Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: S three twenty three. It is on our website, and Bradley pulled it up onto the screen here. And we've got fifty ish minutes, barely, to do it. I think that it would be it's a long bill, and there's a lot in it. We will be spending lots of time on it, so we don't need to committee doesn't really need to understand everything in the level of detail that we will eventually. But I think just making sure that we know what's here, any color that you want to add based on what you observed in the Senate Committee, of course, would be helpful. And the way we see that there's some familiar words, municipal regulation of agriculture. So we probably don't need to spend too much time in that section. But again, highlights. And if we run out of time, we do have testimony, different testimony yet too. But if we do find that we haven't gotten to the end and we need to take a break, got some time tomorrow morning or maybe tomorrow afternoon, we can have you back. And then we'll begin digging into the section with testimony from other folks.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: All right. Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council. I'm presenting the s three twenty three. This is the unofficial version that was passed by the sentence. So section one sections one through three deal with the municipal regulation of agriculture with the findings section. It goes into a little bit more detail with the Taft Street decision and to avoid unintended consequences about the task street decision. So it calls out the task street decision specifically in its finding section. But otherwise, it's very similar to the finding section that was passed here. Section two starts amending 24 BSA forty four thirteen D. You might recognize this as the version that was originally presented by the agency of agriculture food markets early on in the process. And this remains largely untouched from what they proposed. And so they amend forty

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

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: thirteen to prohibit municipalities from growing plants. And it's a wider array of plants, food for fiber and Christmas trees, and not just for food. Raising, feeding, and managing small backyard poultry flock. And then we come across more familiar language about farming that meets the threshold criteria in the wraps. And we have just some additional definitions of things. This bill also section three of this bill also amends the wraps themselves. And so some highlights of what this bill would do is to increase the income threshold to be eligible, to be subject to the wraps from 2 to $5,000. It permits someone who is farming plants, crops for sale, to also be eligible for the wraps if they are donating those crops, charitable contributions, on a farm that is no less than four contiguous acres. And then we have the livestock requirements, again, on farming that's no less than four contiguous acres, if you're raising this number of livestock, which is untouched in the wraps. And then some changes. The agency of agriculture is looking to somewhat expand their jurisdiction over regulating certain farming practices, including the raising, feeding, managing of livestock on between one and four contiguous acres and has a sufficient land base for appropriate nutrient and waste management. So, kind of trying to broaden the wraps to encapsulate those ideas. And if you're raising, feeding, or managing livestock on less than one acre or between one and four acres in a municipality that lacks bylaws, the secretary can determine after opportunity for hearing that the animals are causing a significant water quality impacts and the wraps should apply. This section also removes the eligibility for the wraps by filing an IRS ten forty f. So, way of being regulated by the wraps is proposed to be taken out entirely. And then we have the rest of wraps there that are untouched, but just for reference. And then that's our municipal regulation of agriculture piece. The next section here is section number four break is a small act two fifty amendment amending accessory on farm structure permits. Current law states that if you are farming and any that no permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory on farm business, etcetera. No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction improvements of an accessory on farm business, provided that more than 50% of the total sales of prepared or processed qualifying products come from products produced where the business is located. So it's a permitting exemption a limited permitting exemption for accessory on farm businesses so long as the farm has more than 50% of the total sales come from products on the farm. And I'm sorry, Bradley. This is

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: maybe you said this, but I wanna be sure that I I didn't hear you say it, I wanna be sure that I'm right in thinking it. This has to do with Act two fifty permits? That's correct. Okay.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Thank you. Following along, I'm on page eight for the bottom here. And this would add another way to be eligible for this exemption. If or not more than $250,000 adjusted for inflation in total sales or the equivalent in donated farm crops of the prepared or processed qualifying products come from products that are not produced on the farm. So, you can either have more than half of your products come from the farm or not more than $250,000 worth of your products don't come from the farm. And so, as you're grappling with this section, just make sure that you are taking stock of the knots and because there are some double negatives there that can be a little confusing and kind of get help get lost in the sauce a little bit, so to speak.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Representative O'Brien. Bradley, the reference to farming here, does that send you back to the farming is following the wraps that Yes. You've So

