 Board of Commissioners, we do have a quorum present. And so I'll call the meeting to order. Before we dive into the meeting agenda or the meeting as presented in the packet, I just wanted to introduce and welcome several new members to the Board of Commissioners. Tonight we're welcoming Henry Banges. Henry, I'm not sure if that's how you pronounce your last name. Henry is joining us from Milton and it's great to have you here and bring Milton into the fold back up to present representation at the board. Also welcoming Rick McCraw as the new alternate from Hinesburg. And really glad to have you on board. I've had a few email exchanges with Rick and he's diving in and getting himself oriented as well. Tom Jocelyn is the new alternate from Jericho. He actually joined us at our last meeting, but again, just to welcome you, Tom, to the fold. I can speak from experience having been on the board maybe six years, I'm still learning new things. So please be patient and please do not hesitate to ask questions. And I'll do my best to explain some of the more arcane things that come up in discussion to just help you follow along. The first, moving on then the first item on the agenda is the agenda itself. Prior to the meeting, I did get word from one commissioner of an intent to request to make several changes to the agenda in order to create more time, I believe essentially to free up more time for discussion of the materials recovery facility. There was three specific requests, which I'll go over and then see if that's acceptable to Tim and to the full board. The first request was to move the ad hoc committee report to the consent agenda. Second was to move the household solid waste survey report to the consent agenda. And the third was to move the executive session for contract negotiations to take place before the discussion on the materials recovery facility. My response to that and suggestions, one I appreciate the effort to create more time on a full agenda, a hugely important topic for us to discuss tonight, but my response and suggestion would be to postpone discussion of the household solid waste survey report to April. Nancy has put a lot of time into that and there's always a lot of good information and I wanted to give her the due consideration and respect that we consider that in full session. The ad hoc committee item requested two board actions tonight and so that could not be covered by the consent agenda, but I'd suggest moving that to after the discussion of the MRF so that we're fresh and give most of our attention to the MRF discussion. And then on regards to the executive session, that was originally intended for Sarah to give us an update on contract negotiations with Cassella, specifically the results of a discussion that happened, would have happened last Friday. That meeting did not happen and I'm not, I don't wanna put too many words in your mouth Sarah, but the intent then was not to have an executive session tonight, but my feeling is it's worth it to continue to have this on the agenda should something come up, especially in discussion of the MRF that might require us to go into executive session. So in summary, my suggestion would be to remove item four, I'm sorry, remove item five, solid waste survey report and remove that entirely, move item four, the ad hoc committee report to after the MRF and the MRF would become item number four on the agenda. Tim, I don't wanna steal your thunder, but your concerns, but I'll turn it over to you if that's adequate for you and then ask the full board if they're okay with this. No, I appreciate the recommendation and suggestion. Yeah, I just wanted to, and especially the insight into the executive board, I think it's a good solution. I think it was having a very, very large packet of information arrived on Friday, it was a bit daunting and it just seemed that we may not be giving due adequate time to the decision that we're facing tonight. Okay, so I'm taking it, Tim, with what I've suggested is agreeable to you and then I present it to this full board again, because ultimately it's the board that decides and accepts and enforces the agenda, but just to recap, after the first, well, first item of business will be public comment, then consent agenda, then the materials recovery facility, then the ad hoc committee with the chance of there being an executive session called at some point during our discussions tonight. I hope I've made it clear to everybody. Is there any objection to that? Bryn, your hand is up. I feel comfortable moving item five to April. I think that is important for the commissioners to hear and for us to dig into. It also relates to an item on the consent agenda that I would ask to remove from the consent agenda and honestly, we can move that to April as well since it's related. We'll address that suggestion, Bryn, when we get to the consent agenda. Otherwise I'm fine with the changes to the agenda. Thank you. And I'm hearing and I'm not seeing any other concerns raised about the agenda. So then I will rule that it is, we'll follow the agenda as I've outlined and we'll now proceed. Thank you very much. Second item on the agenda is the public comment period. Are there any members of the public present at the meeting, either on Zoom or by phone who would wish to address the board? I am seeing none and I'm hearing none. So we'll now move on to item number three, the consent agenda, which consists of the minutes of the February 23rd board meeting, program updates, executive director update, finance report and the 2022 rover schedule. Bryn. Yes, I would ask to remove item 3.5, the 2022 rover schedule from the consent agenda. I'm comfortable with moving that to the April meeting so long as there is, doesn't preclude the staff from moving forward with any work, Sarah, for April. And is there a reason to not pull it and discuss tonight other than time or? Simply time. And I was going to correlate it to item five. Ashton. I also wanted to remove that item from the consent agenda. I also am okay with way to like we'll discuss it, but do you want to have a discussion and open session at some point? Okay. So the process for newer board members a consent agenda passes. If there are no objections or requests to pull an item from the consent agenda, remaining items are passed as presented and then those items that are pulled can either be taken up typically or taken up for discussion immediately following the consent agenda. What I'm hearing tonight is that these two commissioners are fine with moving that to April, but again, it's the will of the full body. So first off, I would say accepting item number 3.5 and the consent agenda, consent agenda is accepted as presented. Now the question of item 3.5, is there any objection from other board members to moving that to April? I am seeing nor hearing, I'm not hearing anyone. So let's proceed with that then and appreciate the interest in delving into this and also trying to preserve time tonight. That then moves us to what is now item four, the materials recovery facility discussion. I just wanted to make a few introductory comments. This is one of the more momentous decisions or issues that this board is facing and we need to give it as, we have certainly given it a lot of time already, but we need to give it ample time tonight for discussion. What I would like to do is to allow Sarah and staff to first make a presentation primarily, hopefully without too much interruption unless there is a point of clarification that a board member might have, but not to dive too much into any particular question you'd have until they've completed the presentation. After the presentation, I would ask that emotion be moved and seconded so that we can put it on the floor for debate and have all conversation covered by our debate. I just think that would be a much better way to handle the evening and make sure that we cover all the questions that commissioners might have. Then when finally we come to a vote, I will ask, my intent is to ask for a show of hands, not a voice vote, but a show of hands and in order to allow Amy time to record all of the votes that ask you when you make your vote to keep your hand raised, physically raised, not using the hand raise function on Zoom, but keep your hand physically raised until she indicates that she's recorded your vote and then we'll move on from there. Then finally, I wanna point out chat box comments, sometimes can be helpful, sometimes to my mind can be a little bit distracting, but they're fine, but they will become part of the public record. We've had that clarified. Those are all my introductory comments and with that, then I'll turn it over to Sarah and Steph. I'm sorry, you have your hand up. You may be muted. I was just writing in the chat, rather than using raised hands, how about a roll call vote? I would think it'd be very difficult for Amy to make sure that she got everyone's vote. And I think if we go down a roll call knowing who's present and who the primary representative of the town is, will give us a more accurate and definitive result. That strikes me as a fine solution. Actually, as far as raising your hand, she can just do a screen snapshot of the Zoom. And in one picture, you see everybody's hands up or down. Done. Well, I think I'm gonna go with Leslie's recommendation. This is again, an exceedingly important vote. Certainly our constituents need to know how each of their representatives have voted and have that entered into a public record. So I'm not only the written record, but the visual record. And one other reason is that perhaps on Zoom, not everybody's name appears so that other members of the public might not know who was voting how. So let's go with a roll call vote. And if I could, I'll folks to mute. And I will share my screen. Thank you, Paul, I appreciate that. But if housekeeping, that is very helpful. And you're right, this is a moment, this discussion. And it's one that we've been having as a district, as a board, as staff for the past four or five years. And so the memo that is in your packet starting on page 80 of the PDF was my attempt to kind of encapsulate all four to five years of conversation. So I do appreciate your patience and very happy to answer questions about the memo and then anything else that we may need to address. So again, for maybe the newer members of the board and for any members of the public may be tuning in for the first time to this conversation. And we are talking about the materials recovery facility that CSWD owns in Williston. And as we mentioned in the memo, it was constructed in 1993. And it is essentially the same, much the same operation. We have made some improvements over the years but much the same operation as was installed in 1993. And it has served us well, very well. And it was constructed to manage 25,000 tons of material and we are seeing upwards of nearly 50,000 tons. Last year, we went over 49,000 tons of recycling being sorted at that facility. And it has done, again, it's very, very well over the