Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right. So thank you.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So Sophie Sedatney for the Office of Legislative Council. Yesterday, I was in here testifying on H403, which is the minimum wage for agricultural workers bill. And there was conversation around if you increase agricultural workers to the state minimum wage, and that's an added cost for I mean, some farmers are already paying that, but some are not what happens with the housing allowance that's permitted? And yesterday, I testified that it would be you couldn't go below minimum wage. I followed up immediately after the hearing with the Department of Labor to get clarification, and they followed up with their division on wage and hour, who is the group that enforces the minimum wage laws. And they confirmed that you can deduct that housing allowance even if it brings an employee below the minimum wage. So I just wanted to be very clear with the committee to make sure there wasn't any confusion on that. The language around this, it's in rules, it's in statute, it's just not crystal clear. So I wanted to confirm.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. The Vermont

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Department of Labor?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Not federal.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So our Vermont Department of Labor has a wage and hour division that enforces it. It's a complaint driven process.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And then also, when you said housing, what about there's on that table that included food?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, yes, that's That's their Yeah, same thing for that as well. I just know that housing was the main concern that the committee had. Okay.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Representative O'Brien. So going in the other direction, if you were a farmer and you were paying a wage, below minimum wage, you would still have to, with that housing figure that's added to it, you'd still have to be above per month minimum wage.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So if you raised the individual workers' hourly rate up to the state minimum wage, you can then go ahead and deduct the housing allowance, even if that brings them below the state minimum wage. That was where the confusion was.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Okay, so I was just thinking in de facto terms, if you can't then hire an ag worker for $13 and then have the housing added in to bring them above Vermont minimum wage.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, you would need to do it as

[Rep. John O’Brien]: The other way. Now it's the same ultimately.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, right. Okay,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: so in doing so, it increases the PICA payments.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And I did clarify with the with the department that the housing allowance comes off the gross wages.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If that's

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So it increases state taxes paid, federal taxes paid, FICA taxes paid.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So is that a question or is that you're asserting that?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am asserting that I did follow-up.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Asking everything else. Okay.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Oh, I'm clarifying. You didn't say the same.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I think the question is, for the purposes of paying either federal tax, state tax, or Social Security, Medicare, that's calculated off of the gross wage. And then the employer can, under state law, deduct a certain amount if they're providing housing, and that becomes, along with all the other deductions, that becomes what the employee gets. That's right. Okay. Richard?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I don't want to open up this box, but I'm going ahead. So if you're paying somebody already well above minimum wage and you're supplying them housing, do you have to put that on their wage too and make it gross wage so they have

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: to pay tax on top of that as well?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's up to the individual farmer whether you want to charge for the housing. If you haven't been charging for it, you don't have to charge for it. I mean, it's just it's an allowance. You're allowed to deduct that amount.

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

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: right. So if we're ready to move on, I will share the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Let's sure. Let's go ahead and share that.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just a quick run through from yesterday. So this is just going through again the definitions for an employee in terms of who has to be paid minimum wage in overtime, And what this amendment does, as no change from yesterday, this scoops in now agricultural workers into the definition of employee. Students continue to be excluded. And then in Section two, agricultural workers would be entitled to the state minimum wage, which again is not specific in the statute, but the current calculation is $14.42 an hour. This bill would go into effect 01/01/2027, so likely the minimum wage will be a little bit higher come January. And then the second section provides that this now carves individuals working in agriculture out of the overtime provision. So consistent with federal law, they would be subject to state minimum wage, but not the state overtime requirements. And then this is the new language. This adds in a requirement for the Commissioner of Labor in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets to submit a written report to this committee, House General and Housing, and then the equivalent committees on the Senate side on the lodging allowance that employers are entitled to deduct from an employee's wages. If you wanted, that could also include the meals and things. But I know the housing was really the concern that the committee had. And then subsection lists what specifically you would want the report to address. So the background on how lodging rates are set, whether the current methodology for calculating lodging rates should be updated, whether there should be a separate lodging rate for farm worker housing, and any recommendations for legislative action. So that was the change to the bill. Again, as before, this would provide that the minimum wage would go into effect 01/01/2027, and then change the name of the bill if it were to pass.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And can you just, do you have at your fingertips what the current housing allowable deduction is? Yes.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So these again are the numbers for 2026. These numbers would probably also go up a little bit in January. I know there was a question yesterday about where did they start in 2009, and the nightly lodging in 2009 when this calculation when they started this was $3.73 a day or a night, and $22.43 a week.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: 3.73.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: A day and 22.43 a week.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That was adjusted every year. Right, and

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's where we're Using at that calculation.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Go ahead, John. When it says the report shall address the background on how lodging rates are set, are we talking those?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, yes. And again, it's specific to lodging. Again, if you wanted it to include the meals, we could include the meals. I just know that was not where the focus was for the committee.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Those meal prices are almost as good as the school lunch price.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Representative O'Brien? Sophie, did you find the equivalence for H2A?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did. So this was from a presentation that I believe this committee received, And so I didn't have time to do a separate graphic for you, but this was what was presented. And again, this was an interim rule that was issued in October for the H2A program. And then it lists out the numbers at the bottom for Vermont. So what this new rule is seeking to do is coming up with two different tiers. There didn't used to be two tiers for H-2A. And so this is the new level. So $15.96 for the lowest paid folks, and then $14.53. So that Sorry, on the one side is the average for US workers. The maroon colored is the H2A over here. So fourteen thirty five is a little bit below the current fourteen forty two. So if this bill is passed, an agricultural worker, and I believe an H-2A worker, would then be entitled to the fourteen forty two rather than the fourteen thirty five. But this adverse compensation adjustment on the far side here, that deduction of $1.61 that's now to take into account the housing. Because before for H2A, you had to provide free housing. So you still have to provide free housing, but now the employer gets to have that deduction of the hourly rate.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So this is confusing. And I'm going say it's not you who are making it confusing, but I think we should understand the So it seems to me that it's a parallel situation that what we have here with that 161, that's the housing cost. So they're deducting that from the wage, or they're allowed to deduct that starting this And coming

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that's a deduction on an hourly rate. Again, the Vermont one is structured a little bit different. It's a weekly rate rather than coming off the hourly rate.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So in this case, is the the blue number I can't really see. I can't really

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: see Yes. I don't know if I can make I can probably make it bigger. The blue number is for US workers. Again, this is to do with the new rule that they have. The H2A in that same category. I think this is just to demonstrate at federal level that they're not disadvantaging US based workers.

