 Good morning. It's Tuesday, September 15th, 803 and this is a joint meeting of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee and the Senate Ag Committee to address an outstanding issue that's been with us for a few years. So I don't know who wants to, in terms of context, who can set up the meeting in terms of what did we try to do before and in what way did that fall short and so what do we have left to do? I think Michael probably would be the best person to back up, but before he starts, I just, this is Senator Starr. I would just say that the fair, Addison County Field Days fair people, a little history. A group of people or a person donated a welcome center, a new building to the fairgrounds, Addison County Field Days rather, and so the building was donated to the fairgrounds or to the field days and they decided they already had three bathroom systems that were set up on holding tanks and so they thought it would be really nice to put a modern bathroom and wash system wash bay so people could clean up after and everything in this new building and so this is what started this process was that that was when they applied for a holding tank it was, I guess it wasn't approved, it was determined that a leach field type system would best serve the situation environmentally and it was going to cost so much that it was prohibitive from, they couldn't do it so then we got mixed up in it and I'll let Michael take off from there. Thank you. Okay so I'm just going to give you the context legally including what you did two years ago so I'm going to share the screen and show you the statutory section 10 vsa 1979 on holding tanks just one second and hold on a second all right can you see my screen? Yes so there as you all know since you worked on these issues before if you're going to put a wastewater system into the ground in Vermont a new one you need a permit from the agency of natural resources department of environmental conservation there is a section in statute that allows certain entities to use holding tanks instead of a septic tank or leach field or other system but the who can use the holding tank is limited you'll see in 10 vsa 1979 subsection a that there's a section for allowing people that when at the building is publicly owned but then you go down to b1 there's also a subsection that allows the secretary to approve the use of a sewage holding a pump out tank for existing or proposed buildings or structures that are owned by charitable religious or non-profit organizations so field days and and other agricultural affairs are non-profit organizations but there are certain conditions that need to be met one of those conditions was on b1c where the design flows do not exceed 600 gallons per day or the existing or proposed building or structure shall not be used to host events on more than 28 days in any calendar year that last phrase where the proposed building or structure shall not be used to host events on more than 28 days in a calendar year that was added two years ago by the general assembly to address events like the agricultural fairs specifically the addison county field and fair days so where the there's not going to be continuous yearly use or even significant use across several months just 28 days in any calendar year and that that was added but there are also other conditions that are required to get a holding tank permit under 10 vsa 1979 one of those is in b2 sub division b2 where it says before constructing a holding tank applicant shall post a bond or other financial surety sufficient to finance maintenance of the holding tank for the life of the system which shall be at least 20 years so this is what you're going to be looking at today this bond slash financial surety requirement the issue here is that it's often difficult if not not possible for an applicant to get a bond or financial surety from a financial institution for a holding tank so this this is being proposed to be struck as a requirement for those events that are held on no more than 28 days in any calendar year now the reason that the financial surety provision is in there is as the language says to ensure the maintenance of the holding tank for the life of the system but there's also another requirement in this section that requires that the um that the owner of a holding tank at subsection h the owner of the holding tank shall maintain a valid contract with a licensed wastewater hauler at all times the contract shall require the licensed wastewater hauler to provide written notice of the dates of pumping and volume of wastewater pumped and so there is already a another maintenance requirement under subsection h for the holding tank to be maintained under a valid contract with a licensed wastewater hauler so so that's the this section and so i'm going to now share the screen can you see the screen now yeah so this is the amendment and really um most of this language is being provided for context the specific change is going to be in b2 which i just referenced it's that financial surety requirement and it says before constructing a holding tank the applicant shall post a bond or other financial surety sufficient to finance maintenance of the tank for the life of the system provided that a bond or other financial surety is not required for a holding a pump out tank for a building a structure that is not used to host events more than 28 days in any calendar year so just that that financial surety isn't required for those small non-profit charitable buildings or structures where the the holding tanks not going to be used for more than 28 days any calendar year so that that is what's being proposed okay and and uh i think uh commissioner walk is with us uh also senator bray yeah and uh you might want to hear y'all their side of this issue um before before we go over to one commissioner walk senator rogers had his hand up and thank you thank you senator bray i i guess my question would be why we leave that financial