Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: If we have slight changes, can we vote pending amendments, or do we have to actually have drafting rewriting?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The slight changes are technical changes, certainly we can do that, yeah.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I'm not positive because we have to get Generally, would be true, but we have to have the bill determined to pay. So whoever's reporting it turns it in, that's got to be done.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well that person, whoever's reporting it, email it today. So yes, thank you. That does to be done today, but then it has to be emailed today.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Teach me how to email stuff like that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Patricia, there's a generic format that the reporters are supposed to use in an email that they send to the house clerk. Can you check into that and then just send it to the committee so that we all have that?

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. It

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: shouldn't be the first time that we've seen it, but oh, except for the new members. And I think that we're probably not gonna ask our newest member to report a bill quite yet. Probably

[Rep. Jack Brigham (Member)]: not here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: She might be right bill. Trial by fire isn't necessarily a bad thing, but Okay.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: I'll post the bills first, and then I'll do that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. No rush on this. So that

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: was part of the initiation of the committee.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Some of the bills that we've talked about haven't talked about a bill reporter for. So municipal regulation of ag, the miscellaneous housekeeping bill. So anyway, we'll just be thinking as we go ahead here. What I thought we could start with is the $5.36, the baby food bill. So we heard we had lunch counseling this morning. We walked through that version of it. It's it's got a delay until 2028 for infant formula. We heard some testimony recently on formula. There was a letter that came in today, this morning, if you have been checking email, from the manufacturer who is still based up in Franklin County, who we hadn't been able to connect with. So it's helpful, think, that they became aware that we were working on this and then we were able to send us some comments. You can read them, I would say that they're probably not mischaracterizing to say that they have concerns and they're similar to the concerns that we heard from the association the other day. Yes, I see a hand up on the screen.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Yes, I'm sorry. I can hear some feedback in the room interfering with the mic. Can everybody check that they are not near a mic with the device on?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There's nobody running Zoom. Okay. Okay. Thank you, Patricia. I will I'm not sure if let's keep how bad is it, Patricia? Is it

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Is this audio supposed to be online?

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. It's better now. Whatever it was, it's solved.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Good. So let me just see whether we have a version in front of us. It made some changes from what we looked at last. It made some it's got changes in from what we had originally, you know, introduced. And curious to hear what people are thinking and like to try and limit this discussion to ten or fifteen minutes. Representative Nelson.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Excited to hear we still have a formula manufacturer in state of Vermont. And in light of the FDA coming out for the reports and realizing that we can come back to this issue next year when the FDA and other states know what to do and where to go with it, that we could go back to our original bill and and and exclude baby formula for now. But we can we can always do it again later. And that may be a cleaner way of doing it than trying to exclude this out three, four, five years. It might be cleaner just to come back and do it again later. Okay. One idea.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, that's that's one idea. Other thoughts for president Bartholomew. So let's talk about that idea, specifically. Well, was in Farx. Okay. Where are

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: you going? Well, one thing is just to confirm the version we have that online now is the one from this morning, same one. I believe so.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: And the only thing I

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: was curious under this page three at the bottom, didn't we didn't have time to ask this morning without requiring the provision of a universal product code, lot number, or proof. I'm not sure what that's what that means. So we did talk about that this morning.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I know we did, but

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I didn't I didn't understand what it meant.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, so it means that the manufacturer would not be able to require somebody to type in a very lengthy We heard testimony that in one case it was a 22 digit code. If you got even one of those digits wrong And the UPC is the one with all little bars. Yeah. The what's the

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: one with the square? That's a QR code. QR. Okay. Yeah. Alright. Thanks. Yeah. Trying to interpret that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There's two things here that you Yeah, brought

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Greg. So are we gonna decide between going back to the original version or going with some of the hatched

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: from this? We are gonna decide that. Bound and determined that we need to decide that,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: yeah. I'd rather go with the original myself.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The original meaning exempting formula. Right. Okay.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I think that's a bit risky, and we can come back to it later and address it when we've got. I guess when looking like the industry is ready for it. Okay. John? Did we

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: ever hear testimony with the few states ahead of us, including California, which often runs ahead of everybody else, if just sort of de facto we're at a place where these companies are just going do this in every state? Are they going to have two different levels of

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we did not hear anybody say that they've got two different approaches. I believe we've heard anybody say that. Know that just from anecdotally, there's at least one manufacturer, maybe more than one on the shelves here that is in compliance with the other states regulations, baby food. But I don't know that we have anything else other than that.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Every product I looked at had a QR code. I only scan two. Okay. I'll

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: just look for AID. It's my understanding that all of the state bills, including H3536 that was introduced, if not word for word, consistent enough so that it's the same, that's why there's no proposition to the other party.

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: other thoughts. I wanted to just make sure everybody has a chance to be heard. It's not critical that everybody weigh in, but Representative Bassam.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: It feels like there's two ways we can go. One with the infant formula. One of them is we say we wanna include it. We don't want heavy metals in our food and we're gonna give it a long enough timeline that if it isn't practical, we can change it even before we get there. But the pressure's already there because we've passed the policy and made clear what we want and what we don't want. The other alternative is leave it out altogether and then start over from scratch. And then we have to take the testimony all over again and start over in another biennium. So we can go either way. And really, the result could end up being the same. I would lean towards keeping it in, but having the implement date be far enough out that if we need to change our mind because the world isn't ready for it, we can do that at the end of the next biennium.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Greg, did you have a hint of it?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yeah, I would say that, Michelle, to what you're speaking to, I feel like we

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: would have

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: to take a lot of testimony either way,

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: even if it was in, even

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: if we left baby formula in

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: the bill to make sure it's,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: you know, I feel like it's gonna take the same testimony personally, or not it's in the bill or we

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: But we're voting today. But I'm saying in

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: the future on baby formula,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: if we make whether that's in the villas happening