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: if the bill in its

[Rep. John O'Brien]: entirety passed, would this section then also affect the earlier sections where farming could be like one to four acres or even less than one.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Potentially, this would affect farms that are subject to the wraps. And so if you do change the wraps, you're correct that more farming activities could be subject to the wraps and therefore qualify for those exemptions so long as they meet the percentage or dollar amount requirements here.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the impact of these various negatives, nots and no's, is that farm could or an accessory on farm business could be exempt from active 50 permitting even if it didn't have any of its own product as long as the product coming from off-site was less than 250,000.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Potentially. And yeah. Because it says or not more than $250,000 of the gross sales. So, if you have $250,000 of gross sales of items that were not on your farm and didn't sell anything of yourselves, of your own produced products, that is potentially a permissible action that would fall under this exemption. And there is an inflator here adjusted for inflation. We actually looked into a bunch of different inflators and we wound up landing on the one that's the most general. But because farming involves things like labor and food and housing and just involves so many other things, this is the most encompassing inflator to use to adjust that dollar amount for inflation. It's just that CPI, the consumer price index for all urban consumers and all items. There's no CPI index for all rural consumers, interestingly. And I was kind of surprised to learn that. But the CPI that you see here is the inflation index that we're most familiar with. Like, when we're talking on the news or something, this is probably the one that you're looking at. And this is the one that the agency and the committee want to planning on as well. And then this adds a definition of donated farm crops to be eligible for this exemption as well. So if you're just donating the farm crops and don't have any income, you could be eligible for

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: this exemption. Representative Brent Baldy,

[Unidentified Representative (addressed as 'Representative Brent Baldy' in transcript)]: How how does this get tied to a specific time? Like, is this locked in for this year or whenever GOAT is enacted? So does that mean in ten years you've gotta get out your calculator and look what the the consumer price with index is. And so you have to know when the $250,000 was enacted.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yeah. And know it's enacted in 2026. And so this says from the fiscal year I can highlight it on the screen, but from the fiscal year 2026 to the fiscal year for which the amount is being determined. And there are people who do finance for a living have means of doing this. So, I check with our finance folks. And this is standard statutory language that we use in other places in the BSA. And to calculate the inflator. So, it's complex to those of us who aren't familiar with this, but there are ways to do it. Some agencies will actually publish what the amount is every year as adjusted by inflation to make it easier for the public to make that determination themselves.

[Unidentified Representative (addressed as 'Representative Brent Baldy' in transcript)]: My other question is, is the price you charge that you Or is it what you spend to buy the stuff? It's total sales. So if you're selling dinners or something, it would be how much you're charging. Okay. It's not how much it costs you to make it. That's right. Yep.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Go ahead. Just quickly, do inflators ever go in the opposite direction?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Could we go below 250,000

[Rep. John O'Brien]: if there's a correction?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yeah, yeah. I've only ever seen an inflator go the opposite direction. I don't even know if during the Great Recession this one went in the opposite direction. I think it was pretty close if it didn't go negative slightly. And in which case, relative to the year prior, inflator might have just down. That's very uncommon. Very, very uncommon. But allows for that.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: But it allows for that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We saw there was an inflator in the language that the labor department uses for the farmworker housing. And there might have been, in that case, a reference to it can't be below zero. Maybe there was a cap. It couldn't be above five, but maybe also it couldn't be negative. We also have in our statute the minimum wage law, I think is now indexed to inflation. And that might have something similar that the minimum wage can't ever go down even if inflation were negative.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yeah, that's a great possibility. Alright. Moving on. We are on page nine. This is a change to a curious little section. I shouldn't say curious little section, but it's just it's a very discreet change. So section five deals with a statute that permits a milk producer or deals with milk producer and milk purchasers. And so if a milk producer has a contract, whether verbal or written with a milk purchaser to buy the milk producer's product, and the milk purchaser backs out, the milk producer can ask for a hearing, with the agency of agriculture to see if that was if there was a legitimate reason for the the milk purchaser to back out. And so the only thing that this statute does is it changes some language. There's some conforming language. But down here, if a request for a hearing is made by the statute currently says purchaser, and it should say producer. Because in this instance, the hearing would be requested by the producer. So the someone who is contracted to sell their products to a purchaser. And it didn't make sense to have the statute this way. It looks like it was just an oversight. And because here, it says, request for hearing is made by a producer, refusal of the purchaser shall not become operative until hearing a decision on the purchaser's favor by the secretary. So, basically, if the purchaser is looking to back out of a contract, written or verbal, and the producer asks for a hearing, the purchaser still has to engage with the contract until a decision on the hearing has been made. And so, the agency of agriculture, they proposed this language and they said it didn't really make sense if the purchaser has to request a hearing. Then that would obligate them to It just didn't make sense the way it was. So, we are on page 11, section six. This is changing the Farm to School grant program as it currently is to just the Farm to School program. And what this would do is to permit the agency of agriculture to provide grants or contracts for the purpose of helping Vermont schools develop a Farm to School program. And that's the primary change here. The only reason I can tell you from my just no knowledge of this is that there's some efficiency in providing grants versus or providing contracts versus grants. Grants tend to have more reporting requirements. But the agency agriculture could explain more about why they're pursuing this change from a policy perspective and how that would affect their operations.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Who's Rosa McLaughlin? Because apparently they're naming this program after someone.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: She was the role of my history. Yes. And that's

