Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, we heard that testimony and a request that we support a recommendation to put an amount that I'm gonna have you to tell us into the Budget Adjustment Act. I understand that the health committee has, or maybe this afternoon is gonna vote that out. We have a draft of it. We were, I think, all supportive in principle anyway of the idea, but there was a request that we get a better understanding of why that dollar amount. Maybe a little bit of background also, Mike, on how much money, if any, the state has supported the Bridges to Health Program with in the past. I know there's a change in funding there and housing and so forth. Where is housed? So thank you for joining us. Thank you.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: Mike Fisher, healthcare advocate. I think if you are looking for well, let me just there may be a document that if people want to look, there is a document that was delivered to the House Appropriations Committee that I can make sure you have

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: a good at.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: Maybe it goes into a little bit more detail than I'm going to go into. So yes, Bridges so I'm the health care advocate, and I'm here to speak on behalf of Bridges to Health. But I'm also here to speak on behalf of the Health Care Advocate. Bridges is a key partner of ours. You ask me and my office to reach all Vermonters and assist them in challenges with coverage and care issues. And for different we then partner with different organizations to help us reach particular populations who are harder to reach and are particularly vulnerable or, in some cases, attacked. And so so bridges, I have been down a long and tortured path over the last couple of years fighting for funding for bridges. And I wanna remind you that the house and senate, the the legislature passed a bill last year, 71, age 71? I I I guess I'm

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: 91.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: 91? That did fund bridges for the current fiscal year that got vetoed and and didn't make it over the line. And so it then after that, the University of Vermont, did come up with bridge funding to assist them to make it to July 1, and required them to find a new fiscal a new home. And so, the request for this year, the one time funding, DAA request for a hundred and sixty seven seven hundred, is a, is a request for sort of transition monies to help them move from University of Vermont to their new fiscal sponsor, the free and referral clinics, which I actually think is a good home for them. So I am overjoyed to hear that they're still alive. We have scrappy and stick to it of to try and keep this program going. And I guess I wanna recognize that without bridges, we would not be reaching the Vermonters who need the support and care. The The legislature a number of years ago passed the Immigrant Health Insurance Plan. This is Medicaid like coverage for Vermont children and pregnancies, for people who are ineligible due to their immigration status. Bridges is a key partner in helping people maneuver through that application process. And my office as well works very closely with them. That's kind of what I was planning to come and say.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative Boston.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah. Let me just add something. I mean, we, this is the second person that's come in to present about this. And when the first person came in, I had a very clear picture of what the program was about, but that's because I used to be a case manager. And my guess is that none of you have been a case manager before. So a case manager is a person, and I don't think they use that exact word in bridges, but maybe they do. Basically your job is to go in and work with usually a vulnerable population and help them in whatever way they need to be helped. So it might be you're helping connect them with a resource like education, like they are 16 years old and they have potential and you help them fill out an application so that they can go to a summer program to learn STEAM skills, or maybe it's somebody who's pregnant and they need to get hooked up with prenatal and they haven't doing, they haven't had a regular practitioner. Well, it might not be a big deal or maybe it would be to fill out paperwork to apply for medical insurance for any of us. It's probably kind of a pain even for us, but for somebody who would be a second language speaker, who's working on a farm, it's not gonna be that easy for them to figure out where do I go to get access to this program that the legislature designed several years ago that I don't even know about. And so the case manager is gonna help walk them through that. And so my understanding is that's what Bridges for Health does. It's not like a nurse is going out and doing the exact stuff, or maybe there may be some elements of that, but a big part of it from what I understand is they're connecting people who are not easy to reach in the system, but who have met medical needs with the services that could be beneficial to them on their side. Is that accurate?

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: Yes. And I would use the term community health worker. Yes, partner with families to help them move through the crazy maze that we set up and all kinds of systems.