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: later on,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I feel like it's regardless.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Feel like we've had a lot of testimony and I support Michelle's position. We often talk about vulnerable Vermantras, and I can't think of any more vulnerable Vermantras than the newborn babies, when their entire bodies are being developed.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I completely agree with you, John. I just feel like I don't wanna treat the vulnerability of a supply chain issue either, which could very well happen for the only state that has it, there's only 5,000 babies that are needing it. I feel like it's premature to, I don't know, I don't wanna be a cause of creating a vulnerability that doesn't exist right now in terms of supply.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Other thoughts, so yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Wouldn't we know in advance that that was gonna happen if the date is out far enough? I hope we would have some clue that, hey, we're heading for a crisis here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the language that we looked at this morning, part of the language addresses or seeks to address this concern that the industry, either as a whole or major players, might decide not to withdraw from the market rather than have to comply. There's language in here that gives the health commissioner the ability to declare an emergency. Whether that does that effectively or not is a question, but that was why that was there. Jack, anything else to say or John?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Depending on what rates are due to the possibility of causing a shortage.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: We could talk about moving the deadline even further out, but I'm not sure if that's coming. It's not gonna be

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, so anyway, that's also a possibility.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Personally, I would feel better about coming back to the table with a new bill on it later than have a situation where we put it into this bill and then I have to step back and say, well, I don't wanna create us, be the creator of a supply chain problem. I'd rather graft it carefully so that there's never, we're never having to go back and say, you know, and have to have a commissioner issue an emergency situation on baby's phone. That just doesn't sound like a policy to me.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, so it doesn't sound like we've got a majority of our committee feeling comfortable with the idea of including formula, based on what I'm hearing. And if that's the case, then I think what we want to do is ask Ledge Council to go back to put the exemption back in. It won't be as simple as saying we're gonna vote out the bill as introduced because we did make some other, these other changes.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah, just a couple of technical things. Did we hear when the FDA is gonna

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, they keep pushing the date back, I think. But this April, maybe, April 26, had, but it was supposed to have been last year and yeah. And

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: it's called operation start speed.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: And then what about, we know Marilyn had had a provision for the formula, but that's delayed now too?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Allegedly, and I'm always a little leery about hearing anecdotes about what other legislators may think about if somebody were to say, Vermont legislature is doing such and such luck. But we would be

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: the first in the country.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes, no one had done

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: it. Pizza's.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Hark Bret Walker. Sometimes you don't want to be

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: first. Yes, I heard him say that today. Sometimes you do.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: We led on slavery, getting rid of slavery. We were the first to legislate having same sex marriage. We were first on a lot of things, and we were right on a lot of those things. I

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: agree, and I agreed back then. Jed agreed on slavery.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: He wrote that. Representative Bartholomew.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I just have to say, we keep hearing about what the FDA is gonna do, and I have to say personally, I don't trust the FDA at this

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: point to get anything right. And I just wanna say on that point, California's got a lot of smart people and progressive thinking folks, you know, Maryland, Virginia, maybe it's one other state in the Midwest. Illinois. Illinois, Land of Lange and Land of Broadway. I, in no respect, they're cautioned on not including baby formula, so I feel strongly I could support the bill with a lot of pleasure without the J reform.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Patricia?

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Tricia? Yeah. I'm here. Sorry. I just have to click through a lot

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

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: to reach audio.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I I figured you were there. Thank you. Could you reach out to Katie McLenn and see if she could stop by. We've got some information. It would be easier just to give her in person, I think.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. Will do. I've also got Ellen and Bradley in the wings and Sophie, I think, do any moment now.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sophie is actually here in person.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. Great. So I'll reach out to Katie.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So Greg's pointing out that we have a red light on the big speaker mic in the middle of the table here, Patricia. Guess maybe we just wanna make sure that we're I think we're laughing. It's the video The video, okay. Are we up there? You're up there, yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I've just never seen

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: it red, it's all blue blue. Yeah, it really is.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Seems good there. Okay, maybe Patricia, you just double check and make sure that we're live streaming. I guess somebody would have let us know by now, but yeah, John.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: It looks like we're heading toward the direction of the not included formula based on what the comments I'm hearing, but I'm just, I'm hoping that we can commit. I certainly, if I'm back here next year, I'm gonna bring up formula again. And

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: if FDA has made the ruling, I'm right there with you.

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

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: we need to continue this discussion, because I think it's important.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I thank you. I'm glad everybody is conceding that it is important. I will also just say also FDA may not be the be all and end all in making this decision.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: You probably have a sense of something. Michelle?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, I mean, guess I just wanted to add, I mean, I'm with John. I mean, I actually wasn't thinking it was a good idea to do formula initially. It seemed like it was gonna be too complicated. And after all the testimony that we've heard and then hearing, actually, I just got a message from Mary Katherine saying she's really hoping we're gonna stay strong on formula because the only member of our body who has a baby, you know, she brought this forward and she supported this new vision that we developed in the bill and we could be leading. And that's the thing. We do it now with the date, maybe we bump it out three years. So instead of two years, we put it out three years. That lets the country know that this is the direction some states are going and some other states are likely to go along. And we can help to be nudging the country in the right direction. And that would give us two bienniums to undo it if we decided it wasn't sensible. But I don't know. I think it's worth considering being trailblazers on this one. Change it to '29. Or '20 What was it? Think it was '28. Okay, so change it to '29.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah. Before I call on you, Patricia, could you also ask thank you for reaching out to all the lynch councils. If if you could ask Cameron to come in because he's up next, and I don't know if he knows about our new agenda timing.

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: Okay. I'll check with him.

