►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
C
D
C
B
C
B
B
C
A
C
A
B
A
A
E
A
A
A
C
B
A
A
B
So
I
wanted
to
talk
specifically
about
composting,
how
we
take
the
penalty
revenue
and
where
that
should
go,
and
then
multi-family
dwelling.
So
those
were
the
three
topics
that
we'll
talk
through
so
I'll
start
and
remember,
brinker
also
had
commented
on
these,
so
some
of
this
text
is
from
her.
So
thank
you,
member
brinker,
so
for
composting.
B
So
this
was
some
of
the
feedback
that
we
got
from.
The
haulers
was
that
they
use
a
separate
truck
for
picking
up
those
materials,
both
composting
and
the
green
waste
in
a
separate
truck
anyways.
So
there
wouldn't
be
any
infrastructures,
time
savings
related
to
that
and
then
feeling
from
at
least
one
of
the
compost
haulers.
That
we
heard
from
was
that
this
would
put
them
on
a
more
competitive
or
equal
footing
when
it
would
be
able,
when
we
would
go
through
those
to
just
bid
out
the
the
composting
service.
A
Didn't
we
find
out
that
compost
and
green
waste
are
basically
the
same.
It's
just
comes
down
to
bin
size
like
because
some
compost
options
are
a
very
small
container,
that's
weekly
and
then,
but
sometimes
it's
larger
and
would
fit
green
waste
or
was
it
or
are
there
actually
separate
locations
that
those
go
to.
B
F
Yeah,
that
was
my
understanding
as
well.
They
went
to
separate
locations,
okay
to
be
biodegraded.
My
question
was,
as
far
as
logistics
goes
for
the
billing.
Would
it
be
the
same
for
this
rfp
for
the
compost,
both
the
green
waste
and
the
food
waste?
I
just
the
premise
for
that
question
is:
is
it
out
of
scope.
F
Sure
sure
so,
so
the
second
part
is:
is
it
out
of
scope
like?
Is
it
beyond
the
question
of
the
committee
to
advise
on
the
composting
as
well
outside
of
the
single
hauler
and
the
the
question
on
the
logistics
is
exactly
what
you
said
like?
Are
we
just
going
to
do
it
in
line
with
exactly
what
we're
doing
with
the
one
trash
hauler?
As
far
as
like
the
logistics
on
the
billing,
and
then
how
would
we
do?
How
would
we
scope
it
out
for
are
there
the
same
penalties
that
sort
of
thing.
A
Do
you
think
it's
possible
to
do
like?
Does
it
make
it
too
complicated
to
potentially
do
both
like
keep
it
the
way
we
have
it
where
the
haulers
have
the
option
to
include
it
or
not
if
they
want
to,
and
then
also
do
a
stand-alone
one,
so
that,
like,
as
we
know,
there's
at
least
one
company,
that
only
does
compost
that
would
potentially
want
to
bid
on
that.
B
Yeah,
I
can
certainly
we
could
to
your
to
the
first
question.
I
think
it's
completely
within
the
realm
of
of
the
you
know
what
the
committee
is
charged
with
is
how
we
set
up
the
different
contracts
and
how
we
might
you
know,
structure
this.
So
I
think
that's
good.
I
think
you
know
offering
it
through
both
the
rfp,
the
the
kind
of
the
garbage
and
recycling
one
as
well
as
the
standalone
could.
Certainly
we
could
do
that.
C
B
B
Maybe
not,
or
some
of
them
do,
but
I
think
we
would
want
to
encourage
them
to
work
with
a
provider
for
the
compost.
But
I
guess
we
can't
require
it,
so
it
might
be
best
to
at
least
in
order
to
be
competitive,
to
allow
it
within
the
current
kind
of
garbage
rfp
that
we're
working
on
and
also
issue
a
separate
standalone.
C
B
E
E
B
And
I
think
it's
weighing
the
benefits
of
gathering
compost
and
not
having
to
go
to
a
landfill
versus
having
that
additional
truck,
and
I
think
whether
we
went
through
the
current
you
know
if
we
made
it
part
of
the
current
rfp
for
garbage
service,
the
the
haulers
or
whether
it's
a
standalone
compost
service
either
way
that
that
would
they
would
use
a
separate
truck.
So
there's
really.
A
B
A
G
So,
even
though
we
found
that
it
might
not
be
price
competitive
to
include
it
full
out
automatically
in
our
in
a
single
hauler
program,
I
definitely
think
it's
still
worth
us
looking
down
the
path
of
of
a
a
separate
rfp
or
including
it
in
the
menu
like
we
previously
talked
about.
I
think
we
almost
owe
that
to
all
the
citizens
who
commented
that
they
were
interested
in
compost.
A
D
C
D
D
Sure,
I'm
to
just
read
the
proposed
recommendation.
I
propose
that
I
motion
that
we
issue
a
separate
standalone
rfp
for
either
a
preferred
provider
or
bulk
pricing
for
opt-in
compost,
service
and
opt-in,
green
waste
service,
where
the
compost
green
waste
goes
to
the
appropriate
non-landfill
facilities.
A
C
D
A
C
B
A
D
E
B
C
C
B
So
we
had
the
potential
to
modify
the
current
recommendation,
which
was
to
if
we
did
collect
penalties
and
made
some
revenue
from
that.
The
idea
would
be
is
that
we
would
credit
the
household
or
the
affected
household,
with
one
amount
or
for
a
month,
crediting
them
for
one
months
of
service
charges
and
then
the
remainder
would
go.
Two-Thirds
towards
our
low-income
household
assistance,
our
cap
program
and
one-third
going
towards
education
and
outreach
efforts.
B
And
there
is
an
idea
to
maybe
modify
that
slightly
with
the
text
shown
in
red
and
underlined
that
the
the
affected
household
would
still
receive
that
one
month,
service
charge
credit.
But
then
the
remainder
of
the
penalty
amount
would
go
towards
the
low
income
household
bill,
payment
assistance
and
or
education
and
outreach,
so
basically
at
staff's
discretion.
So,
rather
than
specifying
two-thirds
versus
one-third,
that
would
be
up
to
staff.
C
A
D
Yeah
I
like
this
idea,
mostly
just
because
the
two-thirds
one-third
sounds
very
rigid
to
me.
What
if
we
hit
a
point
where
you
know,
there's
enough
money
to
to
do
education
and
things
like
that,
but
there's
still
not
enough
money
towards
going
towards
the
low-income
housing
or
the
low-income
household
assistance.
