Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: We're live.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We have, I'll tell you Richard. Yeah, I think we only have seven committee members now, so

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So a quorum is a

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: small that we're committing for. Okay. All right, welcome back, Gwen.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Hopefully soon we get an eighth member.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Hopefully, yeah.

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Hello everyone, Gwen Zack up here. I do government relations and lobbying for the Vermont Forest Products Association. This is my second year working with the association. We did our introductions last year, so I don't need to do too many introductions, but, essentially our membership is, is a really broad based group of folks and businesses that work in the forest economy. We represent landowners, loggers, truckers, firewood processors, secondary manufacturers, biomass processors and generators, and sawmills, foresters. So a really broad

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: array.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you know how many members you have?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Several 100. I don't know the last count, but we're two, almost 300, somewhere around there between individuals and businesses. All right. So I'm here to talk the wood products manufacturers report that was included in Act 181. A couple of weeks ago, it may have been the first week you were back. You had the land use review board in to speak to this report that was issued on June 30. And they did a really kind of high level review. So I wanted to dive just a little bit deeper into it. The report again was in 01/1981. It was the- the LORD was tasked to bring together stakeholders within the, forest products industry that work within that economy to talk about Act two fifty processes and potential reforms that might be advantageous to helping the industry survive moving forward and address some of the issues that these businesses have had with Act two fifty that are very specific to just that industry. Part of the ask in 01/1981 was that look at Act two fifty, but part of it, which was highlighted by the lurb a couple of weeks ago in your committee is to look more broadly at potential permit reforms or other areas of government regulation that might be helpful to sort of tweak to loosen things up, to honor what Act two fifty is and the merits of why Act two fifty makes sense in Vermont, but also, grease the wheels a little bit to make things a little bit easier. So we, the association looked at the 10 recommendations or we read the report. Obviously we contributed, we were a stakeholder in the process. I would like to start off with the, we think that the process actually went really well. I think that, they did a good job. The lurb did a really good job. And, it was before even the lurb was sat, this process started off, with the, FPR kind of got things up and running before the lurb actually sat. Remember there was that time where there was some lag between when they were supposed to be stood up and when they actually were stood up. So, Katherine Surprenant from the department started things off and sort of, you know, work together once the lurb sat to get this, up and running, did a really good job of again, stakeholder, feedback. And, there's pretty much everything in the report and the recommendations, the association thinks are valuable things that should be implemented. There's really nothing in the recommendations that we think is a bad idea. There are, I will put a small asterisk to that. There are a few things that I'll highlight them as I'm walking through that we think could be done slightly differently. And, it's that it will be a larger discussion for your committee and perhaps other stakeholders. But we think are very important small fixes. We think that didn't quite make it into recommendations, but are important for the overall conversation of whether or not you move forward with implementation of any of these things.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: issues that

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: the stakeholders got together, we addressed some of the issues, we put sort of everything on the table. It became pretty clear, and I think it should be noted, that there are some things here that are not specific to what the forest products industry is feeling. So it's funny because you have these kind of silos of businesses that have to deal with permitting and Act two fifty, and they don't necessarily know how other businesses and industries are dealing with it in completely different sectors. So what we realized pretty early on is that a lot of the concerns with, you know, how long permitting takes, you know, the siloed, you know, practices with ANR permitting, they're pretty much experiences with a lot of folks who go through Acting 50, not just the forest products industry. So I think what you're seeing in the recommendations in the report are really honed into those that are very specific to the wood products, industry, which is not to say those other things aren't really important. We definitely think those things are really important, but they didn't quite make it into the report. So I just wanted to flag that, that those were persistent issues that, aren't really addressed in

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the report. Did they make it into the report in a section other than the recommendation section? Because we heard Yeah, mean, it's mentioned.

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Even in some of the recommendations, you're sort of skirting around some of these issues and are addressing it from a very specific wood products angle. But if you were to open the magnification, what we're asking for would actually probably be helpful across the board for a lot of industries and how they work through the Act two fifty process.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I guess, Just before you dive in, there changes or updates that aren't in the recommendations that were discussed that would affect not just the wood products industry, the manufacturing industry, but other constituencies?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: I'd say all, and again, I keep going back to the answer of, I think it's all of it. We didn't really get There's only two big meetings that were held for the stakeholders. So we honed in pretty quickly onto what we wanted to talk about. One thing that I think was also missing, not missing, but it was hard to really grapple with. It might be due to the fact that the land use review board has their own jurisdiction, to speak. They know what's in their

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: sort of

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: wheelhouse. It also could be because the issues are so big when you talk about, how do we do all permit reform at the zoning local level, ANR level, even though the ask from the legislature was to look at all of it, it's almost like too big of an ask for one report. So I think that's why you see the narrowing and focus really from the jump is that they talk a little bit about permit specialists and I'll go into those details here, but we're eating around the edges of it, but it's definitely a much bigger conversation when you're talking about reform of the processes. Okay, well, let's see what we got. Okay. So in the recommendations, I won't be going through these, but I just wanted to also highlight in the recommendations, you'll see three or four of them that talk about rules and that the land use review board should by rule make certain adjustments and changes. The land use review board that was here a couple of weeks ago did mention that. So I just want to remind the committee to stay focused on those other things that are by rulemaking that aren't legislative, because those are very important priorities in the report as well that you can't lose sight of. What we're focusing on is what we think you have control over. That's outside of the rulemaking process. That's either part of the budget process or part of the statute change process, right? The mending of the laws. Okay. So I think I set that up pretty, pretty good. So, first in the start of the, I put page numbers here to make it easier for folks to sort of maneuver through. It's a very long report once you get the appendices in there, but it's really about 30 ish pages or so. So the first ask is directing the land use review board to develop wood products manufacturing fact sheet and supplemental guidance to help ensure that the wood product manufacturers are aware of all the benefits in place for their sector. This would include the availability of minor application processes, one to one primary agricultural soil mitigation ratios, special provisions for hours of operation delivery and other existing provisions concerning logging and forestry operations.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: So

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: this is where one of the asterisks comes in. There was something in that first directive in the executive summary that talked about the Stony Brook process. And so not to get too in the weeds, but there's this process through Act 50 where an applicant can ask to have, a larger parcel only be considered for a small component of that parcel. So if you're asking for development on that property or an Act two fifty permit, It would only impact the meets and bounds on a larger property of where that development or where that activity is taking place. So the recommendation here would say, Hey, let's just put that, we're gonna let applicants know that this process is available if they want it. Our recommendation, which, is we think is very important, which leads us into the number two here, which is that it shouldn't be something that they're just suggesting. We think it's something that should mandatory. We think that because most of these, and this is going to apply to a lot of like, you know, processors, and, you know, smaller mills that are located that are co located on parcels that are very close or on the same parcel as current use land or forested land as an active forest management. So when you bring an Act two fifty, you're at risk of encompassing all of that other land to have to go through Act two fifty processes. If you aren't aware, or if you didn't know that that's something you need to be mindful of. That's pretty unique to the forest products industry, because a lot of these operations are in more rural areas, as opposed to some of the other Act two fifty permits that go through that are in less rural areas. And we're also talking about a very small and the lurb again, they said it a couple of weeks ago is that we're talking a very small percentage of applicants that go through the active 50 process within this industry. So it wouldn't, it would be very, would be very small cohorts of businesses that would get that benefit, I would say of having an automatic review through the Stony Brook process. So number three, we also asked the LERB to provide additional training to Act two fifty program staff on the specific needs and provisions for applicants. Really not much to say beyond that. You'll see here that a lot of these things are basically directing the LERB and ANR to just improve their processes with education and training and outreach. Because what's happening now is there's not a lot of sector specific knowledge within those that are handling these application permits. They might not be really understanding of what is involved with them and not know how to direct the applicant forward. One thing I wanted to also mention in the state house right now, I know that ANR, and it was again also mentioned two weeks ago, is that this, permit navigator that the, agency put up, I wanna say over a decade ago, it's been quite a while. They got rid of something called permit specialists. And these were permit specialists that were like based off a district regionally in Vermont, that if you needed any permit, it wasn't just after 50, any permits, or you even have a question, do I need a permit? You were directed to call someone or email someone in that region. And they would say, Hey, like, you you need to go get a wetlands permit here. You need a storm water permit there. You need a local permit. They were just directing you that all went online and it hasn't been a great success. So what we've learned even before we were making these recommendations this summer is that ANR has decided to pull that offline and to go back to a permit specialist, which actually aligns with what our recommendations are here. And I can't speak for the department, or I can't speak for the agency, but having sector specific or subject matter specific experts rather than regional experts actually might be a better process than just having someone who's just sort of a Jack of all trades, because that would serve the application process better, and it would serve the applicant better, to maneuver through the processes. That might be something to talk about is whether or not you can, maybe massage the remake of that to have it be more about the subject matter rather than the region.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Representing O'Brien. Does specialists work for ANR?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Yeah, I believe I believe so. Yeah. I think it