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

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I know

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: with

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: this is a question. With neo nicks, we made it hinge on what New York just decided to do. Is there any way to do something like that based on what California decides to do? So the least there's a signaling that we want this, but we realized that we can't do this on our own.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. So we actually, that question came up this morning. I checked in with Legis Council. It is possible. The situation is a little different there because they had legislation that had been enacted and we were able to, in our language, we were able to say very precisely, if this statute is delayed or reversed, then ours would be as well. Don't that And exact parallel situation. Katie said it's possible to do it, it would just need to be done very carefully. But so that is another direction that we could go.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I wouldn't be more comfortable with that.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Would others support that? And I'm not sure it needs to be California, we could just say any other state.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Any other state adopts. Adopts. So I'm in favor of that as long as it's another, know, as

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: long as it's Yeah, because we are a small state and we'll acknowledge that our market

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: I share is

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: don't care if we have a

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: stipulation here that I don't I don't want it to become an osty situation in our policy.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: As long as it's not Wyoming too.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No. It's smaller

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: than us. It's a whole in one smaller than us.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: They're not gonna other states except Wyoming. No. And

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: and yeah. And I thought of that earlier today too. We partnered up with other grander population centers, Maryland, Virginia, Illinois.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So Jed?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. I appreciate all your goodwill for neighboring states. I still feel strongly that I wouldn't support it attaching to New York or Quebec or but I do support representing Bartholomew's notion that we come those of us who come back in January, that I would strongly advocate to advance a standard for baby form. I just I the tattoos are nebulous.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: What'll be different in six months, Jed?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Okay. I I I do

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: wanna don't know. Maybe Maryland will have done something. Maybe California, but maybe Colorado. I I don't know.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Well I think to consider too is what's the we wanna make sure this goes through at least the baby. Right. So is there any possibility that they would have the same conversation in the senate if we sent them something? Obviously they would amend it, but we wanna make sure that the baby food portion does go through. So there might be a little more pushback at the Senate level I don't I don't know. Just I'm just laying that I that's on after

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: What does the history says that no state has added? They've specifically not included baby flannels. So why is our Senate gonna all of a sudden have a

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Where does this go?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: To be poisoned with Where does

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: this go in the Senate? So this would go to the public health and welfare committee.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: So think Ag doesn't do food.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, no. I think the fact that we had it doesn't, they don't care if it came from our committee. They would look at it just as it originally went to wherever it was, and they would send it to their health and welfare committee. Yeah, certainly they would presumably take same testimony. There's a step, of course, before it gets there, it has to pass through the house and imagine that there'll be conversations with the rest of the membership. But I do hear that there's at least some support for the idea of tying it to, I'm not hearing universal support, but some support for tying this to the possibility of another state moving and then

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: us moving together. Good job. It also seems unlikely to me that this will get out of the Senate without change, without amendment. So we'll get another shot at this if we change our mind. Unless they concur. Well, if they concur, then good. They just are agreeing. Came to the same good as we did, but they

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: don't usually do that. Jed? Is there some way a combination of the date and another state potentially leading on this where we could say, we're gonna push it out to 2029 and also align with another state that may pass? Yeah, think too It's market, Ben. It's a bigger market.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think all these things are possible. It's also possible, of course, for the legislature next year, whether it's us or somebody else, to see that another state did something and then to say, all right, we're going to do this now. The argument that the industry was making carries less weight.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: In the interest of the sanity of pledge counsel and time, do we go back to close to our first bill? Because we have made some changes, and then we get it across the house floor and it gets down to the senate, and then we can work on that amendment that's gonna be tricky to tie it with other states and have that brought to the senate.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We can have on the house floor, we can do a committee amendment.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: We can. Yeah. Can do

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: it there too. Yep. Individuals can do an amendment, mean, that's possible. Yeah. Yeah. Okay, I think while we have Cameron here, and while I think we're still mulling this over a little bit, I've heard though is, and I wanna see if everybody else is hearing it, I think we only had four votes for the version that we looked at this morning, which repeals the exemption and delays till 2028. I think I'm hearing the majority of the committee would be supportive of tying it to a future rollout. And I think that without polling everybody, if we had nothing else, everybody would be supportive of the bill as enacted or the bill as introduced anyway. Or going back to those small changes that talk about with the long numbers. So maybe we can have Cameron come up and maybe this will be a little smoother, a little easier. This is the rate to grow vegetables. And the last time we talked about this yesterday, we had the question about structures and whether the homeowners association regulate permanent or temporary structures. I think, thought it would be helpful to get rid of the word temporary there. And Cameron, you, while you're bringing that up, I will say that Cameron also alerted me to certain little technical correction language. And we've also we've still got in here the initial clause that basically says this would apply to all common ownership communities, whether they were pre '99, post '99, anything. And we didn't hear any testimony that was opposed to that. So I think it's reasonable to say that's what we should do here. That's my thought anyway.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Cameron

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: sent it to Patricia and it's posted a few minutes ago. Okay.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: It's

[Patricia (Committee Assistant)]: post. Thank

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: you. So it should be the latest draft. At 1.2, John.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: And common interest communities includes condominiums?

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

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: The draft 2.1.