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

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: there anything in this that, if you have a farmer that's offering housing, does the worker have to take the housing? Are they required Is there anything in this requires them to take offered housing?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I mean, it's

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: They could say, I'm gonna take the wages, keep your housing, I'm gonna go live somewhere else.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Right. Yeah. I mean, unless unless I don't know if a farmer would say it's a condition of you working for me is that you have to be in this housing, and that might be a separate issue. But the bill is not addressing that.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Is there anything that would keep the farmer from saying that if you want to rent housing, I'll I'll rent you this this space, but at fair market value, where that table wouldn't apply at all. The employee would say, take this or I'll, you know, go live somewhere else.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think you'd have to be very clear on on whether or not the housing is connected to the job. Right? So if you if you rent if you say, you can rent this house. I have this available. You can rent this house from me. That's a separate relationship. That's a landlord tenant relationship that you're establishing. If you're dissatisfied with that employee's work or whatever, you choose not to continue to employ that employee, you're going be bound by whatever the landlord tenant arrangement is.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Maybe this doesn't have to do so much of this, but on the overtime side, do workers and let's say ag workers, what are you required to do after your forty hours? Like, can you, if you were an ag worker, could you tell your employer that you've done your forty hours and you don't want to work anymore? I mean, sometimes they may want to work eighty hours, but I just wondered what your rights are as an ag laborer when you're getting into those overtime hours.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So as the employer, you're required to pay the employee for all the hours that are worked, but right now they're not entitled to overtime. So from the employer's perspective, if somebody works sixty hours, you have to pay them for sixty hours. And again, if there's disagreements between the employer and the employee in terms of, I don't want to work sixty hours, that's just part of the normal employment relationship. Again, that's not really impacted by this.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Okay. But you potentially could be fired for not wanting to work over your forty hours a week?

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I mean, there's different claims. So yeah, usually there's a whole lot of background that goes in behind something. So they may pretend I don't want to suggest that you could never have a claim. You could certainly have a claim of some sort. If somebody takes the job understanding this is a dairy job, the hours are very long, that's the expectation. I think there again, there still would be subject to some of the rules around the ability to take sick leave, etcetera. So other employment laws would kick in. But yeah, the general principle is, yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Great. Any other questions? So right now, that amendment that you had up on the screen, Sophie, the only changes it makes to existing statute are removing the exemption for agriculture workers who are adults. Effectively, it does that, and it creates a study group or something at the end.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, this wasn't framed Again, this was just simply asking Right. It was just simply asking the Commissioner of Labor and then in consultation with the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets to just sort of revisit and then submit a report to the General Assembly. Presumably, these committees would want to have the Commissioner of Labour and or the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets come in to discuss the housing allowance. Should that be tweaked in some way? Should there be a separate one? Again, I don't know how many employers offer housing these days beyond in the farm sector. But again, it would be just interesting to get an update, I think, on the calculation itself hasn't changed since 2009.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Realistically, if we said today, here's what we think the rate should be, It should be adjusted by inflation going forward. That makes sense. What doesn't seem to make sense to me is how they came up with that number, March or whatever it was, first place in 2009 for a night under a roof. So once that report came back to the legislature, the legislature could then decide to change that number.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So currently in state statute, the authority is delegated to the Commissioner of Labor to set those to set the allowances. So again, depending on what information you receive, the legislature could take that away or provide some further direction on what those allowances should be. But right now, the Commissioner of Labor has the authority that's been delegated to the Commissioner by the General Assembly to make that determination.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And we don't delegate, I'm just thinking out loud here, we don't delegate to the Department of Labor what the minimum wage should be.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: been the source of many contentious discussions in this building. And I'm not sure why that other number would be any different.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: We delegate at least a COLA increase in all those numbers? Well, I think Not a specific dollar number, but the rate of the federal increase.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, I think that that's what is delegated right now, sort of, is that

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Because those aren't even close to following COLA if it's only gone up that much.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. I was assuming that it was following, but maybe it's not. No, it doesn't.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Currently, the calculation is increased by 5% or the percentage increase of the consumer price index. So it's seeking to do that. But I think it's, again, it started from a very low place.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Inflation was low for a number of years.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: It's almost like you don't know much either.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It's missed '22, I can tell you that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, any other questions for Sophie? So any other questions about what currently this draft does, whether you like it or not? Think I that's maybe the way to put it. Because we're losing Sophie here. She has to go to her next committee. Thank you. You, Sophie. Any other conversation on this? I'm not

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: sure that I care, but I'm wondering what the commissioner of labor would say about having to do this report. But, as I said, I'm not sure that I care.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, no, that's a legitimate question. I mean, normally, we would if we were assigning a new report to the secretary of agriculture, we would get there, let them know and see what their reaction is.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: My thoughts on this is I hate dictating how much somebody's gonna pay when they don't have any control over what they get paid for the product they're selling. Sure. And and that's the issue I have. So you're talking about dairy milk? Yeah. I'm yeah. I'm talking. Yeah. Dairy. Yeah. You're you can't we're not allowed to raise our prices. We can't say the cost of our labor's gone up. We need to get paid for our product. And a couple states a couple states that have changed it, do so much more for their agriculture than we do here in Vermont, and we don't have the money here in Vermont to do so much more. But just the fact that if you change how that housing is figured and having to pay tax on it is another added burden. So I just you know, and and and dairy farmers cannot you know, right now, we're getting hit with fuel surcharges, which boy, Jack, they have a hard time remembering that fuel dropped back down to to cheaper price, don't you? You know? That fuel surcharge all of a sudden comes home. And And, you know, it's just, you know, farmers don't don't get a chance when wages go up in the school district, pass along taxes. When wages go up in a store, they can absorb so much and they raise their prices. Raises wages go up in a through union negotiations at shop. If they need to, they increase the the price of the product going out the door. In agriculture, we can't do that. As That's right. That total. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: The increase.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: As Maddie said, the the farmer that said to her, well, if I have to pay my worker time and a half to pick an extra box of bok choy, can I charge 150% for that box of bok choy? And I know that you took overtime out of that. And and again, the labor market is so tight. It's so tight as you saw driving in the other day. You know? If you're not paying your employees well, you're not gonna have employees. Well,

