Hello. Right. Um I think that is a bigger question about the 40B regulations and the impacts to the towns particularly given that we have all this work to do to improve
water quality. Well, this might be a Jonathan the next project for Jonathan is is uh you know because the the 40B regulations are pretty clear that 40B overrides local regulations but it doesn't override state regulations. And
so if there was uh if Cape Cod was a special area that had s you know unique sensitive resources and da da da da da and therefore with an adequate plan in place uh qualified for some kind of
higher uh level of regulation or limitation on on high density development. Maybe that's something some grander thought should go into. I agree that the 40B developments make
it harder for the to it's a makes the move TMDL is a moving target. Ed, >> the um continuing that line of thought, the select board has gone on record that even though they did not appeal the easterly permit,
they are looking to start talking to the state and our legislative delegation about what can we do about 40b law to account for just this. I think the APCC and the other citizens that have filed an appeal of the Easterly permit
are just that's one of their legal arguments will be hey you got the D saying we got to do this and yet you got this saying we can got to allow these developments. It's a naughty problem. Probably god 10-15 years ago, there was a coalition to reform 40B that lobbied
and got a ballot question on the statewide ballot to repeal 40B. Flat out repeal it. The initiative failed. >> Yeah. >> Time to maybe revisit that. But there's some problem, a lot of problems with the
40B law and and Felmouth in particular has taken it on the chin because of that. Um, that's a whole thing beyond the scope, as Amy said, of wastewater planning. You got to be aware of it, but the control of that is beyond the scope
of town wastewater department or this committee, but we can add our voice to the chorus saying, "Hey, something's got to give here. You can't have both." Um question I have now early in your presentation Amy you said D is basically
kind of saying hold on with these plans because we're not sure what we want and how we're going to deal with it >> as far as environmental review. So D reviews the wershed permit regulations are clear about D reviewing them. >> The issue is the Massachusetts
Environmental Policy Act office and the D are not the same people and not the same program. and the Massachusetts Environmental Policy Act office or the MEEPA office, they're used to they're used to they're they're their goal is to
review environmental impacts of physical projects and um in you know town municipal projects and IAS for example across a large area would not trigger an environmental impact review. So, they're trying to figure out how to focus the
review. And under the watershed permit process, there's these five-year updates. So, they don't want to be reviewing five-year updates unless there is an infrastructure project that goes through it. So, it's not D is going to review wershed management plans and and
they're, you know, follow the watershed permit process. It's really the the Meepa side of this that is being worked out. >> Right. So if let let's we're on record and committed and the state has accepted a schedule for these to be submitted. First one is due by the end of this
calendar year happens to be about nine months from now which isn't a really long horizon. >> If they still haven't said this is what we want and how we'll handle it what do we do? So we have talked with the state. I'm glad you asked because that should have been a part of this presentation
probably. We will so the two that we had committed to do doing first were Little Pond and Great Pond, both of which we are already fully committed infrastructure- wise. So I I think the um we've talked with the state about
delaying submission of that of the plan for Little Pond and Great Pond until after we have this wershed management plan uh finalized overall. So it wouldn't affect action on the ground anywhere in Falmouth. It would just it would delay the administrative process.
Yeah. So that we so that we have one plan that reflects everything and then we can submit a a a permit application for those two specifically. >> I I actually have a question uh that you may be able to help me with. The uh watershed plan that is out there that
has been reviewed and approved is for Pleasant Bay, correct? And I don't think that had to go through the MEEPA process because they weren't building any infrastructure. They were all managing fertilizer and and other things. Correct.
>> If there was no sewer, they wouldn't have gone through. But I don't know. >> I Yeah, I'm not sure if it didn't involve any sewer, but >> they proposed sewers, but I don't think they're actively building at the time. >> Not actively building anything yet. Yeah. Right. >> So >> So we could double check on that, but I think what you're saying is no
infrastructure. Meepa doesn't want to get too far into it. >> Right. So, they're trying to figure out how to how to review this, how and when to review watershed management plans. >> Um I I think this is a good table. Uh Amy, I see it as a a working document.