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Draft 2.1 is dated today. May. May. Yep. Okay.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: So, Mr. Chair, if want me to jump right in? Yeah. Yes. Okay. So I think very accurately pointing out the remaining issues that we were discussing yesterday. So one thing that has changed in this draft 2.1, it's actually the only thing that's changed, is the language here on the bottom of page one and the top of page two. As we've talked about, this does get into somewhat of a really messy area of the application of the laws associated with common interest communities. If you remember, as I've talked about, you have the pre-nineteen 99 communities that are governed under the Condominium Ownership Act. Then you have the Uniform Law that was passed. And then there were some amendments that were made effective in 2011, I think technically effective like the 2012. So there's question about what applies to what. To be honest with you, it's not really that clearly written in the statute. So it was drafted when I was here last in draft 1.1 that this would apply retroactively to entities pre-nineteen ninety nine. One of the questions that was asked of me when I was sitting here last was, well, what about the entities between 1999 and 2011? And I went and I reviewed the statute further, And I would say there's a contradiction in the language. And so what I wanted to do was, for what I was gathering, the intent of the committee was to ensure that you're applying it as comprehensively as you can retroactively. I pulled this language together to just clarify that. So this section 125, there on line 19, the section that is being added related to the right to grow vegetable gardens shall apply to all common interest communities that contain 12 or more units that may be used for residential purposes created in the state on or before 01/01/2011. Why 12 or more? I kept 12 or more because that is consistent with what the current language is in the section about amendments in the application. I can't sit here and give you a sufficient answer as to why you all, the body, at that point in time way back in 2010 and then way back in 1998, chose to set the threshold at 12. I don't know the answer to that. I just felt that in trying to be consistent with the statutory construction and the language that currently exists, it made sense to keep that threshold throughout. So this would apply to all common interest communities that have 12 or more units post-twenty eleven, and based on the language that I've drafted here, pre-twenty eleven, including those entities that exist prior to 1999. So it's about as comprehensive as I feel it can be at this point to include all of those entities that currently exist. So that's the only change that I've made. The other discussion that we were having was around what are the restrictions that a common interest interest community could put into place? And I'll start with, as we've talked, we've talked about this initial sub D, where this is the real key piece of the section, which states that the common interest community cannot, here on line 17, effectively prohibit or unreasonably restrict the installation or use of a vegetable garden in areas designated for exclusive use. So anything that the common interest community does to regulate these vegetable gardens as you've defined them that would effectively prohibit them or unreasonably restrict them would be for weight. And what we have is we did add the language down here on page four to say that it is reasonable for a common interest to community to do some things, and we've highlighted a few of them. Require that the vegetable garden be maintained in good condition. Require that dead plant materials be regularly cleared if the vegetable garden is viewed from the public, the street or other lots, restricting the use of common areas. So not areas for exclusive use, but if it's a common area that's open to everybody, we can restrict your ability to put a vegetable garden there, prohibiting the use of pesticides, etcetera. And then the last discussion we've been having, you know, over the past few days is that that new addition of the sub one. So this would allow the common interest community to regulate the erection and installation of permanent or temporary structures. Keeping in mind that you still have the sub b, so they cannot effectively prohibit the use of the garden. And any regulations they put into place, they must be reasonable. That's a requirement of this section and requirement of the common interest communities title in general. And then the last thing I will comment is that we've discussed when any regulations were to go into effect, it would have to be voted on by the association, which is elected members of the community. And the community has to have the opportunity to weigh in and vote on those as well. There is a little bit of engagement process that the community itself would have in determining how to regulate these entities. So with that, we were discussing whether or not you were comfortable with allowing the association this authority or whether you wanted to further limit it from from here.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Jeff, how how is this different from what we looked

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: at before? It has not changed. I have not changed the wording on the page, just kind of summarizing the discussion that we were having.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: The only thing I'm seeing that is still bothering me is the regulation of temporary structures.

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

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: sir. I like to see that gone. So,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: and we did talk about that yesterday. And Cameron and I talked about it a little bit this morning, and there was a bit of a concern there about possibly opening this up to greater scrutiny. Do want talk about that?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Legal scrutiny.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So there's If this were to go into effect, whether this language exists or not,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: the

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: question if you're on the ground and you're looking at the facts of a given circumstance, the first question I would have is, does the common interest community have the authority to initiate regulation of the use of these spaces? And the general answer is going to be yes. So if you were silent on number one, let's just assume number one didn't exist. Question of whether the common interest community could regulate erecting structures on the property, I think the answer is clearly yes, they could. And so there's a separate provision in the section in the statute that we've discussed, which requires all of their regulations to be reasonable. And you also have, as we mentioned, the B above, where they cannot effectively prohibit the use of vegetable garden. By putting this in here, you're specifically saying you can regulate this thing and and it would be reasonable. It's gonna be reasonable for you to regulate it. If you remove temporary from the bill, by implication, you leave permanent, you're kind of signaling your intent that you can regulate permanent structures but not temporary structures. If if I were an individual in the community and I saw your initial draft 1.1, draft 2.1, and you move to a draft 3.1, and you've removed the word temporary, by implication, you're determining that you don't want them to regulate that structure. Is the common interest community going to potentially move forward based on just their general authority to regulate the use of space? They might. And so I'm saying all this to just point out that the fact specific scenario that's going to exist on the ground is going to be determined by the interaction of the community, the interaction of the individuals among the community, and then ultimately, if necessary, it's going to be determined by a court. Because an individual who feels like the common interest community is unreasonably restricting their use of a vegetable garden or effectively prohibiting their use of a vegetable garden can go to court to get a declaratory ruling of whether that's the case. The court is going to be the final arbiter of the decision. As we've discussed, you can put in there that the common interest community cannot regulate certain aspects. And if you don't put it in there, then I think it's just going to be these scenarios are going to develop as they do in all the laws that you pass. And it's going to be a fact specific case based on the circumstances.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, I don't know if that changes anybody's thinking. So it sort of boils down to a legal question. Also, we heard testimony from the legal firm, representing the homeowners associations. Were they explicit on this point?

