 We're ready to get going? Okay. First we have the agenda to approve. The management wants to be added or changed to the agenda. Any member have something? And a motion to approve the agenda, please? Seconded. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Done. With that. Any comments from the public? We'll move on. The next agenda item is the policy process. This is a discussion only and Sarah is going to take this over for us. So I just want to review with the board what our current process is for bringing policies to the board. So what generally happens is staff will identify a need or the board member will identify a need. We will go back and see if we have any policies that have been previously adopted throughout the years. If we don't find anything and we still feel that there is a need for a formal policy to be adopted by the board, we would bring an outline of that information to the appropriate committee. We've been working on finance policies so we would bring them to the finance committee. We talk about the need and the outline. We get input from the members of the finance committee. Then we would go back and we draft some language. We then bring that language to the next meeting of that particular committee. We take input, make adjustments as necessary, and then bring that final draft version to the next level of committee. In this case would be the executive board. The executive board would also provide input as they see fit, as needed. And then at that point it either come back for more revisions and then come back to the finance committee, back to the executive committee, and then it would go on to the full board. So just to review very briefly that that is currently what we do. The conversations from last month highlighted that we probably need to do some things possibly differently, possibly not. We want to take a look at what I am doing right now is going through all of the, with Amy's help and Amy's help, all of the policies that we currently have in our files online that were board adopted and having a log, essentially a log of the policies. And then going through to the documents that we call a policy, that may not actually be a board approved policy. So differentiating between what we are calling a policy procedure guideline instruction versus something that was adopted formally by resolution by the board. So when we have those lists, then that will be our basis for coming back to this board and having to review all of that information and make sure that the policies that may have been adopted 15 years ago make sure that they are still necessary and just kind of go through the revision process again as needed. And then where there are other documents that have been more instructions or guidance or guidelines, they are not board adopted as an actual policy. We need to stop doing that and calling them not, call them what they are. And then we'll also be able to see a need for potentially any actual new policies. So that's what we're working on now. Again, that was based on the conversation from last month, which I think was very helpful to help us understand where the gaps are. If you want to fill in on any of the other process pieces, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone was aware of what we currently do and how we're looking to change that going forward. I think that nothing I need to add to that. I didn't notice that we have some public that came in and after we had started, I wanted to see if anyone in that group wanted to speak. If not, we will just keep moving on. The next agenda item is discussion on the policies and potential board action, which I hope happens. The policies that were put on the table a month ago. There is a not quite so simple process to taking them off the table, which isn't hard, but to their amendment process. And what I got from Thomas Maloney, our attorney, is a cheat sheet on how we go about this, that I'd like to read to you first so that you know exactly what's coming up. So the first step is a motion to take the items off the table that's seconded and undebatable majority vote. Then there is a motion to present amendments that has to be made from the floor that would require a second is debatable and a majority vote on that to present amendments. The next step is that since these are primary amendments and they're primary amendments because they apply directly to the wording of the main motion, that means that no more than one primary amendment piece or sentence can be addressed at a time, which requires that the amendment for that sentence that's having words added or deleted, a motion is made to accept that amendment. It's seconded, it is debatable, and it's voted on. And as Robert's rule says, no more than one primary amendment is permitted to be pending at one time, but any number can be considered in succession. So what we'll do is we'll take motions from the floor on the amendments that you will be receiving, I think, from Amy that were presented by Ken, and we'll just work our way through them. Once we get done with all of them, then we need a motion to amend the main motion with the amendments. I know that gets seconded. It's a simple majority vote. We take it. If that passes, then the main motion is amended with the amendments. If it doesn't, then the original motion, as is, comes back up for a vote, up or down. It has already been made and seconded, so it does not need to have that process again. It is debatable, but needs a simple majority. So if we got that, we're all set. Simple. So to start with, I need a motion from someone to take the motion that was tabled off the table. Okay. Leslie? I can't find them. Lynn was the second. Is all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Motion passes to bring the motions off the table. Now, have the amendments been passed around? Everybody got them? Now, we need a motion from the floor to discuss the first policy would be the, does it matter? I don't think it matters. We'll start with the restricted assigned and unrestricted reserve policy. And I need a motion from someone to move the first set of added words. I would move that motion to adopt the restricted, two reserves. It was all by the board of commissions adopt the accounting reporting auditing. Wait, wait, wait. Not that? No. What we have to do is in that, if you flip to the next page, you'll see that it says budget and expenditures. So the motion is. So we need a motion to accept the words. Not the old copy. No, not the old copy. No. This is. I know. I know. We're talking about the amendments only. The one that says accounting is that. The one that says. Restricted assigned. So if you go to the second page, you'll see that under budgets and expenditures. That says, which will include the annual budget approved, et cetera. We need a motion to add those words to that sentence. Maybe dumb. I'm just not. Have a point of order and ask a question. Absolutely. The original one that we had in our packet where it has two policy adoption changes. Right. And then the thing that I decided to read. Yes. We're not going to do it that way. Well, you. The whole document and do each one individually. If you want to, to make amendments to the motion that was brought to the floor last month that was tabled. Then we have to go through them and approve them. The, the amendments one at a time, but you can also just move the original motion. Without amendments. If you'd like. Point of order chair. The main motion has already been moved as I understand. We are accepting amendments. Correct. So I will move. We're not. Somebody has to move an amendment first. Correct. Or they can vote on somebody can make a motion to have a vote. On the original. Motion. Which was on the floor and tabled. Ken. Just to set the table. The motion was tabled last month. Along with a request that I prepared the amendments that I had described verbally. At that meeting, which is what resulted in this red line to correct that. That that's not. That's not what the minutes say. The minutes only tabled the motion. To this meeting. There was no mention in it of. Amendments. But the amendments can be added now. If you would like to make a motion. Or the original motion can be moved as it was. Yes. I look for back. Thank you. I'll bring the tape to the next meeting so we can see what actually happened. But. I looked. I'll make the motion. That we amend. The restricted assigned and unrestricted reserve policy. Capital reserves and budget expenditures section. To add the words. Which will be included in the annual budget approved by the board of commissioners. After the word year. At the end of the second sentence. Any discussion. Is everybody. Has everybody found that. Then have you found it. It's in red. No discussion. Then all those in favor. Opposed. Okay, that's. Approved. Now you need to go to the need a motion for the next red word. Yes, Ken. Motion that we amend the. Restricted assigned and unrestricted reserve policy. Capital reserve section budget and expenditure section. By replacing the word proposed with the word approved. In the last sentence. Any discussion. All those in favor. Opposed. Approved. Believe me, this is. My idea. The process. The process. And blame our attorney. I need a motion for the next set of red words. I move that we amend the restricted assigned and unrestricted reserve policy file solids reserve budget and expenditure section. By adding the words for approval. Between. The word reserves and as in the first sentence. Any discussion. Those in favor. Okay, approved. I think