Good evening, everyone. Today is Wednesday, November 15th, 2023. I would like to call to order this regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Commissioners of the Chittenden Solid Waste District. We do have a quorum present, so we can begin to conduct our business this evening. First item on the agenda, is the agenda itself? Are there any requests for changes or additions to the agenda? I have one change. And that will be, I believe we have some members of the public and the hauling community here. The second item or item number five on the agenda is asphalt shingles. And if that's why those folks are present at the meeting out of courtesy by their time, I would like to switch that with item number four. So that the first, after we do the consent agenda, asphalt shingles and then the preliminary budget. Any other requests for changes or additions to the agenda? I'd like to clarify that the Board action requested on the preliminary budget is not to approve the budget, but it is to acknowledge receipt of the budget. Thank you very much. And that language is actually in the Board packet as a proposed resolution when we get to that item. Thanks for the clarification up front. I am hearing no other requests for changes or additions to the agenda. Therefore the agenda will be followed as adjusted as I just explained. Next item on the agenda is public comment period. Members of the public who might wish to address us now would be a time to do that. Glad to give you the floor for a few minutes. Just either raise your hand. Yep. Mike Cassella, please. Yeah. Thanks. I just wanted to see about the discussion about the solid waste management fees. And if that was going to be opened up to have more dialogue with holders and other representatives, you know, before any votes or anything takes place on that. Very good. We'll certainly take note of that when we get to that point. I'm very interested in getting as much information and discussion from all interested parties. So I'm happy to know that you're concerned about that and give the opportunity if you would wish to address the board after the board begins discussing that. That would be fine. Thank you. Sure. Any other members of the public who wish to address the board? Yes, Janine, you have your hand up. Yeah. I just wanted to back up just real quickly in terms of changing the agenda because I'm not sure that Myers is on the call and I know we had a time set for them. So I just want to bring that to your attention. I'm here, Janine. Oh, okay. I'm here. Okay. Yep. Thanks. Very good. I appreciate that alert. But again, we'll continue with the agenda as I changed at the beginning of the meeting. Any other comments from the public? Mike Cassell, your hand is still raised, but I'm guessing maybe you just haven't taken it down yet. There it goes. Okay. I think then we're ready to close the public comment period, which I will do now. We're ready to move on to item number three, which is the consent agenda consisting of the minutes of the board meeting of October 25th, 2023, our regular program update memos, executive director update, and the regular finance report, including Lawrence cashed investments and reserve balances, just preliminary comments, acknowledging Sarah's email, or Sarah, did you want to make any preliminary comments about that or? I just want to acknowledge that we, I did receive a couple of comments on the minutes, asking for some minor corrections. So we will make those minor corrections. One, I think was a typo, was a number was inserted where it didn't have been and made things less clear. So we'll remove that number was fraction. And then there were some suggested word replacements to help clarify some of the content. So we'll make those minor changes for the official minutes. Thanks, Rachel. Before I get to you, I just had a comment just for newer board members and members of the public who might be present or view this later, we adopted a process of the consent agenda several years ago, which is permitted by Robert's rules of orders to more swiftly take care of routine, non, I wouldn't say controversial items, but regular items that come before the board and to be able to deal with them all at one time. And as Sarah pointed out, if there are minor issues and clarifications, typos, things like that, they can be handled ahead of time without requesting that they be removed from the consent agenda for further discussion and separate action. So again, just so that everybody understands why we go through the consent agenda, if a commissioner has a question or a concern or a disagreement with something that's in the consent agenda, by all means that can be pulled out for further discussion and then subsequent action as warranted. So Rachel, your hand is up. Yes, apologies for not sending this ahead, but Bryn Oakleath and myself were present for Winnowski for the October meeting, but I don't see our names on the attendee list. Thank you. We'll take note of that, confirm that and make note in the final official minutes of that meeting. I'm not hearing any requests to pull an item from the consent agenda. So then with your permission, with no objections, we'll accept the consent agenda as presented in the board packet with the corrections that have been noted. We're now ready to move on to item number five, which is discussion of the asphalt shingles that appears on page 15 of the board packet, the very last page, and I will turn this over to Sarah to begin the presentation and take off the discussion. Thank you. You have a memo, as Paul mentioned on page 15 of the board packet that gives a brief review of the extension that had been requested by Meyers, about a little over a year ago in August of 2022. The board did agree in August of this year to extend that waiver that they have requested and we agreed and supported that to extend it to the end of December so that staff had time to do a little bit more of our own research on the topics and we have done that work. So I will turn this to Josh, do you want to further explain or do you want Janine to go through any of the additional details? I think since Janine did the legwork, if she's prepared to run us through that, I think she's in a better position than I am. Thank you, Janine. Yeah, so thanks for the introduction, Sarah. As Sarah noted, I did a little bit of research over the past few months on potential markets, mainly in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Maine because that's where they exist. And basically kind of came to the conclusion that there currently aren't any viable markets for shingles at this time. So that's the first resolution that has to do with continuing to waive the separation collection requirements. And then the second one, I guess I'm going to kind of turn it over to Myers and just have them talk about what their proposal is in terms of the fee, if that's okay. Sure, well, let's focus first on the first item since there was a separate resolution, we can dive into that and then we'll go on to the second resolution. And the first resolution is essentially is getting out ahead of an ordinance, potential ordinance change. So this would have the board waving a portion of the current ordinance until which time that we can have further discussion. And or if we just may decide as an organization to remove the requirement and go back basically to the default position that is in place with the state. So we require more than the state does regarding separation of shingles from the material. So we could, based on Jean's research and based on Myers's experience with managing these materials, remove that requirement from our ordinance and treat them the way the state that is fine to do. So the ordinance change process is a process, it takes a bit of time. So this would be, again, it's waved until further notice as described. So we would take a little bit of time and have that discussion as a board regarding removing suspending how you'd want to manage that. So that is what that first resolution is. It's waiving the requirement that exists in CSWD's ordinance, which again, is larger than the state's requirement. It's more involved. And if I knew our members, Josh, I don't know if you want to briefly describe the ordinance change process that might be helpful. Yeah, if I am dragging out of the back of my head without reviewing it first, I would say, I know it's, we bring the proposed changes to a board meeting and then they get voted on at the second board meeting and then there is a public review process and then they are instituted after we receive feedback from that review process. So we basically take the implementation and we work backwards from there incorporating two board meetings and the public notice period that we have to bank on and then an appeal period as well. So all in all, I want to say that in total it's at least three months from the date that it gets first brought up at a board meeting. And then before that, there is some time that goes into it as well. So we'd be looking, I think when we were talking about it just recently we were talking about having some proposed changes potentially as early as the March board meeting to get that process going. So this would happen relatively quickly. And any changes, if they were approved through the process beginning in March, we would aim to have take effect July one. And Sarah, I'm just gonna go find a brief synopsis and just post it in the chat so people can take a look at that. Thank you. I wanna ask a clarifying question by I believe most of the board is familiar with this but for the benefit of some board members perhaps and any of the public who might be watching this at a later date, if we waive this or we continue the waiver, the destination of this material, does it go straight into the landfill or is it repurposed for another usage that is perhaps slightly more benign? Any, or