surety thing in it all i know of uh folks around here that have holding tanks individual ones and they certainly don't meet that standard uh i would think it'd be next to impossible to get a bond like that if there's another provision in there that requires them to to have the uh inspection and the contract and and records and all that stuff i'm not sure why we don't just strike the whole section well there is and brian redmond who's on might be better to talk about this but there's opportunity for people to get a holding tank without meeting all the requirements of 1979 generally it's when it's a best fix when your previous system fails and the best way to address your your wastewater needs add an existing structure is to the use of a holding tank and then there are requirements under the rule and the permit that you get for the maintenance and operation of that holding tank and i don't know if brian wants to add anything to that well before ryan could could bruce get her thank you senator star i'll let brian answer that question and then i'll because mine's on a slightly different topic so go ahead brian sure actually uh mic you're you're right on point there i have nothing else to add there's a exemption section of the rules that allows us to approve holding tanks as a best fix when full full compliance can't be achieved when responding to a failed wastewater system so you're you're right on point um i have a question i don't know if this is for mr redmond or or the commissioner what's the the um i mean i'm guessing can someone describe the risk there was a motivation to have a bond to begin with or financial surety of some sort so what's the risk we're trying to mitigate through having that kind of financial bond or instrument i'll defer to mic to the legislative history i think this is it's frankly a belt and suspenders at this point if we require a contract for the pump out and we have our normal enforcement mechanisms through any permitting process that the the financial surety piece is is another way to ensure that that happens from a functional standpoint it's hard to imagine a system that uh is not you know not living it up to its permit and continue you know it's simply a sort of failed system and it's continuing to operate and therefore needs the financial surety to maintain operations for 20 years we're not going to let that system continue to operate in an instance where it's not you know meeting its compliance obligations and so it really that that amount of money is likely never to come into play can we get through 10 now thank you bobby um i just wanted to provide a little bit more background um about uh the conversations that i've been having with both um the department of environmental conservation um commissioner walk and his team and also the uh adison county field days this summer sorry about that i'll mute thank you brian i don't know why he did it just when you spoke ruth but um uh anyway so um the field days uh as as um senator star said built this building two years ago last year it opened last year i actually have used the bathroom in this brand new james foster welcome center um and they install the tank that um may or may not be sufficient size to meet the flow needs and so they've been working with dc to measure the flow and try to figure out if the tank is sufficient um we um the general assembly did pass the provision that that michael um noted um to allow them to have a tank rather than go to the soil based um system for the field days because that was uh really expensive for a five day event and then this summer um they've been trying to work with dc to replace the tank or figure out if they do need to replace the tank that they have in there um and as you know all of the fairs this year were canceled um so they are having even more financial difficulties so replacing this tank that they already have is quite expensive and so we are trying to figure out ways to help them be able to do the right thing to replace the tank for if necessary based on the recommendations of dc um and this as came up as a potential way to help ease the financial burden of making sure that they have a sufficient tank um and it was um we had a meeting with all the field days people and all the dc people to sort of go back through the history of what was what had occurred um not everybody um who was is at dc now was part of the whole long process so it was a really helpful meeting i think we got most people or everybody on the same page as a plan and dc recommended this as a potential um fix to help assist field days in um uh installing a new tank they will still meet all the requirements it will just be more financially feasible for them to do so especially given the hardship this year and one of the reasons that it's important if possible that we do it now rather than wait for the for this winter is so that they can get the new tank installed now um there there wasn't a fair so we sort of have this window of opportunity for them to be able to move forward with this project and have everything in place and up to code and financed by the time we hopefully have another fair next summer so um just wanted to provide a little bit more background on that um we met i believe uh peter earlier it was in early august during the time we had the meeting and i felt like it was a really productive meeting and i'm grateful that we are now talking about this and hopefully can move forward with something that will help them finance this new tank so thank you so it's the short bit that they're going to save money by not going out and buying a bond paying for a bond and then they're going to apply the savings there to helping make it a little more affordable to install the larger tank that apparently they need according to dc guidelines right and they're still my understanding is they're still working with dc to figure out they're doing the flow measurements to figure out what size precisely they need i think they had