that's it for that document. You got to approve the document. Yep. I need a motion to approve. They restricted assigned and unrestricted reserve policy. As amended. So moved. Any discussion. All those in favor. Opposed. Yes. Discussion. Sorry. Sorry. Jump to him. Okay. Yes. I'm going to vote against this. Because I don't believe that. Combining. The. Capital funds all into one fund. Is in the best interest of the district. Nor does it provide transparency. As we collect excess monies at the mirf. That money would go into. Future reserve. And those dollars would be available for. Expenditures at the mirf for future capital projects. The same was true of drop off centers and. Composed if we ever did it. And I think we're losing transparency here. And I brought this up at the. Financial board meetings and never really got a good answer for. Why it needs to be done. And I believe that we should still be keeping. Those capital reserve funds. Separate. I spend money at the. I would like it to be used if there's excess money at the end of the year used for projects at the mirf. And if we need money in another program. As we have done in other times we have taken money out of. Somebody's reserve. And paid it back over time. So. That's it. I'm also going to go against the motion. I agree. Everything that Alan said on the board. Does have the authority to move funds from one account to another. The biggest thing is the transparency. Money should stay with the accounts where it's made or lost. I'd like to point out to the board that. If if you agree and you do vote this down. It this this. Can come back. It can't come back exactly as is. Or with the revisions that were approved. But. It can come back in an altered form. That would address the issues that were just brought up. So. If you want to consider that is there any more discussion. About that about separating out. A portion of this. Yes. Right. I. Agreed. The. Project. Separate. And. Some of these. That's important. Because. There are. No. Changes. We want to make. But it does sometimes takes. I'll say two to five years. To build up a fund. So they'll make a change. And. There by. We need a tracking system that is associated with the activities. Just to point out, I do agree with Alan as far as the overall policy. The amendments I proposed were on the premise the policy is going to pass, in which case I think there were some other improvements needed. So I understand completely. Yes. Yes. I disagree with the comments about keeping them completely separate. I think that we tie our hands as an organization. We can keep visibility from where the funds come from, and we can also maintain a virtual balance if we need to, if we want that level of visibility. I'm worried that if we, the implication is that we keep them in separate accounts that we're going to go ahead and tie both the boards and the staff's hands in how that money is spent in the future. I think we want to retain as much flexibility because priorities and situations change dramatically over time. We're planning for the future, which is very uncertain. The one analogy that comes to mind here is that you don't think about when you're donating to university, sometimes you'll have people who want to give money while I want to build this library. I want to put a statue here. I want to do this. And inevitably the President wants to have as many unrestricted funds as he can so that they can go ahead and invest that money where they feel it is appropriate and I feel that we ought to be treating these capital funds in the same fashion. I just want to make sure that everyone is clear that we don't have actual separate bank accounts, right? So we have one fund, it's one bank account. The money is all in one place. Tim's right. We absolutely have the ability to virtually track or just continue to track through the accounting system. So that is not an issue. We can report that way as well. So we can certainly accomplish that goal. I think because there's so many changes happening amongst various programs that we may want to maintain some of that flexibility, however, again, through the budget, the board always approves the capital plan regardless every year. And so you're going to see where we think we're going to have the need, not just for the current fiscal year that we're proposing, but going out two to five years as well. So there will continue to be that level of awareness and transparency. So, DeGon, if you have any other clarification? No, I mean, when this came up, I asked the finance committee in Talon's point, there was discussion. We can keep it formally or informally any way you're right, Lynn. You can move it any time you want. It is a sign. So what that means, if you're assigning it at the department level and we need to use money somewhere, we just come back here and ask and it requires a motion here and we move money. Or you just approve the budget and do it. It really doesn't matter to me. Both can be done quite easily. It probably will not be done in the accounting system. Just it will be done separately. But you can see in the report that you get how much money is in each account now. So it would work either way. All those in favor? Opposed? I didn't hear some people vote. So can we have a roll call? Well, I'm not sure that I heard everyone, but we still like a roll call. So just by town? Aye. For Longtown? Aye. A sixth town? Nope. As a village? Nope. I'm Burt. No. Jericho? No. Burt, only the primary can vote. All right. No, unless he was here. Nolten? Yes. Richmond? Yes. Shelbur? Aye. Yes. Nolten and Winnisky? Both are here. Motion passes. I'm glad we did that. Next is the accounting, reporting, auditing, and internal control policy. So we need a motion. Next is on page three. They both came off at the same time. So we need a motion to add the first two words to that sentence. Want me to walk through them again? You have to. Perfect. Move that we amend the accounting, reporting, auditing, and internal control policy. Board of commissioners reporting section by adding the words additional or between request and specialty in the last paragraph. Any discussion? Yes. For clarification, the language of additional or specialty is there's a difference there in terms of what is additional versus what is specialty. Could that be clarified? Can't. Sure. Specialty reports, as I understand it, from brief discussions with the staff, there are certain reports that the commissioners request one time only. I'm suggesting that there may be other reports that we want on a periodic basis or a couple of times. So I do see a difference between the two. Thank you. Any other? Yeah. I see it is unnecessary. Those in favor of adding those words? Aye. Opposed? Aye. Motion passes. Add those words. Next? Yes, Ken. Move that we amend the accounting, reporting, auditing, and internal controls policy by adding a sentence at the end of the board of commissioners reporting section stating individual commissioners may request additional financial data through the executive director, which information shall be provided in the manner the executive director determines to meet the request in the most effective manner. Discussion? I strongly disagree with adding this language. I think it's well-intentioned. Unfortunately, I think what we need to consider the worst case scenario here of a nefarious board member who makes the executive director's full-time job to go ahead and answer information requests. That's the way this wording is open to that. You could literally pummel 20 a day to the executive director and it says they shall respond. And so I think that if the wording of the ability to request a special report is fine and the executive director can go ahead and respond to that in the due course of business and if a board member is dissatisfied with how the executive director is responding, then that issue can be addressed separately to the executive board. But this should absolutely positively not be added to this policy. Ken? Yeah, I was actually torn on this amendment when I proposed it. But in discussions I had with the executive director and the chair, and even today, I was basically told that the only way an individual commissioner can get data, can request information, is if this board approves them doing so. So it creates a situation where as a representative of 10,000 people in Milton, I cannot ask staff to do anything unless this commission authorizes it to be done. And I don't not believe that's appropriate. If my select board asks me for information, I need to be able to go to the staff and get that information. Short of submitting a FOIA request, I don't think any of us want to be in a position where our member communities feel like they don't have access to information without going through some sort of legal process. I'm not necessarily wed to this language, but I am not willing to put Milton's subservient to the desires of the board as a whole if we field their information we need as a member. And my understanding of the process right now is that is the case. Approximately a year, maybe a year and a half ago, we had the same discussion. In that instance, we were talking about the Drop-off Center in Hinesburg. It was brought up by Paul that individual commissioners were not supposed to ask staff of CSWD for any special work or anything like that. It had to go through the board. And I believe that that's what the board's policy is, Ken, now. So I'm suggesting an amendment. So if that's the board's desire to keep it. In this one instance, it wouldn't