Um Ken referenced that early on, you know, we were like maybe two can go downhill with by gravity, you know, maybe four would be the maximum you'd ever have to have. So, we've now zeroed in a little bit more and three looks like like a responsible number, like you say, for something that's going to be
around for a long time and the town gets some flexibility. I always have done in my head the thing that says if I look at Homestead Avenue and I look at the density of the homes on Homestead Avenue and the fact that it's north of 28
doesn't make me understand why it was not in the comprehensive wastewater management plan before. Not going back to how they made their decision, but being able to pick off areas in each one of these wersheds that we got to get the numbers down where the density makes
sense to extend the sewer beyond where it is in the cover of wastewater management plan. Just seems to be like smart planning on the town's part. So, thank you for putting the table together and I expect next time we see it the numbers all all be jigged a little bit, but we'll still be under three in that bottom box.
>> Exactly. >> Steve, you're up. Just one thing, one more thing I want to understand. The third column of numbers, the infiltration inflow allowance is each one of those numbers is in the same ballpark ratio to the first column
because that's just an engineering you pull out of it a handbook. That's the leakage in certain kinds of pipes and so on and the amount of pipes and the amount of flow. >> It's right. It's a it's a set percentage of the sewering in the first column. >> Right. And I won't ask you why. In some cases it's times a third and some cases
>> it's point it's two >> fifth but >> yeah it's a set number >> but the second column is all over the place and that's because that's the vacant lot allowance and zoning and things like that. >> So the vacant lot allowance and the um
redevelopment is all within the buildout that first column. >> Yeah. So what's the second column? The second column is the D requires as part of the watershed permit process for you to have a plan in writing in as part of
your plan that says if you don't So they're giving you giving us credit upfront for fertilizer reduction for storm water um nitrogen reduction for we are we are going to say we're taking >> that your PRBs and your oysters all go
belly up. >> Yes. >> Okay. So right >> contingency but you have to so the outfall is going to be sized for us to handle contingency plan. >> Yes. >> Okay. >> And everybody buys further. >> It's a conventional it's a conventional sewing backup plan for alternatives.
>> But then why >> oh and different ones have different fractional dependence on fertilizer oysters and PRBs. >> NAS >> NAS Yep. So it's a there's this is a the that traditional backup contingency is
is uh lot based parcel based. >> Thank you. >> Or not uh it's watershed based. It's specific to the watershed based on the watershed factors.
>> You good Steve? >> You're good. >> Yes. >> John, >> I'm sad. Amy, I is a really minor point, >> but I want you to look at the 37 at the bottom of the middle column. And if you
change that to 0.31, the math works horizontally and vertically. >> Okay. So, let me I need to It's possible there's a math >> I think. I think there's a typo there. I think >> if so, uh >> if you just add the if you add the
column totals, you'll come up with 31. And if you try to put in 37 getting over to 295, you'll see that it doesn't work. >> Yeah, >> I believe you. I was >> Yeah, we >> got a calculator. >> We've been working on this again recently, so I I believe you that I may
have >> checked the the uh formula at the bottom. >> Jonathan, >> oh, I'm good. >> Good. The audience, we're going to start with Kim. >> Yeah. Um, so it it's not
um totally on point here. So it's Kim Kmart from the Pond Coalition. I'm hearing a lot about uh the town uh taking credit uh for various actions in order to address our TMDLs, including I
hear all the time about fertilizer reduction. Um, what town department is working to reduce the amount of uh nitrogen entering our coastal and inland water? Some fertilizers. Is anyone quantifying this? >> The fertilizer management control board
which has got about 50 members on it >> and and they're quantifying this >> like like I mean I mean I keep hearing about this. >> Your question is a little bit rhetorical. We've touched upon this before. There there's a couple of regul they did pass things but nobody we don't even have a code enforcement officer for
buildings in this town. >> So nobody's >> are we does the town of is the town of Fmouth projecting um that fertilizer reduction will contribute to addressing RTMDLs. >> That is that is one of the things in
that other other non-traditional we've got a number there for aquaculture. We have a number there for storm water. We have a number there for fertilizer. whether or not those numbers ever happen or get achieved. Hopefully, um, things get picked up a little bit, but right
