council the same way that your staff would need to bring to you. We are ready to develop the lease purchase agreement that is talked about in the option ready to draft that in accordance with the general terms that are laid out in the option. We may need a month or two extension should the board of commissioners be willing to grant that. Our understanding is that this option expires on the 1st of November 2021. That is five weeks or so away and given the detail that we need to get right collectively on the LPA. We welcome your indulgence to ask for a two month extension. And we also understand that you all are embarking on a drop off center strategic planning process which may change your interest in developing a drop off center here which is fine. We're two partners working through a very complex situation but we're confident on the city side that the time that you'll need to talk through strategic planning will also get us much closer to bidding which I think will help both parties. So there's always information on the Champlain Parkway website as you'll see under the latest news tab on the home page is that the environmental documents available and that we're trying to be as transparent as we can be on what the next steps are here. This is the information on the Parkway project and the contact information. You know I spent many of my years trying to fight the project to have it be a better fit for the Burlington community prior to my position at Public Works. I don't say this lightly but we've brought this project to three months until bidding and this project's never been in a better spot. I wish after two years I'd say it was under construction. I can't say that right now but this is a materially different place than it's been before. So thanks for your indulgence for 10 minutes. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you Chapin. Are there any commissioners who would like to voice an opinion or ask a question? Paul Stabler. Hey Chapin. Hey thanks. This seems like great progress. That's really great to hear. My question is have you guys been having or had in the past discussions at the Flynn Avenue community level regarding the placement of a drop off center there and is the community generally supportive or do you anticipate pushback on that? Right. There needs to be work with the community. There have been periodic references to this. There has not been a deep dive in the south end recently. In a perfect world we would be further ahead with the Parkway Project that would give us kind of a springboard. That said we are planning to start the engagement. We're going to the Transportation, Energy and Utilities Committee of the City Council next Tuesday. We are briefing the city councilors. This is a public meeting here. We are happy to answer any questions with the public and will be wanting to walk hand in hand with you all about this. Let's be honest until the Champlain Parkway is constructed there will be concerns about traffic between the drop off center and the highway system. I think one of the important points is there has been a drop off center here in the south end that has had to go through residential neighborhoods to get to the highway system. Your staff has informed me that the number of trucks that would access the drop off center would not change materially. And so I think we have some interim answers that aren't perfect but they're good. And the long term answer is a great one. That the Champlain Parkway provides direct on and off access to the drop off center without any proximity to residential properties. And that's a game changer. We want to be a partner in your success. We're going to do this. We're ready to start negotiating the LPA. I think fundamentally your options to give us five years were really beneficial. We've contributed $83,000 to you as a good faith effort of that five year indulgence. But it's time for us both to bring this to conclusion before. Thank you, Chapin.  Hi, thanks for the presentation and update, Chapin. I'm wondering, I'm not that well versed on active 50 considerations. I'm wondering I know it plays into our drop off center hours and flexibility for other locations. I'm wondering due to the location, if that would allow more flexibility or less flexibility for our hours of operation, if there's any sense for that. And then I guess I'll leave it at that for now. I have a couple of the questions. Sure, I'll be short winded and say that the Parkway certainly has been a project that's required active 50 approval and it does have a permit for that project. Yes, the Parkway does have an active 50 permit in working with you all. We would need to get a development review board permit locally and potentially, I'm not sure, depending on the size and scale, whether we need active 50 approval. But what I will say is that once the Parkway is constructed, there will be a much greater support in the community for the conversation of expanded hours, expanded services, just given the easy on and off without impacting residential communities that our community will be more receptive. Other commissioners have questions. I know, Brinn, you do have some additional questions, but I want to give other commissioners a chance to ask any questions that they might have. I'll take I have a couple of questions.  I think, Chapin, you've asked for or indicated some sort of short term extension of the MOU that expires, I think you said on November 1st, I recall, and our drop off center retreat is the day before on October 30th. A week earlier than that is our regular October board meeting. So just juggling all those dates at Sarah, I guess I'm just putting it out there. Most likely in October, you'd be asking us to entertain a short term extension, probably with the same terms that the current extension exists under to allow us to discern our future is actually more or less correct. And I'm asking that question really on the behalf of all the commissioners to understand how this process would move forward. Brinn, another question. Yeah, I guess there's, I mean, there's so many so many projects that are kind of building on each other. Would it be the desire or anticipation for this to be, I guess what I would characterize as a full service drop off center or would we continue to provide the services that we're currently providing? In Burlington, currently, it's only organics. The desire is to return back to the range of services that were provided previously at 339 Pine Street. You know, there does need to be ongoing community conversation that we would welcome to do with you