[Unknown Member]: They're bio lingual, and they do a wonderful job. And they do a wonderful job. Can

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you help us understand the need, so given that apparently despite the lack of state funding, there was funding found to get them through to the end of the fiscal year. And the budget adjustment is also through the end of the fiscal year. So help us understand that.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: So this money, this 167,000 is to is to support the transition to the new home and a little bit of bridge funding to for the first couple of weeks. You you know, by the time you we will be back here for the f y twenty seven budget with a request, not for transition monies, but for ongoing funding. And by the time, the legislature the governor signs the budget and the money gets out the door, there, there's a need for a little bit of bridge money to get them the first couple of weeks into the new fiscal year.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you have any more details just in case anybody's looking forward on how that money is broken down into whatever money is needed for the transition? I don't know if it's purchases of Yeah. Of equipment or is there rent involved?

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: You know, I think it is setting up a new IT system. Yes. Office space, supplies. You know, it is the sort of the nuts and bolts of of making this one. I'm not sure the level of detail you're looking for is in the letter I'm looking at, but let me get to get you this letter because I think it will Representative

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: O'Brien. Mike, do we know what

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: their past budgets have been? I mean, it it went through UBM, but the most budget out there just so we have an idea of if FY 'twenty arrives, we know what they might be at.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: I think when we come back for 'twenty seven, I think we'll need to have clear answer for you on that. What I can tell you is that as a part of '91?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: As a

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: part of '91, we were looking for half a year's funding for the program, and the amount in there was $515,000 So is the total a million 30?

[Unknown Member]: The ballpark.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Don't want to speak on anybody else's behalf, but I think that the reasons, the objections to H-ninety one that were spelled out in the veto letter were not about the Bridges to Health program. Correct. I didn't want anybody to think that this money might be in trouble or getting money approved might be in trouble because they wish they probably would bridges to health.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: I mean, I believe that there's providers who are very supportive, who know that this population of people need support. I know that Diva, they're a partner for Medicaid office as well. So I don't know of any opposition. Great.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Any other questions? As everybody, I know we're not at full capacity and we might John. I just wanted to, is any of

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: this money ever used just given our healthcare system when various treatments, prescriptions, whatever are needed, that whatever coverage, whether it's Medicaid or some variation of that, it just doesn't cover it. We all know we go to the colonoscopy and they're like, oh, it's going to be free. Then you get to the pharmacist and that's $150

[Unknown Member]: for bills. I

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: think it would be important to ask the Bridges program that question, though I will say I would be very surprised. Six community health workers spread out around the state. This is not paying for care. This is paying for the support system. I don't believe so.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Where would that care come from then?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you have any idea?

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: Some people you know, I'll I'll say of the general the people that are in some people are eligible for Medicaid because they do have an immigration status that allows them to be in it. And so in that case, it would be a share of state and federal dollars. And some people have been on the exchange. And so it would be money's, supported at various pots. For the folks that are there in the iHIP program, it's a state only funded. And then I'll just add, the cost of care for people who have no way of paying for it is uncompensated at the provider and goes to the bottom line of that provider, that that hospital, I'll say, and is a part of their rate development that ends in what the rates that we all pay. And I'm speaking here for the general population. I'm not specific to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And is a there a connection between the the new sponsors, the three clinics and care that might be provided, are patients seen at those sites?

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: That's a I didn't mention that. There's also care at the free and referral clinics. And and that is, I think, all of the above that I mentioned already, plus some charity like care, some financial supports that are from people who are just trying to support.

[Unknown Member]: Thank you, George. Is it some of those $195,000,000 a year we're supposed to get from the federal government for our rural health care systems to offset the changes to the Medicaid rules without regard to what those changes are. It's gonna help the rural hospitals handle