now it's >> I see a lot of aquaculture happening. I see PRBs happening. I see IAS happening. I see sewing happening. I'm just wondering about this whole fertilizer. I keep hearing about fertilizer >> argumentatively, but they passed a regulation about fertilizing so many
feet of water bodies and nobody is out there enforcing it. >> I know. So, I'm just asking if the town is claiming that we are going to reduce fertilizer uh contribution to our waters
and and and and if we are, how is that happening? >> Right. >> It's a fair question, right? >> The answer to your question is I would anticipate when we see the full watershed plans that there will be a little line that says fertilizer and and
kilograms per year. How it's going to be enforced or achieved remains to be seen because we've got a bylaw and nobody's enforcing it. >> Right. >> Well, it's not only not being enforced, it's not even being measured. >> No, it's not. >> No one's even made a plan for measuring
it. >> Okay. >> The Freshwater Pond Committee did a fabulous job with an advertisement in a full page advertisement in the um Enterprise and >> another one that's right. Good. That's
that's a wonderful thing. Uh >> there we go. >> Right. >> It's it's on my list of member reports that when I'm called on to do that. >> Okay. Uh Earl got his up second then
it's Hildy and then Maggie. >> Um Earl Barnhard Green Center. Um, after five years, the town presumably looks at the sentininal point and discovers things have not improved as much as they wish. Now, how do you know
to blame it on the alternatives that did not work when you have no numbers for them and not blame it on the sewers for not working? >> It's a it's a question that I don't know we have an answer for you right now, but it's a good question. I mean you you do know how much nitrogen
you remove through sewers and it is less quantifiable through others but yeah it's a it's a fair question and the plan does not we will talk in this plan about we about the phasing. We're not going to
turn around and do more sewering if the ponds haven't cleaned up in 5 years. Everybody this committee knows that things take a lot longer than that. So there will be a monitoring and response that will be longer than the than the five years you're talking about. But it is it's a fair question.
>> I have a question whenever comes up again. >> That's okay. >> Hild the manga green center. I have a suggestion about the 40B. What if we reassided the state every 40b should have at least waterless urinals and get
a lot of the urine out and get a lot of the nitrogen out. Why not reduce it where it comes in and start with that? I never hear it brought up. We always talk about how good urine diversion could be, but why don't we apply that to put a little pressure on so that it happens.
>> So you would like us to institute a state law. >> We would like you'd like a state law. I think it would be good we we talking about what can we do about making 4 DB less impact have less impact on our nitrogen contribution right that's what
we trying to figure out well what about promoting that >> so that would be an amendment to the 40B law >> be a home rule sort of type >> all new I mean even make ready right so the pipes can't cost nothing make it ready >> I if this board wants to make a motion
that we recommend to the selectmen that a apply for a home rule to require you know >> I think we need to look into >> you're in diversion toilets even though we don't yet have the report plan to you but
>> I I I have had the same thought that we >> could okay you want to build a a high density building we could you know fine plummet so that we capture all the nitrogen >> yeah even if it's urus which are
approved already that would already make a huge difference we can get you know 40 50% of the nitrogen reduction from that particular development would be I think a huge improvement and wouldn't cost much
>> Maggie you're up >> uh Maggie McGaw from Wuite Citizens for the Protection Wait and the Falmouth Pond Coalition Um, two things. First of all, I think Kilda's idea is terrific. Um, and the new um, urinals, the urine diverting
urinals, the user wouldn't even know that he or she was um using one. Uh, the the urine would be pumped and taken away and they'd be none the wiser. Um but back to the question of enforcement of
the nitrogen bylaws. Um yesterday evening at the precinct 5 and 7 meeting there was a lot of talk about the enforcement mechanisms for the new um short-term rental bylaw. And there
was talk about the fact that the short-term rental bylaw will generate funds that could be used toward the hiring of a townwide enforcement officer. And it does seem that, you
know, there could be additional sources of funding added to that to make an enforcement officer responsible for not just short-term rentals, but for the other things that require enforcement around town, specifically the nitrogen
bylaw. So, that's my thought. >> Okay, Steve, you had another comment. >> I two questions for Amy. Can you go back to one of your first their first slide with the graph of nitrogen in one of the estuaries versus time?