Josh, if you could speak to a likely destination. Sure. Yeah, so I think that's part of the discussion this evening because there's a couple of different situations out there with regard to previous material versus new material but if we were to independent of previously stockpiled material, yes, new material would either go for disposal at the landfill or there is beneficial use or some people call it acceptable use determination where it could be used for other things that occur at the landfill. In our case is road building, it's been approved for road building which helps but ultimately that does end up as disposal as well but yeah, it's got a kind of a brief second life if you will, before it would go for disposal. And I presume if I could ask a follow-up question that the operator of the Coventry landfill would probably see that alternate use as somewhat beneficial to the operation at least in the short run. That's correct. They actually have already approved that material for use as road base and there is some going up there for that purpose right now but again, Myers can probably speak more directly to that but yeah, that is currently happening. Thanks again, I wanted to just get this out in the open so that we understand that one of the consequences of extending this waiver. Are there other commissioners who'd like to win or ask any questions? I am hearing none and again, this is something that we've been talking about on and off fairly regularly over the past year or a year and a half so I'm not surprised that there's not the need for further discussion. I think then we're ready for a motion as printed in the board packet. The result of the Chittenden Sallow Waste District's Board of Commissioners hereby waives until further notice the separation and collection requirements for asphalt shingles as described in the Sallow Waste Management Ordinance. So moved. Thank you. Thank you, it's been moved and seconded to wave until further notice the separation and collection requirement for asphalt shingles. Is there discussion on the motion? Hearing none, I think we're ready for the question. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed say nay. Any abstentions, please identify yourselves. The motion carries. We're now ready to move on to the second item that's in this memo and that concerns the charging 25% of the solid waste management fee against Sarah or Janine. I don't know if you wanna speak up and give any further clarification of this or also Myers after you've talked if Myers would like to address the board on this. As part of the board's initial action last year it was not just to waive the separation requirement but also to waive the solid waste management fee and part of the rationale presented by Myers Group was that they had been collecting materials for quite some time and had not been charging the $27 at times fee as part of their tip fee because they had been trying to move the material to recycling. So to their point was that if they had to then bring the material up to the landfill at that point, all of that material that had previously been collected and had not had that fee collected on it they would then essentially be eating that fee and because they did not recover that from their customers. So it was seen as a burden at that time for that stockpiled material and the board agreed. So the board agreed to waive the solid waste management fee on those materials that they had on site and to waive the fee for a 12 month period and then again that was extended through December 31. At the time staff and I were recommending that we charge 25% of the solid waste management fee which is allowed in the ordinance on certain materials that can be used for beneficial reuse or beneficial use determination or alternate daily cover. So that is an existing lever that we do have to be able to encourage some of this material to be used in a different manner at the landfill. And that is again 25% of the solid waste management fee so in this case it's about just under $7 a ton. We are recommending as staff and I agree with my staff that we should let the waiver right until December 31 and then as of January 1, any material collected after that point be assessed the 25% alternate daily cover or beneficial use fee. And I think any questions on that or Janine or Josh if you have any additional information you want to add please do. I'll open it up for questions, discussion from the commissioners or any concerns that you might have. Make sense to me. Thanks, Allen. Anybody from Myers Group wish to speak up and address the board on this? Yeah, this is Jeff Myers. Yep. I fully disagree with staff. We've been working, I have the only place that is trying to do something with CND and we do better than, we're recycling as much as we can with the markets we have. We've been trying to get something to do with shingles with the wood and folks know we lost our market with the wood but now we're just cleaning out some clean wood now. But my staff down in my transfer station, we're recycling shingles. We're cleaning the shingles. We're sorting them by hand. They didn't get them cleaned at Cassella. So they can use them for road base where they have problem spots and put them underneath their tippers. When they do that, and Mike can correct me if I'm wrong, when they do that, that saves them from buying aggregate out of the earth. So I'm spending time and money in the CND center to separate the shingles again nice and clean where sorting them or putting through the process. You know, I'm not just loading them in a trill and bringing them up to Cassella Coventry. We're processing them. And I don't think I should bear the burden of doing something like that and have to pay the $7. If we got to keep paying these taxes with this recycled material, it makes no sense for my recycle center to do this. You folks know how much it costs to sort out. We're sorting them by hand down there because we have so much material. So we're trying to do the best we can. And we found, we found a benefit for you use for them. Yes, they're going in the landfill but they're being used for virgin aggregate. So they're not, Cassella is not one stone where they're using these shingles. So it's 100% recycled materials that they're using. So for us to have to pay the tax addition, I think it's totally appalled that we're trying as buyers is trying to do their best and find all these markets. We're working every day for the market to find nobody else is helping us. And it's disturbing that nobody else helps us find the markets. We're still doing shingles, we're doing metal, we're doing more than any other transportation in a state of a month per cycle. And to be charged $6 a ton, that we found a market, instead of pulling dirt out of the ground and using it where Cassella's got to put stone down and they're putting our shingles down, I should not have to pay the tax. That's appalled. Thanks for your comments. Leslie, your hand is up and then Henry will be next. Well, I have a question in general and I don't know if this should go to Mr. Myers or to Sarah, but if Myers is supplying material to Cassella, why aren't those two parties negotiating payment for the supply of those materials? If from Cassella's point of view, they would be incurring some cost for buying and using aggregate and now they have another source, why couldn't those two parties negotiate purchase deal? Why are we in the middle of this decision? Leslie, that's a great question. And I had a question too for Jeff and my question for Jeff was because this material is, it does have a beneficial use to Cassella. Are they still charging you the same tip fee or are they charging you a different lower rate for that material because it's able to be used as kind of an alternate daily cover, for road-based, kind of similar to what Leslie is asking. I don't know if that, I think that's a deal between me and Cassella, but yes, they do give me a little better rate because of the processing we're doing at my transfer station. I've got four guys right now on the four certain shingles to clean them up and then to truck them all the way up there. That ends up probably being a break even for me, but that's why I built that CND Center. That's why I built it. It's not a moneymaker, you folks know that, but that's why I built it. Trying to do the right thing. I told you folks just before, I'll show you every books I have down there. That place is a moneymaker, but that's what I've done. I'm in the construction field too, but that's what we've done. But it doesn't, the deal between me and Cassella, it's nothing to do with CSWD. I'm doing the right thing. We are sort of two shingles to clean them up so could sell it to a user for a benefit of your use and just throw them in a hole in the landfill. I shouldn't know how to pay CSWD a tip. Henry? Yes, my video is not working. I think I logged in correctly, but yeah, I sort of take issue with the way this was pictured that this ends up in the landfill anyway. It's like, God, I'm really not helping anything. Well, my two issues with that is it's permanently replaced other material, which isn't in the landfill. So on a permanent basis, there's stuff not going into landfill. And when the roads eventually reworked, okay? Who's to say that material is not gonna be reused, okay? So, and maybe I need to understand the process better, but this seems to be a 100% savings, volume for volume of stuff not going into the landfill. And maybe even be reused again. So just, I thought it was painted in a negative light.   