of commissioners of the Chittenden solid waste district go into executive session for the purpose to discuss contract negotiations with respect to the organics diversion facility and confidential attorney client communications to provide legal services where premature general public knowledge would clearly place the district. It's member municipalities and other public bodies or persons involved at a substantial disadvantage and to permit staff to participate in the waste district attorneys to be present for this session. Don't move. Again. All in favor. All right. Any abstain. Any opposed. Okay. We'll see you in the executive session. Thank you. It's a little discouraging that we're getting so good at this. It's, it's coming together a lot of majority. Is that right, Sarah? Okay. I'll move to exit. Executive session. Second. All in favor. Any opposed. Any abstain. Okay. You're officially out of executive session. Sarah next agenda item please. Yeah. So I apologize. To you all for not getting this list out to you earlier. I have a couple of questions. I have a couple of questions. I have several different, several different new SAP mental environmental project ideas that have come through over the past few days. So I would like to share my screen with everyone. Looking at your email. You don't want to look at my email. We have a spreadsheet. Okay. It says SAP ideas. Okay. I'll go to the name of the file. Excellent. Okay. Good. So. Let's see. So a year. Also go. January, February of last year. We submitted the first. 12 ideas. Sarah, just one point. I do recognize that the color use is red and green, which may be difficult for anybody who is color blind. It may be. That may be a need as you walk us through it, Sarah, to just help articulate. Will do. Yes. Thank you. And I apologize for that. So the first 12 items. Were the ideas that we had originally proposed over a year ago. We received feedback on these. And the only item that had a full yes. Was this item number one. Number four. As far as potential ideas. We also sent. So this is solid waste. Solid waste district managers association. That's what that stands for. My general response is WD proposals. So this is the item that received. You know, unqualified. Yes. This would be okay. But we can post something here. Frigeration items for banks. So this was the one idea that received support. It was lukewarm support from the district managers. That's fine. The attorney general's office through and a G also submitted. These ideas here. And again, we forwarded those to the salaries district manager association for their review and input. They basically said no. To half of them. Kind of outright, which unfortunately. Two of the three that we liked. They said no to. So I don't have feedback on the. Providing solar trash recycling receptacles. And they've seen them. In different areas there. The big bellies. I know they had some, I did it. They're gone. I'm gone. No, the big bellies are gone. We got. So that would be interesting to know why. Why. They're gone because this was an idea that. Came from a and R slash BG. And then we thought would be good. So I would definitely want to hear. Some feedback immediately on why they're gone. Sure. Because I may then turn that to a no. And then there were some additional project ideas. The first one here. Funding. Funding containers for source separated collection of glass. And then there were some other projects that came from. For our concern. For monitors concerning the family. And. What he had suggested was. That. We fund. Several bins collection bins for each color. Of glass. So the brown. To. Make each of those streams more. Markable. And the idea is great. But. If. What it didn't do was take it the next step further, which was how. Would be. Transportation to market the marketing of that material. Work who would pay for that. Who would pay for that would be all of the districts. So. There was. Some support. The idea was to. To. Further collect more glass and separate it. But there was not a lot of conversation or acknowledgement. Even that they would be the ones paying. To market and transport the glass and that's where. That's where the cost is. That's ongoing. That's forever. The other idea that is under this additional project ideas. Is adding the funds. It's 222,000. To essentially to the pot of money where the. The swift grants are. Come from, for essentially for halsa halsas waste. Management. They say, we'll just add more money to that pot. To reduce our match. We wouldn't be eligible for that. We don't like that idea because it's kind of a one and done. One time infusion of cash, it doesn't do anything to advance. to advance either recycling education or move programs forward, it's more of the same. So I just want to give a, you know, kind of get some feedback on maybe some of the yeses. Again, kind of the only one that the yes on both sides as far as the AG, A&R, and a maybe even the solid waste districts is related to that. I thought that we needed to have it be strictly related to glass or process glass aggregate and A&R came back and Luigi came back and said, no, it can be just solid waste in general. So that certainly opens up a lot more, a lot more opportunities. The other condition is that CSWD cannot benefit from these projects. So that's a harder, harder not to crack, right? It will potentially be some at least indirect benefit to CSWD regardless of the project that is selected. So the AG and A&R will need to come to some kind of an understanding and acknowledgement of that. We won't propose anything that certainly would directly benefit us. And unfortunately, if we were to go forward with this proposal for refrigeration units, no, I