Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We had Eric from alleged counsel in and walked us through a bill that house judiciary is working on h five seventy eight. They asked us to take a look at a couple of sections. And we had so we had that walk through. It was helpful. I think that for the committee to give some feedback, it would be useful for us in turn to hear from the agency of agriculture. And so we're pleased to have the state veterinarian with us this afternoon.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: Hello, everyone. I'm Kate Levine. I'm the state veterinarian with the agency of agriculture. The draft of the bill that's on the screen was shared with us this morning. We were requested to be here yesterday, and it seems like some of our concerns were already addressed. So this might be short.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sorry. Before you jump in, we have a different draft, I think, posted today. So we'll fix that. It's yes. Thank you.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: So the first concern that we had, which again has been addressed in this this morning's draft, was the inclusion of the language without a bona fide veterinary or husbandry purpose and the intentional transfer or transmission of semen onto an animal. Their artificial insemination is key to many of our livestock industries, And the original version of this did not have an acknowledgment for husbandry practices. It did have them in the other. I think it was just an oversight. I don't think it was intentional, just wording choice. So we just wanted to make sure that we're protecting our right, our ability to do artificial insemination, without which we wouldn't have much of a dairy industry or a turkey industry turns out. So making sure we're protecting veterinarian husbandry practices is important there. The other place that we, wanted to make sure that we brought up, again, has already been a little bit addressed, page 12. I thought it was page 12, I remembered it was page 12, but it's not right there. Sorry for the scrolling everyone.

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

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: I can see my atrocious spelling. So the concern, here we go, is in section on enforcement, the different requirements for having a veterinarian present during different executions of enforcement action. Requires a veterinarian to be present during the execution of a warrant. I have, a few times in the last six months, been called to be present at bestiality cases in which they had sufficient evidence to receive a warrant and to execute the warrant. But because of this language, they were unable to find a veterinarian to accompany them. In those situations, a veterinarian's not going to add anything. There's no evidence that the vet is needing to provide, and the welfare of the animal from a seizure point of view is not in question as far as and not the welfare, the well-being of the animal. As far as physical condition, veterinarian's a not really gonna add anything to the situation. And so this just is an expense and a hoop that in certain situations, we'd like to find some leeway on. The language proposed this morning does allow for a little bit of leeway, doesn't really get at the heart of whether or not a veterinarian is gonna be additive to those situations, but we haven't had a chance to run this language by public safety to see how they feel about that, if that satisfies their purposes, as well as making sure there's a reasonable exemption in cases in which a physical examination of the animal is not required before seizure.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just wondering, I know Steve Collier is here as well, whether the sentence that's highlighted there essentially negates use of the word must, or is there another reason why the veterinarian must be there other than to lead to an enforcement action?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Sure, so Steve Collier from the Agency of Agriculture. So I believe that the original, the reason that the requirement for a veterinarian to accompany is in there,

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: so the veterinarian can assess the animal, I

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: think it's protection for the owner, so that animals are not improperly seized based on the judgment of the law enforcement officer who may not be able to, as qualified, to assess the physical abilities of the animal.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: However, as Kate said, there

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: are certain instances where a veterinarian adds nothing. If for example, law enforcement has video, bestiality with a specific suspect, they can execute the warrant, seize whatever they have to do, including the animal, and a better in house assessment of that animal is not going to add anything to probable cause in determining whether or not something should be seized. So I think that

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: this is one, as I understand that I

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: have read cases myself, but I believe the court has already interpreted this requirement is not, so there's different ways of requirements to convene statute. One way is if you don't do it in a criminal case, then the evidence is suppressed. So if you have, for example, the Fourth Amendment, if you violate the Fourth Amendment and go into someone's house without probable cause and seize things, then the evidence that you've seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment will be suppressed, you won't be able to use it, so you'll probably lose the case. The way this provision has been interpreted in my understanding is that even if you don't bring a veterinarian, that doesn't necessarily mean that you lose the case. So this I think is an effort to explain that, that failure to be accompanied by a veterinarian shall not be grounds for dismissal of the enforcement action. I think a better way to word that would be, should not be grounds for exclusion of the evidence because you could exclude evidence without dismissing a case, but ultimately if you exclude evidence, you're probably going to end up dismissing the case if that's your only evidence. But another way to do it, which Doctor. LaLonde and I discussed would just be explaining when a veterinarian is appropriate and I think that's really whenever the condition of the animal, the health of the condition of the animal should be reviewed before seizure by a veterinarian, and