I
I
think
it
could
be
really
important
to
have
that
flexibility
for
staff,
and
yet
it
still
keeps
the
pot
of
money
still
within
the
same
two
programs.
D
A
F
Yeah,
I'm
okay
with
this
I'm
with
christine
after
the
discussions
with
the
carriers,
it
doesn't
sound
like
it's
going
to
be
a
whole
lot
of
revenue
generation.
There
I
mean
it
was
99.9
that
they
were
hitting,
and
that
was
that
came
from
two
of
the
four
haulers
right,
and
so
I'm
okay
with
that.
I
just
wanted
to
bring
that
up
right,
like
we're.
Looking
at
a
smaller
pot
of
money
than
we
had
originally
thought.
F
I'll
make
the
motion.
Thank
you.
I
move
when
there
is
a
missed
pickup
or
failure
to
resolve
a
customer
issue
in
the
time
frame
specified
that
month's
service
charge
will
be
credited
to
the
affected
household,
with
the
remainder
of
the
penalty
amount
going
towards
low-income
household
bill,
payment
assistance
and
or
education,
and
outreach
about
waste
reduction
and
recycling
at
staff's
discretion.
A
A
D
B
B
I
had
followed
up
with
our
community
development
department
and
found
that
there
are
44
separate
buildings
that
house
between
four
and
seven
units.
They
did
not
have
a
further
breakdown
of
that,
so
we
don't
know
how
many
have
four
versus
five
versus
six
versus
seven,
but
in
the
entire
community
there
are
44
such
properties
that
fall
within
this
category.
C
D
I
was
just
going
to
say
that
I'm
still
unsure
of
whether
that
we
can
get
them
to
have
the
space
to
be
able
to
do
recycling.
I
I
think
we
should
probably
require
them
to
do
it
by
city
code,
but
I'm
not
sure
how
well
it'll
fit,
because
I
wonder
if
they'll
have
a
dumpster
out
back
of
one
of
these
places,
but
they
only
have
room
for
one
dumpster.
D
A
I
don't
think
we
necessarily
have
to
make
it
like
have
to
know
how
it's
gonna
happen,
but
I
think
there's
a
good
chance
that
if
we
were
to
vote
on
this,
we
would
all
agree
that
it's
worth
recommending
to
city
council
to
to
to
do
this.
Should
the
city
council
move
forward
with
making
it
required
for
everyone
else,
and
maybe.
A
G
G
G
The
other
is,
I
think,
what
one
of
the
haulers
recommended
that
we
basically
survey
those
units
and
try
to
get
them
interested
in
what
would
be
a
bulk
pricing
and
we'd
say
to
the
the
single
hauler.
We
have
these
x
number
of
properties
and
they'd
like
the
commercial
pricing.
What
kind
of
deal
would
you
have
for
them?
So
there's
there's
those
kind
of
ways
to
go.
F
Yeah,
I
think
this
is
another
issue
for
me.
I
just
don't
want
to
go
too
far
down
a
rabbit,
hole
right
and
chase
and
add
more
and
more
to
this
rfp.
That's
my
biggest
concern.
I
just
don't
have
an
idea
about
it.
What
type
of
units
that
they're
using
for
the
trash
right
so
are
they
going
to
have
to
use
a
different
truck
to
service
these
buildings
versus?
Do
they
require
seven
separate
or
14
at
that
point,
different
trash
bins?
A
G
Anybody
else
complicated
yeah
for
sure,
but,
like
you
said,
even
though
we
want
to
encourage
recycling,
it
doesn't
fit
very
well
within
what
we've
discussed
so
far
as
far
as
a
96,
gallon
or
32
gallon,
or
those
different
options.
We're
talking
about
dumpsters
here,
so
maybe
going
at
it
later
through
a
separate
effort
to
find
out
which
of
these
units
would
be
interested
in
kind
of
going
together
to
see
if
they
can
get
a
better
deal
together
and
that
might
include
small
businesses
as
well,
but
not
doing
it
through
this
rfp.
A
H
I
think
it
was
still
a.
I
think
it
was
just
a
dress,
but
I
agree
with
what
member
brinker's
saying
about.
Maybe
you
know
we
get
this
kind
of
general
rfp
out
and
then
get
some
information
and
then
based
on
whatever
company
we
either
go
or
don't
go
with.
They
could
potentially
offer
something
that
were
is
aligned
with
our
goal,
but
it
seems
like
it's,
maybe
just
complicating
it
and
would
deter
the
haulers
from
responding
and
being
looking
like
a
good
option.
If
we
add
this
in
is
kind
of
my
thought.
A
B
Yeah,
I
think
I
captured
that
as
basically
a
motion
to
exclude
multi-family
units
from
the
rfp
and
then
take
this
up.
As
member
brinker
said
at
a
future
date
and
almost
through
once,
we
have
a
hauler
identified
that
we
would
work
with
the
hauler
to
reach
out
and
offer
services
to
both
small
businesses
and
multi-family
dwellings.
A
All
right,
let
me
try,
since
no
one
else
says
I'll
I'll
try.
So
I
I
make
a
motion
that
we
exclude
multi-family
dwellings
of
four
to
seven
units
from
the
rfp
and
should
city
council
end
up
moving
forward
with
a
single
hauler
deal
that
we
recommend
city
council
reach
out
to
the
four
to
seven
unit
properties
and
try
to
help
them
participate
in
the
single
hauler
deal
as
a
post
deal
deal.
D
A
D
A
G
And
so
that's
what
we
had
noted.
But
they
they
brought
up
the
point
that
if
we
do
go
with
pay
as
you
throw
where
we
have
a
a
smaller
option
of
of
cart
available,
that
everyone
would
choose
the
cheaper
cart
option
and
then
just
put
all
our
extra
bags
beside
the
cart,
which
would
seem
to
be
kind
of
a
failure
for
everybody.
G
We
did
hear
a
lot
of
public
feedback
that
some
households
have
difficulty
wheeling,
those
really
large
bulky
coats
to
the
curb
or
or
even
to
the
alley.
So
if
we
still
want
to
keep
that
option
open
to
have
as
you
throw-
which
I
think
we
do,
then
we
would
want
to
maybe
reconsider
this
previous
motion
to
allow
that
many
bags
and
bundles
next
to
the
taupe.
