Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Smacking to you as you're

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: shaking. Be ready to roll.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: If my elbow reflexively goes out, I didn't mean it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're gonna talk now about H four zero three, and we've invited the agency of agriculture and the Department of Labor back in. So thank you for both of you for joining us. And I know who asked you first, but let you decide that.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I think I drew the short straw.

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: Indeed you

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: did. So if I may, good afternoon, everyone. Steve Collier from the Agency of Agriculture. So we're here to talk about 403, obviously H-four zero three. I always find this to be a really difficult topic to discuss, mostly because of the reality of the situation that our undocumented workers face. So this is different than just a conversation about workers and wages. It's about oftentimes implicates undocumented workers. And so that's a whole litany of issues that's different.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: We talked about when we were

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: talking normally about minimum wage and all. I just want to say that

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: up front,

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: that a lot of the folks who are undocumented workers are a vulnerable population, and there are people in this country who feel very differently about whether they should be here or they should not be here. The Agency of Ag recognizes that they are performing a vital service and is very appreciative that they're here and helping the farms. And we are uncomfortable that they can't go into public freely and be able to act in the same capacity as all the rest of us. We have no solutions for that problem because that's a federal issue, not something the state of Vermont can address. So I just want to put that out there because I think it's the big issue that I think bothers a lot of farmers, bothers a lot of workers, bothers a lot of citizens. Some citizens think they shouldn't be here at all. So there's that, you know, there's that component of it too. But we recognize how important the undocumented workers are to our farms. Our farms feed us, so that means they're important to all of us. And we wish that there was a system like there is with temporary agricultural workers that it could allow the people who are here without documentation to benefit the same way that those folks can. That system doesn't work. Maybe the chaos that's happening now will lead to some immigration reform, which is long overdue. It hasn't we haven't had real immigration reform in this country for a long time. There ought to be a way when we're relying on people to recognize that they're important to our economy. Doesn't mean that there don't need to be rules surrounding it, but there ought to be a way to do it so that people who are here that we want here can be here and be recognized as equal to everyone else. We're not there yet. So that's just sort of the upfront thing. We're talking here about wages and undocumented workers can clearly be in a very vulnerable position, but I don't think you can talk about undocumented workers without talking about farms in this context. And it's a in our opinion, it's a symbiotic relationship. Undocumented workers need farms and farms need them. And farms specifically need them because they can't hire people who do have documentation. So it's very important, I think, recognize that it's a mutually dependent relationship, that they need each other. And so the question is, what if anything do we do that's different than we're doing now? And in that vein, we have to recognize that farms are also vulnerable. Most farms lose money in the state of Vermont. It's in the last six years since before COVID, we've lost 35% of our dairy farms in the state of Vermont. So oftentimes the farm workers are making as much or more than the farmers. And another component of that is that farmers are not sitting back on their porch watching other people work. Farmers are also working extensive hours. Farming is a very labor intensive industry. Fair or not, you can't, the farmers don't work forty hours a week. They work seven days a week. They work every day. It's not every farmer, but most farmers, especially sometimes more depending on the season, but farmers work harder than anybody else almost. And so it's not just the farm workers who are working hard, it's also the farmers. So then the question is, how do we strike that balance? The proposals in front of the committee relate to minimum wage and overtime. Minimum wage, the agency honestly doesn't have a particularly strong opinion on that one or one way or the other, mostly because we don't have the facts enough to know exactly what's happening. It's it's our belief that almost all workers are making at least minimum wage, especially when you include housing. I mean, workers on farms are also or many workers on farms are also getting housing. If you talk about a normal worker who's making, what is it, $14.42, I think an hour now, the minimum wage in Vermont. If they're making, they're working forty or fifty hours a week and they're making that wage, they're probably spending at least 50% of their salary on housing, at least. So farmers, for the most part, are supplying housing as well as the wage. So you can divorce those two realities when you're thinking about whether they're being paid fairly. We think most farms are paying more than the minimum wage plus the extra benefits, but there are some we believe that are paying less than the minimum wage. We don't know if there are any that are paying less than the minimum wage when you factor in housing and food and other benefits they provide. So it's a little hard to assess whether or not that would have any impact at all if you actually, if you extended minimum wage to farms and then they were still allowed to deduct the extra benefits. I don't know. So I I think from our perspective, it's important to hear from farmers on that on that topic because we just don't know what sort of impact it would have, if any. The overtime, we do have a position on the overtime and it's multifaceted. Don't, I'll say what the theme statement is upfront. We have no way to believe that if you enacted an overtime requirement, it would benefit anyone. And the reason for that is, is you can mandate an overtime rate. And I have no doubt that every employee who is working more than sixty hours, if they were able to get overtime, they would of course appreciate that. Who wouldn't? Every employee would rather be paid more. But you can't force farms to make people work for over sixty hours. So the challenge that we see is that, and it's a significant change when you think about 50% more per hour cost of labor and how big of an expense labor is. That's a big expansion of the payment. And it's not just the 50%. It's 50% plus payroll taxes, plus unemployment, plus federal and state unemployment, plus workers' comp. So I think a conservative estimate of how much more it is for the farm for each hour of overtime, 60, probably at least. So say you're paying somebody $15 an hour, which is above the minimum wage. Then as soon as they hit hour sixty one, that's $24 an hour. If you factor in the 60%, 50% wages plus about 10% in additional payroll taxes that farms would have to pay. They have no reason to believe a farmer is going to pay that much more and they don't have to. They can just hire another worker. So that might be great if people work, if the folks on the farm were clamoring to work less. You know, if the principal complaint was, we don't want to work as many hours, like that might be a remedy that you cap it at sixty hours. Our understanding, and it's not, it's imperfect, but that many of the people who are working on farms, particularly undocumented workers, wanna work as many hours as they can because they wanna make as much money as they can, in large part oftentimes because they're sending a lot of money home. So if you reduce the weight, nobody wants their wages reduced is what I'm understanding. Of course, people would rather be paid more, but we can't make farmers pay more. We don't know if they can afford to pay more, given that we've lost 35% of the dairy farms in the last six years and milk prices are right now at historic lows. There's a lot of skepticism that farms could suddenly pay 60% more per hour for everything above sixty hours. It would be far cheaper for them to just hire more people. And if you do that, then you might actually be compounding the resident, the housing issue by putting more people in limited housing. And actually, there might be some reverberation where it's actually worse for the workers than it was. They're getting less pay. They might have more free time. But I don't from what we hear, that's not really what people are clamoring for is more maybe higher wages, but not for more free time. So it's just, we don't have any reason to believe that if you have a mandatory overtime enforcement, it's going to help anyone. Certainly not going to help farms. It's not a competitiveness issue because if they wanted if they had the flexibility to raise wages, they could do that, would do that. So it's not going to help them in any way. It would be a significant cost if they chose to pay overtime. We have no reason to believe they would pay overtime. And if they didn't pay overtime, then you're having more workers, which reduces the wages of everyone who's working now.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Can I jump in, Steven? If this is not a good place to stop you.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: No, no, please.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Just thinking about the, phrase it this way, the supply of labor. So an undocumented labor in particular. We had heard some testimony back in November, I'm not sure if you were here, just about how the crackdown has made it obviously more difficult for people to live their lives the way they have been living them, farm workers. And that arguably at some point, people might decide to follow the advice of the federal government and self deport, and that it might be hard to find other workers to replace them. So I'm wondering if, I don't know that you or the agency or the state has any insight into that question about how easy would it be or is it now to find somebody else to come in and take a job if somebody leaves?