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: you could still make it that even if the veterinarian's not there,

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: you don't have to exclude the evidence. So there's a lot of discretion here about how to do it, we don't have a specific position, we reached out to law enforcement this morning just to try to find out where they, state law enforcement, just to try to see where they are, and I haven't had a chance to complete that dialogue, but I think, I think there's any real difference in opinion. I think everyone wants a debt to be there when it makes sense,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: but not when it doesn't.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: So there's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to make a language I think that reflects that purpose.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: And there are examples in both the condition above above and the condition below for having immediate or having a time based restriction on having an animal inspected by a veterinarian if their condition is in question. It's just for whatever reason that middle section doesn't have that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Bartholomew. I think what the chair was saying, if I'm interpreting it correctly, that first sentence, they need to fix this because it says veterinarian must be present and the next sentence says the veterinarian doesn't have to be present. Is that my reading? That's what you were saying, right? They need to fix that. That's just he's weird, man.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They should shalleth practicable leave that in there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's what I

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: was gonna say. I mean, shalleth practicable took care of it. I don't know why they took that one out and made it must and then added it. Almost looks

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: like a technical like, it was intended to be a technical correction along the way. But I wonder whether you you just offered a couple of suggestions if you're comfortable, maybe you're not quite yet with putting those down and writing and wanna send them for our consideration?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Sure. I will float them to state law enforcement partners and then see if there's no objections or if there's consensus. You'd have to In

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: any case, conceptually, it's really more just a question of making it elegant.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: But it can be very important if a judicial action, and I think that the way the Supreme Court has interpreted it, it's not that important, but it's always better for the statutory language to actually do what's intended, even if the courts interpret that it's not necessarily required as a sense of the answer. Yeah, okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Does somebody else have a comment or a question? Just

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: gonna go back to the top, unless that was still helpful, sorry. I believe those were our are there any other questions? So yesterday,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the legislature came through. They they pointed us to the language in, I think, a section for forfeiture. And it might not be a question for you, Doctor. Levine, but yes, go ahead, Representative Bascome.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah. So yesterday, when the bill was presented to us, there was a section where it was described, basically, if somebody loses an animal because they have done something egregious to it, they still get to keep their chickens and cows. And they were like, oh, we're gonna continue this. And I was thinking about that overnight. And I'm just kind of wondering if somebody kills their dog or whatever other animal they've mistreated to the point that the state gets involved, is it appropriate for us to let them have any animals? I mean, I don't know. It just feels to me like maybe that's not sensible.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: And those are certain conversations that we have started. This came to our attention pretty late. And so we are just now starting those conversations with ourselves, both internally and with our public safety partners. So I'm gonna hold off in answering that until we've finished those conversations.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So you guys are still thinking about that.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: We're still working on what appears to be the appropriate

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: not wording. Settled that where things stand is the best policy. Understood. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: just to be sure that we're all aware what section we're talking about here, and I see you did find section for what page is that?

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: That is page six of the Yeah, it starts at the very, very bottom of page six, but the substance starts on page seven.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, because I think it says something like, Your animals will be seized and you can't have any animals for this many years, but you can have chickens and cows. I just don't know if you can't have other animals because you've miss treated the ones you've had so badly. You deserve to have chickens and cows.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Can we just look at that language there? I don't think it's necessarily cows specifically. Is that what you were

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: referring Well, it's just livestock. Actually it's more than cows. So there are all kinds of animals that could be mistreated by somebody who had an animal taken, and then they have a dog or they have a, you know, I mean, not a dog, a goat or

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: a

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: cow or animal. I mean, yeah, livestock and poultry can be mistreated and I don't know.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I think that we're looking at language that says, I do wanna point out, we are looking at language that says for a first violation. And so I'll flag that. And that the language that struck, except Lives Doctor Poultry, but they are on line two, has been sort of rephrased out on line four. So I believe that Legge Council, as they were explaining it yesterday, felt that this is somewhat of a clarification that under existing law, there the the this was an instance of taking language that perhaps wasn't entirely clear and adding new language that was clarifying the original intent. Does that seem I think that's what we heard yesterday. Does that seem to be consistent with your reading? So