[Rep. John O’Brien]: what you're saying too, I mean, it's interesting that if we changed it, the real wage for the ag worker might stay exactly the same. So you pay the minimum wage, but then you deduct. So they're getting $13.69 say, an hour, opposed to you're paying them $13.69 and they get free housing.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They get free house. Yeah.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: Without them.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: But do you say the farmer gets dinged if we change it? Yeah. What are the stakeholders, migrant justice, what they were doing?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So migrant justice was very much in favor of all three changes. Two changes plus the survey that they testified. And the Farm Bureau didn't really stake out a position other than to share survey results, which included some percentage in the 20s, I think, their members who said that they paid less than minimum wage. And I don't know how big that survey was. Amber didn't know for sure. NOFA supported the first and third pieces. The Dairy Producers Alliance did not want to come to testify. They wrote that they did not support the overtime and they did not think that the survey was helpful. They didn't address the minimum wage letter. That's posted on our page. So we can ruminate on that. This morning we had on our agenda the baby food bills just to discuss, and we didn't get a chance to talk about that. We will have Katie coming in tomorrow morning before we go onto the floor to be with us and hear any thoughts on that. But I just this week, yesterday, the day before, had any thoughts on any changes we might want to make to that or if we like the bill the way that it's currently drafted. So the testimony was from the Infant Formula Association, and the latest draft had or does incorporate, removes that exemption for an infant formula. So just wanted to see whether anybody had any reaction to that that you wanted to discuss or try and get into. Yeah.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I was not persuaded that we should change the legislation that we had drafted. I like having the infant formula in there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: They're not accepting it?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: It feels like it's backwards to say. I would just say, I think we should have both baby food and infant formula included as things that Vermonters will be able to assess. I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: just wanna be sure that- Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: It seemed like echoing that, it seemed like a lot of the argument was that having the word toxin on the label would convince people that this is a toxic product, and that seemed like a weird argument.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It was interesting to find out that the FDA is now doing research and studies into it and being sincere to say. I thought Maryland would be further ahead with theirs. And I don't know if they really are not gonna go with it or if they are. I do worry that I don't know how many babies we have on formal at any one time, but 10,000, that's a pretty small number in the whole scheme of In Vermont? Yeah. In Vermont. You know, while they had 200 births a year at North Country Hospital. So maybe we don't Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It's 5,000 school graduates.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: This nurse needs

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: this. 4,000. And they're all important, every one of them, but are is that enough babies to make industry care, or does industry say? They can drink almond milk, which would be just terrible. But, yeah, tell me, yeah, alright. But anyway, so, you know, I worry about, you know, if we were gonna go ahead with formula, I maybe would put even a further kick out date with a with a request that legislature look at it to make sure it's good to go before it goes. If you understand what I'm saying, instead of saying, you know, this is it. I'd rather say, you know, kick it out even another year and and wait to see what Maryland, California, Illinois, Virginia do so that we're not going it alone, but and and then if

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: I

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: don't know why that's where I'm coming from. Just I mean, I I wanna do something and and absolutely on the food, and and I think it's important those kids all have something clean, like we've got to, you know, have respect for the process too. And I'm hoping I'll keep waiting for your guy, Bobby Kennedy. Keep coming ahead with the strong on the record. Food thing, Michelle. It's sexual.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There's libel or slander or something here.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah. Yeah. Let's just back pedal. We'll erase that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Notwithstanding any allegiances here that we're just matching, I actually was swayed by the testimony we received the other day about some of the possible impacts of of young mothers cannot lactate cannot lactate, whatever, of being doing homemade formulas presented more risks than whatever the industry is currently at. It's with a lot of protections. So I'd be more moderate than Rep Bos-Lun or Rep Bartholomew and I would, I'm leaning to support obviously the baby food bill excluding formula.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. Any other, I don't whether your physicians were just correctly represented there, representative of

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: positive breathality. Yeah, I want to be sure that I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But you're saying that I you're not

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I can just say that, I mean, of what the gentleman who testified about formula said was, Oh, mothers will see if they test a certain baby formula product and it's toxic, then they'll say, Oh, this is all terrible. Now I'm gonna go get some totally different product that isn't infant formula. And I just think that is actually honestly a ridiculous statement because there are dozens of possible infant formulas. And if I were a mother or anyone were a mother and they picked up a bottle and they tested a certain one and they're like, Oh, brand X has this level. I'm not gonna serve brand X to my baby. I'm gonna go over here and check brand Y. Oh, brand Y is lower. Great. Because there are lots of choices in infant formula. He was oversimplifying it and making it really almost absurd because it's like saying, Oh, I'm not gonna eat any fruit because I found a worm in my apple. That's just silly. Like, I think it's I don't think that that's really how people are gonna react.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: If I may read to you what it says on the Gerber baby food QR code, because I went and said, check it. No, so

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Baby food.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: There's a baby food bottle, there's a QR code, you scan it. Their transparency, you deserve. Our commitment to caregivers. Feeding tiny tummy comes with big responsibility.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: This is after you QR.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, it's after QR. This is first thing came We know the presence of heavy metals and baby foods can be concerning. We are here to provide you with the peace of mind you deserve. Our quality standards are industry leading. We quality check our 300 plus ingredients before crafting each of our foods and test every single finished product for heavy metals. If you have any questions, our parent resource center is here twenty four seven. Love the Gerber family. And then you go to the next page, the piece of and it says, the peace of mind you deserve, and it shows where they tested in at. I then went to a another product, scanned it, and I could have done better. And and it and it how we ensure quality of every step, happy family organics. And we are on a mission to change the trajectory of children's health through nutrition. We are proud to be a leader in baby food industry with among the strictest quality and safety standards in US led by our passionate team of quality and food safety experts. And then it says check your product. And and then here it gave a list of the different products and what their levels were. And they're all very low, and they're below the set of standards that the FDA, but because if they were above the standards, it would, go to feed the rodents outside by the bait boxes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Quick question, and then we'll move on to the next topic here. Does the package, I don't know if you got a picture of the package, does it say toxic on the label?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I didn't see anywhere where it said that, Sharon.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I can't even remember.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: I don't like the belly button.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: No, we don't put that underneath.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No, and why would you list that? You list the concerns, it's all in words.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the only reason I can imagine you would list it is if somebody told you that you had to, yep. Okay, Ellen. Hi. Would you like to come up to the table? So representative Lipsky, I don't know whether you were following the environment committee's testimony today, this afternoon even.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I didn't know Jed was.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It wasn't, Jed. So the wood products manufacturing legislation that we looked at, I think we had a show at the end the other day supporting it. We didn't formally vote it out because the environment community is having a drive by, and they had that this afternoon. Yes. You were there, I guess, Yes. And I heard through the grapevine that they didn't have any concerns. Is that your sense as well? Yes. Do we need to look at that bill? No, I think unless somebody wants to see it again, we could just have a vote then. So just for carpet, they