apply to the other things. Sure. And can I hear you loud and clear about the, I think it would be beneficial to have individual board members have the ability to go ahead and request information. I feel that word shall be, those words shall be provided, is a loophole that could make this very problematic, albeit in very rare circumstances. I mean, I don't. But I think if we strike that, if you would be willing to modify the language, just say that if the board member, if the executive director feels that it can be provided, and they'll do their best to do it, something to that effect, then I would be willing to allow that path. But the way that it's worded right now, I can't agree to it. I have a couple of observations on this. If this is passed in this wording, this would open up the executive manager to being subject to the will of every single commissioner that you could have every one of us asking for a different special report. And that could be a problem, but a bigger issue is the charter for CSWD that is approved by the state, can only be amended by the state legislature. And in it, it states to enter into this is that the board of commissioners, the board, not individuals, to enter into management contracts with any person or persons, for the management of the district facilities, for such periods or period of time, and under such compensation, and other items and conditions as shall be deemed advisable by the district board. Now, what that says is that only the board can give instructions to the manager here. So since we cannot alter the charter without going through the legislature, I think that this is ill-advised. Just to point out that our attorney isn't here at the moment. He's away on vacation. Well-deserved, I'm sure. If this is passed, and it turns out that it is a violation of this state's charter, that would make this one piece null and void. So we may end up there just to give you a heads up on this. Ken? That's an interpretation I've never seen. And I do municipal agencies all day every day. But I would like to leave an opinion from our attorney as to whether, in fact, the charter actually says that none of us can effectively talk to staff without violating the charter. That's not what we're saying at all. Essentially what you were describing there. I did not say talk. I said you cannot instruct or demand, which is a request for this data. Asking for financial information is considered to be instruction. Can be done through the board. So your wording is on the table. This will be looked at by the attorney if it is passed. And from my experience on having been on several boards, including national, there has never been an instance I have seen where a director has authority to instruct the manager to do work for them. I'm happy to let this go to the attorney if this does get passed. And then we'll just see what happens when we come back next month. One more comment, if I may, chair. I wouldn't ask that the staff be prepared if this does fail, which it appears it's going to. Be prepared to answer this at the board meeting with a select board. This will be a topic of conversation as part of your budget presentation. I'm sure it should be prepared. I think that question should come to the board, Ken, as opposed to staff. I mean, they're just staffs just moving in the direction that the board has. It's a board issue. The executive director is going to be attending a select board meeting at the end of May, asking them to approve the budget. And I'm going to be sitting in that meeting, telling them that I feel as a commissioner, my hands are tied in trying to answer questions for them. And my select board is going to have to understand the restrictions that appears leadership of this commission is putting on individual members. And I don't believe Milton understood, and I know for 10 years being on this commission previously, it was not the approach that unless I was the chair, the vice chair, or a member of one of the committees, I really couldn't interact with staff without getting approval from the rest of the commission. And that's the way I'm feeling right now. And this path month of trying to get these amendments that the commission asked me to prepare when you tabled the policies last month has been a nightmare. Just getting to the point where I can present these to the commissioners. And so I'm feeling like the structure here is designed to make sure I can't ask questions or propose changes without being as stubborn as I am. I mean, a normal person would have walked away. And frankly, I'm considering telling the select board and Milton, don't reappoint me because this is too much of a nightmare. So that's, and the interpretation, every time I ask a question, the interpretation of the rules is you can't do that. You need to have board approval. You need to have the chair approve it. You need too much work for the staff. That's not a public municipal organization that I've been involved with anywhere else before. And I'm finding it very frustrating. But the charter wasn't something that was developed by, I think you may be the only one in the room that may have been on the board when the charter came around. I mean, it was here when I first joined the board. I've been here 15 years now. And I have always felt that I could not directly go to staff and ask a question. I had to go really to the chair of the board and ask if I could ask the executive director a question. And I felt that since the first day I've been on the board and it hasn't hampered my ability to get information, I don't believe. Leslie? Yeah, I wanted to also say that my experience, just because I'm on the finance committee as an example doesn't mean that I can directly go to Deke or even to Sarah. On one or two occasions I've made a boo-boo and sent Sarah an email without copying Paul and I've been corrected that any requests for information should go through the chair as chair. I think the difference is that we are a group, we are a district, we are not an individual municipality. And I don't think you can look at the functioning of a district that is comprised of what? 18, how many? 18 towns is not the same thing as operating a single municipality, that's point one. Point two is I don't understand if my select board said, well we want to know this, this and this about the Richmond Drop-Off Center or these fees or something else. Why, what the barrier is to just getting on the agenda to the next board meeting and saying I am asking the board to ask the director to direct the executive directors to apply this information for. I don't understand why that's an insuperable hurdle. Seems to me that if we all understand what the process is then we learn to use that process. I am concerned about overburdening an executive director being pecked to death by ducks. Not that this particular group of individuals might do this but you're writing a policy in general for the future. And that is indeed, as I think Tim said, that is a possibility. You can get a maverick member of your board some day who will, I mean I've seen it in other contexts who will just continuously badger. And I think we want to protect our executive director from that. Just for Ken's information, back when we were discussing the Drop-Off Center and Paul instructed me that I was not the talk to Brian. I was put back a little bit. It didn't seem the correct decorum. But after that working with Sarah and emailing if I did email Brian and email the copy to Sarah the system worked well for me. And I am guessing in this situation if you bring your concerns to Sarah they will be answered from past experience. I can't bring my concerns to Sarah without going through the board. But unless there are other comments, I would move the question. We need a vote to move the question. Second to move it? Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? This is on moving the question. All those in favor of amending these words say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed? Aye. The motion doesn't pass. Do you want to roll? We'll do a roll call just to make this safe so that Ken can bring it back to Milton. No. Aye. Essex Town? Aye. Essex Village? Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Inesburg? No. Jericho? No. Melton? Yes. Richmond? No. Shelburne? No. No. Wilson? No. What do you speak? No. Does it pass? No. No. No. No. Okay. Yeah, they always screw everything up. Okay, that amendment to the wording does not pass. On to the next. Yes, Ken? I'll move we amend the Accounting, Reporting, Auditing and Internal Controls policy auditing section by adding the word, the finance committee shall oversee the annual audit in the between the words the and auditor in the second sentence. Any discussion? I have a question. Yes. To the mayor, Ken, what is your intent as a member of the finance committee supervising an audit seems to me like a rather daunting prospect. So I want to understand your intent there. If I may answer the, my understanding is that the finance committee presently is the only entity that deals with the auditors. Through staff and the finance committee, the audit is basically completed and the audit is presented to the finance committee. My only intent in these changes, what I was, the combined changes, this amendment and the ones to follow was to say that we as a commission have essentially handed off the day to day financial management of the district to the finance committee. We presented with the warrants, but they're approved by the finance committee. That's all handled at the committee level. I feel it's important that the commission as a whole receive the audit once a year. That should be presented to us, not presented to a finance committee. And then we have to make some sort of secondary. That's not the language I'm referring to. I'm referring to the prior language, that says the finance committee shall oversee the annual audit. I want to know what your intent is there. What, what? The intent was to make it clear that the actual conducting of the audit is still done with staff, with the input of the finance committee. Finance committee will manage that process. That's a better word for you. But the audit when it's done would be presented to the commission as a whole. Okay, I want to say again, I've got no problem with the second one, but right now we can only vote on bit by bit. And I'm struggling with this as being an enormous undertaking for a volunteer finance committee. I mean, to me supervising an audit is almost a full-time job when the audit is going on. And I'm about to undergo an audit of supervising the audit for my company and I won't be able to do both. So, you know, to be charged with something that I cannot realistically discharge correctly is troubling to me. And maybe there's some better language than oversee the audit. I mean, I don't know what the right language might be, but I just asked that maybe some other commissioner would have a better idea. I believe as we're doing it right now, Leslie, when the auditor comes in and they find something during the audit, which they really haven't in the last couple of years, but staff brings it to the finance committee at a meeting and talks about the issues that are there. And I think that mind that's overseeing the facts and the things that are there. I mean, we're not gonna be there as the auditor looks at the books or anything else. It says oversee not supervise. And in my mind, I think the finance committee already is doing that. And this just puts it into concrete. Okay, I just wanted to understand that language to get clarity on what that language is intended to be. Right. Motion was not intended to really change the role of finance committee at all. It was just to make it clear that the preparation of the audit happens under your auspices. I mean, it's hard to debate these one at a time because they really do go together. I guess my feeling is that we, the financial controls that are in place for the district are very strong. The process has worked very well and I don't see a need for a change here. And if there is a problem that comes up on the auditing process, it's certainly gonna get surface to the board, but there's no need for a negative report. And so I think this is a purpose. Did you just have something else to say, Leslie? Leslie, did you have something else to say? No. Is there anything in the charter that is specific to how the audit is conducted? That's a good question. I don't have that portion. You have the portion right now. You have it, Amy. Order of commissioners shall cause an audit of all district accounts to be performed annually by an independent professional accounting firm or a certified public accountant. Does not seem to impede Ken's motion. Call the question. Second. All those in favor of calling the question? Aye. Aye. Opposed? The vote to amend the words as just presented by Ken. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? One nay. Motion passes. Those words are included. Next. I move that we amend the accounting, reporting, auditing and internal controls policy, auditing section. By striking the words, board may also request a meeting with between the words the and auditor in the second sentence. Second. Second. Discussions? This is being done also now. I mean, has been ever since day one. All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay. Okay. We did it. Now we need to. No, we got to do the next bit. This is ridiculous, because you're forced to take things out of context. Okay. Next. Yeah. I move that we amend the accounting, reporting, auditing and internal controls policy, auditing section by adding the words. I'll present the audit to the board of commissioners annually at the end of that section. Second. Discussion? Yes. Not on this, but I feel I need to make a comment that this whole process highlights what I said last month. Well, we're discussing this right now. Any discussion on the wording? Yes. How many pages does the report have? This is to present. This is, it says, shall present the audit to the board of commissioners annually. So the full. Which I think has been the standard practice. We've always done that account. The audit is coming. And actually as a responsibility of this commission to view it, be able to ask the auditors questions directly and then to approve the audit. So it can be time consuming or it can just zip right through which is what has happened in the past. But there's nothing really out of order with this to our past practices. Any other discussion? All those in favor of amending this to include those words? Aye. Aye. Post? Nay. Okay, now we have done it. Now we have reached the point where the next motion is to approve the amended policies and the motion from last month was policies together, both of these. A motion to approve both policies as amended. So moved. Sorry. Any discussion? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Nay. Done. The policies are approved as amended. So now we get to the minutes. A motion to approve. We'll approve the minutes of March 27th. Thank you very much. Any amendments or corrections? All those here, last March 27th, it is done. Did you get that? Yeah. All those here, the 27th. Rainne Oakley, her name is misspelled in these minutes. There is no E on the end of her first name. I think she would appreciate the correct spelling. I'm sure she would. Yes. And it's throughout the document. It's not just on the first page. Our apologies and embarrassment. Any other? All those in favor? Aye. Opposed? Okay. Minutes are approved. Okay. Deke, finance committee report. Warnson balances. As flow, we had a significantly high cash flow last month. We got $160,000, $106,000 grant which can help the month before was a very negative cash flow because we bought the bailer and spent money. So this is not unusual that the unrestricted or unassigned cash balance. But other than that, the bank balances are as noted and at this point, every check written for over $5,000 is also noted which is about 80 or plus percent of the warrants. Any other, any comments or questions of Deke? Now, the biggie, the budget. Yes, the budget. Okay. So in your packet, you have starting with the purple cover. You've got the main highlights. Most of this is what is going to your select boards and city councils. Not everything, you do have a bit more detail than what I have here. The, all of the detail is on our website under financial information. Every program's detail page is there. So we do have that available right now. This year's budget, I feel like we've been talking about different components of what has been coming for quite a while. Just in the conversations that we've been having about organics, about the MRF, about the docs and about just the changes and some of the volatility in the different areas that we've been experiencing, I feel like we've been talking about a lot of this for all year. So in some sense that's good, but in some sense I don't want to make sure that we don't breeze over something that you want to focus on. So as we go through this and what Deke and I are going to do, we're going to go through the presentation, pick out the major changes, the highlights of the big pieces and then we'll be happy to answer any questions. We only have 17 or 18 or so slides. So I think we'll probably want to go through all the way through if we can and keep some of the questions for the end if that's okay, if there's something really wack and obviously stop us there, but. Just the first noted major change, we updated the chart of accounts for the first time, a whole jail. Every year you update the chart of accounts, we did a wholesale evaluation. We eliminated other and miscellaneous. We've got far more consistency in how everybody is using codes than we had in the previous format. I've restated going back to the extent that I could the history, where two accounts came together. It was very easy to put them together where an account like other had three or four different things in it. It was impossible to take it apart. So you will see some high percentages in some areas that have nothing more to do with the fact that some items have been moved from one account to a different account as we move to the new chart. Overall, that hasn't impacted anything overall, but it has impacted certainly miscellaneous and other and some of the categories we use to get rid of those at the request of the finance committee, which I think strengthens the budget. So that's overall. I'm gonna let Sarah go through the strategic issues and then I'll go through the numbers. So also included in the packets that we're going to, your select boards will be my director letter. I've written these for each year that I've had a budget here with the district and I've got a great feedback from your select boards and your city councils because they like being able to see everything kind of in one spot is a higher level. I do apologize for the length of this year's letter. I'd like to try to keep it to one and a half pages and it is long, but we've done a lot of different things this year we're