Yeah, there's statistical variation in it as of course you'd expect in any natural system like this. Is the TMDL and the the enforcement of it such that you have to get how many of those how
many of those blue dots are allowed to be above the red line when you're finished? How how often >> what fraction of the years can it go above the level? >> They don't have something like that. They don't there's no description of that kind of requirement. It says that the threshold concentration says what
the threshold concentration is which in this case looks like 35.36 milligrams per liter and it doesn't say how much of the time you have to be below it. Um I think >> do you agree that that I mean the average to my eye looks like it's
already below it. It might >> right and that's why there is very little planned for me very little to to so >> and and changing that rule makes a huge makes tens of millions of dollars of difference.
>> Changing what rule? >> Whether you demand just the average be below it or it be below it 19 out of 20 years. >> So okay. So I'm going to try to help out here. So there there actually is a process whereby you could go to the
state. Keep in mind that you know just because there's a TMDL once it's once quote it's been met you can ask for it to be removed. You can you could say we we have enough data and we're present we nobody's nobody's actually done this
yet where they've put together >> however you want to put it together. It's kind of like some of the stuff that we're doing on the outfall where nobody's done it. So, we're putting something together and seeing how it goes. We could spend some time and money putting together something to the D and saying we believe that Means is meeting
their total nitrogen level and see if they buy it >> and and try to get it removed from the impaired water. >> I get it removed from the impaired water and then it's no longer an NSA. >> Okay, that's one way of looking at it. Another way of looking at it though is and and it's totally valid and I agree with that. It might make sense there.
You'd have to look at the numbers of cost of doing the appeal and what you gain from it. But also in planning though for the other estuaries, but you could you could click ahead to some other one that's
worse where it's above the line where you're planning to put in sewers. It still makes a huge difference whether you're planning enough to get all the blue dots below the red line or only the average below the red line. >> Yeah. So the m the Massachusetts
estuaries project ran their models and projected that a certain amount removing a certain amount of nitrogen from the watershed would get the sentinel location below the red line on average is my guess. But there that's the basis
for the TMDLs. So it's it's not a anyway that's right. So if you come back to them at one >> so you have to do it according the MD TMDL and then later long way in the future you might do what Steve just described
in terms of if I'm back one you know there's there's values that are below it for a while but over the last couple of years the values are up. Now, is that water temperature? Is that rainfall? You know what? So, I think you need to, >> you know, you can't take six years or
seven years. They're probably they're probably going to say, I we want to see, you know, if I'm sitting at the DP, I'm going to say, hm, do you have 15 years? Then we we went through this in the board of health about the variability when you sample an IIA system and whether or not you sample it four times
a year and the average falls below, but there's an outlier and how you deal with the outlier. So there's a whole thing about handling outliers and running averages and you know trends and everything else. Um >> okay >> that's that's that's going to have to come into play at some point.
>> My second question I think it's your very first slide with a map of Falmouth. Yes. >> That's what I've known we've been dealing with all along. But the board of health has a map for their recent
requirement that they're using red instead of blue. But if they were using blue, there'd be a lot more blue than there is on this one. >> They have um >> That's true. >> Yes, >> that's true. They have they have elected
to add um the Cipoissit Marsh um uh watershed as a nit to their they don't call it nitrogen sensitive areas but it's like board of health nitrogen sensitive area and um they've added several watersheds that are not state
designated wersheds to their map. I I just submit that these two boards need to work more closely together or heading for a train wreck in terms of regulations. >> Are you suggesting that we do watershed planning for areas that the state has
not designated? >> I'm just suggesting that the left hand ought to know what the right hand is doing. I mean it's as though we maybe have been slow. I I mean you from their standpoint they could say well the water quality committee has been in business for almost 20 years and what have we got
and we could defend that in various ways and they said we're just going to go out and make a regulation and they did but then we're talking about fairness and payments and so on. None of that's applying to what the board of health is requiring. It might apply in the future.
