 Good morning. Thursday already. And we're into Plastidas with Brad Braden. Yeah, Braden Jordan. Really my name is George. Okay. Sweet dancing too. Thanks for having me. My name is Brad Braden. Really George Braden. And my family owned a business that made polystyrene foam meat trays for 37 years. And recently sold that business to Technoplex. And so now I work for Technoplex. And I work in the engineering department. I'm in charge of the engineering for the Dolco business unit. And we make foam ink cartons. And we make polystyrene foam trays. And we take out the containers. And one of the things I've kind of been hearing a lot lately is, jeez, you know, your family makes that foam packaging. That stuff's terrible. I can't believe you should be ashamed of yourself. And I'm like, what? No. The opposite. I'm proud to make that. I don't know where you come up with that. And so I think that sometimes the common knowledge isn't always right. And sometimes you gotta, you know, step back and take a look and see kind of what the truth might really be. And one of the things I hear is that it's dangerous. And I can tell you it's not. I mean, we have a food safety program. And it starts with the Global Food Safety Initiative, where a group of people got together and they kind of wrote the gold standard for safe packaging for food. And then an association called the British Retail Consortium, they wrote a standard. So that if you follow this standard, then you meet this gold standard by GFSI Global Food Safety Initiative. And then the third part is that you have a company coming in and inspect your process. And they look at all your processes, all your records, they look at your facility, and we hire AAC to do that International Association of International Bakers. And they were created to make packaging safe. And so we score an A rating on this gold standard for food safety so I can assure you that it's safe. There are no CFCs. I hear there are CFCs that are not. People talk about benzene. It shouldn't be confused with polystyrene. That's a styrene issue. Styrene looks like epoxy. It's a thick liquid. Polystyrene is a solid polymer. It's a polymer. It's organic chemistry. And it doesn't break into little pieces. That's like foam coolers. You bust a foam cooler, and you're stuffing, you get all these pieces. You don't really get that. So that's sort of, you know, not necessarily the case. And then I'm assuming that a bill like this intends to have a lower impact on the environment. And I'll tell you, if you're using a bill like this, we'll have exactly the opposite effect of that. And I'll tell you why. You've taken the most efficient product from a material standpoint, and a ban on that would get you materials that are less efficient, which means that you would need more facilities to make plastic. For example, these are both polystyrene number six. If I were to make both of these in my plan, I would take the raw materials from the same box. Literally the same box. There's no difference in the materials of these. This one's been foamed. This one has not. It's a little bit like soap in the bathroom. If you ban the foaming soap, and now you had to use the liquid soap, you'd use twice as much. You'd need twice as much as many facilities as soap as you do now. So my point would be if the bill bans this and we're substituting this, we're going to be building facilities to make plastic pellets because you're going to need more. And it gets worse when you look at something like this. This is from the big M next door. They sell chili in this. It's 4.6... This is all made of energy. It's either oil or natural gas. So when you use more, you're using more fossil fuels. So if you want to use more fossil fuels, then that's what the... I believe that's what the bill would do. So here you go. 4.6, the lid's 1.8. That's under six grams. Here's a substitute container. The lid alone. Forget about this. The lid alone has more environmental impact than this entire container. Take a look at this. This is 6.8 grams. This is 4.6... 6.4. 5... 5... So, you know, and this... This isn't real. This isn't recycled either. Are we recycling these? I don't think so. They've got a layer of polyethylene in them. So you're not recycling that either. They're going to the same place. This is 10.7 plus 4.3. So easily double the environmental impact of that. If you need one facility to make enough of these, you need two facilities to make enough of these. If these bands continue to be widespread, you're going to see facilities being built to make plastic. That's what you're going to see. Here's an interesting one. It kind of makes the point. So, by the way, it is recyclable. This is ground up foam, and then this is what it looks like when we reprocess it, and we reuse all of it. By the way, some of these products, if they're crystalline in nature, you won't reuse all the trim scrap. So you get a huge amount of scrap coming out of these factories should it go that way. So this is the amount of plastic it takes to make this one foam tray. Not very much, right? That's pretty environmentally efficient. I'd say we're winning on that. That's what it takes to make the substitute. Three times as much. This is arguably a whole more pork chops than this. Right? I don't know why it's going this direction. It makes me nauseous. This is a foam tray. I cut a little piece out of it just to show. You know, I went to the machine shop and I put an advice and I left a clamp there. And I forced all the air out of that. And so I had a 95% reduction in thickness from 242 to 13. So my point is if this is under 100p of stuff in a landfill, it's going to look more like this than like this. And I see of these bills that say 30% of the landfill is this stuff. And I looked at the Vermont statistics and I think it was all plastic was 13% and I'm going from memory that might be wrong. And then polystyrene was like 15% of that. So it came out to be under 1% of the landfill is this stuff. And that's from the Vermont D.C. website. So it's not quite as terrible as it looks. And then, you know, here's a good example. This is what we do. This is a foam egg carton at 14.9 grams. And some people think this is a better container for the environment. I don't know why they think that because it's 47 grams. It's actually three times the environmental impact to go from this to this. And people like it better. So my point is I think there's some issues with kind of what the common knowledge is saying about this stuff. And I think we need to be careful with a passive bill that would have an opposite of facts from an environmental point of view. You're going to use a lot more plastic. And if the goal is to reduce cost, I mean, really, I don't think any of these are, is any of this stuff profitable to recycle? Is anything profitable to recycle? I mean, we know glasses, and is this stuff, I mean, this gets picked on, not profitable to recycle. Well, is any of this stuff profitable to recycle? I don't think it is. I don't know. That's my thing. So, you know, if from the, thank you, from the municipality's point of view, we're stuck paying for end of life, right? And that's a cost. And when we like to reduce that cost, well, we pay based on weight. So, if the bill bands this, you're going to get this. You're going to be paying more. It's going to cost the taxpayers more. It's going to cost the municipality more. It's not good for the people of Vermont. And I got some more stuff, but you get to go to questions. Yeah, yeah. What is the process to make the phone container versus the clear one? What is the actual process? Okay, yeah, there's a couple different. This one's being P.E.T. This one's being polystyrene. The P.E.T. comes through a flat dye and it just comes out yay thick. The polystyrene comes out through a dye like that and then they stretch it this way and they stretch it this way and they tend to get some different properties. But it's coming out of a flat dye as a solid. The phone container has a gas injected into the extrusion process and the gas will dissolve into the plastic like sugar dissolves in coffee. And then the gas in this case is butane. It's sometimes it's CO2, sometimes it's nitrogen. 