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: was in their budget. Nelson? Yeah. Remember when they came before us to learn Kristen? Anyway, she she came up through Region 9 up in our area, and she was a permanent specialist to help people through and then went up the ranks. And they did away with that for a while, and she, you know, really thinks that those specialists need to come back. They can help somebody get through the process.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Process. And I can appreciate what you're saying, maybe having FD and R having somebody that's well versed in that.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I mean,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: how many applications are there gonna be in a year? Not many. Yeah. So some

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: of the

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: You might have, like, amendments, you know, applications Yeah. Existing.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: But

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And have someone there that's well versed in it that can help somebody, you know, specialize in WPF.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Just to follow-up, does the Stony Brook process only apply to forest economy stuff? Or are there other parts of the economy where you couldn't

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: see it?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: So the Stony Brook process is available to all applicants, I believe so. But they have to request it. There are things in statute that are dealt with. I want to say farming and agriculture uses automatically when they go through these processes, they narrow the focus to whatever the true development is. And I think that's a really key thing we're trying to get across here is that we need to be really purposeful about what is development and what is considered development and what is not. I mean, one of the bugaboos that I know my industry or our industry has had problems with, we're not asking for changes because we understand that's politically not viable, that under Act two fifty, you have to get an Act two fifty permit across the board, no questions act, for any logging or any forestry operations above 2,500 feet. But if you look at the Act two fifty process and all the criteria, like you're talking about building structures and building roads and that are permanent, really what they're doing is they're going in, they're removing wood, and then they're leaving it for forty, fifty, sixty years, however long it is until another activity. So it seems odd that you would have Act two fifty be the permit for that process because it doesn't really make a lot of sense. So you wanna make sure, again, going back to the Stony Brook processes, you don't wanna jeopardize the whole activity of a parcel when really the impact, the development where you're actually having a mill is only on one component of it, which is pretty common for most of these mills that are small. I mean, Vermont are pretty small, they're not huge operations. That's the most common setup you're going to see. But again, I think agriculture is the one it's noted in the report, but agriculture is one that automatically just gets a carve out under statute where they have to jump through the hoops that forestry and logging operations have to go through. Okay. Yeah, so a permit coordinator, this is just going back to, and this again, this is either, yes, it's not statute, but this might be a budgetary request and coordinating more with ANR to figure out what their asks are within the budget that they're presenting, whether or not this is the direction they're already heading in. But really it's about support coordination and seamless movement through the permitting process. And going to the last two recommendations, and you'll see, I said executive summary one, two, and three, you'll see that there's a big gap right there. A lot of those things that you're not seeing in the executive, those are the things that are ruled by rulemaking, which is why we're not addressing them. Again, very important, but they're not asked for us. So in our fifth ask, the asks in the report were to amend Act two fifty to extend exemptions to forestry and logging operations that currently exist for farming and agriculture under Act two fifty at elevations under 2,500 feet, provided existing permit conditions for permitted projects, limiting tree cutting to address Act two fifty criteria are not invalidated. And that provide tree removal limits are available conditions for future development projects to address act two fifty. So we, in the request that word development, which is why it's italicized right there was not included in that recommendation. But again, we wanna be really thoughtful and clear about what we're getting at here. And we think that the inclusion of development is very purposeful, that if we're going through these Act two fifty reviews, we want them to be about the actual development and not the forest management activities that are also happening on that property. Because if you don't include development of any project, or what does project mean? Right? You wanna be very purposeful. So inclusion and adding that one word is the only change, the only massage in that ask right there. And then the last ask we had is really just a housekeeping thing where we are asking that the words wood product manufacturer, under the definition of wood product manufacturer, removing log and pulp concentration yards are removed from that definition. This was also said two weeks ago by the land use review board. But just to remind you that in 2022, the legislature had some legislation that revamped some definitions within Act two fifty and inadvertently included log and pulp concentration yards under the definition of wood product manufacturer where prior for as long as it's existed, it's never been a part of Act two fifty. So it was an inadvertent inclusion into Act two fifty. So we're asking to clean that up and clean up that definition and basically reinstate what was there for decades. And again, these are all things other than the asterisks that I highlighted are all things that not only the stakeholders said were important that agreed upon, but you had the land use review board say, yeah, these are really important things. So at the very bottom, I did include the executive summary. So you can see for yourself sort of the high things that I think again, item number four, number five, number six, since we have some time it's worthy to go through, but these are by rule. The first one is so that update Act two fifty rule 19 so that presumptions reflect current relevant ANR permits and determinations, whether ancillary permits can be permitted under Act two fifty permitting and whether ancillary permits may be dissolved. This is just sort of the level of vetting and review you have to go through, through Act two fifty, cleaning that up, making it a little bit easier. Update Act two fifty rule 34 to revise thresholds for substantial and material changes to allow for changes to reduce impact without a need for a permit or permit amendment, allow district court order days to issue administrative amendments for minor changes and, for informal and non adversarial resolution of issues, develop guidance for applicants to provide related training. So they're different, but it's all part of the same thread of thinking where we wanna make sure that the administrative processes are working. It's not impacting the substance of Act two fifty. It's not impacting the overall goal of how it's applied, but you're just trying to like grease the wheels and make things easier for applicants while still achieving the same outcomes. So that's a request, and I'm happy to answer any questions that anyone has.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. First, going through that, Quinn, questions. Did you participate in the process, did you say? Yeah, You were in the stakeholder group. Yes. Were these 10 recommendations all, was everybody all in on them? Was it consensus or did- I wouldn't