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: the existing program that is named after her?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yes. Yes. And I had actually a note on her history and I don't have that with me.

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

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: But she's a champion of farming

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: and bringing food to the people. So this program is already called the Rosa and McLaughlin Farm to School.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yes. Yeah. So I've

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: heard that name or I have, don't know. Yeah. No, I mean, we've talked about Farm to School a lot. I never heard that. Not normally hearing that name necessarily. At least once a week. Mean, it's I think when we had the conversation about the Farm and Forestry Relief Fund program. We talked about the distinction between awards and grants. Were two different awards. Contracts. And it was critical. Yeah, I

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: don't remember exactly, but be curious when the agency comes in to hear if this is part of the same the same logic. Represent Nelson. Well, I I just think thinking, you know, grants implied money given and not expected to be repaid. And contracts, although may not be as worthy. And I'm you know, they don't have to expect payment, but it gives them more latitude to help them set up maybe how to get in contact with primary to set up the programs. Do you explain it to us?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. Let me keep going then. We're I said to Brad, if we Bradley, if we didn't get through this by the time we have to stop, he can come back tomorrow. Doug, we're trying to just keep it very high level and get a sense of what's in here. So if it feels like you're speeding a lot, that's why.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Section seven repeals the pest control compact. It was an interstate compact that was debunked, that went debunked in 2014. So, the state has not been making payments into this fund. Basically, it was an interstate compact to stop the spread of pests interstate. So, operated as kind of insurance fund. And it went defunct in or around 2014 due to a change in their tax status with the IRS. And it just became cost prohibitive for this compact to operate. And so they got debunked, and this would take this corresponding section out of our statute. Section eight is amending the pesticide exam requirements. And so, this one would allow someone to take Currently, the pesticide exam is limited to, I believe, three retakes. I guess I could just scroll down to the language. Currently, the pesticide examination is limited to three retakes. And this would remove that retake requirement or excuse me, that limitation on the number of times you can retake it entirely. And it also removes the fee for state government, municipal, and public education institution applicators. It will remove the $30 fee for them. And then it just brings out in statute here. There should be no limitation on the frequency for retaking examinations for private commercial, non commercial or government applicator certifications. Or dealer licenses. So, allows someone to apply for that certificate as much as they'd

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: like. So,

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: we are on section nine, conforming seed law to universal standards. And so, the next next five or six sections here deal with that. And so this makes a couple of conforming changes. It amends the definition of flower seed to include wildflowers. It adds some additional information on labeling and including adding requirements for the labeling of bulk seeds and that are used to provide the seed label information required by this chapter. So the the labeling this chapter will add or change labeling requirements for seeds. And I'll just kind of flush that definition out a little bit. And, you'll see some prohibitions on noxious weed seeds. And those are currently in statute anyway, that are prohibited, that can't be controlled through typical agricultural practices or very difficult to control through good agricultural practices. And then there's some restricted weed seeds. That's not changing much here, except for the prohibited noxious weed seeds, adding flower, tree, or shrubs that might fit those definitions that are defined by the state by rule. And we're adding a couple of definitions just to change language. And so, we're using we're changing the word sell or sale throughout these sections to include to just mean distribute. And distribute is defined as import, manufacture, produce, mix, blend, offer for sale, barter, supply the seed through any means, including sales outlets, catalogs, telephone, internet, or any electronic means. This is to kind of just take a belt and suspenders approach to defining selling in this way, just to closing loopholes that people might try and use. And distributor means Go ahead, Chad.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Just finish here. I was going

