Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right. So we're gonna turn our attention here to the Senate miscellaneous Ag bill s three twenty three. We've had some conversations about the bill and we had Bradley, our lynch counsel, give us a quick walk through. I think it was the day before yesterday. This morning, we've invited the agency to come in and give us their thoughts on four sections, sections five, six, seven, and eight. And I think that these are all sections that the agency proposed. So brought maybe the language even, but brought the ideas to the Senate committee. That's not necessarily the case for everything in this bill, right, Steve? Correct. But that is the case for these four sections. So, if everybody's ready, we're we're gonna start, we'll turn it over to you, Steve, and then we'll get started.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Okay, thank you. Good morning, everyone. Steve Collier from the Agency of Agriculture. Just before I start, I want to say a quick word that I was here for some of Morgan's testimony, and it's always a little bit humbling for me to hear somebody else from my colleagues from the agency because they always know so much more than I do. But it's okay because I have a new motto, thanks to our wonderful executive assistant, Terry Smith, who put a cartoon of Steve the Otter on my door, and she puts quite a few up there. But her most recent one was this, and it's my new motto. I sort of embody it. They can't outsmart you if you're not smart. My other fave if you wanna know my other favorite that she that she put up is that it says this, Steve is not is getting Steve is not getting any smarter as he gets older. He's just running out of stupid things to do.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Seems very personal, but Steve It's a cartoon of an otter.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Steve the otter. It's Steve the otter, which is, I think, why she enjoys it so much. But she has found some similarities.

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

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: mean, they're super cute. Well, thank you for for allowing me to do that. So starting with Section five, this is really very simple. It's just correcting a typo. So whenever you have a farmer who's selling milk to a buyer, there's some rights that are built into statute. They've been there for a long time. And what it means is that anybody who's buying milk from a farmer cannot just terminate that contract without a reason. They have to have reason to do it. And if they even if they do have that reason to terminate the contract, the farmer has a right to disagree and to contest that. And the way the statutory framework is set up is if the farmer contests the contract cancellation, they have a right to a hearing in front of the agency of agriculture. So as part of that process, the current language in the law says that if a if a purchaser who is the buyer, if a purchaser requests a hearing, then the termination has stayed. Well, that's a typo because a purchaser is never going to request a hearing to contest their own decision. The only person who would request a hearing is the producer. So it's just a typo in the language. We just sort of stumbled upon it this summer. So we just would like to correct it so that it's clear that it's the producer that if they request a hearing and the whole point of that is if a hearing is forthcoming, the purchaser can't just terminate on their own. They have to wait for the hearing and wait for the results. So we just want to change. There's one word

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: above this just. I think it's the

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: bottom of page 10. Page 10, line 18. Yes.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: That's where the purchaser is being struck and producer is added, and then above it on line six, there's just a gender neutral

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Page 10. Just so was the next page there. And and then there's go ahead, Steve. You're saying there's other language that

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Just striking he or she and putting the producer. Yep. We always try to use gender neutral language when we're reforming revising statutes. That's it.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, bottom of that page, just there we go. There we are. Yeah. Thank you. So Patricia, thank you very much for doing double duty here. So this is very straightforward. Just I'm curious in case when we're presenting this, if somebody on the floor wants to know more about it, or if we want to know more about it because we have the opportunity. How often does this happen?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: It's not common.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And so I wonder

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: if was there was the question was about Danone when they when they terminated all their contracts and there were I believe a couple in that instance and we we they're not common. I would say we've had a handful in the last five to eight years, but it's just a contractual right that's there. And currently, it's just not worded correctly. I'm very confident that's just a typo because it's nonsensical otherwise.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Purchase it. I mean, some of us here are intimately familiar with this relationship and these contracts. But for those of us who aren't, the purchasers are typically the co ops that we hear about or the organic I guess they're also co ops, organic deli and