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: So I think that

[Unknown Member]: these kinds of issues.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: I think that we are all still learning. I think that if you had the people from the agency of human services who are working most directly on this in the seat here, they they I've been through to number numerous presentations about this. We're all learning about it. I think we're all still figuring out exactly what it can and can't be used for. I am confident that it can't be used for the cost of care. So we there is we are going to be limited by what the federal government allows it to be used for, which I think have a lot of strings and and to some degree limited by what the the state administration put in their application for what the money would be used for. And there's a, I think, a a real feeling of caution that we need to be careful because there's a lot of strings and rules attached and threats of clawback if the money's not spent exactly right. And despite the fact that it's five years, it's one time. It is not base money that's gonna continue to support us. So we need to be really careful that we don't build systems that need ongoing. That's just sort of more personally for me. I I I think the rules are gonna prevent that anyway, but this is, I think, going to be useful for more one time fixes, creating systems to help hospitals coordinate care better and the like.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Could you tell us more about the free and referral clinics? Don't know where they fit in our space or our healthcare.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: Yeah, so at the risk of I think it'd be good to hear from them.

[Unknown Member]: And it would with the way health insurance change. I mean, a free referral clinic.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: There is a network with an association of free and referral clinics. I don't know exactly how many of them there are. I'm sort of most familiar with the one in Addison County. And they, I think, are supported in various ways, including from their local hospital. And I think they have various rules about who they can accept. But I think they're frontline health care providers that are doing the best to serve very marginalized people.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Providers providing their services at no cost.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: Yes. Think in some cases, it's regular providers in the community that are volunteering some time to support.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: A I draft of the letter. It's very short, and I think that I'm feel hesitant to post it just because I don't want to post something that's no longer that this is from Monday. But would it be okay if I just read it? And then I think maybe since we don't have everyone today, we could wait until tomorrow to vote. But I will ask for just, like, an informal raise raising of hands to see if everybody is supportive from here.

[Mike Fisher, Health Care Advocate]: Are you through with me?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. You don't need to hear me. Thank you for coming in. I appreciate it. And then we'll move on to Bradley. The letter reads, the House Committee on Healthcare appreciates the opportunity to review and provide recommendations to the committee on appropriations on our fiscal year budget adjustment proposals. This is a letter from healthcare to appropriations. The committee supports the healthcare related provisions. In addition, the Committee on Healthcare and the Committee on Agriculture, Food Resiliency and Forestry both recommend providing an appropriation of $167,000 that's a round number, a little different from what I think we just heard, dollars 167,000 to support Bridges to Health in transitioning from its current home at the UVM Extension to a new partnership with Vermont's free and referral clinics. Which still provides health programming to migrant and immigrant workers and families who live in Vermont and not otherwise supported by state and federal programs and face barriers to health care. So just we'll nail down the dollar amount, and if there are any other changes to the letter, we'll take a look at that tomorrow. But did anybody have any concerns about signing up something very similar to this? What was our jurisdiction on this? Is it a population that this committee somewhat represents? I think that's the idea, yeah, yeah. And historically, I think largely population was in the agricultural sector, although not exclusively. But I think I'm sure that

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: was the question I have.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, well then in that case, is everybody okay with this? All right.

[Unknown Member]: I am

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: okay. All right, thank you. All right, I will pass that along to the healthcare folks, and then we'll get an updated final version of the letter and post it on our page, and then we can do something more formal. All right, great. Bradley, thank you for waiting in the wings. And we had you in last week, I think it was maybe when we were reviewing the Tap Street? I'm sorry?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The Tap Street

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: decision? Well, yes. Okay. Was gonna say there was that. And then we also had you in to walk through the Yeah. Well, did you walk through the bill or was that somebody else?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That was The Right