years. And we are simply behind the times. And because of the changes in the world, in the markets, in packaging, in habits and recycling in general, we need to make a change. And we are recommending as staff and as management and as someone with 15 years of experience in this industry specifically that we do construct a new facility, a new mark on land that is owned by CSWD in the town of Williston and that we make it a high-tech version of what we need it to be. And so this memo does attempt to outline some of those options. And what I'm going to do, certainly not read the memo but I'm going to key in on the key points that I've highlighted for everyone. So I will scroll through the memo, stopping on each key point and then after we are completed. I've completed, then I will read the resolution that is at the end of the memo. And then as Paul said, this one will move in second and then we'll have a conversation and we'll answer any questions you may have. So again, we've been essentially operating in the same way for the past 30 years and structing a new mark at this time is expensive and a little scary. But we have done the due diligence as staff and as a board and we are confident that the time is right to invest in recycling in Chittenden County. We believe that a staff that a new mirf makes sense from a mission perspective, an operational perspective and a financial perspective. And that's what we'll talk about tonight. And I will try to not scroll too quickly to preserve everyone's eyeball. So keying in on the key notes, Vermonters like to recycle and they want to do more. And we hear this regularly. Packaging has changed dramatically over the years and there are more and more items that are in the mix that we wanna do a better job of pouring out of the waste stream. We have one landfill in Vermont and it is filling faster than we want and we feel that it's part of our mission and it's part of our mission to reduce the amount of waste that is generated but also that is disposed. And one of the ways, the key ways, the key part of recycling of a structure in any system is the mirf. And we know we can do better and we know we want to do more. We did a significant review of the locations several years ago around the county, around the district and we did an analysis of the different factors of what would make an ideal site. And Williston remains the best option. As a centrally located town, it is zoned industrial, the area that we own and it keeps the material. Again, the roots are, doesn't add anything to the roots for haulers, doesn't add any additional cost for them. And Williston has been a fantastic host community and they appreciate the CSWD here and we appreciate them. Another key is, we talk about the supply of inbound material and that's just a big deal. And as I mentioned, we saw about 49,000 tons of recycling being sorted out the mirf last year due in large part to pandemic and we're coming back down to our norm which for the past several years has been around 47,548,000 tons of material. So in this paragraph, I talk about kind of where does that material come from? And right now our mix is both from in district so within Chittenden County and some comes from out of district in the surrounding counties. And you have about 18,000 of those out of district tons are controlled in roots that are owned by Cassella. There's another two or 3000 that are owned or controlled by other haulers. So if you're looking at what is generated within Chittenden County, it's between 30,000, 32,000, 35,000 tons. So that is where we would be sourcing material. We've talked as a board about what are some of the options to make sure that that material continues to come to a municipally owned mirf. And one of the keys is, and we talked about it here as a factor called flow control. And it is not something we've had to enact in Vermont. It's not something that really is in place in many areas of the country. But it is a tool that can be used by municipalities that own and operate waste facilities to ensure that the municipal investment is secured and is being stable. We have had an agreement in place with Cassella to operate our mirf for many years. And we are in negotiations with them for renew the contract that does expire in June. So we are in negotiations with them. The current contract requires Cassella to bring 13,000 tons of material from out of district into the Williston mirf. And that is, again, to ensure the efficiency of the system. So that is where the material is currently coming from. And that is our universe of material at the moment. What we don't have at the moment in the mirf is 21st century technology. So over the past four or five years, Josh, Tyler, and Jen Holliday and I have visited many materials recovery facilities, both in the United States and in Canada. And so that we could understand the technology that is in place that we can learn what might work for our particular mix of materials and to learn what's coming, what is on the cost. We're already with robotics, for example. And what we know is that we cannot continue to sort recycling manually and expect terming compatible. And for the most part, our material at the current existing market in Williston is sort of manually. And that simply is not how modern facilities work. So we know that we need technology. When we're talking about technology, we're looking at optical sorters. We're looking at any current separator, magnets, new magnets, perhaps ballistic separators like we have now, perhaps robotics. So all things that will help us to be more efficient and much more effective and produce a high quality product to again, remain competitive in the domestic market. And we say we need to be being competitive in the domestic market because that is where once China kind of shut their doors to the world, then the domestic markets needed to pick up the slack and they have. And they've made lots of investments in their own technology at Mills and at other secondary processors and sorting facilities. And their demands for quality have risen. Other bursts around the country in our region in particular are making investments and they are going to be able to be producing this higher quality bail to meet these domestic specifications. Once those are all online and they're coming online now, we will find that our material being hand sorted may not most likely will not meet those specifications. So we will quickly find ourselves in the April and it's not a place we want to be. As far as the markets, when we talk about markets for our materials, we are talking domestic and when we say domestic, we're talking the United States, Mexico and Canada. We try to keep our materials as close as possible just to get to reduce the cost of transportation. And local markets are really critical to long-term viability and being able to improve the quality particularly of our paper products, our fiber products will allow us to help supply local mills and to keep that economy stable and reduce costs. In this next paragraph here, we talk about what the ACR are the average commodity revenue. And that is the value of the blend of all of our materials that we saw into the global markets from the MRF. What is that per ton value? And you can see in the chart that it has varied widely over the past 10 years. It's been fairly volatile. So we're averaging about $87 of that commodity revenue per ton. So that is a good place. If we can continue to produce material and produce material in the future that meets or exceeds this $87 per ton, we will certainly be economically sustainable in the future. And that's what we need technology to help us do that. So again, continuing on with discussion of the economics. I do say here, and this is a recommendation and I'll explain why this is here, that strong consideration should be given to self-operating a new mark. And we say that because over the years it has always been the case that the costs to operate the current facility were lower than, well, we're higher than we wanted. We thought that we could do it as a district. Again, municipal salaries, municipal benefits that need to provide the capital for the MRF because we own the building, we own the land. We also are responsible for purchasing all of the equipment. So we have the capital responsibility. We have contracted with Kassala to provide the labor and the management of the materials and the marketing of the materials. And they've done a great job for us. And it has, again, has always been that the cost of that contract has been lower than what we could run it ourselves. That is coming closer and closer to even. And the main reason for that is unemployment in Chittenden County is very, very low. Wages have climbed for the entry-level sorting position to the point where now the cost of operating that facility is, again, just about even with what we have estimated it may cost to run the facility. So it's a consideration that I think the board and the district should give he to. We're not recommending necessarily making a change in the moment, but it is something that, again, as those costs tend to even out due diligence, we want to make sure that we are getting the best situation for the district that we can and for our member towns. This was a lengthy explanation for you. So I wanted to make sure that I was starting out. So I did a kind of a mini basic elasticity exercise. And I do, and thank you Paul Ruiz for pointing out that there is a typo at the very last line on the chart, 50,000 tons operating costs. That should be the $4,029,022 number. The rest of it does play out and is accurate. But I want to show kind of where the levers are, where we have control, where we don't have control. So CSWD controls the TIP fee. And that is the fee that we charge haulers when they come to the facility to bring the recycling that they collected from their customers. And we are currently at $80 per ton. And that is the highest TIP fee that CSWD has charged. It is not the highest TIP fee that has been in the marketplace. So we try to maintain a stable number for our customers. We are not as nimble, not as flexible as private sector facilities who can change their pricing as they need to in response to different market conditions. It can be monthly, it can be quarterly. We prefer to keep that stable so that our customers can know what to expect. But you can see, I think in the chart where if you have a TIP fee, $80 TIP fee, and then an average commodity revenue of $80, going across, you'll see the revenue operating costs. PGA is process glass aggregate. CAP is capital. And admin is administrative costs directly related to the MRF, such as whose community fees, insurance, things like that. So this is an exercise to show, as you change one, what does it do to the numbers and what might the net look like? Now in this elasticity exercise, this is assuming a CSWD owning, operating, and not necessarily sharing any of the revenue. Currently do share 50% of the money revenue with Pasella as part of the contract. Again, this