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I don't have any perfect insight. There has not been a mass exodus that has been feared. Bless you. Still a very real reality, possible reality, depending on what the federal government does. I mean, I think there's a lot of fear. There is a lot of fear, absolutely. Both on, I mean, farmers have a lot of fear. Theirs is obviously very different than the people who are vulnerable to being deported, but there's a shared concern. If if that happens, you know, everything, all bets are, I think, off the table, and I think farmers could really struggle to get to find anyone. I'm not hearing, and and I'm not the perfect source, but I'm not hearing that farmers can't find undocumented workers right now, but I think it has tightened up. Think but, you know, some of that would be if it gets to that point where farmers can't attract people, then they would have to raise their wages. I mean, that's that's regardless of whether this is mandatory overtime. If you need employment and you have the ability to to to pay people, that's the way that you get workers is you offer a higher rate. And I I've not heard that that's been happening yet. I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: when we when we first looked at this question in the off session study group a year and a half ago, particularly this issue of overtime, we were hearing the same point that you're making that from a farm's perspective, from the business owner's perspective, yeah, if it's sixty hours or some other number, the obvious logical thing to do is stop employing people once they hit that number and then have somebody else do the work. And at that point, we weren't thinking about, well, what if there isn't somebody else to do the work? I I think it seemed like there would always be somebody else to do that job. Recognizing that, maybe not recognizing what it takes to even find somebody else to do that job. But it seems like now the landscape is different than it was then. But it's good to hear that you're not hearing of a big labor shortage.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: No, have been some specific, like some incidences where people have been caught on farms or caught's maybe not the right word, but have been implicated on farms. And there's a lot of fear, you know, but no, I don't think there's been a mass exodus. But but if that happens, everything changes because and I think a lot of farms will go out of business because they will not be able to find the workers or at least not at a wage that they could possibly afford to remain vile.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Before we turn it over to the Department of Labor, maybe there's other questions. But I also wondered if you had any comments on the other section, the housing survey section, which is it references the Secretary of Agriculture in that.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: So thank you. The housing survey, I mean, completely understand what the impetus is behind that. No one wants anyone to be exploited. No one wants anyone to be mistreated. I do not think that surveying employees on a farm is the way to address that problem. It actually puts them in a horrible position, in my opinion, to force people to talk to the state, and it sort of assumes the state can better assess the conditions that a person is making for themselves. I mean, if what we think is critically important is that everybody knows their rights, knows what is supposed to happen, knows how to make a complaint if they want to. But to have the state show up and interview people and ask them to answer questions is, we don't think is the right way to do this at all. If there's a real concern to get the quality of housing improved, I think the way to do that is through housing inspections, which is through fire safety, the Department of State Fire Safety and and or through health officials. But even if you do that, there's a cost to that. And you've also got to evaluate whether or not there's enough, if problems are found, and I'm sure there would be some problems found, is there enough money to remedy them? Because if there isn't enough money to remedy them, and you're shutting down buildings, then again, there's that question of you're helping people or you're hurting them. And that's when I kind of say, is the state in a better position to make choices for individuals than the individuals are themselves? When you're a vulnerable, undocumented worker, and if you lose your home, you're suddenly out on the street with no papers, that's a I'm not sure the state can make that judgment, and I'm not sure the state has the resources to ensure that that person's life then becomes better than it was.

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, unless you had anything else to say, yeah. Don't wanna go back to another I just wanted to

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: you started all this discussion of undocumented workers, which resonates with me. My understanding of this bill is that a minimum wage would apply to them, And the real challenge isn't that it wouldn't apply, but that would they be able and willing to file a complaint. Am I correct in that?

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Two things. So they already, There's already many laws that do apply, and they Absolutely, an undocumented worker can file a complaint. So they're not

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And this would apply as well?

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: If the minimum wage applied, then that would be a basis for a complaint. Just like if they're not being paid now, or if there's OSHA violations, or if there's rental housing code violations, like all those things exist, and any undocumented worker can make a complaint about those issues. This would extend the ability to file a complaint to minimum wage. I'm not so much worried about I I believe that if the minimum wage was extended to farmers, that farmers would pay it. I mean, maybe not a 100%, but we we don't have a reason to believe farmers wouldn't do it. The question is that I don't have the answer to is would it change anything? Because especially for workers who are already getting other benefits. And if it does change anything, can the farms that are not paying it now afford it? And would that just mean if they're if they're not paying it now, will they go out of business or would they be able to pay it? And that's a question I don't we don't have enough information about farms financial viability to be able

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: to answer that very well. I just wanted to confirm that you weren't saying that this minimum wage piece or overtime piece would not apply to them?