People might say, "Oh, but there's this precedent. You didn't subsidize the people that the board of health may do it. Why should you do it in the future?" It just seems like a can of worms. Unless the two groups are on the same page. >> I'm I'm going to I'm going to argue that it's not a can of worms, Steve. The board of health has made their decision
about what areas they're going to require IAS in, and for what reason? Currently, you know, it's it's new construction. They incorporated more areas than we have. >> Okay. They're allowed to do that.
Meantime, the town has got a requirement to do watershed planning for the designated NSA areas, which is what we're doing. We're not unaware. I don't think I don't think maybe somebody on this board is unaware of what the board of health is doing, but I don't
think for myself, I'm not unaware of what the board of health is doing. And what they're doing is for Falmouth's probably greater needs than what the state's requiring. But the board of health is not indicating that we should be doing watershed plannings and looking at putting sewers into areas in this
like the cipus at Mars or evaluating aquaculture in the cipet march or other things because a number of those areas aren't even being necessarily monitored. Maybe maybe what we need to do is get together and decide we need to do more monitoring. But I don't think I don't think we're ignoring them. I I'm just
saying that I think that from the stamp from the viewpoint of John Q public resident homeowner in Falmouth it it looks like a very confusing combination of requirements. >> I want a suggestion from you. What should we do?
>> I Well, first either all of you tell me that I'm wrong and I'll be quiet maybe. >> Okay. >> Or I know you're going to I know you're going to agree with >> I know you're going to agree with me. or or or agree that and then start working on how to put the two together. But
unless there's a consensus that there's a potential problem, we're not going to do anything. Your question was what should we do? We won't do anything unless there's a consensus that there's a problem. I don't see it as as a fatal flaw that
the state requirement that pertains to the health of these systems is a subset of what the board of health sees. You know, >> we're entirely the the I don't believe that the board
of health is saying any of these are not nitrogen sensitive. That would be a problem. >> Yeah. area. >> If their area is larger, >> then okay, you know, they have local concerns that uh are exceed those of the
state DP. That's okay. >> So, let's take it the next step. We take the board of health, what they've put in there. Then the pond folks have got ponds around town that aren't in any place. So, why don't we just declare the entire town is a nitrogen sensitive area and what the board of health has done.
>> Yeah. So, I'll take I'll take a motion that for this board to go recommend to the board of selectment that we identify the entire town as nitrogen sensitive and that everybody in the town has to comply with whatever rules come up from the board of health about IAS being required. I'll I'll entertain that.
>> I think they already do. I mean, people do have to comply with those because the board of health makes regulations, >> but that's only it's only for where they've defined and they haven't defined the entire town. So the map is all >> they haven't they I don't believe they defined the area around Eel Pond down in
Woods Hole >> what as as >> or out on or out on the on Juniper Point or those other places. >> Both the board of health and this committee have submitted petitions to the select board suggesting that the taxpayer the town as a whole should help
pay for IAS in order to be fair to IIA people relative to sewer people. Right. We all voted for that. >> I think we s suggested that they should form a committee to evaluate fairness. Right. >> I don't know that we had to water it down.
>> I think you phrased I think you phrased it slightly different to what this board voted to. Okay. You you you stated it the way you like. >> I think it's pretty clear that that's the intent. >> That's your opinion. >> That's my opinion. If
you to the extent that they do that, there will then be a cost to the town for each IIA that's put in >> if they adopt it.