originally hoped that maybe they could afford a full soil based system that would connect all the the bathrooms at the fair and that's possible in the future that would this wouldn't preclude that but at this point that's not financially feasible so they want to make sure that the tank that they do install is sufficiently sized and affordable moving forward for the fair right so one last money question does anyone know how much their financial surety instrument cost them in the past and how much they're going to save and then how much that helps towards their next upgrade we we heard that number uh back a year saw a year and a half ago and it was it was a lot of money and i mean it was up in the uh like over the life of it it was way up in the thousands of dollars and but the the other problem down there is that clay soil uh if they put an in-ground system in in the clay it was it was going to be rough at their location and to me uh you know as as a a person that's interested in doing the right thing and making sure we we don't cause more problems than than um we already have these tanks would you know that the affluent would be collected from this tank taken to a wastewater treatment facility and it would be taken care of in a proper manner and with the in-ground system uh they could have serious problems and i'm in a wet year and to avoid that problem that would be seemed to me be better to have these tanks that where we knew the uh sewerage was going to go to a treatment facility but i don't remember the exact number of the tank itself i believe the new if the larger tank that they may have to purchase i believe i recall it was around twenty two thousand dollars for the tank itself brian's nodding so i don't remember the percentage um it's some percentage of that twenty two thousand that they would have to pay every year um in order to get the surety from the bank it's essentially an insurance policy that they would have to pay every year thanks for that information uh senator rogers and senator campion yeah so i'm i'm still having an issue with the whole financial surety language we don't require people with in-ground systems to have that same sort of insurance and their system could fail just as well as a pump out uh system could fail and just make two other points um we don't require municipalities even those having with cso's having spills of raw sewage they don't have to have an insurance bond and financial surety to make sure that they're uh compliant with the standards i just i think it's a standard that we don't apply to a whole bunch of other systems and my only hope is that when they pump out those tanks it's not going to a wastewater facility that has a cso and overflow problems yeah that would be bad uh peter could you tell us a little more about the uh bonding and and why anything about the history of that and why you require or do you are you proposing to get rid of that that bonding so i can't speak to the intent of the legislature at the time it was passed it's not our requirement you asked you know asked us to ensure it was part of the permanent process um we don't you know lots of instances where we there is a financial assurance component um we are the holders of that device so that we can make sure that the cleanup of something happens in the instance that uh the work doesn't move forward that's not the case here it from our perspective it would be cleaner uh if if this and this is what we originally suggested and i everything else senator already said about our meeting and wherever going is is true uh we would support striking that entire section of the law to not no longer require the financial surety for any of the tank holders because we don't think it would really come into play as being necessary to ensure that uh we can uh have a functioning system and we can use you know both the the contract that's required as part of the permit and our normal uh compliance and enforcement work to make sure that that you know that there isn't an environmental and public health risk so just to make sure i'm understanding commissioner walk are you are you saying we could strike all of sub two or just that is that your is that what you're proposing yes okay um senator camping at his hand up a while ago yeah no this just want to say this sounds fine to me uh i think commissioner walk has answered all of my questions uh it sounds like it's belt and belts and suspenders and and if something were to go awry the protections are there uh and this this is just holding folks up um you know from similar to what uh uh senator hardy was saying folks are trying to do the right thing they need a new tank and to get all of this done and make the situation better it kind of seems seems to make sense unless there's something i'm missing where all of a sudden you know this bond or whatever we were talking about this financial security would come back not being there would come back to haunt us but it doesn't sound like that's the case so i i feel comfortable if it would be helpful we could brian could talk about what would happen if the system were out of compliance and what we might require of sort of closing in and decommissioning the system as a way of saying it we're not just going to let them operate for 20 years and therefore pay out of that financial surety we would you know so brian you want to talk a little bit about that just to sort of wrap up that'd be great back end piece looks like bearer uh one one point to be made is we have we have very very few of these um uh in the state of vermont most of the holding tanks are approved under the exemption sections for the best fixes that i explained earlier so that's that's one point to be made is there's there's very very few of these in existence currently and we don't expect uh too many out in the future just because some of these threshold eligibility requirements and just the requirements in general are fairly onerous so they are a deterrent from really