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: No, no, it applied. Absolutely.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So let's take one more question and then maybe we can turn it over to the labor department. And then there may be questions for both of you after that too. Representative Bos-Lun?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah, we haven't really had a chance to do much committee discussion on this, at least I don't remember doing that, but it's feeling like the wage part feels very complicated in terms of the impact it would have on farmers. The part that feels like it might be doable before the crossover to me is something about improving the worker housing. I mean, to me, you did start the conversation talking about undocumented workers and the housing for undocumented workers is not inspected in the same way that the legally seasonal workers that come in, the H2A workers that come in, their housing is very inspected and we have the whole process and we make sure that theirs is up to a certain standard. But the testimony we got here about a week ago was that they did a survey about 1,000 migrant workers. And I think they said it was, gosh, I just lost the statistic here. But I think it was 82% said that it was their living conditions were substandard housing. And whether that means like not having adequate heat, having rodents, not having privacy in terms of the amount of space they're supposed to have delegated, like it's hard to enforce housing regulations when you're not having any kind of inspection. And so the undocumented workers are kind of off the radar. They're at the mercy of the farmer and hopefully the farmer's taking care of his workers. But it sounds like in terms of the housing, the perception on the part of the farmers or the part of the workers is that that's not always happening. And so that would be the part where, you know, coming up with some kind of inspection and recommendation list and not, you know, not necessarily to shut a farm down, but to say, you need to get the heat working in this unit or you need to add, you know, something that it feels to me like that that would be important. I mean, does the University of not the university, the Agency of Agriculture work with migrant justice at all or no? Cause they have lots of statistics.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: We don't talk to them regularly. Have at times, and certainly are always willing to talk to anyone. There's a couple of things though here, quickly. So rental housing or so farmer worker housing is regulated like other rental housing. So anybody can file a complaint about if you're not meeting the requirements. And there are people who enforce that. Fire safety and also local health inspectors, I believe, enforce those violations. Whether or not it's being reported is a different issue. There's not routine inspections that I'm aware of as complaint based, but I think that's true for almost all.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I think for undocumented workers, I think they're afraid to make to make complaints though. So it's like the ones that don't need to have, the legal workers have inspections and the undocumented workers who have more to fear if they make a complaint, have inspections. It just feels like there's something missing in our system in terms of protecting farm workers.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: There is. And the reason there's the H2A housing inspections is simply because of federal law, because in order to bring in a temporary worker, and it's all meant to protect domestic workers, It's, I mean, it ultimately protects the people who come in, but the whole point of the immigration policy is to protect domestic workers and make sure domestic workers aren't being boxed out of jobs. So in order to qualify for that project, you've got to show that you have adequate housing. So it's all based on that federal requirement. The rest of housing is treated like all the rest of housing in Vermont. So there isn't any regular inspection schedule. There's complaint based. I mean, there may be maybe some apartment buildings, some buildings have regular inspections. I don't know. But in general, are not regular inspections here. Agree with you that if there were regular inspections, there would be improvement. It's totally unclear, though, whether it would also lead to be housing work, farm worker housing being shut down and farm workers being displaced from where they are because if fire safety comes in instead of this housing, you can't have it, and the farm doesn't have any money to fix it. And so if housing is closed down, then you have a situation where you no longer have housing, people don't have a place to live. So that's the challenge. If there's no money to fix problems, then going in doesn't fix the underlying problem, which is vulnerable people, bad conditions, and that's kind of what I was talking about. We're not always in a better place to evaluate somebody's risks and benefits than they are. So it's a tricky balance. And we do think it's critically important that everyone knows that there are laws that apply and they can make a complaint and they can do that. Whether we're forcing that complaint and whether we're forcing housing to come up to code when there isn't any money to fix it, that's a hard question.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great. Let's switch over to thank you, And we'll hear from Department of Labor.

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thanks, committee, for having me today. My name is Rowan Hawthorne. I'm the policy and legislative affairs director at the Department of Labor. Honestly, most of what I've prepared today has already been covered. I was able to watch testimony earlier today and then also what Steve has said. So I have a few things that I would love to add, but for the most part, it's not gonna be too much. First thing I would like to say on the minimum wage is just one additional piece that the committee should be aware of. Currently, there are allowable room and board deductions. And so if you've got an occupation that has an employer that's provided housing, they're allowed to deduct a certain amount from that hourly wage, weekly wage depending upon what that additional benefit is if it's not exempted from the minimum wage. Currently, agricultural employers they're not part of that requirement. If you were to pass a law that would remove the exemption for agricultural workers, then the deductions, the allowable deductions that the Department of Labor determines would be something that agricultural workers would have to adhere to. And that's about that can be $96 a week about that. Another concern would be with potentially having a minimum wage is that in order to afford meeting that minimum wage for all the workers, then other benefits might be removed for that. So it would be kind of a give and take situation. So just a couple of other things to to think about there. I also heard a few questions, I believe, that you had asked about, which is just the number of agricultural workers in the state, and that's around 8,300 right now. An estimated 800 migrant workers, this is also part of the report that was produced as well, so I'm just pulling numbers from that. And then there was a question around exemptions for students as well. Across the board, students are exempt from minimum wage during regular school hours, and there's differences about when students can work as well and how many hours they can work based on the age they're in. Across the board, they would be exempt from this as well. And that wouldn't change if the law were to go in place unless you change something else in addition to that. I also believe you had asked about any payroll system changes with the overtime law, and it's really what Steve said. Could be theoretical physical system issues if there's older systems being used, but it's really just payroll taxes that would be in addition to that. Honestly, that's mostly the additions that I have to what Steve said and what came earlier today, but I'm happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Lipsky, that hand up

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: to you. Thank you. Brief question. The 8,300 current agricultural workers, does that include student workers?

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: That I am not sure of. This is from this is from the census, the 2022 census, so those numbers may have changed a couple of years. I'm not sure if you would know that.

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

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: don't know. Happy to find out and follow-up, but I'm not sure.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And I will just say, I know we started the conversation by talking about dairy workers, migrant workers. The bill covers all agriculture, would cover all agricultural workers. So if there are 800, perhaps migrant workers, that's just a small fraction of, obviously, the 8,300 or whatever the number is. Yeah. Representative Bartholomew?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: We were talking about this earlier. Are students defined in any way?

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: They let me see.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Not that I'm

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: it's just that they're 16 and up. So it could be high school students. It could be college students doing a work based learning experience of some sort. So it applies to any sort of student 16 and up. Other than that, I would have to double check the law, but I'm not sure there's any specific definition.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So does that mean if I go back to school? I wouldn't have to be paid minimum wage?

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: I'm gonna have to I'll have to double check on that. We've had

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: some Some therapy there.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: You know, I'm just surprised it wouldn't be clearly defined what a student is. When part time, full time, age, nothing?

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: I will double check on that. Honestly, our general counsel just left the department who's in charge of our Wage and Hour division, and we've had some folks out on vacation. So this is not as I'm doing the quality answers as I would have otherwise liked to be prepared.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: There are child labor laws that apply, and there's certain requirements. I don't know them well, but for certain requirements for 16 and up, certain requirements under 16, certain requirements, I think, under 14. So I I don't know the details, but there is there is protection related to child employment in current state statute that

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Well,

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I mean, not a few documents were valid.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So that's an interesting sort of thing that has emerged. But in case, if the bill is proposed, basically, it's the minimum wage piece of it, it removes the So there's an existing exemption. So Vermont law says there's a minimum wage for all employees. And then it says employees does not mean agricultural workers. So doesn't apply to agricultural workers. Then the bit about students is somewhere else in the law. So it would be just we would get rid of that exemption and then students, however they're defined, would still be treated the way students are in any industry.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Maybe we don't wanna worry so much about how old the students are until somebody makes an issue out of that. Yeah. John? So along the same lines, Steve, you might have thoughts on this. Are agricultural workers also defined? Like, where's that dividing line between I drive a tractor and I screw on caps to strap an organic green ice cream all day long?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So I'm

