 We have a quorum present. So I would like to call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the chicken. And there are following the agenda stands in that packet. First item on the agenda is the agenda itself. Are there any requests? I'm seeing none in the meeting room and I'm not seeing anyone on zoom. So we will proceed with the agenda as presented with no changes. Second item on the agenda is the public comment period. Are there any members of the public present. In person via zoom or on who would like to address the board on any particular issue or concern that they have. There is nobody present in our meeting room. I see no one on zoom and here no one by the phone. We will close the public comment period and move on to item number three, which is the consent agenda consisting of the minutes of the meeting of November 15, 2023. That's the full board meeting program updates, executive update, executive director update and the regular finance report. Any requests to remove an item from the consent agenda? Yes, I have a question on the program updates. I'd like to have a discussion about that briefly. I would like to move item number three point two program updates from the consent agenda. Any other requests? I would like to pull the executive director update to ask questions about the Murph contract with Addison County with solid waste management district. Very good. We will pull two items. We'll also pull the executive director update for questions about the contract with the Addison waste district contract. So that leaves the minutes of November 15 and the finance report remaining in the consent agenda. And those two items will be accepted and we'll move on then to the two items that have been removed first. Paul Stabler has a question about program updates. Yeah, I just noticing that we continue to see a shortfall in the tonnage received at the ODF. Are we concerned about being able to have enough organics a matter to compost our leaves because I think is our primary issue there. So I was just wondering if it is concerning. So I was wondering if you have thoughts you can share on that. Um, the, you know, as the board is aware and for the public's information, we do have recipes by which we create our compost, our soil amendment, and then our products that we sell. And it is not much different from the standard ratio that you would use in a backyard composting. And if you look at the overall trend for this current fiscal year, we had a larger than normal influx of material last month and then it dipped down a little bit this month. Overall, our inputs are still running below budget, but are comparable to past years. So we're doing, we're doing okay. We are receiving more, more material with the change to accepting clean wood at our at the, at the aura. And so, you know, being able to shred more of the material on site and reduce our transportation costs for that material. So we will have more of the Browns, as we call them. So we are always looking to augment and increase the amount of the greens that we want to bring in. So Dan is is it is his primary concern, make me sure that we have enough to do those recipes. So that, but that is very specific to the current suite of recipes. We could continue to compost leaf and yard waste and debris. It just would take longer to process through. So, if that was all we did that we would basically what we would be doing is we would be setting up different windows, different areas if we knew that we didn't have quite enough for the standard recipe to make sure that we composted the leaf and yard material that came in. And again, it just would take a longer period of time. But we are always looking for ways to, you know, and again, like the, you know, as we were talking about in the diversion report the past month or so, the big opportunity for diversion from the landfill is in our case. So our outreach team is acknowledged that this is going to continue to be a focus of theirs to continue to make sure that folks know about our options for drop off and for backyard and for, you know, those food scraps. So it is still going to be a focus and a renewed focus. One of the things that kind of related is that we have mentioned that we had transitioned our business outreach person into the compliance sector, and he'll be working on this as well. But also we have just offered a position to his old position, the business outreach point to someone new and she will be joining us in January. So that will come back to me when one of her main focuses is on food scraps but so far we're we're good running a little bit low budget but but are basically on poor with the past years actuals. Thank you. We're, we're always, always keeping an eye on that. The good news is our sales are running higher than the budget. So that's great. We have to produce more of the top soils and we had the inventory will sell a good amount of that. So from the sales perspective, we're looking great going into the spring. Question. The packaging equipment to tell us to sell it as do we know how much material there taken out of the county. Um, taking from out of the county taking. Oh, and the transferring to sales very for for the slurry. I don't have that report. Josh Kelly who will be joining us we get that report and we could, we could receive a copy of that it would be in their fair angle we track documentation, but we do know that when they open that facility, we saw a decrease of about 50% of our inputs. And we've gained some of that material back, but they are still still playing through just about collecting into that facility. But we get credit for the material that is being recycled with the county there, right. I mean, with the volume of the tons of material that they do package. As far as diversion. Yes. I think it's because that would all of these we receive reports from larger generators and that gets put into the overall total of what is generated and then we, we parse out their recycling activities, in addition to what we're seeing and it does all get totaled into the the county's diversion from that. Yes. I think the breakdown of the materials that are brought in by individuals, like to the drop off centers or through the really nice access now at the campus. Yes, the access at the campus is great and also the, the people who are bringing in bulk, you know, going over the scale. And we know, we do know the, the numbers for trips or transactions at the drop off centers. So we don't know exactly how much each individual person is bringing in kind of per pound. We know that we have individual trips of like Mr tonight will bring to Essex his food scraps and that gets put into our point of sale system and that is recorded as a food scrap sale. So we, and when people bring in trash and recycling and food scraps is each individual button is, is a separate button on the point of sale. So we know how many trips are food scrap trips, cycling trips always trips. We only have overall totals for folks who are utilizing the direct drop off at our, at our compost facility and we have, we haven't been there to the new approach. It is really easy to access. It is, there's no waiting in line. It's, it's great. So, but that is just the overall total of material that is coming through there so we don't record specific individuals coming into. I was wondering about the comparison of individuals, not individual drop off with the individual contribution and the holler. Yeah, so every any holler goes over the scale right and those are tallied as as commercial loads. But if you're going to the or as an individual. They do not go over the scale. They bypass the scale and go directly to the residential drop off container. Right. So we don't, we don't have that number. So we don't have the commercial. Yes. But you don't weigh the stuff coming from the drop off center. We do. Here you do. Yeah, we do because that's that also goes over our scale. Yes, we do have that total. So both the trips, the transactions, and then the total way. Yep. Yep. I think everybody's satisfied them with the questions. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Before we move on, just want to remind all the commissioners on zoom. If you could mute. Your computers, that would be helpful. Allison, you're next. You had a question about to believe again, the contract with Addison County solid waste management district for the assistance of everybody. That's on page 16 of the board packet. Under Murph contracts. Yeah, so I had a few questions. First and foremost, how profitable do you expect this to be first? I mean, it's. So it's 4,000 ish times times 85 for the first six months of the calendar year. I don't have a, any knowledge of the breakdown of what their material is. So I don't know if they have more cardboard, if they have more aluminum, to be able to know what the effect will be of Addison's material on our commodity sale. So we don't have that breakdown. I don't know Terry does I can ask because I would be interesting and then to be able to put back that comparison in there as well. And then the contract because their fiscal year runs for a calendar year versus ours, which is the July to June, they will be paying 85 from July through December. So we will lose a little bit of money on Addison's materials, but securing those materials into the Murph is paramount. It's a strategic step that you're taking really focused on materials. The money part of it is a secondary consideration. Long term, this is an important. Yeah. So part of that gets into some executive session conversations that we should not get into any public session. So I would ask that you bring that up in another executive session. And it is all part of ensuring that we have in general, the amount of material coming into the facility that will help to ensure the efficiency and the economic liability of. I was curious, where are there new bin recyclables going. Right. It's about the same. It's, I think, technically, we're a few miles further away. They are also constructing in the next couple of years, a new transfer facility in New Haven. And so once they're in New Haven, we will then be close. Last question. This isn't tons of material coming in. So no concerns staff wise. No, we have talked with our contractor and they are fully prepared to be able to accept the material. Thank you. Thank you for those questions. Any other questions that Chris yourself can your hand us up. You're muted. Oh, I'm unmuted. You're good now. Oh, sorry. I