as we progress here together. But I think the community has expressed to us certainly that just providing a limited range creates more driving. People have to go to Burlington and then out to South Burlington or Essex. And it's just easier to have one stop. I'll jump in then with another question. Another commissioner has any question they'd like to ask. My second question is observation is also, I believe, Sarah, that ultimately our decision to build a drop off center on the Flynn Avenue property is dependent on what the decision is by the city of Burlington with their consulate potential consolidated collection, unless that has been resolved. You're doing it. It's not contingent. I actually thought you were going in a different direction. I thought you were going to say it's contingent upon our ability to obtain the permits. And and that is true. But I do think the consolidated collection conversation in Burlington will be a factor or should be a factor in the conversation about what range of services we would be able to provide or want to provide in Burlington kind of getting to Bryn's question. As Chipp mentioned, currently it's extremely limited service just to food scraps and organics. If there were consolidated collection, then we would want to factor that in and say, well, you know, what are the gaps in service? What is an extent for CSWD to to provide? I know that the studies that have been done for the city and Chipp and you can speak much, much more clearly to this have indicated that a certain amount of residents would still want to utilize a drop off center, they still want to have an opt out option if the city were to implement consolidated collection, whether the city ran it or whether it was franchised out. So so there is still some level of at least in the service done by GBB by the series contractor consultant. There is some level of desire expressed to have a drop off option. So if you want to add more, you have more conversations about that for sure. Yes, we've not only to GBB get that information that there was general interest in an opt out, what we've been hearing through a survey that we've been running with over 400 responses is that there is 15 to 25 percent of our population who currently self halls who enjoys the flexibility of that, who enjoys the cost savings of that. And I would be highly surprised if what comes out of our consolidated collection conversation, if it advances, would be something anything but offering an opt out provision. So I fully expect opt out to be there to have a significant number of our populace wanting to use it. The second point I'd make is that in my mind, we are a region and we need to start thinking, continue to think like a region. And I know CSWD does that more often than many. Drop off centers are not in every community in Chittany County. South Burlington really has South, South Burlington and East South Burlington. And Shelburne doesn't have a drop off center to my knowledge. South, South Burlington does not either. Many people in Winooski work in Burlington. Having a regional drop off center with easy on and off access, in my mind, is a win for the entire county, not a win for Burlington. And so it's my hope that that the board here certainly we can always look at Burlington and say they're the exception, they're the elephant in the room. I think this really is a win for the county and we want to be a partner in your success. Well said. The conference room hand is raised. Yeah. Are we unmuted? No, we're good. Yes. I mean, I just want to make a point that even whether consolidated question goes through or not, I think there's a serious need for bulky collection drop off as well as higher collection drop off. I mean, that's anecdotally through my work with with the landlords, with the property owners, I think there's a serious need around college moveouts around every time in general for the city of Burlington. So either way, I think as a as a as a way for people to reasonably get rid of their stuff and in responsible ways, I think I can see wills and being very supportive of of a drop off center in Burlington. Thank you, Colton. Other other questions, comments or observations? Ron, I think I saw. Yeah, I'd like to run still time alternate for Winooski. Just piggybacking on an earlier question by Bryn about range of service and wondering if you have a sense, a definitive sense, if possible, of what the demand would be for full service. But, you know, a full range of service at this site from from the community. Yeah, so previously pre covid shutdown, it was a a kind of a standard drop off center. We accepted most material there. So it was essentially full service with some some space limitations to be had. It was not, I believe, Josh, Michelle, you might note that are two. It was two days or three days a week. Chicken, do you remember? That's three days. Three days. So that tends to be the the standard for the for the facilities with the exception of Hinesburg. That has been the one location that is always only then one day. So I think what I'm hearing Chippen say is that city administration would certainly want us to go back to at least that level of service, a three day week location. Is that fair to say? Yes, and I think, you know, it really plays into the conversation with the community. As noted earlier, you know, we need to do this in partnership with the community. I think generally we've heard in a totally a desire to return back to three days. And I think once there's a better connectivity with Champlain Parkway, that further expansion of that and further use of the facility I think becomes a much easier conversation. Chippen, could you say again in kind of the ideal construction world at what point phase one and phase two might be completed? Yes, phase one, the proposal is to be underway summer fall of 2022. It would be due to three year construction season through 2024. And then the second phase being 2025 through 2027. So the full interstate connection being made in or around 2027 and open. So just a follow up question to that, then, I guess, Sarah, what I heard Chippen say was that construction on that initial section around the Flint Avenue would be completed in 2024. What would be your outlook for when we would, should we decide to proceed with the Flint Avenue drop off center? What kind of timeframe would we be looking at? Well, we certainly would want to, in my opinion, and Josh, I'd like to step in too, if you have a different one. In my opinion, we would want to wait until it was done, that phase one was done or substantially