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: take no and that means it's of a scratch.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Is that why you're here, Ellen?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, no, I think I was invited for the other committee bell. We just hold regulation, but I'm also happy to do what the committee's pleasure is.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, I think it would be our I don't know if it would be our pleasure, but rather than have you sit there while we take a vote, because you're busy, if there's if you wanted to give us an update on the other I don't know if that if you were here to do that, right? Because I haven't heard the other committee.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Other committee, the environment committee did have concerns about the other committee bill seven seventy two municipal regulation of agriculture. They're concerned about the use of the tier one areas as part of that legislation.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Tier one tier one A and B. So not A and B, it's just tier one as A? Yes. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, because those tiers haven't actually been finalized. We don't know how large those areas are or where they are yet. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Beyond that, is there anything that you were deputized to tell us?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the only thing the only other thing specifically I mean, they did have a long discussion this morning with Steve Collier and Josh Hanford, and we're pleased that there's continued to be collaboration between them. The only small suggestion I think I got was that if you're continuing with the study at the end of the bill, they would like to be one of the committees that receives the report.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, yeah, we got that. Yes, sorry. Okay. Yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then I think they also did they talked about the bill quite a bit. They did talk about the issue. You all did start to discuss when I was here last about when should farming have been taking place on that site. For your for purpose of your exemption, did you want it to be historically farmed or farming taking place at the time of this new regulation?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right, yeah. And I did talk to Chair Sheldon about that and said that my belief was that we were trying to say very specifically that farming needed to be taking place now or at the time of passage or signature or enactment, whatever. So not previously, but it had to be taking place now. And I know it's confusing otherwise, that's what I think we wanted to do.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so I made that change moments ago. If you would like to see a version with that, I can give you that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, I think that maybe what we should do is wait and hear from them about their concern. Why don't you bring it up? You're here. We've got a few minutes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I never bring my laptop to committee because I get really nervous that you all are gonna ask me to do something. However, I brought it today in case you wanted to vote this out quickly. So I'm not rushing you. You have tomorrow.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But if I can put it on the screen. Oh, okay. You only have six? I've got more than that.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Maybe we have more. I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: a we couple more. Maybe it's eight. Although it's very tempting to vote it up quickly, I think that we shouldn't because we did ask the other committee to raise and we haven't heard back officially from them.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: We have to talk about satin beets.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Are you ready for that conversation? Maple sugar. Cameron, how much time are you able to give us here?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I have

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to be in ways and means at 03:15.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. So we'll try this.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Those are the l's and l's. Water's in.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. When I was sitting over there, I was attempting to send this to Patricia, so I will do that as I am able to momentarily. So there were a couple of just small changes. So this would be draft 6.1, but there are only a couple small changes that you all were just discussing. We all were just discussing. Okay. The findings have not changed. Neither has section one.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Is it tier one or tier one and B? I mean, it sounds I say tier one, two parts. It looks like a it's saying a and b that just flashed by.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so I was saying tier one as a whole because they have an issue with the whole concept of using any tiers. Your bill does reference specifically both tier 1A and tier 1B.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That Michelle, is that

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Well, so so what do we want as a as a committee? Like, did they say no, they don't approve it, and then we need to come up with a different idea? Or we've got your opinion and we just keep what we had before?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So we're not really, I think, making that decision right now. Is what we sent them to the review. It's what we had left in front of us, it was one A and one B. Yeah. Or just one for convenience sake. But for some reason, they would prefer everyone likes us to say 1A and 1B rather than one. You've seen

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: different criteria in the law to qualify for 1A.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For expediency, they prefer not to use that reference at all.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. So they don't like the idea of our bill having anything peer related, period, that we just heard, at least through alleged counsel. But this is what we sent them. And there are a few other things that were just cleaned up that Ellen is showing us. And this is just a refresher. Here's what we sent them with these few things cleaned up.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, they did also discuss whether or not you should take out or line thirteen and fourteen be taken out given that it is slightly redundant because if a building is open to the public, it will need to comply with the building and life safety code.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I think we had come to a similar conclusion.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then for your exemption or your carve out here down on line 19, this is what we were just discussing. So a parcel refarming is taking place as of 07/01/2026 that has changed from your prior draft 5.1. That has been conserved for agricultural purposes or, and this is I also wanted to follow-up on this farm structures built prior to 07/01/2026. Did you want to keep that? Yes. Okay. So that is one change that's in draft 6.1. And then, I guess the other one is just here at the top of page five. At the top of page five in your prior drafts, what was subsection C was a provision that said, municipality may be less restrictive and not do this. In briefly talking to the chair a little while ago, you had indicated that perhaps that should come out. And so that's why when as I was drafting this a little while ago, I took that out. You can put that back in. I can go either way on that because I do think you do use may language in this section, so a town may or may not choose to regulate under this version regardless.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I think that the I just wanted to pull up the previous version.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that was 5.1. A couple Sorry.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm coming in wrong place here. Page five is used in this section.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so the previous language was subsection c.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Less restrictive?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Less restrictive.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Municipality may adopt a bylaw concerning farming that is less restrictive. And you're you're saying that we know that. You don't need to say it.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, because in the language above this, it does say may. So they may choose to do this in tier one tier one A or B or they may not.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. I think it's fine to leave it out. Think fewer words is better if you're happy to share the same thing. And