just wanted to say congratulations to Sarah. And I think that's a terrific, terrific thing to have accomplished and, you know, looking out for how to use this Murph and it's, maybe there'll be other opportunities to do things with other counties, but, you know, Bravo on you. I thought it was great to read that. Thanks. It's been something that we've, you know, discussed over the years and I think Leslie will remember. She had asked the question several years ago. If we had been kind of thinking about having conversations with sister districts and how we could support each other and what makes sense. So this has been several years in the making and the timing just happened to be great for both CSWD and for Addison County. Any other questions or discussions on this particular item. These were both of these questions were pulled from the consent agenda. I would declare them to be accepted unless there's objection from any of the commissioners, but I think we can accept them. These are really clarifications of information that was already. In the consent agenda. So unless there's objection, we will now proceed to item number four, which is the materials recycling facility skid steer purchases begins on page 20 of the board packet. Yeah, so this is Josh Estee is on the line. Josh is overseeing the Murph now as well as part of his, his duties. And this has been a bit of a saga so so if you do have questions on the memo and that wouldn't be surprised and please feel free to ask. It's something where every now and then you get a piece of equipment that doesn't quite live up to set up to snuff. So, we found that with our skid steers and Josh, if you want to kind of work through the memo. Essentially, you know, we had, these are part of a schedule and planned replacement. And we were working with the dear John dear unit that had been again planned in the capital plan in previous years. And it was just, it was just not up to the rigor of the Murph and so it's a bit of a different situation we're bringing to you tonight but Josh I think I probably just modeled everything rather than anything more clear. So if you want to to run through the memo and then get into some details of questions. Sure. Yeah, we bought a john dear skid steer a couple years ago. And since then have have just been having, you know, seemingly endless issues with it and particularly with the chain drive on it in it. John dear has been great all along they've they've come out every time they they've replaced it free of charge every time, acknowledging that both it's within warranty and it's a part that should not be breaking as often as it, as it is. And they've come up with a number of fixes that they've suggested, identifying that it would take care of the problem. We've had it this last time. They changed from solid rubber tires, and counterweights which we've always worked with to air filled tires and removing the counterweights thinking that that would solve the problem and sure enough, it sort of just delayed the inevitable at that point. Pacella the operators of the Murph sort of just throw up their hands because every time that machine goes down, it's, it's a couple days at least to get the part in and john dear out to fix the issue. And we're having to rent a skid steer in the in the meantime to make sure that we always have to to move fails back and forth and and move material through that facility. And so, you know, they've been very flexible all along and willing to try to work through this issue and it just hasn't worked out so at that point, we had already acknowledged with the john dear sales rep that that was sort of our last try. And so we alerted him that he was going to have to start working on a way to buy back that machine from us so he's in that process now. He works for united farm and ag I believe they're called or construction and ag. So he doesn't work for john dear directly so it's, it's going to be a little of a process for them to come up with a number to buy that machine back from us but in the meantime we are renting actually a third right now for their busy season. So, we wanted to get this done as quickly as possible so rather than wait for john dear to come up with a solution we figured we would bring this request for purchase to you all tonight. Because there is a, there is a delay in receiving the machines as as there is with anything right now so needed to get this moving as soon as possible. The second machine was on the capital budget for earlier this year so FY 23. About that time where we are going to go out to our for an rp we did have further issues with the john dear machine so that purchase was put on hold because they were actually going to be the winning bid for that other machine. And then purchase a second machine that was going to potentially be an issue we decided to wait so the second unit is for for machine that's already been in capital budget so these, these are both represented in in previous approved capital budgets. One will just be replaced in the other and we'll see that that refund, whenever that process through john dear works its way through so it's, it's not the most straightforward situation. Hopefully that that that clears some of the questions up but happy to answer any others that that may pop up. Thank you, Josh. You're all set so nothing nothing else that I'd only add that this is before the board because of expenditure levels. Just reminder that it's looking for 150,000 I think anything over 100,000 has to come before the full board that's that's why it's before us. Yeah, and I will say the 150,000 does represent. I believe the, the dollar amount for the two units was 128,000, but that doesn't include the grapple bucket that goes on the front and some of the, some of the add ons that will have to add that don't come standard on those machines so some of the, some of the lights that get added some of the bumpers that get added that those represent in addition to the to the 128,000 that the two machines were coded for. Marty, your hand is up. Go ahead. You're muted Marty. Yeah, sorry, but thank you me. I was very classy. So is this essentially a source. I don't know whether there are rules of whether you have rules on, you know, conditions for a soul source contract or, and is that essentially what this is. It is, and I'm happy to have Sarah speak to it more. The reason we didn't go through the RFP process is for the reason sort of laid out in in the memo itself but essentially caterpillar. We use them on a rental basis now. They're, I'm going to, you know, take myself for saying this but they're kind of bulletproof in the, in the sort of atmosphere that we use them in at the mirf. I don't know how resilient they are in that application. Obviously we're not interested in buying a John Deere skid steer for this application. We've had bobcats in the past where we've had service issues. And then the, the devoted that was quoted last time it's a, it's a, it was near the top, as far as price. And there's an unknown about the, the service that we would receive. We know the service with cat is really good. And the other truth of the matter is, we have to put a ton of hours on this machine, and to have service there and to limit downtime as much as possible is really a key. Another piece that is really of consideration is how tight the tolerances are within the current mirf and how tight the tolerances are going to be in the new mirf. And knowing that the machine that we purchased now which will be used in the new mirf will fit and be good for that application I think is, is worth potentially paying a little bit more I mean caterpillar is not known to be the, the cheapest brand on the market but sort of the other things I believe make up for, for the difference in price. So that's a long answer to say that yes it's a, it's a sole source. Right, and I guess my question it all makes perfect sense to me but my question is, are you within your own regulations as a, you know, for using soul source if you have the discretion to do that as opposed to an RP. We do. And the procurement rules and regulations are our CSWD own rules and regulations so there's nothing that I'm aware of and I've asked our attorneys about this as well at the state level that requires certain procurement specifications or policies be in place so it, it really is up to the individual entity to determine those requirements and we do have a procurement, procurement procedure that admittedly does need to be refined. So, when I came on board, seven years ago, I brought in to the district some of these more specific conditions for bidding and for when it's okay to do an exemption from bidding or when how to determine where there's a sole source. So, that just needs to be written down and included into our procurement procedure but we are essentially following the processes that other states utilize and I'm most familiar with the ones from the state of Rhode Island which does have these processes in state law but in Vermont we don't. So, we're following best practices and similar practices that are used by other municipalities. So, I feel comfortable that the parameters are and Josh and I can have gone back and forth and you know to make sure that we, we do as much as possible provide the opportunity for competitive bidding it's in our, in everyone's best interest. And we have done that much more over the past few years than I think we had in prior years. And the reason that we purchased the tears is because we had gone out for competitive bidding, but experience is also a valuable. Component to to purchasing decisions and, again, the, the units that we've been using that are calculers have proven themselves in in this usage. So as Josh said, it's, you know, we could continue to, to go out to bid and try new new units. The downside is that when these units go down, we are then into a very expensive rental, rental situation. So, I'm comfortable that it's, it's in this in this application in this use that this would be a case for sole source. It doesn't mean that we would never use a cabota never use a deer never use, you know, a different manufacturer we certainly would so we're not looking for exclusive purchasing of only cat equipment, but in this particular use, we are. I also point out that you've made this well known you pointed out in the memo that you're looking for an exemption, but you know it's you're bringing this before the board so that we're fully informed when we make our decision that