100 years ago it was free on not 100, I'm exaggerating, 50 years ago it was free on. That's where the CFCs came from. That's been illegal for a long time. Then this comes out of a round dye like this. And when it comes out there's a big temperature drop and pressure drop. And so what happens is, because you're inside the extruder at 2000 PSI, you come out of the extruder you're at atmospheric. And what happens is all of the gas that you use goes out of solution and it forms a bunch of tiny little cells. Over time the gas in those cells is replaced with the air that's in the room. And you use for a 10 pound case of school lunch trays, the amount of butane that would be in there would be about this much. So you've taken this much butane to reduce this much plastic. And that's really the that's why this is so environmentally friendly. It takes half the plastic away. So then what is the bad part of that? This? I don't know. You got me. I don't know what it is. I'm confused by that. I think it's unpopular and a lot of people don't like it. They don't know why they don't like it. But they don't like it and I think we feel obligated to do something about that. I mean that's why that's why these bands come up is because people in leadership they feel they have a responsibility to address the issues that the public is bringing up. People don't like this. They don't know why they don't like it. I ask them all the time. And they don't know. We did testimony that butane is toxic. It's carcinogenic. It's benzene. Well, the benzene is styrene and not polystyrene. So a monomer of styrene is a chain length of one. Polymers are these really long chains and when they connect it's like the difference between hydrogen in an atmosphere of oxygen. It's very dangerous and you're concerned about that. But if you have H2O that's water. And we're no longer concerned about the hydrogen in the presence of oxygen. It's no longer explosive when it's not too gasses but water. That's the difference between a monomer of styrene and a polymer of polystyrene. Similar in that regard. I think that there's a lot of questions around this. It isn't it's cut and dry. It isn't it's bad we should ban it. If you think it's bad study it. Study it. Understand it. Do the working group or you do the ban so that you have the facts behind it. You can answer those questions and use data. Any other questions? Any other questions? So the significant number I think of food service and hospitality will have your take out in a exact copy of that one only is paper. And how do the paper ones stack up environmentally for maybe the full life. I have a pretty in depth knowledge of plastic. I've just been around it. Yeah and we built our own equipment. So I would go to these shows and I would see and talk to plastic people be members of these associations. I know paper I don't really know but I was recently I was with a guy at GenPak named Ed Ryder and he was telling me that they did put in some molded fiber plants to do what you're talking about. They have one in the United States and they work with a couple in China and he was telling me that they had a thousand horsepower motor on this machine. He says side by side you're making 1800 cases a day of the polystyrene and 180 of the molded fiber. He was talking just about a tremendous amount of electricity and you know like these are made of energy they're still made of energy. The paper the energy is consumed through heat and they use these for the shine. I was through molded fiber plant in Argentina and the thing with the oven was 20 feet wide and 100 feet long and it was hot in there and it smelled bad too. So I mean I don't think that I don't think paper is better is environmentally more environmentally friendly. I don't know why people think that it's not my opinion. I don't think paper is a better alternative to plastic that's my opinion. Where is your plant? We're in Bloomfield, New York so it's a little town about 4,000. We're south of Rochester. That's the plant that my father founded in 1981 and then we sold at Technoplex on May 1st of 2018. Great. Thank you so much. You're welcome. My pleasure. Thank you for having me. I'd like to have reusable plastic bags. Yeah. I'm chair members of the committee. My name is Paul Poe I'm with Dark Container Corporation Government Affairs and the Environment Committee. We make food service products anywhere between 2,000 to 4,000 depending on the time of the year. Everything from what was traditionally known as a Dunkin Donuts coffee cup to red solo cup to plastic cups they put ketchup in. Anything that's food service related we probably have made something that you have had. And I'm here today to talk about the benefit of expanded polystyrene. I just want to have a conversation. It's not us against you or you against us. It's just a conversation. We do make expanded polystyrene products and most of those are taken back and recycled. There is no state in the United States yet that has expanded polystyrene because it keeps hot things hot, it keeps cold things cold and even hospitals use it and hospitals use it to transplant organs for organ transplant. It's a sterile product since it's been on the market since over 50 years. There's never been one health related issue related to expanded polystyrene. Sometimes people will conflate polystyrene with polystyrene. So, styrene is a liquid. Expanded polystyrene is a solid. So, one is a liquid. A monomer when you put it together and my background is in chemical engineering. So, styrene is a liquid. Polystyrene is a solid. They have different chemical characteristics and equations. So, if let's take salt for example. Na or sodium Cl for chlorine. If you add sodium to water by itself it will explode. If you add chlorine to sodium it will make salt water. So, there is a very distinct difference. And the same is true between styrene and polystyrene. So, if there's any health issue related questions I'll be happy to answer those. But the short answer is that there has never been one health related incident related to polystyrene out of a polystyrene cup. And polystyrene was invented primarily because the trains they would use a ladle, they would drink water and they would pass typhoid and they would do all these other things and so there needed to be a delivery material that would not pass bacteria or viruses along. And so that's primarily why single-service cups were invented. So, that's number one we dart as a company has been making expanded polystyrene for over 50 years. We're based in Mason Michigan. Two of our largest facilities are in Leola Pennsylvania and Corsgate, Kentucky. We have manufacturing facilities in Maryland and most of our distribution is done out of Maryland. And as many of you may have read Maryland both the house and the senate has passed bills to ban expanded polystyrene. That bill has not been signed by the governor. We've talked to the governor and similarly in Maine we are working with Governor Mills to express our concern of the efficacy of polystyrene expanded polystyrene and they have carved out in Maine especially they're saying, oh, it's okay to ship lobsters in Maine but you can't drink a cup of coffee out of expanded polystyrene. So if you're going to pick winners and losers let's make it fair. So in Maine if the bill does get signed into law which hasn't been done yet hasn't been presented to the governor we our argument is is that why is it okay to ship a lobster in foam but not okay to drink a cup of coffee out of foam? So that's a distinction without a difference. In Maryland they are willing to allow students to continue to eat food out of polystyrene trays but they're not allowing pop stores that work on nickels and dimes at most to sell a cup of coffee out of a polystyrene cup. So if it's a health issue make it a health issue if it's a recyclability issue let's talk about that and I'll get to that in a second. And if so you have health recyclability and landfill and greenhouse gas and environmental effects so a foam cup takes less natural resources less energy less water less power to make than a paper cup and Starbucks has actually even tried to implement a paper cup recycling industry but those hot paper cups are 10% lined with polyethylene so any paper cup that you get just like that one and that one it's 10% lined with polyethylene and so they're not just paper if you put a hot product in one of those cups it will bleach through so to get the pulp out of those cups will take intensive energy to melt the plastic off to take it out and then then and only then can you recycle the paper that are in those cups so it's not as simple and as easy as to make it out to be it's much harder and I'm not here to talk bad about paper or plastic or foam or compostable because our company like I said makes between two and four thousand products depending on the time of the year and a hot paper cup we make those, we sell those and they're harder to recycle what we do and in Maryland and Pennsylvania and other states are, we have drop-offs where we recycle all foam and we, like I said we only make food service foam but when you buy a TV, a refrigerator a computer anything like that it comes in block foam we take all that back and we take it out of the city county municipal solid waste stream so we take that back we recycle it we chop it up if it needs to be rinsed, if it's dirty people say that dirty foam is recyclable it is, we just rinse it off chop it up melt it into long strands that looks like spaghetti and chop it up into beads and then we sell those beads there's a company in Princeton New Jersey that takes these foam beads back and if you've ever gone to a Target or a Walmart you will see the picture frames those are all recycled polystyrene if you go to if you've ever had a child that wanted to move and you get the red tape that you put over boxes to move your child put on top of the boxes 3M buys those from us and they make those red tape dispensers out of recycled polystyrene recycled polystyrene has one of the highest values of any recovered commodity glass there's no money in it it's still worthwhile to recycle but it's a loss leader when you go into the plastics expanded polystyrene which is number 6 on the bottom of any cup has a recyclable value and that is the highest cost recovered commodity and just don't make sure