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Sure, there are two main or conventional buyers and there's three main organic buyers and then there's also some smaller buyers, but it applies to anyone who's buying milk. It can be a much smaller arrangement. I mean, Booth Brothers is also a smaller one that does buy milk directly and they're closing their plan berries. So that's affecting someone, but it's anyone who's buying, whether the contract is written or unwritten, They can't terminate it without cause. And the principal reason is sanitation. So if there's a sanitation reason, obviously can't contaminate. If you're if you're importing contaminated milk, then you're risking all the other milk that you buy as well. And then there are other reasonable grounds as well, which could be a lot of business issues, but they can't just unilaterally make that decision if the farmer wants to contest it. And if the farmer wants to contest it, then the agency of ag has to decide. And then if we decide, it can go to court. Once we decide, either party can appeal that determination. So it's infrequent, but an important protection for farmers.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Any other questions about this? So

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: essentially it's like contract law. It's like, there generally agreed upon contract between the producer

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: head and up?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Well, this is pretty unique because normally if there's a contract between two private parties, way you enforce that is just going to court, not with having the agency serve as an arbiter is is not typical for for most contracts. This is a specific built in protection for farmers. And I don't know the origin origins of it. I think it was in the 60s and there was probably something that preceded that as well. But it's a protection design for farms, and I suspect it came because of disagreement about how purchasers were canceling contracts.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So does that hearing then act as sort of a mediation and or like non binding arbitration? Like if you say, well, let's try to work this out at the agency between the two, the farmer and the producer, and then if one of the parties has been agreed, then they can go to Superior Court.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Well, the hearing is a mini trial. And so people put on evidence and we have the obligation to determine who's right. But there's whenever you have a dispute, there's an opportunity to amicably resolve it. So it would be our preference in that kind of a situation to try to resolve it so that both parties are can live with the outcome rather than just deciding it. But it's our responsibility to decide it if the parties can't come to terms on their own. And we we would be very open and have help try to resolve them. But ultimately, the statutory right is we have to we have to hear from both parties and make a decision. And then they can go to court and the judge, as I recall, I haven't looked at this in a while, has to they can't make a new factual determination. They can make a new legal determination. So I think our findings of fact that we make are not subject to appeal, but the legal determination that we make is.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: I don't know enough about dairy farmer and processor contracts, but is it built mostly into those contracts that you can't just be dropped without cause? I don't know

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: if it is or isn't, but they couldn't contract this right away. So whether they referenced the statutory right in their contract or did not, or whether they don't even have a written contract, the statutory right is there. So it's not something they could even they couldn't waive it on their own. They could waive it in an agreement. They don't have to enforce it. So if and this could happen, a purchaser might say, we'll give you $101,000 to walk away. And that's the end of it. It's only becomes an issue to us if the farmer contests the termination. So so you you have to exercise the right, but you can't be forced to give it up. You can voluntarily give it up.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I I feel confident that whoever gets to report this section will be prepared to answer any questions that might come up on the floor.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Were you looking at representative Brigham there?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Don't. You know?

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Got my germination office two weeks after I sold the cows.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Didn't have to go to court.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: How many people get that kind of? Small farmers get that kind severance pay. Usually, we just put our head down and lose. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Well, I think then we can have you move on to section six, Steve, on the next page for sort of following along. Yep, Farm to School Program contracts.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Great, so thank you. So this is pretty simple. This is farm to school grant programs which you all provide money for and authorize. The whole objective is to try to get more local food in the schools and we have a long standing great grant program and we can use that grant money to try to exactly do that, to try to get more local food in schools. The request in this language is to give us the ability to both approve grants and contracts. That's all we're doing. And the reason is the grants work fine when we're giving the money to schools, but we also hire technical experts, third party providers whose job it is to try to help more schools and to try to, you know, get economies of scale and not just focus on one school, but they work for many schools and try to create networks and try to get more accessibility. And that kind of arrangement is really better done through contract because you're hiring someone to do certain services and there's certain benchmarks. A grant is more you're giving generally speaking, it's more you're giving an individual money to do something on there for themselves, but also has bigger benefits and the contract is more of a business relationship. So the contract just works better. We've been doing it through grants, but it makes a lot more sense to go through the contract process, which includes the request for proposals, which is different when you have a grant, you apply for a grant. Whereas when you have a contract, the state has to put out requests for proposals because you want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to compete for the bids. So it's just they're parallel processes, but the contract works better for the hiring the third party technical advisors.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Represent Boston. Yeah, I'm just wondering if there if there would be opportunities in the farm to school program that wouldn't be possible with a contract that would with the grant like and I'm thinking I visited a kitchen in Brattleboro recently in a in a high school, and they had received a grant and bought a bunch of mini refrigerators that fit underneath their cutting boards so that they could have more cooling space. So like, would that be able to be with something like that be able to be arranged through a contract?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: We wouldn't. So it's we're changing it so we can do contracts or grants. So the all the grant.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: Okay, Okay. So it's or it's