we're doing this under these conditions as a sole source. Thank you. Yeah. I recommend staff are doing and not just acting on their own. And we don't, you know, we don't go down the exemption or the sole source wrote lightly, because it did. Again, we want to, we want to encourage competition and we want to be very transparent and how we make our decisions. So, when we choose this road, it's, it's for a very specific reason. You're good, Marty. Absolutely. I was just kind of unfamiliar with what the standards were for that so that thank you for the explanation. Lee, your hand is up. Thanks Paul. And those are two brand new machines that you're going to be buying not the rentals you have correct. Correct. Okay. And the john deer is that still under warranty is that warranty work being done to it or is that those repairs coming out of pocket. It's, it's all warranty work still. And when I say it's thrown a chain drive a dozen times I wouldn't be exaggerating. It used to be about every 200 hours, which is, you know, they put on at least 50 hours a week on those machines so about every month they were, it was throwing a chain drive. And this last change where they put in the, where they took the counterweights off and they put the air filled tires on it went about two months. And so it's just been an ongoing battle and to not have six. I don't remember what the, I can look up what the original warranty was but before comparison, the, the cat warranty would be three years 5000 hours. And that's about, you know, that's about the number of hours that we'd get out of three years we do expect it to go longer than that obviously and last longer than that but that's how many hours they put on these machines given that they're running 50 hours a week so any chance of getting united to cover the rental costs of those machines or a portion of it. You know, it's, it's possible. I, I think what. So what, what United's acknowledgement has been is that that we have had to rent a machine in while it's being worked on so they've at least acknowledged that there is an ownership to that, to that expense whether that comes in the actual reimbursement of the cost, or if that comes in elevating the price that they're willing to pay to buy that machine back I'm not sure but it's probably worth us having a conversation with Thomas at some point to see, you know, what what kind of action we have available to us, going down that road. So that's an excellent question an excellent point. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Lee. We haven't yet had the motion or the resolution put before us but opportunity to ask any other preliminary questions have another chance once the motions on the floor. I don't think we have any other question preliminary questions but be glad to have this resolution read into the record please. Being resolved that the board of commissioners authorizes the executive director to enter into a contractual agreement for the purchase of two caterpillar 2242 D three skid steers from Milton cat and Milford mass for an amount not to exceed $150,000. So moves up Burlington. Seconded six, it's been moved and seconded authorize the executive director to enter into a contract to purchase two caterpillar skid steers, as we've been discussing. I have a question on the motion done in the in the meeting room I am seeing none via zoom. I think then we're ready for the question. All those in favor of the resolution, please say aye. Opposed say nay, abstentions. The motion carries the purchase is authorized. Thank you very much. We're ready to move on to the main item for tonight's tonight's agenda which is the meeting and discussion with the agency of natural resources just preliminary comment to set the stage remind the commissioners and also any members of the public who might view this, or we'd transcript later on this board is very much focused on the long term issues concerning solid waste and diversion in the state and certainly within our communities. We have come up in the last several months about the Coventry landfill, the related questions about things like shingles average daily cover rates, lots and lots of questions and so the request was made of, we could schedule a meeting with representatives from the agency and natural resources, which Sarah has arranged tonight, we'd like to have it to create opportunity to hear what's on the mind and the viewpoints of the ANR and also for the ANR to hear the concerns and questions that this Board of Commission is presenting a very large part of the state of Vermont, in terms of population and waste generators so I'm looking forward to some good dialogue and sharing of information with that I'll turn it over to Sarah. Thank you. We have Josh Kelly here from ANR and Josh has been with the agency for a little over. It's been over 10 years now Josh maybe 11 or 12 years, and Josh is the solid waste program manager for the Department of Environmental Conservation and Josh I think you should have permissions as a panelist. Yeah, I do. I wanted to check about. I got a new computer this week which is perfect storm so can you hear me okay. Yes. The phones don't work. The computer has rejected. It says they're in use but they're not, they're not used in work. So, here I am, nonetheless. Well it is an absolute pleasure to be with you. This is an important district to the state. Obviously, a huge population center the largest in the state, and I watched Sarah was really gracious to send me your previous meeting from September so I got to watch some coverage there. And as you know, you guys have been a leader in so many ways on so many fronts and, and really a leader with infrastructure for solid waste management. As Sarah said I'm Josh Kelly and solid waste program manager been at the state for about 10 years and took over for Kathy Jameson and gosh I believe I was just about the beginning of 2022. I'm going to run through some slides I actually want to credit Sarah Reeves who is just exceptional in covering the topic for you already so I really feel like this is a rinse and repeat for many of you but I'm going to actually try and be brief, because I think what you really want to do is get into the dialogue. And because I think Sarah covered it so effectively already. But before I get started I want to acknowledge I also invited one of our newest staff members Stephen young is with me tonight. Stephen we stole from the agency of agriculture at the veil Vermont agricultural lab and replaced one of our, our beloved staff person Casey Catherine moved over into the, into the sites program. It's really just an opportunity for Stephen to listen in here some of the questions about the landfill hit one of his primary charges will be, and has been working with Jeff Bordeaux on the oversight at landfill. But with that, I think these are really good meetings to to meet and hear from people and I feel, I feel like I should have come in person realize how many of you were going to be in person so I, I would have driven up there so anyway. Let me get right to it and see how the screen sharing goes. And we'll get things going here. All right, so Sarah just give me the nod or yes you can see it if that works. We can, and I'm wondering if Amy can, if you're able to minimize the sidebar, if that's possible. I think I can do screen. How's that. Wonderful. And then we've got our little sidebar going on here so to ask me to minimize that. And then we'll be able to see the full screen. Yeah. Great. Thank you. All right, you're good. All right. Well, this is a photo of the Coventry landfill and I often like to start with it in this way which is just to show the juxtaposition which is no surprise to all of you about where does waste come from it comes from products and that we use and we need and are just so necessary to our lives. But it's important to just bring that back to the table because as waste managers we sort of grin and bear it all of us public or private. We manage what we're given and we try and do the best we can with it. But it comes with some consequences and the whole system right now is is under some strain from no surprise. And so just briefly, just to put that in a little bit of context, again, going back to Casey she shared this slide with me. Going back several years now, but some testing on PFAS of materials that the landfill took in. And you'll note that textiles bulky items like mattresses, couches, furniture, and carpet are some of the highest in PFAS concentrations, and things like sludge which get a focus and scrutiny. While they have PFAS it's at much lower levels than some of these other materials that that we as humans use and are next to every day. So just an example of some of what waste managers from compost to recycling to to disposal are dealing with. And I'm happy to take some some basic PFAS questions from you tonight as well I think that came up a little bit at your last meeting. But now that I've moved on to that we're here to talk about disposal capacity. And this is an old photo so I need to update my slide deck. This is the Coventry landfill with them actively building out the 50 acres that they got approval for an approximately 2018. This is a 50 acre expansion, which at the time was giving them roughly an additional 20 year expected life expectancy, which is now estimating is more like 18 years of capacity at current at current fill rates. Again, I don't want to cover too much of the ground that Sarah already covered for you in your September meeting, but in short we have one operating landfill. It has a capacity, a permitted capacity of up to 600,000 tons a year. It takes in a bit under that usually around 500,000 plus or minus tons per year. And it is managing roughly 80% of the state's waste sometimes more in given year. And that means the rest is being disposed of out of state. It also takes in waste from out of state, but that is primarily what we consider sort of special waste for more homogenous waste, things like contaminated soils sludges as we've discussed and and some some residue from out of state. I can share more on that but I guess I would say you have this one landfill operating at close to 600,000 tons a year. The state as a whole produces about five to 600,000 tons of waste per year. And what is that what how does that compare to other states in the Northeast. What just a really quick comparison Massachusetts is about 90% more than that so we're like we're about one tenth of what Massachusetts produces there