is a very, just very basic elasticity exercise and there are other factors that could go in, but hopefully it shows kind of directionally what we're, what we won't be looking at and how we consider, again, cost per ton and operating expenses. One of the factors that the district must consider is risk. And key in discussing risk is, I believe firmly is that we need to make sure that we are keeping risk to our member communities as low as possible and that they should not be burdened with CSWD district debt. We do not assess our member towns for capital fee, but because it is a regional entity and the members have joined in by charter and by accepting them in after the initial few members who had bound together and decided they wanted to form the district, there is a shared obligation of debt should the district not be able to pay the debt service. So we would be going to our members to ask for approval to issue the debt, issue the bonds and they need to have the understanding of what their potential risk will be. And because we have control over the tip fee and we do sell the materials to the global commodities market, we have two key sources of revenue to pay down that debt. And as we examined in January and February with SCS engineers where they do the cost benefit analysis and then a revenue sufficiency analysis that at 50,000 tons at an $80 to be at an average quantity of revenue of $80 in a new Murph with a higher value potentially and potentially a potential for additional times. Again, in a new Murph we would not be hamstrung in the quantity of material. We have some flexibility to grow and you'll see later on in the memo we don't have flexibility to grow what we are now. That this will again allow us to pay our capital contributions to pay operating administrative fees and to pay the debt service. So again, that is imperative that we keep that low, that debt low. One of the ways also to do that is in seeking out grants and seeking out alternate sources of funding to be able to reduce the amount that we are asking our member towns to authorize us to spend. And we can talk a little bit more about that later as well if you like. I do want to acknowledge the commitment of this board to owning a Murph in Chittenden County and again, we've had these conversations for four, five years now as a district. And when we had our retreat back in December of 2018, the main question was should CSWD continue to own a Murph? And the board of commissioners at that time replied yes. And so that brought us to again reviewing all of the different factors that you have listed hearing in the memo. But it was that commitment to saying this is a place that we want to be in. This is a space we want to operate in. And that has been confirmed and reconfirmed over the years. And I do want to thank the board and commissioners for continuing to allow us to go down this road and to examine that and to maintain that commitment to Chittenden County and to the state. Now again, when we talk about the Murph in Williston, the CSWD Murph, who are we serving? And we are serving more than half of the state. So it may be owned by CSWD, but it truly operates as a regional facility. And we are happy about that. We're proud about that. We think that having two Murphs in the state works really, really well. And we think it's a good idea to have a municipal and the private sector option. It just helps to balance things. And we think that balances very, very important. When we're talking about our material mix, which is what are the items that we sort, one of the items that is critical and talked about before is improving our paper and cardboard quality. Only 75 to 80% of what we process through the Murph are fiber products, cardboard and paper products. So we absolutely must improve our ability to have a higher quality product in fiber. Again, with it being the main component of what we process, we have to get that to a better place. And technology really is the way we're going to do that. Right now, we give a tour to our new board member, Rick, yesterday and showed him the process of how we manage the paper at the Murph. And we need to do better. And you can do better with any facility. I'm going to scroll a little bit more quickly. I apologize for the voted vote here. This is our material blend, our material mix in the last fiscal year. So you can see, again, that is showing 70%. In some years, it is up to 80% of our total material blend being fibers in the cardboard, paper, newspaper, white ledger. Containers are 22% to 25% of what we process. We have about 7% residue or trash, and that is extremely low. And in the industry, no one believes us when we tell them that in industry, we're talking to other industry folks, they think we're missing a one in front of that residue and we're not. Chittenden County and Vermarkters in general do a really good job at recycling. And we are certainly the beneficiary of that interest in doing it right, interested in doing more. And that will be the goal is to keep that rate low as we're pulling more material out into the veils, doing a better job and keeping that rate low. So you couldn't go further without saying, you know, we are really fortunate to have such an engaged public in this process. The future, though we hope, is in plastics. And again, the containers are a small component of what we process, but they are valuable and it keeps changing. And so we need technology solutions to meet not just the future needs, but also the current needs and the market demands. And particularly, we're looking at polypropylene. And as the industry, the consumer brands, the sector to change up how they're packaging things, we need to be able to be flexible to be able to respond to those market demands and be able to continue to pull more material out of the waste stream. And polypropylene is one of those materials that it's a small percentage, but it's a very valuable percentage. Same thing with aluminum cans, the small percentage of what we manage, but it is high value. How can we extract more of that high value out of the mix of material? And technology is the way to do that. And that's what other mobs are doing. So one of the things I want to just touch on briefly is again, the site considerations. And we did that site review several years ago and it did come down that Williston is the site of choice. It makes the most sense. What you're seeing now on the screen is our current facility. And the current site is about 3,000 square feet and again, designed for 25,000 tons. We are proposing 62 to 65,000 square foot facility. This current facility over on Avenue C in Williston, Andrews St. B is constrained on really on four sides, on all sides. There's you can see the road to the top of the photo that kind of goes down into a bit of a gulch and gorge. We have two businesses on other sides. There's bigger commodities on the left and Kasella on the bottom of the photo. So there's no way to expand out and expanding up is not as efficient as expanding out. We're gonna have nice long runs of conveyor belts and more space to do bail storage. You can see, if you're looking in the middle of the photo here, these are bails, those white dots that are being stored outside. And ideally all of our materials would be stored inside until they can get to market. And there's simply no way to do that in this current facility. We need something different and bigger. So a new location will provide that new functionality. So what we're looking at, and it's called a green field literally building on a green field as opposed to a brown field which is the downtown situation is to build on property that we own on Redmond Road. So if you go about three miles away from the Murph East toward Up Mountain View and on Redmond Road, this is the area that we're looking at. And this is actually, we wouldn't need all of this. We'll be looking at this little slot right there. And it is plenty of space. They just have some wetlands that we have been able to design around. So it's not impactful wetlands. And it is rated for, again, it's zoned for solid waste. The road is rated for heavy weight traffic because at the end of the road is our old landfills. So it was designed for landfill size vehicles and that way. And again, for a variety of reasons that we've discussed in the past, this was still deemed to be the preferable site for any more. What would happen to the old Murph is one of the questions that will be made to be discussed and debated by the board because it does have many different options. It is a good asset. It just is kind of getting towards the end of this particular usage right now. And yes, it's a time and it does for the quick scroll. So talking about a timeline, we have done some preliminary design work. We've done some preliminary site investigation to know kind of where things are, where we might want to put a road, for example, where are there wetlands that we need to avoid? What might stormwater look like to kind of get that sense? So we've been doing that work for the past six or eight or nine months. So we have that information ready to go. We would be looking to put this before the voters in November and then should the voters approve us to bond, we would be looking to construct a little over a year from now into April and May as far as the shell of the building to kind of get back up and in place. It will take at least a year for equipment to be manufactured. So that's where that was quite a long time in between. So it won't be as though the shell is up and then we're gonna be able to put stuff in right away and get things running. It will take some time. But the hope is that by late spring of 2024 calendar year that we'll be able to do the acceptance testing and then start shifting material to a new facility for sanitation. And then to begin to essentially decommission the current MIRV, then to be the old MIRV and to, you know, by that time we will have a decision, this board will have made a decision about what to do with that asset. And we will proceed with that next phase whatever that might be. So the conclusion that my staff and I bring to the board for consideration is that the time to act is now. There, as I mentioned, many, many other MIRVs around the country are retrofitting. They are adding equipment, they are building new to be able to again support the domestic market and to be able to grow their programs. And we really don't want to continue to be stuck in old technology and old ways. We will never be able to move beyond what we're currently doing in this current facility. We will never be able to change our mix. We will not be flexible to be able to pull out more material and different material. We'll be very constricted in other types of material that may not have a great market but there may be a demand such as flexible packaging or film. So we want to move forward. We want to bring Vermont into the 21st century of recycling and we really feel that this supports the mission of the district. So this is what we are proposing