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I'm not sure what's above that line, but what I, the original proposal on this bill, the big thing that it did was it changed it from a judge having discretion to if someone's convicted of animal cruelty, then the court already had discretion to ban an individual from having any other animals. But their original language in the bill changed it from mandatory five year ban of having any other animals. I think this is a later draft of that, which I haven't had a chance to read something yet, and this has the different first violation, second violation. I'm not sure if it's mandatory or discretionary up above that, it could say one or the other, if it's mandatory

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: May impose. Yeah,

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: may really leaves it up to

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: the court to evaluate the specific circumstances to determine what's appropriate for that defendant. Shall is a mandatory minimum, which can work very well depending on the circumstance, it can also have an outsized impact depending on the circumstances. So I don't think we would have any concern with May, court already has the authority to impose a sentence that it believes is appropriate. If it was a shall and a mandatory minimum, I just think that needs to be looked at a little bit more carefully. If for an example, in response to President Bosom's question, a cat was, if somebody was convicted of animal cruelty to a cat, it would very much depend on the circumstances I think whether that should necessarily extend to their dairy cattle, maybe, maybe not, but if you make it mandatory in the law, then you can't look at the circumstances circumstances to determine the applicability, maybe it's the farmer's child who does it, so then you're extending that to

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: the eye. There's just a lot

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: of variables there that I think if you have a shell, it's different than give the court the authority.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: But so so where it says livestock or poultry shall not be subject to forfeiture. That makes it sound to me like they don't have to be given up. Unless they were abusing those exact animals. So if you were abusing your goat, then your goat will be will be will be forfeited. But if you're abusing your dog and you have a goat, you get to keep the goat. I mean, to me, that line says shall not be means they get to keep it. It doesn't say the judge has discretion about it. And I feel like some language that makes some more nuanced consideration would probably be appropriate because, I mean, some of the stuff that you're talking about in terms of, I mean, bestiality and stuff. I mean, if people are mistreating animals, like, I don't know that they should be having other ones. And I feel like we're kind of giving where because these are animals that people eat, they're not getting protected and it shouldn't be that way.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I agree with your interpretation of this language. I think probably it's more of the question of whether livelihood should be taken as a result of the single act or not, but you're right, this for a first offense would not allow you to seize livestock or poultry if it was somehow gonna

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: tighten down.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: But it also doesn't say that it's their livelihood. True,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: but yeah. So it could be a single backyard. Right. And it wasn't live with it yet. Okay. Who represented for

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: It's a different scene.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: What is the first violation? Like, the first time you were

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: found guilty of giving thing. Yeah. So

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Second violation,

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: so it would be the second

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: time you're found okay. Right.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Some of the guilty, not just Tortured out

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: once, then you tortured out. Yeah. It's just gross.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: Seeing if there is a second violation under here, probably somewhere. Again.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No problem, yeah. Representative Lipsky? Chairman,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: the time I've spent in the judicial committee in search and seizure, the committee and their counsel were very reluctant to take someone's life and put it away. In this case, cattle or livestock and poultry, likely a farmer, and mistreating a dog or whatever pet or other animal, it it would be a step too far to take a farmer who may have a milking herd or whatever away. So that's just I understand because I had to go through a whole lot of testimony. Actually, it was equipment, you know, it was timber harvesting, not farming, but that when you prohibit someone from practicing their trade or livelihood, that became a real problem. There's

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: there's a reason why with just a few minutes notice, we're not quite ready to to discuss the specifics

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Right.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: For there are a lot of nuances.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There's also the I mean, I think the distinction that representative Basland made between livestock or poultry that's how you're making a living versus if you just have a pet or know, few

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I was actually thinking more of the situation of a few animals.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: A few, like a handful, a small animal.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Member; Lead Sponsor of H.578)]: Yeah, I think

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: somebody has six chickens or six boats or something.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I think maybe what we're hearing from the agency is that they would like a little more time to consider these questions. And if you're able to do that relatively quickly, because I think the other committee is hoping to move forward, but we can't obviously dictate your pace.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I may, I would just offer this. I don't think we feel like we need to have a position necessarily on this bill, but you asked us to come in and talk about it, so we wanted to try to inform your discussion as much as we can. So we're happy to dig deeper if you want us to, to try to come up

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: with an opinion, but we really want to help our neighbors