But
I
think
we're
really
talking
about
the
bags
more
than
the
bundles,
because
we
know
that
bundles
of
branches
are
a
special
circumstance.
G
G
G
I
came
up
way
early
in
our
discussion
months
ago
and
that's
to
essentially
give
each
household
a
handful
of
free
tags
that
they
could
put
on
a
bag
when
they
need
it
whenever
they
needed
it
so
say
you
gave
them,
gave
each
household
a
half
dozen
tags
each
year
and
then,
when
they
do
have
whatever
it
is,
leaves
visitors
from
out
of
town
whatever
it
is.
That
makes
them
have
a
lot
more
bags
that
then
will
fit
in
their
normal
coat.
Then
they
just
stick
with
the
tags
on
it.
G
D
Yeah,
I
just
remember
the
conversation
when
they
were
talking
about
kind
of
like
what
christine
was
saying
about
people
electing
for
the
smaller
size
carts
and
then
sticking
things
on
the
side.
But
I
also
remember
them
talking
about
that.
They
were
already
getting
rid
of
the
whatever
they
call
it.
The
96
gallon
plus
plans,
and
so
we
might
be
going
backwards
by
trying
to
preserve
this,
and
I
I
sort
of
like
the
idea
of
giving
people
up
to
a
certain
number
of
tags
per
year.
D
A
A
So
I
feel
like
we're
not
going
to
end
up
with
pay
as
you
throw
if
we're
going
for
best
deal
overall,
because
it's
it
they're
gonna
have
to
build
more
price
into
that,
and
if
we
do
go
with
pay
as
you
throw,
it
would
be
an
easy
thing
to
have
this
standard
serve.
Okay.
Let
me
back
up
also
all
three
of
the
haulers
that
currently
serve
englewood
citizens.
We
learned
they
do
provide
this
service
for
the
citizens.
A
A
So
I
I'm
against
reducing
you
guys
know
I'm
against
reducing
this
service
level,
and
you
know
they've
part
of
what
is
giving
us
momentum
to
potentially
get
citizens
on
board
with.
This
is
the
fact
that
the
haulers
have
dropped
ali
service
and
that's
going
to
be
the
biggest
thing.
That's
going
to
encourage
citizens
to
be
for
going
for
a
forced,
single
hauler
solution
is
because
it
will
be
adding
alley.
A
I
see
the
dealing
with
bags
of
leaves
and
bundles
of
branches
as
the
same
kind
of
thing,
not
making
it
easy
for
them
to
reduce
the
service
level
and
then,
when
it
comes
to
pay
as
you
throw,
I
get
the
whole.
If
someone
opts
to
a
smaller
cart,
then
they
could
be
effectively
cheating
the
system
and
so
make
it
so
that
you
only
get
that
if
you
have
the
biggest
container,
you
don't
have
to
take
away
the
service
level
that
people
are
used
to.
You
can
just
make
it.
A
So
if
you
opt
for
the
smaller
container,
should
we
go
with
pay
as
you
throw,
then
you
don't
get
to
add
bags
on
the
side,
that's
only
for
the
full-sized
cart
and
then
equivalent
service
to
what
all
three
of
those
providers
do
currently
provide
to
citizens.
Who've
been
around
for
a
while,
remember,
kawanabe.
F
Yeah
I
was
going
to
actually
suggest
the
same
thing
is
just
require
or
allow
that
for
the
largest
bins.
The
other
thing
is,
I
didn't
realize
that
we
had
said
that
you
could
throw
anything
in
those
bags.
I
think
we,
the
original
intent,
was
to
say
that
those
bags
were
strictly
for
green
waste
right
and
maybe.
A
F
A
F
Don't
know
if
you
can
yeah
and
I
think
what
we
would
do
is
just
for
optics-wise
or
not
even
just
optics
but
encouraging
them
just
to
say
this
is
intended
for
green
waste.
Only
right,
there's
going
to
be
people
that
cheat
the
system
one
way
or
the
other,
but
I
think
my
my
option
would
to
to
believe
and
still
have
faith
in
the
community
and
saying
like
look.
Do
the
right
thing.
A
C
E
Yeah,
I
guess
I'm
seconding
what
you're
saying
chair
green
is
that
you
know
I
have
my
neighbor
here
on
the
corner
and
he
is
always
putting
bags
out
there
and
he
doesn't
get
charged
anything
extra
and
I
guess
he
has
waste
services
and
he's
happy
with
them.
And
I
don't
it
just
sounds
to
me
like
we're,
trying
to
appease
the
haulers
instead
of
appeasing
our
citizens
with
the
services.
G
If,
if
we
go
this
way,
I
would,
I
would
prefer
to
explicitly
limit
it
to
green
waste,
rather
than
just
hope.
It's
mostly
green
waste
to
make
sure
that
we
go
what
we're
intending
and
then,
as
as
far
as
previous
discussion,
we
heard
quite
clearly
from
almost
all
of
the
haulers
that
if
they
have
to
get
out
and
get
extra
bags
they're
going
to
give
us
a
higher
price,
we
wish
it
wasn't
that
way,
but
they
all
said
that
that's
the
deal
it's
more
labor
for
them.
G
It
takes
more
time
for
them.
So
if
our
first
primary
goal
of
this
entire
process
was
to
get
a
lower
rate
for
citizens,
then
we'll
want
to
do
what
we
can
to
try
to
get
a
lower
rate
and
just
allowing
unlimited
bags
or
some
number
of
bags
five
bags
every
week.
Next
to
the
tote,
that's
going
to
make
our
price
so
much
higher.
D
D
They
didn't
need
any
branches
at
all
taken
away.
You
know
so
they're
going
to
be
paying
a
higher
price
for
essentially
somebody
like
us.
Who
probably
would
you
know
where
I'd
be:
okay,
paying
the
lower
price
and
then
paying
even
for
additional
bags
or
additional
things
individually,
as
long
as
with
a
reasonable
price
per
additional
tag,.
E
A
I
agree
and
that's
true
and
waste
can
waste
connections
was
vocally
completely
supportive
of
it.
They
were
like
quite
accommodating
and
willing
to
have
that
be
a
part
of
it.
It
was
primarily
waste
management
that
put
up
the
biggest
fight
about
trying
to
resist
it,
even
though
they've
been
offering
that
service
for
at
least
to
my
knowledge,
20
years,
because
I've
been
here
that
long
and
probably
a
lot
longer
than
that
there
are
a
lot
of
citizens
in
this
city
who
are
used
to
that
level
of
service.