don't know that any in Chippin County would be eligible. I'd have to get clarification on that. We want to make sure that that doesn't happen. Yeah. Yeah. So if it is food scrap related, then that would be waste prevention. So we wouldn't be seeing material that way, right? So that's a clear non-benefit to CSWD as an entity. But we want to make sure that it doesn't make sense to transfer over or spill over onto just Chippin County agenda. I don't think it would, but we'd want acknowledgement clarification. Two questions. What's the Solid Waste District Management Association's role? Just as a stakeholder. But are they, but are they, who's the decision maker here? The decision maker is A&R. Okay. And if, so second question, if we can't benefit, why are we spending any time on this whatsoever? Shouldn't we use ourselves completely from the discussion? Because we are required to propose the project idea. As part of the settlement agreement. Sounds like a lose-lose. And the involvement of the Solid Waste District Managers Association is to provide opportunity for input to additional stakeholders that would likely directly benefit from the SEP. So having their input collaboration and buy-in is a value to A&R as much as it is to CSWD. I was just wondering, what was the Solid Waste District Managers Association's objection to funding green update? That's kind of the one I like the most of that list. Yeah, we thought so too. We were very positive about that one. There's a general sense of green update not, not being as effective as the Association feels that it could or should be. They're concerned with kind of throwing a lot of money into an organization that has not been super effective from the perspective. We were surprised by that reaction. And for full disclosure, I am on the board for a green update. So I want to bring again the different ideas to you. We do need to get a proposal into the Attorney General's Office by next Friday. So I want to kind of get some feedback on what looks to be the one idea that has the most support. And if the board is agreeable, we will move forward with presenting that one. Have we given any consideration to Glaville? So we most likely, we can double check on this, but we most likely would not be allowed to get the money to one entity. And they're private entity, private for-profit, not private nonprofit as well, right? Correct. And the projects need to have statewide benefit. We can ask, but I think, I think the answer would be no. Thomas, you're still on the line. What's your sense given your work with previous projects? I think that, you know, they're looking for a larger public benefit to the state of Vermont. Their reply, when we had asked for, you know, the SEPs that were proposed in January of 2020, the reply was mostly focused on waste reduction and waste management and not so much on the finding of alternate beneficial reuse of PGA. Although I think that has the under the SEP policy of A&R, that would be a direct link. And in my mind, you know, to the extent that the state benefits of finding good use of process glass aggregate, you know, that the state would be the ultimate beneficiary here, including all the other waste districts. But I don't think that giving the money to one private enterprise would comport with the SEP policy of A&R. Yeah. I couldn't see on the list, maybe because the font was small. But have we, since we, there's room to expand outside of glass, education and management, how about proposing directing funds to household hazardous waste? So that was what the Solar Waste District Manager's Association, I think was hoping to do. They, and there was, there was one idea to say, to direct the money towards, say, cleanouts at schools. And so we could, we weren't necessarily in favor of that. We had done that way back in the 90s. We don't have the staff resources to do that, but if it could be directed through kind of a grant situation through the state, certainly that could be another idea that we could propose as well. I have a feeling that that might get more buy-in, considering how expensive and how much lift there is related to HHW. Yeah. We didn't want to kind of just dump it into the swift pot because we really don't want it to be just for general operational type things, but for special events or special needs that we haven't been able to get to, such as school cleanouts. I could see where that could be a benefit. And I would like to be able to get back to the 80s office with not maybe just one idea. I'd like to maybe give them two or three and narrow this down. So we can certainly put that on the list. Yeah. Okay. Leslie? I was here muted. Sorry guys. If we've got one item where there seems to be receptivity, which is the improving the cold storage capacity at food shelves. We know that there's been a huge increase in demand for food shelves. And why not just go forward where we have already a possibility of agreement and just try to get that done. You know, we need to take this off our plate rather than, you know, just throwing more ideas into the ring. If this looks like something where we could get some resolution, it seems to me there's a value in getting this put to bed. And to me, that's an excellent, it prevents food waste. It directs resources to an identified serious need. I mean, I think it's an idea that to me is quite powerful. And I would want to see us advocating for that. Certainly if we can land on just the one that makes our life of staff much easier, I think because there was some kind of lukewarm reception with the rest of the district managers, however, they wouldn't necessarily be involved in the rollout of that. So they don't need to be affected on