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: in law enforcement just to make sure that we're not making their jobs harder or worse, but if you don't want to wait for our opinion, I think that's fine too. And we can always discuss it on the Senate side, if necessary, if there were some police that we thought were important.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think just another consideration and maybe sort of reason to just keep in mind that the other committee has perhaps taken a lot of testimony on this. I don't know. And and thought about the implications from the animal cruelty director, for example. But if we were to require someone to, on the first violation, forfeit a large herd, what would happen to those animals? Where where would they go? Who would be responsible for them then? So it's just something to think about. And then before we let you go well, actually, before I move to the next topic.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I I can fully understand being married to a veterinarian about having a veterinarian company during this this seizure or a servant of the warrant because we don't have an overabundance of veterinarians looking for something to do.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: Especially on very short notice. On both situations, I received the phone call. I'm on my way. That's going to be a problem. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So I can understand that and fully support it. And, you know, if they have the evidence to go in and do it anyway, you do it. And then if the animal needs to be looked at afterwards for a degree, then you can get a veterinarian.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: And again, the sections above and below have those allowances for being taken to a vet after the seizure. So I think the language is already, the intent is already baked in. We just need to find a way to make sure that it's applicable to all situations.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There was another section that I think we were asked to just take a look at, and I'll mention it to you in case it's something that you want to provide feedback on. And that's the expedition expediting the process for getting somebody who's been accused of animal cruelty to fairly quickly through the process so that the animals are not in limbo. Think it involved having somebody file within fourteen days or something like that, ten days.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: I'm gonna leave that one up to law enforcement and the lawyers that it's not really a veterinary opinion. So I'm gonna defer to people who live more in that world.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And agency overall, Steve. It's really not something that's in

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: our bailiwick. I mean, understand the impetus for it. It's to try to make sure that there's not animals being cared for by, without any payment indefinitely, because it can really drag on. So it makes perfect sense, but it really is something that prosecutors and law enforcement probably are the best suited to weigh in on a practicality of it. Good, thank you. Any other questions?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. So, committee, what would we like to know before we is there anything else that we would like to know? And then we've raised some interesting topics. We could just provide some feedback as is. Yeah.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I mean, I I just I'd like to know before the it's in the final version, what happens with the forfeiture of of livestock and poultry?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Where did they go, you mean?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, like, the the language we were just talking about. You know, like, the way it is right now is if you have one violation, then you keep whatever animals you have. And I mean, maybe it could have language added that would be more nuanced if it was somebody's livelihood or something like that. But I wouldn't mind seeing some of that changed.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So that could be our recommendation back to the judiciary committee.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah. I think it's important. I know a person who tortured a bunch of cats and killed them and was incarcerated for that. I mean, went to prison for one series of killing cats, but for one series of killing cats, that's not a person who should be taking care of livestock and poultry either. So some people do really rotten things to animals and they don't deserve to have poultry and livestock either, is my take on it. I think Emilie wants to weigh in.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Member; Lead Sponsor of H.578)]: I know why it's not in here, but you can ask her.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Representative

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Krasnow is here. Why don't we Thank you, Doctor. Levine. Think we can We'll invite Representative Krasnow to come up here. Sure. Okay.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Member; Lead Sponsor of H.578)]: Thank I don't mean to horn in.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Obviously, this

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Member; Lead Sponsor of H.578)]: bill is very important to me. Representative Krasnow, for the record, lead sponsor. Originally, the original bill that I introduced with Representative Gosselin and Rachelson, I did have that type of language. That is I felt similarly. After six what are we at? Six weeks now? Grinding away in the legislative session? After six weeks of testimony in the judiciary committee from states' attorneys, advocates, the Division of Animal Welfare, law enforcement, so many folks. It's taken a lot of table time. The committee, after how many drafts are we at, three ish?

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: -Three.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Member; Lead Sponsor of H.578)]: -Made the decision as a committee that this approach with kind of the tiered system And again, Eric can explain more about why they chose that route, but it was really the consensus of the committee that that was Some of what Representative Lipsky had some to do with it, some other reasons, but the committee, after six weeks of testimony, changed that part. And also, one other issue is Judge Zoning I don't want to speak for the judiciary, but they weighed in extensively on this bill as well and made those changes and suggested changes. So while my original intent, that did not, the committee did not make that decision and change that piece. So I had a similar original So they're not gonna wouldn't be

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: inspired if we changed the language?