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: say consensus. If you go through the report, I mean, you'll even see I will say that some of the We submitted comments during the draft making process, and we think that most of the things were taken care of. I can't speak for other folks because I didn't really talk to them afterwards, but I think it's reflective of what was discussed. This is a lot of asks right here, but it again doesn't really go back to the larger issues of how land use regulations at the local level impacts this stuff, how other A and R permitting processes impact these operations. But it sort of was the charge, but it also kind of wasn't the charge of the report. Because I can talk to some of my mill owners, for example, and they'll be like, well, Act two fifty wasn't terrible. I hired an attorney or, you know, it was savvy enough. I made it through. He's like, but don't get me started about storm water. There's a lot of other pieces to it, but I think what you're seeing reflected here, I think I can't speak for everyone, but I would say that this gets to the heart of a lot of the issues, but it's certainly, it's not a band aid, it's getting us in the right direction, but it's not gonna be a panacea. It's not gonna solve all the problems because there are bigger issues at play in permitting beyond Act two fifty processes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, so, and I just want to flag when you say it was kind of the charge, but it wasn't the charge. In my mind, it was part of the charge. It's not the entirety of it. And so I'm gonna let Representative Lipsky ask a question, but then I wanna just maybe circle back to get just your perspective on how much time was spent talking about the more holistic permit reform. Anyway, go ahead, Jed.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Thank you, chair. Gwen, there were two stakeholder meetings Yes. In the state?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: There was one in Barrie, and I think another one what is the amount? I can't remember. But, yeah, there were two stakeholder meetings. They were, like, half day meetings.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And, yeah, because I didn't participate. And so this question's about, were you there live or?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: I was there. I didn't go to the second meeting because I went to the first, because they were kind of doing, I believe, sort of similar approaches. So it seemed a little redundant, but I went to the first one in Barrie.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: So could you share with the committee sort of the diversity of stakeholders? I

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: don't have the list in front of me.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: You don't have to go through every-

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Yeah, mean, had A and R folks there, you had LERD folks there, you had There were foresters, there were loggers, you had some departments, forest parks had some foresters there. I believe there were a few manufacturers there, were product manufacturers as well. I'm having to jog my memory for what it was. But I would say in the room, I remember was in Barre Town, there was probably like 25, 30 people in the room. Yeah. But to answer the question about how much time was spent on other issues. So again, there were two meetings. It wasn't like the land use review board was sort of for issue, not in their control. It took a little bit longer to get them stood up. There were timelines within act 181. And the first timeline was this report by June 30, you're gonna get this report up. Actually by February 6.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Oh, and

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: then they had asked for the extension, sorry, they asked So for the extension, they got I think what you're seeing might also be just a real feeling of a crunch for time as well. Yeah, maybe I just think the better of everything. So I just assume that it's not anything nefarious, but I feel like timing definitely played into it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm sure you're right. And actually, now that I'm thinking back, I believe the legislation, so Act 181, required this report to come in in December 2024, which was before the lurb even existed. Sure. So, the folks, I think, who were expecting to be part of that new board said, Sorry, we don't have the report because we haven't even seen it.

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Yeah, and this predated me coming to the association. Again, I'm glad you're having the alert back in and others back in who were the brains of this process so they can give you a little more context for the timing of that stuff. But yeah, I will say that I felt heard, but I felt that component of talking about the other processes in place, definitely it was pretty much pushed off the table early on. I mean, wasn't talking about how do we do it, it's the reason why we can't do it, if that makes sense.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Douglass.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Do you think it would be beneficial to the stakeholders and to the L. R. That if this process was pushed out another year to allow to have more meetings and more talk, not entirely to your concerns, but the rural community's concerns as well?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: That's a big question. I just think for the report for this specific ask, I think like it's a good first step, right? And I think you don't want perfect to be the enemy of the good, right? I feel like if there's a report that has things that everyone is sort of agreeing upon, I feel like you start with these things and then you sort of dial down a little bit more. My concern with spending more time on this to get everything in is that I think you're also seeing what's happening sort of with the tier three conversations and people get buried in what's happening with the road rule and all these other things, is that these are really big issues. So like say, how do we

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: change A and R permitting? Okay. Well, that's exactly what I'm talking about.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It's the road rule and tier three. You know? And and, you know, should the whole process be pushed out, you know, if this is 90 settled and and and don't let, you know, perfect be the enemy of good. But push it out to give them time now to work on these other issues to hope that we can get to the same place.

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: It's a policy decision for you folks. The way I looked at it was it was a very separate conversation. What's happening with the other components of 01/1981 and our association has very strong opinions that are probably less warm and fuzzy than how we feel about this report. So I don't know if we wanna open that can of worms at this time and space, but we wanna be supportive of what good work has been done so far and move that forward, and then reserve comment for other things that are a little

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: bit more prickly. Well, point well taken, you answered the question. In a lawyer type of way, but I think.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative, everybody.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Changing the subject a little bit, but in the wake of this Taft Street decision, does the

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Of what decision? Taft Street, the whole municipal Oh, the ag valuation. Yeah, yeah.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Does the forest economy world worry that something similar could happen? Or are there things we can do legislatively to protect it?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Like the way forestry and silvicultural operations are protected from local regulation? I haven't really thought about that, but that was sort of a late Agriculture has enjoyed exemptions for local regulations a lot longer than forestry and silvicultural operations are. They were later ads. Don't give me the exact date, but I do remember actually when it happened. And I'm no expert on this, and I'm not an expert on what's happening with the municipal ag stuff, that's in a former life, but the way that the Clean Water Act and other things that, whether it's the agency of natural resources or the agency of ag, to live up to in order to be legit with the federal level plays into that. And I don't know, I would have FPR come in to speak to what that means for best management practices and all the other things that are a part of the decision to say, Hey, local, you don't have any control over it within this area, because guess what the department is. And we're having to comply with X, Y, and Z in order to meet our obligations to keep our waters clean and do all these practices. So they're a better entity to ask that question to, because then I also really haven't thought about that. But I think that there's always going to Whenever you get into litigation where there's a decision made that challenges, not preconceived notion, but what everyone had assumed was reality, that's always there. I just don't know what the outcome might be or what the concerns are for that being an actual reality.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I actually will say that I thought about it as it happened, and it was only because, and Representative Lipsky is aware of this situation, my district, there was a logging operation that commenced in November on National Forest land. And a neighbor who had been told that there was going to be some minor logging done was caught off guard by the extent of what actually was happening. Wondered whether there was a noise ordinance at the town level that might apply. And I with, I thought, oh, okay. I was thinking about the municipal ag ruling and I checked with Legis Council. They pulled up the legislation that we've been actually looking at that has A, B, and C, or one, two, and three, where A is farming, and then B is forestry, and C is silviculture. And Michael Grady said nothing in the Tap Street decision would have any impact on these two. The court saw some ambiguity in the language on the farming piece with the wraps. There doesn't seem to be even a risk of their finding any ambiguity with the way that it's written, just with a language of So for whatever that's, that was his response.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah. Weighing in on your concern, just some observations. First of all, we've lost so much of our processing sector that I have to think. But there's one in Chittenden County on Vermont 15 called Lamoille Lumber. They are a fine a and critical sawmill to the industry. Like, bringing logs into them for the last twenty five years, I've observed changes to the neighborhood, large residential development directly across the street from their main entrance, and they are very professional, they have films, have saw it, they try a product, they they park mulch, all sorts of they utilize everything. But I wonder every day, like, all in and out of there, you know, what as the community and the neighborhood changes, they're protected pretty much on both ends, but around them. And there are other industrial land uses behind, but they're all surrounded by housing. So that concerns me. I think about bridal burrow or a outward lumber, which are bound across the tracks by the river. There's a lot smaller others, even Columbia Forest Products. Newport is very near North Country High School. Right next to a veterinary hospital too. Mean, it is but many of those old communities are used to that being part of their economy, part of their so, you know, as when Satcoff allowed, you know, we never know when a litigation or a litigant might move in and negate any of that relatively compatible history. And Yeah. I don't know if any of this can protect. We're talking about a little grower in a six town spurring a whole Supreme Court decision that shakes up everyone's Yeah. Confidence. So it's just Yeah. I I think I like what you've put together, and I agree with Ruth Hardy others. There are a whole lot of other major fixed threats, I think, to rural Vermont that are deeply more impactful to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm just gonna ask you, Gwen, about sorry, are you all set? No, I'm all Okay. About the recommendations that don't necessarily require legislative action, but would be done by rule. So the report was prepared by the board with input.