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to Garden bill, which is the homeowners association. That was someone else.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That was someone else. I think that might have been Cameron.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, yes, think it was. Yes, you're right. Well, welcome back. Thank you. Did you wanna put anything on the screen or just talk?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel. So And from my presentations to the committee last week, I collected a handful of questions from the committee that I wanted to report back on. And we concurred with Patricia about the best way to do this was just to kind of come in and and talk to you about those questions, and I'm happy to do that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great. Thank you. Alright.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So last week, I spoke a little bit about the Tap Street decision, and also reporting. So most of these questions have to do with that. And so the first question was with respect to municipal regulation of farms, what have municipalities been able to regulate with respect to agriculture for farming activity? And so, essentially, farms have been able to regulate anything that was not considered a farm under the RAP's rule section 3.1. And I think you had the agency of agriculture in last week to go over the rule itself. Okay. And so anything that was in section 3.1 of the RAP's rule, anything that was that met those criteria were exempt from municipal regulation. Now as we know from the Taft Street decision, the only thing that is exempt from regulation, municipal regulation, are the RAP's rules themselves. So municipalities can't tell you how to deal with your wastewater, but they could potentially tell you how to deal with noise, smell, hours of operation, roads, things of that sort. The committee asked when the next Dairy Promotional Council report is due, and they just submitted it on the thirteenth, which I think was yesterday. And if that is not on the legislators the legislature's website, I will send that to Patricia, because I did get it from I I just reached out to see what their activities were. So the Dairy Promotion Council, I think, we had thought that they were falling off a little bit in terms of meeting, or providing reporting, updating information. And they had been meeting. They last met in October, and they did submit a a short report yesterday. So they are they are still active. Asked what happened with the parties in Taft Street, the Taft Street decision. So I'll I'll just say that here. I know that Brett Burtt's not not present right now, but, essentially, the farmer in the Taft Street decision gave up his ducks. So he's no longer a duck farmer, and he is currently appealing for variants for the cannabis farming. And, so as of November, he was still in those appeal processes, and I have not seen any activity on that appeals process since then. But he is trying to get a variance to keep his cannabis farming. There's a question from representative about whether food prepared by a cottage food operation could be sold to a third party in the coffee shop or something of the sort. And so I do need to caveat this that we can't give individualized legal advice to a third party, right? And just because that person's not my client, I don't know their specific situation and things of that sort. So I can't give individualized legal advice. What I would encourage that person to do is to reach out

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: to the Department of Health

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: and to see what their options are. That said, I can read the relevant statute and to kind of give you a sense of what the law is in that area. So by statute, a cottage food operator means any person who produces or packages cottage food products solely in the home kitchen of the person's private residential dwelling. And a cottage food product is defined as something that is sold by a cottage food operator, that does not require refrigeration or time or temperature controls for safety. So a cottage food operator can sell cottage food products. And the department of health website does, say that cottage food service establishments that are not cottage food operators, can only purchase food products from licensed food manufacturers. So it's so it is unlikely in that situation that a person a cottage food operator could sell their food to a third party for sale. That said, that person should reach out to the Vermont Department of Health to discuss their operations and their options because there could be something that is available to them. The next question is, can and have municipalities been parties to nuisance suits, nuisance lawsuits against farms? And so this, again, came up in the context of Taft Street. So municipalities do have the authority to seek injunctive relief to abate a public nuisance. They've done things to I've I've find I found that municipalities have exercised that authority in trying to get a property owner to remove junk cars from their property against adult bookstores and against buildings that are fire hazards. And so they have done things in that sort. There was a conflict about composting between Swanton and the Hudak farm in the late 2000s, where almost Swanton was potentially seeking a public nuisance against, the farm for composting activity, and, there was a lot of back and forth between the parties and the agency of agriculture. And I think ultimately, the farm wound up composting in partnership with the Northwest Solid Waste District, so a lawsuit was not filed. That said, I think this tool of public nuisance, to use a tool of public nuisance for a municipality is probably something of, a low priority, if not a last resort. Because they have other tools in the toolbox that they could use to get what they would want. So if, something is very loud, they could pass an ordinance saying, you can only be loud during these hours and not these hours, and then sue to enforce that ordinance. The risk with agriculture is up until Tap Street, agriculture would have been exempt from those kinds of ordinances and those kinds of zoning restrictions, and they are no longer exempt. So a municipality could potentially pass a zoning rule, a regulation, or an ordinance that, they could use to enforce against a farm. So long story short is public nuisance is probably not as big of a risk, but there's a whole pocket of other issues that could come up that a municipality could use to regulate farming. And the last the last bit for public nuisance, those protections from public nuisance in that were passed in the right to farm the right to farm bill would still apply in this kind of situation if a municipality did resort to that for whatever reason.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien. I'm trying to