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: say distributor means any person who distributes seeds and affixes. And this distributor means a person who is in charge of or who would be responsible for distributing the seeds into the state and affixing the label. So, it's a distributor's obligation to meet the labeling requirements that you'll see. It adds the definition of treated articles that we might be familiar with, but means seeds that receive the application of a substance or process designed to reduce, control, repel certain disease organisms, insects, pests from attaching to seeds or seedlings, or designed to enhance the availability of uptake of plant nutrients in a root system. And the secretary may apply terms as used in the Association of American Seed Control Officials adopted in the recommended uniform seed law. So, it incorporates those definitions in text.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Rather, just one specific question about seeds. Is there a definition of seeds like potatoes? Are they seeds or tulip bulbs or is it more seeds than traditional?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yeah, so we'll see things like flower seeds here, noxious weed seeds, regular weed seeds, and just pull up the statute real quick. We have vegetables in the statute and I I guess you actually don't see it. But in the statute itself, it defines vegetable seeds. And in a section, I did include there genetically engineered seeds or defined. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: On page 14, line five, it lists agricultural agricultural seed, grass forage, cereal, oil, fiber, and other kinds of crops commonly recognized as agricultural seeds, bond seeds, combination of such seeds, and then it may include noxious weed seeds.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, so back in the beginning of second My time

[Rep. John O'Brien]: bigger question was, this all seems like it came like oftentimes our house miscellaneous ag from the agency. Later on, are there sections that maybe stakeholders suggested or is it really all agency of Ags? That would

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: be a good question for them because I don't know the process that they went through to come up with this. So, this text was directly from them, but that process could have included other stakeholders and then I'm not aware.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Oh, I was just wondering if you were there when perhaps there was sort of this send a miscellaneous Ag and then because it's so big and bulky, they just kept adding sections that weren't from the original.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yeah, yeah. There were a couple of sections that were added by other parties, so not all of the sections were added by the Agency of Agriculture. And I think most of what is left here was from the Agency of Agriculture with the exception of the last section and the exception of the accessory on farm business section, I believe. I might have to double check that. And we'll talk about VITA in a moment, but the CEFR and VITA also did not come from the Agency of Agriculture, but they were aware of it when it came through. Okay. I got some notes on this one because this section just makes some general updates throughout. But the duties and authority of the secretary, this is just amending the section to instead of transported, sold, or sale, we're just changing that language to distribute it in or into the state for selling purposes. So we're using the word distributes just to to clarify what we mean about selling or offering for sale. So that's a change there. And the label requirements here. So the selection amends labeling requirements for treated seeds. And so all treated agricultural, vegetable, or flower seeds have additional labeling requirements. And so it has to describe the treatment and identifying the commonly accepted chemical name or description of the process used or abbreviated chemical name of the substance that it is treated with. So, to give more consumer information. And if the substance is in the amount present within the seed is harmful to human health or other vertebrate animals, an appropriate caution statement like do not use for food, feed, or oil purposes. And the caution statement for mercurial or similarly toxic substances shall be a poison statement or symbol. So just adding that and clarifying that requirement for treated articles if we know them to be harmful. And then proceed treated with an inoculant. The label shall states the expiration date, meaning the date beyond which the inoculant is not considered effective. So, just kind of changing the language there just to be clear about what they're looking to regulate. And then this section would also requires both displays of seed to be labeled with the same kind of requirements that you would expect expect on an individual package. This section here is replacing sold and sale with the words distribute. This is not as unchanged from law, but what this section deals with is a person who distributes seed will not be subject to a penalty under this chapter. So, it's talking about penalties. I won't be subject to a penalty under this chapter unless the person has failed to obtain an invoice, genuine growers declaration, other labeling information, or to take other such reasonable precautions to ensure that the identity of seed is so set forth. So, basically, sets a standard for how much knowledge or what a person needs to do to actually subject to penalties for the labeling requirements of the section. Alright, section 13, we're changing the administrative penalties section for substituting the word sold for the word distribute. And then this section adds a penalty for failure to report the quantity of genetically engineered or modified genetically engineered treated and untreated seeds sold in the state. So, it's adding a reporting requirement. I think I might have sent penalty so big reporting requirement here. And we're moving on here to section 14. And so this section has to deal with registration and reporting. So individuals can't distribute a seed without registering annually and then discusses the registration fees. So this section looks like it is changing the amount of fees that are going to be paid and it kind of it it does not. So it looks like it deletes the $10 per ton fee for any seeds sold in containers of more than 10 pounds. That's actually going to be moved a little bit later. So in consultation with JFO, it doesn't look like there's any kind of fiscal change in the amount of fees that would be collected. They're just moving in different places. So we're getting the registration fee is $85 for each annual distributor of any seed into the state and registrations for the calendar year. It expires on the December of each year. And then, just some conforming language for the registration requirements. And then we're coming back down. And then they're plugging in the $10 fee back down here. So a fee of $10 per ton of seeds distributed in containers of more than 10 pounds shall accompany the annual reports that is required by distributors who are selling seeds into the straight. That report is due on or before the fifteenth of each year. So basically, you pay $85 to register for each distributor that distributes any seed into the state. And then $10 per ton of any containers of more than 10 pounds. And then those distributors have to make a report each year. And then when they do that report, they pay their $10 per container fee at that time. So it's a little confusing of the changes, but a lot of their conforming changes and just moving things around to try and ultimately make it just a little clearer about what individuals are required to do. So,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: we will have plenty of opportunity to dig in. It is a little confusing and who knew there was so much seed law? I think that clerk or house clerk is likely to look at this and say this bill has to go to ways and means if this language stays in. Even if nothing's changing, that's our rule, apparently. So we should just be keeping that in mind when we're getting to the point where we're ready to roll this out and forget to tell them. That's my job. But also make sure that we're leaving time for that to happen.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: And then this adds an additional reporting requirement for all seeds regardless of the container size. So before we're talking about 10 pound containers. Regardless of container size, all seeds distributed into Vermont regardless of that size shall report annually to the secretary on or before February 15 on a form supplied. And then at minimum, the form will require disclosure of the quantity of seeds, especially containing genetically engineered material, treated seed, and untreated seed. So it's adding reporting requirements for genetically engineered material treated seeds and untreated seeds that don't currently exist. And then some additional requirements here about reporting for genetically engineered material, pesticide treated seeds. There we have that there.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: All of this reminds me of APCO last year.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: What was that? That was