to the board tonight. And I do have resolutions here. Paul, when you are ready, I can read them or if you have any questions. Yes, I would like you to read the two resolutions. I trust that there will be somebody to move it and second it and that is essentially to get it out on the table for discussion. So yes, please proceed and we'll turn it over. Okay, very good, thank you. Be it resolved that the board of commissioners of the Chittenden Solid Waste District has determined that constructing a new materials recovery facility in the town of Williston, Vermont would constitute a public benefit and satisfy a public need. That is to allow all who reside in, work in and visit Chittenden County to fulfill the state and local mandates, sort mandatory recyclables from the waste generated during the course of the day and keep such materials from being disposed in a landfill. Be it further resolved that the board of commissioners of the Chittenden Solid Waste District hereby directs the executive director to initiate the process to submit a bond authorization request to the voters of Chittenden County, Vermont for their approval to allow the Chittenden Solid Waste District to issue bonds in the amount not to exceed $22 million for the purpose of constructing a materials recovery facility in the town of Williston, Vermont. So moved. I just want to, Amy did you capture who moved and seconded? I just like the record to be clear. I had Paul Stabler and Katie Frederick. Thank you for moving and seconding and thank you, Sara, for your presentation. I'm now ready to open it up for discussion. And again, asking you to use your Zoom raise hand feature function, if you can, if you don't have that raise your hand physically and I'll try to recognize you. And as in the past, I try to encourage as many commissioners as possible to participate primarily in a first round. So giving each commissioner the opportunity to ask a question, certainly a follow up question and then move on. There'll be plenty of opportunity down the road for further questioning. Alan, you were first and then Ken, you're second. My question deals with the new bottle bill. How does, how is that going to affect the quantity of plastics that we're seeing at the MRF? I will also call on Jen holiday. She's got many more details on that than I do. We have, so for again, for the general understanding of board members and not as new. The house has passed an extension of the bottle bill. That is now being discussed and debated in the Senate. So they passed it last year in the last half of the biennium, first half of the biennium and now the Senate is considering that house bill. There are, there's a lot of moving pieces for the Senate to consider, but should an extended bottle bill be passed and enacted, it would most likely not take effect for another year to 18 to 24 months. So for the current timeframe, the material mix would remain the same. And what it is looking to do is to expand to non-carbonated beverages, essentially. So water, bottles, sports drinks, things of that nature, mostly PET. Aversion is also looking and including wine bottles. So there would be some pros and cons, you know, certainly for us, more glass out of the mix is a good thing. Glass is very hard on our equipment, lots of wear and tear. So that would be a benefit. And Jen did some research a couple of years ago based on the, one of the waste characterization studies that was done by DSM environmental, regarding the amount of material in the system. Jen, if you could speak to what you found as far as the material that may then come out of our system. Yeah, thanks Sarah. I did this analysis that it's probably two years old now and it's based on, as Sarah said, the DSM study, which is also a pretty old study, but I think it was a really thorough one about the impact of the bottle bill on the curbside recycling system, as well as some of the MRF bail sorts that we've done. We did a bail sort on PET about two years ago to estimate the quantity of what an expansion would have, what that would impact in terms of the content of that bail. So with those two, those two, that data, I've estimated that an expansion of the bottle bill as it's written today, which would include wine bottles, which is really important, we would see with the tonnage that we're currently receiving, which includes out of district tonnage as well, a decrease of tonnage of about 3,000, 3,500 tons, but 3,100 tons would be glass. So the majority of it in weight would be glass. Jen, could you say that again? Yeah, so if the bottle bill were to expand as written today with inclusion of wine bottles, we would see a decrease in tonnage at our MRF by about 3,500 tons. Of that 3,500 tons, 3,100 would be glass. Okay, thank you. So that's one of the reasons that we really want to focus on improving our fiber, because it is the bulk of what we process. So by being able to improve that, if the expansion goes through and it's not a guarantee, we would want to be able to kind of buffer any of that loss in tonnage. And then Leslie? Well, I just wanted to take the opportunity to express excitement and enthusiasm for this project and to, you know, I know recycling isn't the answer to our waste problems in the world, but I really strongly believe that it is a big part of getting people thinking about the issues and educated about the issues of waste in general. It's just, and the fact that you said Vermonters like to recycle, I think that's great. So, so appreciation, excitement about that and appreciations to the incredible, well, to the board for saying, yes, we want to operate a MRF as you did in 2018 and for the staff to go through all the work of saying now that we want to have a MRF, what kind of MRF should we have? And I think the analysis and the idea that it can be a profit center is absolutely fabulous. So this is all great news. I'm very excited to vote for this motion. Thank you, Ken. Leslie, you're muted, but you're also next. And then Henry? Thanks, well, I posted on the chat just to follow up to Jen, which was not the original reason when I raised my hand. So if I could have the patience of the board to get an answer to my chat question, which is what would be the impact of the current bottle bill on revenue from material sales? So, Josh, do you have a sense in a little bit on the spot, but it's a very good question, Leslie, thank you. Kind of what the split is, say for PET bottles, aluminum cans, which is UBC, kind of what the percentages of those are as far as the overall pie of the revenue. So the overall not, well, that... So, I think what you just asked is different than what Leslie asked. So what is the impact of the bottle bill on revenue? I can make it simpler. Jen, let's say hypothetically, you forecast that 500 tons, we would lose 500 tons of PET, is that correct? We would lose close to 500 tons of PET in about 26 tons. What would be the revenue impact of that? Under the scenario of... So there's a couple of factors, right? There's the processing fee that we're paying, there's the revenue we've received for the sale. So the revenue that we would lose for aluminum and PET is $164,000, $67,000. Two, yeah, $164,000, yes. Okay. When you factor in glass, which is... No, I didn't ask that. So I understand the glass problem. I just wanted to understand the impact of losing revenue from valuable materials, not materials that cost this money. So I understand this a net, I understand what you're saying that there's gonna be a net impact because of the problems we have with glass, but that's a diversion from my question for now. So now I'd like to go back to my original reason for raising my hand if that's okay. I have one question about the table on page four, your quote unquote, what you call an elasticity exercise. And so you have revenue and costs, but I don't see a column for financing costs, honestly. And I understand you're looking at different scenarios about bond costs versus grant money and so on, but I really feel that the board needs to have some kind of sense of what you're anticipating in terms of financing costs, because you can't just look at those net figures without that. Yes, thank you for asking the question. And I just wanted to see if we had included a heart check for the... Looks like I didn't get in there. And there's a little follow-up caveat there. Okay. Which has to do, well, it's relevant. It all has to get wrapped together and it may need a little more homework. That's why I'm raising this, which is that we are looking at a significant increase in interest rate. And we all know about the current inflation rate and its impact on labor costs, not simply wages, but on other aspects of labor costs. And the original scenarios, as I understand it, that were developed from what I saw at the SES report, used relatively low figures, both for the CPI and for interest rates, compared to what we know is on the horizon and is actually in place right now. So the question is what thought, if any has been given to rerunning those numbers with updated figures on those things and then looking at the financing costs. So those two are interrelated. Great, thank you. So we spoke with the Vermont Municipal Bond Bank about a month and a half ago and they did run a schedule for us based on their current rate, which was, and I do have that number down in a chart further down in the packet. So it's on another document. And when they ran it out, they ran it for 25 years, borrowing $22 million. The bond payment would be roughly $1.2 million, the debt service would be about $1.2 million on about two and a half, two to two and a half percent interest. So Leslie, you're right. If we wait much longer, certainly the interest rate will rise. I spoke with a representative from People's Bank who is where we do our daily banking just to kind of get a sense from them and they are expecting interest rates to rise. They thought they would go up higher this past week than they did. So there's certainly some attention being paid clearly at the federal level to the current inflation and the impacts to the economy. So they did not go up as high as they were anticipating. Doesn't mean that they won't change next month or in two months. But the schedule that the bond bank ran for us was it was 1.2 million. And in the chart on page four, page 83 in the packet, if you look at the net, that was the attempt to be able to show that we would be at what point would we still be able to make that $1.2 million debt service and not have to subsidize. So in every instance, except the top line, which is 32,000 tons inbound, took the $80 average commodity revenue rate of $80. Every other scenario listed, we do make that $1.2 million debt service payment. So yes, I agree Leslie, I should have made that more clear my narrative. And thank you for asking that question because it is an important one. Well, I'll come back with some follow-ups later after everyone else has had a chance. Thank you. Thanks Leslie. Henry, you're up next, but I also want to, and then Paul Stabler