we get time to ask you questions absolutely I'm not sure we're able to recycle them in Vermont so how would you propose that we would recycle them should we not ban last week sure so Dino Sarah Chittenden County came from Rhode Island she came from Rhode Island resource recovery and in Rhode Island they have a statewide recycling program for expanded polystyrene polystyrene number 6 I would urge you to reach out to her Sarah has been helpful in the recovery and recycling programs Rhode Island is the only state that has a statewide program and now that she's up in Chittenden County I think she would be a valuable resource that you could reach out to so one of the things that most people don't appreciate or are under appreciating is that your counties or municipalities or whomever takes back your recovered materials they have the ability to work with the hauler and who does the recycling and most of those folks don't want to take anything that's not in their business model because to them that's an added cost or will have been full or not beneficial to them they can take it back all the city or the county has to do is when they renew their contracts is say take back this material so it can be done in California the manufacturers should take it back we can talk about that as well but in California there are 66 municipalities including Los Angeles Sacramento San Diego there are more facilities more cities in California that allow whome to be dropped off in their recovery in the blue bins that have banned it so these cities take back foam and the foam goes back to a mirv a material recovery facility and at that facility they have either the lowest grade is hand sorting but the top grade is optical sorting and when it goes along the conveyor belt it's blown off at different levels you know if it's light if it's heavier it goes here and so in California more people live in cities with foam recovery than live in cities with foam bands and and that's easily look at the google you know and that's easily provable and I can provide it to you if you have any other questions we need to get to the final questions yeah and thank you for your time and I just live across Connecticut river and New Hampshire so I can come back anytime if there are any questions and happy to do so how do I know what a styrene product is styrene is a liquid and then what do you make stuff from it other than the pile of styrene yeah, styrene is it's a simple I think he's asking now it's a consumer now is a styrene it's a monomer a polymer is a long chain of the same chemical it's organic and they are the same but they have different chemical properties so nothing is really made specifically with styrene correct okay nothing that's solid thank you very much and if there are any questions you have my testimony and please follow up, thank you is it styrene an element that goes into the polystyrene? it is but it's a monomer not a polymer it's the same as if you make sodium chloride salt if you add sodium directly to water it explodes it's a stable compound and it makes salt water the same with styrene it won't cause health health issues and since we have been making these products for over 50 years there's never been one health related issue ever from someone drinking coffee out of a polystyrene cup there's more styrene and coffee than the cup and you can go online and look this up yourself I'll be happy to provide it to you but there's more styrene in strawberries, beef, coffee than in a cup so if you're going to have a leachate and a cup of coffee it's going to go from the coffee into the cup, not the cup to the cup sorry we can move on to our next witness thank you members of the committee my name is Andrew Hackman for the record I'm here on behalf of AmeriPen which is the American Institute for Packaging and the environment we are the organization that represents both upstream suppliers of packaging materials that consume our goods companies like General Mills, Procter & Gamble and some of the waste management folks like waste management they're all members of our organization states and local governments to help create policy solutions that will improve recycling and help move the ball forward on those issues we're primarily here today to testify with regard to the working group this wasn't an element that was obviously in the bill when it first was introduced and when it was taken for testimony on the senate side so we wanted to address some of the interest in the working group we obviously understand it's a big part of the eventual outcomes of this legislation one of the major things that we wanted to stress in terms of defining and giving an appropriate scope to the working group is the use of the term single use it's basically anybody's perception that the item is a single use product so everything from a pencil to a disposable pen to packaging materials to other materials given the definition that says if the end user believes that it could be discarded after one use a single use item so we're hoping that there could be some clarity provided in the single use definition we also want to underscore that section 6 with regard to the working group when folks say stuff like that we say great do you have a suggestion for the definition I think in terms of looking at this and making it effective if there's going to be an evaluation of the materials that are being banned under the legislation that is probably a separate exercise than from looking at packaging and packaging materials for recycling different markets, different types of products from a packaging perspective that's something that we think could be the focus if we're going to have a discussion about packaging it's not necessarily apples to apples with single use items like silverware and those types of things back to section 6 and the reliance on extended producer responsibility it's obviously very specifically called out and stipulated as an outcome that has to be evaluated if we're going to articulate outcomes that the working group should absolutely look at and think things like pay-as-you-throw statewide and other methodologies that can help improve consumer behavior within the system are important to consider we also think that consumer education is an essential piece for the working group to consider is there an effective education campaign we're on the steering committee for recycling in the state of Washington and that's something that they're doing they've got an active RFP out now to look at consumer education and how that can improve the recycling system so we think that should at least be considered as part of the recommendations and as it relates to extended producer responsibility there's a lot of discussion in here about how to change the structure of behavior one of the aspects that we think should be considered is also the impact on the solid waste jobs in the state when you look at mandating extended producer responsibility you have the the PRO of the product responsibility or product responsibility organization come in and take over a collection of the materials of all of those packages and fund that via a uniform statewide contract potentially have an impact on whether or not certain municipalities are able to continue to offer the same amount of services so we think particularly if we're going to lay out specific aspects of extended producer responsibility that have to be looked at and we should also look at the impact on solid waste jobs and how we're going to plan and effectively deliver those services in local communities and then finally in terms of the makeup of the working group we think it's important that manufacturers have a seat at the table and there's a one position for a trade association but we also think that folks and particularly local manufacturers have a seat at the table in terms of offering perspective that I think there are three positions for the waste hauling community which is certainly something we support but we think that there should also be more extensive dialogue with the actual manufacturers of the products as well and I'll just note in Connecticut they had a similar study doing evaluation and they ended up not endorsing extended producer responsibility but that might be an area to look at for the makeup of their working group we have I think some folks that are testifying later on that issue that were members of the Connecticut working group so they can articulate how that process worked and we thought it was an effective process to really truly evaluate whether or not this is the direction we should go into. That's really the extent of my comments my testimony provides more discussion of some of the misconceptions around extended producer responsibility but I just want to offer at a given time some of our key concerns I don't know it off the top of my head but it's something that we can pull for the committee. Connecticut wind up. So they looked at consumer education leveraging financial incentives like pay as you throw they also talked about taking better advantage of more grants in terms of there are a number in the testimony of the recycling partnership and the closed loop fund provide a number of grants and funding to municipalities to help improve their solid waste infrastructure and improve