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: the American Association of Beneficial something.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, beneficial substances. Substances or something. It's a very dry technical. Yeah.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I know. Snappy. I don't know. I'll be right.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yeah, it is a very technical change. I think overall, it does not change the substance of current law much except with requiring additional labeling requirements, redefining what we mean by selling to mean distribute, which is a different, lots of different methods of distribution. I already said labeling requirements as a definition of treated seed, and then some more reporting requirements for genetically engineered seeds as well. Very technical, a little dry, as is these next few sections as well. Section 15 starts our consolidation of the Vermont Agricultural Credit program into VITA. So background last year, VITA moved a bunch of programs to its place in Vermont law. And it did not move BCAP, and we don't know why. But BCAP is not one of those or BACP was not one of those programs. And so what this would do was essentially repeal 10 BSA chapter 16A. So the Vermont Agricultural Credit program has its own chapter right now. And then essentially moving that to 10 BSA Chapter 12, Subchapter 16. 10 BSA Chapter 12 is where VITA lives in the statutory text, adding a subchapter to that, the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program. The Vermont Agriculture Credit Program is currently administered by the Vermont Agriculture Credit Corporation. And you'll see later on in the statute that this bill would give VITA the authorization to dissolve the Vermont Agriculture Credit Corporation and essentially administer the VACP directly. To add another layer of complexity, BETA already oversees the Vermont Agriculture Credit Corporation. And so this essentially just removes the step. But when you bring those folks in, they can give you some more some more history about why that is. But essentially, it's moving removing a layer of just kind of a layer of management. And so all these definitions have come over from the current statute. And I need to refer to my notes here. And all these definitions have come over. You know, we're adding a definition of authority to mean the Vermont Economic Development Authority. But all these definitions come over from the current statute. It's all underlined because it's moving. So, that doesn't mean this all changed. Nothing has changed except we added a definition of the authority here. So we're just kind of scrolling down. We'll get through a few pages, and we're looking at we are on page 26, line 15. And then so this section describes the Vermont agriculture credit Program. And so this section redesignates the current law without change, except for adding Of the section, this section redesignates current law without substantive changes. So the non substantive change is it's changing the word corporation to the word authority. So it's authority means VITA. And so VITA will be administering the program. So wherever in current law, it would say corporation, this bill would replace the word corporation with the word authority to signify that VITA is the organization that will be administering the program. But this particular statute comes over without changes except for that change. And we're scrolling down. This is very dry, but it's also a lot to scroll through quickly so we can actually make it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, are we going to get to a