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: then the only other change I was literally typing was adding the committee down at the bottom, the environment committee.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, adding the Senate committee, I think, should get it as well.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, Okay. Yep.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Now it's environment committee is getting it. Okay. Are you ready for questions about SAP and bees?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, Cameron is here, and so we can't do a lot of hypotheticals about SAP.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, we have five minutes for

[Rep. John O’Brien]: I have a different question. Yeah. So Ellen, on the piece that says, are all the properties that are conserved for farming, does that sentence say it? Are those two different things if you go there?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They are two different things.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: So one exception is where farming's been taking place. Another, so it's or essentially.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There are three options in this sentence, yes.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: So is that can you be conserved for agricultural purposes but not be farming when this law takes effect?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, that is how it is phrased currently. If you would like to change that, you can.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: I'm just confused on what that scenario looks like.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that is a scenario where we multiple existing programs where land is conserved for agricultural purposes.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: But no ag is taking place.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct. And I don't know the universe of how many there are, but I thought it was something you might want to include here. If you don't want to, you can take that out.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It's not the nature. Fluffside Farm in Newport. Land Trust bought it all. A lot of it right now is sitting by their the way they got it set up, walking trails, and and kind of foul light hanging going on, and someday they may change your mind up. It's some of the greatest agronomic soils in Orleans County with the best growing.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: But in the easement, it says it's

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: conserved for farming? It's conserved

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: for farming. So Okay. No.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So, you know, it and we wanna be careful that if it sits it's well, as I said before, it's where Heather should be farming. Right. Yeah. Right there in Newport, right

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: in town with 20 Jersey cows. Representative Bennington?

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: It's you see there's a considerable amount of land in the state that's been conserved. The farms have gone out of business and it's sitting there growing up to fresh. Right. The other thing I wanted to Ellen, you said that they didn't want that in tier one, they just they didn't like the term tier one a and b because they don't know what it is.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: They invented that. Yes.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it's not for that reason. It's they know what it is. They don't think we all Well know the universe yet. And so knowing how much land this actually involves is difficult right now to predict because that process is not finished yet.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: So when we're reviewing Act two fifty applications, we don't even talk about it yet because it hasn't been decided.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It doesn't exist. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So why, Bob? Yeah. Because it will invest vineyards. It's been two years. Representative Lipsky. Yeah. Is that Greg? It was Greg's mistake. I actually concur with the reasoning of the environment committee that the maps haven't been created, the districts haven't been created. It's a concept, so I see no problem with their suggestion. Well, suggestion, we

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: have to start from square one. That's the

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: way to out that one sentence.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, taking that one sentence out removes everything from this bill. It's all based on Well, I don't take her.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I was gonna take your temper to this bill.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I can see that they have a certain logic that's been saying that, and Jack just expressed that like that.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, pretty well, he did

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: very well. But it would really take the heart of the bill out and not leave much. It would not solve the problem we're trying

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: to solve.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We might not be able to grow vegetables in a wildlife corridor.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Also, the negotiations between the stakeholders like the league have used this language, right, Ben?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Representative Burtt has his hand raised, and I just emailed Patricia. I is the what I put on the screen so that it can be posted. I apologize. Yep.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: It's Alright.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And then Okay. Representative Burtt, go ahead.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yeah. I guess I'm more inclined to is it is it possible I'm I I'm on that same side of because we don't really know what tier specifically tier one b, I'm more concerned about is actually gonna look like to I think it's a I don't feel comfortable putting in being able to vote in favor of legislation that's using tier one b right now because I just don't know what the extent of that is. I would I've been thinking that maybe language like, you know, parcels that have access to both municipal sewer and water. To me, that's more straightforward for delineating. I I I at least I offhand. I don't know. Obviously, that opens up a can of worms, but I I don't think I can vote for anything that says tier one b because I just don't know what it is, and I don't wanna make a mistake on that. So I just wanna say that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, Greg. And I appreciate your, you know, brainstorming on alternatives because that's maybe where we would have to go. You know? Before we let Ellen go, is there anything else that you wanted to ask about this draft and any anything? Please feel free to ask. What's up there? So so this is again, this is pretty much what we looked at last Tuesday, sent it to house environment. They've been looking at it. They flagged a couple of little things, and that's what we've just talked about here. And now we will have to decide what are

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: we gonna do. Real quick. Yep.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Wasn't the league in favor? This and tier one A and one B? Yes. Yeah. Okay. And Go over Martin, NOFA. Kind of in favor of having tier one a

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: and one b. I think that all three stakeholders went into the house and environment committee and said they would be okay

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Greg, you're not muted. Yes, if you were there, maybe Ellen, I don't know if that is in fact what you observed, but.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The testimony today was that from PLCT was that they had proposed a tier 1A and 1B. However, their language was different.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Their language different.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Their language was different. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: A little

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: bit. Why don't we thank Ellen for that Intel Thanks, update. We will stay in close touch over the next twenty four hours. We are, before we go to the floor at 03:30, gonna bone out the other bill. So don't let me forget to do that. Which one

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: was that?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The wood products. Left, yes.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They're on that written on this record of action.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Cameron, come on up.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: An act relating to regulation forestry under Act two fifty. Yes. And then I have this H seven H seven. Yes. When I go on this internet device with the government provides for me and type H787. No, it's not

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: H787, no, that's yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It says Theresa Wood is the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: smartest Yeah, that's a different bill.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yep. So what is the actual bill name?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So it is 26, and it's 26 dash instead of h. So make that note, and we'll take a vote

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: before we Dash, Seven, eight, seven.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No H? No H, yeah. It's because it's a committee bill. Yeah, and it will be assigned a committee bill as soon as it is on the notice calendar. And then- Gets an H. They get an H, yeah. Assign the committee number. So, Kevin, since we don't know how we've only got you for a minute here. You've updated

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Breakthrough the Garden. I had it edited.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then you have a new draft 1.2 that I did provide to your committee assistant. And there was, I think, two minor changes that our editing team made based on drafting style. So I think where we left off from this morning, we were talking about the regulation of structure and permanent versus temporary structure and whether or not it made sense to further develop that, either limiting allowing the associations that ability to regulate amongst themselves. So I think that was one piece that we had left off with this morning is further discussion. But you do have a draft 1.2 based on the editing back from the team. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Where that's that's called strike all on our page. So does anybody feel strongly one way or the other? And if we don't hear anybody feeling strongly and inclined to leave things, generally speaking, the way they are. So Kim, do