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: an or

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: it's just expanding the possibilities. Okay, that's fine.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Yeah, no, no, that's a great question. It's yeah, the

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I missed that. Yeah, okay.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: That's if you look at I'm not sure what's up at line six, it's the first it says and provide local grants or contracts.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: I totally see it now.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Yeah and if you look at and further down on line 11 in subsection B there where it says one of the people that we can provide that we can work with is an organization administering or assisting the development of farm to school programs. So that's really the target is not the school itself, but it's someone who's helping to get food into the schools. So all of these, I can run through the language if you want, but the whole the only thing it's doing is expanding the scope so that we can use either a contract or a grant.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the word award, which is an existing statute, has been crossed out. There's not a problem with the word award. It's just you want to

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: It refers to grants typically because you award a grant and sort of rather than execute a contract or you know or reach an agreement to a contract. So it's just trying to make the language all without rewriting the whole thing just making everything clear that you can do one or or the other. We'll still be doing grants where they're appropriate. But if we need to contract with somebody to provide a certain service, and that's really what it is. It's paying for a service rather than giving somebody money to do to buy something.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Steve, I don't it wasn't too long ago when, I mean, this just seems like it's sort of ironing out a wrinkle when we changed the original one, which was we added the third party technical assistance providers not too long ago to this, instead of just schools. So maybe at that point, they didn't add this contractual.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Catching that up and the people who actually the person primarily who does all of this work just came to us and said, you know, this doesn't it's kind of fitting a square peg in a round hole a little bit. And she's right. It just makes more sense to have a contract with these folks and for them to go through the bidding process. It's just a better we were we were doing it the other way, but this is a this is a better instrument.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay. Is that the I mean, that's the end of that. I guess that that there's similar language at the bottom of the page. Patricia, if you wouldn't mind just scrolling down four or five lines. Line 16 through 21 of page 11. Yeah. So again Right.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Just synchronizing, so it's applications or contract bids instead of just applications because that's a grant term and bidding for a contract is a contractual term.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And then onto the John, if you've got anything.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: So you're okay with you apply for a contract? Seems guess the RFP that you just mentioned. Which line? Sorry, Elon. 13. The verbs apply even for contract.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, we ask because it's modified later on,

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: may apply for a grant or contract. So it's not how you'd write it maybe if it was only about contracts, but I'm not worried about there being any confusion given the other scope of the word.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: There have been awards the service providers, we've been doing that. Yes. Older language hasn't prevented them from getting money.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: We've been doing it through a grant, but the way that grant agreements are written is different than how contracts are written, cause there's different standard requirements. They're both legally binding agreements, so they don't differ in that respect. But the way that you and the bidding process is different as well, than applying, you're competing in a different way. So they're they're I mean, they're not dramatically different, but there are there's different bulletins that apply into the state system and there's different processes. And it really is a contract that we're when we hire somebody to do something, that's a contract,

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: not a grant.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative Nelson?