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: point where we see language deleted from another statute? I will tell you if there is something. And I don't think that there is much here. There is I'll tell you in a moment. But basically, there is a section in the current law that defines the powers of the Vermont Agriculture Credit Corporation. Vida already has those powers. And so that language was deleted from the current statute because VIDA already has that power. It didn't need that power to be reauthorized in this subchapter. And so that's the primary thing that has been deleted in the current statute, is anything authorizing how the Vermont Corporation works and how the agricultural corporation should run. Those are the things that were deleted. The rest of this kind of comes over without substantive changes. So we are on see

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Go ahead, Director Nelson. Council. Is the Vermont Agriculture Credit Program a new program inside of VIDA or is it always existed inside of VIDA? I've never heard of it before.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yeah. So it's VIDA, Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation, and the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program. And so it's just kind of three layers of management for this program.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And it's always been there?

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: And it has been there for a long time. I want to say almost twenty years, but I think that that might be overstating it a little bit. But it's been there for a long time. And so the general power section is the section that has changed the most from current law. And because this section replaces the powers of the Vermont Agriculture Credit Corporation with the powers of VITA as provided in 10 VSA section 20 or 02/2016. So like I said a moment ago, this section, if you looked in current law, it will list all the powers the corporation has and VITA already has its proposed powers, so that was just taken out. This section also gives VITA the authority to dissolve the Vermont Agriculture Credit Corporation in accordance with Vermont law that deals with the dissolution of nonprofits. So the Vermont Agriculture Credit Corporation is a nonprofit organization. And this would allow Vita to dissolve it. The loan eligibility standards is coming over, without substantive changes. So standards for, making loans under the Vermont Agricultural Credit program. And then that's it for the move. The rest of these sub rest of these sections deal with conforming changes because we're moving a statute. We want to check cross references and things. And there is one substantive change here. And I'll go over that in a moment. So section 17 here is a conforming change, to a cross reference. And, and so it just kinda chain takes out the cross references statute and just kinda conforms that language. Section 18, changes the definition section. So this 10 BSA two twelve is VITA's definition section, VITA's primary definition section. They did not want the definitions in VITA's primary definition section to apply to VACP, the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program. And so they added a caveat in VITA's primary definition section saying that if you're looking to define terms about the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program, don't look here. Instead, those terms are all defined in the Vermont Agriculture subchapter that we just went over. It's all very

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: dry. I'm thinking, I wonder if anybody else is thinking that somebody's gonna have to report this bill or at least this section of this bill. It's not gonna be me necessarily.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: You can watch the recording in the Senate, watch them breeze right over this.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Sorry. We didn't understand it.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: No. No. They went over it. They went over it, but they did not go over as much. I'm going over it in a lot more detail than perhaps needs to be. And yeah, there weren't a lot of questions. Be ready to define ratite, though, if you do report on this, if you did not hear about that. That came up on the Senate

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: floor. And

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: another conforming change to a statute just changing the citation. And so this is a little bit of a substantive change. So we're looking at a Vermont Jobs Fund, which is another program that VITA administers. And the Vermont agriculture credit program, from what Vita has told me and the committee, the Vermont agriculture credit program at some point had lending operations established at interest rates and terms and conditions set by the authority to establish a line of credit not to exceed $100,000,000 to be advanced to the agricultural credit program to support lending operations for farmers. And and so and Vida can testify to this more fully, but the short of it is that this has not existed for some time. And and so when we were making conforming changes, they asked the senate Agriculture Committee to take it out because this is not a program that they've been administering for quite some time. And they can provide more information about that to you folks. I didn't want to flag that because these are these sections here are mostly conforming changes. But with the exception of this piece, this is substantive, even though that program isn't actually operating in reality.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There is no $100,000,000 sitting out there somewhere. Correct.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Yes, that is correct. That is a good question because it looks like it's a big program. And having them provide some more information, I think, would be

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: helpful for the committee. Representative O'Brien?