consumer participation in those efforts those efforts are entirely funded by manufacturers so taking advantage of things like that were part of the report that the Connecticut task force provide. How many solid waste facilities does Connecticut have? How many? How many gotta waste energy I can't I don't think there are any material waste. Just generally how many landfills does the state at Connecticut have. I don't know how many landfills they have but my understanding is that they are doing all waste energy and not landfilling schnell I'm just interested to there are in the state of Connecticut that are active. Okay, I can get that number. I don't know that on top of that. Yeah. Great, thank you. Thank you. All right, committee, we're going to take a minute break when Michael would want us to come. I bet you're going to be able to help us. Yes. Yeah, this is pretty filling. Okay, committee, we're going to raise your name and not quite shift gears from plastics because Kathy Jameson has something to add. Right, so for the record, Kathy Jameson's always program, Andrew, A&R. And thank you again for allowing me to share a little bit more information. And I apologize, I did not have this yesterday, but when Mr. O'Grady was doing the walkthrough, there was one part of the bill that was a little bit different than when it came out of Senate committee. And that is on page three, the definition of reusable carry-out bag. Oh, I don't. I'm sorry. Appreciate that, thank you. So where, whoa. Can someone assist me? Where's the definition of reuse? This is on page three on the as-passed-by-SUNNET. Where were you to set this? Okay, she gave me a different version. Okay, we'll use the as-passed-by-SUNNET. Okay, now there's A, B, and C, but it's item number D, because A is a cloth bag, B is a non-woven bag, C is the durable plastic bag, D is made of paper or other material that is not plastic, has handles in a thickness of 2.25 mils or more. If you look at that, as well as number nine, the single-use paper bag, the single-use paper bag means a carry-out bag made of paper or other material that is not plastic and has a thickness less than 2.25 mils. So they're trying, the D was added on the floor and I asked staff to look into where would paper bags fall generally? Would they fall in the reusable carry-out bag due to their thickness? Or would they fall into the single-use carry-out bag? And in general, virtually all the paper bags that are out there in the market fall in, would fall into the reusable paper bag, as defined in the bill, which would mean that you wouldn't have paper bags that would be subject to the five-cent fee. So it would be the way it's written, a little confusing to implement because people wouldn't know, do we charge, do we not charge, when in essence the way it's written, most if not all paper bags would not be subject to the fee. And I wanted to bring that to your attention because that would be an implementation issue. And it's certainly the committee's decision on how you want to charge for the paper, do you not. But the way it's written, virtually all paper would not be subject to the fee. I just wanted to bring that to your attention. And then number nine, the definition of a paper bag says paper or other materials. That's a little confusing because a paper bag you would think would be paper. So again, that's up to you folks to define it. But that's it. I wanted to bring that to your attention. Thank you, that's very helpful. Any follow-up? Senator McCullough. Yes, I apologize, I don't get it. So D, made of paper, or other material, so I need to know, you're liking that or not liking that? Well, one option for the committee to consider, and again, this is your choice is to, instead of made of striped paper or, so I would say made of other material that is not plastic and insert or paper, would be an edit that, if you choose to go down that route. And you would do that if you would want the paper bags to be separate to the five cents. That is not plastic or paper. That way, there could be other materials that are not captured by A, B, and C, that are durable, that are thick, that could be used for a bag. And the 2.25 mils is good there. Then specifically in nine, single-use paper carry-out bag names. No, single-use, carry-out bag. Paper. Paper carry-out bag. You're good with that. Well, it says made of paper or other materials. Do you want a paper bag to be made of other materials? Paper or other material. You might want to add that paper. Yeah. And strike the rest. Well, okay, good. That helps me, thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it. Thank you. Scheduled to be here. Scheduled to be here. That's as well as it is. But I've seen two other assistants saying, Mike is here, and one of them is saying, Mike is supposed to be here. So. Did you chime in? Yes. I certainly did. So I said, time to clean, how's that sound? Just so I can give him some time to get through what he has to do and be here by 10 o'clock. But I can send a note saying we are ready right now. Okay. All right. Committee will bring our meeting to order. So do you have to have 3.1 in front of me? We do. I think I left my annotated copy downstairs, but you can go to page 13, I believe. That's where the first change was made. It was a typo. It removes significant between make and decisions. And then on page 14, line three is another typo changing natural resource conservation district to the plural. Then I think you can skip to page 26. This is the percentage provision for the awards for the awards to the Water Quality Enhancement Grants. So in that first priority of recommendations that the Clean Water Board is making from the Clean Water Fund, they will, for the Water Quality Enhancement Grants under section 926 of this title, out of make a recommendation at a funding level that these 25% of the annual balance of the Clean Water Fund provided that the maximum amount recommended, shall not exceed $590. Should I move on? This typo on page 32, line 11, it has said recommend opportunities. So the recommended framework shall include recommended opportunities to leverage federal and other non-state funds for conservation projects. And then on page 34, as part of the Clean Water Investment Report, so this entire section 10 on page 33 is going on to page 34 of the new beginning January 2023, a summary of the administration, the report shall include the summary of the administration of the grant programs established under sections 925 to 928 of Title X, including whether these grant programs are adequately funding implementation of the Clean Water Initiative, and whether the funding limits with Water Quality Enhancement Grants should be amended to improve the state implementation of the Clean Water Initiative. That's it. Page 26, and still getting back to the 26th perception, about 25% and I'm wondering, are we moving dollars out of the ag program into part of this 25%? What do you mean by ag program dollars? Well, I was looking for the chart, I couldn't find it this morning, but when we had the age of ag costs that came in, they were showing what their dollars were that they were putting into water quality projects. And I'm just wondering that, I remember correctly, it was around six million dollars, maybe, I don't remember exactly what it was. I was wondering if part of that 25% came out of those dollars, or if that was included in the calculation to come up with a 25%? Gary, I have a state fiscal year 20 governor's budget dated January 24th, 2019, and it shows for the Clean Water Fund zone, that agriculture receives somewhere in the other 2.385 million. And so, although this would apply, this calculus applies to the entire Clean Water Fund to make sure that there's adequate funding statewide, including those partners, such as Conservation Districts, Washington's working with farmers outside Lichon, making those funds available. So there's still plenty of money, and the money that is for fiscal year 20 in particular is still available for agricultural use with the Lichon Clean Basin. So we haven't reduced their dollars with this calculation? No, they still have access to that 3.385. And that's where my concern, you know, comes from. I just, I know that agriculture produces around 40% of the phosphorus load being added to clean up, 60% of it. I wanna make sure that the hands weren't being tied with the use of the funding. This ensures that there's adequate funding available statewide, including agricultural needs that flow through partners for the rest of the state. But it's simply to determine what would be a floor for agricultural, excuse me, a floor for that one of those floor funding options, the enhancement grant option. Okay, and what about the municipal funding? The fourth item there under the municipal? Well, that there's funds for clean water activities and all for the use of phosphorus from railroad ventures and whatever else, you know, Harvey, can you make sure you speak up with this loud machine over here? Well, I'm just trying to understand. I'm asking now about the municipal funding part and whether they're going to have to see a reduction as well. I'm concerned about both the agriculture and the municipal programs. And I wanna make sure that there was adequate funds to reach