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So this thank you. This would give you more oversight that the will of the contracts being met as whereas you give a grant, you tend to you know, pay out the money and then they do with it, hopefully what they said they were going to do, but with a contract, have more oversight?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: There's, it's easier to tailor the agreement to make sure that the person is producing what they want. In a grant, we also have requirements that people sometimes we give, you know, 40% upfront and make sure they do it and then give another 20%. So there are still conditions to grants, but that's really, it's just that when someone gets a grant, they're typically doing something on their own for their own business or their own property and we're doing it for the broader public good because you've authorized us to give them money. Whereas when we're hiring a contractor, they're doing specific tasks that are not for them themselves but are something the state wants done. And so they're working with other people. So they just have they just have different terms and conditions. We've been doing it through a grant and it's okay, but the contract is better. It's a better legal instrument for this.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: This makes me think of a whole different line that I'd like to talk about sometime, and that's the Vermont Dairy Promotion Council. And while we have, you know, we have the you know, through the through the council to the Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance, we're running that airtime for the for the ads telling the Vermont farm story. And there's a struggle in the way the money comes because the VDPA isn't a wealthy organization, and they run this airtime through CAX and NBC and and boosting on social media. The bills are coming in, and we have to wait for the money to come back out because of grant or something. It's something that I'd like to look into sometime if there is more of a flow that can be with that. Right?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: You want easier access to cash, you gotta join a long list.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Well, while it was awarded

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Yeah. I'm kidding.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: 126 or 127,000. Yeah. It's just how it flows to go out to pay for the expenses, Matt. And I've been hearing there's been some struggles. I mean

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: We can certainly look into it. We we work with the VDPC. It's an independent board, but we Yeah. Help them.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I I realize that. And I and I'm naive to all of it, and I just didn't know if there's a way that could be, you

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: know, how that can be spun out. Is that a check coming from the state? Farmers

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: pay it as a it's a federal program.

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

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: A 10¢ per hundredweight. If I'm remembering correctly, goes to the state and 5¢ goes to the feds and the VDPC can allocate that money as it chooses. But the whole goal is to promote dairy to help to help dairy farmers have.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: The hang up here is that either the feds or the state or both are not sending them the money as quickly as would be helpful.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Probably. It it's and and like I've said, I'm naive to a lot of it, and and I don't wanna cast shadow on it. It's dairy farmers money that's handled by this board, the Vermont Council. And, you know, a lot of it goes to New England dairy because a lot of our brine sold in, you know, the Boston Market and Point South. And some of it's kept by the Vermont Cheese Council. They got a contract in Vermont Dairy Producers Alliance because we need a vehicle to run it through, you know, to apply for the grant. And I'm very appreciative of everything. And I think we're having great success with it. It's just how to, you know, without having the upfront money to cover the expenses and then get reimbursed, it makes it tough. You know, you're, you know, FedEx is saying, send you an invoice, and we're going, money will be here pretty soon. Yeah. And and the money comes. That's not the issue. It's just, you know, how do you make it flow? It needs

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: to be a year ahead.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. How do know how the Ranger take? Let's see. He he no. He Monument Farms covered all his expenses. And then we're broadening the outreach from that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I have a question. Yep. Is it about this? Yeah. It's about that. Okay, we're gonna go back on. I

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: wonder on the agreement side of things, can a supervisory union or a food school authority potentially make an agreement with one of these third party technical service providers and then somehow they're applying for some of these contracts or grants? Is that the way rather than the third party going straight to the agency and saying, then we get some of this. Would it sometimes come through with a supervisory union or a food?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I mean, anyone can any entity, any person can bid whether or not I'm not sure exactly when we hire a third party administrator, I think part of that contract is to work specifically with certain schools. I think that's mapped out in advance, although I don't read these agreements on a regular basis, but I don't think we would just say go forth and conquer. I think we would say you plan to help these different supervisory unions get access to this food. So it's not impossible that there would be independent private agreements, but I think the operative one from our perspective would be the contract with the third party, the technical service provider. And then we I think we would I'm sure we scope out who they're going to be working with. We could make that very broad or we could make it narrow. And that's probably depends on the amount of money that we have.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yeah. I mean, I'm just wondering sort of the direction of the triangulation there, right? If school groups come to you and say, we really need this third party.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: It's probably both. I think it's probably both. I think probably some schools feel really equipped to do it on their own and then others would like assistance. But we have a person who's this is her job, and she would be happy to come in and talk to you about all the intricacies of it. But I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Who is that, Steve?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Gina Clitherow?