>> If they if they make it fair, there will be a cost to the town for each IIA that's put in. It's the only entity that's going to cover the cost aside from the part that's covered by what Jonathan's working on will come out of the tax base come out of the town
budget. Therefore, it is in the interest of the town to put in the minimum number of IAS. That's one reason you like efficient IAS because you get more nitrogen for the buck. Um if you now
>> so so that makes it harder to be make sense if you're saying oh let's just require IAS everywhere let's just require goldplated dinner wear everywhere you know it's it's not necessary you start this conversation by saying that the board of health is a
different map than ours and so therefore you think that this map is misleading. No, no, no. I know where it came from and it makes sense. This makes more sense to me than the board of health map except to the extent that the board of
health map helps the freshwater ponds, which is a reasonable goal. And that's part of the reason they did that in their deliberations to see what else beyond saltwater estuaries should they try to do something about. So, they
expanded it because they recognized there was a public health interest in doing something about ponds and other estuaries that are not to the point of state. Remember too that the state's hammer that came down was that if you
don't do watershed management plans, the entire town in 5 years has to put in IAS. The entire town, no exceptions, no NSAs, no nothing. >> Yes, good point. >> That was the state decree. >> That's a good point. And that's what makes the board of health regulation
look a little bit unreasonable. the opposite. It says, "Hey, you know, we got to start somewhere and let's start here because we want to look not just what's on the >> No, I'm saying we're saying we're doing watershed plans so we don't have to put in IAS everywhere." And then we have
another department, the board of health, that says and we're putting IAS in everywhere. >> Not every doesn't >> almost every those areas that can affect public health, >> right? >> And if you want that's I think something to debate the board of health. Maggie's got her hand up on her.
>> I you know I I'm Maggie McGau again. Um I'm not sure maybe I'm missing some of this some of the point of this but the board of health has is requiring the installation of IAS in in new construction
and you know as defined by a wholly new structure or a new bathroom. It's not the same as the mandate that this entity is going to impose which will be the replacement of systems. >> Good point.
>> So, board of health is just saying we don't want any new nitrogen added from new sources. U Maggie, the nuance though goes like this. as we develop the watershed plan, the implementation has to flow through
the board of health, okay? Or we have to go to town meeting and pass pass bylaws and everything else. But if we have wershed management plans in place and they define so many IAS needed in certain watersheds, then we can work with the board of health as
to how as Ed summarized other communities are saying a,000 ft or whatever. So, you know, it'll be on transfer of title or something else. >> I don't want to push it anymore. I mean, time is getting late and it it isn't directly to the subject of these things.
So, go on with the regular agenda or other people's questions Hilda. >> Oh, boy. >> The Manga Green Center. Um it's nice to be impressed by the sentinel point going down and being at a certain level that
might be acceptable to a mass DMP but is the ecosystem changing? I mean we doing this to make the ecosystem of these eststeries better right that is the whole point. It's not that point one point that shows that the nitrogen is in a place where administratively it's okay
for mass D to approve it means nothing to me. It only means to me if that water body is actually getting better, the ecosystem seems to be rebounding, fish are coming back, shellfish come back and all that stuff. That is the important
point. And if that point, that one point that we measure is actually actually reflecting that then I'm happy with it. I would say Hildy that this board more than once has noted that the goal is to get the estuaries back to a healthy state and that we're working around
these constrict numbers of TMDLs, but you know, we have the little pond and we're monitoring it closely >> and watching how it's coming back and seeing if it's if it's working. And you know >> I know but we are spending a lot a lot of money on planning for more sewers and
we don't even know if we see the sentiment sentimental point improving but nothing else yet and I think if we have adaptive management >> challenge you I I I think if you were to go down to little pond and talk to people that have about little pond they
will tell you that the pond is different now than it was 10 years ago. >> It is it is it is cleaner. It's better. There are fish in it. that we don't officially know where the eel grass has come back to. Okay. But it it is coming back. >> We've been carrying out extensive monitoring and seeing significant
improvement. >> It's coming back. >> I mean, there's no hypoxia last summer. >> Good. That's good. It's good to know. >> At the Sentinel Station, so it's cleaner. It doesn't smell. There's no matte algae covering the entire water surface. There are shellfish. There are
fish. It's a lot more eel grass because we can see the swans out there eating the eel grass because it's nice fresh succulent growth. >> They're an invasive species. Get rid of them. >> Three dozen swans by count on an individual day. Three dozen. And what they're eating is the eel grass to it.
>> Right. So the eel has improved. They have done. >> That's good. I'm happy. We We're all in agreement. >> Going to vote for a swamp mold station. >> Improve the environment. That should be the number and right now is our sort of >> I need more than
>> this we got Kim we are you know he's measuring it all the time other people are measuring it and we're not where we want to be yet but it is changing okay >> and the second point I have in reply that I think the whole town is responsible
we all it doesn't matter to me it doesn't matter if it's 500 feet from the water body of or thousand feet to make all these rules because everybody body eventually contribute. It might take a few more years before it gets there, but it's everybody's contributing and I think everybody should have some
responsibility for it. >> John, are you willing to come up on the next meeting? >> Yes. I would only say that a lot of what I was going to cover in this draft RME are things which Amy mentioned today that we're going to need to fill in for
our watershed plans. So, uh there's a lot of overlap with what Amy showed us today and what she said we're going to need to accomplish >> before we're ready for those watershed plans. Right. >> I think the irony is is enough of
a new, you know, we've talked about this board a little bit, but you know, a lot of people don't truly understand what an RFME is and what it will do. And so, talking it through and building consensus for the value of it is going to help the once we get the watershed
plans in place, not only people going, and what is this RMA? >> Well, also, you're proposing a town subsidy in there that I'd not seen before until I read this document. >> Yeah. Um I think that's really a critical point of discussion. >> Yeah. So next next meeting.
>> Yeah. >> Tom, you you I skipped over you apparently under reports of members. >> Yeah. Things were kind I should have jumped in when reports of members, but I I wanted to see if if our board would recognize this exceptionally fine job
that Ken Kmart and the advisory preparer ponds advisory committee came up with. I hope everyone saw it when it ran the first week in the enterprise. It it turns out there's very explicit statewide rules in what you can do in
terms of phosphorus fertilizers and it's going to run again this week's enterprise. I believe >> also going around all the vendors, >> right? All the vendors. Now, Kim, if you'll hold that up so that so the people behind you can see it, too. If
you've been into Eastman's or even Walmart, they've which is what the state regulations require is a sign that with this information on it is posted at their what do they call it? Not nutrients, they call it
plant, not amend, not soil amendments, but there's another term in the law. But anyway, we call them fertilizers. Um, and I just wanted to bring it to the attention of the board and congratulate them on the fine job they've done. Uh since >> find out that the family pond coalition
is paying for it. >> Yeah. >> Are is the pond coalition paying? >> Yeah, we're paying for the ads. >> Okay, good. >> So, contribute to the pond coalition. >> Right. Bravo. >> Right. Some of us some of us have Ken. Um but anyway,
the um what was my other point? Oh, and I've pushed Kim, but so far he's sent material on to APCC. This is an ideal opportunity. It's springtime, people. A lot of people are
thinking fertilizers. Um, and we need to get it in front of as many homeowners, property owners as we can. And my complaint was, and I didn't notice this until after the fact. There's nothing on here that says, "Have you asked your landscaper if he's aware of this
regulation?" Because, of course, the landscapers make money by selling >> by selling fertilizers. And I'll be quiet. to the pick up. >> Thank you, Steve. >> No, I apologize for not having put you on. I made myself a note to list every member and what they want to say.
>> All right. >> Okay. Um, so just a quick quick motion to to move the RE discussion to the next meeting. >> So moved. >> Yes. >> All in favor? >> I Okay, >> Mr. Chairman, item one should be moved also. We need to continue that
discussion. >> We moved it forward. >> We moved it forward. We're going to vote to move it forward. >> He's just reminding you that it's to move forward. >> Oh, no. >> Not to the next meeting. >> Next meeting. >> Okay. >> Next meeting. >> Sorry. That's what I meant. >> Okay. >> Um the minutes you you have a couple more
more notations, Tom. >> Uh they're they're very minor. They're things that um like a misspelling of Peter Hargra's name and a couple other things that I'm going to hand off to you. >> So these >> anything substantive? >> No. >> Okay. >> No. I'm I'm going to move that they be
accepted as I >> subject subject to a correction of the scripturous errors. >> Yes. Correct. >> Second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I. >> All right. A vote to adjurnn. Not open to debate. >> So move. >> Second. >> All those in favor signify by saying I. >> I.
>> I.