[0:05] Um,
I want to give it just a minute, few
[0:10] minute or two more because Brian's
supposed to join.
[0:14] » Oh, okay.
>> And he's he's got the majority of the
[0:18] agenda.
[0:24] He confirmed with me yesterday that he
would join. You might have seen he did a
[0:29] flurry of emails to everybody today.
[0:40] Oh, speaking of
[0:46] » Hi, Brian.
>> Hey, Chuck. Sorry about that. I had to
[0:50] redownload the app here on my cell
phone. How are you?
[0:53] » Oh, okay. Another Zoom Zoom issue.
>> James, how are you?
[1:02] » Doing fine, thank you. Jim works.
>> Good. Good, Jim. Thank you.
[1:10] » All right. So, let's see. We don't have
Mr. Overheiser, looks like,
[1:17] and we don't have Mr.
[1:24] We'll [clears throat]
[1:27] put that up in case it joins.
All right, let's uh we can get started.
[1:33] It's 7:03.
[clears throat and cough]
[1:38] First order of business is we have um
the meeting minutes from last last month
[1:44] and the month before.
Can I have a motion to approve both of
[1:48] those minutes?
[1:52] » So moved.
second.
[1:59] All right.
[2:03] Um,
so way I've organized these notes uh
[2:08] this this month was, you know, I put all
the deep related work issues together
[2:15] and then um interconnection and then,
you know, some of the other issues that
[2:20] are coming along.
But um
[2:25] um Brian sent around an email earlier.
Uh I've integrated that into here. Um
[2:32] but there's a few other additional
questions I wanted to
[2:35] » ask um while you're here, Brian.
I'm not holding out much hope for this,
[2:41] but
>> did any additional doc documents surface
[2:44] in from the deep file room? Uh,
>> you know, perhaps our asbuilt diagram or
[2:51] anything like that?
>> No, not yet.
[2:55] And um part of the notes there indicated
that we're going to be working with
[3:01] Lorero engineers
and part of the initial scope there will
[3:06] be geotechnical analysis.
So, we'll understand what the existing
[3:12] cap conditions look like and formulate a
plan and work with Deep on that plan.
[3:17] Um, all in all, I I think we'll really
be able to have something submitted to
[3:23] Deep by the end of July, which would be
a a pretty good effort right now based
[3:28] on where we are. um which gets us into
early next year for an approval from
[3:34] Deep Q1 on their six-month timeline.
>> Right.
[3:39] » So that that'd be a that'd be a pretty
good result based on what we're seeing
[3:42] from deep right now to be honest.
>> And we had a fair amount of discussion
[3:47] about that in our last ATF meeting. And
um the question came up, you know, what
[3:52] can we as a task force or a town do to
try
[3:57] um accelerate the timeline?
Yeah. So, that's a great question. Um, I
[4:03] think it starts with us getting the full
package submitted to Deep. Then from
[4:09] there, I think advoc advocacy from the
town could certainly help. But until we
[4:15] have a package submitted and received by
Deep, um, you know, there's no need in
[4:20] really trying to,
uh, push them along or or rush them, you
[4:24] know. So I think once we have something
submitted and obviously we'll keep you
[4:28] guys in the loop every step of the way.
I think from there some outreach from
[4:32] the task force to the town would be good
for sure.
[4:35] » So who would and what what form would
that take?
[4:41] » Could be as simple as emails to start.
Um and I will pull those individuals
[4:45] their contact information
off of the email. And you got that email
[4:51] too from Darren Wright I believe at deep
opd office of permit planning
[4:58] development where he summarized who was
on the call and and what their roles
[5:03] were. It's the solid waste division that
we submit the post closure use
[5:09] authorization to.
[5:15] We were even thinking of uh you know
contacting our our state representative.
[5:22] Um I don't know if they anything like
that is have you seen anything like that
[5:28] proven prove effective in the past?
>> It could be. Yeah, it could be. It it
[5:33] kind of just depends on, you know, if um
if that representative has any
[5:39] relationship with deputy commissioners
at Deep or anyone at Deep and
[5:44] management, you know, to kind of just
let them know, hey, you know, we're this
[5:47] is a project for the town and we're
trying to keep it on track and when
[5:52] we're on our pre-application call, Deep
mentioned they were underst staffed and
[5:56] it's going to take longer than
anticipated. So, we're just trying to
[5:58] understand how to move that along. Um,
the other thing, the other change that's
[6:03] going on, not sure if you guys have seen
it, um, the deep commissioner is
[6:08] stepping down at the end of this month
and Emma Simino is stepping in as acting
[6:14] commissioner appointed by the governor.
So, that's Katie Dykes who is stepping
[6:19] down at the end of June and Emma Samino
stepping into that active commissioner
[6:24] role.
Um, you know, we'll see. We'll we'll see
[6:28] what that brings. I'm sure she's going
to want to kind of make a statement and
[6:33] maybe things will go smoother than we
expect, right? What better than as a new
[6:38] commissioner to start pushing out
permits on time or ahead of schedule? I
[6:44] mean, I know that's optimistic, but
that's how I'd think about it at least.
[6:49] So you're saying if we if we get
something into deep by July and
[6:54] everything goes smoothly, we're looking
at possibly January for an answer from
[6:58] them.
>> Correct. Yeah. On the on the on the
[7:01] postclosure use authorization permit.
And that's feedback directly from that
[7:07] department at deep in our preapp call.
[7:12] » All right. Stepping back a step. Is
there anything that you need from us to
[7:16] get make sure we get the thing in by
July? Is there anything any
[7:22] » Sorry, Tom, I cut you off.
>> No, you heard the question.
[7:25] » Yeah, so not necessarily. Uh really at
this point, the ball's in our court.
[7:30] Like I said, we're going to be working
with Lorero engineers to put together
[7:34] the plan set that gets submitted to
Deep. We just did this with them for the
[7:39] Planeville landfill and we just did
about five others with a couple of other
[7:43] engineering firms. So, we have a good
idea of what Deep's looking for right
[7:47] now. So, getting that package together
is again squarely within our court and
[7:52] something we're working on right now.
[7:56] » And just just remind me again so we have
it done. [clears throat] You're
[8:00] expecting to put in the package by when?
>> By the end of July. Yeah. [snorts]
[8:07] » Yeah. So, let's see. I think I had uh
I had that in the notes there. Number
[8:14] three.
>> Yeah.
[8:16] » Committed by the end of July. Yep.
>> I think I put it down below. Um
[8:23] » and then
>> Sorry. Go ahead.
[8:27] » You're going to be using the rail then
for um the engineer for all aspects of
[8:33] this uh project. coming at least within
their scope
[8:38] » for for civil. Yeah, they they don't do
electrical. We'll use a different
[8:42] engineer for electrical. Pure power
engineering.
[8:45] Pretty big firm. We've done a ton of
work with them over the years. Again,
[8:50] these these projects are pretty standard
on the electrical side of things,
[8:54] especially with what we've done lately.
So, no real surprises anticipated on the
[8:58] electrical side. Uh, in my last update I
mentioned that we had an email from from
[9:05] Eversource indicating that the impact
study was fine, no upgrades. We don't
[9:11] yet have final costs or an
interconnection agreement, but that's
[9:16] the next step in what we'd expect from
them to receive.
[9:20] Uh, that's a positive update. I've seen
a lot of wacky things from Eversource
[9:26] lately when it comes to costs and
project impacts. So, that's a pretty
[9:30] good that's a pretty good update there.
Um, and then on the local side,
[9:36] obviously, we'll start that right around
when we submit to deep, that'll usually
[9:42] be completed before DEP is completed.
And then it's it's really you're
[9:47] effectively, you know, if you get your
approval, you know, you're approved
[9:50] contingent upon receiving your permit
from DEP because, you know, we could get
[9:54] our uh approval from planning and zoning
as the accessory use. Um, but then
[9:59] obviously we can't go and build anything
until Deep says we can. So that'll
[10:04] happen in the interim while we sort
things out with DEP and get the
[10:08] postclosure authorization permit from
them.
[10:11] » But does that mean the AS bill will be
done by uh the end of July?
[10:17] » No. So we'll have a permit set we'll
have a permit set drawing done by the
[10:21] end of July. It's typically like a 30%
plan set that you use for permit
[10:26] applications. you know, if if planning
and zoning in and deep is okay with it,
[10:30] then we'll move straight to 90s uh and
then finals probably around the end of
[10:36] the year and go and get building
electrical permits from the town for
[10:40] with construction sets and go to there.
>> I should have asked that differently.
[10:45] And I'm at the asbuilt diagram for the
um closure of the of the land that
[10:54] recreate. Yeah, it it could be. Um I
think it could play out a couple
[10:58] different ways. If we can find what we
are looking for and things are
[11:03] available, that can that can certainly
occur on a much quicker and smoother
[11:08] time frame. Um but if we submit a
package to deep and they ask for more
[11:14] information and more testing, then we
have to we have to kind of do that while
[11:19] we're in that process. And that's
something they asked of us recently on a
[11:23] geotechnical side of things as it
relates to settling and looking for like
[11:29] a different [clears throat] boring in a
different location of a landfill just
[11:33] depending on what it was being used for
prior. U so it's it's really an
[11:39] open-ended answer because we have to see
how deep comes back to us.
[11:47] » Okay. So Brian, this is Jim, just to
confirm, you've got a system impact
[11:54] study from Eversource. Then
>> we do. Yeah. So we we did that study and
[12:00] we have so I should say we have an email
indication from them that we can install
[12:06] the system with just a new service and a
recloser
[12:10] » and avoid like major system upgrades.
Yeah,
[12:13] » we don't yet have a final study report
or an interconnection agreement
[12:18] » that'll come. We just we'll just
continually beg uh we'll continually,
[12:22] you know, reach out to Eversource asking
for that information. Once we get it,
[12:26] we'll share it with you.