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: not an expert in this at all. There are different definitions, whether you're talking about federal law and the Fair Labor Standards Act or state law. It's agricultural workers. I don't know if it's defined in rule in Vermont, but it's pretty broad, but it's not everything. So if you start talking about processing, doing different types of issues, then you're no longer an agricultural worker. I don't know the specific parameters, but in it, and just so everyone knows the federal minimum wage does apply, but the federal minimum wage is obviously very low. We have no reason to believe anyone at Lamar is being paid the federal minimum, any agricultural worker. We think, as I said, we believe almost everyone's being paid above, but some are not. And with the housing and other benefits, we expect that everyone is. But again, we just It's possible that applying the minimum wage wouldn't have any impact, but we can't say that conclusively because there may be some farmers that are just getting by and they're paying $12 an hour and it doesn't, we don't know that for certain. Can I say one thing about representative Bos-Lun's question too, the, in terms of the housing, there have been past initiatives that we've been very supportive of to provide resources to improve housing, including through the Vermont Housing Conservation Board, which is did a study on farm worker housing a few years ago and dedicated pretty significant resources to do that? That's our preferred route to improve housing is to provide resources to do it. It's our belief that farmers who do not have the housing that they're proud of want to improve it. They don't necessarily have the money to do it. So, it's a public policy question about whether or not the money should be used that way, but we've been very supportive about those initiatives. And working lands has also done a little bit in terms of giving out money. So we housing to meet the code reforms. The question is, how do you get there? We

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: invited the Housing Conservation Board to testify in this if they wanted to, and they said they don't have position on the bill. They reminded the committee that this program exists and they're happy to come in and speak to it. In fact, we've got that penciled in for some time

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: after the break.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Representative Burtt. Steve, you spoke to farmers themselves, owners of the farms, employers oftentimes are making middle wage. And then I also am curious, you know, you've been speaking a little bit to the housing situation for employees. I also think there's a housing crisis for the farm owners too. Know many myself who's, you know, who probably would be, you know, if a fire marshal came into their homes would also have to make improvements. So, I mean, I think it's an overarching issue that's systemic

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: and

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: to ask, I can't, it would be hard for me to enter into that situation knowing that the employer themselves have, they're asking the same things often of their employees as to the standards that they have and to ask them, okay, now you need to have higher standards for your employees than you have for yourself. That's the new law.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I've been in farm kitchens with a hole in the floor. It's not good, but that's where the farmers was living. There it's, you know, I walk by 50 people a day just in Montpelier that aren't living anywhere. So we have a housing problem in this in the state. And unless we're that's I guess that's the touchstone for us a little bit is if you can't make the situation better. Maybe don't try to help if you can make the situation better by all means, but if you're saying one person like the housing conditions not good enough and so you can't live there anymore, and they're suddenly back in El Salvador, not better.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: President Obama?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah, I mean, my concern is just that, I'm quite sure it's true that there are plenty of farmers that are living at a very basic level. But like some of the testimony we heard from migrant justice included things like no running water, no heat. I bet there aren't, I would be super surprised if there are farmers living in Vermont that don't have those two things in their primary living unit. And we don't have any way of verifying that that is being made available. And to me, that just feels like we're doing our farm workers a disservice. But exactly what the right methodology is to address that, I'm not sure. But I do think we need to do something, we should we should be doing something.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: And I agree with you. There shouldn't be anybody without who's living in a farm worker housing that shouldn't have water or heat. There shouldn't be. And there is a process to deal with that. Whether or not it's triggered is a different question. And understand the vulnerability of making complaints when the possibility of being deported are front and center.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Nelson had a hand up, I think, remotely.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, chair. I I just having a little bit of experience in this, and I'm gonna tell you that housing housing is a great asset to a farmer to retain great employees. And I I can't imagine. And maybe maybe it is out there, but an employee live in a house with no heat or water. I don't know why they would stay. And I I just I'd have to see it to believe it, I guess, is what I'd say. And, you know, when they say our housing's worth $96 a week, I heard that earlier. And we're putting peep we have people living in ranch houses, you know, eleven, twelve hundred square foot ranch houses. Their families living there and plus getting way above minimum wage, not as much as we'd like to pay them. We pay them as much as we can, but that house on the open market is $2,500 a month. Alright. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you, Nelson. Let's take a couple of quick questions and then we should move on. Representative

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Burtt. Forgot what it was.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, we can come back to you. Yeah, Representative Burtt.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I just wondered, has the agency and maybe even labor ever thought about, and maybe BHCB, an advocate sort of organization at the state agency level that essentially could go look at farm worker housing. But unlike, say, fire marshals, there are no really penalties involved. It's much more educational, which is what you do a lot of, to at least start getting a baseline database of the housing, and farmers wouldn't be so afraid of it because they're not gonna be shut down.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I don't know if we specifically, if we've talked about an advocate, we do partner with other state agencies to publish a pamphlet, which is online. We've been doing that for, I'm not sure how many years, but talks about what rights people have, that the rental housing code applies. And, you know, we all of our all of our state partners know that, and we hope that all of our farm workers know it as well. We we don't. I'm not sure if we've talked about a specific advocate. There are some federal advocates that, for instance, applied, I think, to H2A workers and some maybe some other components. But yeah, I'm not sure. But anybody can make a complaint to for a housing code violation, and there is a process to do that. Understand that why people might choose not to do that, but it's not that there isn't a code that applies. But it's

[Rep. John O'Brien]: on the sort of complaint side where I was thinking it can be proactive to have sort of no fault inspections so that the farmers would buy in there too, and then find whether it's money or education to improve that.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Yes, it's complicated because if somebody goes out to, Spectre goes out who's got a job to do and they find violations, they're going to enforce those violations. That's their job. They have to. If there's no money to correct the problems, then you may not get where you want to go. So doesn't mean that the code shouldn't be followed by any token, but once you have somebody whose job it is to enforce there, they may have some flexibility and timing, but it also might lead to closure of that housing and it might mean there's no place to live.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Ag worker housing isn't exempted from any of the codes in the state?

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: No, no. It's subject to them. H2A is different because that's a federal program, but every farm employee housing has has code requirements. It's not exact just like any other rental housing.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Representative Gregory. Oh, maybe you could speak to this, rights and making sure that they're informed. What's that look like for posters that you're supposed to put out?