[Rep. John O’Brien]: you want to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: bring it up? Yes. Basil?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah, I would just say, I mean, in terms of what Cameron was alluding to a moment ago, that I feel giving maybe three examples of the type of structures that we think should not be restricted could be beneficial naming particularly a see through fence, you know, tomato cages and trellises or other support items to grow vegetables in a garden plot or something like that. Because I just feel like if we say, oh, we'll let the homeowners decide what's appropriate, they don't necessarily know what you need for gardening. And they might say, oh, that's so unsightly, that tomato page, it's made out of plastic and we don't like plastic or whatever. And so it just feels to me like a few basics that give the hint, like this is what you mean. We need these basic things for gardening. You don't get to exclude those. You can exclude like that it can't be twelve feet tall or something, but I don't know.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page is that for? Page four. Yes, sir. We're we're reviewing the subdivision front here. It seemed to work.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. It's it's listed strike all.

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: it would be under number one. Cameron. See.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: When I hit strike all, it says this page doesn't exist. Thought we're not

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Hang on a second at all. So under today's date Alright. If you look at Cameron Mhmm. See here. You've got version 1.2 amendment strike all.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It says version one amendment strike all.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. So refresh your page there and see if a new thing pops up because things are happening quickly here.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yep, there it is. Thank you, chair. Looking

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at page four. So as we discussed, I'm gonna scroll back to page, the bottom of page three. So you have the prohibition saying the association cannot unreasonably restrict or prohibit the use of a vegetable garden. And then in this section, you're saying

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Is that supposed to say unreasonably? Because it says reasonably. No,

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sir. I'm saying above in the sub b. Oh, okay. Yep.

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

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And in the sub b up here on page I'm assuming it's two. Yes, sir. Page two. So we're saying that page two, line sixteen and seventeen, the association cannot prohibit or unreasonably restrict the installation or use of a vegetable garden. And then when we get to that page three and four, that's sub C, we're saying, but you can reasonably restrict these things. And one of them that was added based on the conversation from the other day about whether to give the association the authority to reasonably regulate certain structures that may be built on a vegetable garden. There's also concern about potential soil disruption, etcetera. So I added as a starting point, the subdivision one. So it would give the association the authority to provide reasonable regulation of erection and installation of permanent or temporary structures. And you've been talking about whether or not to exclude from that specific types of structures, to say you can regulate your structures, but you can't regulate these structures. So within, I would say, did you say a fence?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: I mean, the fence, thinking about it, it feels like maybe a fence would be the only thing that would really count as a structure. I I think,

[Sophie Sedatney (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could it be so petty

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: to say that not I mean, because it wouldn't be the other ones would be temporary. Yeah. But the offense would be a little bit more I mean, offense would be potentially in that category and could be helpful in having a garden and could be argued against by people who were concerned about aesthetics or something.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: You mean a fence around the garden or

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: the grounds for the peas to draw on?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: No, around the garden. So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: would we solve that issue if we agreed that's what we wanted to do by staying at the end of one there in line four with the exception of or excluding fences?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I would think about it two ways. First off, keep in mind any regulations they put into place would have to be reasonable. And that's both in this section and separate. So there is the argument currently with the language as it is that anything that would be unreasonable would not be authorized. But as we talked this morning, and I mentioned directly, something that you may think is unreasonable, I may think is reasonable. So that's going to then just be up to the association itself as they're discussing how they want to regulate themselves. You can exclude entirely certain things. So you could say you can reasonably regulate installation of permanent or temporary structures except a see through fence to protect the garden itself or something to that effect. In which case you're saying you can't regulate gap. And that's where I was mentioning this morning, depending on whether you want to mandate that or allow the community to resolve those things on their own is the policy direction that you all would have to choose which way you want to go. If you make that exception, though, keep in mind, you could be opening up a lot of points of potential issue. If you say, except that you can't regulate the erection of temporary see through fence to protect the garden, you then open up a lot of questions about what does that look like.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: What makes it a see through bench? What is or isn't?

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or to the point that was being raised, if there are certain aesthetic requirements that the community wants to meet or uphold, And so I put up a fence that the entire community thinks is unsightly to use the word, to use the phrase that was used they wouldn't be able to do anything about it if you make just a blanket exception. And there's a policy decision for you all. I'm not

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: telling you Just before we go any further with this, I suggested this morning, and maybe I am misinterpreting it, but that that language above that says you can't, doesn't say this word for word, that you can't functionally exclude or prevent somebody from having a garden. And if you are saying you can't have a fence and animals are coming in and eating everything, you have essentially prevented somebody from having a garden in my interpretation. But you as the association might think differently, and then that court might ultimately decide. Yes, sir. Instead of that, okay.

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so I think what you could say, we could try to get even a little clearer specific. I could draft it to say they can reasonably regulate the erection and installation of permanent or temporary structures. However, I could try to figure out how to word in there that the association must allow some sort of erection of a barrier to protect the garden, but the association can regulate the aesthetics of what that barrier looks like. We could go two steps down the thought. That way, you're allowing the community to have some management of what the thing looks like, but you're saying that you still need to allow somebody to erect some sort of protective barrier in place.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. The only thing I thought of just now, if you put a fence up and who has liability to that fence, is it the person that has a garden or is it the whole association because it's on association property?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: You know, it's me trips up. Someone

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: runs in falls on it. It doesn't. I hey, I need to put a better fence up because the deer in our neighborhood love to eat slick shark. Yeah. So I would just