going towards a holding tank project the requirements do through the permitting process require that the owner maintain a waste hauling contract so we have that belt and suspenders they require inspection by a licensed designer periodic inspection and reporting to the to the agency so we feel like there's really some pretty robust requirements already in place that will eliminate the public health and environmental risks associated with the holding tanks if a system were to fail we would investigate the matter and really put a put some mitigating circumstances in place right off the bat to make sure that public health and the environment were being protected and would work with the owner to achieve compliance as quickly as possible these these projects do take time so we would be looking at doing mitigating factors you know if the risk was too great that would be a closure but we would be putting them on a time schedule to remedy the failure as quickly as possible usually within a 15 to 30 day time period is there any long-term you know I someone used the word decommissioning somewhere along the line so say 20 years out for whatever reason the and an operation just ceases to operate what happens then does de c concerned about you know just leaving a tank in the ground sort of forever or does it need to be removed and if so is is the responsibility for that kind of step clear somewhere else in law the the building or structure would require a suitable potable water supply and wastewater system for occupancy so the issue really becomes that the building would not be usable until those facilities were available for its for its safe use so that that really becomes the issue as the building isn't it won't have a potable water supply or a wastewater system so it would jeopardize the ability to have that building in use great well thanks so the commissioner's proposal and it's been floated out I don't know if he said it first but the whole idea of removing a session that seems unnecessary seems more attractive to me than sort of jury rigging in a calendar day count you know that basically catches up and addresses one situation without naming the situation explicitly I don't know how others think about it I think at at this stage of our game that we're in and that would be the simplest way to do it is just to extract number two out of that section A and I think we you know if both committees agree on this we might be able to even add it to the budget bill I've spoken with chairman Kitchell senator Kitchell in regards to this and so we might be able to do it as part of the budget bill or an amendment to the budget bill because it it does pertain to money in a roundabout way so you know I don't know any other vehicle that we that we have where we could address this unless you guys Chris if you folks in natural have something to add it to we do have another bill on the inter basin water bill but the budget is a sure vehicle to be on and although it's my preference not to put policy things into the well sometimes it's a useful place to go that is an issue especially given how short we are on time at this point this session um Sarah Hardy thank you I just wanted to add that I would be fine getting rid of all of sub two the reason that I asked Michael to draft it as a sort of narrow exemption was to attempt to get a compromise between our two committees but if we're all on the same page and all feel that getting rid of that paragraph makes sense I would I'd seem based on my conversations with DEC and Commissioner Walk and his team it seems like it does make sense that there are other there are other belts and suspenders already in there for making sure that these tanks are compliant so thanks so one last quick question to our council is I don't know Mr. Rady if you see if we strike two are there do anything come does anything come to mind from your perspective looking out at it from our sort of that we would want to consider you know like are we failing to take anything else into account or this seems like a surgical edit and we're fine we have enough other surety built in and enough other ways that eliminating this seems like a good solution I'm having like a little domestic issue going on right here school is fun right Michael yeah so the legislative history of this requirement I didn't draft the statute that created 1979 but when a universal jurisdiction went into play the reason that it was kept was to provide a disincentive for holding tanks but if you look at this entire section there's significant disincentive throughout the section and I don't think it's going to lead to increased permanent underneath the section okay well that was you know sort of behind my question was once upon a time it was a policy expression like in order to not have development in places that weren't going to allow for an ingrown system we weren't allowing holding tanks was my impression it was one way to help guide what kind of development happened so doesn't apply here but there are other questions from other committee members let's see so senator start you're on approach do you want to bring this basically just striking sub two to the appropriations committee directly on behalf of the two committees yes I would be more than glad to to do that I I did bring this up to the committee last week that we might want to present this to them once we had this joint meeting and if you folks and and natural agreed with it that I'd be back with it and hopefully tomorrow maybe even late today we're going to wrap that bill up in approach so I'll bring it to the committee today and if they if they don't you know Jane doesn't want to add this because it is a particular committee language jurisdiction I think maybe a letter from your committee would also be helpful and if that doesn't happen as a backup to that if Jane says well maybe we shouldn't add it in here but if you want to do it on the senate floor we could do it as a joint amendment to the