in the millions of tons, and we're in the hundreds of thousands of tons. So Vermont is roughly like one tenth of what mass puts out in waste. Let me think I covered all of that. As we said most of it is disposed of in state in this one in this one landfill. This is some of the slides share Sarah also shared most is being disposed of in state you can see a bit going to New York and New Hampshire, and you can see that roughly the past five years of history here. We, we are benefited by having in state disposal capacity, but because our state has these sort of population centers next to each border some does go to New Hampshire and some goes to New York. Really briefly about what's in the way stream, you know, most of this is what we call municipal solid waste which I don't have luckily I don't have to explain that term to folks here. And the other stuff is both in state and out of state produced materials like C and D construction demolition degree sludge contaminated soils, even things like sewer grit and some medical waste is in there as well. But the majority of it is MSW. And there's that. This is again, I need to update these slides but 537,000 times in 2019. I show this slide because Vermont has done a lot of work and really credit of Jen holiday and CSWD with leaning into a lot of these policies and it's helped lead the way and a lot of these state laws that have tried to address what is in the way stream and to get it out. This is just a stacked bar chart using that with that pie chart in a different example, showing things that are large in their content in the way stream like organics paper and things that are high in toxicity towards the top that are still found the way stream. We have a current waste composition study ongoing right now for 2023. It should be done approximately in February of 2024. And we're hoping it'll tell us how the state is doing, see if we've made any improvements and where we need to continue to improve in diverting recycling composting and reducing toxics in the way stream, but essentially this just showing some of the existing policy mechanisms the state has deployed everything from landfill bands producer responsibility laws, sort of so called if you build it, they must come laws I call them sort of the, the field of dreams act 175 if there's a facility that will recycle your C&D must separate that material. And then product bands which have been pretty effective in the state, things like the single use products law which banned polystyrene packaging and then we have a PFAS in products band rolling out from the Department of Health. And then of course for months universe recycling law. So we have 11 landfill bands and soon to be 12. 12 is household hazardous products, which we achieved household hazardous waste EPR, in large part led the way by the solid waste management districts alliances and towns who champion this at the legislature. Last year, and for many years actually took about about seven years for this to really come full full circle. And this is the, this is sort of the one of the ways we use policy to manage what's in the way stream but it does not create markets by itself. But just a good touchstone when you're looking at waste. I'm going to wrap up and just kind of say, we have some ongoing solid waste issues on our horizon. I mentioned PFAS. We also have some studies going on a microplastics. We are struggling with the high costs of household hazardous waste which really galvanized and led the way to HHW EPR in the state. We're expecting discussion on the bottle bill, which comes up every year, but we know that besides that there is still some challenge in the recycling system, and that packaging EPR past and other states could be a way to address some of the challenges that are ongoing with recycling. So we have a rechargeable battery issue in solid waste, and I'm told by solid waste managers tires are still very important to them as an issue we need to address climate change with the flooding is near and front and center for us and that means waste reduction, which is something we continually struggle with as a state. And then last but certainly not least what we're here to talk about disposal capacity. Those are some of the major issues that we're wrestling with at our program. And with that, I really want to make this a dialogue and get some of your questions. But let me preempt that a little bit and say, we are wrapping up the end of the 2019 materials management plan five year state plan. And we are drafting right now the 2024 materials management plan to the five year horizon. And we know given this challenge of disposal capacity that 18 years we talked about that we need to start this dialogue with the public sector at the private sector about disposal capacity so we've put a commitment and a responsibility on the agency to start that stakeholder process in this next 2024 materials management plan, and I anticipate that's a five year plan. We would probably start that process at the very outset of that plans implementation, not wait till year four or year two, because of the need we have to discuss what we're we're going next. So, with that. Maybe I want to mention one more thing Sarah that came up in your dialogue in September. There was a discussion about what are the obligations of a district to manage solid waste. There's a lot of history here, I don't have time tonight to go into all of it nor do I have it right front of mind, but Vermont like many states has a history of requiring municipalities to have some responsibility for solid waste management. The way that that is employed now is through the state solid waste plan. So, when the state puts out its plan, it requires the local governments to to comply with that plan for the management and betterment of solid waste. Historically, we have been much more focused on diversion and recycling and reduction than we have on disposal capacity at the local level. Some folks here will remember the 90s, where a lot of time was spent on regional landfill design studies, construction design and permitting, and few of those facilities operated for long, few of those facilities were built. We did a study in 2019 Sarah mentioned at your last meeting, looking at why that was. And it continues to be economically challenging to operate regional landfills in the state. And I think that is a reason we have not required municipalities to have a landfill in each in each town or region. As you know towns can decide to be part of the district or be independent. And I think it would be challenging for the local governments to have to have to do that. So let me pause there and really end my, my presentation and let you guys ask questions. Thanks very much Josh couple of things one I'm hoping there'll be lots of comments and questions from commissioners my plan would be to have each commissioner when they're recognized ask that one question, perhaps a follow up clarifying but give to give everybody an opportunity to ask their question will go around and ask commissioners will give you the opportunity to ask a second question after my senses that the first round of questions has been asked. But before we start that just give Sarah any opportunity to have any first words before we open it up to commissioners just to remind commissioners and remind Josh that one of the reasons that we're, we're really wanted to get some more clarification and some clarity on this issue now is because we also are looking to get into a revision of our own strategic plan which we last put in place by seven, almost eight years ago. So, having a sense for states expectations the state's direction is really going to help inform the work that this group does for our next plan which ideally is not just a five year plan but can look further than than five years out 10 years so when you're talking about the time needed to to sites a new landfill that's in the works to permitted that itself is at least a 10 year process. So, if we're looking at 18 ish years on this current cell. It does not give a whole lot of time in reality, as we all know in the industry to put some other alternative in place, and had a ready to transition if we're moving away from the landfill and coverage so so just kind of to say well why now why are we asking these questions now. That's our why. Sarah so we're looking it up. Paul Stabler. Yes, so Sarah just asked my question. But yeah my biggest concern is what happens at the end of 18 years which I also hear could be sooner than that. Given the strong pushback from all me almost all municipalities to a landfill being located in their municipality. I'm very concerned about what's going to happen at the end of Coventry, the life of the Coventry landfill. What's going to be done. I'd hate to think for instance that we try to ship all our trash out of state given the carbon footprint that would be. As Sarah said, it's not too early to start this process and just I'm very concerned about it. And yes I wanted to hear what the state, what their plans are. That's, that's my big concern. Yeah. Yeah, that's a great question. I think the first thing I would say is there, there is a chance of some additional capacity there is some online cells at the landfill that there have been discussions about literally digging those up lining them and replacing the waste that's there the waste that there's not very deep compared to the other cells. And there's an estimate that that could produce up to five years of additional capacity. There's an estimate. Anytime you unearth waste it comes with its own challenges. And so I don't think that's necessarily an easy option but it's an option that's been discussed before. But I think the, the cost of waste is what generally challenges the, the regional landfills the small ones that have gotten the furthest into the permitting process. That cost balance equation could become more palatable if there's more constriction in the marketplace, per se. I would doubt that the private sector plays a really strong role in the management of waste, and they control the hauling in large part of waste, and there's interstate commerce clause that prevents the state even from saying exactly what can and can't cross borders. I think we're doing well here in Vermont with protecting the state from out of state municipal solid waste because of the solid waste plan process requiring any municipality that wants to dispose of waste here to have met similar standards that you all have met. That's