They don't dig that stone back out. Yeah, we're replacing natural aggregate to help them with their road and their tippers. So they're using our shingles. You know, we're not talking 10 million tons here, but we're doing, let's forget about the landfill and everything, Myers at their transfer station, recycling center is doing the best they can to recycle this material. That's the end of the day. We're doing the best we can to recycle this material. We spent a year working with Cassell to find a spot to do this with. So we spent a lot of time trying to work this out when we lost the market, because State of Vermont didn't want to use our shingles anymore. And for five years they used them. And I've spent a lot of money on that transfer station. So we found a replacement for natural aggregate out of the dirt, out of the ground. We replaced it.  So if they brought natural stuff, and Mike can correct me if I'm wrong, if they brought natural stuff to that landfill, they're not gonna dig it up in the trash. We replaced natural aggregate. So I don't understand. So yeah, that's where we're at. Thank you, Jeff. And for clarification for the board, also in getting to Penny's question, ultimately this material does become part of the landfill. It is used as a, when they say road base, it's an internal pad or an internal road so that the trash trucks can access the working area of the landfill cell. Without some kind of a, as Jeff was mentioning, a pad or an area that has some stability for the trucks to tip, they would have no traction. They would be very difficult for them to be stable as they're tipping material into the landfill. So, but eventually as in every day, this kind of material, especially if it's alternate daily cover, the landfill has been covered every day, that material may be scraped off of the area, but it will be turned back into the landfill. So all of these materials do become part of the landfill. And I think that's why we acknowledge in the ordinance that materials used for these beneficially used determinations, these alternate daily covers, because they are still varied, there should be some acknowledgement that the material is not actually going out to the market for recycling to be turned into new shingles, or as Jeff said, to be turned into a road base, it does become part of the landfill. So that small amount of solid waste energy, that 25% is an acknowledgement that the material does actually become landfills.  Pleasure. I know. Totally wrong thinking. We're replacing natural aggregate ground. We all got recycled material, and I don't want to go into details. We all got recycled materials that is not being used properly, okay? And I don't want to go into details, but we are replacing natural stone out of the ground to be used. I don't care if it goes into Mars, we're replacing natural stone out of the ground, and we're processing it. You guys forced me to do, did force me, but I did the C&D center, I was spending a ton of money in it, I'm doing the best I can with the C&D center, and you guys want six something a ton. I think that's totally wrong when we're doing the best we can. It's not, it's beneficial use. There's no other way to look at it. I don't care what your order says. That's the bottom line. We built a C&D center, we've done everything you guys have asked, and I've been trying my best to find markets for this stuff. We're spending a lot of money trying to find markets, and you want six bucks a ton for this stuff. Unbelievable. Well, thank you, Jeff. You're making your case very explicitly, very forcefully. I do want to hear from other commissioners. I think we're trying to understand all sides of the issue and ultimately render our decision. But I don't want to, my intent is not to cut you off, but I do also want to get the question here as possible. So I'm going to recognize Leslie. Your hand is up, then Allen, then Ken, and I also see Mike Cassella after that. Thanks, Paul. I think we all understand why, at least I understand why Myers is objecting to this proposal, but I don't feel that I got an answer to my question as to why he cannot get some kind of monetary compensation from Cassella and why those, have those conversations ever happened? And if so, what was the outcome? I just, I don't feel my question was answered by anyone. Well, I'm going to step in here and say, I think Jeff did answer that by saying that's, he has a private business relationship between Myers and Cassella and he's not feeling the need to share the details of that relationship to this board, which I think is his right not to do. I think he acknowledged that there's some consideration that he gets. Well, it wasn't clear if whatever that, to me at least, it was not clear to me that whatever their commercial relationship covered this specific issue. And so if it were the case that Myers is getting compensated for delivering this material, then there might be a zero net cost to them by it for the $7 a ton, but clearly Mr. Myers thinks there is a positive cost to him. So Paul, I don't, I am not, you know, I understand we're not, we should not be interested in being privy to their private deals or business relationships. But I am not getting compensated for that right now. Okay, so there's the answer. Okay. And so, okay. Very good.  Morning Jeff. How are you doing bud? Good. As with any other item, I mean, why is not the cost of this item traveled back to the roofing contractors that are delivering it to you as a cost of your doing business? Because I have four guys, four guys, Alan, can shorten the material on the floor. No, no, but I'm just saying, why isn't the $6 a ton charged additional to whatever else you're charging for the disposal at, you know, at your C and D center? Alan, I still get back to, I think we're talking two different things. I'm working to recycle this material. The roofers to TRLS. I sent a letter to every roofer. But in order to drop it off, in order to drop it off at your site, they have to pay you that $6. They pay me the same rate, but it's all mixed up. Other stuff, I don't have to hand sort like we're doing with shingles to clean them up. And I sent the letter out to every roofer and said, I want shingles at the bottom, then your metal, then your paper, then your wood. You know what they did to me? They laughed. If you want to do that, we'll bring it someplace else. So there's so much more handwork going on to this and cost to clean these shingles up to get them the way Cassella wants versus put it through my picking line. And I got two guys on a picking line now. So they're doing it with two machines on the floor. So now they just changed the first order. So if I charge them another $6 for sorting, the seller or whoever else, any other transportation doesn't have to sort them. I'm trying to do the way our C&D center runs. No other center now since the ordinance you just passed two minutes ago has to sort any shingles. So everybody else can take them.  I'm trying to work the system the way I want my C&D recycle center. You know, we're trying to work it the way I still we're replacing something out of the earth. I still don't think we should have Cassella tax. We're working to do the way I built that C&D center to do. So I think just to recap and Mike, my interpretation of Alan's question was why not pass this cost on to the generator of the material? And I think your answer is that you're under intense competitive pressures that might prevent you from simply raising your prices to cover this additional disposal cost. Exactly. Thank you. Ken, your question. I feel like that I can't quite understand the full picture though I feel sympathetic to what Jeff is saying. I'm hoping that maybe Sarah or someone on the district can back up a little bit and speak to his insistence that he's doing what we wanted him to do, that he is running a construction and to be recycling center, that it's helpful to the state of Vermont that he does that. And what if he wasn't doing that because it's too expensive for him to do that? What would happen? I think I'd rather hear that from CSWD than because I've already heard Mr. Myers a few times and there's just a few things that I'm not understanding from what he's saying. Yeah, either Josh or Deneen or Jen, if you could do a quick review of the state's requirement for these materials. And specifically what Mr. Myers is doing that he may not have to do. Or I suppose he doesn't have to do it. And if he doesn't do it, where are we? If we're talking about net, where are we at the end of the day if we aren't helping him do this? Right. Josh or Jen, if you could speak to the state's requirements for shingles. Happy to, Josh, if you don't want to. So the requirement for shingles is if there's a certain amount of material that's generated, I believe it's a 40 cubic yard amount of C and D material that that, and there's a facility that can accept that material and is willing to accept it needs to be diverted. So individual like homeowner projects would not be qualified. I believe Josh, please confirm that the state has waived the requirement for asphalt shingles due to a lack of markets. So at this moment, there's no requirement seeing that the board has excused that from our ordinance requirements and the state has also waived that requirement for the state laws. Thank you. And also, can you rephrase that? Like just for English, for me, like. I'm sorry, sure. Double negatives and waiving requirements. So there's a lot in place that requires construction and demolition material that's generated in a large quantity. So large projects, they have to divert that if there's a facility nearby that's willing to accept it and part of the banned materials from the landfill are asphalt shingles or those larger projects. Okay, so that's in statute, state statute. The state has recently waived the requirement to divert to keep the asphalt shingles out of the landfill because they understand there are little options for markets to bring those asphalt shingles. So currently, there is no requirement at the state level to divert asphalt shingles from the landfill. And currently CFWD does not have that requirement is not requiring that either. So asphalt shingles can go