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: remember on cannabis. I know towns have to vote to allow it to be

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: sold retail wise.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Can they also vote to have nobody growing it, say, in town? Because it's not agriculture.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I am not sure on the answer to that question.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There may have been a distinction between outdoor and indoor, and maybe not, but I should let Bradley look it up, but I think the towns don't have that. The power. Yeah. As originally enacted, maybe it's been changed.

[Unknown Member]: Think they made it an agricultural crop. Air quotes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No. No, they didn't. Okay. So what happened was, because I

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: had to report on this, was they made provisions so very small outdoor grows would fall under wraps. And so even though it wasn't agriculture, it wasn't ag product, they fit somehow under the wrap umbrella. So that's why I'm wondering if this whole thing began with If I Farm, then say, like Essex said, No, you can't grow cannabis in our town. But if you had a farm growing very small amounts of outdoor cannabis, then he could have gotten under the radar.

[Unknown Member]: I think you're right. Now you did you just say that due to the passage of the right to farm bill, farmers are protected from nuisance ordinances from the municipality?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I would think those protections would apply to a municipality. That's, you know, the same assumptions that farming is not a nuisance, the burden shifting so long as the farm is is providing is following best practices and things of that sort.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So if

[Unknown Member]: we had to run our trucks down Main Street at 11:00 at night harvesting crops, they couldn't they couldn't put hours of operation on us like they can a gravel pit.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that's a good question, right? Because the protection for public nuisance only applies to public nuisance lawsuits. I think municipalities have other tools in their tool belts to regulate agriculture activity, especially after Taft Street. So a municipality could potentially pass an ordinance, zoning, something of the sort, restricting hours of operation for a farm, and sue just to enforce that ordinance. You wouldn't need to resort to nuisance law to achieve that same goal. So essentially, thinking about it this way is you have maybe two tools in your tool belt to get the same job done. One is a nuisance lawsuit, and one is suing to enforce a zoning ordinance. The nuisance lawsuit might have some barriers by under the law and might be more of a hassle. So if you're a municipality and you're thinking, okay, what's the best way to stop this activity? This way has a lot of barriers. So maybe I'm not gonna do this, but I might want to do this to sue to enforce a zoning regulation. It's less barriers for us to achieve the same goal. So they might just choose to put that aside and and use a different tool in their tool belt.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So next

[Unknown Member]: question. Can they change a zone zoning ordinance, make it retroactive? Or if you are an NFV that has been going on and on conducting business, they can't have an effect on a already existing business. Like, they can't change the setback ordinance, and you have a garage that's 10 feet from a property line, which was the old setback, and they changed the setback to 25. You could still sell your property to somebody with that garage with a 10 foot setback because that was the rule of the land at the time of construction. Mhmm.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That is a possibility. And so how a municipality let me put it this way. Nothing is stopping a municipality from trying to make a rule apply to something that is currently being done. And individual in that kind of situation might apply for a variance. They might apply for kind of like a grandfather clause or something of that sort. It's actually what the party is doing in the Taft Street decision to try and keep his cannabis farm is is to apply for a variance because he's been doing it for so long without problem. And and that might be up to individual litigation, and that might be up to an individual to assert that right in a court. And it could be up to a development review board, and then a court if a party chooses to appeal. It would be up to a court to decide whether that is an appropriate variance to be granted. So I can't say that it would not be possible, and it would be up to the parties to potentially litigate at costs. That said, it might be unlikely because laws tend to not have a retroactive effect, but that's just a general principle. And I don't see anything stopping a municipality from trying if they think that something that is currently going on, they want it to stop and pass ordinances that would prevent that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Arguably, we could write legislation to address the larger issue and somehow try and incorporate grandfathering exemption so that an existing farm or an existing operation you've been running your if you have a history of farming at night, creating noise, then, yeah, that would be exact. I started by saying arguably, And from a practical standpoint, whether that would be workable.