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yeah. Who does the institution?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: She she she may do other things as well, but she manages the farm to school grants within within the agency. She works in the agricultural development division.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: I mean, couple of examples of, like, this happened with a contract, like, and this was an award might help us when we're recording this.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Sure. I mean, I'm sure she could provide that. Yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Right. I think if you just scroll down to the top of the next page, can wrap up this section. Just a little more language there.

[Bradley (Legislative Counsel)]: So line two, it's again just expanding to grant and or contracts using instead of amount just tidying up the language in line three a little bit, the total annual funds available, we have to strike granting, accepted an award to the following entities. So it's just taking out anything that was specifically grant and making it applicable to both and then at the bottom of line 10 where it did say grant, it's struck and it just added for funds, which can be through a contract or a grant.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: I can see from seven on down, if we do some transformation of education, this is all rewritten again.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Informing changes. Yeah. Yeah. Yep. Okay. Don't don't run don't run over there and tell them.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: There's something else to worry about.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Imagine being a person with a job that is to come through. I guess AI helps with that. Yeah. Okay. So, yeah, we can certainly ask the agency to come in. Maybe the pharmacological program would like you to say something very briefly. I don't think we need to, know, probably still have to. Okay. Thank you for that, Steven. I will just say that I had originally invited Steve to come in and speak to us about section seven and eight. And then at the last minute this morning, said, let's cover five and six too. We have some time. That's why only seven and eight are on the handout. And now we can proceed to the handout.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Thank you. So section seven, very brief there. We were asking to repeal the chapters. So title six, chapter 83 that used to have the pest control compact or does currently have. So just a little bit of background, there used to be something called the interstate pest control compact. The objective was to enable states to work together to control pests, which obviously is a good objective. It was formed in 1968. The state of Vermont joined it in 1977. The governing board of the it was called the IPCC, the Interstate Pest Control Compact, that governing board voted to dissolve in 2012 and it did dissolve in 2013, but it's still in our statutory framework. So it no longer exists. We just want to repeal it for that reason. Apparently the reason it no longer exists is because the IRS rules changed to qualify it from a public charity to a private foundation for its insurance fund that it had. So the tax implications were enormous. So it no longer made sense for it to happen. We still work with the federal government and we can work with other states, but this interstate pest compact doesn't exist. And it actually had a reporting requirement in it where the insurance fund was supposed to be reporting to the legislature. And that's why last year, Michael Grady asked us for

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: a report and said what?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: So we recognized that it would be wise to repeal this since it's not a functioning entity.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: This is why it's helpful for us to go through the list of reports every year and apply the ones we haven't got and try and find out why. So it's gone anyway, and it just cleans it up.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Right. Just taking it out of our because according to state statute, we're supposed to be joining it and reporting on. Yeah. It's hard to do that now.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you know any more about when it was in existence? What kinds of disease they were involved with?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: No, I mean, don't think it's probably anything differently than we currently do. You know, we have we have an entomologist, we have folks who work on trying to control pests and work on introduced species, species that are coming from other places that may be harmful to natives or local species. So we do all that work now. I don't, I think this, I think this was more for an emergency. You know, we know things like the spotted lanternfly or, you know, there are things that burgeoning issues that you try to deal with as quickly as possible to contain them. And I think that's what this was designed to do was to enable states to work together.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: The Asian longhorn tick is in Pennsylvania, and that's carrying a nasty tick borne disease to cattle. And then you have the what's that fly down in Mexico that really screw. What's screwworm? New world screwworm fly, you know, in Mexico, and they're trying to get into Texas, and they're fighting it. Yeah. Like, shot of a gun. So, yeah, you may