proposing doing a lot of things next year. So the first big thing we wanted to talk about was the organic diversion facilities. So formerly known as Green Mountain Compos and the big change is the new name. And that is again, as we've been talking about reflecting our move towards away from making compost as our primary function and to managing organics and managing food scraps. So that'll be the first big thing that I talk with the select boards about is that paradigm shift that we're making. And again, that the key there is proposing to make compost in the amount that we can match our carbon or our leaf and yard which is our main source of carbon. We are looking at obviously with the 148 finalizing next year, continuing to see a rise in food scraps so we know we'll be needed to do something with the remainder. And as we talked about over the past few months, bring a couple of options to you for managing the remainder of the food scraps, mainly transferring. But those changes as we mentioned last month will be brought to you over the next few months so that you have an opportunity to estimate, learn more about that and select a path. So that is coming. The next big change that we're talking about is the materials recovery facility. And the changes here, oh, once I did wanna mention that we are raising the tip fee on the organics diversion facility as well. So that you're gonna think deeply about that. So at the MRF, the more things are not really changing, there is still continued volatility across the markets. We've seen some stabilization but not nearly to the point that we'd wanted to. And I don't think we'll be seeing this stabilization for another two years. It's gonna continue to be volatile as particularly the paper markets shake out and some of the capacity comes online going forward. So because that volatility will continue, we did feel the need to raise the tip fee again this year. And we were hoping to not have to, we were hoping that things would stabilize enough to keep it where it was currently, but that's not the case. As the board is aware, what we did last year to manage and mitigate that was to not add contribution to our capital reserve fund and we were okay because we had had some good years previous so we were able to pay for the baler and out of the capital reserve and it was fine. This year we need to start building that back up. So we are going to be raising the tip fee to $65 a ton on July one. We are still below the Northeast New England regional average. So we'll want to continue to look at that, but because the paper markets are fairly stable, even though we're still paying, they haven't done that big dip. We feel that we can continue to add to the capital fund with the $65. It was, the expenses are quite different in the MRF budget this time around than it has been previously. And that is directly related to the renegotiation of the contract that we had with our operator, Kasella. And previously the way that the contract had been structured was we were paying a significantly discounted processing fee. We were paying probably about 50 to 60% below what the actual cost of operation was. And the way that Kasella made that up was in their revenue share on the other side of the sale of the materials. So they were able to basically recoup their additional operating expenses through their profits and then also continue to make a profit. And as the markets declined, they were not able to cover their operating costs. So essentially what we're doing is we are making sure that those operating costs are being covered and that is the bulk of that expense. And it was, now we're actually seeing the cost of running the MRF in the budget. It had not been in the budget per se. We're now seeing that there. So you're gonna see that big dollar amount and it's a big amount. And it's gonna seem like that came out of nowhere but that's where it came from. It is actually reflecting the operating costs that we're paying to Kasella to run the facility. So we're also looking at the increase of the MRF severely impacts the docs. So the docs also pay the tip fee at the MRF. So their budget has been dramatically impacted by that increase as well. And DeQ will go over that too into the Drop Off Center. So we have put money in this year's budget and the fiscal 20 budget for a new Drop Off Center at Heinsberg. We received six responses to our RFP for survey and design work. Brian is working through those right now and finalizing some of those numbers. So the intent is to come back to this board in June, no later than June with the cost of what it would be to rebuild in Heinsberg. But we have put that money back into this money in this current fiscal year that we will not be spending but we have just moved that dollar amount into fiscal 20. We're also proposing some fee increases at the docs. Bag fees will be going up slightly, some special waste items will be going up as well. And a new change, this is the, I think probably in some ways the biggest change other than the recycling fee, but this is cost, but this is related to that, is introducing a fee per trip for recyclables. The way that it's currently structured is, we, anyone who brings us trash and recycling organics pays one fee. If you are bringing us just recycling, you pay nothing. If you pay, if you're bringing just organics food scraps, you pay $1.50 a bucket. So in essence, we've hidden the cost of the recycling and the food scraps in that cost of the bag. And we've been talking for a few years about kind of pulling that apart, unbundling those costs to be able to show the actual cost of the trash, the actual cost of the recycling, the actual cost of the food scraps. We were thinking of doing that this year. We realized that we did not have the data that we needed to be able to say, this portion of the bag is trash, this portion of the bag is recycling, this portion is food scraps. So instead, we are introducing a fee for recycling only trips. So if you're bringing all three, you still would just pay your one bag fee, so go up about 25 cents or 50 cents depending on the size of the bag. But if you're only bringing recycling, then we are proposing now charging $2 per trip. So not $2 per bucket or $2 per bag, but per trip. And that is new this year. And we expect to get, have a lot of conversation at the site board level on that. And we are not proposing any increase to a solid waste management fee. That is essentially the tax on trash that gets disposed of either at Coventry or at other facilities outside of Vermont. It is currently $27 a ton. And because the trash disposed does keep going up, we continue to be able to not only meet our budgeted amounts, but also to take in more than we've budgeted so that money, the next test goes into the reserve, the solid waste management fee reserve fund. So we continue to add to that, which is why we don't propose raising that, essentially that tax on trash. That's the waste stabilization funds that are not projected to be needed at all this year. Next slide. And I want to talk a little bit too about the change to organizational structure. And this is a conversation that I think you all had with Tom years ago as well. And we had the conversation with me last year as a big part of the discussion. And so what we've decided to do is I currently have nine direct reports. And as you can imagine, that does take a bit of time. So we're reducing my direct reports to five, adding a position and director of operations. And this person would essentially eat anything that is moving material in and out. So your drop off centers, your organics, biosolids, the environmental depot, the MRF, and then adding paint maintenance, engineering and closed landfill. Anything that deals with the materials management, proposing having this person oversee those functions. Having them take over all of the functions in one year is not a good way to keep someone employed for long. So proposing to phase that in over three years. Focusing first on the docs and on organics and then maintenance and engineering closed landfill, but really focusing on the docs and organics first. Those are the big moving pieces, more obviously with organics. Proposing keeping the MRF and biosolids separate for now because I see the value in keeping that team, Josh and Jen continuing to work together. They've been doing a great job. I want to continue to have them work through the project. So that is going to stay behind and have that project continue to work through. And as well, so the environmental depot for now is being moved temporarily for a year or two over to our compliance director. Josh S.D. grew up in that business. So that is his most recent work experience. So it's been a great fit so far and we're working on that transition this year. So Josh will oversee that beginning in July one as well. And so where Jen has moved, because we pretty much busted apart. You might want to specify who's Josh. So Jeff Josh S.D. is the compliance. Josh Tyler is managing the MRF and the biosolids. So Josh S.D. is getting the depot in the paint program. He is our current compliance director and Josh Tyler will maintain the MRF and the biosolids under Jen Holliday. Jen Holliday is currently the director for the environmental depot and product stewardship policy. And she is moving to lead the outreach education, marketing, communications, adding EPR, which is product stewardship under that as well because it's mainly policy related first. And she's again going to be doing a little bit of double duty maintaining that