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: It was in coordination, I think, with FPR. I think it specifically said in coordination with FPR and stakeholders. Okay. In coordination with

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we be assuming that the recommendations that talk about updating rules, and these are Act two fifty rule, the board, the language review board is going to go ahead and do them, because they put them, they basically are recommending to themselves. Right. It

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: would appear so. I don't know how they are prioritizing the rollout of these. Seems to me, I don't remember exactly, they did highlight some things when they were here the first go around a couple weeks ago, and they mentioned some of these things that they were working on, but I don't know how they're prioritizing them. I would assume if the agency of natural resources is working on permits process adjustments, even something so simple as the permit specialist reinstating that role, I would assume that that would be boost up to a higher priority because it's moving. It's a priority of the agency. But that's just my assumption. You'd have to speak to them. I do worry about, I mean, this is just my own personal thing. There's so much on the plate for the use review board that I think they have a lot on their plate. It's not just this report and it's not just these. There's so many other things that are going on. I think prioritizing is a bigger issue than just this.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It's also what else is going on.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Just to get back to what we were talking about, it'd be interesting to hear Legis Council just explain to us why there was something in the RAPs language that made it vulnerable, whereas the AMPs I don't know, could be the same, have the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: same vulnerability, or they're just much stronger, depending on. I think the legislative language of statute didn't refer to the AMPs. It just says forestry is exempt, and essence, I'm paraphrasing. In the agriculture case, said the rats are exempt. Again, I'm paraphrasing, but it was then

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: That.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, well, okay. Yeah, we're going to regulate something. It's not the wraps. It's what the town of Essex was trying to do. So I think that's maybe a simple sign, but- Yeah, no, that helps.

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: And it's also important to recognize what does silviculture and forestry operations mean, because There's a pretty small sector of what we're talking about in the overall forest products industry, because we're not talking about secondary manufacturers. We're not talking about mills. Talking about small operations or mobile operations or no real operations or just real silvicultural practices in forestry operations. It's a really small sector of what is not I'm chair of my planning commission in my town. If I wanted to regulate an industrial area or commercial operation, it's definitely going to impact the forest products industry. It might not touch a silvicultural operation or a forestry operation, but it's going to touch the secondary things. Once you get the trees down, it starts moving, that's when we have say over the process.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the mill and your town or any of these towns, right now, that's what we're talking about here. And they are currently

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: They would be under the same as any other business as long as there's zoning in that area. Are certain logging roads potentially going to

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: fall under the road?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: There's a carve out in Act 181 to say it doesn't apply to, but this is where definitions matter. And this is making it very clear about what's in and what's out. I mean, that even goes back to this last ask. We inadvertently included log and pulp concentration yards, which are basically at the landing sites of a logging operation. They were never meant to be included, but they were. So we just need to be really careful about moving forward, what the guidance looks like in the road rule to make sure truly that this doesn't impact any new operations for forestry and for logging. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So, And this gets back to the conversation you were just saying, cutting logging operations are protected by fifty-fifty, also by the municipals, mills are category. And then somewhere in between, we've got log yards. They inadvertently, maybe in 2022, got put over here. And so the recommendation is put them back over here and they're protected. Other thoughts? So thank you.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We are gonna hear more on this topic. FPR is coming in, Brandon, I don't remember.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We try it tomorrow. Yeah. Yeah. At 10:30. And then Dana Doran's coming in. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Dana Dana's gonna speak to this and and a couple of other things too. I think he's just gonna give us an update. And then we've invited Sam Lincoln, who we all know, I think, vlogs here in Vermont and was also part of was the he a stakeholder?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: I can't recall, it might have been, yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think he was involved with it, yeah. Just an opportunity to get more input from him.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I have a capable working group, they backed it up, backed it up, it's now starting at 12:30 in Williston tomorrow. Tomorrow, And that's when we meet with, I refer to them as the advocates, the NRC and CLF. I will try to conduct myself professionally with CLF, Chairman Durfee.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: At all worried about that.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: You're gonna fry them.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Joe, any other thoughts on this? Where are we going with this? Just in case people are wondering, there's no bill. If we agree that we do want to move ahead with following up on recommendations legislatively, then it'll be a committee bill. And I think Jed has already been thinking about that and has worked with Ledge Council a little bit. So that would be what we would do. And then it'd just be a question of how do we want to, what do we want to include in the bill? So don't need to decide that now, but we'll be thinking about that as we take more testimony. And who else, beyond the people I just mentioned that we might not hear from? Yeah, the lawyer did say that they would be able to come back in at some point. And I remember saying to them, we know that you're busy with everything else that you're being asked to do, so we'll be judicious about how much of your time we need again. But if there are things that we're not clear on, we can reach out to them

[Rep. John O'Brien]: and either ask them to respond in writing or come back in just to clarify things. As far as forest operations go, are there going to be new guidelines then depending on what tier you're in as far as exemptions or permitting?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: For it's just under act 181. Yeah. Are they gonna be muted? What do you mean

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: what do you mean by that? I don't

[Rep. John O'Brien]: think so. Say say, you know, forest operations have been exempt. Sure. Right. In in the past. But with new tier systems, will there be specific rules for tiers?

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: I don't think that was contemplated in anyone.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think that

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: if you're included in tier three, again, which is

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: why we're

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: watching, you would have to comply with the same.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: So be consistent.

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: Nowhere in equity when did they say that within tier three forestry operations would be treated differently or anything like that. It's all kind of the same.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay. I would think

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: a lot of forestry would have brought it manufacturing areas, could be in tier three.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're all waiting with bated breath to see you. I don't think you're gonna see any new ones pop up. I think this goes back to the whole rural nature of a lot of

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: these forestry operations, because we're talking the rare, rare of the trees. So that's why we're really concerned about that because that's your, the potential to impact future forestry operations moving forward is large. Think land broke.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I mean, down in your area, you still have some wood product manufacturing going on down down in your Mhmm. End of the state, and it's we're you know, it's there's beautiful forest down there, and we're growing at three to one. You know? And a great resource.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: You're here. You just need markets.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. We well, we we need the ability to to bring it to market and without having that tariff going up and tariff coming back. But as they said, Vermont, you know, some of those real modern saw mills from our can never supply enough product to it, you know, because they you know, we don't grow enough softwood that's enough. Takes quite a reach, quite a reach.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, so that's where we're heading with this topic. We are not scheduled to have I think the students come in until just just before noon. We have a little time. John, did you were you asking earlier if we had any time set aside for committee discussion. So we have a few minutes now if there's something you wanted to bring up or Sure. Yeah.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yeah, just two things. One, just given our calendar for this year, I was wondering if there are any bills up here or committee bills that would make sense for us to get to sooner than later? Because it seems just looking at house floor schedules right now, that there's a great advantage to getting a bill out of committee and through the floor. And then Senate, which we know, like Senate Ag has very little to do the usual consent to get them something that they would be like, we have nothing to do. They're like, wait, there's somebody on the wall there. So I'm just saying strategically, if that makes sense for this Yes, committee to do