approach bill on the floor from both committees which is you know ten it's all we need six other votes to get it done so but I don't think this is a positive issue it's not a negative issue we're trying to do and I would think that you know it would it'll go into the bill but I'll I'll make sure of that today and if you guys from your committee could send a letter to Jane approving it and and backing it that would be most helpful okay so I'm I'm seeing a screen full of faces mostly I'm guessing everyone's in agreement um both committees to do it go bigger I am okay great you know I think you know my concern originally was just that there was the that the 28 day trigger was jury rigged right for good reason narrowly narrowly drafted not to sweep in more things but it seems like a better a better edit to address the situation broadly not just you know sort of picking off field days as an exception right can I make comments senator bray yeah senator rogers well in my perspective it's not only a financial burden for someone like the field day but it sounds like a financial burden for anyone to have to come up with that bond if their best fix is is the is the holding tank and like we said there are tons of other provisions in the law that would if it fails it's a failed system if they don't maintain it and it overflows it's a failed system so DC has methods to deal with that the you know my only sort of ongoing concern I guess we would just have to watch and see and DC help us which is um if somehow removing this disincentive made more people say you know actually I would like to do this project and I'm going to propose a holding tank for it rather than so that we might see new projects coming forward I know there's a best fix so could ask the commissioner mr redmond if they feel like removing this disincentive might end up creating the unintended consequence of people trying to go to new new projects withholding tanks it's still not an easy process even without this um so that was an actual question I don't know commissioner what has a response or mr redmond since you see these kinds of permit applications um yeah I would defer to Brian and his team for that answer yeah as I said before we've very very few of these uh permitted under 1979 um in the state uh Addison county being one of maybe two or three in total uh the bulk majority of the uh holding tanks permitted our best fixes for failed systems under uh so I would not uh foresee the elimination of the surety resulting in a widespread uh proliferation of of holding tank usage for wastewater systems there's plenty of disincentives in place we really do look for the soil based solution in almost all cases um and try to minimize exposure to pathogens um through going through the the soil based solution so I yeah I would not see this as a a pathway to proliferation of holding tanks okay so to follow center star your suggestion if Michael could redraft the language as a in budget form then we could send that as part of our committee letter over to senator kitchell and then she would know that the two committees are working hand in hand to get it done yeah that's fine with me um is that something you could do Michael this morning or before we we're going to meet uh right after the senate for so um if jane had that um as early as possible give her a chance to to look it over and think about questions um anything else from anybody I'd like the ag committee to stay on were you gonna have a meeting chris um nope we were uh you know we were we were gonna have this meeting after the floor so we're we're a step ahead already um so I wanted to check in with Michael is that something you'll be able to send to the committee like by 10 o'clock or something yep I can okay so then let me check with the natural committee so I'll write a letter between now and then and once I get it and I'm guessing everyone everyone in the committee is fine with sending that over to our probes okay thanks yep uh any anything else from anybody if not uh thank you commissioner and mr redmond thank you michael and all you committee members I'd like to have the ag committee stay on we have another issue that we should discuss so thank you chris and yep resources thank you guys I really appreciate it all of you see you all right so um golly if we get this done won't it be wonderful yeah but anyhow uh getting back to a different issue uh in the um the ag agency wanted to be able to redirect funds from from uh one fund to another fund and redistribute it and yesterday well I brought this up to to jane last week and not much was said except for you know um you're always you're always trying to keep all the money with ag or something to that effect but anyways well yesterday um I I don't recall which agency uh request came in but they wanted the ability to reallocate funds to other areas within their jurisdiction and uh all all hell broke loose about doing that um in the committee and the main reason was uh jane said that at the end of the day uh you know we've all been given ample what we felt was ample time or all the different departments were given ample time to get rid of the money and the money is going to be all gone and what happens and they were planning on or she was thinking or she thinks a year ahead of most of us I guess but her thinking has been and finally told us was that what if all heck breaks breaks loose late this fall and in some place in a school and the colleges or in a community and we need a few million dollars to to correct that if we allocate or allow to these different agencies to reallocate the money within their agencies the money would be all gone and there wouldn't be any money to have in a kitty to be able to put out where these hot spots might show up so anyways uh the committee didn't allow that to to happen so I I don't think I'm going to bring it back up again today but I don't think that's gonna that part of it's gonna be approved by appropriations and I want you