That's
been
provided
all
along.
A
The
fact
is
the
trash
trucks
going
through
the
alley,
even
if
we
make
a
new
deal,
are
still
going
to
be
the
rear,
automated
thing,
which
means
there's
already
somebody
moving
the
can
physically
to
put
the
can
to
the
back
of
the
truck,
and
they
can
throw
the
bags
in
when
that
comes
up
as
well.
They
want
to
resist
it
because
they
want
to
make
more
money
and
that's
all
there
is
to
it.
A
I
think
our
goal
is
to
get
if
we're
going
to
force
a
single
hauler
on
citizens,
then
we
should
be
focused
on
at
least
the
existing
service
level,
preferably
better
and
lower
cost
doesn't
have
to
be
one
or
the
other,
and
if
they,
if,
if
no
hauler,
can
do
it,
then
back
to
the
drawing
board
or
negotiation,
we
don't
have
to
make
it
easy
for
them
to
lower
service
levels
and
increase
cost.
It's
a
good
deal
for
them.
A
H
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
I
also
think
that
one
of
the
goals
that
we
initially
had
as
a
committee
was
just
the
environmental
impact,
and
I
think
it's
okay
just
to
have
like
we're
we're
proposing
something
totally
new
to
this
community,
and
I
think
it's
okay
to
have
a
bottom
line
of
like
this
is
kind
of
a
basic
trash
service
and
and
really
we're
urging
people
to
have
less
trash
and
waste.
And
so
I
think
by
us
eliminating
the
need
for
like
additional
trash
outside
of
containers,
and
things
like
that.
H
I
actually
think
is
okay,
because
our
goal
is
also
about
the
environmental
impact.
And
it's,
I
think
that
we
don't
have
to
have
like
all
of
these.
Like
super
flexible
things
and-
and
maybe
that
would
be
great-
and
maybe
it's
not
as
appealing
right
away
for
everyone.
But
I
I
do
think
that
you
know
ultimately
in
order
to
make
it
okay
for
people
that
have
a
bunch
of
trash
bags
outside
their
containers
like
it.
Just
feels
like
we're,
not
necessarily
sticking
to
our
like
value
of
what
we're
also
trying
to
accomplish.
H
G
A
I'll
say
right
now
that
if
we
go
this
route,
I'm
going
to
come
out
hard
publicly
against
this,
because
I
it's
a
it's
a
massive
reduction
in
current
service
levels.
I
don't
agree
with
this.
I
think
that
this
is
there's
no
reason
that
the
three
haulers
that
are
really
the
only
ones
who
are
capable
of
doing
it
that
are
already
serving
inglewood
citizens
and
already
providing
this
service
can't
continue
to
provide
this
service.
G
A
Arbitrarily
picking
a
number
of
bags
is
especially
the
number
that
was
suggested
of
six
is
unfair
to
citizens.
I
don't
even
have
that
big,
a
yard
and
when
I
deal
with
leaves
it's
even
if
I,
even
though
I
stand
in
the
trash,
can
stomping
it
down
to
pack,
as
many
leaves
as
I
possibly
can
in
each
bag,
it's
more
than
six
bags.
When
I
do
one
round
of
dealing
with
leaves.
So
it's
it's.
You
know,
that's
not
enough,
I
mean
so
50
I
mean
the
truth.
A
Is
it's
not
going
to
probably
be
that
many,
and
I
don't
agree
that
these
haulers
are
going
to
assume
that
everyone's
putting
five
bags
out
every
week?
They
they
know
what
they
currently
get,
which
is
when
there's
of
you
know,
weather
events
that
break
down
branches
and
people
have
to
deal
with
that
who
can't
afford
to
pay
hundreds
or
thousands
of
dollars
to
a
tree
service
to
take
care
of
it
for
them,
and
when
there's
you
know
once
a
year
when
people
are
dealing
with
leaves
remember
lib.
A
G
G
E
Yeah,
I'm
going
to
be
totally
against
this,
and
one
of
the
reasons
why
I'm
going
to
be
against
this
is
that
I
have
this
huge
tree
in
front
of
my
house,
and
I
have
bags
and
bags
of
leaves
and
I'm
like
you,
chair
grain.
I
can
stomp
on
them
and
get
them
as
much
as
I
can
in
the
bags,
but
they
just
drop
and
drop
and
drop,
and
when
I
have
broken
branches,
you
know
I'm
just
not
okay
with
this,
because
there
are.
I
would.
E
I
would
rather
honestly
start
all
over
again
if
this
is
what
it's
going
to
be,
because
I
would
just
rather
go
with
waste
services
and
let
them
do
it
with
you
know
my
my
own.
I
am
totally
against
this
and
it's
not
like
I'm
going
to
be
putting
bags
out
there
every
week
or
anything
it's
going
to
be
basically
in
the
autumn
or
when
we
have
bad
weather
or
when
my
tree
limbs
break
because
of
the
weight
of
the
snow,
and
I
can
tell
you
12
bags
will
never
be
enough
for
me.
D
D
Can
we
find
a
way
that
they
include
it
in
terms
of
a
price,
and
if
we
have
this
as
having
the
five
additional
bags,
plus
four
bundles
of
branches,
and
then
one
price
without
to
be
able
to
see
if
we
could
could
get
a
price
difference
between
the
two
from
the
haulers?
Is
that
an
option
director
d'andrea
or
is
that
too
complicated.
B
No
just
similar
to
the
other
options,
you
know,
it'd
be
part
of
that
base
service,
and
then
this
would
be
an
add-on
so
assume
that
the
base
service
is
nothing
outside
the
cans
and
then,
if
we
were
to
add
on
you
know
up
the
motion
of
up
to
five
additional
bags
and
up
to
five
four
bundles
of
branches.
What
would
that
additional
cost
be?
We
could
certainly
do
that.
B
A
E
E
G
It
sounds
like
we're,
maybe
leaning
towards
a
motion
where
our
menu
of
options
that
we
ask
for
in
the
rfp
would
include
three
things.
One
is
cart
only
and
whatever
you
put
outside
of
your
cart,
you
pay
per
bag,
which
is
what
they
responded
in
the
last
rfp.
They
said
like
a
few
bucks,
the
middle
one
would
be
say,
six
tags
per
household
or
some
other
number
and
the
other.