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: and I think that my hope is that we'll have two committee bills fairly early by, if not the end of next week, the end of the following week, this one, and then the municipal regulation, then be done with those two things.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I just wanted to toss into the pie. It's not on the wall yet because I haven't got it back from lunch council, but the other day when we had folks here from farm to school and I asked about eliminating ultra processed foods from school lunches and the two nutrition directors were super excited. I would love, love, love to work on that bill as a priority. I don't know how other people feel, but I actually have a meeting with Harley Sterling on Monday when we're off next. And I'm hoping I'll have something solid that we can talk about. I mean, I think in terms of improving nutrition and health for children, there's almost nothing more that we could do with the jurisdiction that our committee has than helping kids have more wholesome foods instead of junk foods. I mean, there's a lot of good that happens in our school lunch program and then there's a lot of tater tots, and I think we can do better.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: My other thought was if there was any interest in this, and maybe, I think I may have brought this up last year, but if there'd be interest in a revenue bill that I've been looking into, what's the potential of a tax on food and groceries, and certain states tax them, Like five states tax food at full sales tax, but a bunch had a limited sales tax. So if, say, have something like $2,000,000,000 of groceries sold, and so something like a 1% tax on that, if we dedicated it to, say, paying for universal school meals or making it go right to a food security policy, it would be pretty interesting because it would free up a certain amount of money from the general fund. And there would be a direct connection made up. Every time you buy $100 of groceries, one goes to university school meals for fighting food insecurity in Vermont.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Did you say you have a good working on?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I'm just thinking about it. No, I haven't. It would be a committee bill, but we've never done a tax bill in this committee.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Well, also establishing an equitable pricing system for milk production.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That that can can we do that on a state level? That has to be federal, doesn't it?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No. No. So Massachusetts dairy farmers right now are getting $4 a 100. On top of? On top of federal overpricing. Maine's getting They have a tiered system. Yeah. I'm not sure what they're doing in Connecticut, but something I've been talking about, and I just talked to the people from the CAC. New York has a 25% now reimbursement credit. Not a credit, but a reimbursement. So that's for anything you do. They build a new banner. This is fifty fifty

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: thing or whatever that's called

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: or something. They they get 25% anyways. They build a new barn that cost $2,000,000. They're getting $500,000 back, and then they go out and buy cows that are $4,000 apiece right now. They're getting a thousand dollars back on their cows. I I I can't even imagine. I know New York has Wall Street and a lot of money, but I can't imagine they have that much. But I in Vermont, with the new capo and the water quality and always the the the emphasis on water quality, and and it's a valid it's a valid task. And I just talked to the people from the CAC, and I said, what would you think of a 50% reimbursement for water quality done by agriculture? You know, had the function at point 2% land transfer and stuff. But if, you know, if you if you invest in injection equipment, drag on equipment, manure pits, treatment areas, get a get a 50% cost share. It's so right now, we applied for these grants, and I'll give you an example that hit close to home. We applied for a grant for a no till seed drill. We were awarded $22,000. We bought a $45,000 drill.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: It's the grant?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It might

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: have been working lands. Okay. The Vermont one though. Yeah. Vermont one.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Not like a crap thing. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: From the raw age of We got $22,000, about a $45,000 drill. It's not big enough, but it's what we could afford. It's very nice, just not big enough. A friend of mine, young farmer, nice kid, was awarded $45,000. He bought a $47,000 drill that's 10 feet wider than mine, so I have drill at me. He has drilled 200 acres. We have drilled a cover crop. We have drilled 4,000 acres of cover crop. So where's the equity? So if if it's a 50% re you know, reinvestment, you know, back to the the firm, reimbursement, reinvestment, whatever wanna call it, it goes to scale. Because if we had 50%, I would've got a thirty thirty foot drill. And we build a more timely because it's time. It's time getting those cover crops in right. And the earlier you get them in, the better they set up and the more the more they're working for the environment. You know, then there's the the the, you know, the water quality like buffers, you know, and, you know, that was a that's a great program. But, you know, manure pits, vegetative treatment areas, and all these things that we should and could be doing. And with, you know, DEC getting involved that I don't know of a lot of discharge issues, but I know people are on the edge with a lot of things on the farm, you know, and waiting for the federal firm bill to

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: come through.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So, anyways, that's the thought I I did, you know, and it's direct directly tied. Yeah. Hey. Would I like a 25% and go buy a brand new John Deere chopper like they do in New York? I'd love it. I don't see that happening in Vermont, but can we tie it to water quality and make it 50% and just get a good return on our money? We have we have you

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: know,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: we have captured 83% of our phosphorus, and the TMDL was only 25% of the month. Give us 50% of the money. How much more can we capture? I bet we bet we can get it all. Are most of the water

[Rep. John O'Brien]: quality regulations that you have to follow, do they have some sort of grant or subsidized element to them? There are some. Yeah. But they're not consistent.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They're not consistent, and they're not and then they're capped, and then they're capped, and then they're capped. And, you know, if you have a 1,500,000 project, and it's not unheard of to be done to make it right. And you can get $200,000 from AG. And and then, you know, they're they recommend, well, wait until the farm bill comes so you can get the other 450,000 so you're good cover. How about we get 50%? And then if the farm bill lines up with it, we get some more there, that frees up more capital to do other things.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So are you is your thought that we would get more put more money into the program or take the existing money and distribute it

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: differently? Both. Both. And and, you know, we need to talk to Ag because they have some other programs out there that are working very well the way they have it. You know, they pay so much per acre for these buffer programs.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: We're talking about working lands here?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Some of it's working lands, but some of it would be tying in with ANRDC for water quality. Well, the water quality fund has how much in it?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, that's there's millions that go through that every year. And I all spoken for, but Yeah, and I am a little vague, though, on how it's spoken for, and whether it's a year to year thing. But we can have them in. In fact, we should have them in because they are also giving us an annual report that we pay more attention to.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: When

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do you guys do scheduling for the next week? What day of the week do you guys do the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We typically are finalizing it or trying to finalize it on Thursdays. But it's always a work in progress. The people will contact us and say, We're going to be in the building on February 20. Can we block out an hour? Like we did if it was here this morning. Perfect. Come on in.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Or observe the Trump's Ag Committee? That's right. Okay, great. I've got a class.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I was just gonna say, I'm hoping before too long into that you could actually maybe I could talk with you about who we might be able to bring in in terms of the altered food.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, please.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Basically, it's only going to be like a 2¢ bill when it comes to our company, but they are prioritizing the full form bills before the short form bills. So even when I put in the request last week, it's moving a little slowly, but maybe since our committee cares about it, we can start talking about it before we officially have the numbers. Does that pass up?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep, we could definitely, if we can figure out who would be helpful to have in to give us some-

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It probably might be one of them, but I'm gonna see him on Monday.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That would be good.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. All

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: right. And then to the other question about what we might want to try and do sooner rather than later. There is another bill bill on our wall that we haven't heard from, and that's Representative Burtt's I'm not sure if it's a citing bill, exactly what the call is. No, it's basically citing. Yes. And we will have Greg introduce that bill next week and have the legislature walk us through that. So we'll have that. And I understand that you may be getting a bill flushing out bill with verdenticide subject. Don't remember which. We had a short form bill. We took quite a bit of testimony last year, and so we've got somebody who's been working on that. But that'll be something else that's actually up there. And then I reminded, Representative O'Brien, you had introduced a short form bill with, I think, addressing this question of putting a premium, giving farmers a That's a bill up there, yeah. And I will say also that I have been, we took a testimony last year on Representative Cooper and not this bill. It's not in our committee on minimum wage for ag workers. That may be something that we could think about tying to a premium somehow. I am happy to I, you know,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: questions about these things. Yeah. Okay. The premium on oh, like, investments, is that just taxpayer dollars? I'm not quite sure how it's funded. I don't know if they're collecting something off all milk sales in Vermont dairy farmers that are paying their farmers.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Paying a tax on But