>> You don't have the facility study yet
[12:30] that identifies
um the uh requirements for
[12:35] interconnection.
>> Yeah. So, we'll probably won't have to
[12:38] do a facility study here simply because
we passed C because we passed the impact
[12:44] study.
>> Typically, you don't. Typically,
[12:47] Eversource does both a system impact
study and a facility study. The system
[12:54] impact study
um studies the in this case distribution
[13:00] system um electrically. The facility
study is more specific as it relates to
[13:07] the facilities required to to
interconnect and your point of
[13:12] interconnection.
>> Yeah.
[13:16] » By eversource.
>> Yeah. And what we've seen lately is that
[13:21] on projects like this interconnecting to
a good three-phase circuit,
[13:25] » we don't we they haven't required a
facility study.
[13:29] » Oh, okay. You know, for example, I've
done large overbuilds before of like a
[13:32] mile plus and we've had to do a facility
study so that they can get cost down to
[13:38] » what they call like a plus or minus 25%
range.
[13:42] » Um, so we do we definitely don't
anticipate them requiring a facility
[13:46] study on this.
>> Okay.
[13:48] » But again, we don't have that final
result, the final report yet. Got it.
[13:53] » Or the or the agreement. As soon as we
get it, we'll, you know, send it to you
[13:56] guys so you have a copy obviously.
>> Right.
[14:02] Okay.
[14:11] Oh, I think I did. So,
yeah. So, just to reiterate, you've sent
[14:17] the lease or the anticipated timeline is
um permitting an approval Q1 of 2027.
[14:24] He'd start construction in Q2 of 2027
and complete in Q3 2027 if everything
[14:32] goes smoothly.
[14:36] [snorts]
>> Yeah. Yeah. That that's that's our you
[14:38] know that's a high level schedule right
now. And I said a couple action items
[14:42] we're working on and what I'll get for
the next meeting is like a more detailed
[14:47] uh development schedule or permitting
schedule. It just kind of outlines our
[14:51] local and state approvals. Then we can
move and get a construction schedule
[14:55] which kind of focuses on site
mobilization, array construction
[14:59] starting with foundations, racking
modules, inverters, then electrical. Um,
[15:04] and in that we'll include our, you know,
like our mobilization plan or staging
[15:12] and parking plan that we'll work on with
Matt Turnowski, make sure he's
[15:16] comfortable with it. Um what'll what'll
be included in that is like number of
[15:21] anticipated deliveries
uh daily vehicles on site during certain
[15:27] during certain construction activities
because like you know it'll there won't
[15:31] be a lot of guys on site for the
foundations install which is like
[15:35] concrete block large block gets put down
then we have to build the racking mount
[15:39] the wire mount the modules and wire
we'll have more we'll have more
[15:43] individual manpower on site and less big
machines by At that point, all the
[15:48] deliveries will have been made. So,
we'll just make sure we, you know, we
[15:52] adequately kind of demonstrate that to
Matt, make sure he's comfortable with
[15:57] how we're approaching it and where guys
will park and and enter and exit and all
[16:01] that.
[16:05] And I mentioned this to Brian, but the
time I bumped into um Jack Kelly at the
[16:11] Strawberry Festival, he came up and
talked to me and uh
[16:17] you know, he mentioned uh the solar
project and asked me if Matt had been to
[16:20] any of the meetings. I said no. But um
he's still concern concerned about the
[16:25] road and getting equipment in there and
interfering with transfer station
[16:30] operations.
You know, I told him we were
[16:33] entertaining the thought of maybe doing
it on on a Monday when the
[16:37] transportation is closed, at least for a
lot of the deliveries if we can.
[16:43] Um, and he seemed a little bit more
relaxed about it when I mentioned that,
[16:48] but it's still something that may come
up. But have you gotten more feedback
[16:53] from him in the board of finance
meetings?
[16:57] » I haven't had a board of finance finance
meeting. I ran into him at the
[17:00] strawberry festival, too, but I didn't
talk to him at all about that.
[17:03] » Um, a board of finance meeting is I
don't it's uh um a week maybe next
[17:11] Monday.
>> No, another two weeks from Monday, I
[17:14] think.
>> Okay.
[17:17] » And then you guys will be off for two
months.
[17:20] » Yeah, then we're off for two months. So
I um
[17:25] I I just think the main thing his main
concern always is to make sure that
[17:31] Brian interfaces to our public works
guys,
[17:35] right? And so that he's going to always
mimic whatever public works says. Okay.
[17:39] So that's that, you know, you know, I
think I stressed that last time, Brian,
[17:45] is that it's it's very important that
every step of the way we kind of go
[17:50] overboard to interface with public works
about how this is all going to work,
[17:54] right?
>> Yeah, absolutely. So I think that'll,
[17:58] you know, just just as background here,
we had um a wetland delineation
[18:03] completed a couple weeks back. We made
sure we gave Matt heads up that he that
[18:07] we had a guy on site. I did the same
thing today. We'll have a surveyor on
[18:10] property tomorrow or the next day to get
the boundary done. And then I think once
[18:14] we have these data points here on like
deliveries, manpower on site, you know,
[18:20] site activation and mobilization, I
think I'll I'll reach out to Matt in the
[18:24] next probably in the next two to three
weeks and set up a meeting with him uh
[18:28] and just like introduce that whole plan.
and then, you know, we'll just we'll
[18:33] we'll talk about it and make sure we end
up with something that that works for
[18:37] him in public works. So, that's that's
definitely something that, you know,
[18:41] we'll be able to accommodate him on. Um,
like I said, I I think I like I
[18:45] mentioned before, maybe even that board
of finance meeting. Uh, almost every one
[18:49] of the landfills we've built is also at
the town transfer station. So, to date,
[18:54] we haven't had any issues with traffic
jams or being in the way or or holding
[18:58] up anything really of substance. So,
um, you know, okay,
[19:04] » we'll definitely work through that with
Matt.
[19:07] » Okay.
[19:11] » Okay. Um,
so remind me again, when does our lease
[19:16] option uh expire?
>> So, uh, June 25th.
[19:22] And, um, last week I traded a couple
emails with attorney Kaylin. Today I
[19:28] sent uh an extension around to first
selectman O'Neal. Attorney Kalin was on
[19:33] that uh email. So I'll just keep I'll
just keep close eye on it. Uh plan to
[19:39] touch base with the first selectman
probably by the end of the week and uh
[19:44] just see where where he's at with the
town attorney um and go from there.
[19:48] » Just keep in mind that the end of the
week is Thursday, not Friday.
[19:52] » That's right. Thank you. Yep. [laughter]
No, thank you. because I that happens to
[19:57] me all the time. I'll slip and it's
Friday morning and
[20:00] » I'll call a town hall and that's it.
[laughter]
[20:02] » So
>> yeah.
[20:05] Is there any difference in the language
of the lease extension option than there
[20:11] was in the first go round?
So, uh, the lease itself is more robust,
[20:17] but the commercial terms are really the
same. Uh, decommissioning
[20:23] term and and, uh, and and payment,
option period, due diligence period,
[20:29] contingency period, the whole nine
yards. So, it's it's really just a more
[20:34] robust agreement meant to capture the
active term of the lease, but it really
[20:39] mimics that option.
Oh, no. I'm sorry. I was just clarifying
[20:44] if this second lease option extension is
any different than the lease option that
[20:50] was originally signed.
>> Oh, no, no. It's So, the extension is is
[20:54] something that was built into the lease
option itself, right? It kind of gives
[20:59] us the ability just to extend to
continue the development of the project
[21:04] while we negotiate and sign the lease so
that you know we're not stuck without
[21:09] the option to enter into a lease while
we're working on the permitting and
[21:14] interconnection.
>> Okay.
[21:19] Well,
I mean, we can see we can try and help
[21:23] keep monitor monitor that, but um you
know, you'll have to take primary
[21:29] responsibility for it.
>> Yeah. Yeah. No, that's no problem. Um
[21:33] obviously, Chuck, you're CC that email.
If you want me to add anyone else in, I
[21:37] could do that, too. U but obviously,
we'll make sure you guys are in the loop
[21:41] and I'll stay on top of it.
>> Yeah.
[21:46] All right. [clears throat]
[21:50] Um, you know, I have included links to
all the materials that we gathered at
[21:55] the outreach session in case you need
them for your package
[22:02] with a planning commission.
>> No, thank you. That'll be helpful. Uh,
[22:06] definitely part of our application
package will be summarizing outreach
[22:09] work to date uh and some of the feedback
from those meetings, what kind of
[22:13] questions were asked and how do we
answer them, etc. So, I'll definitely
[22:16] pull from that material and we'll be
able to capture capture that in our
[22:19] application.
>> And then all of this stuff was from your
[22:24] email, right? Um that
is being done in terms of getting the
[22:29] package together.
>> Yep. Yeah. Perfect. Right. So it's the
[22:34] the the steps are kind of survey
wetlands, create that base map, layer in
[22:39] the civil plan, uh work with Lorero, get
the site investigations done. Uh with
[22:46] that plan, you know, we needed the
boundary and wetlands done in order to
[22:51] get, you know, the proper uh survey and
information to submit to planning and
[22:55] zoning. And that'll also cover what
we'll need to do for the engineering
[22:58] package. So those are just two two
critical first steps and those will be
[23:03] completed by the end of this week. So
we'll have the base map and surveys
[23:06] ready to go.
[23:10] I mean, when we talked with Jordan a
while ago, you know, he he just had this
[23:16] laundry list of things including
maintenance plans, you know, how
[23:19] environmental concerns will be
addressed, wildlife mobility,
[23:24] any screening along the property line
and so on of things he mentioned. But,
[23:29] um,
>> have you talked to him at all about
[23:33] anything else that the package should
should include?