complete. So if you're looking at the spring or summer of 24, I think we're looking at fiscal 24, 25 for planning, permitting, et cetera, at the earliest. I don't know if that would jive with what you had in mind Chippen, but I would be hesitant to put anything on our plans much before that. I think to the extent that the CSWD board can see that the city of Burlington is is interested in moving forward as a partner with you all, we would benefit from the district being willing to not rush the development. I think there's the time for community conversation is important. The time to make sure we get the permitting right is good. This is not a desire on my part to drag this out, but a desire to do it thoughtfully. And I think the timeline, general timeline that Sarah laid out is something that I think works from my. Thank you. Yeah, I apologize if you said this already. How would the square footage of the parcel relate to our other DOC spaces? As far as the size of the build up? Yeah. Josh, do you have a sense of what that might look like? We've sketched out a little bit. I can sketch wise, you know, probably about Milton for Essex. It would be one of our bigger ones, not a big of a bulletin, but there is a third quarter of usual space. I got to review that back, but that's that's a good size DOC for us.  So that's actual, you know, management zone, I think I should say. So it'll be it'll be reasonably sized. It would be medium to large. And then as a follow up question, I know we've had certain DOCs that that the traffic lining up can interfere. What? How would how do we anticipate whether or not that would be an issue or how would it be managed? I know this is getting into the weeds. So sorry. Yeah, no problem. I mean, the beauty of having our insight is is that we're not necessarily constrained to the footprint that we are given. So this would be our opportunity to really thoughtfully design that traffic flow, keeping in mind that the purchase agreement would provide the front portion. So the one ninety five plan, the city would own own that. So we're only leasing from them the two or one portion. The piece that is in the back of that one ninety five. So we don't have the entire nearly three acres, as Josh said, but we have about one and a quarter and a half usable. But that is more than enough space to really design a good flow. And we would do I know it would be so truly mitigating traffic backing up onto the road is critical. As we have talked about that in with Richmond, we've talked about that with South Burlington. You know, what are some of the ways that we can mitigate that traffic impact, particularly on a Saturday. So that would be primary in any design would be that's that's the goal to get people in and out safely and to mitigate that traffic impact. Yeah. And what Sarah said, is locating it to a one, which is further back on the parcel, gives us more queuing space. So there is an elegant solution that by citing this on the backside, which, you know, it's not a retail business that needs street frontage, that this really is the right way to go.  There you go, Rebecca. Well, it's a good timing for lots of creative solutions as we enter into a work session on the system. So any other questions for Chapin? We're right on time for the estimated schedule. Thank you very much, Chapin, for giving us your time tonight and for the good news and the expressions of wanting to be a great partner with CWD. It's it's very much appreciated. Oh, good. We appreciate the partnership. We know you've held on to this property for now two decades. I think there's interest on all sides to come to a resolution here. And I look forward to seeing you all next month. So thank you. So long, Chapin. Bye bye. We're now ready to move on to agenda item number five, the discussion of the Community Cleanup Fund, which is on materials were found on page 10 of the your board packet. I just wanted to make an introductory comment that this is something that Brynn has had a deep interest in for quite some time. There was a bit of discussion, a little bit unfocused at the June twenty twenty one board meeting. She had very much hoped that we would be bringing this to you. Had brought it to you last month for discussion. We weren't ready to do that. And so we're here tonight and I really appreciate the interest and the initiative on Brynn's part to bring this to the board. And I want to give her the courtesy of making opening comments and present her thoughts on this before we open it up to a little bit broader discussion. So thank you. And I want to thank the staff that have been really helpful with this. In particular, Michelle and Nola have done a lot of research to compile data to really look into the depths of this. It's not included in tonight's packet. Which probably would have been helpful for frame of reference. I know that I like looking at numbers and it helps me provide an informed decision. So I think that as we move into the conversation, I believe Sarah, one of the team members can bring up some tables in charge to reference but apologies that that was not included in tonight's packet for you to review beforehand. I think just for a point of reference, this has gotten my attention as like I think while low level and priority, it's it's just screaming opportunity to me and an under underutilized opportunity. And I think the staff have have done a great deal of work over almost the last three decades to create a funding opportunity for municipalities, member municipalities to access funds for projects, you know, such as what Burlington access this past year to clean up the space down in Sears Lane, which was critical to to being able to advance that project. So, you know, I think there are municipalities that do utilize it and there are a number that don't. And I think I as I've learned lately, just because you build it, it doesn't mean that folks will come. So that old adage build it and they will come. I don't know that that is the case. And I think we have done the board and the staff have done a lot of work over the years to make reduced barriers as much as possible to make it easier to access, easier to utilize, more friendly for the commissioners and towns and we're still not seeing that uptake. So and we can kind of get into some of the background data on that soon. So essentially what I'm attempting to propose is given that we have a lot of historic data on funds that are allocated in the budget for the cleanup projects that go unutilized. And because of the timing of when funding, new funding allocations would