to the landfill currently. And the reason that our requirement in our ordinance was stronger than the state was at the request of the suppliers 10, 12 years ago in order to help to create a, basically create a market to build the market so that you have to get the recycling center off the ground and get enough material to be able to test that theory. And as he mentioned, the state had been using the material in for their purposes. And recently in the past two years, I think it was maybe even three, but definitely in the last two years, the state stopped using that recycled shingle material in their projects. So that, as he mentioned, removed his, I think probably his sole customer, but certainly his largest customer for that material was suddenly gone from the mix. And that's where he was struggling with our ordinance because it remained in place that in Chinatown County, you had to do this. And he's right, he's the only facility of this kind in the state doing this work. So again, the state acknowledged that there is a lack of market. What you have just passed also is an acknowledgement of a lack of market. So I think what Jeff is possibly pitching is that he continued to try to not just dispose of the material in the landfill, but to try to get it to a second life. And the rationale for even having a 25% reduction, or an option for the board to consider in the ordinance is an acknowledgement of these kinds of materials that can be used at the landfill as that one last use before eventually being disposed. I think Paul, that gets at your question. Paul Stabler, does our ordinance allow for the waiver? It does allow the board to waive and it allows the board to apply a 25% reduction to the fall waste management fee to materials to be used for alternate daily cover or alternate use. So yes, you do have the authority to do that. Ken, that gives you the answer you were looking for. Yeah, I guess so, but do we like what Mr. Myers is doing? Does the CSWD like what he's doing with these shingles? And if he wasn't recycling, doing them this way, would they be coming to us and getting a different tip fee or rate or something like that or? Nope, they're not coming to us at all. We don't see any of the materials going to Myers recycling center. As Jeff said, they go to his place and right now he's sorting the shingles out from the other C&Ds, so what's happening is builders aren't setting up separate boxes at their site and saying, okay, shingles go in here, clean wood goes in here, metal goes in here, he gets it all in one. So when those materials come to him, they're all jumbled up as construction demolition debris and then he has employees who are hand sorting that material out of those boxes so that he can try to generate a load of just shingles so that they can go to Kisela and Kisela can use those shingles for road base. I think what Jeff was saying is that that's giving them one last gas as Janine had mentioned at the beginning of the conversation. So Leslie's question goes to, does he profit from that? But the only way that Vermont is helped by what he's doing, Vermont, is by reducing the amount of aggregate that would otherwise be brought into the landfill that would fill up space. It would be aggregate in shingles, I suppose, if he wasn't doing what he was doing because it wouldn't be clean enough for Kisela. Yeah, I mean, right, Kisela's not gonna lay down construction demolition debris as a road, they obviously need something along the lines of aggregate or, and again, shingles are a good use for that pad, that road, but that aggregate is also, it's not being scooped up and moved to a different area of the landfill. When that road or that pad or that area is exhausted, then that aggregate stays in place and it becomes part of the cell. Okay, so he's reducing the amount of material that's going into our landfill at this point by doing this work? No, because it still becomes part of the landfill. What he's doing is- But wouldn't it be just mixed in with the trash and he'd still have to build the roads with dirt from the ground, as Mr. Myers is saying? With, they would still have to spread aggregate. So yeah, as I was just saying Ken, yes, it's not really reducing the amount that goes in, it's all going in, but if saving can tell us the money on aggregate. Right, that's the thing. Oh, it's not reducing the total, what's going in? Yeah, wouldn't the- No, no, it's all going in. Wouldn't the shingles go in plus all the aggregate for building the roads? Yes. Yes, yes. At least saving the aggregate. Right. Yes. That's what I heard. That's why I'm just asking the questions because I'm trying to figure out the net, whose net are we talking about? Absolutely, it's reduced, I don't mean to butt in, but absolutely it's reducing what's going in for the road. So the shingles might be going in for, they're going to go in a landfill eventually anyway, but they don't use my shingles, they're going in a landfill plus they're bringing dirt and stone in to fix the road. So yes, it's reducing the aggregate and everything are going in a landfill. Absolutely. Thank you for clarifying that. Mike, your hand is up, and Leslie. Yeah, hi. My question then is right now, I think this is exactly the issue or some of the issue as I'm understanding the problem. Why isn't Cassellar compensating Myers? I think so. I mean, if they are not having to purchase the aggregate that they would have otherwise, why isn't that a benefit to Cassellar? And Cassellar, it seems to me quickly, Cassellar should be compensating Myers. And yeah, point, that's Mike. That question has been well established and I think we've gone over that, the Myers, Mr. Myers has addressed that as best he can to the extent that he can. I'm sorry, then I apologize if I missed something, I've been in and out. It's certainly a good point. We're all trying to get our heads around these various aspects of the question. Chairman? Yes. Chairman, could I ask you a question? Yeah, please go ahead. Mr. Jeff, again. Yeah. I want to know what changed from a year ago, but today, when you guys weighed the fear a year ago and now all of a sudden you want $6 a ton, that what has changed in a year and you want $6 a ton now, or $6.70, whatever it's, I don't know, it's a small change, but. You know, and one of the commissioners asked a little while ago, monetary, what are we talking about here? We're not talking millions of dollars here. It's a principle of the matter right now. If at the end of the year, if we're talking $15,000, we ain't talking nothing to CSWD. It's the principle what I built this building for. $15,000 as we all know. The CSWD don't care, but it's not millions of dollars. It's the principle of why I built this building. I want all, everybody to know that. The $15,000 that's in a year is probably what CSWD will get. It's the principle of what I'm doing this for. So the question again was, why are we asking? I guess, I think Sarah's going to answer in a second, but my recollection is, correct me if I'm wrong, is that actually the last time this came up, staff recommended that we charge, I believe the 25% then the board decided no. So it's been a longstanding recommendation of staff, I believe that there should be some fee attached to this material. But Sarah, I'll give you a chance. It's an acknowledgement of following the ordinance that basically places this in the same category as alternate daily cover. So we already have in the ordinance provisions for other materials that are used in similar fashion to be treated as such and to be charged 25% of the followers management fee. So it's the same as if we're talking about other material that will be used in that manner. Leslie, a follow-up question from you. And then Josh wanted to weigh in. Okay. The way I'm hearing this, we have an independent operator, Myers, who's trying to increase recycling and reuse of materials that would otherwise be landfill. That entails an additional cost to him for doing the hand sorting. And he is not being compensated for that in any way. Prior to this, he was being compensated when he could sell the materials to the state. That has gone away. Now we, the district are proposing to impose an additional cost on that activity. So a question that is in my mind is why? Just because it's in the ordinance is not a reason since we already have been waiving it. And we know how it's being used. It's saving Cassella money. Maybe that ultimately saves us money in terms of use of the landfill and fees associated with that. So I'm not understanding this proposal from staff. I'm not understanding its benefit or its rationale. And it's just not making sense to me. So I'd like to get a better argument than well it's in the ordinance. So can I answer the question as to why last year we didn't, the board decided not to charge. Would that be helpful? So last year when we did propose the 25% fee, because that's the precedent that had been set, we wanted to be consistent on that. I'm not sure which board member it was, but someone brought up the reality that, that there was a stockpiled amount of material at Myers for that Jeff had not collected the solid waste management fee on because it was being collected for recycling. The market went away and so that material was there and no longer could he recoup that cost for lack of a better term. So that argument was pitched by a board member and that's what led to the decision that there would be no fee charged on that material. And I believe Jeff, and you can correct me, but I think the amount of material that you guys, well, it's a question I have, the 570 tons that has gone to Casella already is from that initial stockpiled material, correct? Right. So, and there's still a significant amount of that material left. I don't, can you guess how much? I mean, I've heard this 5,000 tons, excuse me? No, I don't think there's that much, but I can't help you