[23:37] No, not not since we had that call. Uh
the end of May now. Um and what he said
[23:43] was like once you get survey and your
base map done, if I had any questions,
[23:47] reach back out and we'll kind of just
nail down what the full application
[23:51] package will look like. So we'll do that
for sure and just make sure we have all
[23:55] the eyes dotted and tees crossed. Uh but
we've got all the we've got all the
[24:00] operations and maintenance plans,
decommissioning plans, everything that
[24:04] goes along to supplement an application
like this.
[24:10] » And you know, they also requested that
the package gets to them three weeks in
[24:15] advance. Um and the next meeting their
their next meeting will be July 21st
[24:22] or the one that we're targeting will be
July 21st.
[24:26] Okay.
That that could be a little tight.
[24:30] » Yeah, that that could be a little tight.
Um I'll try to get a better schedule of
[24:35] anticipated completion and then let you
know
[24:41] where we think we'll end up. [snorts]
[24:46] But I think you said given the deep
timelines uh we can be even if we miss
[24:51] the July we'll still be there's not any
impact to the schedule. uh if we have to
[24:57] go for the August approval or even
September, right?
[25:02] » Yeah, that's right. Because our keep in
mind our our gating item on permitting
[25:06] is definitely going to be that deep
approval.
[25:09] So, the goal obviously is just get
planning and zoning done before you get
[25:14] the deep permit. And you know, ideally,
I think we'll have planning and zoning
[25:17] done by fall at the latest.
Okay.
[25:25] Um
[25:28] » and um
yeah, the accessory use is the other
[25:33] issue with the planning commission. I
>> Well, I don't I don't think that's an
[25:37] issue anymore, at least not after the
conversation we had with Jordan. uh his
[25:42] his goal was to apply as an accessory
use because the the solar is secondary
[25:49] to the primary use of the land which is
which is landfill right in the transfer
[25:54] station. So that was his goal and
that'll be what we're going to be
[25:58] focused on. If something changes then
obviously we'll have to deal with it and
[26:02] take it in stride. Um but that's that's
the plan right now is accessory use.
[26:12] So is that what planning and zoning
needs for them to approve it is the
[26:17] change in accessories use?
>> Yes.
[26:20] » Or is that what So it's not necessarily
a deep requirement. It's a requirement
[26:24] from from us.
>> Correct. Yeah. So this is strictly town
[26:29] land use where it's not necessarily a
change. It's more so
[26:35] » like an update to or something or
>> Well, it's just our land use permit. So,
[26:39] if this was just a raw piece of land
like a green field, then if we didn't
[26:43] have the proper zoning, then we'd have
to seek a zone change or a text
[26:47] amendment or something to that effect.
But because there's a primary use here
[26:50] already, that is the landfill. And this
project is an accessory to that, meaning
[26:56] the purpose of the land is not to host
solar. The purpose is the land is for
[27:00] the landfill. That's why we're taking
the the permitting approach as an
[27:03] accessory use rather than like a primary
use.
[27:10] which would avoid perhaps a likely delay
to try and get the zoning changed.
[27:16] » Isn't that the right interpretation?
[27:25] » Yeah. No, that that's that's correct,
Chuck. Yeah. Um and in you know in some
[27:30] cases
um you might not even have code like
[27:36] zoning code written for solar. So that's
that's when it would get really tricky.
[27:41] Um, that's why accessory uses is
definitely the best path to take.
[27:50] And I, you know, thinking about it
because I've done a few of these,
[27:55] anything could happen, but I don't see
why planning and zoning would have an
[27:58] issue with that. You know, like we're
not changing the primary use of that
[28:02] property. So, it is a pretty
straightforward argument where
[28:07] the primary use of that land is always
going to be the landfill, right? until
[28:12] that changes and everything is excavated
and removed if that ever happens. But um
[28:18] you know we are truly an accessory
to the to the use here. So
[28:24] it's not a stretch is a long-winded way
of saying this is this is not a stretch
[28:28] asking for this.
>> But they it hasn't formally been given
[28:33] to the planning and zoning people yet.
You're still
[28:36] » That's correct. Yeah.
>> Okay. And you anticipate this by
[28:41] the end of the week next week?
>> No, we're sorry. We're anticipating a
[28:46] submission in July. Um, and depending on
if we get it to them soon enough before
[28:52] their meeting, maybe they'll be able to
take it up in July. If we're too late,
[28:56] then it'll kick to August or September
if they don't have an August meeting.
[28:59] Yeah.
>> Okay.
[29:02] » Yep. But the accessory use was the
recommendation of Jordan Marcino after
[29:07] speaking with him. who's the town's land
use administrator.
[29:13] » Okay.
[29:17] » All right.
[29:20] » Um I want to move on to the land lease
agreement. Um there were some questions
[29:26] that I had in reading through it.
Um,
[29:31] you know, there's this language in here
about capping
[29:36] the um what's going to be set aside the
10 cents per watt DC of installed
[29:42] capacity of the solar array. And um I
know talking to Dan Colton, our finance
[29:49] director, he picked up that the array is
a little bit smaller than the array that
[29:54] was originally in some of the
presentations. So that the revenue is a
[29:57] little bit or that amount is a little
bit lower but
[30:01] um
but you know I this means that there
[30:06] would be an upper limit of seven roughly
$72,000 that are set aside for the de
[30:11] decomi de decommissioning right I am
interpreting that correctly. Yeah. No,
[30:18] that that's correct. Yeah. Um and on the
final system size, so since we don't
[30:24] have the full engineered plan yet, that
system size is not final, right? Uh we
[30:31] could be able to get all the way back up
to or even just a little above what we
[30:35] had originally proposed. Uh we obviously
need to just kind of do the permit set
[30:40] engineering, make sure the space and the
contours and everything are as are as
[30:45] designed. So um that system size is not
final yet. We'll get there through the
[30:50] permits at engineering.
>> Okay.
[30:55] » So I'm trying to understand how we you
know how this ends up being um protected
[31:01] from inflation over time. Um there's
this whole timing of various options.
[31:08] some of them not, you know, we being
that set aides aren't being even done
[31:12] until what 10 or 15 years from now um
under the proposal.
[31:18] But how do we you know how how's this
amount end up being adjusted for what
[31:24] the future dollars will be?
So, we're we're setting that limit now
[31:31] in hopes of trying to have a clear
picture of the full economic situation
[31:37] of the project. And that number doesn't
include any scrap value added in.
[31:45] Obviously, there's galvanized steel,
there's copper, uh aluminum frames on
[31:50] the modules. It gives no credit to what
any of that value is for the array
[31:56] itself. U so that's purely like a just a
removal cost and these kinds of projects
[32:03] you know we don't have any buried
conduit so what we see drive up like
[32:08] removal or decommissioning costs on
other ground mounts is excavation to get
[32:13] conduits out here everything is surface
mounted so the the anticipation of cost
[32:18] is like I should say more predictable
than other projects where you know we're
[32:24] doing earth work to remove things that
were installed Here we don't have that.
[32:28] So the costs are are definitely more
stable.
[32:34] » But this $72,000
is this in today's dollars or in dollars
[32:41] from some point in time
in the future.
[32:45] » Oh, that that would be in today's terms.
So $72,000 just based on the final
[32:50] system size, the 10 cents a watt.
>> Yeah, that's what I thought. So then is
[32:56] there an inflation adjustment that gets
set year-over-year or on a regular
[33:00] schedule?
>> Not as it's written in now. No.
[33:06] » Should it [laughter]
[33:11] if that's a position of the town, you
know, we'll certainly take it up. Yeah,
[33:15] for sure.
>> I mean, do other towns have an inflation
[33:19] thing that they upgrade, you know,
update every couple of years?
[33:24] » Not. No, not on this.
>> Okay,
[33:27] » this is a this is a pretty uh this
language is pretty standard across
[33:32] the majority of our leases
uh especially those of landfills.
[33:43] I think some I think some towns have
looked at the landfill project as like a
[33:48] we just keep it running as long as
possible uh because because we're not
[33:53] doing anything else with it really.
[33:58] » Have you has your company had a lot of
um experience in decommissioning?
[34:05] Like I mean this is is is this a best
guess or you know how
[34:10] No. So what we do obviously we know the
cost to install the project and
[34:16] construct it to a certain specification
right that would meet final inspections
[34:22] and independent engineer evaluation. Um
so then we go and get quotes and say
[34:27] what would you charge to just rip this
whole thing down?
[34:30] » Right. You know we're not just taking a
wrecking ball to it but it's
[34:35] » Yeah. Yeah. It's it's deconstruction
rather than construction. So, it's
[34:40] deenergized. You don't need electricians
to take everything apart, right? It's
[34:46] just regular laborers taking it apart.
>> Um on like a on effectively just like a
[34:53] labor manhour perspective. um some some
sort of equipment here to remove the
[34:59] ballast blocks, but again, no like major
earth work or ripping anything out of
[35:03] the ground, for example.
>> But but at at this point, your company
[35:08] hasn't had to decommission anything,
have they?
[35:10] » No. No, we haven't had to decommission
anything. We've removed rooftop systems
[35:15] and then reinstalled them to have roof
work done and re and re- roofs, etc. So,
[35:20] we we've done work like that. Um taking
it down is not the issue. putting it
[35:25] back up is because again you're
reinstalling
[35:28] » to breakation. Yeah.
>> Yeah.
[35:34] » Hey Brian, this a gimmick. Um
long story short, I think you guys are
[35:41] severely light in decom costs 2026.
you're in at 72. My estimate, and I
[35:50] didn't, obviously it's not designed so
you can't uh screw it down to the last
[35:56] penny, but I'm in a 3 to 350,000 bucks
to pull the thing out in $26.