happen, basically taking the unallocated funds that have been approved in the budget and putting it towards the another existing grant program. So waste reduction initiative or incentive grants, which is mentioned at the top of the memo here. On page 10. So those that essentially builds into the questions, I think getting into the minutiae a little bit more will help. But that that's my hope is basically saying there there's this funding that's approved in the budget and given that municipalities and the timing of it, we know that municipalities aren't, you know, they've reached their cap that funding isn't going to be allocated. Can we redirect that? And it may require policy change, but can we redirect that to other grants? So the rest of the municipalities can access that. So that's essentially what I'm trying to propose and trying to accomplish in the most clear and straightforward way, which has just, I don't know if that has been achieved or not, but that has been the effort. So thank you.  Yeah, I just, I wanted to mention that I was the administrator of the community cleanup fund, excuse me, from 2007 to 2017. So having been on the other end of receiving project requests for 10 years for the district, I can speak to a little bit to the background, not too much to the exact numbers, but I do know that we started out where it was just a community cleanup for illegal dump sites. And if there was a community at large that there was a legal dump site that was on the side of a road, it posed an environmental hazard. Communities could request funding for those types of projects. Then it extended to removal of graffiti. Then it extended into a commissioner had a specific project that might not have been on public property, but was maybe on private property, but it was in limbo with the bank, but it was also an eyesore. Then it expanded into that. And then it expanded into the container grant program to include requests to use the community cleanup funds for container grants. So the allocations have always kind of been shifting depending on what member municipality has more or less in population. There was talk at one point to move the, at one point there was an excess amount. If you hit a certain amount in the fund, then you wouldn't get any more funding until you used it. And then there was a provision involved where you could solicit, sorry, request approval for using someone else's, like if South Burlington had a couple extra thousand in their fund, Westford could request to use Williston's fund. So it got very convoluted. We put the request form online to try and make it easier for people out in the public to know that there was a way to kind of report these things, but then you get into, well, if it's on private property, you can't go on private property and that becomes, you can't trust there's a no trespassing situation. So the community cleanup fund has been a, it's not a lot of money in the grand scheme of things, but it's bounced back and forth through different pods and community cleanup fund. It was in the enforcement budget at one point, the administrative budget. Anyway, I feel like there's a whole lot of work going on for not a whole lot of money and whatever it's been used for historically in the past, I feel like if you just concentrate on that and make it for either container grants to clean up, where there's too much waste on the street and green up day too, you could even use community cleanup funds for green up day expenses. So, I mean, it's just been a fund for people to request to use and we've gotten requests across the board from can I buy t-shirts for my volunteers to can I purchase a rental for an excavator to can I buy containers for my condo complexes in the area? So, just to provide a little bit of a background on where the community cleanup fund has come from and what it's kind of snowballed into, but thanks, Bryn, for bringing it back up again. I always love to talk CCUF and that's my input. Thank you very much, Katie, for that background. I guess I wanted to hope we have the memo in front of us and perhaps we'll have questions about it, but I kind of like Bryn, I like numbers up to a point, but I pulled out four numbers that I wanted to put out on the table and hopefully I can present them clearly, but if I'm wrong, Sara, please jump in immediately because I really don't wanna confuse commissioners. But by my understanding, in our annual budget, we have been allocating to all the towns a total of $17,000. Some towns are allocated in the budget as low as $500, some towns as much as $2,000, but I believe within the budget every year, $17,000 is allocated or is available. I think it's 19. 19? Not more than 19. Unused money for each town can be rolled over to a future year up to a cap of five times their annual allocation. So for example, the town of Underhill qualifies for an annual allocation, I believe of, I think it's a, no, I don't have it, but we'll use Westford as an example, they get $500 allocation based on population. Their fund can hold up to $2,500. If they cap out at $2,500, don't use that money and in a new year, an additional $500 is allocated, that money just doesn't go anywhere. It's essentially returned to the general fund. That's point number two I want to make. The maximum fund balance by my calculations across all the towns is $85,000. Maybe it's a little bit higher than that. It's about $80,000. I'm sorry, $80,000? Yeah, I want to know that if you could promote Nola to a participant, and she can channel the actual winners, but it needs to be $85,000. Identify your memo about the fund balance for fiscal year 2021 fund balance was $79,000. So that's an indication that there is a lot of money out there and as it's been said, it's not being used. Yes, Nola, could you clarify, please? If no one were to use their funds at all and everyone was maxed, that would be $95,000. Thank you. So my point, trying to just get those numbers out on the table to make people aware of the scope of the dollars. It's not much. There's a mechanism to accumulate them. But if the money is allocated and budgeted but not used, echoing Bryn, is there not a way? Can we not have the will to find a way to redirect those dollars to a better purpose or to a good purpose? Then I think the double gets down in the details. And at that point, Lysie Katie, you have your hand raised but I was going to ask Sarah if you wanted to. I would just add another question for the group to think about, which is what are we looking to achieve by maybe moving money that if not then distributed due to caps? So what