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Just at the top of this, Bradley, going the

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: other way, back to what you covered.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: So just not to be confused, Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund is different than this Vermont Jobs Fund.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: My inclination is to say yes. I'm not 100% certain about the difference between the sustainable jobs fund and the jobs fund. I can look into it. Don't know. Think it has a lot of little programs nestled under it. And so when you pull back at the statute, you really see that they missed her a lot. They might be able to provide more information about that piece.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We could also ask Patricia if you wanted to contact Ellen, I guess, from the sustainable jobs fund just to make sure that it's something different. I bet it is. Yes.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: You know, sometimes I wonder and seeing the the money they used to have put into the my I felt your credit program, and they, you know, stopped doing that for whatever reason. If those dollars were available because those are low interest loans are easier applied for quicker to respond, if that would be an aid towards our agriculture anytime, but especially in times of disaster.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Let's yeah. We'll have to dig into it. Yeah.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: And then

[Unidentified Representative (addressed as 'Representative Brent Baldy' in transcript)]: section 24.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: See, I think I might have skipped. Another conforming change in sectors.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: This is a reference of our non sustainable job.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: Okay. Okay. The sustainable energy loan fund. Okay. Yeah. Interesting. Section 21, another conforming reference. And then section 22 gets to hemp. And so this will probably take five ish minutes to go over. If you want me to pause here and come back or if you want me to keep going to the committee.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Is that the whole rest of the bill? The whole rest of the

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: bill is hemp and then there a couple of there's one small section area that won't take around.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, we talked quite a bit about hemp, but we didn't see the bill. Think, why don't we go ahead? We'll hear the five minute summary. Okay, okay. We'll be done.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: And so the impetus I came in, we spoke a little bit about the impetus for the changes. So I'll breeze over that. But there's a little bit of a findings and purpose section here. The definition section are brought over. So just as a reminder, this section proposes to take regulation of hemp from Secretary of Agriculture to the CC, the Cannabis Control Board. Hemp is still going to be considered an agricultural product. Cannabis is not. Hemp is. Even though they're technically the same plant. But this will move the regulation over the CCB. So a lot really hasn't changed. And so this is the definition section. It's being brought over. But one thing that is changing is we're using the words grow and grower to be interchangeable with the words produce and producer. And that will come into effect when we're looking at fees and things of the sort later on. And the hemp and hemp infused products definition here is being changed to add a line that just says is not lawful in interstate commerce. And yeah, so hemp product or hemp infused products. It's just changing that to say that anything that's not unlawful in interstate commerce. Because again, the impetus here was changing the federal law, change the types of hemp products that might become unlawful based on their THC concentration and on the strain of THC that they use. So, we are down to hemp and hemp is staying in agriculture products. So, this is coming over from current law, and removing some references to federal law that are in the current law because that federal law has changed. And the cultivation of hemp is still required from the wraps that's coming over from current law. We're trying to follow the wraps that is still coming over from current law. The registration and licensor is changing. So we're seeing the categories again. Producers are essentially the growers of hemp. Professors who take the raw product and turn it into a product, or take the raw plant and turn it into a product for sale, and then products, all hemp derived products containing a reasonably expected to contain more than zero point four THC concentration. So zero point three and below is supposed to be non intoxicating and not unlawful under federal commerce. Point four and above could potentially be intoxicating as required to be registered. And so each of these categories of individuals who are dealing with hemp and hemp products are growing hemp and hemp products are required to license annually with the cannabis control board. And then there's some denial reasons for reasons why the cannabis control boards could deny a person and they're coming up from current statute, but they include failure to establish that activities comply with state and federal law, refuse entry by the board onto the premises for inspection, fail to submit information, and fail to submit these. This section gives rulemaking authority that brings over from current law, but it permits, does not require, but permits the board to adopt rules to deal with things like testing for THC levels, authorizing methods for THC, requirements for labels, requirements for disclosure of the amount of cannabinoids in hemp products, and requiring licensees and registrants to have commercially reasonable insurance. And then adds, the licenses and registrants including out of state purveyors obtain insurance. That's an addition from current law. The seven eighty nine are all additions from current law. Prohibit hazardous additives to hemp products or specified additive limits relative to substances that are toxic or not genetically recognized as safe or designed to make the product more addictive or appealing to persons under 21 years of age. So, it can make rules about those items and specify when a registered hemp product contains more than zero point four milligrams of THC must be registered for sale for persons 21 years of age or older. The board shall adopt rules, a requirement for rulemaking, establishing requirements for licensure of processes of hemp and hemp derived process intermediaries and hemp products. And the board, again, permissive, the board may adopt rules established requirements for consumer sale of, any product containing THC or other cannabinoids. And the lawyer may also adopt rules prohibiting a person from making false or misleading or substantiating claims for their cannabinoid containing products. So a lot of rules about how you sell a product, how you market it, and labeling requirements, and then not adding additives to make something a little more tasty for individuals who are not of age.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: No bubblegum flavor and ref food number nine. Red Dye number nine. I don't want to

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: get us too far off our schedule today, Bradley. I can cruise to the rest of it.