[36:05] So, we're I I guess it's probably best
best to say we think you're
[36:12] significantly light as it relates to
your decommissioning costs.
[36:17] » Okay.
>> All right.
[36:19] » Yeah. So, any kind of adjustment, you
know, if you want to propose that if
[36:24] that has to go back to the town
attorney, uh or you want me to take that
[36:27] just right now, I'll take that too and
and we'll take it back and see what we
[36:32] can do. Obviously. Yeah.
I mean, that's my opinion.
[36:37] » Yeah. No feel about it, but
[36:43] » yeah. No, like I said, happy to happy to
entertain it and try to get to a spot
[36:47] that
>> Yeah.
[36:48] » that works for the town, you know.
>> And I, you know, I do think it's
[36:53] important to have some sort of
inflation, you know, probably linked to
[36:56] the CPI.
Um,
[36:59] » I wouldn't Chuck. I mean, Jesus, talk
about um crystal balls. Stop playing
[37:07] that stupid effing game and just
[clears throat] just identify him as
[37:12] $26.
[37:18] You'll get tangled around the axle, I
think, if you try to tie it to CPI or
[37:23] any other damn inflation index.
[37:29] » [clears throat]
>> Well, what's the what what exactly is
[37:32] the financial consequence of this
number,
[37:36] you know? Um, so what it does it the
financial consequence of the number is
[37:43] that when we go to decommission, if it
costs more,
[37:48] then what happens?
So that's on us, right? That's on the
[37:54] project. the town has no responsibility
to decommission
[37:58] um per the lease, right? If if we
didn't decommission on time or on
[38:04] schedule, we could be you could take
legal action against us. Obviously, the
[38:09] thought of having the shity bond or the
letter of credit in place is that you
[38:12] don't have to go there and you can just
go straight to that financial mechanism
[38:17] uh and handle the removal itself. Now
what we run into is obviously the the
[38:22] higher that number is the larger impact
it has on the project economics. Uh
[38:27] obviously our lease rate is is fixed.
Our revenue is fixed. Our cost to
[38:33] construct continue to rise at this point
outpacing what we have built in for like
[38:40] a two to threeyear inflationary period
just in construction costs. But again
[38:45] that's our problem. That's that's kind
of what we're seeing as we go to
[38:50] construct projects now that you know we
secured revenue contracts on in 2024. Um
[38:56] what we have modeled for like
construction cost increase in that
[39:00] 24-month period uh has definitely been
outpaced by what we're seeing for the
[39:06] actual cost to to build these projects.
But again that's an that's an US pro
[39:11] that's a me problem really.
>> Right. So, I guess what I'm getting back
[39:16] to is that this 72,000 to me is the kind
of
[39:25] secondary insurance for the town if
Baragy fails. Is that effectively the
[39:33] the point of the money?
>> Yeah. Correct. Right. If we don't abide
[39:37] by the obligations of the lease and
remove the array um you know in lie of
[39:42] taking legal action immediately you can
call upon that that financial mechanism
[39:48] I think which we've provided like a shy
bond or a letter of credit option.
[39:58] » Okay. So that the I guess the bottom
line is though is that
[40:04] so
if all goes to plan, right,
[40:12] it it shouldn't it it shouldn't cost us
anything. And the number that the 72,000
[40:20] is really you it it's not like we get
the 72,000, you get the 72,000. Correct?
[40:28] if we even need it.
>> Yeah. If you even need it, right?
[40:31] » Yeah. So, again, it's a it's a shy bond.
Uh we'll pay a premium on it on a bond
[40:36] valium on the bond value to carry that
bond per the contract. Um and then
[40:41] obviously if it needs to be called upon,
it's it's called upon, but the ideal
[40:45] situation is that it is never called
upon.
[40:49] » Okay. And then the last bit I'm trying
to get the bond value. So, you know, one
[40:56] one kind of, you know, um something
against inflation, Chuck, usually is
[41:02] this is invested somewhere and pays an
interest, then the interest is what's
[41:07] supposed to be offsetting the inflation
of some sort.
[41:09] » Yeah, that was my next question. So, um
is is that anticipated for this?
[41:17] » That's a good question. I'd have to
confirm with our current bond providers.
[41:26] which I can do. I can get more detail on
that.
[41:31] Let me take that down.
[41:47] Um yeah, because you know in the worst
case, right, is there's there's not
[41:51] money enough and the this doesn't offset
the cost, then then the town might end
[41:56] up with the decision to
have the ray not fully decommissioned or
[42:02] bear the financial responsibility for
decommissioning it if you know Very were
[42:08] to be out of business or you know for
whatever reason couldn't cover the costs
[42:13] of decommissioning,
[clears throat]
[42:16] » right? So that that's our insurance
against that outcome, right?
[42:22] correct our financial insurance against
that outcome.
[42:26] » Yeah. So [clears throat]
um yeah and we have to come agree as you
[42:33] know from what Jim was saying we have to
come to an agreement on what the the
[42:37] proper amount would be
[42:42] and if it comes in the form of an
investment that's what offsets the
[42:47] inflation chuck in some sense
>> right assume assuming that is and and
[42:53] it's a [clears throat]
you know reasonable rate of return
[42:58] Yeah,
>> inflation is a hard thing to predict.
[43:01] » No, I know. But I mean, that's that's
that's what's supposed to be that's
[43:04] there for, right?
>> Yeah. Really, I think it's all we could
[43:08] ask for.
>> And let let me go back to Jim's uh point
[43:12] real quick. Jim, I think you said you
were at 350,
[43:16] was it? Or 370?
>> No, 3 to 350.
[43:20] » 3 to 350. That's right.
>> Yeah. Let me let me take that down. But
[43:25] that does not in that does not um
include the salvage value as you point
[43:32] out Brian and um typically my experience
has been although there is value
[43:38] associated with salvage it's not
included when when establishing a bond
[43:46] amount um to
um
[43:53] protect an owner for the the uh the work
to happen, so to speak, the
[44:01] decommissioning to take place.
>> Yep.
[44:08] » And again, to be clear about this,
right? So, if all goes well, the shy
[44:12] bond goes back to you, correct?
>> Yeah. Yes. Yes.
[44:18] » Okay.
[44:22] So the cost to you is really time value
money I guess for setting aside
[44:28] something that maybe you could cash in
right away or something.
[44:33] » Yeah. Exactly. Right. Or or the carry
cost of the bond for example.
[44:37] » Yeah. Um so the bond the bond premium
for the duration
[44:42] uh or like if it's letter of credit
setting aside the letter of credit
[44:46] obviously it's not um the letter the
letters of credit are not invested we
[44:51] have to hold a lot of those for deep um
okay so I have um I have feedback from
[44:58] Jim on 3 to 350 and I'll talk to the
team on this
[45:05] » okay
I also got very confused in clause 4K
[45:10] because now you know we're talking about
a shity bond or a letter of credit
[45:16] or other guarantee you know corporate or
other guarantee there's like four
[45:21] different options that you know could be
chosen at the tenants's choice but I
[45:30] mean if this is an agreement it I mean
shouldn't the the options be discussed
[45:35] outside of agreement and we pick one and
[clears throat] you know everything all
[45:39] our conversation today has all been
around this decommissioning bond which I
[45:43] assume is the shity bond we're referring
to.
[45:48] » Yeah. And I think what what we've seen
recently, Chuck, is that there's more of
[45:52] a lean towards that shity bond uh just
because most people are familiar with
[45:56] it, comfortable with it. So what what we
can do and we'd be fine with this is
[46:01] just like red line the other options
just out of the agreement so that it's
[46:07] just strictly the the shity bond. Again
we're we're trying to create a situation
[46:12] in some cases where say for example like
uh Very gets acquired by Next Era right
[46:20] in five years like Next Era just bought
Dominion. Um, would a parent guarantee
[46:24] from next error be sufficient for
removal of the array? Some people might
[46:29] say yes, others no.
>> But yeah, sure. I I understand. But how
[46:37] how would that operate in a
[clears throat] in in a an agreement
[46:41] that we're signing today? I mean, there
are four options, but we we would have
[46:46] to pick an option.
yet that
[46:49] » in the clause 4K it's it says we can
pick four options but there's no doesn't
[46:55] seem to be a mechanism for which one
that we actually pick
[46:59] » unless I just didn't read it right
>> no no again that's that's trying to give
[47:05] the tenant or the project in this
situation uh like options to to like go
[47:12] forward with the most cost-effective
solution
[47:14] » I think he's just trying to give us
flexibility Chuck But you're saying we
[47:18] don't want flexibility. Just give us god
damn it. Give us give us an answer.
[47:23] » And and that's that's fine, right? I'm
as you're explaining it, I'm realizing
[47:28] now, too. Less is more. Um and if the
town's comfortable with the shity bond,
[47:33] then that's the way we go, you know, and
we just say that now and agree on a
[47:37] value and we're all good and that's
that.
[47:41] » Well, okay. I I
But I'm still getting hung up on it.
[47:46] Let's just say we keep the four options
in there. Then
[47:51] how do they get actuated? What one
option or another? And how do they do
[47:56] they potentially change over time? Is I
couldn't find any language in there that
[48:01] kind of outlined the mechanism for how
things would be done over time if we
[48:08] were to switch.
>> No, the likely outcome is that it
[48:13] wouldn't change over time, right? one of
those four would be chosen and then
[48:16] that's what would be used throughout the
duration of the term.
[48:21] » I mean is
>> I guess check saying when's it when's it
[48:24] chosen?
[48:27] » Um when's it chosen? Let me see here.
>> Yeah, because it says written in
[48:33] agreement at as at tenants's choice. So
does a tenant get the option to choose
[48:39] at different points in time?