the targets that were set for them. That's all my questions. I just want some clarification. It looked to me like that 25% of those funds were going to site for some of those alls off. I could be wrong, I couldn't be looking at it wrong. I couldn't find the chart. Well, municipalities can apply for these water costs, can apply for money from this $59, right? Plus they're getting, some of them are gonna get money under the water quality restoration formula grant and the projects funded under that. And then there's the two other municipal stormwater programs and grant programs that are created on page two, I mean, on page 27 and page 28. So I see that as a representative from the HVAC public heritage. Good one. Can you hear from her? Just to see what her thoughts are. Can you just say the facts of the budget? Sure. So currently, Laura DiPietro, agency of agriculture, for the FY20 budget, I'm gonna round numbers, right? There's 48 million in the Clean Water Fund and the agency of Ag is NVCB, so Ag as a whole is about 10 million. So that's currently structured how it is. Last year, it was about 58 million and Ag was about 9.7 million. In the Clean Water Fund? 48 million in the Fund? Well, she's including capital dollars. Yep, right, the whole thing. Well, the capital dollars are not in the Fund. They're not in this complex. Okay, I can look at that separately, but that's what the, when the board makes the decision and looks at the whole budget, that's what they're looking at as the big picture there. Right, but the institutions yesterday is discussing whether they need to assert more control over those capital dollars. Okay, yep. Capital funds have been historically used for, since cleaning clear days under the DEPIS administration to support agricultural best management practices and other clean water funding. And I know that that's within the context of the jurisdiction of that house. It's a two corrections institutions committee. And as you know, in the last couple of years ago, when there was a significant bump up of capital dollars, that's when she turned to seek assistance for the Clean Water Fund. But I think their engagement and their involvement is critical to continue to support agriculture. What we're talking about solely is about the Clean Water Fund itself, not the capital. Ms. McCullough, that's the message. So, questioning Laura further. Laura, I'm thinking that the water quality enhancement grants actually also serve farmers and through like the Vermont Association of Conservation Districts and others. Is that accurate? So currently, as my understanding of how S96 is drafted in the intent is that the challenge of agricultural projects is that the way the RAPs are written just for simplification is that we can actually require any project. So there is no bright line between what is regulatory and what is non-regulatory. And when you look at as Harvey had, sorry, Representative Smith had outlined, Ag is 40% of the load going in, but 67% of the reduction. So in order to do more than what you're contributing, we're going to have to tell people to do projects that are going beyond so that they can achieve those additional reductions. And so because there is no bright line, Ag is not part of the allocation going through this restoration grant program concept. The intent is that agriculture would still be managed as it is today, which is those budgets come to the agency, remove them to partners like the ACD or other groups, and they do that work. And the accountability comes up through us through the ACD reporting system. So nothing should effectively change in that space. I think the question just being raised is would that have an impact on the Clean Water Fund budget that is currently coming to the agency for those purposes? That was not my question to you, actually. So my question to you, I'll restate it, that the Water Quality Enhancement Grants also fund agricultural projects state-wide. Typically, DEC has managed those grants. And at the time when the Clean Water Fund really became a good fund, we made the distinction that Ag projects should go to the agency of Ag and all other projects should go to DEC. So that way we weren't having we had these grant committees that would work together and make sure that there was a separation, but DEC has plenty of other projects to fund. And so all the agricultural stuff was directed to the agency of agriculture. So the conservation districts then are not funding conservation projects for farmers and others? They are doing it through grants that the agency of agriculture provides to them. So essentially DEC and ACVAC both have Clean Water Grant Fund programs. And so it's just a different pathway where they apply to us and we issue the grants to them versus DEC. So yes, they do provide funding and it is leveraged funding to farmers state-wide. Through the agency of agriculture. Well, wonderful. But the bottom line is for me, Water Quality Enhancement Grants can and does include funding to agricultural projects state-wide. If there's a separation that if I'm understanding how this is set up in the conversation, that is particularly specific to DEC's Water Quality Enhancement Grant which is different than the money that is carved off for the agency of ag to then run our own version of that same program. So we would not want to exclude other conservation districts or conservation partners from giving money to the agency of agriculture and the farmers. We wouldn't want to do that would we? Well, that's why I think it's important in the conversation in the question that Representative Smith asks is 25% of what? Right? If it's 25% of what already is attributed to DEC and the grant programs there it's very different than 25% of the whole and then carving off the agency of ag so understanding what it's 25% of. I'm going to say thank you. I can say that. There's a representative from the conservation districts here. Would you like to speak? Sure. Jill O'Rochie, Vermont Association of Conservation Districts. So the majority of conservation districts for agricultural work comes through the agency of agriculture and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. We do receive a little bit of timing from DEC. I honestly don't know which fund it comes from to supplement technical assistance. So through the Ag Work Quality Partnership you know the agencies sit together and say what can we do especially to get NRCS dollars on the ground where's there a gap? And the agencies kind of collaborate to decide how to fill those gaps. So we have had grants from DEC for technical assistance positions associated with agriculture not so much for specific projects on the ground but to get NRCS or agency of ag funded capital funded projects on the ground the other kinds of programs conservation districts do with DEC funding is both stormwater projects and natural resource projects buffer plantings and stormwater infrastructure projects based in planning projects. Do you want to follow up with a question? Oh yeah. But I do understand that some of those natural resource projects whether it's firm removal or natural resource restoration may occur in partnership with the producer, with the farmer and they can occur outside Lake Champlain Basin and in fact I know down in Bennington County there's been some very successful projects run through the conservation districts that rely on DEC funding not necessarily the agency of agriculture. Absolutely. Pretty much all most of our trees for streams planted are perian buffer plantings it's funded by DEC or Lake Champlain Basin Program we're actually working with a private company that's selling ecosystem services and invested plant trees on behalf of companies so we have this collage of projects we make sure that if we're working with a farmer that they've looked into the CREP program they're either implementing the CREP program that's kind of one of the requirements to make sure we're leveraging federal funds first. I want to make one more point about the whatever I don't know what we're calling it now but the non-regulatory funding so we're all talking about ecosystem services and nutrient trading and that happens in the non-regulatory world so we actually are going to need more funding we're going to incentivize landowners to go above and beyond the minimum RAP requirements and to be able to treat the benefits they provide so I'm talking about you know longer term funding for cover crop implementation I know we tell some other things that aren't within the current in our system so we would like to see the opportunity to utilize some of that discretionary funding for ecosystem services that's where the trading is going to happen I believe the agency hopes so too because that's cost effective. Yeah and if I may follow up I mean that's fundamentally about Lake Champlain we're talking about the value of having funding available outside Lake Champlain to Memphis or May God at an adequate funding level to address a suite of needs whether it's municipality applying for funds whether it's a conservation district working with a farmer these are funding funding needs outside of Lake Champlain and the funds that the agency of agriculture manages is there a need for that an adequate funding level and what's being