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: have There's always a lot of things that we'd rather not have. You know,

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: you know, in Emerald Ash Borer.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Yeah. And some of them become endemic, all you can do is try to contain them, but but if you can keep them out, then that's the that's the goal, but harder to do. And with the climate as it is now, it's even a little harder, so.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Okay, that's seven. Yep. So section eight response.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I don't

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: know you know this or anybody. Is there an archive of all statutory language that once existed in the green books and now has been struck?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I wish I had access, ready access to that. That's a law library. I'm sure that the state of Vermont library library has that. You guys may have that here with ledge counsel. Online, you can go back pretty easily to 1989 and find the statutes that existed, but before that I don't have an easy mechanism other than going to a law library before 1989, but it used to be. Have, we have some of the old volumes and it used to be just one book of laws, Right. And each one was like each law had about 10 words in it. Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Our green books, you mean it was one book.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: No, it was one. Yeah, it was. I think they were called at some point public statutes, I think. And they were so they were not the titles in the chapters. It was just one big book. And I've looked through that before, and it's actually interesting as many things that you think have changed, there's many things that have not. But we used to use a lot fewer words to and require fewer things.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That would be historically really kind of fascinating to see, you know, two hundred years ago, what were the ones then?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: We'd won the constitution for a little while.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Maybe one still required hitching posts. I don't know. Required hitching posts. Outside the store.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Best example you heard this year, Alan Chittenden said that Act two fifty started as a 14 page bill.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Did it?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Yeah, farming wasn't defined in Act two fifty when farming was exempt, but it just said farming. That's it. And and why I know this because of other issues, but farming wasn't defined until 1985 and Act two fifty and it's changed some obviously since then. But yeah, it's just farming.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: So that's easy. Reckon that the over time finding loopholes is probably why the the law gets longer.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Oh, yes. Creating loopholes.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Then it starts conflicting with each other everywhere.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Let's go on to section eight then. Okay.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: So the I think you all know that we all so there's restricted use pesticides. There's there's sort of general use. So there's Class A, which is restricted use. There's Class B, which is general pesticides, but you still need to be need a license to deal them in order to use them, certified applicators. And then there's class C, which is things you can buy in the store and anyone can use. You still need a retail license for those. So the whole point of that is to make sure that people who are selling or using pesticides know how to do it appropriately. And then the lowest level risk ones anyone can use, but you're still required to follow the label when you use them. We have to license everyone who either sells pesticides or uses pesticides. So we have that process. This is the statutory framework that does that. We're not substantively well, there's one minor substantive change, but basically we're not substantively changing anything. But there is currently

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: we have, so

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: currently we have we're consolidating some of the categories just because it wasn't perfectly written and sort of the impetus for this is a couple of years ago you all enabled us to have online pesticide exams currently, and actually we just started doing those recently, but before everyone would come into certain sites in the state and including across the street, and we would have tests once a week or once a month depending on where it was, and people had to come into those to our offices, But now you enabled us to have them online, which is great because some people it's a lot easier for folks not to have to travel and they can take them when they want to instead of at our times. And there are a lot of people we license who are out of state who don't have to come here to do it. Part of this is just looking at our framework as we start implementing those online tests, which people can still come to our office and do it, but if they want to, there is a $60 fee to take it online, but they can do it that way instead. So if you I don't think there's any language change on the first at the bottom of page 12 here. But if you look at page 13, line eight, the first change is just adding government applicator to this list of people that we that we license. And if you go down about line 14, you see we struck line seven which had state government, municipal, and public education institution, so we're just instead of having this extra line, we just added government to line four. It's just tightening up the language a little bit, doesn't change a thing. The one sort of sub, there's two substantive changes I guess, but on line five you see that right now the second and third time you take an exam, there's a fee for that exam. Currently under the current law, there is no fee for the first time that you take the exam and we want to strike that because we've had recurring problems with people not scheduling the exam, but then not showing up for the first time. And the reason that's problematic is we have limited spots available at the test sites. So if people sign up and don't show up, that means we're precluding other people from coming. So rather than not having a fee for the first time, we believe that if we charge a fee for the first time, people will show up. So we want to change that to make every examination fee $25 And then the other related change is at the moment, there are rules that limit when you can take the test. So you can, if you fail at the first time, you can currently have to wait a week and then you can take it again. If you fail at that time, you have to wait twenty eight days and then you can take it again. If you fail at that time, then you have to wait a year. And it's just not very efficient because people who are taking these tests are mostly hired by companies and for them to get hired and then take the test and they're sort of sidelined for a week or a month, our director of plant industry just doesn't like that inefficiency for the company. So in line 17 through 19, you'll see that we're just, we're asking to strike the limitation on the frequency for retaking exams. So anyone can take the exam as many times as they want. If they pass, they can get their license. If they don't, they can't. I mean, most likely if someone continues to not pass it, employer will not continue to want to hire them, but that's a decision for them to make, not for us to put this year long, you know, potential year long hiatus on someone's ability to take the test.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Representative Bartholomew. Those time frames you mentioned in statute, did you say? Or more?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: In rule. They're they're