partnership with Josh Tyler on the MRF and moving that program forward. So she's moving over to head that department. So all of that Lance I'm just gonna hit just the highlights of the packet going forward. Revenue is increasing a great deal, 13% over FY19 budget. It's $750,000 is just MRF tip fee. There's a small, there's also an increase in material sales we're projecting. So a million dollars of the 1.497 is really and it is all happening in the MRF. And together the docs because of the increase both, as Sarah explained in the per bag, the small increases in special waste and the recycling that those numbers are going up about 387,000 and the solid waste management fee increase over the FY19 budget is 472,000. Now let me explain that a bit because that looks like a lot of money but it's not that much over what we actually collected in the calendar year. We just projected very, very few tons budget to budget. And this year instead of saying, well the budget last year had so many tons, let's add or subtract from the budget. We looked at what was real and it's only about 3% over where we actually were. So that's completely in the ton projection and not in the fee at all. And that's just an ability to correct for what we actually experienced versus that budget to budget comparison that Leslie is breaking the outside of the habit of doing. So that's where the big pieces of revenue are. There are some drops in revenue as well. Organics is gonna be dropping because they're not in the second half. Next year they're not gonna do as many material sales. The bag products, rents went down a tad as well because we're projecting to, we've already asked one property owner to leave and when the resolution of that MOU with Burlington takes place those folks are out. So there are some revenues going down but there's some really heavy hitters going very high. So revenue, two pages of expenses, first cost of goods sold, which is new in this year's budget. I don't think we had it last year but it's a traditional piece of the budget refers to anything that we buy that the customer leaves with. So if paint, it's all the stuff we put in the paint, all the buckets and so forth. Compost, it's anything we buy to put in the compost and when we sell bins it's our cost of the bins. So that's moved out of expenses into cost of goods sold. That's gone down significantly because compost is not making as many products and so therefore that is going down because they're not gonna need to buy as much stuff. Expenses themselves are up 10%. The MRF processing fee is 752,000 and the dock recycling fees that is the processing fees what we pay to the operator, that's going up $750,000. What the dock has to pay to the recycling facility is going up $120,000. So the lion's share of what's happening is expenses and really in two numbers. And that covers the vast majority of that. A couple of other things. Organics is, net income is going down by $18,000. That's the revenue less, they're costing good so less their expenses. And that's due to that material sale that I told we spoke about. The other big piece is biosolids moved from five municipalities this year. They're going to four municipalities so both their revenue and expenses are down slightly. And finally the closed landfill. And this is not, it's not terribly significant. It's a bit of an issue this year but it's something that as we look through our restricted policy we have to pay attention to this and I'm just flagging closed landfill because those expenses are going up and down a lot from year to year and so it becomes difficult to tell how much you need to cover 30 years. For those of you who haven't been in on this, when we closed the landfill 24 years ago, 25 years ago, we put enough money aside to take care of it ear to ear so that every year instead of spending solid waste management fee to clean it we use the reserves that we put aside at the beginning to maintain it. And every year we have to report how much money do we have and how much money do we think it's going to cost going forward so we make sure that we have enough money. I'm just flagging this right now because it has been a little volatile in PFAs and so forth, there's a number of things so I'm flagging this not because it's important but because we'll be hearing from it again and so this is a good time to mention it. Do you want to take questions? We discussed that we really don't believe it's gonna end in 30 years. Do you have any information as to at this point what happens after 30 years or are we planning to put something aside, I'll say as a five year or 10 year buffer beyond that amount? Yeah, there's nothing that I'm aware of in this year's legislature. There was some potential language last year that didn't pass about, and I think I've mentioned this to the board before requiring perpetual care of these closed landfills that did not appear this year to go anywhere. But again, that fund is required by federal law. That's not just a state requirement, right? So we need to make sure that we're not only preparing for normal every day, you have to keep the grass mowed, you need to pump out the leachate, et cetera. Do you still continue to assess the waters and monitor if that's for sure? I can't imagine that we would, okay, and we're done. However, the state is aware that legally, federally, we probably could. So I think what Dick is saying is that as of right now, we have plenty of money in there for the remainder of our obligation. However, should the state be pushing the PFAS issue? Should we have a catastrophic slope failure? Are there any number of things that could throw that out of whack? And we always want to have, I think, more in that fund than less, so right now we're okay. And we'll just keep monitoring and talking to the state about, you know, be aware of the potential issues associated with any perpetual care conversation about these landfills, so. Okay. Are we still cutting? Bert, we're gonna move forward with this budget if you don't mind. Have we found PFAS at the landfill? They're everywhere. I know, but have we found any out there in our testing? Josh, can you speak to them? You can answer the pitch once and you will underrun all five. I just wouldn't bring it up in a public hearing. Well, understood. I mean, it is something that could significantly impact the budget. There's no requirement right now to test for it. There may be next year. There is a requirement to test for it. There's no requirement to put in any treatment, but there is a requirement to test. It just. Another subject that continue. All right, let me just go through the staffing changes. It's a lot of moving around the new positions we're asking for, full-time director of operations. We're looking to add 400 hours to the accountant position which would bring us to a half-time accountant in finance. 208 hours in a compliance officer. So this particular one is, we have a 32-hour a week compliance officer, but with Josh SD moving over, we wanted to put a few extra hours in that backfill in compliance in case we needed some assistance there. Outreach and communications is looking for just a summer intern to help with events at 200 hours, and the docs are looking for 1200 hours to assist with leave coverage as folks are leaving. We have reduced this year. The sales coordinator and all of the temp staff and organics diversion are out of the budget for next year, reducing that budget by 2.1 FTEs. And less I be accused of speaking out of school, the sales coordinators last day is Friday. That's, so that's not something we're broadcasting before we've told the sales coordinator. So for benefits, we have projected a 10% increase in health insurance, but we had last year a very significant increase in people taking the health insurance and opting out. So our health insurance expenses are pretty level, I think this year, and it's impossible to tell what is gonna happen next year. That's who knows if people take your insurance or don't, and if you get new employees, because it's expensive, it can vary, but that's where we're planning right now. So those are the big, on the expense side, when you go below the line, there's allocations. For those of you who haven't been through the allocations, the full cost, so all the money we spend in admin, compliance, engineering, finance, outreach and communications and special projects, so those are all the programs that have no individual revenue for services. Those all get spread among the programs that have revenue for services, so they're fully allocated. In the past, last year we fully allocated, two years ago, it was partially. So the solid waste management fee when you see it applied, never gets applied to those programs. Those programs gets charged to the revenue programs and the revenue programs is where the solid waste management fee or reserves take up. Allocations, the way we do it is we estimate all, staff estimate in however we do, how much time we think we're gonna spend next year on any program, so right now you'll see organics is up because we all know we're gonna spend a significant amount of time in that organics program, the MRF is up. That's gonna change from year to year and that's why it's below the line so you can see your net income from operations and then how the allocations are working. When we did this exercise, about half of our time in the admin and the support programs are not directly in service to any program. They're district level programs but we still allocated everything. So when you see an overhead, it's $750,000 to a $2 million budget and you go, oh my, it's, that's not the cost of the overhead, it's the cost of the entire support programs. So that's how that works and moving into the capital plan and by the way, when you look at allocations district-wide they're always zero, they have to be, okay, because if you take money out of here and you pay for it over here, that line's always gonna be zero so that's just the way it goes. So capital plans. The capital plan is not an authorization. When you approve a capital plan tonight, doesn't mean that on the 1st of July we're gonna order all that stuff and start working and off we go. So it's not an authorization to spend, it's a direction we believe we're heading. We are having two really heavy investment years. We planned on spending $1.7 million, $5 million last year and this budget is $2 million. That's huge outlay of cash and the way the program works is you'll have these years where it's heavy and that reserve, the amount you have in the bank is gonna go down and then on years we're not doing so much, we recover and so these are years we've been putting net in more in than we've been taking, drying down and we're gonna reverse that this year. So every year the operating programs out of their operating budget fund this back the major investments this year really are the Heinsberg Dock and Organics. So I'm gonna let Sarah talk a little, whoops, sorry, about just exactly what the projects are. So again, as Steve mentioned that just when we're talking about the capital projects that anything that is under $50,000 I can approve the spending on but anything 50 to 100,000 goes to the executive committee for approval I think over $100,000 comes to you. So that has to be approved by the full board. So again it's just like Dick said it's directional and some of the strategy is as we said it's still emerging particularly around organics. So we have some estimations of things that we could go should we take path A or path B so we've put both in there. You'll see definite column, these are projects that we have very certainty that we're going to attack and then possible. So we've done that a little bit differently this year to indicate again the uncertainty but to give you some scope for the potential universe of what could be spent if you go completely into, move everything from possible into definite. And that's just again we wanna bring back kind of the best options to you and I don't think we've had to recast a budget or if we have it's been a very long time since we've had to we may need to it would depend but that was where we're hoping to have to be able to hedge the need to recast by providing both possible and definite projects. But again that will be bringing back that capital plan that budget to you for another look after the path for organics has been determined then we'll be able to say okay here's what it is but I don't think it'll need to recast but I'm just flagging that for you. And the same thing with Hinesburg I mean that will be coming back to you shortly in the near term. So I'm just referring to your packet, assigned funds or all of those funds like the community cleanup fund, the rate stabilization funds. Those are moving, they're in your packet, they're fairly stable, the doc stabilization rate, the doc stabilization rate increase, the rate stabilization, beg your pardon, will be zeroed out this year and we will likely not contribute next year pending our figuring, pending our ability to siphon out exactly what that bag of trash cost and how we can portion that across. We will increase the solid waste management fee, I believe we're gonna do that this year as well, I'm just closing March. Stabilization. Stabilization, sorry. The solid waste management waste stabilization is projected to increase and the landfill post closure is projected to have more money than needed. So, and that presumes nothing is, that presumes a status quo. So in those fund equities those are all of the places you've assigned funds and other than the solid waste management fee, stable, rate stabilization things are pretty stable there. Finally, pricing, which was the last page in your document, just the Murph again is up $10, the doc, we can talk as listed in your packet on the last page if you want, I'm sure you've seen it. The 18 gallon and the 45 gallon bags are going up 50 cents, the middle bag, the 33 gallon bag is going up 50 cents and there's a number of changes. There was an error, oh sorry, food scraps are going from $52 to $60. There was an error in putting this out and it had to do with how things were listed but it shows a decrease in the price of small mattresses and box springs. We actually wanna increase that a dollar so that just got reversed in your packet. Essentially, that's where we are. Most of what's happening is happening just the same as it happened last year and we're just getting hammered with recycling fees and that's driving a good deal of where our budget is moving. Now questions, you can unleash them, Leslie. So I think when one of the things that will disturb the select boards are these fee increases and the most visible one will be the change in the fees of the drop off centers. I would just like to know does our outreach operation doing anything to start giving people flyers in assuming this budget passes? Will there be flyers being handed out well in advance of implementation so that it doesn't come as a total shock to doc users and if so, I think that at every point where you're talking about fee increases you need to marry that immediately with why and what the district is doing to educate the community and get the community in support of it and I think we need to reassure the select boards that we're on top of the public education piece of this and that doesn't come out of this, you see. So I just wanna underline that I think that's vitally important because this is just, you know, nobody out there is paying attention to the solid waste market and the way we have to and that public education pieces. Yes, absolutely and the way that we've handled because we've already sent out notices for potential increases for the Murph and for compost just again to give those customers a bit of a lead time we're required to give Kasella 45 days notice so we like to give the haulers at least two months so that they can then work that into their pricing so what we would do for, we would do something similar for the docs to give as long of a heads up as we can. Luckily that means two months so we can say let them know starting again pending the approval by this board we can begin early May to start saying here's what you'll see on July one. So that is, we always wanna give as much notice as we can so in this case that's 60 days. Okay. A question, do we need a motion before we can open discussion on this issue? I don't think that's really necessary. You can ask questions now. And then the other, what's the level of granularity that we're, are we being asked thumbs up or thumbs down to approve or not approve the budget? Are we gonna get down at the line item detail about somebody's salary in a specific drop-off center? It will be to a request for a motion to approve the budget as presented. Yes. So because we want to incentivize recycling and composting over landfill why are we choosing to increase those tip fees but not land filling fees? So that's a great question. So that will be a question that I'll receive that I am sure at most of the slug boards and city councils. So that has long been part of the philosophy for not just us but everyone in the, anytime you want to change behavior you try to want to incentivize it. And we've been doing recycling in Chittenden County mandatory since 1992 or three. And it's part of the culture. It's part of what we do, who we are. The need to incentivize doesn't seem to still be there. People are going to recycle. Most of our users or a lot of our users at the docks they bring the big three. They bring us all of their waste. What we want to do is be transparent about the costs of everything. As we just run over recycling is not free. And that has been the message that's been perpetuated by everyone in the industry since recycling really took hold in the early 90s that don't worry it's free, it's not free. We're just choosing not to charge you at the moment there's always been a cost associated. We're trying to tease that out. And that's why we're starting with the group that has essentially been subsidized by the folks who do bring us trash recycling and food scraps. They're paying for the folks who don't who have other options or choose to do something else with their food scraps and their trash. Because it's so embedded in the culture there no longer really seems to be that need for perpetuating the idea that recycling is free. That makes sense to me for the drop-off centers. I'm wondering more about the ton per ton. So it's interesting the $27 for the it's always management fee is also embedded in the pricing of the bags. So it's something where we probably could tease that out but it's a per ton fee and then we're charging per bag. We could do that. It would be quite the exercise and I don't think it would translate. I think people was like, oh, all right, well so what? It's a nickel big deal. It wouldn't have the impact, right? Hollars are charged that again at the landfill when they bring the material to their disposal. They say it's from Chittenden County, then they get the bill and then they pay us. That's the impact. So customers who subscribe could