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I'm not sure. Can you collect milk tax on it? I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: think that it's I so I think, let me just say this is a very qualified thing, that it's passed on ultimately to the consumer. Like an excise tax. Yeah, so in the world that we're living in, we can't turn it out about having somebody say affordability, that obviously would be an issue.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Absolutely understand. So I get sheepish when I even talk about these things. Know, there has been a, you know, a thought from other people that a 5¢ charge on everything in the dairy case, including nut, sweat, and, you know, all the the fake fake products that just aren't as healthy for you.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Dave, could we maybe have JFO and lunch council come in and talk about a food tax at some point?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes. Be interested. There was some work done actually on There was a tax commission that worked, I think it was 2021, and they produced a law report. And one of the recommendations was taking the sales tax and broadening it out to anything. And it would be lower than instead of 6%, it would be 3%. So that's, yeah. Politically, having a tax on some things that are not currently taxed also would be a challenge, whether or not we were talking about affordability.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Food, it's hard to tax food.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: But good tax policy is broad based too. You could easily exempt DBT cards.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I want to acknowledge that we have some guests in the committee room and then say hello to anybody. I think you're from one of the tech centers? Yes, the Randolph Tech Center. The Randolph Tech Center, okay. Would you be interested in participating at all? I don't know whether you came just to observe or if anybody- Yeah,

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: we need to participate, right?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If anybody feels comfortable even like, coming up to the table and just maybe

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: There are two greatness chairs if you don't want to come up alone, co present with an introducer.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. We could have them each take a turn to sit and introduce themselves and tell us their connection to agriculture.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That sounds to be fair. Or the working lands. Yep.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Hi, I'm Annie Massey. I'm agriculture teacher at the Randolph Technical Center. And right now, we're doing a policy unit. So we're learning about global ag policy and then zooming in, doing North America, zooming in a bit more statewide, localized. So, yeah, we decided to come to the State House today just to observe both the House and Senate Ag Committees and learn about what you do and hear about some of the bills you have in action right now.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And is this a year long course, or is it just started?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Yes, year long course, yep. And it's diversified agriculture, so we also do forestry and all sorts of just working lands, conservation, things like that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We've got, I think we'll say, who's the closest to Randolph? Maybe representative of who represents Sunbridge.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Great. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We should introduce ourselves. We should do that first, then we'll ask you to say whatever you want to say. So I'm the chair of the committee, that's why I'm talking more than anybody else. I'm David Durfee, I'm from Shaftsbury, which is down in Bennington County.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And what are our ranking members? Yeah. Richard Nelson up in Durfee, from up in Derby, represent town of Derby. I also serve on the North Country Union High School Board and very supportive of our career and technical centers and our programs in there. Now I have a niece with Emily Day off in the animal science. And you're a dairy farmer? I'm a dairy farmer, and I was also a big time FFA member.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Oh, great. Yep. We're all in FFA.

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

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: you, and welcome all

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: of you, and thank you for being here. My name is Jed Lipsky. I'm a representative from the Memorial 1 District, which is Stowe. I am part of the Worth Milan's community. I've been a logger for over half a century, and I still am. And one thing you might observe from this committee, most people that serve on this have a deep connection with either agriculture, food, or community at large or forestry. So and I understand someone here

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: may know Amber Perry, who was a

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Yeah, her daughter is in my class, but she went when was sick this morning, unfortunately.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: She's frequent

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: and contributes a lot to our committee.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Oh, great. Yeah, I wish Maddie was here right now, but she had it home.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Greg Burtt and I'm a farmer as well. We have a maple syrup on our farm. My senior probably hit high school, it's about diversification.

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: Cool.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: John O'Brien, I represent, it's called Windsor Orange 1, which is South Royalton

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Royalton in Windsor and Tonbridge in Orange County. I have a long

[Rep. John O'Brien]: history as far as I went to Chelsea High School, which is no more, but a lot of my classmates went

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: to RTCC. And my brother-in-law grew up

[Rep. John O'Brien]: in Royalton, went there. And even Tom Hardy, who was a door

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: key curricula last year, think. And

[Rep. John O'Brien]: you've got, just up the hill now, Vermont State University doing a lot of things that are connected right to your curricula. Yeah, they're a great resource for us.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: John Bartholomew from Heartland, and also represent Windsor and West Windsor. I'm a retired veterinarian and live in a community on a working farm, but can't claim to be a farmer myself.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, you also did not hear me say I am a farmer. I'm different. So yeah, welcome.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Yeah, thank you so much for having us. Yeah, do you want to introduce yourself and while you're in the class? What what you're interested in studying after school maybe?

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: My name is Harley. I kinda I wanna have a dairy farm in the future. So, yeah. Thank

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: you. Oh, please.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Wants If to come up, it can be a little intimidating to sit there early. I know for people who've never been here before, might be, but nah. So if you just want

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: to stay where you are, that's also fine. Chairman Dof, this might allow for these witnesses that you will be able to hear yourself. It's recorded globally on YouTube. Is that correct?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes. It is. Yeah. Great.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: This is the House Agriculture Committee on today's date. So you you can smile and speak up and be proud of who you are. We're excited you're here.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Thank you for having us.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I just wonder, Carly, and the rest of you, how many of you are living on some sort of farm right now?

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: Student, yeah.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: It's like dairy farming, we talk about this a lot. It's really hard to get into dairy farming if you don't grow up in a dairy farm.

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: Yeah, grew up on one, but as of right now, I'm not. I don't participate.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: In rainbow? Yeah.

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: We Could we ask you a

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: question or two? Absolutely. Know you're very busy.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It could be both.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Yeah. Okay. Or ask us questions.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We're here

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: to serve you. Yes.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: In that case, no. Any questions from the?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I need more names.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: More names. Okay, let's go around.

[Ava Stalukas (student)]: I'm Ava Stalukas. I'm in I wasn't going to be in ag. Ag and then I decided last minute to come, but I really like it and I learned a lot. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Do

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: we just want to start down here

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: and introduce yourself?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Maybe what you're interested in in the future?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I'm here today. I like being outside. That's my

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I'm a master at a dairy farm and I felt shut down, so I want to start.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I'm Grace Decre and in the future I'd like to go to college and be a vet.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Great. We need good vet tech.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Marriage of a vet.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Love school when I end up trying to do it. I'm live in Taxavenor and it came on down because I had a landscaping job for a little while, like around here in the callous, So I just wanted to see where I can go. She gives you a chance to do it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Ria, if you've got questions, any kind of questions, or if you want, maybe we have questions for you?

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: Any questions or folks write down?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Okay, I can ask. We were wondering about the role of school consolidation and where you see CTE, especially agriculture's role and how the educational landscape is going to change in the future, we were asked to come up with our own bill and that was kind of our thing. Don't have a working farm at our center, but a lot of CTE centers do. So our proposal was getting funding to allow us to partner with the local farm or create a farm at our school, which could be a little tricky in our case. But we were also curious at the same time about what you see the future of CTE.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm just going to say before Representative Nelson said that not every CTE has an ag program or an So ag thank you. I think oftentimes there isn't one because there's nobody who's available to lead it, to teach it. So great to hear that you've got one, Randolph, thank you for doing that. Hope you're doing

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: that, Nelson. Thank you. CTEs are so vital to our state's economy and and getting our young people engaged. And whether they do that and then go on to college to become a vet tech, or whether they do that and go on to the trades or go into agriculture. We need people that are engaged and willing to learn and step up and either do their own or work with people that are established. And remember, farming is more, and it took me, you know, I'm a dairy farmer, but farming is more than just scallops. You could have a cheap plant, vegetables, growing food, growing food, it's all farming. And and landscaping, you know, and and being a horticulturalist, it it's all great. It's all it's all work in the soils and work in the land. And I I am just excited to have young people in here that are thinking that way because we have lost so many of our young people in our industry. That is agriculture, and it doesn't take a lot of investment to start growing food.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So and the question was where do we see the Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And and I see CTEs as a vital part and anything that I don't want to be responsible for a single school to close. I just want them to be affordable for our residents and for our tax base. But I think anything that happens, it CTEs need to be a center hub of every school because that enables you know, not everyone's gonna go to Harvard.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: From Chelsea. But some of us are gonna