with that age on vacation. I can't help you with that number. Okay, so, yeah, so just, I just wanted to clarify that's why there was no fee charged. Initially when we came forward was because I think the board fell overall that that was a fair decision to allow Jeff to get rid of that material that he had collected with no fee attached because he was going to recycle it. And that was his intent. And there wasn't anything nefarious about that. It was just that the markets had dried up. And so we recognized that and wanted to give him that opportunity to get rid of that material without any fee attached. So I just think it's important to kind of understand there is some of that material left. I don't know how much, but I think we need to understand how much. And then also talk about maybe differentiate the new material that's currently coming in. That's kind of my thought on it. But Leslie, I don't know if that answers your question in terms of why we didn't do it before, but I hope that clarifies it. Yeah, it does, but it doesn't clarify why just saying, well, he got rid of the stockpile. He's got ongoing costs and he's trying to reduce, he's actually saving Cassella money. And he's trying to repurpose material rather than having it all loaded into a tip into the landfill. And just saying that, well, you know, the ordinance allows us to do this, so we should do it. To me, it's not a satisfactory justification for imposing an additional cost in this case. Or re, or instituting or reinstituting or whatever the right terminology might be. I don't hear a case being made, a credible case being made given the information that's being provided to us right now. I mean, do we know or maybe this is a question for Jeff, but do we know if all of the shingles that are being collected or that our stockpile are all going for road base or are any of them being disposed just in general in the landfill? Is everything road based or is there a portion that is straight disposal? I got four guys in the floor and we're doing the best we can, that's all I can say. You know, if they come in really super dirty, if they come in really super dirty, we're not spending time on them.  You got doughnuts stuffed in them, you know, I could go on and on and on. That the good shingles that are coming in, the guys are on the floor because I can't put them through the system. Because then I'm in a pelt, the guys on the floor, they're cleaning up, they're cleaning up perfectly. And you know, I'm spending all that time and money. So getting back to where it comes in our place. So we've been doing a little bit out of everywhere, trying to get shingles up to landfill, but it makes no sense to keep hauling out of shit at the weight comes a hundred ton and then take a hundred ton of my bill and bring it back over there. So we've been doing mixing boats when I can find trucking. As you guys know, we can't find, you know, it still gets back to the districts we can talk all night long. It gets back to the district's theory on recycling. And we are doing the best we can. We're using this material to do something in the landfill that's better than going down the landfill or going down the dirt path and get dirt adding more stuff to the landfill. We are spending time to recycle us. And, you know, we're not talking millions of dollars. We're talking, you know, the money's not the problem. It's the issue of what we're discussing right now. We're doing the best we can to recycle the stuff. And we spent an hour on this already for $15,000, which is disturbing. Okay, thanks. I want to avoid kind of repeating the points that have been made before. I certainly agree. We spent a lot of time. It's an important issue. We still have some hands raised. Josh, did you want to add something to help clarify this? I just wanted to reiterate a couple of points that were made mostly regarding, you know, it wasn't an arbitrary decision to request the 25%. It's based on precedent on similar materials that have been used as beneficial reuse projects within active landfill cells previously. You know, we do have the historical documents from when boards had voted on that previously. So it's certainly not an arbitrary number. And the 25%, I believe in the past had been chosen to acknowledge that it was reducing 75% of the solid waste management fee to acknowledge that it was replacing virgin material, but also remaining 25% as a nod to the fact that it was going to remain buried in a landfill for its life. So there's inherently some difference between recycling outside of an active cell of a landfill and within an active cell of a landfill. And so I don't disagree that the use in a landfill for beneficial reuse projects is not better than the alternative of just going for landfill, but I think there still needs to be at least some acknowledgement that at the end of the day, it's being covered over and buried. And I think that's the historic precedent that has been set. And that's the reason we requested that a year ago. And it's the reason that now that the year plus a couple of months is up, we are asking for the same number as before. So I just wanted to provide that further context. Thank you. If the material were being directly landfill, it would get charged $27 a ton. So the $6 is a significant savings and discount off of the material as it were to be straight disposed. And so that discount, I think is reflected in can be kind of credit to the work that it entails to separate the material out. And because not all of the material coming in is being separated or could be used for road base, we know that some is being disposed. And again, it's not the money. I agree with you, Jack, in the grand scheme of things, it's not a lot of money for CSWD and that's not the point. The point is to acknowledge that this is material that otherwise would be disposed at $27 a ton, but by having this other designation, it does deserve and should be afforded the reduction in fee in accordance with the ordinance. Thanks, Sarah. Liz, your hand has been up for a while. I also noticed that Mike Cassella's hand has been up and he might have something they'd like to add. Leslie, you've been able to ask a number of questions. So the order I'd like to go here is Liz, then Mike, then you, Leslie. Okay, thanks. I guess I'm thinking about this from a philosophical idea, the whole idea of reducing what is going in the landfill. I get that these shingles and other construction waste is going in there and it seems like now anybody can just randomly throw stuff in and no one's, it's now law or it's now the precedent. We're allowed to just throw it in there because there's no other place. I guess I'm agreeing with Leslie and the whole idea of like Myers seems, it seems to me being penalized for doing extra work to try and create a product that can then thereby be used in the landfill. Even if it is ending up in the landfill, ultimately there's that step. So I guess I'm just, I'm kind of thinking like, I'm sort of, I get that there needs to be an acknowledgement. Maybe it isn't about the money, but the principle of it is it's disturbing, I guess. And that's all I'll say. Sorry, did you want to respond at all to that or you're good for the... No, I'm fine for now. Okay, again, I appreciate hearing from the hauling community. I think it's an important voice to hear. So Mike, if you hand had been up, if you had anything to add, please. Yeah, absolutely. So we definitely do use the shingles and we do not try to use any virgin materials, but depending on road conditions, weather or other factors, right? We're always having to at some point use, virgin aggregate or other things to build and stabilize roads because of safety of the roads getting in and out with really heavy trucks. So we're always looking at that. We're always trying to find creative sources and have always paid the fee, the 25% fee to deal with that. I think this is a little different situation with what Jeff has going on. I mean, we do sort out shingles at our facility as well, but we don't want to go to the level of sorting that Jeff goes to where one of the big things for us is nails, right? If you're building roads, you can't have nails in those shingles. I don't mind the donut, even though that should go to the compost facility. If it gets in there, it's not going to be an issue. So for me, it kind of more looking at holistically, we are replacing material, but part of that construction costs, that's all built into the economics of a landfill and of like what we need to charge to bring material in. So, but we do sort out shingles and bring them to Jeff. I think the other piece for me is once you pull this away or if Jeff wasn't doing that, you're going to have end markets. Like when the end markets come back, how do you get that stream back out from public perception? And that's something that I caution because if we don't do it, right? Then when those markets do come back, you have nowhere to take those materials, right? Or you have to go back through that whole education process and everything else, which is almost a bigger lift than just saying, okay, right now we know we can't today find an outlet for shingles, but in a year from now, that might completely change. And then all of a sudden you're able to just instead of diverting it to the landfill, you're diverting it to a recycling center. So that's all I would caution to is that it's also about forward looking as well as markets change. Thank you, Mike. Leslie, through a new point. Yeah, and I really appreciate your patience with like making so many contributions. And I really appreciated my Cassella's most recent point. But what I wanted to say was we have no idea of Myers cost structure, but we should think about the incentive message that such a move would make because his cost structure could be such that it would be worth his while not to have four people spending time sorting out as full shingles and put them in a normal load and pay that $27 a ton. That might be cost-effective for him. Hypothetically, if it were, what would we have accomplished? We would have simply added to the amount of materials directly landfill. So there's no way to know in advance what economic incentive signal we might be sending. And with Mike's, Mike Cassella's additional point about shutting down the capacity to do the sorting and what that happens when an if markets come back, I think is something to be considered. And I appreciate your patience with all my contributions. Thanks, Leslie. I'm gonna say, Marguerite, your hand's up. Rick, we'll go with you. And then I wanna get to the fact we still have, we're only in this preliminary discussion. There is a recommended motion to put before us. And I would like after these two commissioners speak to move that process along there still is an opportunity for more discussion. But we have been spending a lot of time on this. I don't think we've been too repetitive, but we've got to move this along. Marty. Yeah, so I guess two things. One is that I'm hearing from Myers that there and as kind of verified also by Cassella that there's ongoing work to look for markets and that that is staying open to that is probably important in my view. And the second question I have is to the extent that there's precedent for materials with beneficial reuse being charged 25%, I'm curious whether those other situations involved the kind of work that Myers is talking about. Yeah, they do. No, they don't. To find out the market? Of course they do. I didn't mean just other markets, I meant the sorting. No, in other words, the sorting, whether the other What? If I'm wrong, I want to butt in because now it's getting to the 25% that you charge other people is dirt for daily cover and other things. I got four guys on the floor spending time. The other material that we're talking that you gave I've been at meetings that you give 25% break to or you charge them $7 a ton.  I got four guys on the floor sorting the cleanest material. So the question I'm raising is whether the precedent applies in that sense. That's, I think that's a question ultimately staff needs to address. Yeah, generally the material that has the 25% waiver as deficit is like contaminated soil, things that don't need additional sorting. I think that's your question, Mikey. Thank you. Rick, last question before we hopefully will entertain a motion. I'll defer until after the motion. Okay, at this point again, we've been having kind of preliminary discussion. My assumption is, if we do not act on take any action tonight, what we've already done is we've waived the requirement to divert this from the landfill. If we don't take any action tonight, I think I'm looking for an answer. What fee would apply to this material? So the fee waiver is through December 31st. The current waiver is through December 31st. That's a January 1st. No waiver would be in existence. So we correct? Correct. So we do have a motion. I'm just asking these questions more for clarity. We have a motion that's perhaps not going to be universally supported, but to apply the 25%. So, I don't believe that motion's been actually formally made. No, no, I'm correct. Correct, I'm not debating the motion. I'm just clarifying. We need to take some action tonight. Well, I'm willing to make a motion at this point in time. Personally, I believe Michael Cassell made a convincing argument in terms of continuing the practice amongst the producers of the shingles and incentivizing them to continue to sort. I think that's important. So, and I think it's important to support our only C and D facility at this point. So I know that we continue the complete waiver of the silo waste management fee or the asphalt shingles that are used for road build in the landfill. And that further we direct staff to investigate this and come back with a time period in which we should revisit this. I'm not saying I would put like a year or two, but I don't want to make this onerous. So I'd like to get a recommendation from staff. Once they look at it, I'm assuming conditions will change. And so again, my motion is to waive the fee completely as it has been and that the staff would come back to us at a later date and recommend a timeframe in which we would revisit this again. Second, Paula. Thank you. I'm sorry, I went to move and seconded. Paul, are you recommending that the waiver be applied to shingles that are sent to the landfill for road building or all shingles? No, just for the road building. Okay. So the motion has been made and seconded and my understanding in plain language is to waive the solid waste management fee for shingle material that is destined to go to the landfill for use in road building. Material, shingle material that winds up in the landfill would not be subject to this motion. Right. And my pull of rationale there is it's not getting, if it's not diverting other aggregate, then it seems like it should be charged the entire fee. Okay. Now, we'll open up discussion on this motion, which is to waive the fee for shingles to be used as road building material. Rachel. Two questions. Is there an end date built into this motion? You know, is it gonna be December of 2024? I think part of the motion was kind of to get more information about what that end date would be, but I would hesitate to vote on this and have it be in perpetuity as part of this motion. My second question is, I guess, and ask for more information. I don't know if staff has this available, but when we do come back to this for discussion, I would really like to see what that market forecast looks like we're kind of kicking the road down, saying we have this current capability to do this sorting and we want to support our CND facility. But we're also saying we want to do that with the understanding that the market is going to change and there's going to be a market for these asphalt tiles. I would like to understand, is there going to be a market for this or are we kicking the can down the road and we're going to revisit this next year and we're not really foreseeing that change. So is this most current motion in perpetuity? Is there a date stagnant with the end and then what is the actual market forecast on asphalt tiles? Thank you. Rachel, do you have a friendly amendment to hold motion which would get at your... I'm too new to being on the board of commissioners to have that skill set but if somebody else wants to weigh in. Okay. Well, you've made the motion. Paul Stabler, do you... Yeah, I mean, I'd be amenable to an amendment as to an actual date for staff to come back to us. That's fine. I was just, I wasn't sure, I'd get the feeling that there's not much going to change in a year's time. And so I was looking to staff to come back to us at a later date and say, okay, we're going to revisit this in two years or three years or something, but... Well, I do want to make one thing clear and part of the difficulty of all of this is, and we've talked about this particular point with A&R several times, is really what is the definition of no market? So to be very clear, there is an outlet for the material to be turned into other things, but the closest one to us is Connecticut. And so when the state is saying there's no market, they're saying there's no local regional use for this that is affordable, but there is an outlet. It's several states away, it is expensive. We contacted them for our load of materials of shingles that we had segregated to see how much of which cost for us to ship a load down to Connecticut, and it's expensive. It was well over $120 a ton. But just so that the board is aware, it's not that there's zero market. There is a market, it's very expensive. So I just wanted you to kind of have that additional piece of information. Paul, to your question, is Ben and Rachel, is it likely to change in a year? Down school, markets do not develop overnight. They can go away overnight, but they don't develop overnight. I think it does make sense for us to, if we're going to extend the waiver that we not do it for longer than a year, that it not be in perpetuity, I would recommend Rachel that you do ask if Paul would be agreeable to a friendly amendment to the motion to add an expiration date, which then the board can extend again, but that would be how I would address it. And then, again, we can continue to be touching base with Myers and say, okay, Jeff, Ryan, Dave, what are you doing to develop local markets? What have you found for any developing markets and over the course of the year? Next year, bringing an update to you, I would recommend in six months so that we don't get to a point next November. And we're saying, oh, no, it's an emergency again, but that would give you an update halfway through the extension to kind of get a sense for what we're seeing or what we're not seeing. And I would consider an expiration date of that waiver of December 31st of 2024 to be, that's fine. And Rachel, if you're okay with that, I would consider that a friendly amendment. I would just point out that, you know, the CO2 that would be spewed into the atmosphere to ship that all the way down there, you got to consider that. We have the same problem with glass. So yeah, there are places we could ship it, but it just, it's all in all, it's a bad idea. So anyway, sorry, I'll show you. So we have a friendly, the maker of the motion has agreed to put an expiration date of 12 months or December 31st, 2024. I don't recall who seconded it. I want to make sure that we still have a second for that motion. That was you Ken? Yeah. Okay. So we now have clarity on the motion, which is to waive the fee for all of calendar year 2024 with the direction that staff study this and report back to the board on a least in a timely fashion.  Then Mike. Yeah, just a couple of quick observations and the opportunity for somebody to straighten me out if I'm confused, a key piece that I heard Jeff say is that, I will say, preface this by saying that I came into the meeting disposed to vote for the 25% fee. I am definitely second guessing that at this point, partly because of what Jeff said, which implies to me that it is not practical to segregate, to charge the providers of the asphalt shingle waste that you can't really charge them the fee because you can't really segregate that effectively from all the other C&D stuff. If you could, and if you could pass that along, I would be in favor of doing that. That doesn't sound practical. The other key piece that I think I'm hearing though it wasn't stated in so many words is that there is a public good being provided by the Myers C&D Recycling Center. And for the total amount of money that we're talking about here, and given that this feels like it would be a pretty circumscribed precedent that we're setting by continuing to waive, I think it's a gesture of goodwill and in the public interest to support the continuation of the status quo for Jeff to keep doing this. It sounds like a pretty thankless job. Thanks, Rick. I'm not sure anybody needs to respond to your particular questions, but appreciate the clarity of what you've said. Mike, Mike Sullivan. I disagree with the idea of limiting this. It seems to me it's simple if it is a net benefit period defined as you are keeping something out of the landfill that you wouldn't otherwise have put in, why would you make this a situation? If it makes it beneficial now, even if you develop new markets or whatever, the amount that would be moved through this process or through this discount would seem to me to be just a natural benefit that whether it's shingles or whatever, anything that is used within the system to keep more out of the landfill than otherwise would seem just a simple thing and that ought to be an easy way of making a rule of thumb. But I will not propose an amendment to the amendment to the amendment. Thanks. Other commissioners wishing to weigh in on the motion. And I think then just to be clear, I could only paraphrase it, but I don't know if you, Sarah, or Amy would be able to just kind of restate the motion. I can take it, I'll take it down. I just want to make sure we all understand what it is we're voting on, which I guess I can say, which is to not charge the solid waste management fee for shingles that are used for alternative use, primarily road building or specifically road building. And that- And through December 31, 2024. Through December 31, 2024, and that staff is directed to continue to study this issue and report back to the board in a timely fashion. Well done, Paul. Thank you. So we're clear on what the motion is. Paul did say road build, he didn't say alternative daily cover. I don't know. I think it's the road build. Road build. Road build. Any further discussion on the motion? All those in favor of the motion, please raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, raise your hand and say nay. Any abstentions? The motion carries. I just want to follow this up but express deep appreciation to Myers for doing this. I think the board recognizes that you're pursuing a great public good and we do appreciate it. It's a hard issue, a lot of principles to discuss and wrap our heads around but we really do appreciate the work that you're doing. I also want to express appreciation to staff. You've done a lot of work thinking through this issue. Sometimes the board doesn't totally agree with you and this was one of those instances but I think we all still have the same goal in mind which is to manage our waste the best we possibly can. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Thank you for your time. I think we're now ready to move on to item number four which is the FY25 preliminary budget which appears on page 12 of the meeting packet. Again, just by way of preamble as Sarah had mentioned in her cover memo, this is really the first step in the budgeting process. We acknowledge receipt of this very preliminary budget. The numbers inside the budget are going to change. The real intent here is to meet the obligations we have really to signal and inform our member communities whether or not there might be an assessment that would be coming down the line. And I think by presenting this budget we're basically committing that there will not be that assessment but again, the numbers within the budget are going to change. I don't mean to steal your thunder Sarah but really for the benefit of new board members just to understand what it is we're doing now. There'll be a lot of meetings on the budget in January and all commissioners and the public are welcome to attend those meetings. With that, I'll turn it over to you Sarah. Thank you. Quick clarification, the meeting in January will be the public, we're also required to hold the public hearing the proposed budget. So that will be held no later than January 31st. We do tend to hold that public meeting ahead of the regular business meeting in January but we could hold it at a different time if the board chose but normally that's when we would have that public meeting. So we do need to do that no later than January 31. The finance committee will then be meeting as a group in February to review the next draft next iteration of the budget and it's mostly done. I mean, really most of what you see that third page page, it was 14 will probably won't change too much but a few key item likely will as we get more actual. So by the time the finance committee meets in February we will have first two quarters of the year actual. You will also know what the CPI is for the end of December through the end of this calendar year depending on when it comes out in January we also may have that number in January. So some of these, again, estimates are placeholders for example, as I mentioned in the memo we've budgeted so far a 4% COLA but that is likely to, I don't want to say anything but it's likely to go down. We're already seeing that CPI is hovering around 3.2, 3.3, 3.4% so it is likely that we will be budgeting something less than a 4% COLA as we go into the next year. So some of the things that we highlight in the memo are it's not just increases but also decreases in expenses or increases in revenue and we tend to look to that percentage. So if you're looking on page 14 I like to look way over to the FAR right column percent different to the budget years and you'll see a lot of them are fairly close zero to 1% but when we have whoppers we like to explain that and to the positive is our interest in dividend online item thanks to the work of the board and the finance committee and then to Nola Ritchie and myself we did invest a good amount of our reserve funds because the interest rate was so good this past year and we are singularly anticipating doing the same the interest rate is coming down but it's still beneficial and we'll continue to invest those monies. So that proved to be a huge boon and I thank you for your confidence in us to do that and you'll notice too some of the 100% difference on rental income that is because we are soon to we're anticipating fiscal 25 we will not have any property rental so to be out of that property management this is from that perspective so that is a decrease in revenue and the associated expenses as well are going down there. One item I did want to address and we have broached it last year and there was good discussion at both the finance committee and the board level last year on the solid waste management fee and I reiterated my rationale in here in this memo on page, starting on page 12 but also continuing on page 13 that I do feel we are path due in increase that solid waste management fee and that fee is the fee that is charged at essentially at the transfer station at the landfill for solid waste that is generated within Chippin County that is destined for disposal and that is allowed by our charter and is described in our ordinance and it has remained at $27 per ton for the past 10 years and there's been a lot of discussion about we've kind of been proud of the fact that that number hasn't gone up and yet over the past three years in particular we've seen our costs across the board increasing in double digits. We can manage that to a degree. One of the areas where we do need additional help in generating some revenue and this is where a lot of that interest revenue is going to is in our reserves and in particular in the closed landfill reserve. We had a conversation about that in the last month or the month before that we're nearing the end of our 30 year closure period and we are not at all at the end of our time where we have to actively work on and monitor and manage the closed landfill that we are responsible for here in Williston. So we simply don't have any source of revenue generally when you build up that closed landfill reserve through TIP fees, a portion of the TIP fee revenue that you generate through disposal is set into a reserve fund specifically for the closure. Any landfill manager will tell you that those closure reserves can never ever be enough because you simply do not know what may happen down the road, particularly in the last years as we are experiencing it as the entire country is set to experience. The unknown related to how to manage leachate for PFOTS, we won't know. No, I have to stay on this. We won't know exactly what the costs will be and we do know that our reserve will not cover the anticipated cost. So part of the recommendation for raising this always management fee now is to be able to continue to augment that reserve. And so it isn't that we're needing as always management fee revenue to manage general administration or programming. We're really looking at it for the reserves, specifically that closed landfill reserve. And so we haven't