is the overall goal of this? And from what I understand, and I definitely want clarification if I'm mistaken, what I understand to be is that the district has, for years, made a commitment to our member towns to be able to assist them with perhaps unbudgeted projects or emergency situations as part of another understanding of another part of membership within the district to be able to help support that at the local level in a real tangible way, a visible way, other than just our facilities, here is something that CSWD is supporting in each member town at a project that is really needed and just named out be within the budget. And so if that is, and Katie's absolutely right, it has evolved quite a lot over the 20 years of the existence of the fund. So if that is what we're trying to achieve is how can we continue to either make these dollars available and make more dollars available, get them out and in use in the community, what are the different ways that we can achieve that goal? So I just wanna make sure that we're talking about what the impetus is for making a change. And I know Nola and I have talked about some, and maybe it is kind of too much in the weeds but some accounting challenges with some of the potential changes. So we wanna make sure that we get up to the kind of the top level of saying, well, definitely what is the goal? And if it's supporting these local efforts or something different. So maybe that would be a preferring question for Bryn or you Paul, and then others if they wanna chime in too is to say, well, what are we looking to do? Katie, you had your hand up first and I think Nola and Ben Lee. So I've been at this table many times asking on the other side, what should we open this up to? And every time we've come to the table with this community cleanup fund question, we've opened it up to container grants using it for a cleanup day. This is what keeps happening when we just ask what we wanna do with the money. I feel like we decided that there is a cap and if the money's not being used, it could be. Having it there, I mean, is it a huge, I just don't think it's a huge amount of money to want to take away from the potential for towns to use it. I got a community cleanup fund request actually sent to me the other day, like through the portal. Like it's very odd getting it on the other side but I actually got one through the portal and it's back and forth and but it needs to be there because people know it's there and they send it in and it comes to me and goes to, I think, Janine. It's Janine, Janine? I should be going to know. I wanna make sure that people wanna clarify. The proposal is not to eliminate the community cleanup fund. I wanna make sure that it's very, very, very clear. So if that has not been clear, I apologize. Okay, I just think that if there's, you just keep opening it up to more and again with the accounting challenges, is it gonna go, what fund does it come out of? Where do you reimburse it? And that was the other challenge too is towns have to pay upfront and then the community community cleanup fund reimburses the towns after the fact. So that's the other issue too that commissioners should be aware of. That's correct me if I'm wrong staff if that's not the procedure anymore, but. No, you are correct. And that was one of the items I think Nolo was going to ask about was if we did want to make changes to the structure keeping in mind that the monies that are in the community cleanup fund are still CSWD district dollars. They are not restricted use dollars. I think they do not quote belong officially to the cities and towns. Meaning if CSWD were to be dissolved tomorrow that money would remain with CSWD would not we would not be cutting a check to each individual town for the money that's in that fund. So there may be, again, we haven't really had to have this part of a conversation before so there may not be that knowledge that it's not a restricted use. It is allocated a lot and available but it does not actually physically belong to Westford or something like that. It is still district dollars. So if the board wanted to change that structure to make it restricted, that's a whole other part of a conversation. So I wasn't hearing that, but certainly, if that's something that we wanted to look into I would ask Nolo to kind of talk through some of those conditions but I'm not sure we want to go into the weeds that much tonight. I don't know that that's where we'll be right now, Paul. Well, Nolo had her hand up. I would just follow up on what you said, Sarah. I don't really think we need to get that deep in the weeds and I would say, Nolo, you don't need to address that particular question but please Nolo go ahead with what you wanted to say or ask. I just want to be sure that we understand that there's a difference between what's budgeted and what is the maximum allowed allocation. So in the past we have put that value as our budget but that's not accurate. And I spoke with our auditors for fiscal year 20 and they made it very clear that what we should actually be budgeting is the reserve balance. So I just want to be sure that everyone understands that there is a difference between what we're budgeting versus what that allocation is going to be. That doesn't change the fact that we will have that money distributed out among the towns that are not at their maximum but I just want to be sure that when we're having this conversation, we understand that those are two separate items. The budget is separate from the potential allocation. Right, so what we've seen in the budget all along has been the allocated amount or the amount to be potentially allocated in 19,000. What the auditor was saying, now you have to budget for the full liability. So if everybody used every dollar, that's the cash out. So that's what we need to be budgeting for. So that would be a difference that we'll see in the budget we developed for next fiscal year. And that would be the difference today between the 19 that's currently been budgeted versus the 95 that theoretically could all be expense. Correct. Thanks. Lee, you were next, then Brynne and then the conference room. Thank you. So essentially why we're here is, there's allocated money that's not being spent from member communities. Is there additional outreach? I know the website's got a great site there. I was on it today, cruising around, but what communities don't know that these funds are available and how can we reach out to them? You know, Burlington, we try to use it when we can. We use it a lot. Roadside trash is a big problem here. I'm