and also Tim has posted a question in the chat box that I say, let's get to that chat box question after Paul has asked his question. Henry, you're up. Yes, thank you Sarah. You mentioned how you toured several MRFs which are examples of what you're looking to pursue here or the team is looking to pursue. Do you have websites and videos of those that we could view? Maybe this has already been done, I've been new, but we'd like to see what these look like and how they're run. Yeah, we have brought this to the board. Several, I think it was in 2019, Josh. And we specifically targeted MRFs that would be again, similar mix of materials, similar size as far as the tons going through them and in similar climate conditions because the costs to run a MRF in Arizona are not the same as the costs to run a MRF in Minnesota or in Vermont. So we specifically sought out those types of very like facilities. And yeah, we can sort of post some links to some of the MRFs that either we visited or there are videos on YouTube that will show how an optical sorter works, how the screens work. I would definitely invite you to come to tour of the current facility and you can see some of that. But we can certainly point you to that too. Yeah, I would appreciate you sending some links versus me just grabbing random MRF links anywhere on the planet, just so you can say, this is what you're looking at, okay? Thank you. You're welcome. Oh, and then the Tim's chat question. Yeah, now I just want to express my whole hearted support for this resolution and CSWD moving forward with a new MRF. If you have a chance to read the waste compositions study and or saw the news release of a few days, you'll see that our residents are among the best in the country at actually deferring recyclables into a recycling stream. And I believe we owe it to our residents to ensure that we get the maximum value out of material and ensure they're sorted in the best possible manner. I believe that staff and the board actually have done due diligence over the past four years in studying this and coming up with a good solution. So I just wanted to express my whole hearted support there and I'm done. Thank you, Paul. And one of the questions that we ask, we do a household survey every other year and we ask them standard questions just to be able to have some continuity but we also ask topical questions. And one of the topical questions we asked was about a bond vote for MRF and we described the project and we asked you, do you think that you would support, would you vote for a bond vote? And 61% of the respondents said that they would. So there's just without much other information, there is support in the community for this project. So we were hoping to get to that study but again, I think it was the right move to postpone it but it isn't your packet. So you can, as Paul mentioned, you can take a look at those questions the questions are there, the anti slides are there. So if you wanna seek that out actually that question is on page 61. If you wanna take a look at it in the packet. And so getting to Tim's question in the chat, Josh, you did pull those numbers. Tim had asked, says, do we have a graph of the cash Cassella has generated over the past five or 10 years? We were able to do five Tim to help commissioners understand why the district has not been able to operate the facility for less than we have paid Cassella. So yes, that's a good opportunity to be able to kind of explain with more of a contract. So Josh, if you have that available. Yep, I can bring that up right now. Perfect, thank you. Maybe I can't, hold on. I don't know if it's gonna let me. I am disabled from screen sharing. Okay, yeah, let me, I got it, I got it. Okay. I got you, but you can talk about it. Yeah, I got it here. So you bring it, there we go. Can everybody see? It's going good. All right. Okay, so I've covered from FY 17 to FY 21. So the last five years data and row B or column B that's our tip fee. That's the money that we've made off the tipping fee that we set. You can see that in 17, our tip fee was lower and we've increased its sense. Conversely, the money that we have made off the ACR which has been a 50-50 split in that timeframe has dropped and it has rebounded since the Chinese crisis, the Chinese national sword crisis. And that's in column C. So I've included what it costs for the district to keep the facility running, which includes impact fees, payment and move taxes, insurance, salaries. And it's a little different because we've also gone back and forth with how we allocate administrative costs. We've also included an E, the capital. So F is the sum of our revenues minus our costs. Yep. And then our net in G is that sum less what we pay in the processing fee. So that's kind of what we've come home with year over year. In J, that indicates the processing fee over the last five years. Casella's revenue that they've been paid out on the ACR and their sum over the five years. Again, this was a rough data pool last night. But so that's what it breaks down to. So Tim, I think the numbers you're looking for are L and that L is the amount we paid out to Casella. We don't have a P and L for what it costs them to run the site. You can't see it. I can't see it. You can't see L? No, because the participant pictures are overlapping the spreadsheet. Love that. Is that better? Yeah, I'm not sure I'm following the math, however, without seeing the formulas. Yeah, it's, I mean, but the L is the sum. That's what Casella's revenue line has been over the last five years that does not include their profit margin because we don't, we have an idea of what the processing costs are but we haven't actually communicated back and forth what they truly are. So that's the data we pulled. Again, J is the processing and K is the ACR. Josh, in the processing fees, let's explain that again. The processing fee that we pay for contracts to Casella is it includes again, the physical operation, daily operation of the facility. All of the employees are all Casella employees. It also includes the marketing fee to send our materials to mills and processing plants. And currently that fee is $43 and change per ton. 32 cents, yep. $43 and 32 cents per ton. And we split the profit, the revenue from the sale of commodities 50-50 with Casella. So it's the revenue that is again kind of after transportation costs and et cetera. So whatever that net revenue is, that profit, we split that 50-50. So that column L is what at the end of the year Casella has made from the contract. So that column L CWM sum is their contract fees all in. And again, if you look at artifact column G, that is what CWD was basically taking home. That is what we were left over after again, paying the processing fee, paying the impact fees to Tanner Williston, paying our operational costs, paying our capital, et cetera. Sarah, if I could just ask a clarifying question, I believe for the benefit of the board, we're not seeing there is no column M, let's say for CWM net. And that's because we don't know what their expenses are. What you're showing in column L, I believe is the gross revenue if they were doing their side of the transaction. That's what they've received from CSWD. But again, we don't know what their costs are. So certainly their net presumably would be significantly less than what we're seeing in column L. Is my interpretation correct? Right, this is basically what we have paid them is in column L. Thank you. I hope my question was of some benefit for the rest of the board. Leslie? So we can take this down. Going back to my question about inflation adjustments, we know that the Federal Reserve has already announced that they're going to increase their rates to banks by half a percentage point rather than their normal quarter percentage point starting in June. So what the interest rates are now and what they were a month ago, really we need to put that aside and really think forward. And what concerns me is if I go back to table four and I understand what you explained, you were trying to determine under what level of tonnage and what level of tip fee and what level of ACR, we would cover 1.2 million in annual debt service. Do I understand that correctly? Yes. Okay. And that's without any adjustment for probable inflation that we know now compared to when the report was actually done. Yes. So that concerns me because for the two lines that you've highlighted, assuming we had 1.2 million in those, in annual debt service, we would be very, very skinny. Of 49,778, quote unquote, surplus after debt service at 50,000 tons is de minimis. I mean, it could be, you could be negative $50,000. So this to me is very, very concerning. This is not, and I am a person who in principle agrees with everyone that this is something we need. What is giving me pause is a feeling that we have really not sharpened our pencils to address the financial risk. And I am asking that the board, if it's going to carry out its fiduciary responsibilities, see a rerun of the numbers that has some kind of more up to date inflationary adjustment both for costs, particularly construction costs, which are going through the roof right now and for financing costs. Because we can all agree that we desperately need this and want this for all kinds of community good reasons for reducing landfill exposure for being competitive in the material sales. But we really do need to be confident or have at least a higher degree of confidence than I have right now in the financing. So Leslie, if I can address a portion of that and looking at the highlighted area. Remember, if you will, that when I talked about and showed the 10-year average for the average commodity revenue rate, the 10-year average was $87. Right. Right. So in looking at that $50,000 line, I've plugged a very, very low average commodity revenue rate kind of harkening back to the crash of a few years ago of $52. And I did that to show how low can that go in keeping an $80 tick fee and still make that $1.2 million debt service payment. The average commodity revenue would have to be, again, at that crash level, at $50,000 to $580, they have to be below $52 a ton. It would have to be in the 40s for us to be at a point where we couldn't make a debt service just from the MRF revenue. Keep in mind, we do have other sources of revenue if the board decided they did not want to assess the towns. We do have, so always management fee revenue that could subsidize the debt servers if we needed to. But that line on the 50,000 times was specifically put at a very low ACR to demonstrate, here's how low we would have to get at $8 a ton to be on the edge. And you're right. It is on the bubble. Similarly, looking at reducing the tip fee, those are the last two lines. How low can we get and what's that balance in order to kind of meet that minimum of 1.2? And yes, it's a very back of the envelope exercise and there are additional factors. And yes, the interest rates will climb. I don't see them doubling. We can certainly, by the time we would be