folks uh of course to understand that uh Rose yeah I just have a couple questions um I'm assuming this is pertaining to that email that we got from Michael last week with the language that was put in from the house side is is that about um the redistribution or or prohibit prohibition of redistribution of funds is that is that correct Bobby and Michael yeah that that got it started I think going the the other direction I think it's just related to the appropriations committee's general desire to not have individual agencies reallocating money and to have the money go back to a central funder a central decision maker to reallocate so that all the CRF money is spent by the December 30th deadline and is the central decision maker the joint fiscal committee or who is the central decision maker um it's gonna depend um the language is being revised in senate appropriations so that it is more specific and has um some real detailed guidance on how the money would be spent in any interim um generally it's going to be joint fiscal but if joint fiscal um determines that it's best for it to wait until budget adjustment it's going to wait till budget adjustment okay really they're they're only going to act when prompt action is required um in order to spend the money by any deadline uh and to meet needs or if there's an extension from congress only when that prompt action is needed because of time sensitivity or or I can't remember the other criteria off the top of my head so if there's an extension from congress um on the CRF money then theoretically we could take care of it during the budget adjustment in January or February but it all depends on how long that extension is if it's for 30 days you probably won't be able to get to it in budget adjustment but if it was for seven months or a year then yeah you could get to it okay and then my second question sorry Brian I know you're waiting to ask a question too but is I'm confused Bobby what the it seems to me like we the the Senate just got the budget and you're you're finishing it today is that what I heard you say well either today or tomorrow morning um we've been working on it ever since we we've been working on the budget just like the house has been working on it so the big issues that you're going to be amazed when you see the damn thing um there's very few changes from where what the governor proposed and we've gone through all the agencies uh in their budget says you know we started a week before we all came back and so we've been working on this since the house has basically been working on it so it's all we had to do is really review review the changes that the house has has made to the budget and so there's very few differences um between what the budget what the governor proposed and what the house passed and their vote was 140 to four or something I don't know it was one sided well I think some of the policy committees including ours are you know trying to weigh in and we haven't seen any of the language I just the the non-appropriations members of the Senate have not seen the language yet and so I guess I hope there's time for us all to work through it and yeah well Senate appropriations has to voted out by Wednesday in order to meet all the timing requirements in order to get the bill to the governor by September 25th got it okay and you I think you guys should be all getting copies hopefully tomorrow evening maybe but we're going to have a caucus of the whole and and go through all the all the stuff and the changes so if you look at the house version as they passed it I think that part you know will be pretty understandable and and get that uh um get that understood and then the only other thing would be the changes that we made to the house proposals so which are are quite limited and there's not too many not too many new additions like what we're proposing a few but not not bad okay I just know that Education Committee still is discussing some things this out yeah you guys came in with all truck loader stuff yesterday yeah we got more coming Bobby oh god you're gonna have to get a trailer truck I got I got some ideas too yeah we'll load them on the back of Ruth's trailer we can put them in the holding tank Chris yeah put them in the holding tank uh the other issue that I wanted to bring to your attention over the weekend I got the thinking in regards yo always thinking careful in our public hearings and our testimony that we received from a variety of people uh the complaint uh a complaint came up or a concern came up in regards to farmers non-dairy farmers uh having to keep um when not being able to get rid of their animals for slaughter uh because there's they were all plugged up at the slaughter facilities and yet they could apply to the ag agency the farmer could that he's losing money because he can't sell his beef and he's got to keep them around so he's losing money with the beef and at the same time so we're going to pay them to keep their animals but we weren't really promoting or doing anything to increase the slaughter capacity uh to get these animals through and so as I was thinking about doing a bill or an amendment to our bill that would would require the ag agency to pump some money into the slaughter facilities if the slaughter facilities were willing to put additions onto their slaughter house put another line in to to move more animals through and the way it all shook out was that I got Michael involved in it and Minnesota I think it was Michael they put 20 million dollars into upgrading uh their slaughter facilities to get animals through because they ran into the same situation so and they used CRF funds to do it but the ag agency doesn't think they didn't think they would have time to set up a whole separate program but certainly agreed to allow this to happen under their non-dairy portion and so I think Michael we got the numbers from the agency this morning I believe on what kind of what they were going to try to do and promote