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: The testimony you have from Chris Jensen from the community action, legislative community, legislative action committee, excuse me, she was requesting some form of this. In the written testimony, you all should have available on your website, she commented on the concern that a vegetable, so just quoting, quote, Vegetable gardens may include permanent or semi permanent elements, such as raised beds, trellises, supports. They may involve soil amendments or addition of compost and fencing to deter wildlife. Even organic fertilizer can have some offensive odors. Associations should be permitted to regulate these and similar elements in the specific context of the communities they govern. Because the act already requires that all rules be reasonable, any association regulating installation of vegetable gardens already has a duty to do so reasonably. So her testimony is advocating for this. As we've discussed here amongst the committee, there's some concern about the regulations of these structures then by nature, effectively prohibiting the use. And my point is it's a policy decision for you all. You can be much more prescriptive at this level, or you can allow the communities themselves to make these determinations. I think that in fairness, the sense of committee yesterday was to delete or temporary. So we're regulating the direction of for installation of permanent structures.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It may not be entirely consistent with what we heard testimony requesting from one party. Does that, am I capturing that accurately? I don't want to speak incorrectly on behalf of the committee. John? I was

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: just thinking further through my suggestion yesterday that we somehow incorporate, not to confuse it with the required agricultural practices, wraps, but just in a general way, acceptable management practices for gardening. So let's just call it sort of normal gardening techniques. I think if there was a way to include something like that, the common interest communities could not ban or restrict reasonable gardening techniques besides just a vegetable garden. That would include all these things like fencing, or even whether it's pole bean structures or a pea fence or whatever, because then if there was a dispute, it could be carried to court, but at least there you could get for Charlie Dargosius to come in.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And say, yeah, this is

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I do this all the time.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I fear that we won't be able to do that between now and twenty after four if we won't do anything else. But it's something that we could work on over the weekend or early next week, we could have an amendment, committee amendment.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I was just gonna point out though, if I were in a community and someone said, well, you can have a garden, but they say it can't have a pea fence or tomato cages or a deer fence, I'm unlikely to take it to court.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. I agree. Cost of going to court is pretty high. So you're still supporting we strike those two words or temporary.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I am, but I I'm giving you a line

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: right now. You're making a deal.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: It would be page four of draft.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Does anybody disagree with striking or temporary? Just wanna be sure about that. I cannot disagree. Does anybody have anything else that you'd like to change in this?

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Well, I want to raise the question. I'm just I'm looking at I'm on page four, and it says among the things that that an association is not allowed to do is number line again. Number five. So the item is number five on the on page four. And it says, they're not allowed to prohibit the use of pesticides.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good. If they are allowed They are allowed to.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay, they are allowed. Okay, I just wanted to make sure because I didn't want to. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Is one. Right. And they are. Yeah. Okay.

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

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: you have the right to be organic.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Cameron, I'm just gonna ask the committee at this point if there's any further discussion to we're gonna make you make that small change. Already done, okay. And then now we have, is it still draft 2.1?

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: It'll be draft 3.1. Draft 3.1, okay.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: From that one word?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes, ma'am. Okay. So I'm gonna ask for

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: motion. Quick question on the effective date, July 1. Yep. Is that something that was discussed? I I tried to listen to Too

[Rep. Jack Brigham (Member)]: late to plan it this year.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We didn't discuss it. You wanna do it upon

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: enactment? Sorry.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We can change it to upon enactment, yep, so that people can get

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Might give them a chance to have a garden next year.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep. Mike. So can you make that change?

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: On passage?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Now make it 3.2 or is it still No,

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: We'll still be 3.1.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: No, 4.1.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: That doesn't, I mean, that wouldn't affect any.

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: I have no concern with that, no, sir. There's no issue with that from a legal perspective. Jed,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think you've been busy getting your sheets ready there. Appreciate If

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: you're looking for motion, I move to we vote on h five thirty seventy three point nine.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There's been a motion. We don't need a second, but is there any other discussion?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: John? I just had two quick questions though. One was, did we talk about other types of gardening like pollinator garden, flower gardening? Just because that's gonna come up probably on the floor, are those sort of key?

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: At the very beginning, when I did my initial walkthrough, we talked a little bit about that. If I remember, I think I was sharing that I made my best attempt at combining some definitions that I had found in some other states, some of which specifically called out things like flowers, etcetera, to land on where we landed for the sponsor to be comfortable to introduce. But I don't remember, over the past few days, having had any further discussion on that.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Might be an amendment to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, bill is called the right to grow vegetable gardens, so we

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: We want to kind

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

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah. The other was invasive. Did you hear back?

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't heard back from Bradley, but did

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: you see my email? Yeah. You asked Yeah. Him

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: I have not spoken with him. No,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: sir. Okay. But that might be something

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: we want to try and carve out.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: No, just clarify, because it says this doesn't include cannabis or other illegal things, but I don't know where invasives bamboo fall within that. There is

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: a provision not in this section, but I found in the title, it does require the communities to follow state local ordinances, etcetera. So if there were some state or municipal ordinance, rule, etcetera, addressing an invasive species plant, etcetera, then it would be reasonable for the community to incorporate that. And I think they would actually be required to.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Assuming it's not a vegetable unless you're a panda.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Cameron, maybe while we're voting, you should send the updated version to Patricia so she can get it posted right away on our page. And what I'll do,

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: mister chair, if you're okay with it, I will share my screen. Okay. And just walk walk you through so you know I'm so we change it to three point one. I've changed the date and the time here to to 3PM. And then when we get to page four there on the sub one, I have regulating the erection and installation of permanent structures.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. Good. And so the Temporary. And then oh. And then act

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: shall take effect on passage.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good, and if you would send a copy to representative Bos-Lun, Bill Porter, at the same time, which you'll have that handy. Thank you.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yes, sir. We will turn

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: the queue.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Is there any other discussion? Alright. The clerk may call the roll.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Alright. Each slide is thirty seven 3.13:00. John Bartholomew, how do you vote? Yes. Michelle Bos-Lun?