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: Yes, there are litany of different posters, honestly. Some of it would be a lot of different options for different posters. This meals and lodging allowance is one of them in all of the places to be minimum wage, even right to report any concerns, sexual harassment, etcetera, where you would report it as well, attorney general's office versus us. We would take care of any payroll, hourly wage concerns. So there's a lot of posters that are up. We don't go out. We we don't have the staff to go out and do individual employer education. The Department of Labor has been hosting more of what we call wage and hour seminars over the last year. And so in a particular region or virtually, we will invite employers of either a particular sector or really just anyone who's interested to come and learn about any sort of particular laws. We're able to customize it and share a lot more with employers, so that is something that we're continuing to expand upon, and agricultural employers are of course welcome to join and learn more about that as well.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Just because there's an exemption for minimum wage, agricultural employers also need to post these posters at location at their farm too. Is that correct?

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: All of the, yes, all the other posters that would apply to workers' rights other than the minimum wage.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right. Well, thank you both for coming in. We'll continue to have committee discussion about this bill at another time. We're gonna have Ellen Lynch counsel, up to

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: the table. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Steve, you're welcome to stay if you're interested in the next topic too. What are you talking

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: Oh, sure. I

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: think I spotted my nog.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Elton Shakasby, Office of Legislative Counsel. I am only here till 02:30. 02:30,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: good? Yes. All right. Have to say

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, is it hard stop.

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: I do have

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: a hard stop. Is that two is it 02:15? I'm sorry. Okay.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: That's not gonna be the length.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. It is 02:15. I'm sorry. I'm here on draft 4.2 of your committee bill related to municipal zoning and farming. So it's draft 4.2 with today's date, 12:16PM.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Give us a moment.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I was here yesterday. Not here yesterday, but I've been Tuesday for municipal zoning.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: So which date Tuesday you think it's listed?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. It's not. No. We had a conversation on Tuesday, which led to the creation of this draft because your prior draft was creating language under forty four thirteen a, which is a form of municipal zoning limitations. I think based on the discussion you had then, I proposed moving what you're interested in to a different part of statute.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm sorry to interrupt, Ellen. It is on our page right now today, draft 4.2 under Ellen's name. So maybe just give folks a moment to pull that up. And thank you, Ellen. I I don't remember, honestly, whether it was yesterday or the day before, but by feeling either way, was that you turned this around very quickly. So thank you. Thank you for

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But I it potentially needs a little more work. Yeah. And and I wanna make sure that I'm capturing your intent So the first section is the intent section, and that hasn't changed. Section two is what you had been working on, and it mostly hasn't changed. Section two is amending 4,413, and it's subsection D, which is the section about bylaws cannot regulate these things. And so it still has the farming that meet that meets the RAP rule and is therefore required to comply. It also includes in subsection B, the construction of a farm structure as authorized by the RAP rules. And then it has the associated definitions. That is under this draft. That is what you currently have is towns cannot regulate these things.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That would be, if we stopped right there, that would be the old way of saying things in better language.

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: Yes. So

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: then section three is, and the text of which is on pages three, four and five. This is the carve out you're making for farming in tier one A and B. So I have moved it to 4,412. 4,412 is a statute in chapter 117 on municipal zoning that has these zoning provisions that shall apply to every municipality. And it's a variety of different things and different ways that land uses need to be treated by municipal zoning. This is the statute where the accessory on farm business language is, and so this language here for farming in Tier 1A and Tier B, I did model at least partially after how you've structured the language regarding accessory on farm business, which is that municipalities cannot prohibit it and they have a directive on what parts of it they can regulate. So on page four, subdivision 15, no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting farming or the construction of a farm of farm structures in a tier one a area or tier tier one b area. However, farming in tier one a or tier one b may be regulated only as follows. A municipality shall not regulate noise, smell, lighting, and hours of operation. A municipality may regulate ingress and egress of vehicular traffic and ensuring pedestrian safety, including regulating parking, signage, pavement marking, functional enclosure of livestock adjacent to roads, and if required, regulations related to training personnel to manage vehicle movement on and immediately surrounding the premises. I'll stop there for a moment. This is, the language that you had in the prior section. I highlighted if required. I don't entirely know what this last clause means, the if required. So I'm not sure who recommended that, but I I'm not sure. I mean, I'd like more information about it because I'm not entirely sure what it's who would be requiring training.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't know either. Okay. I will say, I'll check with Bradley, or maybe we can just check with Bradley and see whether where that how that sort of emerged. Representative Lipsky, Are you going to flag people? It sounds like Or

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: could be that. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's what it sounds like. Police or sheriffs. Yeah. So alright. Let's we'll have to look into this more and Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So then the next subsection down line 13, a municipality may regulate siting and setback requirements for new infrastructure, including farm structures, in a manner that does not create public safety concerns, including the fire safety concerns to neighboring buildings, and requiring that buildings open to the public be developed in compliance with the fire and building safety code.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So this is a list of things that municipality may regulate.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It starts with what they can't do and then also what they can do.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Are those two lists then somehow meant to be exhaustive? Or if there were something that we weren't thinking of when we passed this bill, where would it fall?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I do think it is exhaustive because up online forces only. And if you'd like, you and I took this from what you had in the prior draft, but it so you you have some shallots, and then you also say may. And further down, I've added that municipality is allowed to be less restrictive if they'd like. If they don't wanna regulate these things, they don't have to. But I think what you're doing here is creating the sort of do's and don'ts for them, and I don't think there's a gray area. So if there's something you want included, you should probably make sure you list it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And then just before we go to other questions, we wanted, to the extent that we can, make it as easy as possible or not put any burden than is absolutely necessary on farmers to comply with whatever ordinances a municipality might want to enforce, including, and this came up last time, having to file permits or applications to get permits. So I don't know whether we think we've accomplished that here or whether you know what I'm asking even.

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: Well,

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: the way that municipalities under zoning go about regulating is usually through the permit process. So if you're giving them the authority to set some restrictions on this specific criteria, I do think there would need to be a permit process, but it is a significantly more shorter list than other types of permits would involve.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. Yes. Representative Bartholomew. On