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: you know, I went to University of Vermont, but some people are gonna wanna go to tech, and some people are gonna wanna go right out in the field and start working. And without acquiring that debt and CPEs can get them started in that direction. And I think that's I think they're great. I think they're vital to our education system. Representative Lipsky. And just to your question, I wanna inject a little hopefulness to everyone here in the room

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: that you have a leg up that's very important to Vermont because some of you all live here. You're being educated here. Some grew up on a farm, maybe it's an active farm or is diminishing. That's a we need you here. We need young people. You're aware of this notion that our school population is decreasing. That's complicated, not our view of this question. But the fact that that you're here, you've been exposed to rural life, and the opportunities that CTEs give you we, as committee members, are very grateful that you're here, and we consider you you know, if you mature into adulthood, which takes place somewhere between 70 and 80 years old, maturity that is, I what you're fortunate, and your gumption and and willingness to, you know, follow a path that's following your heart, that makes me very happy to see a a room full of hope at your stage of life.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Hey, Brian. I wonder do you

[Rep. John O'Brien]: know more probably about the land access and Opportunity Board? There's something called the Land Access and Opportunity Board that the state of Vermont created. But I wondered if one of their charges was how to get young people on the land, whether it's not BIPOC community, etcetera. But it is part of that bigger charge, how to get all these students on farm.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, and I don't know the details, but I think that that is definitely part of what they're trying to do, is make land available, giving people who don't currently have access to land that access. One of the challenges of becoming a farmer is if you don't have land, how are you going to farm? Owning land can be pretty challenging just for the financial reasons. But even aside from that, renting land, there may be a cost there too, but just how much land is there available to rent is a challenge. Senator Burtt?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, just curious if your program

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: does anything to link students up directly with existing farms, operating farms, and if, I mean, have an apple orchard and we hire quite a few high school students every year to help us out.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I think it's a great way to

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: get started is just to

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: make some money and work on it. I highly recommend it, first of all. I mean, even I grew up on farm, but I actually went to work at an apple orchard for a

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: while because we didn't have an

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: apple orchard, so that was a new venture. So I learned a lot from that apple grower simply by working for them.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So the CTEs have a vehicle called work based learning, I believe. I'm sure you have it down there. You could partner with people in your community. Get her into a veterinary clinic.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: She has shadowed someone, right? You shadowed a vet. And then their senior year, once they've completed a year of the program, they're able to go out on a sort of apprenticeship work based learning a couple of days a week to work in the field if they choose to do that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Is anybody doing that now?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Yes, one person.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Anybody want to talk about that?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Do you want me to talk about it? So part of our program does have welding and blacksmithing, and so he is apprenticing with a local blacksmith a couple days a week.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Excellent. Who's that?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Who's your name? Yeah.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Can you tell them what you're working on right now?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Nothing. This is vacation.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Well, when he gets back. You're making your own tools? Making your own blacksmithing tools?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Think that's think that's neat. I think that's I think that's great. Think

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yeah.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: It's really cool. And we've looked into blacksmithing. It is a really lucrative career if you do, like, architectural stuff or, you know, historical restoration, things like that.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Anybody do any work with sugaring, maple sugaring?

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: We have our own sugaring thing at our tech center. So we tap trees ourselves and then we sugar.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: You'd be a good resource.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I'd love to hear more about that.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Yeah. You're all welcome to come visit sometime if you'd like. Yeah, we have a sugar shack. It's really nice. I'm very excited to start that up.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Have already started collecting No. Caps out yet? Not yet. Probably

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: this weekend. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: How many caps?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: I'm not sure how many we're gonna do this year. Sometimes we buy some of it from a local just because we make a lot, and then we sell it to benefit our program. So we'll probably go over the elementary school and tap and teach the elementary students how

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: to do that And do

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: some boiling over the fire too.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: It's funny when you think about farming too. Mostly it's traditional dairy farming here, but they're like your landscaping. On our farm, we transitioned from a sheep farm really to a wedding venue on the farm. So there are all these other things called accessory on farm businesses that can be connected to farming, but can actually make a lot more money than cheap farming. Or dairy farming. Right, exactly.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Have visited If you've heard of Fable Farm there in Barnard, I worked there in the summer, so we were able to go and see that they make hard cider, and then they also have vinegar. They have like a million things going on. Airbnb, they have a concert series, like what you're talking about. They have weddings. So just kind of seeing how you can diversify. And they have a shared kitchen, commercial kitchen space with the local dairy and then also a beef cattle farm. They're able to share resources.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Former vice chair, milk for Kiss the Cat.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Wow. Yep. We were supposed to go there, but we couldn't that day. So we're going to go this spring. Yeah, they're good friends of mine.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Oh, it's all a great stuff.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Can you just talk a little bit about whether the students, whether you all spend the entire day at the tech center or do you start in your homeschool? And I don't know if that's Randolph for everybody or different How

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: does that work?

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: We start at the tech center and we do some program academic work and we're outside a lot. We do a lot of outside work, but it's only I think we only go to school for like five hours a day. And then Yeah. So we're at the tech center all day, but we do a lot of field trips and we go out and do a lot of different things.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So you get your other curriculum at the tech center?

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: Yeah. Your

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: English and your math.

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: Yes, we offer an English and math and a history.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It's true for everybody. And this is the school the tech center. That's good.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Yeah. Some tech centers are half days, and then they go back to their sending school for academics. But we're lucky that we have in house academic teachers.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I like that model. I really like that model. At North Country, we should we we work with Lake Region. In the case from Lake Region, I have to get on the bus right up twenty minutes to the high school and attend the tech center for two and a half hours, I think, and then right back. And, of course, at North Country, they just walk down the hall. But in in some instances, I I like your model really, really, really, really well. Yeah.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: It's nice that we're all together all day. And so, like, the juniors and seniors will leave at different times so then we have opportunity to do more specialized work from individualized projects, which is really great. Yeah, I think I like our model better too. I think it's a little trickier to have to go back to your sending school. So folks are from several different areas. If you guys maybe want to say where you're coming from to Randolph. Texas. Originally. Right. You live in Brookfield? Yeah.

[Gwen Zakov (Government Relations, Vermont Forest Products Association)]: From here.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Here. Can you go to Randolph, Texas?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah, so I'm enrolling food too, but You can keep

[Rep. John O'Brien]: swallowing CTE if you wanted to. Yeah, I could, but it's just way hard to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: get in there to knock right off. There's a waiting list. You have to get there on your own steam, or do they, is there a bus?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: There's a bus where you can ride at lunch, ride with friends. I'm self proclaimed, so I would go to White River Valley, but going from White River Valley to Randolph. And

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: also

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: from Randolph. I'm also from Randolph.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Graintree? Yeah. Graintree. There's a distinction. No. Do

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: any of you know Sam Lincoln?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: You?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Forrester, didn't have a dairy farm for a number of years since Forrester and he's actually a lot contractor. Yeah, of you're right. Thank you. It was on too. Very engaged and articulate.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: He'd be a great guy to have come in to That's great. Yeah.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Thank you.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Maybe to go out

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: and visit with them too.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. He was also deputy commissioner for some parks. Oh wow, he

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: might be good for this unit.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: He's from Randolph Center,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: which is.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yeah. So do you work on either placement of your students, whether it's summer or even, you know, weekends? Because I'm just thinking, like, there's Brooker, Civilways, or Sprague's. I mean, are a lot of farms around you. So how important is it to make those relationships?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Yeah, great question. We have a work based learning coordinator at our school, which is so great to have that person, Brent for y'all. And he does connect them with internships or shadow days or jobs in the community, which is really, really helpful. And I also just personally send them stuff like, hey, this flower farm's hiring, knowing where their hometowns are. So trying to make those connections and maybe even go on a field trip if I know they're interested in like that sort of making that connection with with folks. That's the good thing about having them all day long. We can do things like this, like come to Montpelier all day and it's it's totally doable, and they're not missing any academic time.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Don't let academics get in the way of their education.