pretty rigorous we do get that question from time to time and have people want to meet with us and discuss that policy and that how that works and it has held for the for the time being. Other states are going is out of state and they're going as far, Sarah did a really great job covering with that Ohio, Pennsylvania, and further. I don't think that's out of the question, but as you just said having in state capacity is beneficial, and I would agree with that wholeheartedly. So I think I don't have answers today, but I think it's a question that's bigger than just the agency as well I think we need to have industry at the table and that discussion and I've been reviewing some old reports from the 80s and 90s. And where these discussions were had cross public sector private sector and, and with with state and local governments and it's, it's one that's that I think the the industry is aware of the private industry we have Kasella probably playing the largest role in the state. But that's there's not very far to go before you're into waste management Republic and some of the other larger haulers. But there, but Vermont is a small as again at one 10th Massachusetts size it's a small place comparatively speaking to try and invest and compete. But the out of state landfills could be part of that competition strategy. I think the difficulty is knowing where economics are going to go, and how constricted the market gets. There's still active waste energy facilities down south and landfills south and north and east and west. We're not sending stuff to Canada but, but easterly and westerly, but a lot of them are nearing their capacity as well so this constriction is not just Vermont's problem but it that doesn't make things better either it means that we're having a northeast crisis of capacity that we're staring down. I'm going to hold to ask one follow up question related to this and then Leslie your hand is up. So, I guess what I'd really love to see it and make me feel better is to hear that the state is working to pull together kind of a task force or study group or whatever. I think that is going to be focused on this and maybe you involve, you know, the private sector as well as municipality and all but, you know, I feel like you don't want to I know you have a lot of thoughts on it but if you don't have people or an initiative focused on it it it'll take too long to get done and you'll get surprised in the end. So, are you considering doing something like that. Exactly what your, it'll be Sarah staff who sees it first but the state materials management plan has what we've drafted into it is a stakeholder process for the analysis of disposal capacity, and if it seems to lean on details, please by all means leave those comments and we will put them in, but that's exactly what we intend to do a broad stakeholder process to discuss disposal capacity ongoing. Now that's challenged with how big of a process do you make it but at minimum we need broad representation from different industries and the public sector to be at the table, as we have another other issue areas in the past. Thank you. What just one point for your benefit Josh Paul Stabler is a commissioner representing South Burlington might be helpful for you to know where we're all from Leslie Melty has got her hand up next she represents Jericho. Go ahead Larry Leslie. Are there no developing technologies on the horizon that might offer an alternative to landfills. I don't think like the jury is out on waste to energy. I think there is still allowances for it. But it still doesn't totally make the waste disappear. There's still ash that needs to be disposed of which nobody, you know, we can't deny that either that'll need a place to go. And I think the major concern is going to be what emissions are put out there and what is the condition of the waste that results. Trying to manage what goes into a waste to energy facility and exclude it to things that won't create a bad emissions is really difficult is what I've heard and look and roughly looked at. That's not even beginning to scratch the surface of the public response that they tend to to get that doesn't mean that that that's a no you can't look at it. Our rules do have a path forward for waste to energy facilities, and they could be permitted in the state. But I'm not aware of them being built there there was, you know, most recently in Maine, several sort of dirty mirfs were proposed that didn't really do well getting off the ground. I'm not even sure where they're at currently I think they've gone through several ownership changes that's not waste to energy but it's a different technology, where they were going to, I believe, try and pull metals out of the system and then pellet that supplies a lot of waste to create a fuel pellet. So it's, it's sort of akin to waste to energy in that their end goal was some type of a fuel from the waste, but they were challenged by many issues in getting that, getting that moving and getting that going. I think, I think generally speaking land filling still has some benefits in the mix of when you're looking at disposal capacity. I guess that's what I say. Just a brief follow up and it's not anything I've ever looked at but the northeast of the United States is, I guess, one of the most densely populated areas geographically of the United States and even more densely populated area would be Western Europe. I've got to believe that in Western Europe, this kind of issue is even more fraught than it is here in New England. Are there lessons to be learned or gleaned or inquired into from whatever is happening there. I think so. I think the question is, who digs deep enough to, to, to try and site such a facility. We've had some history with it in Vermont in the past Rutland had a waste to energy facility proposed and built that that ultimately was unsuccessful. I didn't live through that history but that was in the 90s. Actually, I believe the shell of the building where it was located is the current Rutland Murph is located there now. But I think from the state's perspective, not operating our own facilities and not having a strong interest in doing that. It's incumbent upon those that want to build such facilities to, to I think look into how to do it safely for people in the environment. So again, I don't think it's ruling it out. But I think learning those lessons from Europe to figure out how to bring that over here is going to take some some resources. And just for clarity, are you suggesting that it's not the state's role to make that inquiry and do that research. I think what we traditionally do is regulate the activity and leave it to the applicant to tell us what, how, how this, this activity is safe. I think we do have a role in considering disposal capacity and what the best options are for the state. And I think that's where we would do that in that participatory stakeholder process. So I wouldn't exclude waste to energy in that. We have been asked to study things in the past by the legislature and that could be a path where we're directed to do a more of an analysis on this type of technology. But I guess I was just pointing out that there's some challenges to, to that that option. And I think what the state not operating facilities means that's, that's either a public entity to be looking at that and and trying to bring that to the for or a private entity to do that. And it takes a lot of resources often flow control to make sure those facilities are fed. That's more of an economic challenge rather than the, the safety challenge of the environmental harm. That's potential there. So I guess I'm just pointing out some of the challenges that are associated with it. Can your hand is up and represents Charlotte. Thanks, right. Hey, thank you for coming in talking to us. I appreciate it. Josh. My question is, do you feel like in terms of the capacity issue long term that recycling is potentially going to help are there directions to go and recycling and, and can you help us understand a little bit the governor's opposition to expanding the bottle bill or do you feel like the bottle bill is neither here nor there in terms of capacity long term. Yeah, I don't think the age old adage you're not going to recycle your, your way out of this challenge is true. That does not mean that recycling is not valuable or less valuable. It just means that when we do our waste composition studies do we still find recycles from the waste stream. Yes, do we find things that that shouldn't be there. And generally a small scale. Does that mean that we don't need to that that we need to take the pedal off of our focus on waste reduction absolutely not. And, and I will point out that there are those that feel that waste energy because it's looking for BT use British thermal units of energy. And some will say produces an appetite for plastics, whereas others would want those plastics to be recycled or reduced right. I, that's just a piece of this conversation. I think the first question you asked is, is recycling going to help us, it is, but it's not going to help us enough in that 18 year horizon with a, you know, five to $600,000, five to 600 k tons of needed capacity per year. We're still going to need a place for Vermont's ways to go safely. Sanitary landfills as Eric told you are highly engineered and designed and I, and I do feel like they present some of the best options for us and managing it. The question is where, and, and how soon can the next one be available, or is there another technology that somebody might explore. We have a dual role of not letting off the, the pedal when it comes to pushing for reduction and pushing for recycling, while keeping an eye towards disposal, and it's tough to have both, but we absolutely critically need both. So your board is wrestling with the right questions and challenges for the state. And it's actually natural for you to challenge us as well with where are we going. And I think the private sector has a big role to play here as well, because they manage a lot of our waste, and at a, at a profit from, from many of us. And if that profit wasn't there. There's also, you know, there's, there's, there's, there's a need for them to make themselves whole out of that out of that equation so I think we have more dialogue to come but recycling. If we recycle everything, I still think we're going to need that disposal capacity. That's the right now I get I get that I just saw the expansion of the bottle bill on your list