>> No. the the time at which it's
[48:45] it's um provided is fixed. I'm just
pulling up a copy of this lease right
[48:50] now. The tenant would have the option to
choose
[48:54] which mechanism of shity is provided,
but the time at which it's provided is
[49:01] fixed. Let me pull that up. It
>> should be written right in that section.
[49:06] » I would have assumed it's at the point
we signed the agreement.
[49:15] Well, it's not going to be at the point
we sign the agreement because we could
[49:18] sign this lease on July 1 but never end
up building the project because of
[49:23] permitting or or other issues.
>> Yeah. When sorry when it becomes
[49:27] operational.
[49:36] So Chuck, I mean, my attitude is keep
them all in there until the last
[49:40] possible moment. [laughter]
It's just optionality for us, right? I
[49:45] guess unless you think it's going to
drive us nuts explaining it to Board of
[49:50] Finance and everybody else.
[49:56] » Well, I certainly can't explain it the
way it is because I don't understand how
[50:00] it actually works.
Yeah, I' I'd probably
[50:06] if it was me, I'd probably cut some of
that back and stick with just the shity
[50:10] bond in the decommissioning bond format
rather than have those other options in
[50:16] there. The more and more we discuss it
and, you know, kind of being in that
[50:21] board of finance meeting a couple months
ago and having done a few of these, I
[50:26] think less is more. So if it's if it's
cut and dry, it's the shy bond. It's
[50:32] this value. Um this is a common
mechanism that's used in this state and
[50:36] other states. I think it's pretty
straightforward.
[50:40] » Yeah. Well, that that would make it a
lot easier to explain for sure.
[50:43] » Yeah. Okay. Let me take that down as a
note.
[50:46] » But are we equally protected? Are we,
you know, by doing this, are we setting
[50:51] ourselves up for any future
>> problem? Chuck, this is this is this is
[50:54] your problem from working in GE or
something. You want to figure the you
[50:58] want to figure the option of the option
of all of these four different things.
[51:01] And should we That's why I was saying if
I was just uh playing my max ar, I would
[51:07] just hold the options off to the last
possible moment to figure out the max
[51:11] value of which option, right? But if you
do that, you're going to drive we're
[51:16] going to drive oursel nuts, I think. So
I feel like we should choose the choose
[51:21] one and and
get on with it. Unless you can unless
[51:26] you know one of the you know
shorty but I mean we should I I I like
[51:32] seeing examples so let's let's see what
other towns have done I guess.
[51:38] » Do we need to have a lawyer weigh in on
what option would protect us more?
[51:43] » Yes.
>> Yeah.
[51:46] » Absolutely.
>> But I I don't know. My sense of these
[51:50] things is the lawyer don't know. He
knows a little bit but doesn't know a
[51:53] lot. It's going to be one of those
things where you need a, you know, uh,
[51:57] complicated options trader with lots of
experience and some sort of trading to
[52:02] say this one is marginally more better
than the other one. And I I feel like
[52:06] the amount of time we're going to spend
on it, unless we can look at examples,
[52:10] um, the amount of time we're going to
spend on it, it's going to drive us
[52:13] cuckoo.
[52:19] » Yeah. Because at the end of the day,
Tom, um there's no financial impact to
[52:23] the town, right? The the the town's
>> Well, there is, but it's a second it's a
[52:29] secondary option. It's a it's a it's
like a it's you know and unfortunately
[52:35] Chuck and I have spent a lot of our
lives looking at this kind of secondary
[52:39] option but
>> I don't want to spend this part of my
[52:43] life looking at this this secondary
option y
[52:46] » when I I don't really think it matters
that much but um but yeah Chuck let's
[52:53] you know if we can find Brian do you
have examples so of all these four
[52:57] things do you have towns and using them
or do you is is that almost every town
[53:01] just used the shity bond.
>> So we've what what we've done with other
[53:05] towns is kind of narrow it down to the
shity or the letter of credit. Um
[53:11] and what we see broadly across the
market is more shy bond, right? Like
[53:18] more decommissioning bond type structure
that's been developed to satisfy this
[53:24] this requirement across other projects
across other states. For example,
[53:30] And a letter of credit would come from a
bank or somebody would what would uh
[53:35] » yeah letter of credit would come from us
issued through a bank. Uh right now we
[53:40] issue our letters of credit through Mnt.
>> Okay. And Okay. And it would be like
[53:48] financially in the same it would be a
similar similar number whatever the
[53:54] number is going to be.
>> Correct. 72,000 or 350,000 to Jim said,
[53:59] [laughter] you know, whatever the number
is going to be. It would be the letter
[54:02] of credit wouldn't have a different
number than the shity bond. Okay,
[54:06] » that's correct.
>> Yeah,
[54:08] » the letter of credit,
you know, to Chuck's point, I guess I
[54:13] have to remind myself about again since
I asked about the shy bond. Well, that's
[54:18] » letter of credit would have to have some
sort of adjuster
[54:24] for inflation or something in it to be
equivalent if the insurance bond paid
[54:29] interest, right? I don't know. You know,
like there's got if there's if there's
[54:33] some if there's some inflation, we have
to look and see if there's an inflation
[54:39] adjustment
of mechanism of some sort built in
[54:42] either of them, like an assurity bond or
the letter of credit. Yeah. So, how the
[54:47] letter of credit works right now is that
if the value changed, we'd have to
[54:51] reestablish it. Um, that just that would
create like
[54:56] it's not a big it's not a big uh like
just administrative burden, but it would
[55:03] be there. Ideally, we'll set the value
now, right? Like if we agreed to 200,000
[55:09] in today's terms and then we inflate
inflated out over time to
[55:14] 280,000 or 300,000 just again totally
random numbers then we just go with that
[55:19] number and put that in and that's where
we're at. Mhm. So I guess the question
[55:25] is can you build? So what what is the
mechanism either for interest or or
[55:33] um
change in you know in the value of the
[55:37] letter of credit over time? I mean, can
you build that into the original um into
[55:43] the original
um statement of whatever the thing is?
[55:48] Um or is it something that needs to be
adjusted over time if if it if it
[55:55] doesn't work? I mean, if it seems like
it's not working
[55:58] » based on my limited knowledge, it would
be the latter where today we could set a
[56:04] letter of credit for a specific value.
But then again, if that has to go to a
[56:08] different value at some point in the
future, we have to go get a new one and
[56:12] deposit more money into that letter of
credit. Uh, that I could be wrong.
[56:18] That's based on my limited understanding
of of doing these for Connecticut.
[56:22] » Just giving my given my kind of
sense of some sort of to me the shity
[56:28] bond might be better Chuck I would but I
have to look at the details of the shity
[56:32] bond.
[56:36] » Yeah, this is outside of my area of
expertise.
[56:42] Um
[56:46] but I I was also very confused about how
these options get funded. There was some
[56:51] language in the in the agreement, but I
thought it was very vague.
[56:56] Um,
it seemed to me that, you know, just a
[57:00] yearly schedule of funding and value,
you know, whether it's inflation
[57:05] protected or not, you know, it could be
laid out as a yearly schedule and then
[57:09] it would be very apparent how much money
is being funded and when it's being
[57:14] funded.
[57:20] I mean,
>> okay, let me see what I could get. Let
[57:22] me do this. Let me spend a couple
minutes with my finance team, try to
[57:27] pull an example shity bond and then get
like a
[57:32] get like a schedule built out. Um, but
the more and more we we talk about this,
[57:38] I think just like establishing and
agreeing upon a value and setting that
[57:42] value either inflation adjusted uh or on
a schedule is probably our best way to
[57:47] go for ease of explanation to board of
finance.
[57:53] » Yeah. And
>> the the the really would make everything
[58:00] clearer for me would just be that give
an example like you said just give an
[58:04] example and
>> you know um
[58:08] » and show how it works right
>> and if I've read it right this bond
[58:13] isn't even being established for the
first 15 years
[58:20] which you
I can understand. Well, you know, the
[58:25] project has a good deal of time before
we're going to have to decommission it,
[58:30] but it seems like we're completely
unprotected for those first 15 years.
[58:35] You know, I'll be at a secondary
protection.
[58:40] Um,
[58:44] » yeah. So, the language as it's written,
the bond gets established in year 15.
[58:48] Um, and you're not, it's not that you're
unprotected.
[58:52] The the over the overarching goal of
these projects is that they operate for
[58:57] their entire contracted period, right?
And we've seen assets, solar assets,
[59:02] come through bankruptcy proceedings
before. We've bid on them. We've never
[59:06] won any. Um the most recent and probably
largest in the solar space recently was
[59:13] Pinegate that went bankrupt and that
that went through a bankruptcy
[59:17] proceeding. Uh but at the end of the day
there are operators and financeers who
[59:23] are going to buy these assets at
different stages in bankruptcy and
[59:26] operate them through them through their
terms. So the goal is always that they
[59:31] operate
for their useful life.
[59:37] And there's always going to be someone
who's looking to capitalize on that,
[59:41] especially when you have a fixed price
contract with an investment grade
[59:44] offtaker like like Eversource.
[59:49] » So in essence, you're saying we could
just use the use the funding from the
[59:54] asset. We we would get the asset. We use
the funding from the asset to pay for
[59:59] the decommission.
[1:00:03] Well, you just let the you just let the
asset operate.
[1:00:07] » Yeah, it's just going to pass to a new
owner. We wouldn't we wouldn't assume
[1:00:11] control or ownership of it.
>> Well, but the So the but what's the So
[1:00:17] we have to negotiate with the new owner
about I mean so the new new owner has to
[1:00:20] take on you're saying the decommission
>> the the agreement. Yeah. The agreement
[1:00:25] as written.
>> Okay. Yeah. So so new owner has to take
[1:00:27] on the decommission as written.
>> Okay.
[1:00:31] Well, what if it happens in year 10?