A
The
fact
is,
all
three
of
the
haulers
currently
provide
the
service
and
there's
enough
room
for
them
to
make
money
that
they're,
offering
it
for
16
a
month
with
the
five
additional
bags
and
four
bundles
of
branches
and
enough
for
a
middleman
of
waste
services
to
make
money
in
the
middle.
So
we
know
the
numbers
are
such
that
they
can
do
it
because
they're
currently
doing
it
and
they've
been
doing
it
forever.
Yeah,
they
would
love
it.
A
If
they
could
have
one
guy
driving
a
truck,
then
he
pushes
a
button
and
the
bins
automatically
go
every
time
and
they
never
have
to
do
anything
except
bring
in
money.
But
you
know
we're
representing
citizens
and
the
fact
is:
there's
thousands
and
thousands
of
citizens
that
have
been
used
to
this
service
level
for
more
than
20
years,
probably
40,
plus,
and
by
by
not
making
that
a
requirement
in
the
rfp
we're
saying
to
city
council,
we're
okay
with
city
council,
picking
an
option
that
eliminates
that
basic
service
level
that
everyone
is
already
used
to.
A
G
G
I
wouldn't
accept
30
bags
a
year
because
then
households
that
have
a
whole
lot
of
bags
of
trash,
whether
those
are
leaves
or
whatnot,
are
dumping.
The
cost
of
that
onto
households
that
maybe
have
zero
bags
of
fresh,
and
I
don't
really
think
that.
That's
that
that's
fair
to
put
the
price
there.
I
could
see
a
few
bags
per
year.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
that
strict,
but
I
wouldn't
see
unlimited
bags
and
I
want
to
keep
the
cost
as
low
as
possible
for
the
most
people
as
possible.
Well,.
F
C
B
I
had
that
we
ask
in
the
rfp
for
a
base
price
without
the
without
any
materials
outside
of
the
bin,
plus
a
price
per
tag
for
additional
items,
plus
a
price
for
the
previous
motion,
which
was
up
to
five
additional
bags
and
four
bundles
of
branches.
Basically
per
week,
I
did
not
get
chair
member
brinker.
If
there
was
a
certain
number
of
bags
for
free,
I
didn't
catch
that
part.
If
there
was,
she
said.
A
A
A
Is
that
we
lose
the
service
level
because
there's
no
way
that
what's
going
to
be
picked,
you
know
they're
going
to
bump
up
the
price,
we're
basically
making
it
easy
for
the
haulers
to
eliminate
the
service,
because
they're
gonna
bump
the
price
up,
because
they'll
be
acting
like
it's,
not
what
it
currently
is,
which
is
random.
Sometimes
people
have
extra
they're,
gonna,
say:
oh.
If
everyone
every
week
is
going
to
have
all
this
extra
they're
going
to
put
it
up
so
high.
A
E
E
A
I
also
think
this
is
a
disservice
to
citizens,
because
we
already
voted
on
this.
We
didn't
learn
anything
that
reverses
the
fact
that
the
three
haulers
that
are
currently
serving
citizens
do
include
this
in
their
existing
packages
that
people
have
been
have
had
and
they're,
not
eliminating
yeah
they'd
love
to
they'd
love,
to
make
more
money
and
offer
less
service.
But
that's
you
know
we
don't
have
to
make
it
easy
for
them,
and
when
we
voted
for
this,
we
were
a
more
complete
committee
that
represented
the
citizens.
We
had.
A
C
C
F
G
G
We
also
heard
that
boss
may
go
up
with
the
different
sizes,
so
a
lower
cost,
but
also
more
than
that,
just
to
simplify
things.
If
we
do
go
with
a
as
you
throw,
I
wonder
about
eliminating
the
middle
size,
category
of
the
60,
something,
and
only
asking
for
pricing
for
the
30,
something
and
then
90
something.
D
I
like
this
idea,
just
because
I
think
what
we
heard
from
most
citizens
if
they
wanted
a
smaller
one
because
was
because
they
really
didn't
have
that
many
people
living
in
their
household.
You
know
a
single
person,
something
like
that.
They
didn't
have
much
garbage
and
also
it
wouldn't.
It
would
be
difficult
to
move
a
larger
one.
D
So
I
think
it's
good
that
we
offer
a
smaller
option,
but
I
also
think
yeah
limiting
our
numbers
is
good,
because
that
way
again
we
try
and
get
our
lowest
price
that
way
they
don't
have
to
stock
three
different
sizes
for
replacements
or
for
for
new
residents,
or
something
like
that.
I
I
think
it's
a
smart
way
to
go
since
it's
just
an
option
anyway,
is
the
pay
as
you
throw.
I
don't
think
it
can
hurt
to
just
kind
of
keep
us
a
small
one
and
a
large
one.
F
A
Yeah,
I
don't
remember
an
exact
thing
about
three
to
two
being
any
better,
but
it
just
I
think
I
mean
they
did
say
the
more
options,
the
more
complicated,
the
more
expensive
so
just
by
fax.
I'm
sure
that
three
is
more
expensive
than
two,
because
they
have
to
deal
with
the
different
you
know,
inventory,
etc
and
tracking.
So
you
know
it
makes
sense
that
two
would
be
less
expensive
than
three,
but
the
primary
way
to
make
it
less
expensive
is
how
to
have
a
single
from
what
we
heard.
D
E
D
D
Well,
I
I
wanted
your
your
input
in
terms
of
sizing
and
things
like
that.
I
know
I
thought
one
of
your.
Your
concerns
was
dragging
around
the
the
really
large
bin,
the
96
gallon
bin,
because
you
you
live
in
a
single
person
household.
Do
you
have
any
opinion
on
the
having
a
32,
64
or
96
gallon?
Would
you
be
okay
with
just
a
32
gallon,
or
is
that
no?
That
would
be
fine
with.
E
D
D
D
F
A
I
mean
the
only
way
we'd
get
pricing
on.
It
would
be
to
not
make
this
change
because,
as
it
stands,
we're
asking
for
pricing
on
I
mean
I
guess.
Instead
of
doing
it,
the
way
you've
got
it
currently
remember
brinker,
it
could
be
making
it
a
third
choice
for
pay.
As
you
throw
or
I
mean
a
third
choice
total,
so
one
would
be
fixed
size,
one
would
be
the
three
sizes
and
one
would
be
the
two
sizes
yep
that
was.