starting to see it spread to other communities on the sides of the road and to Katie's point. Maybe some municipalities don't have it budgeted for trash. I happen to have some money for trash where I can pay for these up front and then get reimbursed later in the year. I have that ability. Some towns might not have that ability, I understand that, but is there additional outreach or community outreach we can do, whether it's CSWD or commissioners talking to their select boards or city councils, just to, you know, that money's there, let's use it. You know, I'm sure they can come up with some great projects within the public right away. Yes and yes, yeah, and that was one of the things I think Mila had suggested in the memo in June was that she really wanted to make a strong effort this year in continuing to have a presence in the board packets on a regular basis rather than just kind of towards the end of the year what people used to do would be in April and May, remind people, hey, don't forget, you've got this amount of money, that's not enough time to put together a project in the fiscal year. So, you know, by talking about it throughout the year and Abby had brought the point up a couple of years ago saying, hey, tell us what other people are doing and give us some examples of what's happening in other communities just to spark ideas of what we might be able to do. So we certainly can and have been, have been increasing the awareness within the board packet. The point, though, about, you know, is there anything that commissioners can do and because the projects do need to funnel through commissioners, we're not accepting projects just from the general public, they do need to come through you so that we know that you've seen them and you're bringing them, certainly the more involved and active a commissioner is with their fund, they're gonna use that fund. And we unfortunately don't have full representation of our communities. We are missing a couple of commissioners so that has some impact. I also wanna make sure too that our alternates know that, you know, you can be working with your primary with your lead commissioner on developing projects and looking for projects. It doesn't have to be just the function of primary commissioner. So, yes, and we would welcome the opportunity to help you get information into your select board packets and to their updates on a monthly basis. We can produce a little blurb saying, hey, did you know that this is available from CSWD so that they can start to, the select board at the council level start to have those conversations and say, what can we use these funds for? It's available for a number of things. So, yes, I do think there is additional outreach to Brent's point, but I think even when that is done there will still be unused funds. So, that has just been the pattern over the years. So, it's kind of a both, right? It's a yes and, it's both of them. Brent. Thank you. Thanks. And this is why I think it would have been helpful to have the historical data in your packet tonight because that gives a lot of frame of reference. The three pages of total CCUF spent by fiscal year just within the last five fiscal years, the most communities, the most number of communities that have used it in a year over the last five years is nine, half of the member communities have utilized their available funds. And of those folks that are, of those members that are utilizing those funds, the majority are not depleting the available funds that they have or, so in effect, yes, there will always be some funding that's approved in the budget, 19,000 or 95, depending on whether we're talking about FY21 or 22 or FY23. So, I think it's not a matter of writing checks that's restricted for towns. It's saying this money is supported and approved by the board for community projects. We are saying, yes, we want to ensure that towns have access to the funds and we want to continue the cleanup fund moving forward. So once those allocation caps are met, there's going to, there will almost always be some amount that's remaining that was approved in the budget. I'm not saying it needs to, and again, getting into the weeds, but avoiding that for now, there will always be some amount that's left over. So in that event, can we utilize the funds that the board is saying, yes, let's make that available to communities? Can we do something with that rather than just have it go back into the general fund cloud and either not get used at all or to the extent that there could be some emergency that there's no process for that's established at all, then let's say like, let's put it in, let's put, if there's 10,000, let's put that in a community's fund. So it goes towards container grants or let's agree like we've had a problem and the staff have said that there's a problem with spending around Greenup Day. Then let's see if we all agree to say, okay, whatever's left over from the cleanup fund, then let's have staff use that towards paying Greenup Day expenses. I just want to be able to utilize those funds that we identify as a board and that all of our municipalities go through the process of reviewing in May and June with Sarah and the team. How can we utilize that? That's the goal, that's what I'm seeking to achieve. Thank you, well said, Brynne. Conference room. Yeah, this is Kelman Wilson. This is Kelman Wilson. So two points, I'm wondering if staff could possibly add to the program updates every time money is spent and what it's spent on, just so again, kind of turn ideas and add that to the program. So if nine towns are spending at a year so we could see those updates, I feel like that would be an awesome, awesome piece of information to have. The second piece, and I'll be brief on, I agree with Lee that if there's this money here, it'd be nice to see it being spent at the towns it's allocated to. So I'd wonder if there was a way we could measure the outreach team's success based on the number of towns that are going over their allocated five year period. I'd be wondering if we could add that to the outreach team as part of their job to go out and give out this free money in a sense. I feel like that's a pretty good part of a job to be able to go out and do that. And I would hate to punish certain towns who don't have a current representative or maybe have a representative that isn't as engaged to really update them. I'd hate to see that being punished. And I'd rather instead have our outreach team go in and try to bring in engagement from those towns and while they're bringing in that engagement, push