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: line 13, where the two is, citing and setback requirements, I know what all the words in that sentence mean, but we put them together in that sentence. I'm not sure what it's trying to say. What what is what's the restrict? Where are they able to do? What can't they do? New infrastructure? What kind of public safety concerns? What does it mean?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I agree, because this is what you had in the prior draft. So citing and setback. So setback requirements are pretty standard in municipal zoning. The municipality will say, you cannot build a new structure within 20 feet of the property line. And I, I don't So they can regulate setbacks for infrastructure, I don't really know what it means here. I don't know if it is just for farm structures. It says including farm structures, and that does not create a public safety risk. That would be the sort of justification that they're using for the regulation that would describe where they're allowed to build on the property. So again, I just was copying what came from your prior draft, which I do think was based on proposals from advocates. I'm not entirely sure. I do think that this could be more clear. I think it can be cut down, but please let me know what you would like.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, let's flag that then.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And figure out what it means and what it really is.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, and I think the intent here is to include a municipality may regulate where structures go. I guess maybe oversimplifying it, but that's something they can't do now and we wanna say that, yes, they can. We wanna say that in an eloquent way.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And what is the structure?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, farm structures are defined. Right? We've got that the wood is infrastructure. Yeah. So I think it should maybe it's just gonna be structures. Yeah. Represent the tree.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Just for discussion, many bylaws do not require a building permit or a setback for agricultural buildings, including where my farm is. If you ever wanna convert that to a different use and it's closer to than 25 feet from a side boundary, then that would create a problem. But infrastructure, most towns have what's called a curb cut law, and that would be the point where a public way, a farm road coming out, they can regulate for safety, sight lines, whether that could be where that piece of infrastructure, even a farm road, how you and or public way. So it it could be both building structures and infrastructure. The section I read above that is ingress and egress of vehicular traffic, which

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: may cover what you're talking about.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: In in many farms, you pull out where it's driest and there's not much. Yeah. But infrastructure is sort of improving

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Or creating you're right. It's a But I'm just that's for discussion here. I'm not It could mean

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: tile drains, it could be compost, it could be any kind of infrastructure that's required for any

[Rep. John O'Brien]: of Manure pit.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Yeah. Whatever it is, it's pretty open. Silence. So,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: okay, good. We're flagging this. We need to better understand the implications of what the intent was, and that will be clearer when we check back with the stakeholders who were allegedly okay with this. Representative Basilie?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah, I was just gonna say, I mean, when I read this and sort of think about being on institutions, infrastructure would sometimes talk about pipes and things that would be under the ground. So if you're thinking about infrastructure and public safety, it could be gas lines, it could be pipes, it could be water lines. If you're going to build a new farm structure, you might need to check with the town to make sure you're in compliance with these other things that could potentially get over the ground. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: let's say it's all of those things, which all seem reasonable, I mean, all seem feasible. Do any of them seem unreasonable to be granting the municipality the ability to regulate them in these areas? We wanna so we wanna say it elegantly and in a way that isn't gonna be confusing to a court or to landowner to a select board.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And there's two includings in this sentence. And so I think there was an attempt with the including clauses to sort of narrow that the setback requirements could be should have a public safety justification is sort of what I thought it was saying. And so I could reframe I could potentially flip it to say municipality may regulate for public safety for fire safety concerns setback requirements. Then you could specify to what you're referring to for infrastructure.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: The way it's written, it says in a manner that doesn't create, that clause doesn't make sense to me in there in a manner that does not create public safety concerns. That sounds like you're excluding those as opposed to those are your concerns different you're gonna use to limit. Making sense.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I understand what you're saying. Think So I didn't draft this. I didn't look at it last night because I wanted to get rid of the second including. But I think when you read the whole sentence, a municipality may regulate setback requirements for new infrastructure in a manner that does not create public safety concerns. That's why I'm suggesting I think it means it is to be based on the public safety concerns. But again, you can completely change this language. I don't have any attachment to it, and I want to make sure it's expressing your intent.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Why don't we keep going? Greg?

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Just because we're talking about tier one A1B here, do we know we have a good idea of what tier one b is? No

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: better idea than we we've been before.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: It's really hard to make decisions, you know, without knowing what that is. Yeah. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we'll come back to where we're not making decisions. Just highlighting that. We've got seven minutes left of Ellen's time. John?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Thank you, Dave. Ellen, on line 16, requiring the building to open to public be developed, is there just in general a grandfather situation here? Does this refer back to new buildings, new infrastructure? Because I'm thinking of examples of they organic dairy farms in average sell raw milk to the public from their bulk houses, from the bulk tanks, or where the public might go to pick up CSAs. When they're updating on farm structures, does that open those farms up to fire code or ADA accessibility and things like that?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't know. I don't. I'm going say I don't know. I'm not sure this clause is necessary. I'd like to check because So the jurisdiction of the Fire and Building Safety Code already is applied to public buildings and how that is defined by the public by the code. And so I think that is existing law. I suspect, but I'm not sure that when it is it is sort of as you were suggesting. I think it is when you update a building that it becomes part of it, part of a beholden to the code, but I don't handle fire safety code. That's Damian. So I don't know.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So it might be that we, without having this, it's gonna happen anyway, unless we were to intentionally say notwithstanding that, we're gonna create a new exemption that doesn't even currently exist.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think so, yeah.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: It may not be, I'm not 100% on this, but I believe that right now, the farm stands, for instance, are exempt from federal government So this would be adding another layer of regulation onto a farm stand if it were in tier one ALP. Okay. That's my yeah, I'm not

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Or municipalities could regulate it if they wanted to,

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: in this case.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So and I did just migrate this from your prior draft. So, well, I guess you can see what the advocates had proposed based on that. So just to sort of conclude with what else was included in here. So it's sort of structured a little odd, but the eligibility for what counts here is defined at the bottom of page four into five, which is farming that meets the minimum threshold for the RAP rule and is required to therefore is complied to required to comply at the construction of farm structures. And then on to page five, however, a parcel where farming has taken place prior to 07/01/2026, or that has been conserved for agricultural purposes, or farm structures built prior to 07/01/2026 shall be exempt from municipal regulation. So we did talk about that the other day about the farms, a new concept slurative. No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting cultivation or other use of land for growing plants, etcetera. So that's the language that you have been using about the right to grow food or however you're phrasing it. This is that they cannot prohibit, but a bylaw may regulate blank. And so I was discussing with the chair, I wasn't entirely sure when I was drafting, if you wanted it to be the same as the farming for tier one a and one b, or if you wanted to, again, just spell out only the things that municipalities can regulate for for this. So just to leave that for you to sort of discuss.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I think that what we are all clear on is that we have existing law that allows municipalities to functionally prohibit, if they wanted to, chickens, poultry, even gardens. And we want to make it so that they can't functionally prohibit those, but still continue to regulate to a certain extent. So I guess, you asking whether we want to say how they regulate them or? Yes. Okay. Good. Thank you.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: You can be as specific as you want because you're basically creating your own category here. Yes. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. You can leave when you need to leave. Do we have time for a question or?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yes, yes. Just under the definitions here, there's a definition for firm structure, but I don't see that used anywhere in the new language.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's right above on line two.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Oh, it's above it? Yes.

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. John?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: I just wondered why is poultry singled out here as opposed to other things like rabbits or?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: This is the consensus that the stakeholders brought to us. So that's the answer, and we'd have to ask the stakeholders. Poultry's under 16. Yep, and it excludes roosters. I'm not sure people have been thinking as much as we have about rabbits, so that might be Or

[Rep. John O'Brien]: other small remnants, etcetera.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. If you Yeah.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: So I'm just wondering, is this number 16 basically putting in the right to grow food?