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

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Jack Brigham? Yes. Greg Burtt? Yep. Jed Lipsky, yes. Richard Nelson? Yes. John O'Brien? Yes. Jared Durfee? Yes. It's 800.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. Thank you. So we'll stack them on Patricia's desk. We don't need to turn that in, so she'll file it when she has the opportunity.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: It does say the reporter has to get it

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to the clinic. Not that. We're gonna get

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yeah, and this is writing Yeah,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: so for someone who's reporting a bill before. I don't know exactly what we pass it out, you'll have to send an email somewhere. Yeah. That would

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: be helpful. Yeah. That would be great. And

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the vote count. So as long as you remember the vote count, Michelle, eight zero zero, you'll have to I'll remember that. Patricia's gonna send us all this information, just the outline of

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: what needs to be there. Jed? There was someone from they delivered that sheet to the clerk this morning. Do I need to go for the forest products bill with regard to? Do I need to go to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You don't need to do that because it was a committee bill. The rules are different, and I have to do it when it's a committee bill. So I did, I sent it. And speaking of which, we heard the bill brought up this morning, and unexpectedly, unless everybody thought this, it was referred to ways and means. The reason being that change the the bill changes the requirements for a permit. Then if you don't have to get a permit, that's a change of state revenue. So I've already been in contact with Ways and Means and let them know that they should be able to move this bill fairly quickly and that we can go in and testify if we need to. So thank you, everybody, for your action on that, Bill. And Cameron, I think we have completed our business with you. Thank you. It was a pleasure. Maybe we'll have you back if we have the senate. It

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: may not be the last. So I hope you all have a wonderful weekend.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Hey. You too, Cameron. Take care. I hope you're done for the day, but

[Cameron (Legislative Counsel)]: I think I'm done with the committee for the day. See what happens.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So before we turn to 403, I wanted to mention and get people thinking about this. And I've asked Katie to come in talk to go back to the baby food bill. As soon as she comes, we can have that conversation. But yesterday when we had testimony on the unit pricing, We heard from the agency, and then we heard from grocers who had concerns. I was concerned that this is the way the process works, that you don't always know things until they actually sit down and tell you. But I was concerned that this was coming up and that I hadn't allowed enough time to really have the testimony and the feedback on this. What I'm proposing for the committee to consider is that we move ahead with the changes that the agency has has suggested, but not change the square footage piece, which is already in statute, says 7,000 square feet. 6,000. Well, current statute says 7,000. Oh, and they changed it.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Their recommendation was to change

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: To change it. Yeah. So I feel like that's something that we could talk about, but we really should not make changes on the fly without hearing from the people affected. And we did hear from the people affected yesterday, but having a robust conversation and maybe hearing from others would be difficult.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: They'll have chance in the senate. Well, they'll have

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: a chance in the senate. Yeah. That's what we're gonna see. Others may have a different opinion and wanna do something different. Anyway, that is another decision that we'll have to try and figure out.

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: convenience stores? Yeah, Well, it would be any store, yeah, with

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: two or more and under. We would just get rid of that,

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: it would just be We would just

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: go back to the first thing law on that. Yeah.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: So there would be no change then? It wouldn't even

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: they had a lot of changes they were proposing just that were language changes, and it would include the digital, like you can't change prices in the middle of the day. That's a policy change. And people may not be comfortable with making that policy change too. So I think that's open for debate. I did not have them take that out, but we could if folks are not comfortable with that. So what version does

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: that go?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So that's Yeah. And I know the agency is prepared to come over and hear about it, but that's seven seventy draft 6.2.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: That section revert to as introduced or did we make changes to it?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: No, so this is a committee bill.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: But the unit pricing section within that, right?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. If you Isn't part of miscellaneous ag? A miscellaneous housekeeping bill. Yeah. So it's a bill with couple of other items, and it was six or so pages of changes. And the very end was the change that Yeah. We heard the testimony that they didn't like yesterday.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That retail pricing starts on the back bottom of page six. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I'm curious whether anybody has any thoughts. Do you feel strongly that we should make all the changes that they proposed, including the ones that the testimony didn't like? How do you feel about the digital? Any reactions at all?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: John? Well, I gave mine up. It seems like they have a software issue because these stores are eventually gonna have to update their software. You put a new product in, you've got all your products in there, their sizes, the price, and it's just a matter of hit print and make sure that the print says the right thing. It's a software issue. It shouldn't be that big a deal. They're still putting prices out. So I was I guess I would have to say I was unsympathetic. Yeah. With the Stewart's? Well, convenience

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: stores. Stores.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: All all convenience stores.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I I just think about little stores near where I live. My son works at the Putney General store and they have a very small staff. They have actually a fair amount of inventory for a small store, but I don't know how they label stuff. It's definitely not electronic labels. And if they had to relabel everything in a new way, it wouldn't be really cumbersome. So I guess I would say I was kind of sympathetic to the convenience store exception, but I mean, I I don't have very strong feelings on this issue, but I I do think she made some points that were reasonable for for small stores.

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

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So the small store, Bob's Quick Stop, you know, the small open. You know, the small stores, you know, the one off

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Yep.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You know, or or, you know, they're exempt. It it is the Jollie's, Stewart's, Maple Fields that are going to be hit with this and and you're right and she was right, they're strictly convenience. You know, you don't go in and price out your bag of potato chips, you want a bag of potato chips. Per unit? And I walk by it. Yeah, you go in and get your bottle of iced tea or you get a bottle of water, need to fill your bottle up at home, you just go in and buy it and leave.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Was the sticking point the unit price or the

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: For the convenience store Greg?

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Not false was it false as total selling price, unit price or just the

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: unit No, it's unit price Greg. Convenience stores, they don't show the unit price. They sell just the total selling price.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Oh, I don't see an issue not having you know, exempting them from it.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I don't have an issue with exempting from them either. I'm not going to stand here despite what everybody Yeah, else kept

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I mean, I had, having worked in the grocery business and have some understanding of what it takes to change those and the fact that there is software and feels like, yeah, you probably,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: you've

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: got 1,600 outlets, you probably could figure that out. But I also feel that having somebody come in at the last minute and say, we don't like this, I'm a little uncomfortable just saying too bad without having more time to hear about it. So

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: that's just not where I am. You have experience in that chair. That means a lot to those of us that don't. Just like we trust Jed on forestry and Greg on maple and apple. At the same time,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I wouldn't want somebody to come in on any of the day before and say, I have a problem with this. And we say, sorry, you're too late. We artificially limited the amount of time to discuss it. So I'm feeling like it's a big enough change that we should allow ourselves more time to hear both sides, and that would we be better off leaving existing law as far as that piece of it goes.