[1:00:37] » Well, what he's saying is that they
still have to take off the commission in
[1:00:41] year 15 if they buy when they buy it.
>> Correct. Yeah. the sooner it happens, if
[1:00:46] if it were to go to if the asset goes to
bankruptcy in year two, that's just even
[1:00:50] more incentive for a new asset owner to
come in and want to operate that project
[1:00:54] because you have 18 more years of
contracted revenue at at fixed prices,
[1:01:00] right? Then you have, keep in mind that
like the backside of this is uh once you
[1:01:05] have your 20-year operating period of
the ever the NRES contract, the curves
[1:01:10] right now just show the price of
electricity continuing to escalate far
[1:01:14] beyond what it is today. So the
anticipation is that asset owners are
[1:01:20] going to operate these projects for as
long as they can. You know, like that's
[1:01:23] the goal. If they were to get kicked off
the property, then you're kicked off the
[1:01:27] property. But the goal is to continue to
operate these projects and sell
[1:01:31] electricity for as long as possible.
Even if in 35 years you're operating at
[1:01:36] uh you're only producing 82% of what you
did in year one. Uh it's modeled in and
[1:01:42] it's factored. So that's the goal is to
operate these and if they're going to
[1:01:47] continue to operate and abide by a lease
and pay lease payments, then you know
[1:01:51] why not?
[1:01:56] I mean, I guess the thing the
this is another kind of moving part in
[1:02:01] this contract, I guess. And so, if I
were a fly in the wall and I was a
[1:02:06] really good lawyer and I looked at the
10 contracts you've done with every
[1:02:09] town, is every town accepted the 15
years or somebody bumped it up to 10 or
[1:02:14] five?
>> Um, I don't know off the top of my head.
[1:02:18] the 15-year is is definitely our
standard and where we start.
[1:02:25] Um,
I'd have to confirm. I'd go as far as to
[1:02:29] say couple of the contracts we have
right now don't have a decommissioning
[1:02:35] shity bond built in. Um,
again, a landfill property. Some the
[1:02:41] position of some towns has been that
they'd like this to operate and produce
[1:02:45] revenue for as long as possible.
[1:02:51] Well, this the shy bit
the timing of the shity bond has nothing
[1:02:58] to do with that, does it? I mean, when
the you know,
[1:03:04] I guess from our perspective, ultimately
we'd love to have the shity bond as soon
[1:03:08] as possible. We not no matter how long
you have it, right?
[1:03:12] » Yeah. Correct. And from our position,
that's just going to cost us more money
[1:03:15] over the
>> Exactly.
[1:03:17] » over the term, right? It's it's an
additional expense for us for longer,
[1:03:21] » right? And so, I don't know, it's like
one of these things like when we used to
[1:03:25] negotiate about credit default swaps and
things like that, there's all these
[1:03:30] little micro terms in there that could
make a difference in these things,
[1:03:35] right? And
>> it's better if they're all standardized
[1:03:39] because which which because then
everybody accepts the standard, right?
[1:03:44] It on the other hand, if I find out, I
don't know that one of your other
[1:03:48] people, you find out one other people
negotiated with you and got five years
[1:03:51] instead of 15 years, then we all feel
like idiots. Okay. So, um um I guess
[1:04:00] that's the question is to what degree is
I mean if
[1:04:09] if I thought this was standard, I might
leave it. If I thought it was if I
[1:04:13] thought it was something that you push
hard on it, you give us five years
[1:04:17] instead of 15, then I negotiate, right?
>> Yeah. And I think um it's it's an
[1:04:24] interesting one because we're in a tough
spot. Um we're in a spot where I've
[1:04:31] spent a considerable amount of money
developing and advancing the project. Um
[1:04:35] and if if the town were to come back to
me and say, "I'm not signing this lease
[1:04:39] unless you give me the shity bond at
year five or year one." And again, just
[1:04:44] to be completely transparent here, do I
shelf uh $150,000 of spend to date and
[1:04:51] say no, or do I agree to that and keep
moving forward? Right? So, again, I like
[1:04:58] cards on the table. I'm in a tough spot.
Um because I don't have an ability to
[1:05:04] move forward and build the project with
the contract I have with the town
[1:05:07] currently. I have a considerable amount
of uh spend at risk
[1:05:13] » and and a and a desire to get a contract
with the town that I could actually
[1:05:17] build and then get a permit from deep
and then get a permit from the town. So,
[1:05:22] » okay. Um
>> I'm effectively at your mercy.
[1:05:26] » No, I I get all that. I guess my
question is convince me that 15 years is
[1:05:30] standard and maybe I'll
>> or is there another mechanism that you
[1:05:35] know is more of a win-win for both? like
maybe an escrow account, right? That
[1:05:41] isn't going to cost you
um like a shity bond would
[1:05:46] kind of a hybrid approach.
[1:05:50] » Yeah, in that situation it could be, but
it would just be splitting hairs really
[1:05:55] probably the amount of escrow versus the
the carry cost for the bond. Um
[1:06:00] we could run the numbers on an escrow
that starts earlier on.
[1:06:09] But I think really you have the security
of whether it's Varigy or uh James
[1:06:17] Templeton Enterprises. The the idea is
to operate these projects for as long as
[1:06:22] possible, right? It's not that Very goes
bankrupt in two years and then nobody
[1:06:26] wants to touch this project. Uh there
will be a new operator looking to come
[1:06:31] in there because they think it's a
distressed asset and there's money to be
[1:06:34] made, right?
[1:06:40] So, because somebody's willing to come
in, if you I feel bad like we're telling
[1:06:45] you your company is going to go
bankrupt, but if your company should go
[1:06:48] bankrupt, it's not like we would rip it
out because you're saying somebody would
[1:06:52] come in and then we just create a
contract with them so we don't have to
[1:06:56] worry about ripping it out.
>> No, really, the the contracts stay in
[1:07:00] place. So, the revenue agreement
continues.
[1:07:02] » Yeah. But they but they just they just
they just pick up the
[1:07:07] Okay. Correct.
>> Yeah. They pick up the same contract.
[1:07:10] That's what it's pointed, I think,
Kathy. So, that they they would still
[1:07:14] » So, we wouldn't necessarily decommission
it because somebody else is just going
[1:07:17] to pick up the contract.
>> Well, correct. And and Right. Correct.
[1:07:20] That's one thing. And the other thing is
that they're still in the contract to
[1:07:24] put up the bond after 15 years, but then
maybe it's 10 years or something. they
[1:07:29] still have they still have the
obligation to put up the bond for
[1:07:33] decommission in 10 years or whatever
that is.
[1:07:39] » Okay.
I think um one of the things that might
[1:07:44] make the town feel you know more
comfortable about this is um can we get
[1:07:50] updated certified financial statements
um
[1:07:57] from you
[1:08:01] uh maybe yeah let let me talk to let me
talk to our accounting team
[1:08:07] um maybe I think the easier way really
is just to agree on a shy bond value
[1:08:14] that you know you're comfortable with
and that the town attorney is
[1:08:17] comfortable with and we agree on when
that will be established and move it
[1:08:22] forward.
Again, I'm I'm just trying to think of
[1:08:25] like ease of
>> Well, why would we need a financial
[1:08:30] statement, Chuck? Because we're not
we're getting the same amount of money
[1:08:34] per year for renting the land. So, why
would we care what the
[1:08:37] » No, no, no, no. But Ch what Chuck wants
is a financial statement of Verarajy,
[1:08:41] » right?
>> He he wants to make sure that Varagy is
[1:08:44] sound right now.
>> Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. I thought we had easy
[1:08:48] math on our side. Okay.
>> All right.
[1:08:51] » Uh but um
>> yeah, I guess
[1:08:56] » the main thing to me about the 15 year
is 15 years is convince me that it's not
[1:09:01] something you put up and then give other
towns 10 or five for some reason.
[1:09:09] Yeah. And I'm trying to think. Let me go
back and look through some leases
[1:09:13] because what I did was put together a
chart for attorney Kalin and I sent that
[1:09:18] to him just with like the the contracts
we had with other towns. Let me put that
[1:09:24] together and um send it over to you. I'm
I'm almost confident that the year 15 is
[1:09:33] like our our standard, but I don't want
to misspeak on that.
[1:09:37] » Okay.
>> And again, so not not to belabor it, but
[1:09:40] how we how we just financed a batch of
these projects is through a sale lease
[1:09:45] back with uh Mnt Bank. We did a sale
lease back with First Source prior to
[1:09:50] that. So we'll we'll group these assets
and then
[1:09:55] effectively sell it to the bank Mnt Bank
for purposes of them capturing the
[1:10:01] investment tax credit we lease it back
as the operator. So if the as the
[1:10:08] operator if we were to default on our
financing agreement with Mnt Bank, they
[1:10:14] step in and take ownership of the
project. like they might then choose to
[1:10:21] find a new operator, right? Or they
would just own it and hire companies to
[1:10:27] do the asset management and operations
and maintenance. Um, so that's that's
[1:10:33] like the most likely financing
mechanism. That's how we will finance
[1:10:38] this project again because we have to
find a way to monetize that federal tax
[1:10:44] credit which is typically done by the
banks and the sale lease back is the
[1:10:48] most common method right now uh that a
lot of folks are financing these
[1:10:52] projects.
>> Yeah. No, I I get all that. And so the
[1:10:58] key things to me are what Kathy was just
speaking about, right, is we go through
[1:11:02] that process, this contract stays in
place, including the shy bond in year
[1:11:07] 15.
>> And um the second thing to me is that I
[1:11:12] just want to
>> um
[1:11:15] I want to, you know, I don't want to
feel like you've been duped. In other
[1:11:18] words, you come out with 15 and then if
you're a really savvy town, you get 10,
[1:11:23] right? Yep. Yeah. Let let me put that
together again. I don't want to misspeak
[1:11:27] on that. Um I definitely know we've done
15 before, but let me add that to the
[1:11:34] chart and I'll send it over to you.