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: in a rule, which we could have amended the rule, but we just felt like since we wanted to tighten this language up anyway, it's it's why we're

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: not seeing anything struck here. Correct.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Correct. Yep. Thank you.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Representative O'Brien. So Steve, if VTrans wants a pesticide applicator or a tree warden from Burlington, they have to pay $30

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Yep, well if they want to be able to be a certified applicator.

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

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: don't have to. But yes, we have a lot of state employees who take the exam, a federal to

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: state or municipal exemption.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: No, no. If they write.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: And each each exam, no matter how many times it takes, $5.45.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: The test taking fee is 25. If you want to take it online, that's an additional 60. If you want to, you don't have to. Yeah, that's not change. And there's no that $60 fee is new and that was authorized a couple of years ago. But the fee in here, the only change in the fee here is there is that first time testing fee.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Do you have any sense of how often if somebody takes the test three times and isn't successful and has to wait?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I've asked about that. It's not common, but it happens. I don't think any employer waits a year. My guess, I mean, it's possible,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: but Moving on to another potential. I

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: think if you're right, no one's going to wait a year. Maybe they'll hire you again in a year, but basically it's going to be moving on. So that was a barrier. But even twenty eight days is quite a long time to wait without being able to do the work.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Is it is the twenty eight days not is that being struck too or that would remain?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: It's back to it's it would be it's it's struck because in this in subsection E, which is being added here, says there's no limitation on the frequency for retaking exams. So the frequency was the twenty eight days. So now especially with the online option when you can take it when you want, can do it pretty quickly.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So this effectively would mean that you could take an exam, not pass it. The next day you could take it again. Correct. Or that afternoon you could take it again.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I'm not sure exactly how quickly, but yeah, I think you can sign on. I think it's a 20 fourseven application. Stephanie Smith, who I think you're going to have to come in and talk about seeds would be able to answer that for sure because she's been instrumental in setting up the portal to do it. But we hired a contractor to run those exams. We still do our own in house, but the contractor and that fee, that $60 fee is to pay the contractor. Anybody

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: else have a question? Representative Bartholomew?

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I'm just wondering if these modest changes are going send us both ways and means, but since it deals with fees. I think

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: it's already going to ways and Already going. Yeah, there's other other fee. Yeah, so in fact, I've already alerted the chair of ways and means that it should be prepared for this bill.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: It did go through finance and appropriations on the other side for for this and other reasons, but.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Representative O'Brien,

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: how long are the licenses good for?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Five years?