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

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: So are we gonna do this? Is that what we're gonna we're gonna put it? Or are we still gonna try and pass that as its own thing?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So that what I think you're pointing to is the- The official rate to

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: grow food that share introduced.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. So that only applies to homeowners associations and renters that have that bill. And this applies to everybody else. Applies to municipal regulation. So at the moment, they're two different things, but that's just at the moment.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: You. Thank you. Thank you, Chris. Sure.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Steve, do you mind if we ask a couple of questions?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No, of

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: course not.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: First of all, can you remind in the wraps when we're talking about rabbits, is there a minimum number or a number of rabbits before the wraps after you followed?

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Steve Collier from the agency of agriculture. There is, I think it's 30, but I don't know for sure,

[Rep. John O'Brien]: but there is a number.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: If you're farming that number, the RAPs do apply. Okay, just kind of backstage.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And my other question is there's a section here about the Secretary of Agriculture convened stakeholder group, is the agency, what do

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you think about having to do that?

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: We're open to it, I haven't seen this draft yet. I do think you're moving in a good direction from where you were to. I think, I guess from my broad perspective, the stakeholder group, the necessity of it or the utility of it will probably depend on where we get in the outcome for the language. So maybe it's a good idea if there's still things that should be discussed or maybe it's unnecessary. I don't think I know yet.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, hadn't contemplated a stakeholder group, but that's largely, I think, because nobody had suggested it until fairly recently. And the understanding that I had was that all the parties involved in this conversation, not including us, were supportive, generally, of the stakeholder group. So the language is in here, and Ellen didn't get to it, but it makes up the rest of the bill, page six, page seven. I guess it's page six, really, I think we won't want to let anything in that section hold up moving ahead. It's not critical, but wouldn't hurt if all parties are on board with it.

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: If I can just add one point on that because I didn't answer that fully. We have suggested ongoing discussions to the extent that we can't get to consensus, whether that's part of a formal legal requirement or not, that makes sense to us.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Always a good thing. I see Graham had a handcuffs, but Graham, did you want to answer the question?

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: I just wanted to clarify something that I've heard you mention the stable a couple of times. Sure. Just because it's mentioned a couple of times, this probably isn't something we made consensus on. Just want make sure it's clear that all the IGC stable group has made clear that we do not support any new regulation in tier 1B. We only support in tier 1A.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sorry, we can have you come in and testify on whatever we come up with. Just as far as the stakeholder having a study group at the end of- It's a study. So having a study group in the future, I think that that was something that I understood that

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Yes, I also think that given the uncertainty of Act 91 and it probably being gauged, it would be worth us all continuing to talk. Think that farmer made us to continue. Now, obviously, the term grandfather, if you were considering grandfathering him back to farms that were considered farms prior to Supreme Court ruling. Grandfathering would go back as Supreme Court ruled and not be mindful passing legislation to the farmland and sixth, he would get his farm status back. Because he would leave off because that's Supreme Court ruling, and that's what we're trying to get back to. It's that ruling in which everything changed. To us, that would be an important time mark for that grandfather.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, there were two hands over here. Greg, I think you were first.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: I was just gonna say that I don't think I could support this same tier one. Can support tier one A, but not wanna be myself,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We'll

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: put that have a community discussion later. So, why don't The we

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: poultry part. Yeah. I think that should be expanded to a little bit larger category so that we're including things like rabbits, because that's a good source of protein that doesn't have a big impact, I think, on a village setting. So maybe investigating that a little further. Yeah, okay, let's dig it out. Chickens, yeah, chickens do come, usually come Yeah, off the

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

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: themed, poultry.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Pretty much, yeah. I mean, the poultry is defined somewhere in statute and

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: I think it means ducks,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: jerky, maybe not Guinea fowl. Geeks probably.

[Rowan Hawthorne, Vermont Department of Labor]: Well, we talked

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: about leaving out Guinea fowl, but it looks like Guinea fowl didn't make it into this version. It almost excludes roosters. I don't know. I keep bringing it up, and I just see it

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: feels silly.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: But the

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: ants are noisy.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, that's Part the dynamic here is that we are, as all along, we've been trying to let the conversations that are happening outside the room guide us so that we can have a bill that will be supported broadly.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think that my sense is that the guinea fowl didn't rise to the level of somebody feeling that we should exclude that for whatever reason. I

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: I can understand boost, you know, like, trying to develop this. But Is it free range chickens going all over everybody's yard?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the idea is that towns can regulate chickens. So this would give a town the ability to say you have to enclose your chickens. But it write the rule in a way that says basically make it impossible to have chickens.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I'll just add that there was a lot of discussion about because there's some idea of, why not sheep? Why not goats? If you have the right land, but it just got so complicated about how to deal with some of the larger mammals that it we just couldn't figure out how to do it. There's so many factors when you're dealing with a cow or a sheep or

[Rep. John O'Brien]: But I would agree with Greg, like bees, like attempt to say no hives, that's livestock and food. It's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I can say that right now.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: They can? Well, falls tax rate, but before that

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No, no, no. I mean, if it's agriculture, then so so okay. If it's agriculture, a town in one b that doesn't currently have bees, isn't currently farming, could in the future have a bylaw that restricts bees. Yes.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Unless they met the wraps?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So if they I think if they are a farm that meets the wraps in 1B, and they're not an existing farm because we got the grandfather clause. So somebody new coming in in 1B would presumably, the town could regulate the things that are listed here. Ingress, egress, the infrastructure piece, structures, the three things that are there.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: But farm, you know, I just I'm raising honey for myself, probably. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So if is just you, then right now, I think a town can prevent you from doing that if you're not a farmer. There's nothing, I guess, in law that says towns can't regulate that. But I believe. So so what we're doing we're doing two things here. One is saying that we've got new law, existing law because of Calf Street, and which is very restrictive. And we've got just existing law on non farmers that towns can do quite a bit. And in both cases, we're saying we're gonna take tap street and define that very narrowly. And then for right to grow your own food, we're going to expand because right now there is no protection really that towns can they wanted to, they could functionally ban poultry or non farming poultry. Or aphids. Or flowers, or food rather, growing.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Yeah, wish we could expand that without running into what John was mentioning of

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: all specific dimensions.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: One thing I'm trying to figure out here in reading this, and I don't know if I'm interpreting it correctly, but it talks about tier one and tier one A and one B that they can regulate. But then when you get down to section two, it says that even in 1A or 1B, they can't regulate farming that meets the minimum threshold of the reps. Am I reading that correctly? So what page are you on? I'm on page, section two is on page two. So above it talks about they can regulate one A and one B, but then right there under two, says that they cannot regulate farming that meets the wraps. Except Even in one a, except that they can do it based on setbacks and Yeah. It's pathic and pathic and all that kind of stuff.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: Yeah.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So am I read am I interpreting this correctly? That one a and one b, the towns can't regulate farming.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Except as set forth in Right. Right. Yep. So except as set forth in forty four one two, which is below, and that's the three things that