[1:11:40] Okay. [clears throat and cough]
Well, yeah, you can tell there's a
[1:11:46] couple of guys on this
on this um task force that spent a
[1:11:51] career in risk management with financial
services.
[1:11:55] » This is kind of the bread and butter of
not so much what I did, but probably
[1:12:00] more so what Tom did. I was more in the
things. You get exposed to it um whether
[1:12:08] or not you're actively working in that
group or not. Yep.
[1:12:13] » No, I get it. I get it.
>> Usually all the money is in how you
[1:12:16] argue. All the money is in the options
that people don't see
[1:12:20] » or think about.
>> Correct. Yeah. If if you guys are
[1:12:24] golfers, you've probably heard that
every match is won and lost on the first
[1:12:28] te.
[laughter]
[1:12:31] » Right. So, anyway, let's get let's go
on, Chuck, though. Let's beat they beat
[1:12:35] this to death. Yeah, I think I think
we're done with the update. Um I have
[1:12:42] like small amount of other things I want
to talk to to the task force about, but
[1:12:48] um yeah, I haven't set up anything with
the fire marshall yet. Um I don't see
[1:12:53] that as critical path yet, but um let me
know Brian if it becomes critical path
[1:13:00] and we can move that up.
>> Yeah. No, good good point, Chuck. I
[1:13:03] think what's best once we have like an
initial site plan draft from our
[1:13:08] engineer and definitely prior to going
to planning and zoning, we'll meet with
[1:13:12] the fire marshall and just give them the
rundown. Definitely want to do that
[1:13:15] before we submit anything to P&Z, but I
want to have a little more detailed plan
[1:13:19] than I have right now. So, probably in a
few weeks would be good time and I'll
[1:13:24] make sure you know you and I are
connected on that.
[1:13:27] » All right.
[1:13:34] Okay.
>> Okay. No, thank you for your time.
[1:13:38] » Great great to speak with you all.
>> I hope
[1:13:42] » Trying to watch the kids in the backyard
here. So, sorry for the noise.
[1:13:45] [laughter]
>> All right.
[1:13:47] » Go do that. That's more important.
>> Have a good night.
[1:13:50] » We'll talk to you. Bye. All right. Thank
you. Bye.
[1:14:00] All right. Well, what do you guys think?
[1:14:07] Well, again, the thing that drives me
nuts about these things is
[1:14:14] I've seen lots of situations where you
put out a template with six things that
[1:14:20] if you can get, you get, you know, um if
nobody argues, you get it. If somebody
[1:14:27] argues, then you give in and give them
something better. But um I don't know if
[1:14:33] that's this kind of situation or not.
Right.
[1:14:37] I mean and
and most of the options are around the
[1:14:42] margin anyway. We're talking about like
secondary options which for them is
[1:14:48] generally big could be big money but for
us it's probably not as big a deal as
[1:14:54] unless something really you know
outlying stuff happens right.
[1:15:00] But it's good to um it's good to see
what we can get up front. And I be
[1:15:05] definitely
[1:15:09] we do we know who So we have the list of
other towns he's doing this for now or
[1:15:14] has done it for?
>> He's going to give us a list, but um
[1:15:18] » Okay. Yeah.
>> Yeah. We don't Apparently the attorney
[1:15:21] has. I haven't seen it.
>> Right. So, I'd like to see if the other
[1:15:26] any other towns have gotten better
terms. That's my that's my biggest kind
[1:15:31] of concern with this stuff.
>> Yeah. I just want to make sure we're
[1:15:36] adequately protected. Something goes up.
I just I worry a little bit because
[1:15:41] they're doing a lot of projects and, you
know, they're obviously selling this.
[1:15:45] They're not holding it. They're selling
it all, right? Um, so,
[1:15:50] um, that smacks a little bit of
securization to me and you know that's
[1:15:55] that's that's a tough hole to yourself.
>> It does, but on the on the flip side of
[1:16:00] that, as he says, it gives MNT Bank or
somebody else the the kind of desire and
[1:16:09] motivation to make sure it keeps
running, right?
[1:16:14] » Yeah. We almost need a financial
statement from them.
[1:16:21] Um, well, no, I don't know. I think it
gives the opposite side of the the the
[1:16:28] equation uh skin in the game for us,
right? So, um,
[1:16:34] » yeah,
>> that that's probably a good thing.
[1:16:38] » Yeah.
>> Yeah, I'm a little more comfortable
[1:16:42] um with that. And then, you know, it
really isn't quite like securization,
[1:16:46] but just
um I mean, salary specs are pretty
[1:16:51] common, right, in the financial world.
[1:16:59] In general, solar developers want their
money out of these projects as quickly
[1:17:04] as they can get them.
>> Yeah.
[1:17:06] » They can get it. I mean, and so that's
the kind of the mo the mode that the PV
[1:17:12] solar guys use. Whether it's res,
commercial,
[1:17:17] utility, scale, doesn't matter. It's all
the same.
[1:17:22] » Yeah. I think they're probably just
spreading their yourself financially
[1:17:24] thin, right?
>> Yep. Yep.
[1:17:27] » Um,
>> but what I'm saying is that they
[1:17:30] understand these options a lot more than
we do,
[1:17:33] » right? You know, they've got it. I'm
sure they've got a very, you know,
[1:17:38] extensive analysis of what it means to
do 10 years versus 15 years or what it
[1:17:43] means to do to do 72,000 versus 300,000,
right? And so, um, they got a guy
[1:17:51] sitting back there who can give a put a
number to that really quickly, I'm sure.
[1:17:56] » Yeah.
>> But, um, now,
[1:18:00] you know, does it matter that much to
us? I'm not sure.
[1:18:04] I think what you're trying to do in this
case is just protect the town as it
[1:18:09] relates to getting rid of the ship at
the end of life. Um, and I'm not sure
[1:18:15] it's any more complicated than that. To
me, the answer is go to a shity bond and
[1:18:23] don't complicate it. But I mean, I think
chase it, pull on the string, see where
[1:18:29] it goes, let him do his his due
diligence on it, and get back to us.
[1:18:35] » Yeah.
[1:18:38] Um,
[1:18:42] so some of the other recommendations
I've seen are about adding
[1:18:45] decommissioning triggers
um such as the project ceasing operation
[1:18:51] for 12 months, bankruptcy, abandonment
or end of fuseful life um to the
[1:18:57] contract. Um
I don't know. Have you seen that kind of
[1:19:02] language, Jim?
>> Mhm. Yep.
[1:19:06] » You think we should? But as he point as
he points out um
[1:19:12] if even if these things are chugging
along at 80% efficiency after 15 or 20
[1:19:20] years or 30 years
um there's value in it
[1:19:26] » and somebody will buy somebody will buy
it and try to extract that value um for
[1:19:33] as long as they can.
I know. But this is the flip side of it,
[1:19:37] right? This is, hey, the project's not
in operation anymore or there's been
[1:19:42] abandonment, right?
>> Yeah, fair enough. I understand.
[1:19:48] » And you know, we should we should be
specific.
[1:19:52] » Well, go ahead.
>> That's different than bankruptcy.
[1:19:56] » It is.
That is
[1:19:59] » um
>> Well, that I I know. So, the So, yeah.
[1:20:03] So Chuck, the the real danger to me
seems to be and this the biggest danger
[1:20:08] for us seems to be
2027.
[1:20:13] [laughter]
Um you know that if they get half into
[1:20:18] this or get you know you know build half
the thing or
[1:20:26] » or if they don't finish it. Yeah.
>> Don't finish it. what um you know and
[1:20:32] then they go bankrupt or pull out for
some reason then what do we do
[1:20:38] » or if we or there's a trade embargo and
we can't get parts.
[1:20:43] » I think they already have the parts.
>> They do have all the parts. Okay, that's
[1:20:47] » I don't know if they have them all but
at least the panels and so on they say
[1:20:50] Harvard. So they told me um to preserve
the federal tax credit they had to do.
[1:20:57] Well, I know, but if they go in
bankruptcy, then people are going to go
[1:21:00] after the parts, right? [laughter]
>> They'll have a tag sale.
[1:21:05] » You betcha. [laughter]
[1:21:11] » So, yeah, but nursing this through to
get to end of 2027 is going to be to me
[1:21:16] the trickiest part in some ways.
>> Yeah. Well, we got to walk that line
[1:21:23] between and I think they're going to
push back, right, on a [clears throat]
[1:21:27] lot of the stuff we asked for tonight.
>> Well, yeah. And their leverage is Yeah.
[1:21:31] that they they can in essence walk if
they want to,
[1:21:36] » right? And it's not the first time he's
mentioned this when we start to push him
[1:21:41] on things. No,
>> I know. I know. And well, we knew that
[1:21:45] all along. So, that's that's his
leverage. He can if if the thing doesn't
[1:21:49] really
meet his specifications, he can in
[1:21:54] essence walk.
[1:21:58] And but I'm hoping that we both have get
gradually got enough skin in the game
[1:22:04] little by little that he won't and we
won't unless under really nasty
[1:22:10] circumstances.
Do you think that $150,000
[1:22:16] number that he mentioned is is uh is
real in terms of what their spend has
[1:22:22] been to date?
[1:22:27] » Who knows? Who knows? Nobody knows this
crap. Like, you know, um we're sitting
[1:22:32] in this waste thing and
you know, so we got a grant for 17,000.
[1:22:38] I think 17,000 in most companies buys
you uh a coffee hour in a meeting with
[1:22:46] with with [laughter] half the people
>> with Danish.