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But I think that we will ask you to come back and maybe start at the beginning again of the hemp section just because there's a lot here. I know that are we've been it's been explained to us that we're taking existing law and moving it from one part of statute to another, but there's a lot. So I think there should be.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: Okay, okay.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: And I could just stop here if you wanted to take a break before your next speaker or if I could just keep going.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Why don't you, I can

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: just give you the two second version. Yes, yes. Okay. This section. So, section largely copies existing law, but it's testing and enforcement. The administrative penalty section does change the existing law in terms of the amount of the penalty. And it also permits the board to enforce administrative penalty of a civil collection within a civil collection action in the Superior Court. This does change current law. So in current law, there is a different administrative penalty section and with a limit on the amount of the fee. So under current law, there's a penalty of $1,000 per violation. And this one doesn't have those limits on what the violation might be. And so just to keep that in mind. And then it also incorporates by reference kind of administrative protections, like administrative law protections for individuals who deny the license to appeal that to the cannabis control board and then to the Supreme Court if they so desire. And then a fee section, this does change fees fairly substantially. It increases the fee for a processor from $100 to $500 But it removes fees in current law for the growing of hemp based on certain pounds. You have five hundred pounds under current law, five hundred pounds, pay of growing hemp, you pay $100 fee, £10,000, a $500 fee, and so forth under current law. And those fees are removed entirely. And then these two sections, sections twenty four and twenty five, amend cross references. And section 30, we're not talking about hemp anymore at all. We're actually talking about the National Resource Conservation Council. And this section amends a section about their ability to mortgage. And so this section removes a prohibition for the NRCCs, removes a prohibition on them to apply for mortgage to purchase land or purchase property. And so this bill would permit them to do that. And takes effect on July 1.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: One quick question, don't mean I could deal with it today, but I just wondered with hemp moving CCB, happens to the agricultural, say, grant world for a hemp producer, like if you apply for a working lands grant or you want NRCS grant or FSA financing? Does it have to work its way through the CCB

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: It would depend on what those requirements for those grant programs are. And so if there was a requirement saying that it has to be administered by the Secretary of Agriculture or the Secretary of Agriculture has to participate, that could potentially affect those grant programs. But it would really depend on that piece. This bill does not change how someone grows hemp. It doesn't change on the ground stuff very much. It just moves the regulatory and the testing regime from the Secretary of Agriculture to the Cannabis Control Board. And they're doing that so that the Cannabis Control Board can keep better tabs on the THC content of these hemp derived products. And because if they have a higher THC content than required by federal or than permitted by federal law, so above zero point three milligrams, then those products could be prohibited by interstate commerce and potentially be subject to federal drug enforcement. And so the Cannabis Control Board's goal and they can talk more about that is to make that process similar. In terms of the nuts and bolts of applying for grant programs, I'm not 100% sure how this would affect it. I don't think that any kind of effect would be intentional, though.

[Rep. John O'Brien]: That's a good ask.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Think thank you, Bradley. And this is there's a lot here. I think I underestimated how much time it would take even just to get a high level overview. So we'll have you back to dig in a little more to the hemp section. And I'm not sure that will be this week even. Want to try and bring some additional parts to Adam. He's do a part at a time and have the thought be scattered. So when we go to hemp, then we'll focus on hemp. Similarly with the other parts of the bill. And I think just in terms of reporting, and I imagine we hear oftentimes where there's a committee bill where you go around the room basically and everybody stands up and says a piece. So if you think that you'd like to report on the hemp section or the seed section, you can let me know before somebody else says if you really want to do that section. And then we'll each of our area of expertise so we don't all need to know about seeds necessarily.

[Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Council]: There is a section by section. So, in the recording, there is a section by section for the whole bill. I will take out the pieces that were amended out. So, you'll have that too. All

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: right. What are we going to add to it? What are we going to add to it? Well, that's