for the slaughter facilities yep they uh the as you might remember slaughter houses and processors were qualified to apply under the non-dairy program and under working lands and the agency is going to reach out to the slaughter houses and promote and encourage them to apply underneath that program in order to get money pay for expenses for increased capacity or any cost that they occurred incurred uh due to COVID-19 um US Treasury has said that spending money on increased slaughter house capacity uh is a qualified expense if it meets the rest of the requirements of the necessary expense under CRF um and it was Missouri that put 20 million into their their slaughter houses um and so it's it's something that if you want you could encourage the agency to do um to get those people to apply to the program did uh Chris had his hand up and then Ruth so so I think this is an important issue um two questions are you talking about adding this to the budget where we're already making the tweaks that we've been working on with house act uh we haven't got it they the the agency has agreed to do this they said it's within their jurisdiction to do it without any kind of legislation but I thought we of course I was thinking we were going to be allowed to move some money around and there would be some real dollars there that we could get rid of that would that would really make a difference next year you know the slaughter facilities would have been large and and uh increased their production so it wouldn't only help fix right now but it would work out so it'd be good for the future but we can't move the money around and and uh so they can do whatever they can promote this right now with the laws that we have in place so we haven't got to do anything with legislation I just wanted to mention it to you that that um it kind of fell apart really by not being able to move the money around in the agency because there's going to be some money left and I think in the dairy part uh I think we we were short we thought we were short in dairy but yeah um we've still got a couple hundred or more that haven't even applied yet so well we were the five of us were right but that's a little solid so um my question is we did we are about to give them flexibility to move between programs and the slaughter facilities are eligible through the working lands stuff right program am I right so you're just saying we're not going to then have another option in December if the feds extend it we won't have the chance then to do something exciting but but until then we do have some opportunities that correct well yes we have some opportunities but I don't we aren't going to be allowed to move money from the dairy to non-dairy uh and and all that so I don't think but say more about that because I thought that was the whole point of what we've been working on with house ag and you were putting it in the budget so is this there's a slaughter scene but there's also now are you saying that we're not going to be able to do the the solution we've worked on with carolin and everybody I don't believe that I know yesterday that got shot down uh the other agency that was trying to do that got shot down and I'm gonna I'm gonna try again today because they were the committee feels that there should be a pot of money sitting there in case we have a something flare up uh after we've gone home to to take care of it as as of course we're going to be into November all of our dates can get moved to November 15th or whatever they already have they already have the flexibility to move between don't they I don't have the flexibility to move non-dairy to dairy right well we got we have got to fight for that Bobby because we're not talking about December we're talking about October and so it's really a different dynamic than I think perhaps jane is understanding well great that we worked really hard to make sure that this money would be would be available in October for farmers that need it and and I just this makes no sense to me we need to be able to to allow that to happen at least until November 15th very least hey mark your committee already left well the dates will get moved to November 15th so all of October's uh expenses will be allowed to be in and then farmers should get their receipts from their sale of milk uh uh by November 15th uh so that will qualify them to uh you know to get in the only thing is after we added in that we would move we could move money in between them times and and uh uh I don't think I don't think they're gonna buy that but well especially because yeah it's their approach committee we'll make them buy it Bobby come on this is why we pay you it's easy well I told you I hadn't given up yeah this is really concerning to me Bobby I just telling you what we did this is not I'm just telling you what happened yesterday and but anyways um so the as far as helping the slaughter facilities um that that is all in place and they were going to start working on that to promote that uh today um should should we I'm happy to reach out to Jane and to Tim it's there I mean there's no reason not to I don't want to step on your toes but is there a reason not to Sarah McDonald's we are way more fun in senate ag but um our joint committee is over but we always love having people in our tiny room I've been out chasing cows so um this is a good a good cooling off screen um no if you can talk to Tim or anybody go go for it because all the help I can get I need I'll tell you um so are there any Bobby are there any other situations similar to this in other areas meaning not this agriculture but other areas where people are trying to hold on to money and move around yeah that that's where I got the jive yesterday that it's going to get rough sledding because um it was a different agency I don't know if it was human services or or one of them that was in with uh reallocating of funds and and uh that that didn't go very well so they wanted to reallocate but they were told