Okay, are there any comments on the next two items? Board of Director meeting for August and the executive
session. Those will just go forward to the full board. Just with the. He must have did. There's some
other type of corrections and identifying. Commissioner Medeiros interns time at the executive session.
That will be added for what those to the board meeting unless there's objection.
That's great. Okay, hearing none, those will move forward. We come to the Phillips Services Corporation
Superfund site cash out settlement agreement. That is masterful. I lost track of page and that's just
can you number in the back at 25. Mr. Lassen. Does anybody need any rehash refresh of what this is and
where we are on this?
And as a result of meeting with legal counsel at the executive session, I guess I thought about the
instructions were to bring forward a resolution to the board to accept a settlement agreement, which
could be voted up or down. So that's what's in there. And then also if the board votes to approve the
settlement agreement, there is a second resolution there. We will have to move money
between categories to have available to cut that check. Any questions or comments on that or the two
resolutions? I just have a question. So we have $29,000 in our adopted 2025 budget that we can use.
I'm surprised.
Yeah, well, it's in the health insurance line, so we're moving it out of there. And if you'll recall,
we did, in the next year's budget, that line was reduced by about $33,000. Oh, right. So. See, because
it had been over. Yeah, it's, yeah, it's, the way that it had been budgeted for with projected increases
in premiums was off.
and created an exponential shift year over year over years. We're finally starting to make corrections
for that. Well, that's good. Good circumstance. Let's cover this. Just don't have one of these next
year. Alright, any other comments on that?
move on to resolution 19 to amend the district approved vendor lists of housekeeping here. Yeah this
is we have made a change in the provider of the portable toilets we use at the rural recycling centers
so that necessitated pending the vendor list to get them on there. We're taking advantage of it adding
a couple of other new vendors that we've identified for
building repair and maintenance. We anticipate using regular make-below services. So those are the changes
proposed in the vendor list. All right. Any questions or comments on that? I just have a quick question.
What necessitates removing a vendor? What necessitates? What's the trigger for deciding? We no longer use them.
The purpose of the vendor list is for vendors that we either have contractual obligations with the regular
recurring payments that we would make because of the regular use of service for purchases and just to
expedite being able to pay those, but those vendors, vendors have to be on that list to be on the batch
of claims that you see in between board meetings. So if,
keep it from becoming an unwieldy list. If we have somebody we're not using anymore, we can hit them
off. Okay. Or we can avoid maybe accidentally using the wrong vendors. So are we going to- Technically
where we have name change. Right. Are we going to see any savings by going to Izzy's rental?
No, we just hope to get better service. Especially this case. All right. Any other comments on this
one? We can move on then to amending the collective composting program service agreement. Yeah, so this
is one where
I guess if you don't mind, I will let Mr. Winneas, since he's in the room, address these and why we
need to do this. Yeah, the important relevant context is that I have decided for personal reasons that
I will be moving out of Burlington around this coming January, which means that I will be able to finish
up the existing agreement on calendar year, but will not be present to follow through with the sites
that are established and have
ongoing partner periods thereafter. So the way the contract was written, there weren't terms for assigning
that responsibility from one single Joe. So these terms are to both make that possible so that the district
can assume the responsibility of the service provider after that transition. And also the second item
on this list is that
there are, I guess, based on the timing of the way things have unfolded this year, there was originally
an onboarding deadline for this year's terms, I'm sorry, for this year's participants that was shorter
than what allowed for the interested properties to onboard. So the proposal is to push back that date
and it was from original date was. September September 14th, thank you. So changing from September 14th
to November 14th. So this will allow sustainable Joe to complete the service agreement as it as it's
written and then provide for the district to
do the complete department period, ready how much does this get brought on before November the 14th.
We don't wanna bring somebody on and leave them by and dry because I guess the thought being that when
we entered into this agreement that it would conclude at the end of this year that we would enter into
an extension or a new agreement at the beginning of next year.
I wish now is that it's not possible. Sustainable Joe's indicated that they're not. They're not going
to be around and fill that so I will say, you know, Mr. Media has met with myself and Kayla's fan and
we spoke for all of the staff. He's explained program, but the partner period has entailed for the.
Complexes that have been through that to this point.
We're making arrangements to transfer all of the documentation of the training materials to district's
control so that we're in a position to do that. And I think as we get into that and move into next year,
maybe to make the staff decide what kind of commitment we want to make to continuing the program, growing
and expanding it.
at that point that something will address from the next year. I will be sad to see you go. That was
for one sustainable challenge for our CAC. Yeah. Yeah, that's the news. I will need to break to the
CAC at our next meeting as well. So there's a typo in the agreement
Page four of five of the agreement, service provider. It's on page 93 of our packet.