proposed here does that meet that demand? I'm not sure what the answer is because I'm too not clear on we're talking about 25% of the 40% Right now it's 25% Okay 25% of the whole Kingwater Fund or 25% of the whole Kingwater Fund up to a cap of 5 million Up to a cap 25% of the whole Kingwater Fund up to a cap of 5 million Up to a cap of 5 million I think it depends how it's split between this what's considered regulatory and non-regulatory if we're talking about non-regulatory This is non-regulatory We would definitely like to see expanded funding 1.5 certainly wasn't enough and they're not just conservationistic watershed or extensive work in watersheds besides Lake Champlain and Lake Formega but also work in Lake Champlain and Lake Formega that might not be qualified as high phosphorus reduction projects they may have other very important benefits so we want both types of projects So my question is on the same one. I just want clarity as to what we're taking that 25% from is that the regulatory programs outside of this funding we're talking about so the agriculture and the municipalities are not going to be affected by this 25% I put the spreadsheet together and I show that look at fiscal year 20 where there's anticipated assuming we fill the hole in the big million there's anticipated to have 15 million available through the Clean Water Fund The agency agriculture's use of clean water funds not capital is on the order of 3.4 million and the 25% of 15 arrives at 3.75 so there's enough money in there to serve the purposes of meeting the agency of agriculture's demand for clean water funding as well as this funding available for that enhancement We're still not clear we have regulated funding and non-regulated funding and I'm asking just coming out of the non regulatory program funding that we're doing that 25% or is it the total water quality funding package that we're doing at 25% What do you mean by the regulatory funding? Well we've been talking about the in agriculture we have that's our regulatory program all of the departments that we already have they're going to be required to put in some best management practices I look at that as one pot of money and then I thought another pot of money was for the non-regulatory program that goes to the conservation districts and all the things that we've been talking about So all of the agency's budget to run the programs LFO, LFO, small farm RAPs that goes through the agency's budget So that part of the regulatory component of it is not in the clean water fund or contemplated by this language at all The next part of it what you were saying, the BMPs the RAPs, equip, etc that's wholly within the capital appropriations that go to the agency from the capital bill Now people are saying that's the clean water fund that is not the clean water fund That's what I'm trying to understand So those capital dollars are recommended for use by the clean water board but they are not deposited in the clean water fund The only money that goes into the clean water fund today is the property transfer surcharge and the the sheets which will start in 2020 From that money, that's what the priorities on page 26 are about and ag programs are of equal priority under that in the four, five main funding provisions under that except that these enhancement grants are going to have a minimum of 25% of 5 million dollars So, as an example say that the clean water fund the property transfer surcharge and the sheets whatever else the general assembly puts in there is 10 million dollars next year and all of the capital money that the agency bag usually gets is under the capital bill for its regulatory programs and for whatever it uses that capital money for there's 10 million dollars in the clean water fund 2.5 million will go to the enhancement grant then there will be 500,000 that's going to go to the water basin planning so there's 7 million dollars left for the clean water board to recommend for those other three programs and just say that they allocate that equally you're going to get like 2.5 million dollars per pack that's the best explanation I've heard yet so thank you for the clarity now what's going to happen in 2023 is that there's going to be clean water service providers and they're going to get a formula grant award each year which could impact what goes out to those other two programs that are not the enhancement grant and not the basin planning but hopefully at that time the amount of money in the clean water fund will be greater than 10 million dollars so that the agency won't be negatively affected and potentially could actually be positively affected follow up questions you had this discussion yesterday the agency sounded like they had some concerns what it is could we get an explanation of what their concerns are I'd be happy to provide the concerns instead of the record match up in the general council you can see the natural resources I agree with everything Mike just went through I think the concern is as we sort of go through the program process if there's a five million dollar allocation of budget funds to enhancement projects we think that we need that money just to meet our obligations pursuant to the TMDL that these additional good projects that need to take place are coming out of a set of budget and funding recommendations that were developed in order to meet the obligations under the TMDLs that we have so as a result of that it's our belief that there will not be enough money in the clean water fund to both accomplish the TMDL objectives and do the enhancement grants I would just say that as a result of that, based on both how the TMDL is structured as well as sort of the general guidance that the agency uses in making decisions with respect to this and the way the statute is structured the first place we would take money from is the municipal grant program it's in a lower tier and it's a regulatory program that has to happen regardless of that so that is both from a legislative policy perspective and from a TMDL implementation perspective the first place we would take money from. The people that are going to get affected negatively is the second tier second priority and remind us who else is in the second tier well it begins on page 26 going on to page 27 it's funding for programs or projects that address or repair our current conditions funding for education and outreach regarding implementation of water quality requirements funding for the municipal storm water assistance grant which is all the permits that you want to fund funding for innovative or alternative technologies for improved water quality from nutrient removal technologies funding to purchase ag land in order to take it out of practice for and then on page 28 line 18 the developed plans of implementation grant program. So it seems to me that some of these funding programs that address or repair current conditions that those would fall under the enhancement grant section of the project would be there another one is talking about saying while taking ag land out of production I would think would also fall either potentially under the restoration grant or the enhancement grant or capital dollars or capital dollars so there's all this crossover among these priorities that is one of our points of confusion curing and keep in mind I mean that's why the objective here is to raise enough adequate funding levels to be able to support these funding programs and improve water quality we're looking in the order of 50 to 60 million that's described in here raise them up we need our fees so originally the administration was looking at 1.5 million as opposed to what we've got in there now at 5 and we don't have 5 we have about 3.7 under 25% of the current what's in the bill is 25% we should be about 3 okay 3.7 I'm trying to get at in terms of would it improve your I guess zone of comfort if with a review period at some point to see how far we're going along that line wouldn't be able to tell within three years whether or not this way the bill was written now would detract from your ability to fund both the other projects that you're afraid you're going to lose out on especially I'm concerned about the municipalities I mean how much time do you need in order to make that kind of would you recommend well again I think from the agency's perspective the budget that's been provided the 60 million is basically half of what the treasurer recommends to meet the targets in the late month and we've made the statement that we think we can stretch that money and have it applied to may gone and we were comfortable stretching it to have up to 1.5 million I think the agency is fairly confident that if the money goes up to 5 million that it's going to defer from our efforts to meet our obligations in Lake Champlain and Lake member may gone but I guess I think what representative is getting at which was the solution we tried to come up with was not for 3 to 5 years realistically so why not in the interim try this out and then when we're ready to go with these clean water service providers we'll have a much better sense of it it's kind of where we're trying to have are we ready to spend the money with the clean water service providers so no but again I think it goes back to where's the focus of where