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Five years. I don't know. If you get your continuing ed credits, every five years, you need 25, and it keeps rolling. Oh, there's

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: an educational

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Oh, yeah. And and I've gotten few credits, and a company I work with scheduled their continuing ed credits on a Thursday. And I said, Patrick, Mondays are the only day they exist in my life. Every other day, I'm working for the people. And and that happens to me in a lot of things. People say, we need you to come to a meeting. What day is it? Well, no. You don't. If you want me there, you hold it on a Monday.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Have we reached the end of section eight? Yes. I'm just looking at the statute and I

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: think the fees are annual, but I don't see the duration of the test. I, yeah. Okay. Yeah. You know, I believe you. I just was looking to see if it's in the statute and I didn't quickly find it. It could be in a rule.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Yeah, fee to keep in good standing every year. No. We passed the test.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: That's the test. For five years.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: I see people once in a while, I see some jubilant people coming out of the test taking room. It's kind of fun.

[Rep. John O’Brien (Member)]: Some wasps?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Jubilant. And on occasion, I see some who are a little more sour faced. Think it's about a sixty or seventy percent pass rate. Think there are different tests too, depending on what it's for, so I'm sure it varies by the specific test. But

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: It the noncommercial isn't overbearing. Yeah. I think everyone that was there the day I was passed, although one kid got either wound up about taking a test or he was sick, and he kind of ran out of the room and didn't have a very good time out in the parking lot. Brother said, I guess, well, I'm over tests, I'm not sure if that was it or not.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: You should out hand out little kazoos when they pass.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Makes the tests? They are I think

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: we have standard forms, but they vary, so you're not always giving the same one. And I feel like we draw them from Cornell, but I'm not positive about that. Again, Stephanie could Stephanie would be able to help you with that. But there is I've seen the forms and they have a number and a letter designation and they're taken from a bank of them. So you're not always giving the same, you know, the same test.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So you've mentioned Stephanie's name a couple of times so we can have her come in. Is there any would there be any benefit having Steve join out come in too? Or

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: He certainly can. I mean, if you if you would like him to. Stephanie is I mean, Stephanie reports to Steve. Stephanie is more directly as either one of them could help.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: But Well, that's something we need to overcomplicate things. Yeah. For Dave Huber.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Dave Huber. Huber is he's in the same division, but he doesn't he he certainly would know about it too, but he doesn't administer the test. Well, we've

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: had David, if you can. We'll invite Stephanie to Yeah. Spread things out a little bit, spread the word out.

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

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Representative Bartholomew. Do you know how many languages tests are done in?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: That's a great question. We give them in English, you have to be able to read the One of the requirements of being able to apply pesticides is you have to be able to read the label, and the labels are in English. So I, that's a good question.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So if you speak Spanish, you can't get a license, is that?

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Well you have to speak English, can speak Spanish but I think you would have to be able to and maybe I'm wrong, maybe there are I don't think any of the labels though are in more than one language. Being to

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: read English and being able to take a test and comprehend.

[Steve Collier (Agency of Agriculture)]: Understood. It's a great question. I just we have provided some accommodations for people to take the test, but I don't remember there being anyone about the language exactly. But I have I do remember talking about you have to be the key component of pesticide laws following the label. And I don't believe the labels are in multiple languages.

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Probably not in Swahili. Probably not. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: That alright. So we've reached the end of the four sections that Steve is gonna go over this morning. We will pick up maybe tomorrow with this same section and then section the following sections are also Stephanie Smith's area of expertise. So we'll see if we can get her maybe in tomorrow morning. We're not going to meet in the afternoon tomorrow just because it's a good Friday. But if not tomorrow, then next week. But this afternoon, so we're done for the morning. Thank you, Steve. Thank you. Senator Inglis is coming up, and he'll just give the Senate Ad Committee's perspective on the whole bill. If you have any questions at all, I'm asking for while he's here. So he's going after the floor? After the floor, yeah. The floor should be pretty short today.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Famous last words.

[Rep. Michelle Bos-Lun (Member)]: So we're only going till lunch tomorrow?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yes, I think we'll just plan to wrap up tomorrow at twelve and call it a week. Thank you all. Thank you. Thanks Steve. Just while we've

[Rep. Richard "Rick" Nelson (Ranking Member)]: got

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: everybody here except Jed.