[Rep. Jack Brigham (Member)]: Doesn't my remark have a general story?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, it's a little story. I would like to hear more. Yeah, we've quite a few members who have experience actually in this. Yeah, change. Farm stores. So

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: do you have a draft?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, so, badly we'll see it in a little bit. I don't know how he knew to show up, but there he is. Getting through the pain? Yeah. Jed?

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: It's just important to note for me that we have not made a decision on the baby.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Because we're gonna wait for Katie to come in now. Okay.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Yeah. About their labor status.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We're doing all of those, yep, in the next, like

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Next few minutes. And a half, yep.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So so when Katie comes in, I I Here. When Katie comes in, we'll let her tell us how challenging it might be to draft legislation that would tie us to another state in the future.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Can I just add something? So I've been getting a few texts from the bill sponsor and she said she thinks there are several states that are close to moving on the formula issue. So she was hoping we would be the first, but if we're not the first, others would be the first.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I understand that. I also want to say we each have one committee that we serve on and we can write as many bills and introduce them as we want, but then- And we come to committees. We're no longer really making As that sympathetic as I am to this particular argument. Okay. As Jed says, we've got several other things that we want to try and work through. I want to, well, Sophie's been waiting patiently just to hear our discussion really. We don't have, I think, any thing that we need to ask her to report on. H four zero three, and that's the Minimum Wage Fair Labor Act.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: The housing standards for agriculture.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah. What we've got left in that bill has been pared down, stripped down after getting feedback from farmers, farm workers who had, like I said, was farmers who had objections to the overtime. We removed that. Then the, well, there's some sympathy, think, lots of sympathy for trying to make anybody's housing better, including farm workers that perhaps the survey, as it was outlined here, didn't really get at what we wanted. We were left with a minimum wage piece, which interestingly, we haven't heard any testimony opposing that. The farm groups that either came in or wrote to us did not oppose that. So we've let that in. And I guess the other thing just to remind folks of is that when the legislature directed a study group two years ago to look at agricultural employment and labor laws, the recommendation that came back was to focus on employment laws, that that would be less costly to the system, to workers, to farmers than unionizing and that minimum wage was the one area specifically that we had a bipartisan support in the House, the house contingent of that group. So we left in the minimum wage piece, and then we added a request that our labor department report back on ways to on recommendation for what the deduction could be for housing. And then let us know that number ought to be adjusted. Thoughts on that?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I'm gonna stand by what I said yesterday, that we can't control our price. Some of us in this industry can't control the price we receive for our products. So and with the current labor with the labor market the way it is, the few firms that are not meeting minimum wage with their other benefits they give, I don't wanna be responsible for putting them over the edge. And and I don't know I don't even know if there are any, but I I'm not gonna take that I'm not gonna take that chance. So I'm can't move. And thank you, Richard. And I appreciate every all the work the committee did and people have done to make it the way it is. I just I I still can't.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Other

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: thoughts, It seems that anyone who's working, regardless of what kind of job, you ought to be able to get minimum wage. And I'm I'm kind of disappointed we can't do overtime, although I get that because it would be much more cost effective for a farmer to only hire people so that they don't go over forty hours. But their employees aren't there. I get that. So I won't let that piece go, but this minimum wage, think, if you got a job, a full time job, why should one group of workers be paid less than others? So I support this the way we've drafted it now.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Right.

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

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Yeah, I guess I would just say I'm in the same place as John. I mean, I feel like if you're going to work, you should get minimum wage. There aren't I mean, for the testimony that we got, there aren't that many farms that don't get it, but the workers should be getting it. That should be being able to get minimum wage should be something that you can count on, even if you're an agricultural worker. I actually personally really wish that there were some language that was looking at the housing issue, but it just seems like we ran out of time and didn't have a way to work that in. But I think the minimum wage is a step in the right direction in terms of making sure that if you're an agricultural worker, you know what your bottom's gonna be. And it's Vermont minimum wage.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I just wanna add though that I am very sympathetic. I mean, I spent enough years on ag to just be so frustrated by the fact that farmers don't get what they deserve. And we can't control milk prices the way we ought to be able to. And it's a, I'm frustrated that we can't fix it, but we can't. Farm owner owners are in that place, but still, I think the workers need to get a wage.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, we've got our food system is,

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: That's a regulated system to the federal government. The nature of what a dairy farm has to do in the state, they can't get H2A. And I don't, to me, it's like this bit of a black hole in terms of regulation to begin with. And it puts dairy farmers in a weird spot, and it has nothing to do with them. And so I think it's a, I struggle with that fact in doing anything to try and regulate the situation between a farmer and their employees in that respect, because they're already walking a strange line and none of us in the terminal has anything that we can do about it. That's where I had difficulty. And I also just, I have difficulty in that. I've always enjoyed, one thing I've enjoyed about agriculture is it has always enjoyed exemptions as a farmer and not just, not because there's some sort of lucrative advantage to that, but there's enough stressors and enough variables that a farmer has to deal with. And every year we're getting more and more regulations that make it so that it gets more difficult to adapt to different variables that most businesses and manufacturers don't have to deal with. And I think that's the reason why farms have enjoyed exemptions for a long time. So this is where I struggle with this is that those exemptions have always been there for a reason to give some leniency for farmers in lean times or periods of weather that they have no control over where they have to really buckle down and batten the hatches and find every last scrap in order to keep their farm. And it might mean asking employees to go a little bit below what they would normally get paid. That employee can say, can't do it. And the farmer would have to obviously, employee can leave and go to the next farm or go wherever else.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Our farms are on