we're spending the money and part of our primary objective was to try and transition the focus towards projects that have a demonstrable phosphorus or pollution reduction allocation associated with them and we need to do that as quickly as possible in order to meet our obligations under the TMPL but I agree there is a phase up associated with this I mean I think the agency is proposing this because you don't have the capacity to get money out the door to specific projects and right now we have an inventory of good projects across the state which allow us to continue investing in those until we figure out the we've bought into the system the idea that we need to prioritize our sick child got that but we have other children with means and in the meantime while the emergency room is figuring out how to move forward why not so to be clear I don't think we have any that we have every intention of giving all the children some a portion of the money with respect to this I think the concern is with the budgetary the budgetary minimums associated with it it's going to take away from our ability to deal with the child in the emergency room and that we have concerns about the budgetary minimums associated with what is it I want to go back to the timeline question yesterday the funds get created upon passage do the funds get created upon passage what the funds funds the four buckets that we're talking about oh yeah everything gets created on July 1, 2019 well except step the stage again and so I'm just saying like these funds and our recommendations actually are going to exist separate from the clean water service provider infrastructure I'm getting kind of more convinced that it's in these ramp up years or whatever we're going to call them that we continue to prioritize the enhancement grant so with respect to the ramp up years I actually think that that is handled in the context of the transition section and it specifically addresses during the ramp up that we do the best that we can to maintain the status quo between the time and the time that the service delivery providers are put into effect and then once the service delivery providers come into being there's basically an analysis where we're trying to provide geographic distribution of these funds so that areas outside of let's say the Chittening or Minformagog basins are receiving a perhaps greater weight in the grant review process so I think the concern again comes from the numeric budgetary numbers, minimums that are in the priority section not the concept that we would be maintaining the status quo during the ramp up or at least generally the status quo during the ramp up that would make significant shifts You don't like the 25% correct What did you just say about the 25% The agency doesn't like the 25% Well, I was just going to throw out 20% see if that was something that would be acceptable 20% and then keep the rest in place up to 5 million with a reassessment in whatever year beginning January 25 What do folks think I've been thinking a lot about the testimony and the concerns of the agency and I would support that I'll support the 20% So 20% I think gets us to 3 million in this in the fiscal year 20 about the 15 with a reassessment in 2023 in the clean water or into reporting mechanism that Michael presented today Howdy folks Go ahead I can support that in recognition that there's still a significant lift in maintaining and enhancing water quality outside of the campaign basin that we're made of Remember that's 45% of landmaps in the state I hold support Representative McCullough Oh man I think what the room from my perspective is really failing to get is that we're not just saying we're going to snatch 5 million dollars out that's the ceiling and that forgetting the idea that it's a percentage of what's there and as a percentage as the dollars increase in the pot they increase for everybody and and that I think that concept is being lost and I think the concept is being lost that when that happens there won't be part palpitations in the other areas and the munis will not be suffering and agriculture will not be suffering as a result of this so I'd like to leave it at 25% but I can support 20% leaving everything else the same with a tier on the cheek and RBI appreciate you're moving this forward with a constructive idea so I'm along with Jim I'd like to keep it at 25% I've been in Vermont long enough to know what goes on down south which is kind of frustrating but again I would have to go on Jim to say I would support 20% what I'd like to see happen is more money in the pot and more money in the front pot that's how things are that's an idea we needed that I guess I'll go I agree the 20% seems to be so it's going to come around again in another three years what we're doing I think that's a good place to start so I would go along with the recommendation okay let's just sounding like we're getting committee consensus on this, that's fabulous I'm with y'all I would like to go back to the definition of administrative cost and talk about how that escalates through with some of the other changes I know that we have made but we sort of breeze through the definition and I just want to understand be sure I understand how that will play through where the line for project implementation gets drawn and the directives in here to the agency to help provide guidance for that okay to one I when you ask for a definition you ask me to look at the municipal growth grant and aid program I couldn't find anything on an agency website or an RPC website that defined it I emailed Peter Gregory just know him and have a relationship with him and he emailed back and basically gave me this as a definition with the caveat that he didn't have the exact definition from the agency in front of him but he thought this was pretty close to what it is and then let's go to the section on providing guidance that's where the guidance for administrative costs comes into play that definition monitoring referring to project monitoring that's what we're being on line 15 page 1 you want me to say project monitoring for inspection no you can leave it I just want to make sure if you struggle with that monitoring and why we added verification and what was the other term should I change it or not I'm not sure I just I'm just wondering limiting it constraints it so are there other things that would be monitored like I don't know efficacy that's why we added remember we kept adding the term verification as a better for inspection verification we added to the model as opposed to monitoring so just adding you could say inspection verification well let's just go to where it's used and that's going to help us know if it's a good definition I think as to where page 10 page 10 is where the guidance is that's what you wanted right well I guess in other places so page 10 line 6 in carrying out its duties a provider shall adopt guidance for subgrants consistent with guidance from A&R which is a policy of how the provider will issue subgrants giving due consideration to the expertise of those organizations and other requirements for administration the subgrant guidance shall include how the clean water service provider will allocate administrative costs to subgrantees with a product implementation for the administrative costs of basin water quality council and on page 9 A&R issues guidance on requirements associated with the distribution of administrative costs to clean water service providers and subgrantees we keep talking about when the funds get bigger and I feel like one of the things that we've bought into here is this idea that we're getting some level of efficiency by not doing this at the state level through DEC and so you get 1 million your first time you're a clean water service provider but presumably doing the same amount of administrative work as the budgets go up there you're just going to get more money and I'm not sure how we're like ensuring that we're getting efficient use of that money right so but if a clean water service provider gets 1 million the first time but then they get 3 million arguably their administrative cost shouldn't have gone up that much Charlie I thought you might be able to help Charlie Baker, Executive Director of the Chinnay Catering Planning Commission here on behalf of all the RPCs but to respond to that sorry if we're getting 3 million that means there's 3 million dollars of projects happening and so that 15% is also probably going to partners to help get that project done so it's not, it doesn't stay with, from my understanding with a clean water service provider it's to be shared with the project yes and you've connected my doubts back to our definition of administrative cost which doesn't include project implementation so that's crux of this conversation so the sorry to I think the words that were in that sorry I don't have that in front of me but the words that were in that were around I also thought project management and if it's not there then that kind of idea needs to be there yes that's what I was checking on and I think it needs to be added I just want to make sure that folks agree I mean that's what I appreciate on page one is to manage a project requires all these things so we have a little bit more information but you could