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: We know schools only have academics two times a week, so we have like four three or four days

[Unidentified Committee Member]: in between where we can do field trips and stuff like that.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Although we do integrate academics into the program. We do a lot of writing and reading.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Agriculture is all about science, 100%. You were asking just about bills and the legislative process, you in the downstairs committee?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: I think it was so jam packed in there. Really?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah, so important. So I'll just say a few words about how the things work, and don't need to go into too much detail, but you can see all those pieces of paper on the wall. Each of those is a bill, and there's 14 committees in the House, and the Senate has maybe well over roughly the same number of committees too. Much all the work that we do here in the legislature happens in a committee room. If one of us introduces a bill, it gets sent to a committee somewhere. If the topic has something to do with agriculture, forestry, or food, it often will end up here. And then we'll take testimony. We'll invite experts to come in and people who are interested in seeing the bill pass. We'll have a debate and then we'll have a vote. We then go in the afternoons, and today it'll be at 03:00. All the committees converge and we go into the big House chamber. And if there's a bill that a committee has voted on, then we'll have to have a debate about it on the House floor. But typically, since we've done a lot of work and talked to the experts, typically the rest of the House will, unless they happen to have a very strong opinion, they'll defer to the committee. And the things that we do here are, it's not that people don't have a strong opinion, but we often get a consensus that we think it's important and the rest of the House will often feel that way too.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: It's important to add though, that we not only hear from the people who support a bill, those who are concerned about it and want to see it say something different. So we're very careful about making sure we hear both sides. Yeah, that's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: a good point. And oftentimes the bill that comes in and is represented by one of those pieces of paper is not the same bill that goes out, and you can make changes to it. Have you been following any particular legislation in this committee?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: A little bit. We talked about something just passed, maybe you're debating eliminating a fee for dairy farmers in order to operate or something like that? Maybe they'll start with budget yesterday?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Curious about that. Well, I'm curious about that. Haven't gotten it formally.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: I just found that intriguing because obviously a lot of us are interested in dairy.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: That was a wreck recommendation by the government. But it hasn't come.

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: So how would it

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: come to light then if he brings it up?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It would probably be written into the budget bill or the budget recommendation. And that's not a that's not a bill until we make it a bill, but it starts out with the governor recommending a budget that's part that's in the constitution, actually. The governor has to recommend a budget to the

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: house. We may not even see that. Won't that go to ways and means and

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, we'd probably be asked about it. But not just us, yeah. Because it's a fee, there's another committee that deals with revenue, and they would also be involved with it.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: And there's something about a farm security farm that I know NOFO was pushing forward to help out. Which one is it?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You want

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: to read that title for the group?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Establishing a Farms and Guarantee Special Fund to provide grants for farm losses due to weather conditions.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: We did have questions about that. Like, obviously the drought and then the flooding the previous year, we learned a lot about drought mitigation on farms. And then some of our cohort, their wells ran dry on their dairy farms, and that was really catastrophic. So I'm very curious about that one.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It could when it left here, it had a forestry component added to it. That's Agriculture and forestry. Oh, That's great.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We What was that? If you'd been in here, I don't know when it was last Thursday, maybe we voted that bill out and sent it to the House as a whole, and then we passed it on Friday. So now it goes to the Senate. And just to back up a little bit, you can see it's S-sixty, which indicates it was a Senate bill in the first place. We changed it, as Representative Lipsky just said, to add forestry and made a few other changes. So since it's a different vill now, they have to pass it again.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: And, Chittenden, I might add that this doesn't happen regularly. Like, this passed out of our body, house chamber unanimously in

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: all regions of it,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: if I recall. Yeah. Yeah. Nobody objected. It has strong support, I think.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: So that gives you an idea that no matter whether you're from Brattleboro or Highgate or Burlington or Rutland, there's a lot of

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: value put to the agricultural

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: community in the study house.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Downside of this is that policy, it sounds great, we passed it, good good support in the chamber, but that doesn't mean there's any money. And so there's an appropriations committee that now assuming it all passes, money's got to be appropriated or it can't happen.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: That's a really good, fabulous reality. This is a

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: financial reality. It's tough to find money for anything.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: But the great thing about it, Addison, if they put just a little bit of money in it so it's active, if we have another widespread blood, there was money placed into it, and it came out through the. But perhaps it could go right into s 60 so it can get out quicker to our cultural partners because if you lose your vegetable crop right in the height of the selling season, you're in a bind. The dairy side of that equation, we we have to wait for the federal government to get involved because the the losses are so much greater. I don't ever foresee the state will fund it near enough. But to take care of other instances of agriculture or or forestry, It depends how much money we can find, but we gotta be responsible for our taxpayers. Do

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you all know your representatives or

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Oh,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: yes. Jane? Yes. Larry? Yes.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Actually some others, because you guys aren't all from right now. So you can hear us as Martin LaLonde.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And maybe, playing field.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Yeah, we should look that up. That's a good idea and have everyone And

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you go find them and meet them. Today? Yeah. Yeah.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Let's go, everybody.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And also, all our meetings are recorded. We call that the owl. And, you know, if you wanna go back, you go back how far back and watch committee debate and and witnesses testifying on bills. And you can go to the website and see what bills were taken up. Our schedule is printed every week. So So you could Oh, great. You could come in and you could sit in Randolph actually, do a civics class on your Vermont house agriculture food resiliency and forestry committee, and then see if you can catch certain people having a moment on a hot mic.

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: We're about to head over to the Vermont Agency of Agriculture for lunch to chat with them, which I think will be great, especially considering some of them were saying how they want to get their existing farm up and running again. So just hopefully finding out about opportunities for new farmers or continuing farmers and how to fund that. I think it's really neat. So yeah, we do need to head out here shortly and just thank you so much for your time and if there's any other questions in closing.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: No, I was just gonna say, these committees, almost all the committees have sort of a sister brother agency that they're connected to. So in this case, our connection is to the agency of agriculture or a smaller, the forest parks and rec is our sort of logging and forest side of things, but that's our jurisdiction. Like Those two they do this day to day business of agriculture and forestry in Vermont, and we're here just to help them usually make the laws that make people who are in those economies Yeah. Lives easier. And the ag agency, they're very focused on helping farmers and potential farmers. Please pass warmest regards on to anyone from the agency. What are you meeting with? Trevor Lowe.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So the agency's obviously the executive branch. Everyone know the three branches

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: state government? We reviewed all of that. Yep. Good job. So

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: we make the laws and they make it happen.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And then after your lunch, what are your plans?

[Annie Massey (Agriculture Teacher, Randolph Technical Center)]: Then we have back to school. We're kind of done a little earlier than other schools, like 02:20, just because they have

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to get the bus back. Yeah. Great. Well, you know how to get over

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: to the across the way.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Straight to the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, wait. I'm making the wrong actually, yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: North, you're gonna go out the side door go south.

[Randolph Technical Center students (various)]: It's Great.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. You've got the monoliths of the directly across from the entrance, but this is looking at that the building it's on the left, and it's brick and it's It's an old brick building, very interesting. It's a classic piece of architecture.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: It's beautiful.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. I'm excited to go in. Thank you all for coming out today.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Treat for us.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Can you take our break now? For lunch?