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: like this, put in a farm security fund. We give farms all kinds of exemptions all the time because they need them for exactly what I'm talking about. I've lived through it. And every, my dad always hired people at or above minimum wage, even when we could barely afford it. I trust the system that's in place myself. It's worked. Like I said, we've historically given exemptions to farms and that is why, because farms deal with things that other businesses don't have to deal with. And we've gone through drought, we've gone through flood. We all acknowledge the fact that farmers have had, specifically in the last few years, had a rough go. And I don't feel comfortable where a farm has been enjoying exemption forever. Now I'm not giving it to them. And I know where you're coming from in terms of it's, these are wages for people who want make sure that people are paid appropriately. I just think that we've, I haven't seen a crisis situation in that regard. People, there are a lot of job opportunities, whether it's another farm or another career or another sector of business that you can go to, I think it's really important to keep as many exemptions as we can for farms and this is one of them. I'm gonna go alongside Richard Nelson.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good. Jack, Greg, you wanna break in?

[Rep. Jack Brigham (Member)]: Alright, we were near that. I've milked cows for forty three years, employee, provided cows and I was paying them $15 an hour Fifteen years ago, just a gift in the house. Right now I hire just a few people in the sugar bush, $23 an hour. They do it more because they like to exercise with them, you know, on weekends. I've seen milk at $13 and seen it at four years ago. And I've put money into my labor housing when I should have put it in my own house. I can't afford that either.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So I think there's a couple of things here that are interesting. We have heard testimony that some farms, farm owners, farmers are not paying minimum wage. And then as you've said, we also hear that the market doesn't support. You have to pay people more than minimum wage. Both things can't be true. Often both things can be true, but here either the market is requiring people to be paid more or people aren't being paid more. I'm also very conscious that we have farmers who are here on the committee who are experienced or former retired farmers or active farmers and are able to bring firsthand their perspective, while at the same time nobody testified against this. We had no one come to that end of the table to testify against this provision or write to us. And we all know that we get lots of email. We get lots of unsolicited testimony on this. And we know that there's a, in addition to whatever practical concerns there are, that this is an historical issue with a moral dilemma or a moral perspective rather, a moral aspect. So just want to reiterate that. Is there any other discussion before we move to

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: a vote? Representative Lipsky? I think it's appropriate to weigh in. You know, I'm not a farmer, a farmer is a forest, and for most of my life I've known you've to work eighty hours, minimum of week, maybe not even get paid, but just keep trying to pay your bills. I've heard a lot of testimony from farmers that stand on their heads to pay above minimum wage and provide housing and pay substantially more than minimum wage with the ridiculous value of housing, which is just thrown in. You know, it's embarrassing by any stand. And I also know I've watched neighbors of farms go out of business my whole life since the nineteen sixties. I know how hard it is, and the ones that are trying to produce food, quality food here in Vermont are not trying to do it on the backs of their labor. They are working hard to keep their labor force. I'm gonna I'll just leave it back, and I'm gonna agree with the three farmers in this committee and support that decision.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Alright. So person representative Bartholomew moved that we go to amend the bill. Is there any other discussion?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: I know that the Vermont Farm Bureau gave us some sort of only numbers on this, but if ever there is a well tracked subset of agriculture in Vermont, it's Vermont dairy farms. We know every day it's four twenty six farms or less usually. It doesn't seem that it would be very difficult to find out what those farms are paying and how many of them provide some sort of housing feature to that wage too. Because I just feel that this bill, while I certainly ideologically adorably support minimum wage, I think this hasn't really been thought out where this may go on dairy farms. It's such an unusual subset of our economy where there's housing involved, for example. A lot of these farmers they either can go to other dairy farms or they can join other economies, like you can go mow lawns or sugar in Franklin County. So what we do know though is at least what we heard yesterday is it's gonna be more of a payout on FICA for dairy farmers, even though on the boots on the ground, it may not change anything at all for what the farm workers are getting if you include housing.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm not sure that we did hear it was going to be more FICO payout unless somebody were to obviously, if they're paying less than minimum wage and they had to pay more to get to minimum wage, then it would be more. Yeah, that would be yeah. And I will just say that there was quite a bit of discussion when the study group met in the off session two years ago, and the question about how much are people paid is a difficult one. It seems like it should be easy to get your hands around that isn't necessarily readily available.

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: And also the connection between what you're getting paid and if there's housing included. I would love to know how many dairy farms are paying less than minimum wage and have no housing for their farmers. I can't believe that's got to be a pretty small group, because you're going

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: to go elsewhere, I think,

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: to a better job. And I think I agree with Michelle on the housing part that I would love to see the development of some sort of no fault housing inspections. So dairy farmers, it's not like mandatory reporting, but that there'd be some neutral group that could go and say, yes, this housing needs to be improved. Here are some strategies we can come up with. And you're not going to get in trouble with anybody. I think there'd be buy in from farmers and farm workers on that. We could come up with some funding.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, that's work we can do in the second half of the session. All right, any other discussion? All right, would you then call the roll, please, for representative? Yes, it's on H403. Is there a

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: draft number for this? I see 2.1. 2.1.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Let me just configure Yeah, 2.1, that was the most recent.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Hey. John Bartholomew, how do you vote? Yes. Michelle Bos-one? Yes. Jack Brigham? No. Gregory Greg Burtt?

[Rep. John O'Brien (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Jed Lipsky (Clerk)]: Jed Lipsky? No. Richard Nelson? No. John O'Brien? No. David Durfee? Yes. Oh, yes is three, now with five. No abstentions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, so the motion fails, And thank you everybody for your good input. Despite the fact that we all want to go home and some of us have to leave by a certain time, I think we should take a short stretch break. So let's do that. We can just be back here at 10:00. If we need to go downstairs, just try to get right back. Thank you. Hi, Katie.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Thank you. Hey, Sarah.