of upcoming issues. And so I was wondering if you had a position on it, or if you guys were feeling different than the than the executive branch on the expansion of the bottle bill. I guess what I can say is that Matt Chapman my supervisor, the director of the division spent was asked by the legislature to convene a stakeholder group worked really hard to try and come up with solutions that could address as many issues with the bottle bill as possible. And it was a so it was a, it had expansion in it, which meant that materials would be siphoned off from the Merse you know aluminum cans more of them would go to the bottle bill then to the recycling system. And that raised questions about the impacts to municipalities that operate in the recycling sector and for the private sector as well. Those were not really resolved. There was a study also attached to the bill. So this is a long way for me to say it's hard for me to take a position. The bottle bill has benefits and the recycling system has benefits, and they also have costs and drawbacks. Okay, when you're sorting materials on a conveyor belt things get missed and bottle bill things get missed too, but when they've been segregated. There's a higher likelihood they get in the right, you know hand segregated as they are in the very costly recycling system higher likelihood they get in the right bin. So, I'm sorry I'm dodging the question but it's, it's a hard one to it's not really one I can answer straight. Thank you for trying. Yeah. Yeah, I seem to remember that some of the statistics that Sarah gave us about what goes into the landfill that about 30% of it is actually organics. I don't know whether that is old data, but it strikes me that that must might buy us a little time I'm not in any way suggesting we shouldn't be looking for alternatives or things down the road but it just, it's shocking to me that we're sending 30% of what goes into that landfill could go elsewhere. Absolutely. And I, I am fearful the preliminary data I get from the 2023 waste composition study is not demonstrating to me that we've made as much progress as we hoped with the food waste ban per se. That said, when you go really well, and you, and you divert the easier stuff, the stuff left things that are heavy and wet can look like a bigger portion of the way stream does that mean they're less important than to focus on. No, they're still really critical to focus on, but they get to be diminishing returns they're harder and harder materials to manage. Take paper towels which we would like to compost once we use them. You know that we're finding that they can get confused with sanitary wipes which have plastic in them. These, these non flushables, you know, so it's just a complicated. They sometimes are segregated as organics in a waste study I'm not sure how Sarah's data was collected if it was part of the state study or part of your own. But I can say that it is concerning that organics make up a significant portion of the way stream. And I fear that that is still going to be the case with our new waste composition study, meaning we not only have to do better at reducing food waste and other sources of organic waste, but diverting it as well. And I believe some of the outreach we've done has been pretty good we've gone through a pandemic and we just had climate disasters. So that doesn't mean people don't need to get systems in place to separate that material recycling is pretty well established. I still think there's more progress to be made on organic waste. And I think the data is showing that I was Sarah glad to hear you've got some resources and staffing there. It's places we need to go as well. So it is concerning margin I guess I would say. Thank you. Next up is Alan I representing Essex. I may be way way back in the future here but landfill citing requirements. I remember it. And that there was this requirement for some decent soils underneath the landfill and in that way we have, you know, landfills or old landfills next to the Winooski River, or, you know, in Orleans County or whatever, next to waterways and whatever. And are we still looking at those kind of requirements for citing, I just don't understand when we're putting impermeable barriers below the material that we're putting in there, that why we don't go to areas of the state that have impervious soils already and include those in potential landfill sites, such as the county south of us. You raise a good question one of the things we've talked about the staff level is the possibility of doing a study in the state of of of either suitable locations or unsuitable locations. It's easier to study unsuitable first, because you can kind of go Oh, there's, well there's a, you know, a river right here so we're not going to put it right there there's a lake there it's not going to go there you know you can map those things and exclude them. I think that's a discussion that we should have with this broader stakeholder group about disposal capacity whether we should study that. As you know, just because a place seems suitable doesn't mean one gets formed there. It takes a lot of other impetus to make that happen. But you're right that they are double line systems. Right now, many landfills are next to water bodies it's really hard to go anywhere in the state and not be near a water body when you're getting at a landfill scale that's able to be competitive. I do think I don't know if this came across but I do think there is a reason we have one landfill for that size of waste that we produce in this state. And I don't think that can be under emphasized we have economy of scale issues in Vermont, and that kind of tracks with waste to when you don't produce that much you're not going to have that many people competing to make money on that material. And so, I think we are going to need another disposal capacity outlet, of course, and, and maybe an analysis of suitable or even the simpler analysis is unsuitable sites, so that that can start to show where the best places might be. I'm really upset sometimes when their properties identified in certain ways in other historic state analysis so I'll just put that out there as something that does concern books. Thank you. Yeah. Mike Sullivan Essex Junction. I correct you it's the great city of Essex Junction. My question was, Josh, you have a you had a good comparison of us against Massachusetts. Can you do that same ballpark idea against New Hampshire. Oh, good question Mike. I don't have the, I don't have the data in front of me at my fingertips, but I can get back to you on that Sarah and I were similar to both our presentations we looked at some new moa data northeast waste management officials Association. I do know Vermont is less than New Hampshire but I'm not sure by how much, and they have much more out of state waste coming in than Vermont does. I don't have the figures in front of me though, but I can get you there. Yeah. They also have more landfills operating currently than the state of Vermont does I, I believe in and they have there's a waste energy facility in Concord, as well. I want to guess they might have on the order of five plus or minus active landfills. I'm guessing there I think it's almost that much if not more and and then a waste energy in Concord. So, they do have more activity going on for sure of disposal capacity sites. Next question Allison also from South Burlington. Yes, hi, I have maybe a silly question and maybe it has a simple answer but thinking 18 years in the future. Maybe we have electric hauling vehicles that are using clean energy and so carbon emissions isn't really as much of a concern and shipping it out of state. What other concerns do we have at that point is it cost of shipping is it, we don't have the waste to make energy. Talk to me a little bit about that. I think the first concern would be the number of outlets and if, if, if anything happened to that downstream resource, what, what could happen to waste backing up in the state of Vermont, you know that I mean that I guess that would be first. You know, disposing of waste in your own state is where you can regulate it the closest when you're talking about an out of state facility, it is extremely difficult to have Vermont laws have any reach at all. There's ways to do it but it's, it's really limited. So, we benefit from that in state capacity not only for control or controls for the wrong word it's more of, of an outlet that is close by, and that we can regulate and control in that way by by regulation through controlling through regulation. So I think number one, Sarah raised this to again I keep referring to her presentation because it was so thorough rail is a likely possibility for anyone in the northeast already being used by some and I've seen haulers in Massachusetts who are bailing trash. I mean you think about what the Murph does their, their bailing trash putting on flatbed trucks and driving it places it's quite impressive to see, or maybe depressing and depending on your viewpoint. But it is happening and I think it could also be that Vermont has a harder time competing for maybe those rail lines, given that other states are going to have more capacity to pay down south. So I think those are some of my concerns with not having any in state capacity. I will say rail generally is low in carbon compared to trucking. It does use diesel engines, primarily these days but but because it can haul so much freight per per gallon burned. It does have a lower footprint. There are states that are more land rich and and and have landfill capacity in those, and that's why waste is going that direction from the northeast. The concern is less regulatory oversight and problems in sort of the backup that might happen if one of those were to cease or something like that. Yeah. Brian from Winooski. Hi Josh. Hey Brian. I was wondering if you have data on how much waste for 2023 is contributed to flooding. I have a question. It's very hard to categorize and characterize, but what we got from the July flood. This is the other benefit of having one landfill. Actually, there's a couple of benefits. It's not lost on all of you that it causes a consideration of everything you do because there's one landfill so it creates in its own way, a sense of urgency, which we need. We're going to believe that reduction matters and let me just say that reduction really does matter and having one landfill does create a sense of urgency. It also creates an urgency for disposal