F
A
G
I
think
our
our
main
point
in
doing
this
would
be
less
for
the
cost
savings
angle,
which
would
be
literally
sense
and
more
for
the
simplicity
of
running
the
overall
program,
considering
that
probably
the
small
size
or
the
big
size
would
work
for
almost
all
households,
so
just
for
simplicity
to
narrow
down
the
choices.
We
know
that
the
cost
difference
won't
be
huge
regardless
because
we
can
go
off
of
the
bids
that
we
got
previously.
G
So
it's
somewhere
between,
like
40
cents
and
a
dollar
between
pay
as
you
throw
in
the
uniform
size.
However,
the
the
smaller
size,
the
32
gallon,
was
way
cheaper
for
people
that
that
would
work
for
so
essentially
in
order
to
do
pay
as
you
throw
every
house
is,
paying
maybe
say,
40
cents
more
per
month,
so
that
other
households
who
maybe
can't
handle
or
manipulate
such
a
huge
bin
would
have
the
option
of
of
lower.
G
A
And
just
to
put
this
out
there,
as
you
know,
to
be
considered,
is
you
know,
maybe
member
brown
would
have
a
thought
on
this,
for
the
people
who
would
have
trouble
with
a
large
bin
would
a
32?
Would
a
64
also
be
trouble
or,
like
you
know
what,
if
we,
you
know,
the
downside
would
be
if
we
go
with
32
and
96.
A
A
A
A
C
C
E
C
G
A
D
I'm
okay
with
just
bi-weekly
I
I
definitely
fill
up
my
recycling
bin
every
two
weeks,
but
you
know
again,
if
we're
trying
to
shoot
for
at
least
lowe's
cost
for
our
constituents.
I
think
we
should
shoot
for
the
bi-weekly,
because
I
think
any
time
we
add
another
truck
going
down,
the
the
alleyway
is
just
as
a
you
know,
a
pass
to
look
for
more
recycling
or
we're
running
up
the
cost.
So
I
think
we
should
try
and
stick
with
bi-weekly.
A
A
A
A
H
A
E
Quite
honestly,
but
I
don't
think
that-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
how
you
make
a
emotion-
I
haven't
done
emotion,
but
I
don't
think
that
people
should
that
this
recycling
be
mandatory
for
everyone,
especially
when
you've
got
single
people
I
mean
I
don't
have
anything
to
recycle,
and
so
why
am
I
paying
for
recycling?
So
I
guess
the
motion
would
be
not
to
make
recycling
mandatory.
C
B
C
G
G
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we're
still
comfortable
with
our
old
motion,
which
just
for
everyone's
memory,
was
that
the
first
two
years
of
the
contracts
are
a
fixed
price
and
then
it
could
go
up
by
the
consumer
price
index,
which
is
just
the
local
inflation
rate.
But
it
was
limited
to
one
percent
per
year.
G
G
I'm
okay
sticking
with
what
we
decided
before,
because
I
know
that
that
was
such
a
difficult
meeting,
but
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we're
comfortable
with
that.
The
cost
might
be
a
lot
higher
at
the
front
end
or
see.
If
we
want
to
again
offer
in
our
menu
of
options
what
their
cost
would
be.
If
it's
just
claim
find
inflation.
A
Personally,
I'm
not
inclined
to
make
it
easier
for
them
to
push
the
price
higher,
and
I
you
know
the
structure.
We
have
forces
them
to
make
it
the
actual
price
they're
going
to
charge
and
it
you
know,
price
doesn't
have
to
increase
every
year.
We
don't
know
if
we're
going
to
hit
a
recession
or
a
depression
or
what's
going
to
happen
and
by
automatically
you
know,
we've
already
got
the
ability
for
them
to
raise
it
10
percent
over
the
whole
time.
A
D
D
Assume
that
prices
will
go
up
but
yeah
I
don't
know,
is
it
better
to
front
loaded
or
back
loaded?
I
don't
know.
Maybe
people
appreciate
the
predictability
over
10
years,
because
we've
limited
it
up
to
10.
You
know
I'm
sort
of
just
guessing
off
the
top
of
my
head
that
everything
comes
in
around
20
bucks
and
so
that
assumes
by
the
end
of
20
or
after
the
end
of
10
years
we
had
22
bucks
per
person.
C
D
D
D
A
A
What
we're
discussing
right
now
is
we
have
a
director
d'andrea.
Could
you
please
scroll
on
your
screen
just
so
everyone
sees
if
they're,
not
if
they
don't
have
it
themselves,
the
the
thing
we're
talking
about
thanks.
Currently,
we
have,
if
ever,
if
everyone's
looking
at
their
screen
or
their
printout
or,
however
they
have
it,
I've
got
it
on
both
the
old
motion.
A
We
set
up
the
price
increase
structure.
We
already
have
voted
on
that.
It's
what
we
decided.
We
were
going
to
go
put
into
the
rfp,
and
what
remember
brinker
is
saying:
is
that,
based
on
the
feedback,
because
we
heard
how
they
like
to
raise
their
prices
as
much
as
they
possibly
can,
which
is,
of
course,
the
case
they.
D
Yeah,
I
don't
know
I
I
had
written
down
something
here
that
was
like
okay,
you
know,
maybe
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
increase
it
enough
over
the
years,
and
it
goes
back
to
talking
about
the
10
sort
of
thing.
So
if
it
goes
from
20
to
22
bucks.
Well,
what?
If
we
say
it's
15,
so
it's
more
like
we
could
give
them
up
to
three
years
or
up
to
five
years
of
three
percent,
and
that
would
still
again
if
we
went
from
20
it
would
go
to
23
over
a
10-year
time
period.
D
You
know,
is
that
too
much
I
I
I
don't
know
I
guess
yeah.
I
I
still
talking
out
loud
here
just
thinking
out
loud,
because
I'm
unsure
what
to
do
with
this
one.
I
think
it's
okay
as
it
is,
but
I
think
we
are
going
to
end
up
with
higher
upfront
costs.
But
again
I
think
people
might
like
the
predictability
over
time.
So.
G
B
A
A
I
mean,
unless
someone
knows,
there's
other
composting
companies
that
might
come
and
then
there's
also
that
first
of
the
four
haulers
that
does
a
lot
of
that.
So
you
know
we've
heard
from.
I
think
everyone,
and
I
think
the
separate
rfp
that
we're
we've
talked
about
putting
out
should
be
pretty
straightforward.