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Member; Lead Sponsor of H.578)]: -Unfortunately, again, don't want to speak for the committee, but that was in the original draft. I wanted folks to have a If folks were convicted of animal cruelty of any kind, I wanted them to have a lifetime ban on owning animals. That's what I wanted, as me. But that was not something was something they went along with. And this was a compromise. They also added pieces with restorative justice, education components, because they felt like folks who may have abused animals might get another chance. There's different levels of abuse, right? Lisa, the animal welfare director, talked about different levels of cruelty, whether it's There's different levels. So they wanted to do this tiered approach. But yes, so my original intent would be what you were saying, but that did not

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

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Member; Lead Sponsor of H.578)]: So that was the context, and I'm sorry to warn in.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: No. It's fine. I won't. That way, it sounds like it's not worth us. I mean, you could do it.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow (Member; Lead Sponsor of H.578)]: You're you're I'm not trying to sway the committee. I was just letting you know that the original bill did have that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we Thank you, very much. Yeah, we appreciate it. I would say our committee was asked to review the language and make a recommendation. So I think that we should take that for what it's worth. If we have a different perspective, let's share that. If collectively, we should all try to find some kind of consensus. We might we might I mean, I I think you raised earlier an interesting point. There are animals that we some of us have to make a living. Is that be a a distinction? Should there just be some discretion? It would be fairly easy to write it so that instead of saying shall not be, could be. So you give the court the latitude for, you know

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: And maybe that, yeah, that might be over. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. Are

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: we in a position where we could take a straw poll on this? Think maybe

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we should wait until yeah. I I think we can check back with Legis Council, share this thought, bring it back to the committee. We can, you know, in the meantime, reflect on it ourselves and have side conversations perhaps. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. And then while we're all gathered here, Steve Collier from the Ag agency has a couple other bills that we have looked at already that belong to other committees. And we wanted just again to get whether the agency had any concerns or feedback. And these two bills are h six thirty two, which is the bill that the environment committee, the miscellaneous, I think, environment bill, there was some CAFO language. You might recall ANR's equivalent in the agency of natural resources came in, walked through that that language, then Michael Brady came in. I think we were all pretty comfortable with it, but what is the ag agency's thoughts?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Good afternoon, Steve Collier from the agency of agriculture. So on H-six 32, we did have a couple minor concerns with the original draft, but I'm looking at 4.1 now, which is the latest one that I believe is in the house environment committee and we're fully aligned with ANR on the bill as it is. They they they've removed was a provision in the original draft that gave sort of some undefined discretion to the secretary of ANR to determine that somebody was a CAFO, And it was it was just unnecessary because the secretary already has that authority provided there's a discharge, provided there's a reason for a CAFO under federal law. So there's there was some language there that was just kind of ambiguous and potentially confusing. We talked to A and R about that. A and R agreed. A and R asked the house environment committee to take that language out. It is out in the latest draft and 4.1. So we're comfortable with that change. The only other change was really minor, but there was a use of in the federal law when they talk about animal numbers they use cow slash calf and that means a cow calf pair. That's part of the way that you count to the numbers that trigger the authority And it was changed to be cow or calf, which is confusing because you might be thinking about two cows or two calves. And so now the latest draft that says cow and calf instead of cow slash calf. I personally think the cow slash calf is a little cleaner, but it really doesn't matter.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They can't read up for a pew. Pew. That's right. Slash is fruit.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: But we're fine with cow and calf. I mean, somebody could argue that it means two cows or two cows, but I'm not worried about it. So we're so the I mean, I can go through the language if you want, but we're comfortable with the draft 4.1 ANR is aligned. It's all just for a little context. It's just language to clarify a little bit S-one 124 that was passed last year that we spent a lot of time on and it's all language that is clarifying. None of it is problematic from our concern. I don't think it does a lot, but it helps and A and R wants it. And EPA, some technical staff at EPA had requested it earlier back in May, I think of 2025. And so that's why A and R requested it just to sort of continue in that process. And so we're fully supportive of those changes as well.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It does say cow and cat pear, correct? Gonna have the pear in there. Otherwise, the word pear. It has to have the word pear because that's how we refer to it. Usually, backflash, calf pear.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Yes. It does have pears. Yes.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Feed the mother and fryer again.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Every small the orchard owner would think it might be P E A R. You're right. So cow and calf pears, that does it. It gets it done.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Looks like it says cow and calf pairs. Yes. Yes. I don't know that we'll be asked to stand up on the floor and share what our committee's perspective was, but if we are, we could be prepared to say that we had a vote on it. And so let's do that. Are you looking for voters? Yeah. But whilst so we don't have to keep Steve, why don't we if everybody's okay with that and doesn't have any other questions, nothing else to say on that one, Steve?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: No. Okay. So why don't