say project management or delivery including and then listing these things on the definition and sorry to add to that a little bit more there are two levels of administration going on right there is a project management but then there is also the entirety of the program in that watershed so the monitoring may not be just project monitoring it's also how are we doing on meeting our pollution reduction goal for the entire base yeah I think that was well thought to not limit it because there is the two level of administration going on so just as you're thinking about it create the space for that 15% to be used for program and project I want to be sure that project implementation that were clear that project completion is part of those administrative costs yes Lynn so the way that they do it right the DEC manages it right now oh sorry the way that oh Lynn Mudd director of Waterships United for Mudd so the way that DEC does it right now they have what they call program delivery which is what you guys are calling administrative and that's really to do all of that oversight and grant management and then the project management which is often really dealing with the implementation portion that's part of those implementation dollars that are given out so I guess I would recommend not having project management which is really over that's really that sort of critical role that those folks are playing on the ground doing the work that's part of those dollars that are project dollars and usually the way it works is those program delivery funds are split if there's a block grant those program delivery funds are split between the recipient of the block grant in this case it would be the clean water service provider and the folks who are actually receiving the money to report back up to that clean water service provider so I guess I would recommend keeping project management which is really implementation work separate from the program delivery or administration and just making sure that that program delivery funds get split between the clean water service provider and then whoever it is that's actually doing the on the ground project that makes sense it does make sense it does make sense but then I'm questioning 15% I don't know I mean I wonder about that number I think it's 10% it used to be 10% 10% of the block grant was 15% and if I may it's project delivery which is the administration cost of the project that includes that 50% is to include both the administration of the service providers work as well as the amount of pass through to help manage the project projects so as funding increases I envision that the service providers cost would probably only increase phenomenally it's really the more projects will be funded for on the ground implementation so I think that 15% is adequate the reason why there's two where we started at 10% with the block grant it moved to 15% of the grant needs 10% is just not enough to fully support the level of project implementation and tracking that comes on board I guess it was 10% of the overall cost I understand but the block side of a million dollars the economies of scale that's what I'm trying to get I suppose you could say no more than 15% but I still don't think that's important I'm clueless on what the percentage ought to be but I thinking I understand that Charlie is talking about Charlie is talking about it needs to be I think maybe in the language most certainly I would agree that if you got X amount of dollars it takes X amount of administrative costs in the building to handle those and if you've got X times 5 the economy of scale is still there in the building if you will of the building of the office strictly paper moving and telephone electric lights and everything that goes into what I would also call overhead which may be synonym to this but as you get more dollars you've got more projects and then the administrative costs as a general contractor if you will thinking in the construction industry those administration costs go way up because you've got to be even in the field checking on your project supervisors to make sure they are performing as expected so then administrative costs do go up and there isn't an economy of scale there 15% may still be an okay number but I think I think I understood that we need to parse out those two types of administrative costs and my accurate make sure they are both eligible under that from our perspective 15% is adequate to cover both levels and sharing with partners to administer new projects and I thought I heard you recommending in the definition on page 1 you may need to have that in front of you like you didn't have it before to parse that out or just I thought you were talking about listing program and project management summary of my talk or not okay alright good thank you I don't have anything to say but you're saying program and project management can be an administrative cost and really what that means is sharing that money with partners who are implementing projects I thought because and perhaps the council would have recommendations I thought a simple way would be to make sure the definition of their administrative cost line 14 could say when it talks about administering cost needs incurred by a clean water service provider or a grantee to support program and project management including conduct procurement preparation to support program and project to support program and project management including to have this list and keep in mind we're talking about our water quality problems our accumulation of a lot of little problems everywhere and each of those little problems has a project assigned to it and takes time to work with that man owner and get that project implemented according to design so I think it's adequate for the purposes of trying to support both the service provider and the work I have a few questions one for Michael Michael did you see any clear direction around changes to administrative cost definition or have an idea that was born out of what you've heard I have a couple of ideas they're not real different from what Rob said you could say administrative cost means program and project cost project management cost incurred by a theme water service provider or grantee including to conduct procurement contract preparation etc or you could say something like administrative cost means the cost incurred by a theme water service provider or grantee to implement and administer a program and project comma including to conduct something first one was nice I couldn't hear all the second one windows are open so we have oxygen but I think it's also really I'm normally not a QCB I know the first time I couldn't hear you I didn't say anything because I understand I usually do hear you but I think it's just lots of deliveries so thank you Michael sounds like with some head nodding your first one what might be the committee's choice that isn't my call to make but I'm just throwing that out there and I guess I'm going to say considering that and the 25% to 20% I'm thinking we are at the threshold of a vote to pass this bill out of committee and so that's the question for the chair can we do that today and this is a procedural question we can do that today representative Odie then Taranzini is there any part you're saying not greater than 15% taking into account the chance for economy of scale because if we say 15% then it has to be 15% so what is the part you're saying because somewhere it does but where sorry yeah just double check what is that page 16 not more than 15% of the total grant amount awarded shall be used for administrative costs that's always good representative Taranzini I want to ask Matt Chapman with this bill being passed is that more jobs I'm going to have to hire more people you know I based on our initial review of this we don't think we're going to have to hire additional staff Kerry what about your I'm no longer in this program so I would defer to Matt Chapman to be able to try that but I'm not managing again I with respect to our initial review of this we don't see there being a need to have additional staff Laura what about any new positions it shouldn't change for us at this point okay committee so I think a couple of changes this draft is for folks feeling comfortable with where we're headed can we make a motion assuming those two positions yes we can I'm going to make a motion that or at least a vote for this bill based on council first change for administrative costs and changing the percent associated with the enhancement grants we're ready do we want to see those changes first ready okay representative yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes Okay, that's yeah, I see that's how it works. Who retained jurisdiction? We're giving it up, it'll go to ways in the means, it'll get jurisdiction. By rule, because the bill, that's 96 as in it, it was introduced, included a B structure in it. It'll go, and then by rule, after it comes out of ways in the means, it'll go to appropriations, probably most specifically because of that 20% to $5 million. Will you keep this three top one? If you want me to, I'll just change the time stamp and date stamp. We have time to make those changes, I guess, maybe now, because you were booked with us till noon. Sure. Great.