applying, which would be this year, if we're going to go with the bond bank. In addition, this presumes a $22 million bond. My goal is to reduce that dollar amount significantly through grants. And right now, there has never been more money available for these kinds of projects in my career, in my entire career, there has not been this level of money available. So I am confident that we will not be asking our voters for $22 million, but something significant and low. So this is essentially kind of the worst case scenario. But you're right to point it out and that things are continuing to be in flux. But I just want to kind of highlight those differences in what this represents, which is kind of the, again, that the highest level bond and the lowest level ACR and where do we need to be in order to make that payment? May I also connect? Honestly, I want to give others... I understand, but I'm sorry. I have to ask a follow-up question. This is a critically important issue for the district. If you want to... I know we've had... I'll be back later, I'm happy to do that. No, I'll grant you an additional follow-up, but you've had several follow-up questions and I do want to get to other commissioners, but please go ahead. So I'd like to ask a question about how the... What you understand from the bond bank about the structure of the loan. In other words, it's going to take what? At least a year to build and equip the MRF? Would that be fair? I don't know. Oh, from start to beginning to end, it'll be probably two years, 18 months of stretching it, but... Okay, so when did the bond payments start? Do they start? Do the bond payments start while we're still in the two-year building process and we have no revenue from the new MRF? That's a very good question and I will get that answer. I know when I talked to the bank that you were talking about tranches. I don't know, it's a good question if the bond bank does tranches and if we will be able to pay a little bit, or if we could... Can we... Doesn't make sense to delay and maybe go start off with grant money and kind of seed that. So it would be all in, what is the full package put together, which I can't really put together until the board says, yes, we're going to do this project and then I can go to the potential grantors and say, I've got this paper, isn't it? Virtual paper saying we're going to do this and let's put together a package. But that is an excellent question and I will verify that with the bond bank as far as when the first payment is due. I have to go back... You could ask if they do... You could ask if they do principle or principle and interest holidays. Right. Which capital projects often can be financed that way, but will the board get another look at the financing plan and the budget? Yes, absolutely. I mean, assuming we grant you permission to go forward tonight. That's... Exactly. What is our next opportunity to look at this? So for what purpose? Yeah. So if I get the go ahead and we are moving forward with this project, then I go to the potential grantors and say, here's what we're looking at. This board has approved this project. What is... Basically, what is your max? And put together the different scenarios and then I come back to the board and say, okay, grantor A is looking at giving us $2 million for this purpose. Grantor B is looking at giving us $2 million for this purpose. We can get a zero interest loan for $5 million. This is what this would look like. This is what the parents would look like. This is when the timing occurs. This is the potential general obligation of the districts to our communities. And that comes back to you ahead of us needing to go to the voters because we need to be able to tell them, here's what we're asking you to authorize. So the timing is critical so that I can have the time to kind of secure those options and bring them back to you in the next couple of months. So you will need to see that June or July at the latest July. Well, thank you very much for that. Thank you, Paul, for allowing me. Thanks, Leslie. Tim. Yeah, I apologize and there's a little bit of a curve ball here. I thought I understood your table that you're in your elasticity exercise because I tried to tie that back to the cost benefit analysis. And I'm looking at page 12 or 14. I was trying to just make sure that these numbers were consistent. And I thought that they were consistent but then based upon your response to Leslie's question I'm not sure if they are. And so I'm looking at the green. Again, I'm on page 12 or 14 of the cost benefit analysis. That Sarah, Josh, do you have that in front of you? Josh, do you have it? The one that SCS presented in January, Tim? Yes. More from January? I'm down right now. Okay, I don't have it hand the... And so the question while we're trying to dial in the specific numbers. In the cost benefit analysis it shows revenues of a little bit over 7 million. It shows total annual expenses of about 4.5 million for a net of 2.4. That bond payment is included in the expenses. What I understood in your response to Leslie was that the revenue, I'm looking at that inbound tons of 50,000 in that first scenario and Tiffy of 80 and an ACR of 80. And I believe the ACR was maybe a little bit less than 80 in the cost benefit analysis, but we don't have access to that information, unfortunately. But I did a little bit of backwards math and I think it's pretty close. But at any rate, the revenues are close at 7.1. The expenses are close a little bit over four point, getting close to 4.8 if we add your operating costs and your PGA cap and admin, correct? And then your net here is 2.3. So again, close to the CBA number. But what I, in your response to Leslie, you're saying the bond payment is not included in your operating costs in this table. Or am I mis, am I not hearing correctly? I believe Josh, because I, we took these from, I don't believe we did include the bond cost in the operating, it was straight operating. So, yes, but Josh can correct me if I may be misinformed. So, okay, so just to clarify, are we talking about the bond payment in the, in page four of the memo on the elasticity exercise? Are we talking about the cost benefits analysis? Cost benefit analysis, page 12 and 14, schedule three expenses, the far right hand column, Greenfield 50TPY. All right, hold on, page 12. So mine must be numbered differently than yours, okay? But you are in, say that again one more time, please. The, the schedule three expenses. Schedule three assumptions, schedule two, huh? I can't share my screen now. I'm not finding where you're talking about, I've got expenses and net revenue schedule four in what I'm looking at. Schedule three's assumptions, I apologize, I'm not matching up to what you have. It's the page just before schedule four, where? Checkmate, I mean, there were only third, it's a 13-page document. Revenues of seven million expenses of 4.573, net revenue 2.431. I, I, I'm not. On the Gen 19th document from SCS. Gen 19th. It's the last page, this is the last page before schedule four, the net revenue projections where they tally them out for the first page is year one through 15, the second page is year 16 through 30, it's the very last page before that. And is this what you're looking at, schedule four net revenue projection? Is this the same one you have when I'm sharing now? Yeah, just scroll up from that and it's, it's the, that's what I'm looking at right there. Okay, that guy, all right, that wasn't showing up. Okay, so, okay, let's go through this. So again, the revenue number ties very closely, right? For the Greenfield 50 ton TP wide, seven million that ties to that, this table. I'm looking at the 50 ton per year, the first 50 ton per year at 80 and 80, 7.1. So those are very close, correct? I'm looking at total annual expenses and the cost-benefit analysis of 4.5 million, which includes a bond payment of 1.1. Correct. I go back to the elasticity exercise and you're telling me the operating costs are four, 4029 plus the sex column, 749, which takes up 4.8. Nets out again at 234, but you're saying there is no bond payment in that 2.3, so there's a $100,000 difference between the net, but in one you've, there's a over a million dollar difference because you haven't included the bond payment. Right, and my initial thought is that we included the salaries and costs for running our own, so one of the things that was suggested was that we look at adding internal staff, because if we run our own MRF, we would have to bring on 25 more employees. So we also included the cost of a new admin person, an extra finance person, and a compliance person, and we also, based on current market, over the last three months or two months since this was done, we increased what we anticipated, the cost to market the material more, and we also increased some of the just operating costs more. So we brought our costs up higher than we had in the revenue, in the cost-benefit analysis. Not really, because salaries and benefits, operating and maintenance, and other operating costs in schedule three are 3.2 something million, very comparable to what you've got here. So you've got 3.384. That's for 32,000, we're in the 50,000 ton scenario. Right, so the 3.384, yeah. Okay, so you have four million, so you added another 800,000 into the, into the schedule three, into the SCS. Correct, and that's assuming a gate rate for MSW disposal, we were conservative, we went high. That's also assuming a $450,000 cap, capital allocation. So, which we know will be a little bit lower that that's gonna make up a difference. But yes, we inflated it from this to get to kind of where Sarah's at now and what she's showing you. And then you would add on the $1.2 million projected bond payment. I would like to throw this, open it up. Other commissioners, we've had some deep discussion from some commissioners, but there are a lot who have not yet spoken and I do wanna give you the opportunity to ask your questions or make your statements. Is there anybody who would like to speak up? I would take the opportunity to just offer my observations, not as chair, but as the underhill representative. Oh, I'm sorry, Bryn, go ahead. You go first. Okay, I want just, my observation is again, as the underhill representative is not as chair of the board, but in my analysis, I asked myself several important questions. Do we need a new MRF? I think the answer is clearly yes. Should the district own the MRF? I think the answer is yes, both because that's been a longstanding direction of the board and because in my opinion, a public investment in this structure is in ultimately the community's best interest. The size of the project, from what I've heard and the numbers that I see, a larger 50,000 ton size facility makes sense. I think it provides for adequate capacity now to handle our materials. And it can be expanded to handle future increases in material volumes. I think there are a lot of variables and a lot of risks that we've identified here. They cannot all be pinned down, but I'm satisfied that