that particular decision. Well, I just feel like there's a really strong broad based case to be made for that. And if ANR is receptive, I think there's a huge benefit in getting this off your plate. You've got a pile of major projects to deal with. And this is one that should, in my judgment anyway, be put to rest as soon as possible, as long as we have a viable option that the board is comfortable with. And I'm very comfortable with that as a solution. Sorry, two questions. Go ahead, Tim. How much money are we giving away? It's interesting how you framed that, Tim. $222,000. Right. And what's our deadline for the submission of the project? So we need to submit this portion of the project by next Friday. A week from this Friday. We submit our suggestions. Our proposal. Proposal. Okay. I mean, just I think that the subcommittee that has worked on the ODF situation has been very effective. And I would propose that maybe a smaller group of people could meet offline for a half an hour and come up with 10 really good options here. I don't think we're going to do it in this form. Are you volunteering, Tim? Yes, I am. I'm glad to hear it. And I really, I think that we should, it would be embarrassing if we couldn't come up, if we could not overwhelm them with a list that they would find compelling. Can you meet by Friday, Tim? This Friday or next Friday? This Friday. Yes, I can meet on Friday, but not on Thursday. I mean, I am happy to certainly entertain other ideas. Yeah, I hear that. And I hear Leslie's point as well. And there were a number of what CSWD proposed and would review the board reviewed last fall as viable projects that were turned down for a variety of reasons. So trying to, I think, imagine what will make it through the gates at this point. I'd say for, I'm falling more in line with Leslie's proposal, Leslie's suggestion, as well as looking at the HHW component, just knowing how expensive that is. And if it needs to be framed up around a particular project so it doesn't fall into a general SWIP operations bucket, then I'm fine with that too. Unless anybody else wants to volunteer with Tim on a short turnaround time. Hearing none. Sarah, at this point, do we need to vote on this? No, I don't think there's necessarily a need to vote. It was kind of just an informational getting your feedback input. If you would like to vote, we can, but I don't think there's a need to. Okay. It looks like Logan was, no, okay. Okay. I don't want to shut down the conversation if there's other thoughts or ideas. You know, I recognize that we have put in a lot of time and had some of the staff on proposing what we perceive to be viable projects. So, okay. Hearing none. The upside of not voting is that we can continue to percolate ideas in parallel. Yes. Good point, Tim. Okay. I believe there are no other items of business. And I am happy to entertain a motion to adjourn. Can I, sorry. You didn't go to other business. That was the other business. Oh, I'm sorry. Do you have other business? I had two things I wanted. One is a question. One is just the comment. And I apologize that the comments repeat. I just want to say I kudos to staff. I thought the annual report this year was very nicely done. I really liked that. Just really say I liked that a lot. The other one is a question and realize the answer may not be available tonight. And I would like to hear more information about it. And that is in terms of how Casella is handling glass out of Rutland. If my understanding is correct from the BT digger, they are shipping out of state to a glass processor. So I know some of it we may not be able to find out. But, you know, we'd love to know more information about how they are handling that glass and whatever information you can dig up in terms of where it's going, how it's being reused or, you know, processed, you know, anything regarding like the miles they're spending, you know, and the quantities. Again, some of it I realize you may not get, but I'd love to hear more about that in the future. Well, I can give an update. We do have some of that information because we were curious to find that out as well. So we made some additional phone calls. They are shipping their glass from Rutland on rail. They have a spur right at the Murph down there. So they're able to put the glass on rail. They are shipping it to strategic materials. I believe in South Carolina might be North Carolina, but it's one of the Carolinas. We reached out to strategic to ask them what happens to that glass when it gets there. And most of it is turned into aggregate. They're not able to clean up, clean it up as much as they can with kind of bottled glass to turn it into fiberglass. Some, some they are able to color separate and clean up, but most of it is turned into either an aggregate or an abrasive. Okay. Well, that's, I wish that we'd known that and I'd come out of the article, but that's interesting. Okay. Thank you. We had a presentation at the exec board from gravel last week and they have leased a building and they said that their boiler, whatever it is, is supposed to be in state. I think in September, October, was that the date, Sarah? August, I think. August, yes. So, and I thought they said they could take all of our glass if it meant to stand here, just as they were looking for. Cool. That is what they said. Cool. And they make a product that goes under slabs instead of pink order. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Thanks, Alan, for filling in some more details on that too. All right. We sounded like we had a motion, a vote, and a second. So, all in favor to adjourn? Bye. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. Good night. All right. Thank you.