them to spend this money. I've got a couple of observations as well. It seems to me we ought to be a bit concerned about the size of the unused money, $95,000. It's a pretty good chunk of change. And if it's not being used, that means it's not being used wisely. And I wonder, and I'm not advocating any kind of slap on the wrist for any town or community that is not using it, but I wonder if there ought not to be some kind of incentive or motivation or encouragement going on to encourage towns to use the money in a timely fashion and in an appropriate fashion. One of the things that I think about is maybe there ought to be a time limit on when the money should be used, maybe five years and then the money gets returned to some other purpose. I think that we obviously want to encourage our towns to do the goals that we have in mind for the entire community. That sort of thing comes to my mind. Paul Stabler and then Bryn. Yeah, I just want to, and I have to disagree strongly with the idea that unused funds and from this unused funds from this particular purpose are wasted in any way. They're not wasted. I mean, every program we do is important. And if it goes back into the general fund, that's great. That's fine. It's used to fund other programs. That's important. So let's not say it's wasted. Now, on the other hand, I do agree that my own personal opinion here on this where I come down is, as long as my town has the full allocation available for the fiscal year, in case something comes up that I can't predict and it's the 11th month, I want to make sure that money is there so that we can help. But if at the end of the fiscal year, there's unused allocated funds, I'm personally fine with like, for instance, going to another program, another community or for cleanup or whatever. I think after staff, and I'm sure Sarah, you're gonna do this, after hearing this discussion, I think what we're gonna need is a concrete proposal in front of us to vote on at some point. But again, I just want to dissuade anyone from thinking that if the community cleanup funds not fully utilized and it's wasted money, it's not. Thank you, Paul, Brynn. Thanks. Two points of clarification. So two words that have just come up in the last couple of minutes are punish and wasted. So I first want to clarify that no one in any way would be punished with a change of this variety. Because of the timing of when funds are allocated, all towns would be reaching their cap or if they haven't spent down their cap, then they wouldn't be getting the money. Anyway, there wouldn't be a punishment. The previous boards have already said, this is your cap.  So we know that by the end of the fiscal year, by the end of June, and then when the numbers are done and run July. So by August, we know whether or not Winooski is gonna get $1,000 or not. Have we used any of that fund to bring it back up to our cap or to bring it back up to the $1,000 allocation? If we're at $5,000 at the end of the fiscal year, then we know in August, Winooski's not gonna get that $1,000 by the end of August. So there's no punishment and I feel like that is a critical component of understanding like the conversation because absolutely I would never recommend that in any way. So it's a timing, it's a timing element. And I also want to assure that I by no way am I, and I apologize if there's the perception that I'm suggesting that funds that are approved in the budget, but don't get allocated to particular towns are wasted. I don't feel that way. I feel like it's more of a optimization. So the board is saying, yes, let's allocate $19,000 for communities to use. And then saying, okay, once we reach that cap, there's gonna be a remainder. So can we utilize that remainder that will be a fluctuating amount over years? And yes, there are accounting challenges with it. Should we say, let's put that towards, if there's a general like speaking of general fund then say, okay, let's utilize that funds for a green update expenses. So that there's like an out like a line item for it, I guess. I'm just trying to think about optimization and the ability to support communities either through saying, okay, like let's take the, take that money and add it or add it to the container grant funds. Let's add it. So we have an amount that will help defer expenses for green update from towns. I'm just trying to think creatively, try to think out of the box. I understand that there's, this is a 30 year program and that there's a lot of history to it. So I appreciate the depth of knowledge and the challenges that are around it. Katie, you have your hand up, but I want to make just one comment and also say we're a little bit past our allocated time and I think we're gonna have to continue the discussion at a future meeting. I just wanted to throw out that I remember as a member of the community back when the annual tire roundup was dropped from the budget and I don't think was well received by the towns and I can speak from personal experience. Underhill last year did a tire roundup, used community cleanup funds and it was fantastic. And it's a way I think that we can serve the community, serve our environment and also do some good PR if we were able to in some way refund a tire cleanup across the county. I think it would be very well received and do a lot of good. That's my pitch. Katie? Well, just two quick things. One, I know we always put it in the where do I chuck this guide? There's always something in there about the community cleanup fund and how to request funding. So that does go out to the community. So I do know that CSWD does that outreach and I also wanted to just say quickly that the community cleanup fund is not, it shouldn't be a metric to measure success of outreach. It's for something that might happen. You can't push funding and say it's free money, use it on something that doesn't make sense. It's there as a, in case something happens or if there's a solid idea that could utilize that fund, there's always a conversation with staff and this commissioner. So I just want to say that it's not staffs, it's not the on staff to make sure everybody spends their community cleanup fund money and if they don't, it's a, you know, demerits to staff. It's not, that's, it's a good benefit for the communities. It's well received. It's always, it's always a positive point in everything that we present to the memory municipalities. So, and that's my wrap up for that. So thanks. I think I'm going to say at this point we do need to move on and continue this conversation, Bern, I really appreciate you bringing this