capacity. But back to your question. During the July floods. Generally a majority of that waste did go to Coventry but some did go out of state initially because it was it happened as you guys know Ludlow was hit really badly and we asked Coventry what amount they and they estimated came in and they thought about 20,000 tons, which is not insignificant but it's also not huge given the what did I quote you guys roughly for MSW they're they're around 400,000 tons a year of MSW so most of that is MSW it's mixed with C&D it's really hard to break apart what what amount we know that our MSW numbers and C&D numbers are are tough to tease out when you when you talk in waste audits, but 20,000 tons was their estimate. And I think that's probably an underestimate given that someone out of state as well. I also don't. I do believe that they track that stuff pretty well at the landfill and have pretty decent data. So for them, I think it's a good ballpark. Great. And follow up by a different question still related to landfill capacity and planning. For the steering committee is it intended to have some role with the climate and our climate office. We're actually in pretty close contact with them and comparison to other parts of DEC. So I think that absolutely could be. I think if we were to be exploring different technologies we would want to look at there's a new life cycle analysis law being explored and that rule that's going along with that, which is really exciting and really challenging when it comes to that but it gives us a place to sort of hopefully agree on the sideboards to an analysis. That's my hope. So yeah, I wouldn't rule it out and I have a really good relationship with them and they're, they're super collaborative so yeah I would think it could be the new climate pollution reduction plan that the state is putting out does have a waste category. I have a survey coming out to you all the swimmies solid waste management entities soon to get your feedback for ideas that could feed into that, and then we will put that into the plan so that things could be grant eligible out of that. That's my hope as to where we're going. Thank you. This is a reduction question. Looking at your first slide with the side by side pictures of the very neat and clean grocery store compared to the landfill. I'm always amazed at the amount of packaging that comes with ingredients and things that we buy. And I'm wondering if there's any discussion in the state about how to reduce packaging, or are you aware of anything on a national level, or is that just not something that concerns anybody and it just will keep going and going. That's a great question and we actually have an obligation to include that type of consideration in the biennial report every two years we're supposed to report the legislature on certain materials that are problematic in the way stream. This past time we really focused on HHW and rechargeable batteries and P boss, because of their, their human health safety impacts which is a higher priority but you're absolutely right. I don't think it's a question of if it's just a question of when we focus on excessive packaging and find a way that we can be successful at reducing it. I talked about product bands. We don't allow polystyrene cups or foodware in the state of Vermont anymore. I've seen replacements go in for them. Cumberland Farms Cup I picked up the other day and I walk in it was not polystyrene but it was littered nonetheless. But I think producer responsibility laws like California and Oregon are putting forth they seem to be the leaders in that space this is for packaging by the way paper and packaging. They make up the significant portion of the recycling system and some of the disposal system and those two states are leading the way right now with the future of what does producer responsibility look like for paper and packaging and eco modulating fees where you charge for things that are less recyclable or you charge more by weight should result in reductions in some of the packaging now producers are going to protect their package and product because if you get. And well if you have a John Deere and it breaks all the time you're not going to buy it again, and they know that they need to protect their toothbrush when they send it to you in the mail so that packaging needs to be protective enough. But lightweighting of the packaging should result by some of these producer responsibility laws. I think it's good that other states are going first in this complicated space. And there's a lot that may come out because California size may start changing what you see on the grocery store shelves in the next coming years. So we have an obligation to discuss that and address that. And I think I'm really watching Oregon and California right now on that front. Josh just want to ask a quick quick question. We haven't touched on PFAS yet so I don't want to let you escape without having a conversation about our favorite topic be fast. But do you have a sense yet where the state is going to go regarding requiring owners or managers of landfills in treating their leachate for PFAS, because you know we are in about year 28 of our 30 year closure plan for our landfill that we had last year and certainly 3040 years ago there are materials that were exposed there that were scotch guarded or you know had some some of those materials. So, you know, we're not generating any revenue from that landfill and like they do to the sale of who isn't going to cover some of those costs. Can you talk a little bit about maybe what the impact of what the state man plan which will most likely come down from what the EPA has planned for managing the leachate from of landfills and closed landfills, because that could also factor into whether or not Casella wants to open another cell, right? If the cost to manage a leachate is so prohibitively high, and there isn't a way to make more money at the landfill because of the economics of it, do you see any relief, either federal level or state level, for helping those of us who are managing, and there's just a handful of us managing these landfills for PFAS and leachate? I wish I was more of an expert in this, Sarah, and I'm gonna admit my lack of knowledge, but I will try and bolster it with this, that you are certainly not alone, and you're not necessarily even the front line of the waiting to see what happens with the EPA. Drinking water, wastewater treatment are right in the, so the bad news is that you gotta think about it. The good news is that you are not nearly alone, and the other good news is this, that preliminary results of the current PFAS treatment system, the pilot one that Casella has operating up there, this is on landfill leachate, so this is leachate that is in an active cell environment, so it is, I would say that is a challenging material to treat of anything is resulting in a 90 to 95% removal of PFAS and their preliminary tests. That's what I've heard from my colleagues in the wastewater program. So to me, while we are waiting to see what happens with the EPA and concerned about that, we also have some positive things going on in our state that I don't think others are as far along at in doing, and so I think that can net potential benefits by learning what's working and how it can work. So I think that's what I'd say. I think where wastewater is gonna go, because now we really just say leachate needs to be treated at a certified wastewater treatment facility, that's pretty much as far as our program's role is, but we do have a broader PFAS roadmap we're working on and things that I will definitely bring this concern back to Matt Chapman who's more involved in that PFAS roadmap conversation. So I hear you. I think we're kind of all in it together at the moment and waiting to see how it impacts us collectively. Thank you. I think Kayla had a question that she may have put in the chat. Oh. She's still here, is Kayla? Yeah, Kayla's still on. Can you find it? Sure, I can voice it. I just didn't want to take up too much time. For the waste characterization studies, how are compostable containers categorized? Now that, I mean, they're compostable, but I don't believe anywhere in the state accepts them anymore. There are some that accept them, but you're right. I have to look, I think we had them called out. We got into the details, Kayla and sorry, in quite a lot of detail and have a spreadsheet of all the categories. And I'm pretty sure we called them out separately just so we could see how they are growing as a category or not. Compostable, disposable, as I call them, are complicated. This is Dan Goosen, who's probably spent way too much of his time thinking about these in his career. They have benefits. We use them. We've all used them. They have some benefits, but their benefits are overhyped up in our society. And yet they persist. So I think we have that carved out as a category. I'll have to look. I don't think we would throw it on the organic side of the equation. We have in past waste studies though, we have said things like the paper towel example I gave have fallen on the organic side of the equation. Luckily though, we do call out food waste as its own category. So in that case, when we're just focused on the food waste portion, we can decipher what that is. I am concerned that they are gonna proliferate and that many of them end up with the landfill in their end result for some very strong reasons as your board has wrestled with and others have. There are some composters who take them. Currently our rules allow that. We have been discussing it. There's concerns that are valid on PFAS with those as well. Although when you get into PFAS, it's really what doesn't have it is such a small universe what does is pick your product, pick your item. So I guess it's still something we're evaluating. We are likely to be putting rules in place resulting from Act 170, which was the law that had a moratorium on de-packaging put in place on any new facilities being cited in the state. And so we'll see what that rulemaking comes out with. Yeah, stay tuned. I wanted to ask a question or actually make an observation on Paul Roos from Underhill but I think probably representing concerns of so many on the board. We've identified by name a single private company that are a publicly held company that really dominates waste management in the state. They own the landfill. They have a Murph down in Rutland. They're making inroads in organics processing. We're very