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we just have you tell us about the other bill then as well?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Sure. So the miscellaneous tax bill is so the only thing that we quickly refer on that, It doesn't have one yet. It's a draft number. It's draft. I do have copies if you want, but it's I think

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I just printed the 13 pages if you want.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: It's from ways and means.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: It's draft 26 seven twenty seven draft 1.2 is what I have. I hope that's the right draft. I don't know for certain, but I did consult with the tax department about it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We had Joe Remit come in last week and talk to us about I think there was two things. One was it is current use related and making it easier for basically when there's a when some land is removed from current use and you're paying that that tax on removal, the listener needs to go and do an assessment and it can take a while and they're trying to move things along. So they had some recommendations. And then the second thing was grazing, having grazing of your neighbor's land or somebody else's land.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: So the not agency of agriculture is not directly involved in mechanism for when you take when you take land out of current uses or current use land land use change tax, which is, I think, 10% of the fair market value. And the current setup is the town is supposed to do that appraisal within a defined I think it's within thirty days, but they have to do it quickly because you're sort of delaying the you're you're implicating the sale. And so they're supposed to do it quickly so the right tax can be can be charged. And what the sometimes, I guess, that doesn't happen. And so what the tax department is requesting and is completely reasonable to us, we support it, is if the town doesn't do it, that the tax department can do it, within thirty days. But if that happens, then the town loses their share of the tax. So essentially, it it doesn't change anything unless the town doesn't do the appraisal. If the tax department has to do it, then all of the tax money would come to the state. I think three quarters of that would go into the Ed fund and a quarter of it would go into the general fund, but the municipality would lose out on that. So from, you know, tax department has proposed that we support it. These things do have to be done timely. The money some towns may may certainly be opposed to it, but I I think they have the chance to remedy that by by doing it timely. The other kind of related portion of that is, I believe right now, there's a fourteen day so a landowner can appeal the fair market value determination. And I think right now it's a fourteen day appeal period. And as I understand it, the tax department felt that was a little tight because it's kind of a confusing and elaborate process. So suggest a thirty day appeal period instead, which is just granting the landowner a greater right than they currently have. Thirty days is not very much time to decide still. I mean, it's more than fourteen. I'm not so I don't that feels totally reasonable to give somebody thirty days to determine whether or not they want to appeal that determination. So we're supportive of that as well. The other piece of it is that if you currently you have to meet a $2,000 threshold, if you're up to 25 acres when renting your land to be enrolled in current use to a farmer. And one way you can do that is by raising crops. And the way that it's defined now is if you sold hay as an example, then you could get 2,000 for up to 25 acres. And I think it's $75 an acre after that, but with a cap of $5,000 total that you have to show. But the the, there wasn't an explicit way to account for grazing animals rather than hanging them. Obviously, pasture land is as important as any other crop use. And so the proposal from the tax department, which we fully support, is to allow for that $2,000 or $5,000 threshold to be met through a per head grazing fee rather than so so for a lot and that's how it often happens is if someone if a farmer is paying a landowner to use their land they'll often pay a per head fee. So if they can show that they're paying either $2,000 for 25 acres, $75 more for every acre after that or 5,000 total, then the landowner who's renting to the farmer would still qualify to be enrolled in current use. I don't know if I did a very good job explaining that, but representative Bos-Lun gave me one of these, which I think means no.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: When we had the walk through from the tax department, they mentioned that this is not something happening every day. And it was maybe in fact one instance where it had happened, and it seemed like a reasonable suggestion.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I'm gonna tell you that paying $80 an acre to graze your cattle on is a very robust fee and probably never gonna happen. Just being realistic. If you think you've got 25 acres of bachelor land, and you're gonna realize $2,000 from

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: it for grazing catalog.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Good luck. Just do the math. It's $80 an acre. I mean, we rent, but if the person grazing the cattle is a farmer, then he doesn't have to pay anything for that land owner to keep their land free of brush and grass, Because he is a farmer, and he files schedule that. Am I right?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Well, the so this is about the sale of crops from somebody who's not the farmer. This is this is