[Unknown Member]: And and our people that were in testifying just before this are looking towards the future of, you know, and just as we did with the right to farm bill, change reviews, and still in agriculture, but a total different type of Yeah,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: that wouldn't right. It wouldn't address that.

[Unknown Member]: It wouldn't address the strawberry farm, it wouldn't address somebody with a farm stand and growing vegetables and having a farm stand where they depended on people coming to them except on the one day a week they went to a farmer's market.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright, thank you.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I was just thinking, know a lot more about this, Bradley, but like I could see grandfathering working in favor of the farmer until the land is sold, and even if it was sold to another farmer, oftentimes that's when you have to get all your ducks in a row up to date with ordinances. Think that's exactly right. Sometimes the grandfathering use might terminate at change of ownership.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's not uncommon. And those are potentially issues to grapple with. Think the thing from what we can take from Tap Street is that just a lot of things are up in the air. And so it is good to kind of ask these questions, finish things out there, because we don't necessarily know the extent of what we're looking at, and we try and narrowly tailor something that's that can get us the kinda regulate regulatory scheme that we want.

[Unknown Member]: Yeah. Jed. Yeah. Just probably for, like, example, Brian's question. I can understand about use, but I would my experience is that from a zoning setback, violations no longer conforming for those fiscal structures, they would be allowed and not have to be moved. And some There's a difference between a setback violation that's preexisting of a physical structure, mostly in use.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I I think that's I think that's right. In terms of there might be nonconforming use applications, variant applications, grandfathering, I think there's a lot of different ways that someone can could potentially, no certainties, but could potentially use their property that does not conform with the municipality zoning regulations. It does require gumption and a lot of work and and potentially legal costs as well, but there are different ways to go about it, that individuals would potentially have to pursue. Okay. And moving on here, I think the committee asked what is the rural economic development initiative. So ready. It is a program of the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, and it helps rural communities access the funding they need for community business development. So, essentially, they help municipalities, nonprofits, and some businesses apply for grants to help pull down in of federal and other funding sources. So they help folks leverage funding, and they provide that kind of development, grant writing background help. Their focus area include working lands projects, economic development, outdoor recreation, and general projects focused around implementing or seeking federal grants. And their funding their work activity is part of VHCb's annual Vermont Farm and Forestry Viability Report. So that's where you'll find the grants to a specific program that Ready Ready supports. What's it called again? The Rural Economic Development Initiative, REDI, and they're part of the they are themselves are a program of the Vermont Housing Conservation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you remember what context that came up?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The report list that he went over. Okay. And so we weren't familiar with that organization in particular. Yeah,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: it's reminding you earlier today that the housing conversation board, indicated that they would like to come in. They do every year and give us an update. And Patricia, when we get that request formally, maybe we can suggest that we'd like to hear specifically about the report too. It might require they may they may wanna have two separate times, but that's fine.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The next question here, and I think I just have two more short ones. When's the next Lake Champlain total maximum daily load report due? So the last report was due, was submitted on 01/15/2022. By statute, they're due for four years. So, sometime in 2026 is when that report should be be coming. So keep it posted. Think if it's anything like the dairy council report, perhaps thinking about it makes it appear. But we'll see.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Talking about it online. Right. Right. Right.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And then the last piece is another question from representative Burtt. Does the land use review board anticipate releasing its act to to be a tier two report on or before February 15 as required by statute? And, they've actually already, on their website anyway, said that they have or are going to request an extension until 09/30/2026 to submit that report.