concerned and they're a strategic partner with us and we have a strong business relationship and we work well with them but we frequently bemoan the fact that if there is anything to be done it's probably gonna go to that one operator. I think we believe in private enterprise, we believe in competition but we're all concerned ultimately that we're becoming getting close to a monopolistic sort of situation. Is that on the radar of the state? Is that something that the state has a role in being concerned about? What could be done? Yeah, it's a valid concern and one that is really under the purview of the Attorney General and I know that in the past the Attorney General's office has been notified of that concern and it actually, I believe when I was even here in the past 10 years there was an acquisition that was slowed down. It didn't get stopped but Cassella's acquisition of some hauling company was slowed down by the EAG. Not a lot of those have happened in recent history. There's been really acquisition after most recent was Triple T in Brattleboro. I won't pretend to know the market any better than the other but I have heard from haulers who operate facilities that there was few others offering them to buy them out. I think the retirement that's going on in the hauling community is not to be miscounted. That doesn't mean we shouldn't be concerned about consolidation. We did see this in the Household Hazardous Waste Contractors as well and it led to price increases. So we have, I know my supervisor Matt Chapman has in his lawyer role in the past had conversation with the AGs and it certainly is something that I hope they continue to uphold and monitor. Well, just so that you know and perhaps you can pass it along that it is something of grave concern not only for the operations district but also for our constituents as you mentioned. Pricing. I think it's worth mentioning that it's something we talk about with the district managers when we meet with them. It came up when Matt was at one of those meetings and we pointed out that the district managers as a collective group have quite a strong voice too when they want to make that phone call. I will give credit where credit is due. Household Hazardous Waste produced responsibility. Lots of credit to Gen Holiday but many of the districts testified over multiple years that led to that and it was reverberating. It didn't just happen once, it happened multiple times. So there is power in the municipal voice and I just put that out there. Thank you. Paul Stable has a question and I think we're heading almost to our pointed hour. Appreciate the time you've spent but we have two more questions then. Yeah, just one question again, South Wellington. Let's suppose as your steering committee goes forward it becomes apparent for instance that a regional solution might be a good solution for the future. Would the state consider the creation of some sort of landfill construction bond bank or some financing mechanism that would help the regional facilities like districts or municipalities in the construction cost? Because as you know, that's considerable and getting a bond passed for that much is really difficult. So I don't know, that's probably a question more for the legislature but I don't know if you're thinking about creative solutions like that. Yeah, well, the closest thing I have is when we were standing up the university recycling law it was pretty clear that there was no money tied to it and that there was going to need to be infrastructure made and acquired by public and private operators and it did. I mean, they had the legislature, we had a study done directed by the legislature of the impacts of Act 178 and the cost, it estimated it would be 45 million. Then we were several years into the implementation and the legislature said, please go out and talk, find out what the pathway would be to fund this and what the need is. We surveyed private and public solid waste managers and the need was 47 million. It was shockingly close to the study's estimated number. And we started to explore what our wastewater colleagues are more familiar with which is really talk about infrastructure money. We started to explore financing mechanisms through the loan, sort of like the drinking water revolving loan fund. And it is something we could explore again. I think it would be, first there would need to be a strong recommendation out of that stakeholder process. And as you said, like the legislature is part of who could recommend something or require something to be done at that level. So I wouldn't rule it out. I'll put it on the table that the $6 per ton franchise tax or fee raises about three to $4 million a year. It is used to implement both the state's plan and the solid waste implementation plans of municipalities across the state. It's just not that deep of pockets to do 130 million type revolving loans. So just to put that out there. And as no one's surprised, this legislative session is going to be about housing, mental health addiction and it's for waste to get traction is going to be challenged. So it's not a no, it's just that there's some headwinds around it but there are financial mechanisms that are synonymous in the wastewater and drinking water areas until it comes to mind initially. My hope is that the financial needs won't really be won't come to pass until 10 years or more from now. And who knows, maybe the landscape will be different but it's hard to say. And Josh, how long is that franchise fee been $6? Ever since it passed, I think it's over 20 years plus now. I think it's more than that. Yeah, I'd have to look back. Alan, again, from Essex. This is an issue of mine and the people I represent, it doesn't have any reflection on the district. But I see the solid waste division as an adversary a lot of the time. And this county and the residents of this county spent a lot of money on infrastructure and things like that with respect to trying to move solid waste reduction down. And there was an incident a couple of years ago where the district was fined over $300,000, I think, for a product that could have just gone into the landfill or is in many places going into the landfill. But we're trying to work with it. And there was no understanding and no support coming from the agency and the division with respect to assisting the district with that issue and trying to not have a fine that our residents had to pay. And I think it also works that way with some of the hollers. And it's a problem we're all trying to deal with and to be fine for trying to do something right, I think is a really negative way to approach the issues. Just coming from me, not from them. Understood, yeah, I can appreciate that. That occurred, I was not in this current role at that time. I will say that I hope that you feel supported by this program and the agency, at least in terms of the grants that we've provided. I believe Chittenden District has received more funds and arguably given your population and throughput. There's a reason for that than many other swimmies when we do grants. We gave one for Green Mountain Compost and one to improve your HHW Depot. But I hear you on that incident and I know that my predecessor, Kathy Jameson, recused herself and was started to have that handed, handled in other parts of the department. But I guess I just try and strike a path of looking forward rather than looking back. And I hear you, class is challenging. I've sit on many calls with Josh Esty and previous to that, Josh Tyler, trying to look at class and to be reasonable about class management. It's not easy. I think it's positive to have gravel in the state. I'm not holding my breath that suddenly Murph class is going there, as Sarah knows very well. So we have some things on the horizon, but it's not amounting to a huge market immediately. So it's gonna be an ongoing challenge. And you're right, other states are taking their glass and really using it as daily cover, sometimes at best. So it's a continuing challenge. Thank you. Well, we've gone a little bit over. I think we've gone through a good round of questions. I really, really appreciate, Josh, you taking the time to be with us and Steve, also Stephen Young to be with us and be some ears. Good dialogue back and forth. Really very much appreciated. We're all in this together. Yeah, I'll just say you have an exceptional board. I mean, just to have coming out at this time of night and spending your time concerned about solid waste issues, first of all, thank you. I do believe the biggest challenge we have is apathy in waste. And maybe second only to that is the other major challenges we as a society face, not little of which is climate change, which Bryn mentioned, which needs to be front and center for all of us. So we need to do more. I shoulder that burden along with you. And I'm happy to come back and meet with you again. I really like having engaged boards. And I say this to haulers all the time, the ones that call me and complain and yell at me. I don't love being yelled at, but I much appreciate that they care. They actually care about their industry enough to speak up. The ones that you don't hear from are the ones we're often chasing for they're never paying the tax or they're not even certified, never got a permit. The ones you don't hear from often is who are the most concerning. So thanks for engaging. And thanks for having me. Thank you and have a great holiday. Thank you, Josh. Okay, we are now to item number six, other business. Is there any other business to bring before the board this evening? Mike. For any, particularly for Leslie, nobody I would recommend some of the old videos you can find on YouTube of Andy Rooney in packaging. He was quite, it's just a lot of bunch of, there's a bunch of good videos with him doing the ridiculousness of the packaging that our society lives with. Sarah will include a link. In my next program. Any other business? No, I would just conclude by saying we're wrapping up a year, a very productive year. On behalf of the board, I want to thank Sarah and all the staff for an excellent job throughout this whole year. And thank you to the board. I think we have an excellent board. And I personally wish everybody the best of the Christmas and New Year and holiday season. Move we adjourn. Second, in South Burlington. It's been moved and seconded that we adjourn. All those in favor, please say aye. Opposed? We are adjourned. Thank you again. Thanks everyone. Happy holiday.