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I I understand what you're saying, but what I'm saying is if Michelle has a house and has a 100 acres of it and some real good cornfield and I rent her land, on the farm yard, she can have it in in current use. So if Jed has 25 acres on Randolph Road, and I said, Jed, I can't run my big equipment on there, but I can fence it in and bring down bunch of buffalo and farm on it. Jed said, boy, I'm excited about having buffalo out there. I'll ride my turd horse amongst them, But, know, I'm the farmer. I'm the farmer. We file a schedule act so he can have it in current use. Am I correct?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Well, this is this is the definition of current use as it is now, and one way that a landowner can there's a presumption that you are using your land. So this is landowner. Forget about the farmer. This is a landowner. There's a presumption that the landowner is using their land for agricultural purposes if, and this is one of the options, it has produced an annual gross income from the sale of farm crops in one of two or three of five calendar years preceding that's at least $2,000 for parcels up to 25 acres, $75 per acre for each acre over 25 with a total income required not to meet 5,000. So that's what's in statute now. It says that if you want to, if your land is for agricultural purposes, one of the ways you can meet that threshold is $2,000 from the sale of crops. What tax department is asking to include and which we agree with is one of the ways that you can be selling crops is by paying for grazing rights. So it's not changing the threshold at all, it's just making it clear that paying for grazing rights, whether or not that $2,000 is realized, that's a different question. But it would be only granting more, not less than what's currently in the law. If that $2,000 is too much, that's a different, I haven't ever I haven't heard that, but I but that's a different discussion, which might be a relevant one.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Oh, I'm just saying if if it's a legit farmer raising the critters out there, then it's farming.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Sure, this isn't about whether it's farming, though, whether you're the farmers farming, regardless of whether the other landowners enrolled in current use. This is about the landowners ability to make use of the current use program, which a lot of lenders don't want to do because then they have to pay the land use change tax. Other landowners, mean, many do take advantage of it, obviously, as well.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I think we have Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. This is a a request that the tax department brought to us and the agency seems to be okay with it. It seems based on what we're hearing from committee members that maybe it's not gonna happen more than once in a room room. But either way, the tax implications are trivial. Think the revenue implications are trivial.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: It's really treating hay the same way as treating grazing. If you can qualify for for a sale or any crop, the sale of any crop on your land, it just it's another way for landowners to be able to enroll. And we think it makes sense to treat grazing

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: no worse than any other agricultural crop activity. Yeah. Definitely. Crops does include hay, currently. Is that 62%? Yes. This makes sense, but it does seem like this would be a very easy place for fraud to happen, the whole process. Know, fraud for fraud to happen. Fraud. Fraud for fraud. But if it's explanation,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: every other two.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: You know, I was thinking the same thing because it's unrealistic to I agree with Rick Nelson. Most landowners are not actively farming, whether they're in current use or not, are gonna value the grazing or the cropping by case of fields. Do both. Neighbors graze and they can have neighbors crop. But but to what rep Bartholomew's point, you can give someone a IOU for $2,000 with parenthesis, it's a non recourse IOU, you know, and which is sort of right for fraud. I mean, you have no expectation of getting paid a penny, but save a lot of money. So I'm not a super confident

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: with this.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I would just offer that you can always file a fraudulent tax return. The the question, you can say you didn't make any money, but the question is whether that's true

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: or not. So farmer or loggers probably have.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Carry forward losses.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: No. They don't wanna be good at someday.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: It's a stroke of luck.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: You have something to breathe in.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, I mean, you envisioning, like, this would be riper for misbehavior than doing anything else with it?