[1:22:49] » You put you put the right people in the
room at 17,000 in a in a two-hour
[1:22:53] meeting. Okay. Um so I who knows what
the spend is, you know, those kind of
[1:22:58] things are like way up in a kind of um
um
[1:23:03] » supposedly they bought all the panels
for the project. So we could do a
[1:23:06] computation on that or Chim might even
have a you know off the cough answer. Um
[1:23:12] you know
>> a watt
[1:23:16] » but in in theory though he could just
use that for something else if he walks
[1:23:21] go someplace.
>> Absolutely. Yeah.
[1:23:24] » So
>> um
[1:23:26] » you know than that he's done some
engineering but it's not too detailed
[1:23:30] yet. Um
I don't know. I don't you know
[1:23:36] maybe an opportunity cost, but maybe not
real cost. I don't know.
[1:23:45] But um
anyway, let's keep trying to nurse it. I
[1:23:50] mean, I I guess what I want to see is
that you know what I don't want coming
[1:23:55] back to me is five years they go
bankrupt and Planeville says, "Oh, I got
[1:24:01] five years out of them. Oh, I I got
350,000 out of them. Oh,
[1:24:06] and you guys are just duped.
[1:24:12] Um,
I think we should be specific about what
[1:24:16] needs to be what decommissioning means.
Um, you know, this is the list that I
[1:24:22] came up with, but
um, you know, removal panels, racking,
[1:24:28] foundation, wires, transformers, you
know, yada yada yada. But is there stuff
[1:24:33] in here that we should take out or add?
>> Me, I'd approach it from the other
[1:24:39] perspective.
Return it to its current condition.
[1:24:45] Don't try to delineate everything,
Chuck.
[1:24:49] » But I'm not I'm not the attorney in the
crowd and have no desire to be the the
[1:24:56] the attorney in the crowd.
>> Well, you know, there was something in
[1:24:59] the agreement about
take it back to the
[1:25:04] there was some tricky language in there.
I thought I got to go back and refresh
[1:25:07] myself on it, but it wasn't I wasn't
sure they were actually saying they
[1:25:12] would actually take it back to its
present condition. I think they
[1:25:17] I think they said they'll take it back
to the condition that it was at at the
[1:25:22] end of construction or something like
this. you know, it did,
[1:25:27] but uh I would, you know, urge you to
read through it um and help me sort it
[1:25:33] out.
[1:25:40] » Um
yeah. Do we need an engineer prepared
[1:25:45] estimate of the value of the thing over
time?
[1:25:50] » To what end? Well, I just saw that
recommendation somewhere with no
[1:25:55] justification.
[1:25:58] » I better run it by you.
>> I think it's a waste of money and time
[1:26:03] unless there's a specific need for it.
But if you're referring to what the demo
[1:26:08] demo costs are, what a waste of time.
>> Yeah.
[1:26:17] Okay. Well, that's pretty much it of
things that I thought about.
[1:26:24] » Yep. Your last bullet. I agree. I mean,
the contract is in force
[1:26:31] um if it gets sold. I mean, subject if
they I mean, the new owner may come and
[1:26:37] try to renegotiate it, but you know,
that stands on its own. Um Yeah. I mean,
[1:26:43] contracts in force.
>> Yeah. No, that that that one's
[1:26:48] important. I think that's and he agreed
to that, I thought, today.
[1:26:51] » Yeah.
>> Yep. That's right.
[1:26:53] » Yeah. So, we should write it in the the
agreement.
[1:27:00] I don't think it's in there, but it
could be.
[1:27:04] » You know, I get lost in some of the lang
legal language or impatient with trying
[1:27:08] to sort through it.
>> Right. I don't see why he I don't see
[1:27:12] why he should object to the last point.
>> Um, no. the he now Mnt Bank might object
[1:27:18] to the last point. I don't know. That's
that's what's why that's the problem
[1:27:23] when you're doing this whole in between
stuff and and the standards, right? And
[1:27:27] that's why I was asking about the
standards too is that you know Mnt Bank
[1:27:32] and they're going to read through this
and they're going to require certain
[1:27:36] things too, right? And so, um, they
don't might not like the last point, but
[1:27:42] we've got to I think we have to push
hard on the last point.
[1:27:46] Yeah, I think that's fine.
[1:27:52] » All right.
>> That's that's a function of the
[1:27:54] agreement between Very and Mnt or
whoever is financing the thing,
[1:28:01] » right?
[1:28:08] All right. Well, that's that's all I
have for tonight.
[1:28:13] Um,
>> if we adjourn,
[1:28:18] [laughter]
>> anything else before we close?
[1:28:22] » Nope.
>> I'm good.
[1:28:24] » All right.
>> Yeah. Thanks everyone. Thank you
[1:28:28] everyone.
>> Thank you. One one quick thing is this
[1:28:31] this so when
when is the timeline of get getting this
[1:28:36] thing signed
[1:28:39] » is this I'm trying to understand whether
>> you know he he said he said June 25th
[1:28:45] didn't he
>> he hoped to have it but now that's
[1:28:49] that's the point of the lease extension
now because it it means the lease option
[1:28:53] extension right so you know in the event
that we can't negotiate this by the 25th
[1:28:59] it then we're going to just extend the
current option that we have.
[1:29:06] That's why I asked him if the language
is any different than what we already
[1:29:09] have.
>> Right. But I don't know. I'd like to Has
[1:29:13] anybody talked to Have you talked to the
lawyer? Have you talked to um to um you
[1:29:20] know
>> to Tim or anybody about what's going on
[1:29:23] on our side on this? I copied Tim on all
all these concerns when I sent sent it
[1:29:29] to Dan and um Dan called me to yesterday
I think and um
[1:29:37] you know he said I think we should go
for the bond and um you know try to get
[1:29:42] the full amount and he he was concerned
that maybe they can't get anybody to
[1:29:47] underwrite that amount for the bond but
um but notwithstanding that. But he did
[1:29:55] mention that, you know, it he would
discuss some of this stuff with the with
[1:30:00] the um with the lawyer and he said, "I
might rope you guys into it." And I
[1:30:05] said, "Please do." Right.
>> Okay. I just I guess I don't want to
[1:30:12] extend extend extend indefinitely
because
[1:30:16] » um you know,
>> it just costs everybody money.
[1:30:19] » It costs everybody money. And um but
lawyers tend to do that if they if
[1:30:25] they're given the time, you know. Um so
I'd like to see if we can get a real
[1:30:31] let's let's set a real deadline and
stick to it.
[1:30:36] » Yeah. No, I'm fine with that, but not at
the cost of, you know, material
[1:30:42] risk.
>> I agree. But I mean I I I agree. So
[1:30:47] let's keep let's keep doing that. But um
doing I just
[1:30:53] it's costing us in other ways to extend
I think.
[1:30:59] » So um you it would be good to have in
the conversation with the lawyer. Um are
[1:31:05] you going to California anytime soon or
anywhere else?
[1:31:09] » Yes.
[laughter]
[1:31:14] » Um
>> he just decided at this moment
[1:31:17] » [laughter]
[1:31:20] » No, but it's not. Well, it's the or
anywhere else and giving you a list of
[1:31:25] where they are would be would take would
take take another [laughter] half an
[1:31:28] hour. So, um um but um
I'll be back and forth and play and
[1:31:34] around at different times. Not the rest
of this, not the rest of this week. Um
[1:31:40] but um yeah,
>> next week.
[1:31:45] » Are you here next week? next week on um
Monday and Tuesday,
[1:31:55] » international man of mystery.
>> Well, I that used to be that. This is
[1:32:01] more just I got, you know, the busy life
of a retired guy in the [laughter] in
[1:32:07] the go in the go- go period, not the not
the slowgo period or the whatever they
[1:32:12] call it beyond that. the off [laughter]
>> there's a very good chance I'm going to
[1:32:18] end up in Mississippi soon um for an
unknown amount of time but um
[1:32:27] it's very dynamic but I don't think it's
going to occur before
[1:32:32] the end of next week
[1:32:36] based on conversations we had today.
Well, is everything still zoomable?
[1:32:43] » Yeah, I think so. We probably could. I
mean,
[1:32:49] if we need to
[1:32:53] » Okay. Anyway, so figure out. So, how
long's the extension for?
[1:33:00] » I I'd have to go look.
[1:33:04] So when we so call enact I' I'd just
like to see I'd like to get
[1:33:10] our lawyer focused on finalizing this at
some date
[1:33:19] um soon. Um I don't want to I don't want
to give up on things that are are we
[1:33:26] think are really bad negotiating things,
you know, that we should just give it
[1:33:30] in. But um
I don't want to just let it drag
[1:33:35] forever.
[1:33:39] » Y
here's the agreement. Uh it's actually
[1:33:43] very short.
>> Um hang on. I got to share again.
[1:33:57] I haven't read this just now.
[1:34:02] year.
>> 12 months. Yeah.
[1:34:04] » Yeah.
>> So, I don't want to be
[1:34:08] debating about this this time next year.
>> Oh god. No. [laughter]
[1:34:14] » No. Definitely.
>> I mean, I would have pref I would have
[1:34:16] loved it if it said uh August 25th.
[laughter]
[1:34:21] Um
>> Well, we could we could make the
[1:34:23] recommendation to change it.
[clears throat]
[1:34:26] » I don't know. I mean, again, that's a
discussion between Tim and the lawyer
[1:34:30] and stuff, but I feel like
what's what's our town lawyer's downside
[1:34:36] to spend lots of time on trivial stuff
on this and charges for it?
[1:34:40] » Yeah, he's a contract lawyer, right?
[clears throat]
[1:34:47] » All right. Well,
>> yeah,
[1:34:49] » we'll talk I'll get up with Dan.
[1:34:55] » Have a good evening. Yeah. Good night to
car. Thank you.
[1:34:59] » Good night.
>> You guys, we'll see you. Y
[1:35:04] night.