not to yeah yeah they wanted to reallocate funds within their different areas of jurisdiction that funds were set up for and and uh they and we were going to run into a time crunch uh with a slaughter facilities because ag couldn't set up a program quick enough to just do uh slaughter people I'm not understanding what what these are two separate issues but on the slaughter issue why don't what's wrong with them just going through working lands they can but there's gonna be enough money there uh to you know it's going some of those slaughter facilities it could take a serious amount of money to put in a whole new line uh to do slaughter or add on a room to uh to the cops and in that do they run three shifts usually no I don't believe so I don't think any of them run three I think some of them run 12 uh 12 hours shifts there you know there isn't a lot of people that like working in those facilities yeah I understand what the ag agency is going to do they don't have money for this so what they're just well they've got 8.6 in working lands to disperse and then they've got uh in the non-dairy was there five or six million there well my understanding from the the testimony we got was that expanding a slaughter facility is a massive project that will not be done by December 30th so no that's what is Michael Michael are you still on well what what they can do though like for facilities like that is they can expend the money they they can expend the money on coolers equipment uh all these things as as long as that money is expended they're okay even for future usage that's what Michael dug up yesterday and and we passed that on to Steve and and Abby over Allison over at the ag agency so is there any other issues that anyone to bring up so it's too late for us to buy Thomas's dairy right boy that was a shocker to hear that was going down yeah that must have hit hard in the community right Brian it did there's I don't know how many employees 30 or 40 I think so yeah not not very good at all um the only question I had and I guess I'm as disappointed as the other four uh with the decision here if there isn't another event where does that money go it's nice to have a pot of money that's you know on a shelf somewhere that you can use but if it doesn't happen what happens to it and how much are we talking about that might be left over from dairy non dairy in the forest I mean we're talking millions and millions of dollars or is it a hundred thousand dollars that's what I'm not clear of well forestry had 1.5 1.6 left but they still veto money to do the administering so say they had they had 20 percent of their total allotment say left over that will go to a kitty um you know if we end a million bucks if if we end up at 20 percent it's going to be you know we had like 30 million I hope the hell it isn't 20 percent I don't want six million dollars being reverted to the UI fund and that's where it's going to go well that's where it's going to go is to the UI fund to beat that back up so if we keep getting unemployed people there'll be ample money to um you know to have there but uh I I mean I would I thought that it would be logical if we had 30 million in three programs that we'd be able to move that from one program to the other as long as it stayed within that jurisdiction yeah but I know yesterday it didn't go too good but will when I present ours today we'll see how it goes but I just wanted you folks to know that what happened yesterday okay uh any anything else I don't I don't think I have have anything else I just hope and I hope we get this squared away with the holding tank business and put to rest so your people were all happy Ruth with that language on the tank well I mean I I think what they would ultimately like is to not have to get a new tank but um well that's that's just kind of tough I think at this point at least this makes it more affordable for them to be able to do so um and I think that after all the gymnastics we've gone through well I will make sure that they understand that they've been taken care of well you know they have a sub I think that was a 7 000 gallon tank they put in last last year with monitors and flow charts and all of that so but anyways let's work on getting that done and and we'll get this other thing done up uh anything else Michael that you had for us no right now would you want to repeat what we found out about the slaughter facilities you being able to use this money to purchase things as long as they can purchase the things before the end of the year they're all good to go right right so the agency for all the applicants under dairy and non-dairy have been interpreting the economic harm definition to include the cost caused by COVID and expenses so for example some of the cheese makers want to go more online and the cost to that and if they can incur those costs before December 1st then they're they're becoming eligible same thing with the slaughter houses if they can prove some eligibility or expenses that that are eligible underneath the CARES Act requirements and incur them before December 1st then they are they're being awarded so they can apply for expansion if it's a necessary expenditure under the CARES Act and the money incurred before December 1. Yep well thank you Michael are there any other questions if not we'll see you guys at 9 30 I guess on the Senate floor so. Mr. Chair are we meeting any time the rest of the week? Well we may be if something comes up that we should meet on and if any of you think of any reason why we should meet you know let me know and we'll we'll have a meeting. Okay I'm just trying to plan believe it or not a sine wave in the morning and I didn't want to have a conflict. Yeah well we'll be thinking about your waving and if we need you call you on the phone. I probably shouldn't have admitted that in while we're live but I'm an honest guy. Okay well thanks a lot everybody and we'll see you in just a few minutes on that. Okay thank you Brian.