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I worry sure. If I may. I worry about abuses to the current use program all the time. I really do. I think it's a great program for our working lands and people that use it for working lands and whether it is a property that Nelson Farm zones or Birds Orchard zones or it's property that somebody bought the farm and they live on it because they still want it farmed, so then they rent it out to a to a farmer, whether it's growing vegetables or or livestock or or or a row crop farm. Those are all legit uses of of farming. I don't care if it's 25 acres or five acres or or 500. What I worry about is the people that buy 50 acres in Vermont and they pop their house up on the hill and you don't know what's there until the leaves are off the trees and they got their beautiful meadow down below and they're getting the tax break and it's costing you and you and you and you and and I and a good doctor on our school taxes because that land is not in the end fund. And that's what I worry about. And, you know, where where I live, we all are on 10 acre lots because of at two fifty. No one needed 10 acres, but we all got them. And Nelson Farms hates that land. No one has their land in current use. And I just, I worry about abuses to current use.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I think that's, I mean, of course, all of us are worried about abuses. I guess the question from our perspective on this bill would be if a landowner is renting their field for hay or to graze cattle or to plant other crops and they're meeting the $2,000 threshold, which is what's required to to do it, does it matter? No. This is not about the farmer. This is about the landowner. So the, but the landowner can only get the benefit if a farmer is using it. That's the, like if they're not giving access to their land for the farmer, then they don't get this. This is they're giving their land to a farmer, not giving, but others renting their land to a farmer to allow them to use it. And if they do that, we incentivize that process. So does do we, I don't think any of us think it's different if you're allowing grazing versus haying versus Growing apples. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Done by a farm.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: It it Well, it's presumed to right. It's and it does say from the sale of farm crops or grazing rights. So it is I mean, anybody who's growing hay or raising cattles is in in one sense farming. And if you and but you need income from this to do it. So I under there's a fraud is always a concern, but I think this change is allowing farmers to graze their cattle as well as grow other crops.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If your interpretation of the language, if you allowed a neighbor who had a horse just to have a horse, not making a living off of having a horse, to graze, and the neighbor paid you enough to meet the threshold dollar amount there, could that then be current use land?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I think so if you paid $2,000 that's a better question for the tax department just because we don't implement the current use program. So we're supportive obviously of extending this to grazing for cattle, but they are much more familiar with how they apply it and I think Jill Remick is maybe coming back in. Maybe she should. I think she is tomorrow maybe, yeah, yeah, and so she's the director of the program, so she's yeah.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Would it be favor if was grazing the horse had to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: be a farmer to qualify? That was what I was getting at. Is that the case? Well, you're in purification.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Well, it's the sale of farm crops or grazing rights. And so horses are farm animals too. I think that's a better question for for Joe Remick just because I'm not sure exactly how they draw those lines. It's absolutely intended to benefit farmers by allowing them the use of the land.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So okay. So we agree on that. That's what the bad intention is. Yeah. Right.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I agree with representative Nelson's concerns about farming and possible fraud, but I think the changes proposed here make perfect sense. I mean, because what we're trying to achieve is that grazing and cutting hay, what's the difference? It's going to the animals. It's very strongly. So, yeah, I agree with that. And I hope that my question about fraud doesn't didn't derail the conversation because while it's an issue, it's there's a lot of that in Vermont law where there's a potential for fraud. And someone who does that could be in for a very rude awakening if they suddenly decide that, no. I'm done now. I wanna do something different with this land. It's gonna be, oh, I didn't think of that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, well, it sounds like we have some questions anyway to clarify and We're not voting on the vice straw poll. Let's let's vote. And how do other people feel? Should we Hold off on that one for another day? Either way. Yeah. The committee is not in as much of a rush for this one, I think. But if we wanna take a vote on h six thirty two, that would be Yeah, six thirty two-one hundred forty. Yeah, okay. And this is just a straw poll, but Jed, if you want to

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: get our mayor to take

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: all of it. Thank you, Steve.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Thank you. And is that, it's 4,

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: it's the draft number. 4.1, then she

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: 632. It's 4.1 is a draft. Thank you so much. Thanks.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Sorry, we didn't have more concrete answers today, but we tried.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It's fair to throw somebody curveballs and not

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the ball out of the Alley.

[Rep. Richard “Rick” Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Great to see you, doc.

[Dr. Kate Levine (State Veterinarian, Agency of Agriculture)]: Anytime. More animal questions next time. Hope you have.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: H632. This is the miscellaneous environment filled with the CAFO. Yeah. Got it. Yeah. Alright. The clerk call the roll. I'm sorry. So the what are we voting on? Motion to recommend to the house committee on environment

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: that

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we Concur. Concur with the language in draft 4.1. 4.1. Page six thirty two.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: The title of the film?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Miscellaneous Insire of it. Yeah. Moving that, there's no second necessary,

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: no, according to my I'm sorry, motion Gary.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Has been made, And we're about to vote on page six three two draft 4.1, fiscal aid, environment bill, day to day this to twelve. This is a straw poll. We're gonna do the straw poll vote by a show of hands. And so I will ask John L. Bartholomew, new shelf, by one Greg Burtt and Richard Nelson, and John O'Brien was not here, and Chittenden Murphy in favor of favorable vote, please raise your hand as a signification of aye.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I see all hands have raised.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: I see six

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: zero. Zero. Zero. Okay. Good. Alright. Thank you, representative Lipsky. I think our business is done for the day. I I didn't realize that the tax department was coming in tomorrow. I'm not sure how that happened, and I wanna make sure that it's actually happening. Oh, it's just changing the details. Okay. Alright. Alright. Thank you.