10.1 the red red line text. That says the district should act as the service provider. Oh yeah. I was
trying to get this out. Okay. Thank you. We will break that. So. You don't anticipate any.
you know, I'm not sure if there's any sort of workload issues or like that with staff taking on. No,
that was part of the reason. I mean, just when you come in and be with me, some of those would be the
two staff members that I would look to take on those duties.
And okay, at least that will be manageable for one or two complexes, which at this point is well for
anticipating coming months. Okay, any other questions or concerns on that resolution? Just echoing your
sense that
And I hope that we can talk about what continuing the program in some form looks like. Maybe we can
talk about it before January. Possibly. I did want to reach out to Sean Mia with Citi's Economic Sustainable
Development Office since they have contributed funding to this program.
previously or so to see what kind of interest, whether it's financial or service time that, you know,
the city might be willing to contribute if it's something that, you know, we're going to internalize
and continue, try to continue and expand on. So, yeah, we can certainly take that discussion up sooner
than later. I did want to get some input from the city to see what kind of interest there was from them.
and to what extent or from what perspective they would be interested in participating moving forward.
And we have funds in our budget for next year to have that grant program. So hopefully there's another
entity or person or community that might build upon this program. Yeah. And Sean may have.
connections there to reach out. This might be technical, but it's like your materials. So the educational
materials in particular, are there intellectual property issues with that? Negative. No, the goal is
to actually to make them as available as possible. So anybody who wants to use them, I would say is
welcome to use it. And that is part of all of the data that I've already exchanged as well with downtown
district staff.
to make sure that all of the original content is available in case modifications need to be made to
it. Well, that's lovely. Thank you. That's the goal of the program. Awesome. Do you have some apartment
complexes that are in the process of getting started? There are, I guess, the two that I've been referring
to along so far. They're both in the process of reaching out to their residents
So they haven't confirmed the number of participants yet to ensure that the program is able to start
at their location of interest, but they're also in the process of trying to determine that. Yeah,
so I mean, so I guess that so that means that there's no guarantee that that there will be a complex
that the district has to assume the partner. We I think we do in our discussions do anticipate at least
one because they're
It's a management company that has been doing this at one of their other properties for a little over
a year, almost two years. Okay, so we are confident that they will bring this additional complex into
the program. But again, there's no guarantees that there's going to be anything for the district to
assume. That's part of what the next month and a half is for, to try to get that set up.
And that partner period is, it's like a big window, right? Yeah. And the reason that it's manageable
for the district staff to take care of is that the vast majority of the work goes there, I guess, time
goes into creating and installing the equipment and doing the initial setup of everything. After that,
it's basically a one hour a month meeting with the site lead. So that goes down drastically, usually
within the first three or four months becomes kind of a formality.
things usually stay aligned and level out. That's why the goal was to get the installation done upfront,
and then that's where it would be a consideration for if the district wants to undertake the installation
going forward. That would be the more significant factor than just following the partner period, and
the partner period is 12 months after the launch. What about Harmony School? Did they ever follow up?
I have not heard back from the contacts that I had been
interacting with originally reached out to them several times, several months apart each. Yeah, just
didn't get back. Unfortunately, they don't seem to be. I guess I would say at this point, because of
the amount of changes involved in incorporating a school, I don't think it would be wise to try to undertake
them right now. OK, any other
questions or comments on this? Then we come to the part of the agenda where it's referral, deemed appropriate
for executive committee discussion. So has something to bring forward here. Yes. So this was
But all along had been planned to be brought to the board at the November board meeting. But in reviewing
with legal counsel, staff has some changes close to the district's fee resolution. What started as some
minor changes to our GBM network has turned into a full scale. We're just gonna... There's...
A lot of fees are changing, but there's not anything, not a whole lot of real significant changes. We're
pennies of changes. But at any rate, reviewing things with legal counsel, the way that the statute that
allows us to implement and amend fees requires that the resolution to change the fees be introduced,
then a public hearing be advertised, then the board can vote on.
So we- At the public hearing? At the same date as the public hearing? Yeah, yeah. So what Legals propose,
we need to have the resolution to amend the fee resolution on the agenda for the October meeting just
to be introduced. And then we will then notice, make the notice to have the public hearing, which will
be a part of the, it'll be on the agenda for the work. We just need to distinguish at the board meeting
We're now opening the public hearing under this resolution, and then we close the public hearing, and
then subsequently later in the meeting, the board can take out the resolution and vote on it. Okay.