had to raise that fee in 10 years. I have gotten comments from some select boards and councils wondering why we don't just raise it a little bit each year. We heard from Alan last month that when we did raise it 10 years ago, the haulers appreciated having that fee go in kind of a one shot versus a little bit each year. Others always management districts do manage their fees as part of their annual budget and they use various indices. I've indicated too that we could use both the CPI, the Northeast Urban CPI index and the garbage and trash index are two that we could use. And just because we would, if we do make this change and it would be an ordinance change because right now the fee itself is that in ordinance, we would still have multiple opportunities for the hauling community for the public to weigh in such as is being evidenced this evening. This is just the first meeting for the fiscal 25 budget. And we have members of the hauling community here to express their opinion. Throughout the budget process, there would be a minimum of three additional meetings. So there'll be four total meetings, opportunities for the public to weigh in on any of the impacts of the budget. So I do believe that there's ample opportunity for comment and consideration by the board for concerns for the public. So that kind of gets into a little bit of the discussion pieces. So I will kind of back up and ask that there are questions that I could answer for now on the proposed budget. It is as written, extremely tight. I think you can see it is a very, very thin budget as far as if there's not a lot of wiggle room here. And part of that is we're still anticipating a suppressed average quality revenue for sale of recycling material. The markets are stabilizing, but they are not anywhere close to where they were a few years ago or what we have budgeted in this year. We are budgeting for increases in tipping fees at our Joe's recycling facility and at the organic recycling facility. We are not budgeting for increases to fees at the drop off centers. We did that this year. So we're going to maintain that for the upcoming year and expenses are what they are. We've seen some reductions, but things do keep going up as I think we all know. So Paul, I don't know if you would like to question questions on any of the memo content before going to the motion to acknowledge the receipt of the budget or? I think we will have some discussion. I want to ask the first question. I feel like an important clarification in your memo and you've already addressed it, discussion on the solid waste management fee. I think it's important to point out to the board that the numbers that you're seeing in this packet, please clarify, do or do not reflect any change in the current $27 per ton solid waste management fee. Do not. You do not reflect that. It is still remaining $27 in this budget. So I just want to be clear that the staff has not been presumptuous by putting in a change in the solid waste management fee without fully vetting and discussing this along the board and getting feedback from the public. So I think when we get to that and you would specifically ask for that discussion in your cover memo, just remember, we're not discussing a particular proposal tonight, although you pitched a $30 per ton fee. We really want to focus on the more principled aspects of this and the history of the solid waste management fee. That's just like to get that out on the table. With that, open it up for questions, comments from commissioners. I know Mike Cassella is here as well. As an interest in that solid waste management fee, but I do want to get first crack at the discussion to commissioners, but we will not lose sight of you, Mike Cassella, if you'd like to join in a little bit later in the conversation. Paul Stabler. I just want to make a quick point. The finance committee this coming year, this coming budget we're going to, we used to have a series of meetings in the evenings. This coming year, we've decided at staff's recommendation, we're going to have an all day meeting wherein we'll consider we'll have all the different departments come in and present and their proposal. I do just think there'll probably be some follow up needed after that and we might have a shorter finance committee meeting after that, but that is, and of course that meeting is open to all board members as well as to the public. So we welcome anyone who would want to attend and give them that. Other commissioners would like to weigh in. Again, I just want to make sure we have the opportunity to address the solid waste management fee. The only thing I would like to offer is that by my calculations, I've looked up the federal reserve numbers and at $27 in 2013 dollars would equate to $35 in 2023 dollars. So well, again, it's not baked into this budget. The suggestion that we raise the solid waste management fee to $30 per time still significantly lags the rate of inflation and we would be collecting less than we were collecting in equivalent dollars in 2013. Hopefully I've made my point clearly, but it's not a, it's against all other things. It's still, I think, my opinion is a restrained increase. And as Sarah said, it would be directed towards particular long-term liabilities of the district. Alan. Yeah, when we set that though, we set it for a three to four year future. So you gotta, when you start looking at it, you need to look at it with respect to you, the third or fourth year or something, they go from the air of politics. We knew that it wouldn't be as high, I don't believe. Yeah. My CPI calculator just gave me 36 over $36. We're in the bullpen. Just to make a point, to kind of reinforce your point and in general, I mean, I'm curious about the note about what Alan said before, but in general, I would think that it would be, make sense to be following a more gradual increase cover costs. That's all. Paul, would you like me to read the motion to accept, acknowledge the beat of the budget? Sure. And then we'll give you a discussion. The result of the Board of Commissioners acknowledges the receipts of the proposed fiscal year 2025 budget to be further developed through the normal budget process. So moved. Well done. Thank you. And that's it. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded to acknowledge receipt of the budget, not approval of the budget, but just receipt it's being brought forward to the Board. Further discussion on the budget, on the motion, excuse me. I'm hearing none. I'm seeing none. I think we're then ready for the question. All those in favor of the motion, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Opposed, say nay. Any abstentions? The motion carries. We've acknowledged receipt of the budget and let the work begin. Actually, if it's the Board's part of the work, as Sarah had said, there's been an awful lot of work already done by staff on this and want to acknowledge that and not imply that you're just getting the ball rolling now. Thank you. We're now on to item number six, other business. Is there any other business to be brought before the Board this evening? Well, Paul, did we want to ask for any commentary on this always mentioned fee topic in general? I think Mike Cassella had wanted to make a comment. Mike, can we have a comment? I'm sorry. I think the Board has had its opportunity and hasn't said anything. Give it over to Mike Cassella if you'd like to say anything and then I see Rick, your hand was up. Yeah, no, absolutely. I just wanted to, I mean, I think it's definitely commendable what you guys have built and just looking at the budget being in the black, I don't think you should compare yourself to the federal government right now.  I think you've done a nice job and built some really great infrastructure. So I'm not a guy that likes fees, obviously. We have them in our business as well. And sometimes they're things that you can't avoid and I understand that I would just ask the Board to really look at like what's the money gonna go to and if there's ways to ear market, if we're gonna put more burden on Vermonters, like how do we look at that and how do we do it, right? And not just to build more money and reserves and other things like that. That's just, and I'd be happy to proposite in any meetings that you guys have because I do think there's a lot of great things that this organization does. And is there other things that we can pull out of the stream if we're gonna use that money for that? That's great. I mean, I more stabilizing a fund for the landfill closure, I understand how costly that could be. So I do get those needs. Appreciate your comments. Rick. Yeah, forgive me if I missed something or a misremembering. Did we act on the consent agenda? Do we in fact approve the consent agenda? I don't remember doing it. I declared there were no objections, no request to pull anything on. We accepted the consent agenda as presented with the clarifications that have been pointed out beforehand and during the meeting. So we're good on that. Thank you. My apologies. No problem. Thank you. So again, we're on item number six, other business. Any other business? Motion to adjourn. I think you're gonna be second, Sarah. When's the other? I think you're gonna be second. I missed the question. All in the elevator running. Oh, the elevator. The elevator should be his. It is fixed. It's fixed. Okay. So it is fixed as of five weeks ago. The company just came today. I just got the message from Greg. It should be all set for next month meeting to be here as well as flexible. Entertain a motion to adjourn. So we'll move to ethics. Second. Second. Thank you. It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor of adjourning, please say aye. Aye. Aye. The vote is unanimous. We'll adjourn. Happy Thanksgiving to everybody. Safe travels if you're moving, if you're going anywhere. Good night. Thank you. Good night, all.