Do
you
feel,
like
you
need
information
from
compost,
company
interviews
for
you
to
be
able
to
do
the
separate
compost,
rfp
director,
d'andrea.
A
B
B
There
were
also
a
request
for
some
of
the
possibly
the
job
descriptions
which
are
attached
to
this
memo,
but
I'll
just
kind
of
walk
through
kind
of
the
thought
process
of
how
we
got
to
this
administrative
fee,
so
the
administrative
fee
would
be
added
on
to
whatever
those
services
are
that
are
selected
in
from
the
basically
what
the
waste
hauler
is
going
to
charge
us,
and
then
this
would
be
added
on
to
that.
So
in
talking
with
other
members
of
the
organization,
this
was
at
currently
the
ideas.
B
This
would
be
the
staffing
that
would
be
required
to
support
this
program,
so
we're
looking
at
one
full-time
program
coordinator-
and
this
is
the
estimated
wages
benefits
and
taxes
costs
associated
with
that.
Then
there
would
be
one
additional
billing
specialist
who
would
be
part
of
the
utility
billing
team
that
we
currently
have
and
again
wages
benefits
and
taxes
and
then
just
a
part-time
half-time
code
enforcement
officer.
B
We
also
undertake
a
compensation
study
every
few
years
to
ensure
that
the
pay
rates
for
positions
are
competitive
with
others
in
the
local
area.
So,
for
example,
billing
specialists
for
other
entities
throughout
the
front
range
are
compared
to
make
sure
that
that
class
of
employee
is
being
paid
relatively
within
the
range
similar
to
other
agencies
and
what
they
pay.
B
B
We
still
do
a
fair
number
of
mailings,
not
just
you
know,
outreach
via
twitter
or
facebook.
We
do
do
those
things
as
well,
but
we
still
get
a
fair
number
of
people
responding
to
us
that
they,
like
the
mail
pieces,
that
those
are
important
for
them
to
receive
information.
So
those
costs
of
developing
those
pieces,
printing
and
mailing
them
is
included
in
this
price.
B
B
So
we
did
reach
out
to
some
of
the
other
cities
and
talk
about.
What's
at
the
request
of
the
committee
and
see
what
kind
of
staff
they
have,
the
city
of
arvada
does
have
two
staff
right
now:
utility
billing
associates
they're
still
working
on
their
program,
they're,
launching
that
in
july
of
this
year,
city
of
lafayette
has
no
extra
city
staff
that
is
dedicated
just
to
garbage.
So,
as
it
says
there,
they
receive
just
the
data
dump
in
order
so
that
they
can
send
out
the
costs
along
with
their
water
bills.
B
B
We
do
not
have
a
sustainability
staff
person
currently
within
the
organization,
but
right
now
golden
does
have
that
position,
and
so
they
oversee
the
garbage
program.
As
part
of
their
duties
as
a
significant
part
of
their
duties
city
of
lakewood,
similarly,
although
they
don't
have
a
single
hauler
program
in
place,
they
do
have
a
sustainability
manager
and
so
that
effort
to
consider
this
on
through
the
city
council
and
through
the
community,
was
led
by
their
sustainability
manager.
B
A
B
B
G
A
D
I'm
totally
in
agreement
with
cheer,
green
and
and
member
brinker
that
I
I
think
the
code
enforcement
the
likelihood
especially
considered
we're
already
talking
about
how
they
thought
that
you
know
we
were
less
likely
or
very
light
unlikely
to
have
problems
with
with
the
trash
pickup
miss
pickups
and
things
like
that.
I'm
hoping
we'll
also
have
less
problems
with
with
concerns
about
people,
leaving
garbage
cans
out
or
or
you
know,
dumping
garbage
in
the
alley,
and
things
like
that
too,
because
we've
already
got
kind
of
that
managed.
D
F
Yeah,
I'm
hesitant
to
cut
this
without
having
additional
conversations
with
the
people
that
this
is
actually
going
to
take
bandwidth
away
from
their
work.
Right
so
is
it?
Is
there
going
to
be
additional
workload
to
the
current
code
enforcement
officers
director?
When
was
the
the
these
numbers
input?
Was
it
recently
that
you
requested
this
information.
B
F
Yeah
and
given
all
of
the
changes
that
we've
made
in
this,
it
could
be
that
that
this
has
changed.
I'm
with
everybody
else.
I
don't
see
an
additional
need
for
quote
enforcement,
but
again,
I'm
not
in
the
program
right,
and
so
they
probably
seeing
things
that
I'm
not
saying.
In
fact,
I
know
they
are
right,
and
so
maybe
this
is
something
that
we
bring
back
to
them.
A
A
B
Yes,
thank
you,
so
the
one
asterisk
should
be
for
the
cost
per
household
per
year.
So
up
here,
if
you
can
see
my
mouse
or
my
arrow
and
then
the
double
asterisk
should
be
here,
so
that
assumes
4
500
per
quarter
for
this
communications
piece:
okay,
so
4
500
times
so
this
that
is
incorrect.
So
that
should
be
the
double
asterisk
and
the
single
should
be
up
here.
A
If
the
I
mean
the
customer
service
is
still
going
to
be
provided
by
the
hauler
right,
so
we're
not
even
providing
customer
service
we're
just
dealing
with
coordination
and
billing,
which
I
sure
hope
would
be
pretty
automated,
so
it
just
to
me,
it
seems
like
a
lot
to
even
have
two
people
facilitate
it,
but
I
don't
know
if
anyone
else
has
anything
to
say
on
that
all
right.
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
this
boulder
customer
service
thing.
B
B
A
A
B
That's
correct,
yeah
they're,
it's
quite
ambitious,
so
they
their
goal.
I
don't
know
how
much
they're
on
target
to
be
able
to
meet
that
goal,
but
it
seems
they
are
reporting
out
on
that.
The
woman
that
I
talked
to
said
that
it
has
been
difficult
through
covid
to
get
compliance
as
well
as
just
seeing
any
new
improvements
in
how
they
reduce
that
amount
of
waste
going
to
the
landfill,
but
they
are
still
hopeful
to
meet
that
goal.
D
I
thought
that
this
was
interesting
to
see
and
you
know,
but
it's
so
funny,
because
I
guess,
if
they're
talking
about
three
different
companies
going
up
and
down,
you
know
just
roads
and
not
alleyways
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff.