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: because I'm trying to respond to what what Greg is saying in terms of, oh, well, one a or one b. Well, if Right. What this is, actually means they can't regulate farming even if one a.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: But it shouldn't. So yeah, if you're under the rats, you could be right. So if you have one or two cows. If you're under the rats, yeah, right. Regulated.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Right, but if you are, 're a farm, which is what we're trying to protect, even in 1A, the towns can't regulate your day to day activities, other than traffic and egress and that kind of stuff. And am I reading it correctly?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That's, I think the, yeah, I think that's the correct

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: interpretation. So it seems like the one A, one B thing is less critical when we're trying to protect arms that are operating under the wraps.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: But does it make a difference for starting new farms? I mean, because that's existing farms. Could a new farm start a new farm? Would a new farm be under regulation if if somebody wants to start a farm where there isn't one?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I think the idea is if you're starting if you have a new farm if you have an existing farm, grandfathered, then you can't be regulated. If you are a new farm, the town in a 1A, 1B situation could regulate you, but only for those three things.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Like where to put the entrance, where to put your sign. So it's super limited. So they can't control whether or not you have a farm. They can just say where you can put your sign and your entrance and all those very small details.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: That's how I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: read it. Yep. And it explicitly says, and this is above those three things, the municipality shall not regulate noise, smell, lighting, hours of operation. And then it goes out to say the municipality may regulate and list those things. So it is pretty small. What is it? We had some questions about interpreting that language that we need to clarify and make it easier to understand for everybody. But right now, I think that's what that's doing.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: That seems much more restrictive of

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: the right to grow food.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the right to grow food part, which is down at the bottom, which is not for the farms, that's just for you and me. And that's So we haven't finished that yet. Okay. There's a, Biolaus may regulate blank. So it's still open for interpretation there. And the existing, this is new language, but what's being proposed is no bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting cultivation or the raising of poultry, excluding roosters. And again, I'll just say, I'm sorry, I keep harping on this, but this is where, to a certain extent, we've gotten some agreement, and I recognize that it's not universal, but sort of the structure is other people working together to try

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: and sign some agreement. Yeah, Greg? Could we talk about line 16 on page four briefly? Yes. The requiring the buildings open to the public be developed and constable fire and building safety code? So I'm quite certain that farm stands are exempt from that. But if you are, let's say a farm that opens a store, but it's their, don't know the exact requirements, I think the principal amount of what you're selling needs to come from your farm. So if you go to a point where you're selling other things at a larger scale, it triggers that already, I think, in statute, and I think we should look at that before we go into So I see it being a little bit unnecessary. I would rather see, if it's just a little place to pick up CSA or to sell a few things that it shouldn't necessarily have to meet the fire building safety.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, it may be that if you If

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: I invite you in open air I

[Stephen (Steve) Collier, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: don't know

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: how fire safety would regulate that offhand, of course, but I don't think it's, I think that's a little over

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the top. Okay, good, yeah. Michelle's pledge council, I think, helps with that.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, good. We back to that 16 about

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: growing food, bylaws may regulate blank. So this is a different 16. This is back on We were just a minute ago. Yeah, that was a thought

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: of why You were saying there's missing language there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I actually think we'd be fine if we cheated this period before the Osale period. They can't regulate anything. No bylaw shall have the effect of prohibiting. So if we don't have the highlighted language, then it's Then they can't regulate anything. No, they can still regulate, they just can't prohibit. So if any language we add here would be restrictive, presumably, it would say For municipalities. Yeah. For for municipalities. Yeah. And I think right now, again, we should have the legislature to confirm this, but I think right now, the law just doesn't have it doesn't have the new language, and it doesn't have what they may regulate. They just didn't regulate. And they can prohibit.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: The part that's page four says the municipality shall not regulate noise, smell lighting, and hours of operation. Yep. Is that only in regard to farms farming? Right now, it is. Yep. So that would be both both those that are under the wraps. Yep. So this would not pertain to so technically, the Meas Valley could regulate

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: simply growing a garden based on those things. Yeah. So right now, I keep saying right now, municipality can't. And my understanding, I'll just put it, my understanding is that right now, a municipality can regulate and can prohibit, if they want to, chickens. None do in Vermont. No towns actually prohibit having chicken, but many of them do have regulations. And maybe those regulations are so severe that they make it almost impossible to have chickens possibly. So part of what we're trying to do here is say that you can't functionally prohibit it. And then similarly for growing plants for food, nobody's saying right now that you can't do that, but they could. And they may also say you can't have a vegetable garden in your front yard if it doesn't look good nice. Right now, there's nothing in statute that prevents towns from doing that.

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: If we change, if insinuation were changed to no bylaws would have the effect of regulating cultivation, And then you could have a list of, except for, regard to safety, public safety, or we could have a short list of what you might regulate around

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Possibly, yeah. Instead of doing it the opposite. Yeah. Try to just be careful there about opening a can of worms that I'm not sure how big is. This is So then we would

[Rep. Gregory “Greg” Burtt]: need it. Basically, we wanna put the part that's highlighted yellow right now, we would have to definitely insert something there to make sure that these practices are not regulated. If there's something that- Where you only can have two chickens on three acres of land. Yeah, and pay $35 in fees to have the two chickens.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. For yeah. Or have it be, you know, a 100 feet away from your neighbors and your lots only a 150 feet wide. Yes. But we can partly get around that by saying I mean, I don't know whether this language covers that, but has the effect of prohibiting. So it's not just prohibiting, it's but has the effect of prohibiting. So if you have a bylaw that doesn't work geometrically, that would effectively prohibit. This should cover that, I think.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I'm just wondering what kind of things we want the bylaws to be able to regulate. Do we want them to be able to regulate anything? We could

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: say think, for the effect of prohibiting or regulating cultivation and just leave it. They can't regulate. I can just say that won't fly. That won't work if we say that you can't regulate it at all, because right now, and I'm just saying politically, right now municipalities have complete authority to regulate and prohibit. So we're looking at language here that is allegedly threading the needle, but just hasn't quite made the last So I'll

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: go back to my question. What is it that we do want them to be able to regulate? What would we list there?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: But the legal league has some ideas.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're gonna take a break, yes. And we have another witness, so we probably should take the break. And then we'll pick this up afterwards. Basically, on a break. Yeah, we're on a break.