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: say to answer that, that was kind of one of the concerns that was raised by Ms. Jensen when she testified was you're talking about allowing the use of common elements. Now, it's limited the language is restricted to a limited common element. So it is for the exclusive use of the individual unit owner. But it's still a common element, is which typically maintained by the association itself. And so the association would carry the insurance coverage on those spaces, etcetera. You do have in the language, however, that the unit owner would be responsible for any damage resulting from what is installed. Whether that includes some sort of liability coverage, you could include that. Okay,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: things get complicated quickly.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: I was wondering, is there some catch all way, instead of getting more specific, of saying essentially like these vegetable gardeners, as long as they're following essentially like AMPs, can use whatever structures community feels have traditionally been used or used. Just when you said 12 foot high, I'm thinking, well, you could have full beads grow on 12 foot high so you'd say, if you want me to go hops on a 20 foot, it's like there's certain methods for doing it that if they were accepted from growers out there, whether it's NOFA or anybody else, those would be fine. So we could catch them all that way. And if there was a dispute, you could get somebody and say, yeah, this is actually, you need fencing versus charred, or you need 12 foot high stakes for- I

[Cameron Wood (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think you have to go, Cameron. I'll say, just very quickly in response to that point, you have in the definition, you've excluded activities that are subject to required agricultural practices.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right,

[Rep. John O’Brien]: I'm just saying somewhere, no first or some sort of farming, gardening group would have exactly- there There could be references if there was a dispute. Gardeners come in and say, yeah, this isn't wild. This isn't Despite events or whatever.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Thank you. I just wanted to say, while I'm thinking of it, that the resources that were sent to me originally with this bill when somebody said, Take a look at this, interesting. It was really talking about gardens that didn't grow very tall. And I think the intent was to say we should allow people to put gardens in that aren't going to be very disruptive. And you can imagine some things are less disruptive than others. Yes. And in some cases, you're just gonna need a feds period to keep out rabbits in your junk, so.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: Jack? Just wanted to say, I built a nine unit, three triplexes on my farm in Georgia ten years ago, and I had the pleasure of being the head of the HOA, so I sold them all. And like he said, when you have that HOA meeting, you're gonna have nine different opinions, and it'll drag on for hours.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, good to hear you remember. I'm gonna step out and I'll step Okay, thank you. Michelle?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Yeah, I'm just thinking now,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: as we're

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: talking about what we expect would be allowed and what might not be allowed. Should we put some size limitations on this? It was like, if you're talking about, mean, the woman that came in to testify who kind of started this whole bill, as I understand it, there's a big common amount of ground and she wants to use a little plot right next to her house to have, I think she called it like a salsa garden or a salad garden or something like that. And so, should we put some kind of numbers on that? Because otherwise it really could get out of control. If there's a giant shared property and somebody gets a rototiller and plows something the size of a football field and like-

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I don't think that we need to do anything more restrictive to the bill that wasn't suggested. I think that we heard from, so we gave the opportunity to those organizations to say, no, this is wide open.

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: If you

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: haven't said that, then I don't think we need to be.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: So the understanding is that they would just work it out with whoever the entity was that might have seen rise

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

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: They set rules. Let them set their own rules.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: One more

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: question, yeah. I'm wondering if we could address this by simply taking out the word temporary, and since installation of permanent structures. So that would mean sheds, that would mean a solid wooden fence that might be ejection, but temporary stuff, it's gone. They can't regulate temporary stuff. Yeah, that's a very thoughtful idea.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the trellis is temporary.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: A wire Temporary. Wire Six foot wire Temporary. No. No. You take it down every one.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: If you hire a company to put a fence in this permanent. A six

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: foot deer fence, you know, that's what

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: but as as long as it's

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: not permanent.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: If you They use those metal stakes, bound them in, put your wire around, and roll your wire up. Yeah. Take your balls in your bedroom. I don't know.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: It just seemed like a way because we're going round and round and round.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. And and a reminder that we all agreed this morning that we don't have to get it right the first time and that the other body will have a chance to correct all of our mistakes. So

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: should we go? Should

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we get? So Jed, would you follow the rule on

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Not on this.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Not on this, on the laws of products manufactured?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I'm prepared to do so, Chad.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, so do I let me first see if I have a motion to if Mike, this is a committee bill. What's our motion supposed to be?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You just

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: move to approve the bill for introduction.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I have a motion to approve for introduction this draft. What's the draft number? 56Dash787. 787. And but it has a number. Just get it right. 3.2. Let me sit here. Representative Brigham moved that. Is there any further discussion?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Alright. Do you second for that?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We don't. I don't think we do so that No. Clerk control the rules.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Alright. We are voting on an act relating to regulation for its gender act two fifty. Today's March 12, it's committee built, draft 3.2. And John Bartholomew you have invoked. Yes. Michelle Bos-Lun? Yes. Jack Brigham? Yes. Greg Burtt?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: Yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yes. Jed Lipsky? Yes. Yes. John O'Brien? Yes. Chairman David Durfee? Yes. Vote is eight zero zero. Pass.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. Thank you. There are a lot of b's

[Rep. John O’Brien]: in our committee now. Lot of Bs.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Rules limit how many times Greg can vote, and I want to make sure that he wants to use one of his dates.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes, because he's his first vote, and we did talk about that.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I think there are only three, and we're only. There's a lot of obsession left, just want to make sure

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: that he wants to use the Okay. Greg, we're just pointing out that John just reminded us that you get three days when you can vote remotely, and remote wanna be sure that you're okay using this vote for one of those days. And this is the only vote we're taking today.

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Yeah. I mean,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: I get I guess given the unanimous nature of our voting, I could go without voting on this one, chair.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: We don't know what's coming in the end of the session. That's all my own though.

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

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt]: So I don't know. Is it possible to revoke my vote on this one or not?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I'm not sure if it is, Greg. Okay. That's We'll see we'll see. We'll figure things out. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. And and before you go, first of all, thank you everybody for all of the work that you did on that bill, and thank you, Jed, for reporting it. Who's reporting? Jed is reporting it. It'll be on notice tomorrow, Friday. So that's Tuesday. It would be second meeting, and Ellen can help you with your bill presentation. It's

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: it's been delivered to Yep. So before we leave for the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: day, we need to consult with the clerk on that. Yep. So so

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it's committee bill. The chair has to email drafting operations to approve it, And then Cameron needs Cameron's the director or Ellen? Ellen. Ellen has to also email drafting operations to approve it. You don't need the vote yet. Ultimately, it will go to the clerk, but right now

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: he makes those communications.