feel that. But again, we've gone back and forth on it. Well, we increased the solid waste management fee the big trucks five years ago and we expected it to bring in money for a couple of years and then we'd be kind of level that year and then we'd spend that two years. But it's happened with the increase in trash every year. The money continues to grow but be assured that we are collecting more than the amount of money that is being spent disposing of the solid waste through the solid waste management fee. We haven't been making that up at the drop-off centers and so that's why the prices have increased at the drop-off centers because they were sort of being subsidized. I think if you were a per capita assessment, you would definitely see something but it's not a direct line the way it's done here. I don't have a good answer for you. Michelle, I didn't get to participate this year but I did last year but I think there are a lot of people here who are maybe newer to the process. Can you give a quick overview of how the budget is prepared? When the process starts, how many meetings there are who participate? Actually management starts the process considerably earlier than the finance committee gets involved. They start in November, October and November? Yeah, October and November. Yeah, the charter says that we have to bring a preliminary budget to the board by December one. So we back that up at the end of October, early November, just to take kind of a gut check to say do we see, for see anything significant that's going to increase? Generally we just kind of bump it up maybe 10% and say this is our estimate and then we come back and we do the budget hearing that has to be done by January 31. But after we've given that preliminary budget, what we've been doing is we've actually been meeting as a finance committee much more regularly than just for the budget. So this year in particular, we had many meetings. I forget how many exactly as far as even before the budget process started. So in November, December, Deek will send out or try to work through, it was a little tricky this year because we were transitioning to a new system. But in normal everyday years, we would send out a sheet or the budget from last year to budget managers, they would fill in any changes. We would consolidate that, we would present that to the finance committee and we chunk the meetings. So we have three or four meetings of the finance committee and we do several programs in one go and then they go line by line, page by page as necessary. Some things don't tend to change very much year to year. Utilities you know are gonna go up 3%, 5%, whatever it might be. Fuel might go up a little bit. What we focus on are the projects and the people. So we've put a lot of time and effort into that. So it's a series of four to five, sometimes six depending on the need, meetings of the finance committee and then it comes to the exec board and is reviewed with the exec board at a higher level than the line by line and then it comes here. And I can tell you that members of the finance committee have been very aggressive about questioning expenses. So what you see is actually probably pared down from what the proposals were for each of these budget meetings. Every document that the finance committee saw and the executive committee saw regarding the budget was posted on the website for every commissioner to see. So none of this has occurred along with the minutes that have been for some meetings quite lengthy about what we discussed, who said what and why we made the decisions that we did. This is absolutely not a pass through the budget that you see. Does that answer your question too? Was Allen there? He was, absolutely. Well I gotta know. He was, yes. And we were very aware of his presence in a very good way. All of these challenges to this budget and really a great help and insight by Leslie too. That these budgets are truly poked and prodded to the benefit of the district and with the assistance and response of management. Yeah. I did not get to participate in the process this year but we made a lot of changes last year and we're kind of building the plan as it rolled down the runway in terms of format and structure. And you guys did a fantastic job of doing that but in terms of looking at the format and structure and the changes that you've made, I'm extremely impressed and it really looks like it's a very, very good tool both from a budgeting perspective and from a tracking and management perspective going forward. The goal was to really streamline it and to make it easier to read so that anyone, particularly folks who are not financial wizards and are not steep in this every day can at least follow through and see that it makes some sense. So thank you. Any other questions or comments? Okay. I'm sorry, could I? I would recommend that you put the column headings on each page so you don't have to go back four pages to see that they're not there. Yeah, your print instructions didn't come out quite right. I will fix that. Can I entertain a motion for the resolution? It's on the board. That's right there. And you've got it, you know. Would someone like to? I would move that the board of commissioners approve the fiscal year 20 operating. Yeah, okay then. So, I can read it. Be resolved by the CSWD board of commissioners approves the proposed fiscal 20 budget and that it be submitted to the member of legislative bodies for approval as presented amended to note $1 increase in small mattress and box spring fee. Who was the first move? Ellen, thank you. Any further discussion? In that case, all those in favor? Aye. Opposed? It's recommended the new commissioners that you attend the budget hearing with the staff that night. And Amy is finalizing that schedule as we speak. So, we can send that out probably. We can send out the preliminary schedule by the end of the week. So, you have heads up. We're waiting on three or four communities to finalize, but the rest are final. So, we will send that schedule around this week. Okay. So, the budget has approved. There is no other business. So, are there any observations or questions on the program update? I have to comment on your other business. We, yes, we do have other business. Go ahead. Yes. I realize that a lot of people, a lot more knowledgeable than I am, but we're in the process of considering building a new map and recycling market has been in turn a while the last three years or so. I think that this board moving ahead should take consideration of maybe lobbying and not peering areas so we could be more flexible in the items that are mandatory for recycling. Items that are mandatory for recycling and end up in the landfill anyway. I think that there's a better way to handle this as markets change. And in the future, we need to really start thinking about that. A lot of districts around the country are stopping recycling and just landfilling because of costs. So, we need to start moving in that direction also. And I'm sure staff has been working on it. Other people are thinking about it, but I feel the urge to bring it up this evening so that maybe in the public record a little more. That's a great point and a lot of communities are looking towards different measures as far as recyclability. They're looking towards greenhouse gas, effects, life cycle analysis. There are a lot of different approaches that are being looked at for where to focus on this issue. So, you're absolutely right. The timing is good to be looking at different approaches. So, absolutely. Makes sense. Thank you. Michelle, if you might, I would like to recognize one of our commissioners who is moving on to other things. Rob Green, our commissioner from Burlington, is living in the city of Burlington after 31 years of service. He has been called home in a good way. Up to take a job up in St. Albans and just wanted to thank Rob for his service. We've appreciated your voice on both the full board and on the executive committee. And as a fellow Rhode Islander, I felt a kin from the beginning. And I do appreciate, I know we've always appreciated your very practical advice. Your knowledge of equipment has been fantastic. And just having that connection with the city, the boots on the ground in the city has been wonderful. So, thank you, Rob, for your service. And thank you. It's a pleasure. Congratulations. Thank you. You might want to introduce your... So, my predecessor, Mr. Lee Perry. You know, he's a lot like me. He's a guy from, I worked his way up from the bottom and just boots on the ground kind of guy. You know, his big question was, he asked me if he was smart enough to do the job. And I said, he's a lot smarter than I am. So, he is a Colchester resident, but he works for the Burlington. He's gonna be the assistant director on the interim basis until all my leaves paid off and all that good stuff. And then he'll apply for the job and get the job and hopefully be a member of this board. So... Welcome to Lee. Welcome. Yes. And we promise not to scare you too badly for the first few months. After that, all bets are on. Yeah, all bets are on. Yes, to save. All time to start. We made it to the election, yeah. Yeah. We do have members of the public. You know, we had an each one extended. I did ask if they had anything to say. Have they come in since? Yeah. Is there anyone in the gallery that would like to make a comment before we adjourn here? You're all set? Motion to adjourn. So moved. Second. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Any time to do the thunder.