So which fees are we talking about? Orange bag? Orange bags, no. Our fees, well,
We added the tires to the fee resolution in 2022, but that was the only change we made. The fees themselves
have not changed since 2019 or before, in some cases, depending on what we're talking about. So, our
copy service fees for somebody that wants physical copy of a bit packet or something, it's four cents a page.
That's well below what anybody else in the world is doing. That's how long it's been since that's been
updated. Does that get requested very often? No. Generally, we do it electronically. We wouldn't charge
for an electronic copy of something. Then with the bulk of it, the bulk of the change that really had
to do with the household has this waste and what we charge to businesses and out of county residents.
Previously, there was kind of a formula indicated in the fee resolution that hasn't been modified over
time. But Joey and I, Mr. Long and I looked at, we just need to scrap the formula, basically use it
as a basis, and
put in what the fees are we want to charge. And then if our costs change, if labor changes or something
changes and we need to amend the fees, we bring it to the board and say, hey, we need to bump this one
up. That's a pound or whatever it is based on the change that's occurred. So the formula is not kept
up with the cost. Not kept up with. And I think a lot of it had to do with, you know, with our efforts
pre-COVID where we were
bumping our minimum rate of pay up. Our labor costs increased significantly and that kind of got some
things out of whack and I don't know that we necessarily made all the changes that we could have made
at that time that would have really inflated our prices. And the purpose is not to make money here.
The purpose is to help offset the costs so we don't go bankrupt providing these services. And I think
the other thing that
And that price list has not historically been a part of the fee resolution. It's now a part of the fee
resolution. What's being proposed is actually puts that commercially exempt small economy generator
price list out there in the fee resolution. So I think that also gives everybody, the borrower,
the residents, businesses, an idea of what it costs us to provide all these things that we're not charging
the residents.
Because what we're charging the business for a smoke detector, that's what we're, you know, the smoke
detector costs the same whether it came out of a business or a household to us. So, it gives you an
idea of what, you know, what it costs, what it does cost us, what the tax dollars are going to work.
This is what it costs us to provide these services to residents.
So that'll be in the meeting packet. So it'll be in the meeting packet to be introduced. And of course,
obviously, public hearing occurs, which gives the public a chance to provide input. And the board can
suggest, recommend changes to what's been proposed. But what's there is not necessarily set in stone.
It could be amended before it's voted on.
the tax. Do you expect to increase fees to residential households? No, nothing. Nothing. There are no
new fees or increases to existing fees in the proposed that affect. Perhaps in the household.
specifically to the commercial businesses and personally that small quantity generators. And then we
do take something from our county residents. They make needs in their tax dollars. All right, any questions on that?
sense to do that, to reflect what it actually costs us, especially, you know, for people who are not
paying into our property tax face. Even though the businesses do pay their taxes, but they also have
the ability to generate revenue to offset those costs, and the average household does not.
Yes, I should tell us. I have two things. Where are we at with the Rocky Mountain Institute? What are
they waiting on? What do we need to provide them? I am trying to get information or response from from
key specifically, but you know other potential locations. They talked about trying to find other locations
that we could
solar panels, basically as a part of one larger project that would increase the power available for
off-takers. I think that was looking to increase the potential off-takers to offset that $50,000 Duke
fee that gets split amongst the off-takers. So we don't have, at this point, don't have any response
from Rumpy or any other potential identified
or locations where additional solar panels could be installed. That's kind of where I am with it.
We do have, if everybody saw, there is a webinar tomorrow that they're putting on in conjunction with
the state of Indiana, an item on what bright fields
landfills and brownfields that now have energy production on them. So there is a webinar on that tomorrow.
I think they're up to 74 or 75 registered attendees on that. Hopefully, after that, we can start to
zero in on what are we going to do at our facility and is it going to be in conjunction with anybody
else or not and hope things work.
The other thing I have is I wanted to see if there is an update on the hefty plastics recycling program.
Renew program? The hefty renew program? Right. No, I apologize. There is not. I think that kind of fell
off the radar, but we can pick that back up and look at options for that locally.
to get that program in place here. Yeah, I would really like to see what we can do. There's just so
much that we're not recycling right now in the world of plastics. So thank you. OK, I had a couple of
questions that came up while I was reading the minutes. Is Republic Services now up to date on paying
the host fee?
So they got caught up. Yeah, they got caught up. OK, great. And then there was a request during the
last meeting for a report on a collection of recycling costs for smoke detectors. I know he's going
to look into the piece, getting that together and plans to report it. OK. Anything else for the good
of the order?
Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Thank you.