there are enough opportunities and variables to make this project work. Finally, I've gotten clear direction from the select board of my town that this is something that the select board and the residents of underhill support. So I intend to vote in favor of this motion. Bryn, then Tim. Yeah, thank you. I also want to acknowledge that I'm in favor of supporting this moving forward. I think it is of great interest to residents and businesses to have a publicly owned, potentially publicly operated facility. And to Lee's point about whether or not the tip fee is increased at some point that being able to own and potentially operate our own facility, there's greater influence than we were if we did not have that within the district. So yeah, I think thinking about the cost benefit analysis, I think Leslie and Tim raised some awesome questions that are very important to tease out. And I think we should give that credence. And at the same time, I do highly support moving forward with this proposal. Thanks, Bryn, Tim. I, you know, look, the Murph is reaching end of life. The Murph is constrained on space. The Murph isn't automated. We own, we have land. It's in everybody and their brother is investing who has a Murph is investing in Murphs. We're going to do something on the Murph. The question isn't, are we gonna do something? Question is, what are we going to do and how are we going to transition? In, I appreciate you showing the Cassella cash numbers. I think those are very accurate. I don't believe that you're the district. I think you've significantly underestimated the impact of the Murph to the district finances in what for the five year period. And if we did the line of business reporting that I so much appreciate, we would have those numbers at our fingertips, right? I think everybody knows we have, we run the operations that we run. We run the ODF consumes cash, right? The drop off centers consume cash. The hazardous waste facility consumes cash. The admin functions consume cash. And the Murph generates cash, okay? And so to the extent that if the Murph cannot continue to go ahead and generate cash, that means that we will either have to raise our solid, we will raise our solid waste management fees or we will cut our costs someplace else, right? So we're looking at if we have a shortfall, we're gonna go ahead and pass through higher costs to support our constituents for the new Murph. And I think that would be a huge mistake to make. So I think we need to tread very, very cautiously there. That should not, I frankly would like to propose that as a red line that is not cross. If we're gonna invest over $20 million, we've got to generate at least as much cash as we are today. And clearly your, the graph of how, or the numbers that you've shown for how much we've paid Cassella shows that there is definitely some room there, but at the same time, we are costs are going to be higher. And they're gonna be higher than Cassella's. Cassella has amazing economies of scale and a lot of functions that we do not. And while I appreciate the fact that you've said that you've recognized those in your elasticity table, it is rather frustrating that we can't tie that back to the SCS model, right? We don't have, we don't really have, all we have is presentation from SCS. We don't have a model that shows what the assumptions were for the individual numbers. And so it's kind of difficult and frustrating as a board member to want to dig into the detail and to just have to say, oh, well I'm, you know, I guess it is what it is. But at any rate, so if the net number, have we thought about that? What will the district do? What's the proposal of staff? If the net numbers fall below our current cash requirement to fund the rest of the district's budget? Sarah? And that is a conversation that the board will want to have and Leslie brought up a great point in one of our recent finance committee meetings was, we do need to have a, probably a formal process, if not a formal policy regarding how do we want to fund capital? The MRF has been subsidizing essentially capital for the rest of the district for quite some time. And where we brought the ODF, the compost facility to a point where it's in a much better position to be able to pay for itself. We're just about there as far as being able to kind of be routinely in that position, right? We've had two good years of actually making money on compost. We had a heavy capital year this year and we had again the hit with the introduction of the packaging facility at Casella where they brought all of their fruits crops to that, that facility, not just the packaged goods, that is starting to turn back around. So that facility is not the drain on the excess revenue that it had once been. We are working as you know, with him on, with the board and both commissioners on the capital centers and having a better understanding of are we pricing those services appropriately? And I think we may find that there's room there. And essentially again, we're for those who are newer to the board and public CSWD has to operate as an enterprise fund. So we want to, all of our operations were possible to be self-sufficient and to pay for themselves. And we are getting there. So there, with these moves that we've made with the ODF, the potential moves to be made as decided by the board with the DOCs, there will be less pressure on the MRF to have to subsidize those other facilities. But there should be a method, mechanism, philosophy, procedure around capital. And we haven't raised the solid waste management fee in almost 10 years. Is there room there? We haven't needed it, but that could be a lever. So we do have that additional lever. But you're right, we do want to take a look at this in a holistic sense and as a unit. And it's important to do so. But I don't think that this puts us in dire danger. I think that we are, again, making those moves to correct for the over-reliance on the MRF that we've had for a long time. Other commissioners wishing to speak up. You may be muted, Tim, or are you thinking? Yeah, I'm sorry. My analysis is getting a little clunky here. So we signed the MRF agreement in 2014. So we've known for a long time that this was going to expire in June of 2022. And it appears like we've had kind of two trains speeding towards each other on the same track here. And is staff confident that we're going to improve our negotiating leverage with Casella when we pass this vote tonight? Or are we going to weaken our position and paint ourselves into a corner? I think that's a topic for executive sessions. So if you want to Paul and turn to executive session, we can. I'm not comfortable discussing that in public session. I would agree not answering in public session. But again, it's the will of the board. If there's a general agreement that we can transition over to executive session to explore what could be a very important discussion. I would certainly direct us to do that. Do we have invites? I have one ready to go if we needed it. It had not come out because we were not intending to enter into executive sessions. But I do have one ready to go if need be. We did have the executive session on the agenda. I'm happy to have us transition over to executive session to answer that question. Do you need a motion? That's a good Paul. Yes, you do. So, Tim, if you'd care to make a motion and then we'll go through that process. I move that the board enter executive session to discuss the implications of the current bond vote for a new Murph on the implications of the existing renegotiation of the Cassella-Murph contract. Do we have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Leslie. It's been moved and seconded that we go into executive session for the purposes of discussing the contractual negotiations and how they might impact the future Murph. I'm not sure if I've stated exactly the way you said it, Tim, but I think we've got the intent. All those in favor of moving into executive session, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed. Opposed. Opposed, I would say the ayes have it. Paul, we do have a potential conflict of interest with Commissioner Gaskier. Thank you. Kelton, I want to point out that there is a potential conflict of interest for you to participate in the executive session where discussion of contracts with Cassella waste management are likely to come up. So I'd ask you to recuse yourself from the executive session. Yep, happy news. Appreciate it very much, Kelton. So, Sarah, if you will send out then the invitation now. It may take a, since it hasn't arrived in anybody's mailbox, it may take a few minutes. I have 741. So we'll look to start our, kick off our executive session at 745. Amy, do we have a quorum now? I believe we do. Do we have a motion to exit executive session? So moved. Yes, thanks. Thank you, a second. Second, Jericho. Thank you, Leslie. All those in favor of exiting executive session, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed, say nay. I assume there are no abstentions. We are out of executive session, back in public session and returning to the motion that was put on the floor with two resolutions. I won't reread them right now, but is there further discussion or questions on the resolutions before us? Call the question. Question has been called. That requires a second. Second. Thank you, Ken. A motion to call the question is non-debatable. So we will vote on this. And if it is in the affirmative, then we will go immediately to the resolutions and we'll have a vote on that. But right now we're voting on ending debate. All those in favor of ending debate, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Any abstentions? Tim, you opposed? Yes. Thank you. I'll declare that the ayes have it. Discussion on this motion is now closed. We'll go to the motion again. As previously indicated, we will have a roll call vote, but I'd like to have the resolutions read out one more time for the benefit of a public record, if not the commissioners. So Sara, if you would read that out and then Amy, if you'll call the roll after that. It resolved that the Board of Commissioners of the Jitenden Solid Ways District has determined that constructing a new materials recovery facility in the town of Williston, Vermont would constitute a public benefit and satisfy a public need. That is to allow all who reside in, work in and visit Jitenden County to fulfill the state and local mandates to sort mandatory recyclables from the waste generated during the course of the day and keep such materials from being disposed in a landfill. Be it further resolved that the Board of Commissioners of the Jitenden Solid Ways District hereby directs the executive director to initiate the process to submit a bond authorization request to the voters of Jitenden County, Vermont for their approval to allow the Jitenden Solid Ways District to issue bonds in an amount, not to exceed $22 million for the purpose of constructing a materials recovery facility in the town of Williston, Vermont. Thank