[Unknown Member]: And the extension nullify the whole thing.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that if you haven't seen it, it is coming. And those were all the questions that I had from last week. Thank

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you. Yeah, thank you. Just before you go, you'll be back in tomorrow when we are, the agency is coming in, and then we've got you to follow, you're welcome to join if you are able while they're here. I know they've got some language that was alluded to earlier. At some point, I think just as an exercise, we might wanna ask Ledge Council to and I'm saying this simply to have a baseline. Simply to have a baseline by producing language that brings the state back to the world in which we thought we were living were living in until this decision was issued. In other words, something fairly straightforward that would just provide the clarity that the court said was missing that would bring us back to our understanding of what we had before. I think that's probably, maybe that's not as simple as I imagined, but I'm imagining that it's a few words. And I think having that, asking you to do that now and be thinking about it, it may have already happened actually. I

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: can look into that. I don't know if I'll be able to share language before the meeting.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Don't need it at all now.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay, yeah. And and we are we have been thinking about that and just kind of just talking about it because this is such a monumental change Yep. And trying to think of what would work. And so we'll see what the agency has to present and and see if if that is is workable. And if a if a small solution if a small fix is possible, I think that that's good. But if it's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we'll see. Yeah. Again, not certainly not advocating for that, but just recognizing that any anything other than that would be either, you know, a a compromise it will be a compromise in one direction or the other. Just so that we understand when we're looking at something, how does that differ from what would just be baseline basically?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. Right. Right. Yes. Yes. And we have thought about language that would take us back to the baseline and it will be interesting to see how that plays out.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Has there been any conversation about the tax rate decision sort

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: of bleeding into ag exemptions in Act two fifty?

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Not yet. And those Act two fifty exemptions weren't an issue in Taft Street. And we don't see reason why they should be at the same level of risk. That said, I I think Taft Street was also very surprising too. So, you know, I I we have examined those exemptions and think that those exemptions are clear. We are also not the supreme court, and and, you know, and I think our assessment is only worth so much until they tell us whether that assessment is correct or incorrect. And but those those exempt those activity exemptions are still in place, and they're untouched.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think a related question, which we asked the other day, was whether the Tap Street decision would impact the other exemptions in the other sector, the forestry sector and silviculture. And it seems like no. Initial answer there is no.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, and I think that's right. Because the exemptions in the forest industry in the statute itself are it's just said, no, municipal municipality shall not regulate. And then it says forest operations. Very clear. Not referring to anything else. There's no references and things. It just says forest operations. It's crystal clear in the statute. And and so that that does appear to be less at risk with the caveat that, you know, we we don't know until we get a decision from the supreme court, but that's it. It's much clearer there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, good.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: With accessory out of our business, is it ban farming, but can potentially regulate Under Act 50?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Would that foreigners?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Whoever regulates the trade. Those non

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: farm business. They're going be

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: municipalities. Okay, so are the municipalities happy? I think that, oof. I've got to step back and think about that.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: If you're But seems like Tap Street is moving towards that paradigm. Yes. Okay,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: so is the question then, how does this Tap Street decision, does it affect accessory out front businesses?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Or does it make farming, in some ways, align with the parameters used for accessory art

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: form businesses? I don't think we've talked about this.

[Unknown Member]: If

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we have, maybe we should just ask again, and you can come back another day.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right, right. Let me make a note of that, because my hunch would be

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The extent that that accept an accessory on farm business is farming, you know, is defined as farming, we've made that case in I said sorry. Sorry. I said Act two fifty, but this is different. So in spite of.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. It's it's definitely worth worth taking a closer look into and just and just get back to

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: you with a more full answer. I've got

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a hunch, but let me look into that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: See you tomorrow. Alright.

[Bradley Sherman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you very much. Thanks, bud.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good. Just while we're here, while thinking about it, do we have any update on possibly date for a committee visit to Randolph?