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: goes to drafting operations with a copy of the okay. And the reporter of the bill? Yeah. Okay. Mike is here not just to help us understand the way things work, but with some feedback on that KFO language that Jared and Richard talked about this morning. Mike, do want to come up? Sure.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can I share the screen?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, Patricia will Yes,

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: I've given you Thank

[Rep. John O’Brien]: you. You're just part of these KFO?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Pardon me?

[Rep. John O’Brien]: You've part of the KFO study group?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't been going. No. I've just been getting updates. But Bradley gave me this language earlier today and have a lot of questions and concerns. And you'll need additional amendments to law if you wanna make this work.

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

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So last year in act 67, the bill that created the or transferred more authority to ANR regarding the regulation of concentrated animal feeding operations. We created a community study stakeholder group. And it was just a broad directive to ANR to engage key stakeholders regarding the implementation transition to a concentrated animal feeding program that conforms with the Clean Water Act. There wasn't there were no specific members. There were no specific dates. The only date in the bill is to report back by February '26, basically the results of the stakeholder group. Stakeholder group is ongoing. No report has been provided. Miscellaneous environmental amendments bill will postpone the CAFO general permit until September 2027. And so I have just language issues. This isn't an extension of the Act sixty seven stakeholder group because it's an entirely new group. So you should just call it whatever you wanna call it, but not an extension. First, other issue is that there's you're not gonna be able to convene this by July 2026. You probably won't pass any legislation that relates to this. And even if it's effective on passage, you're gonna have to get nine members appointed to this commission. And you're not gonna get it done by 07/01/2026. So just be aware of that. And then, then you look at who is appointed. Actually, this sentence right here, if changes to the process are needed, the stakeholder group shall have direct access to the secretary of ANR and secretary of ag. I don't know what that means. What does that mean? Direct access. So I think that needs clarification. And then for the stakeholder group, who is appointing them? It doesn't say. And then it says livestock farmers that are in full compliance in good stead. I don't know what that means either. There's a definition of good standing in statute, which says that you don't have an enforcement action against you or a pending enforcement action against you. If that's the intent, would say replace full compliance in good stead with better in good standing with the agencies as defined under six PSA 48. So you have the appointment issue. You have the appointment issue. Well, for the three ag tech service providers, you've named two. Why not just name a third? Or to specify who's appointing who? Again, who's appointing the representatives from the environmental community? The executive director of the Conservation District, that's ex officio, that's fine. I will note that it's an unbalanced study group. You have eight members of the agricultural community and three members of the environmental community. And that may be what you want, But I just have to point that out. At the first meeting, they elect co chairs. I would not suggest co chairs. Co chairs, especially with this type of dynamic, can go really bad. I would recommend just having a chair elected by the group. And then this is where you get to the point where you might need amendment to other law. So discussions at the stakeholder group meetings regarding individual farms and possible permit violations will be considered confidential. This study group and study groups like this have been determined by the Vermont courts to be instrumentalities of the state. Instrumentalities of the state are subject to the Public Records Act and the Open Meetings Law. Because it's, a, a public body, the meetings have to be public. And the only way you can have confidential discussions is if you go into executive session. There isn't a specific executive session allowance that would allow this. So if you want this to be confidential and allow for discussions at these public meetings, you should probably specify that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're supposed to be downstairs right about now.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have a few other things.

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

[Rep. John O’Brien]: Where did this language come from?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It it came from one of the three.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: Actually have to go 200 points on

[Rep. Jack Brigham]: the sun,

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: and we have to head out. So One of the three.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun]: We're not voting on anything, man.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're waiting for the soy music. Alright.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: See tomorrow. So the final thing is I don't know when stakeholder group ends. It seems like it goes on forever. And it's reporting quarterly, but it doesn't have to have any formal report. And that's really a decision for you. Then you have a third party auditor that is overseeing ANR's inspections. I think that that's gonna be problematic to EPA because part of what EPA wanted was ANR to be clearly in control of its KFO program. Then you have a contract. This is gonna require an appropriation. I would think an auditor over two years that is educated and versed in this is probably at least $200,000.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: If I may, if if this isn't gonna start until 2027 now, if you alluded to earlier, this is something that could be taken up next session.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't I don't know what the intent of this is.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Well, the intent. So the intent was the stakeholders of the group in New York, the stakeholders still meet, and they've had their program for long time.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Fifteen years.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. And their stakeholders still meet and and and and look at the program and say, you know, what what can we do to make it better? Where is it working? Where is it? Where it isn't? And they still need. And I don't know after fifteen years what they're still looking at, but they still need. So we wanted to set up the same thing here in Vermont, that we could watch and and watch how the program develops and grows and and I clearly get it now. Do

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you want to the members to be reimbursed? Because it's gonna potentially at least four meetings a year because they're meeting quarterly.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And as I told the the farmer part of the function said $50, we leave the firm to vote to a meeting because it's important to the firm. If we we're not doing it for the retire retirement benefits. I'm sure some, and I'm speaking, maybe I should care what I'm speaking for, but you know the TSPs and other people will be paid by their respective groups. Okay. So, but again, the process isn't going to start for a whole another year. We can work on this next session and and it, yeah. So this is kinda thrown together and it was brought down in the senate and your person was concerned that it wasn't gonna make it through on the senate miscellaneous bill, so it got punted to us last night. And

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, if you want me to work on it, I can work on it and make it better. I might not be able to do that by tomorrow.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I think that given the timing and the and the times that Yeah. If there if this is critical, we'll find something to attach it to.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Well well that's crossover. Just what I was thinking. Yeah. Has germaneness probably. No. This is this

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is now germane to the environmental amendments bill because that pushes out the CAFO date and makes multiple amendments to that. Yeah. You could easily attach it.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So we can work it up and then attach it to there.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So that's something you can do, Richard, on your own. Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I mean, and that still has to go to the senate. Yeah. And so it's definitely got

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: opportunity. K. Alright. I'll Okay. Look you up next week. Yeah. I'll this or you slammed up hard next week too and look you up the week after?

[Michael O’Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will I will have something for you Monday or Tuesday.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Appreciate you. Yeah. Thanks for coming in. Okay. Alright. We should we should wrap up for the day. Thank you, everybody, for your patience jumping around.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Tomorrow we're Quarter after nine.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, quarter after nine, and if everybody could be