You
know
it
probably
doesn't
make
as
much
of
a
difference
in
terms
of
the
environmental
sort
of
stuff,
as
it
would
in
inglewood,
where
they're
going
to
go
up
and
down
alleys
and
and
and
roadways
and
stuff,
because,
as
I
I
don't
think,
bull
has
very
many
alleys.
D
But
it's
an
interesting
concept
that
if,
for
some
reason
the
single
hauler
doesn't
work,
I
think
that
it's
very
good
possibility
that
something
like
this
could
be
feasible
for
for
englewood.
You
know
it
might
be
hard
to
buy
in
at
first
because
boulder's
obviously
a
way
more
liberal
city
than
us,
but
I
think
you
know
they
lead
in
a
lot
of
different
issues
and-
and
I
think
pro
things
are
probably
moving
at
least
this
direction
when
it
comes
to
to
homes,
businesses,
multi-family,
all
encouraging,
lower
garbage,
more
recycling
and
more
compost.
G
D
B
D
C
A
B
A
I
agree
that
it's
a
good
thing
to
encourage
that
all
the
city
property
should
have
it
vice
chair
borman,
but
I
would
say
that
that
would
fall
more
under
like
just
show
up
at
a
city
council
meeting
and
speak
to
that.
Rather
because
it
feels
to
me
like
that's
outside
the
scope
of
what
they've
created
this
committee
for,
but
you
guys
could
feel
different.
Remember
breaker,.
D
D
I
thought
I
remembered
us
thinking
about
this,
and
you
know
it's
like
that.
If
we're
gonna
require
our
citizens
to
recycle,
we
should
make
it
easy
and
available
at
all
city
center
at
all
city
run
places
and
at
at
least
inside.
If
not,
you
know
outside
sort
of
stuff,
at
least
given
the
the
city
center
and
our
two
different
light
rail
stops
within
englewood.
D
I
think
it's
a
worthwhile
thing
for
us
to
at
least
try
and
push
a
little
bit
back,
because
you
know
if,
if
the
city
says
no,
you
have
to
do
this
and
the
city's
like
oh,
never
mind,
but
we
don't,
I
think,
that's
kind
of
we
gotta
call
call
it
on
bs.
We
have
to
make
it
easy
for
everybody,
not
just
at
our
homes.
A
B
B
A
A
B
C
C
A
E
Go
ahead,
yeah,
I'm
just
having
some
problems.
I
guess
with
what
we've
done
here
tonight,
and
so
I'm
just
going
to
express
how
I'm
feeling
I
just
feel
like.
There
are
a
lot
of
people
right
now.
Getting
these
hangers
on
their
doors
saying
their
water
is
going
to
get
turned
off
because
they
don't
have
enough
money
to
pay
for
their
water
and
we're
going
to
be
adding
these
charges
to
their
water
bill.
You
know,
and
these
new
hires
or
new
employees.
E
I
think
it's
over
the
top
myself
and
then
you're
also
we
as
a
committee
are
saying
you
all
have
to
recycle
and
that's
going
to
add
even
more
money
to
the
bill,
and
where
is
that
recycling
going?
Because
to
me
it's
just
going
to
go
into
a
landfill.
I've
heard
so
many
opinions
on
this
and
they
all
say,
it'll
end
up
in
a
landfill
and
it's
just
one
more
way
for
the
single
trash
haulers
to
make
money,
and
we
voted
tonight
and
we're
going
to
have
worse
service
than
we
have
now.
E
G
Considering
city
council
and
our
own
deliberations
we're
discussing
a
a
fund
that
would
help
citizens
who
can't
pay
their
bill
to
be
able
to
continue,
and
the
current
the
private
providers
aren't
going
to
do
that
out
of
the
goodness
of
their
heart,
so
essentially
we'll
be
help
able
to
help
more
families
through
this
and
another
couple
follow-up
thoughts
about
your
about
your
good
points.
One
of
the
things
you
said
is:
where
is
the
recycling
going?
We
heard
that
there
are
some
issues,
particularly
with
plastic
recycling,
some,
but
not
all
of
the
plastic.
G
On
the
other
hand,
we
heard
that
all
of
the
cans
all
of
the
glass
all
the
paper
gets
recycled
and
reused
within
our
own
region
within
our
own
state.
So
I
don't
think
we
can
characterize
the
part
of
the
plastic-
that's
not
recycled
as
ruining
the
entire
recycling
industry
and
then
that's
the
last
thing
about
voting
for
work
works
service.
G
Tonight
we
didn't
vote
for
worst
service,
but
we
did
vote
to
add
that
as
an
option
in
the
rfp,
so
that
we
can
see
the
data
that
comes
back
and
if
the
data
comes
back
and
we
look
at
it
for
the
previous
option
and
that's
what
we'll
discuss
as
a
committee,
we
didn't
vote
for
sure
to
go
with
that.
We
just
discussed
getting
the
option
in
the
rfp
responses.
G
D
D
D
I
I
also
think
that
one
of
the
goals
of
this
committee
is
to
try
and
drive
down
prices.
That's
the
economy
of
scale.
We
tried
to
extend
the
the
length
of
time
of
our
contract.
We
tried
to
alters
things
to
try
and
give
us
a
better
idea
of
of
how
we
can
give
as
good
of
quality
of
service
with
as
much
bang
for
their
buck.
D
So
I'm
really
hoping
that
this
is
actually
a
benefit
to
our
our
people
rather
than
not
because
the
last
time
I
checked
out
my
waste
management,
I
believe
we
are
almost
100
every
quarter,
so
you
know
we're
up
there
in
that
33
ish
a
month,
and
I'm
hoping
we
come
in
significantly
under
that,
so
I
I
hope
that
this
will
actually
be
a
boom
to
to
our
our
city
of
inglewood
that
I
I
love.
I'm
gonna
live
here
till
the
day
I
die.
So
I
hope
that
this
is
a
good
thing.
A
Well,
I
love
inglewood
too,
and
I've
been
here
for
over
20
years,
and
I
hope
that
what
we
get
back
from
this
is
not
a
reduction
in
service,
but
I
don't
think
there's
a
chance
of
it
by
giving
them
the
options
we've,
given
them
they're
going
to
just
con.
That's
a
perfect
way
to
make
it
so
that
they
can
structure
it
to
we're,
enabling
them
to
phase
it
out,
we're
making
it
easier
for
them
to
drop
the
service
level.