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: No, still waiting for response about the weights and measurements. Right now the only day that's in play is the twenty ninth because the twenty first and twenty eighth are not suitable for various. Okay. So we might need to come up with another day if weights and measures come through the twenty ninth.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, so we should temporarily at least schedule the twenty ninth, hold that morning. Okay, all right, good.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: And why weights and measures, just because that's under ag? Yes. Because last time we went to Vail we did weights and measures, we did almost all the divisions there, even though they were sort of under a lot of the monitor ANR. That's still super interesting.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, okay. Well, then, yeah, if we've got time and if they're able to see us. Yeah. So Yeah. Was more interesting in a lot

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: of ways. And ways of mission. Which

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I always want to call ways and means. As

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: an alternative to the redhead that said, we could do a field trip there. That appeals to me more than some of the other things we've talked

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Maybe we can take a lunch visit there. Yeah. That would be nice. They're pretty. Are they open for breakfast?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I don't know.

[Unknown Member]: Yeah, we can do committee

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: time into lunch hour. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I know that we have one other vote that we need to take in, which I think we will hold off again until tomorrow until we've got all seven of us here on the S-sixty. But we can have a conversation about it if anybody has any thoughts. I will say that after having spoken to representatives from the foreign groups, it feels like there isn't a strong desire for us to make any additional changes beyond what has been proposed in the amendment, notwithstanding the conversation that we've had. So I just wanted to share that with the group, you can have your own conversations with them too, if that would be helpful. But anything you want to say here? So Approve's idea right now is to create the fund, and down the road, if there's funds available, plug some into it? Yeah, and I haven't been Not funded fund, but created. Yeah, but I think that the I may be misreading the tea leaves here, but I think we wouldn't be doing this if there wasn't an intention to fund it for FY27. And they're still working on the BAA, so they haven't gotten to the budget yet. But that when we swing into budgeting gear next month, that will be some support for that.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I think that that's the same thing we did with Vermonters feeding Vermonters. We created the program, but they didn't give us money initially. Then later they came back and told us how much we could get. So it seems like it's kind of the same idea. We're making the package so there's room to fill it up with the money when Approach decides how much we get.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I will say that I was The proposed language change from climate to weather, it feels like there's a level of Agreed. Yeah, and being gratuitous, I'm not sure why, because it's state funding. And I haven't talked to anybody, so I don't know other than just what we're all feeling about having to be hyper vigilant about every word that comes out of our mouths so we don't offend somebody in the White House. But I will also say a rainstorm is a weather event. And maybe it's caused by changing climate or is contributing to it, but that is a weather event. A drought, is that a weather event? Series of A few year lodge. Yeah, it seems more like a climatic event. Anyway, having registered that objection, I don't want to derail creation of the fund or the funding of the fund, but

[Unknown Member]: I don't want to derail it either, but I echo what you just said, and it seems very odd that this is coming from a legislative committee rather than the White House. Not calling things what they are is silly. I don't see any problem with the language they've changed, but why are they doing it? And the other thing I find troubling is that they're not the policy committee, has nothing to do with appropriations, so why are they messing with that part of the bill? They get aggravated in the ways and means and appropriations does that, not policy committees. Representative Bos-

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I think that there's a hope that once this fund is established, a variety of sources might be used to fill it. For example, we've been waiting for, I think three years now for some federal funds to come in from when we had frost and other adverse weather events a few years ago and that is federal money. And so if we were gonna use that money, for example, to stick in this pot, there could be a problem if it's a climate problem instead of a weather problem. So I think they're just being careful to enable the broadest access to funds that might be helpful for farmers.

[Unknown Member]: If they've been threatened, they're gonna break. I'd rather than resist the threat they're advocating or being cautious. That's a whole another thing, but I I share your concern.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I show, as I said, we'll have a scoop of poll tomorrow. I've just shared a sclostrop poll. Is anybody having any reservations about supporting the amendment?

[Unknown Member]: Not since the clarification. That's why

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I got it working. Okay. And as I said, it's not fair to say, I think we certainly appreciate the appropriations committee being supportive of that concept and hope that funding coming down the road quickly.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I think our chair should do a caporese based on George Carlin's seven thirty words of climate.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We'll collect seven worms this year. Oh, that sounds good. All right, why don't we break there? Thank you. And we are on the