you, Sara. Amy, would you as secretary please call the roll? Sure. Bolton does not have representation, Burlington. Yes. Charlotte. Yes. Nicole Chester. Yes. Essex Town. Yes. Essex Village. Yes. Hinesburg. Yes. Huntington is not here tonight. Jericho. Yes. Milton. Yes. Richmond is not present this evening. Shelburne. Yes. South Burlington. Aye. St. George is not present. Underhill. Yes. Westford. Yes. Thank you. Thank you all. Thank you staff and Sara for putting in so much effort. Thank you board members, especially those who have asked very good, deep questions. I think it's having those questions asked and answered is only helps hone the work that will be done again in the future. I appreciate all of you. And of course we'll be revisiting this in future meetings. The next item of business on the agenda is the ad hoc committee report. I'll just make a few introductory comments to frame it. I know it's getting late and retired. And I'm sorry, Amy had put together an excellent summary. But as it stated in that board packet, the ad hoc committee was appointed in the middle of 2021. It met five times to discuss compensation and wages and benefits. I want to point out that, well, we met five times. I want to point out that the committee took no votes and made no decisions on behalf of the board. It's simply reviewed in depth compensation and benefits issues and looked at them in detail. The first item of business that we worked on was a statement of total compensation philosophy that was hashed out and there was broad consensus that the wording was acceptable and there will be a motion tonight to accept that wording and to incorporate it into the personnel policy manual. We also looked at the wage and a step schedule. I'm sorry, the step and the step schedule and entertain various options that were honed. We also looked at benefits. That work is being referred through the finance committee for its evaluation and potential incorporation of changes into the proposed 22-23 budget. So that pretty much just gives me my overview. I don't want to steal thunder from Amy or Sarah, but it's late. So I don't know if you have anything else to add. And once you do, then we'll turn it over to other commissioners for questions and then we will have a motion, address the motions that put before us. I just wanted to thank the ad hoc committee members for the five meetings that they attended and it was a lot of work. Some of them were more than several hours long and they really dove into the details. And just as I'm sure as you've read in the report, we do this study every five to eight years really to just make sure that we are paying our employees in market range. And essentially Gallagher Flynn's results were you do a pretty good job. Here's some improvements that you could make. And when we went through that process, we realized these are really tied into the budget. So we had discussion of there's a lot of items that are coming to the finance committee, same members, three of those members were also on the ad hoc committee, but they really need to see the rollup in the entire budget to look at some of those changes, potential changes that we would make. One of them being looking at our pay grade and step schedule and changing that to add additional steps that would increase the range that currently is available for positions within the district. And so that information is actually going to the finance committee on Tuesday. So tonight's vote isn't approving any changes. It's approving that total compensation philosophy, which is I think great. And then just acknowledging the points that Gallagher Flynn had and moving that forward to the finance committee to look at whether or not they'll include that in the FY23 budget. Thank you, Amy. I wanna, on page 28 of the packet are the resolutions, but before we get to those resolutions, any questions or comments from board members? Ken. I have a question. Yep. I hope this is a soft ball question. I noticed that there were recommendations, a lot of recommendations that were not followed, the move to competitive market, whatever, blah, blah. And when I read the recommendations, I got an anxious feeling. So I felt relieved when I got to the part about what you guys decided to do. Ken, is there anything you can add to that though to flesh that out a little bit for me? I think we, I'm one, I'm sorry, Paul, did you wanna answer? Do you wanna? I'll let you go. Okay. I was thinking one thing the committee had said, the recommendation for Gallagher Flynn is we have this pay grade and step schedule. It's a municipal type schedule, of course, with the 22 grades and 20 steps across. So employees essentially start at step one and are eligible based on a successful evaluation for a step each year. They looked at that and saw some restrictions with that and suggested a market-based system where essentially there's potential changes for any position. And it was discussed that that would be a lot of work to implement and there was another way to do that. So I think the workload heavy of going to a market-based system, making adjustments, and then for our employees not really having an idea of what the expectation is from year to year was felt a little restrictive too. There were certainly pros and cons, but in the end the ad hoc committee felt like if there are issues with the current pay grade and step schedule, let's look at how to address those but stay with that same schedule. And we have had that schedule since the beginning of time, at least 30 years. So I think it has worked fairly well. I don't know if I summarized that well from the ad hoc committee, but I think it was basically the amount of work that it would be to implement it and some uncertainties with that. So more work for the management, but was there anything from the employee side about which was preferable? There was not. So I did not have feedback from employees on that. Was the issue like merit-based giving the management more leeway to give promotions and so it might be more favoritism. I don't know what it, you know, so less fair sort of perhaps viewed as less team-like. And less transparent to the employee using it to the public. Great, yeah, that's what I thought. Yeah, that's basically what it came down to. Good, thank you. Me? Hey. Did Gallagher Flynn explore any tiering options within the grade and step increase at all? Maybe changing job descriptions to where certain certifications or classes they take would bump them up to a different tier within that pay grade that could offer them some compensation. That wasn't in the scope of the work that we asked them to do. They did review extensively all of the job descriptions, of course, so that they could make sure that they were comparing to like positions, but we didn't ask for additional changes based on that. We do have an evaluation process that it does include some of that information that's done annually, but it wasn't included in the reports. It is something that we've tossed around a bit internally, Amy, particularly in the operations to say, is there some way to be able to kind of have senior operator, lead operator, operator one, two, three, something like that? So we've tossed it around a bit. It just didn't fit into the scope of this particular study, but it is something that we're happy to look to other municipal operations for other examples of that, but it's still going to be flexible to having some potential for movement and growth, but within the step schedule. I believe Burlington Electric has a tiering system, so you might wanna reach to them. Thank you. I would also just offer the comment that I think the committee recognized that we're in a highly competitive employment market and environment, and we have many attractive benefits and attractive pay program, and this was not the time to try to rework many of those benefits to the benefit of the district and perhaps to the detriment of employees that we needed to maintain our salaries and benefits as attract and elements for not only recruiting new staff, but also retaining our established and long and hardworking staff. So after much work, probably not that much change, but definitely a worthwhile exercise to reevaluate everything. Liz has her hand up. Yeah, thanks. I just wanna say thank you to Amy for navigating the committee and helping those laypersons on the ad hoc committee like myself, who are not experts in HR, to really be able to kind of talk about all of the different benefits and to do it in a way that was easy for us to kind of understand and to be able to have good conversation. So you have a gem in your midst, so I think you ought to just say thank you. So just wanted to say that publicly. Thank you. Again, on page 28, I believe, of your packet, there are two resolutions. The first one is to incorporate the total compensation philosophy into the CSWD's personnel rules and regulations. The second resolution is to disband this ad hoc committee, which is a necessary housekeeping step just to make sure that that work has been finished and it's not left outstanding over time. So Liz, your hand is still up. You're good. Okay. If we could have the first resolution read out, act on that and then we'll act on the second one. I can read it if you'd like. Thank you, Amy. Be it resolved that the board of commissioners approves the total compensation philosophy as presented, which will be included in CSWD's personnel rules and regulations. Be it resolved that the board of commissioners disband the 2021-2022 compensation review ad hoc committee. No move. Second. We'll catch who seconded it. There were a number of them. And Lee and Bryn. Thank you. Any discussion on these resolutions? I'm only unclear. Should we take them separately? Yes. I believe we should. So even though Amy, you read them out together, we're only going to give them the first resolution to incorporate the total compensation philosophy into the personnel rules and regulations. Any discussion on that motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? That measure passes. So the second resolution that the board of commissioners disband the 2021-2022 compensation review ad hoc committee. Can we have another motion on that? Come on to move it. Seconded it. The effort. Thank you. Is there any discussion on this motion? Seeing none, all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? Any abstentions? Committee is disbanded and I'd like to express my thanks to everybody who put in the time and energy and effort, not just on the board of commissioners, but again on Amy's behalf, Sarah, rest of staff. A job, necessary job, well done. Thank you very much. Next item on the agenda is other business. Is there any other business to come before this body tonight? I am seeing none. All those then, oh no, I'm sorry, do we have a motion to adjourn? So moved. Second. All those in favor of adjournment, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Thank you all very much for long meeting, but very worthwhile and I'll have a safe night. Thank you.