forward and having worked on it for a long time. I hope you're not disappointed that we didn't reach a resolution tonight, but it's a good start of the conversation. Thank you for the time and for, and to the board members for consideration. I'd like to continue to work with Ren on this and potentially bring some, to Paul Stavros point some proposals forward to the board for consideration. Okay, Abby, do you have your hand up for a quick comment? I would like to offer to work with you too, because I think some, I agree with wholeheartedly what Katie said that the burden shouldn't be on staff. And yet somehow board members need to be oriented more and have more of a vision and advocacy for their community. So I don't know where that training comes in. And also there's the design flaw of select boards and towns and what they think their role is and what they can hear and how creative they are and how bogged down they are. So anyway, I'd like to help brainstorm. Thank you. You're on the team, Abby. Thank you. Other folks have an interest just communicate directly with Sara please. Next item on the agenda is executive session. I'm gonna propose that if we have a motion to enter executive session that we grant commissioners maybe two minutes to grab a glass of water or something so that we don't rush ourselves into executive session. We have a chance to stand up and move around. That said, do we have a motion to enter executive session? I can read the language if you like, Paul. Thank you, please. I move that the board of commissioners of the Chittman-Sauer Waste District go into executive session to discuss the organic diversion facility where premature general public knowledge would clearly place the district. It's member municipalities and other public bodies or persons involved at a substantial disadvantage and to permit CSWD staff and the district attorney to be present for the executive session. Don't move. There we go. I can't ask for it. I think we've got to move. Not sure who moved it and seconded it but we clearly have that. Leslie and Katie. Leslie. Leslie and Katie. Thank you. All those in favor of entering executive session please say aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed say no. We will enter executive session via the link that Sarah sent separately and we'll reconvene at 723. My watch says 721 right now. See you there in a moment. Thank you, Paul. I'm not sure who will be joining us momentarily but we can move on. Do we have a motion to exit the executive session? So moved. Thank you, Brenda. We have a second. Second. Westford. Thank you, Katie. All those in favor of exiting executive session, please say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? We will leave executive session and re-enter public session. Good over to you again, Sarah. Thank you, Paul. I would like to have Josh Tyler just give a brief update on the status of our our tons through compost and changes that we may need to make to the budget-anticipated revenues for this fiscal year. So Josh, if you would share your screen. Everybody can everybody hear me? Yes, thank you. Okay, great. And can everybody see the presentation? Yes. Yes. Fantastic. Okay, this will be a general overview. This is an update on food waste management at our organic solution system. We typically refer to it as the ODF. So, over the last five years, we've identified that our ODF, the optimal amount of organics is an input of 5,000 tons annually. In FY 22, we budgeted for 5,376 we actually saw 5,715. And when I say SSO, that's source-separated organics. Those are not packaged goods. Mid-winter in 2021, Cassella Waste Management brought a de-packager online. The inbound source-separated material was hauled by Cassella Waste Management that was destined to our organic diversion facility reduced by approximately 85% in the spring of 2021. All SSO hauled by Cassella Waste Management not received by our facility is heading to their de-packaging facility. That's been taking place for approximately five months, which is how we see the reduction in tons we anticipate for FY 22. This next slide now shows you kind of what we had budgeted for in FY 22 and what we are adjusting for. We had anticipated a potential outlet for a portion of our tons. So we budgeted for 4,722 tons of material coming in for FY 22. With this shift, we're gonna see about a 10% reduction and we're anticipating roughly 4,250 tons coming in. Where we see a direct budget adjustment would be in our tip fee revenue, which will drop almost 25%. When looking at the material that we can sell based on the material that we're bringing in, we aren't seeing a significant reduction in that. We're actually not seeing a reduction at all. And that's based on our new process from our build-out, our phase one build-out from last year. We're starting to see efficiencies and we're starting to see actually more of a generation of product through our process shift. So that's good news because we don't see an adjustment for what we had anticipated in our approved budget to what we have adjusted. That's why that's at 0%. We're assuming our cost of goods sold will not change. And so the overall estimated reduction in revenue is about 9% and I've displayed it in the bottom line. So this is just an update to inform the board that we do anticipate a reduction in inbound tons and that's based on one of the largest hauler who brought us the bulk of our material, shipping that material to their own facility. Thank you, Josh. And Josh, to be clear, this is a projection should nothing else change going forward. So we're not sure what other items might happen in, that's the second half of the fiscal year. So this is if nothing, you know, we're to adjust beyond what the current state is. This is what we are now anticipating that the revenue would be correct. This is as we see it playing out, if nothing changes from now until the end of this fiscal year, this is what we anticipate. Thank you very much. That's some of the presentation tonight, Sara. Any commissioners have any questions or comments on Josh's presentation? I hear none. The next item on the agenda is other business. I guess in a sense this was other business, but are there any other business items to come before the board tonight? I see no one raising their hand. So with that then I'd say, let's entertain a motion to adjourn. So move, South Burlington. Thank you. Second, Jericho. Thank you, Leslie. All those in favor of adjournment, please say aye. Aye. Opposed, say no. We are adjourned. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone.