Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Committee Member]: On page eight. Page what? Eight? Eight. Okay. Good. Thank you. Accessory on firm. Right. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And then Ellen has a presentation as well.

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: I think we've lost the audio. Can you check audio?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: You can't hear us?

[Rep. Richard Nelson (Ranking Member)]: Now I can. Great. But it was silent for a minute. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We're deep in thought, Richard, and we weren't talking.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It happens occasionally.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: All right. Ellen Chekowsky, Office of Legislative Counsel. So today you are looking at S-three 23, the miscellaneous agriculture bill from the Senate. And I'm here on section four specifically, which is related to accessory on farm businesses. So I have a PowerPoint for you today because while the amendment in Section four is fairly short, there is a significant amount of context around what accessory on farm businesses are and what the statutes related to them are. So I've included some of those in this PowerPoint in case you want to look back. We don't need to read every word on the slide, but you will recall that this committee worked almost a decade ago on '24 BSA 40 four-twelve-eleven, and then more recently, in 2024, you updated it. And this is a statute for municipal zoning how municipal zoning can interact with this concept of an accessory on farm business. So this is the statute where a lot of the concepts that you're going see in S323 live. Two years ago in Act 181, you made a couple of amendments to what an accessory on farm business is and how they are regulated, both for municipal zoning and then also for purposes of Act two fifty, which is what is an S-three 23. So broadly, there are two categories of types of accessory on farm businesses. On this slide, under subsection A and I and II, they are storage, preparation, processing, and sale of products from the farm. And then the other category are educational, recreational, social events, including farm stays on the farm. So there is the sale and processing of products grown on a farm, which may include a farm stand. And then there's this other type of accessory on farm business regarding events or farm stays. There's some terms in here that are going to come up, including farther down on this page qualifying product. So this is what is often discussed as part of the metric for determining an accessory on farm business is what is the qualifying product that the farm is raising or growing. And so currently in 4412, qualifying product is an agricultural, horticultural, viticultural, or dairy commodity or maple syrup, livestock, poultry fish or product thereof, product of poultry, bees, and orchard or fiber crops, commodity otherwise grown or raised on a farm, or a product manufactured on one or more farms from commodities wholly grown or raised on one or more farms. So none of this is changing in S323. The statute continues to go on, but still none of this is what is changing. Act 181, prior to Act 181 in 2024, that concept of accessory on farm business lived in Title 24 and was only related to zoning. Towns were not allowed to prohibit accessory on farm businesses. They were only allowed to do site plan review, which is the basic level of review regarding signage, parking, lighting. But in Act 181, you created this exemption for accessory on farm businesses that lives here in 10BSA 6081. And this is an Act two fifty specific statute. So it has three sentences, this exemption. First, no permit or permit amendment is required for an accessory on farm business that is for the storage or sale of the qualifying products and the other eligible enumerated products in 4,412. So I forgot to mention one of the amendments you made in 2024 for the etcetera on farm businesses, and now that they are also allowed to sell, in addition to products grown or raised on the farm, Merch. Merch, yes, and baked goods.

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

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: If you see under A, subdivision one, including merchandise apparel that features the accessory on fire business or the sale of bread or baked goods. So you made that amendment in 2024, and that appeared in the exemption that is used in Act two fifty. So if a farm is having a business where they store or sell their products, like a farm stand, that is exempt from Act two fifty under the terms of this. But there are other categories of accessory on farm business. So the second sentence says that no permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory out of our business for the preparation or processing of qualifying products as defined, provided that more than 50% of the total annual sales of the prepared or processed qualifying products come from products produced on the farm where the business is located. And this is what is being amended in S-three 23. So we'll see the language as it changed in another slide.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: And you did say this, I think, but this is 10 VSA. So when we're reading here, no permits, this is no Act two fifty permit. Correct. Municipal permits are in another section, but this is just talking about how you could qualify to be exempt from an Act two fifty permit if you have a farm stand.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, or a business. This is more about slightly beyond a farm stand, more about the value added ones. This is about the preparation or processing business. So the making of things like jam or donuts or pastries. Have gone through. So this is where a lot of questions come up. What products can be prepared or processed in a business that would qualify them for an exemption for Act two fifty here?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So act two fifty, represent us.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you. The way the language is right now today, as long as 50% of the product is qualifying products come from products produced on the farm. So if you're making muffins that contain your berries and you're buying flour from King Arthur or Red Hen, How do you figure out the 50% deal with that? Is it by way? Is it by value? And and then my next question is, you could be a $20,000,000 business as long as 50 came from on fire. It it there's it's still it there's no cap on how much you bring from our farm as long as 50% or more is from on farm?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. So to take the second question first, it's a little simpler. Yes, there is no cap on the revenues generally. And in Act 181, two years ago, in the municipal section, you actually said that excess around farm business revenue can exceed that of the farm itself. So you made that change in the municipal statute, but there is no other cap on the amount a farm can earn to still qualify for this amendment. The first question is more complicated, and I think that is related to what the Senate's amendment is trying to get at, which is that currently the statute just says total annual sales. It doesn't describe that, but I do think it is what is the value in the sales of the blueberry versus the value from the flower. And so it does seem possible that there are products where if the only thing that farmer is growing is the blueberries, that may not be enough to get to 50% for some specific types of products and potentially could be confusing for some people to determine. For some businesses, it may be simple. Jam is maybe an easier product to identify that those blueberries all came from this farm. More than 50% of that jam came from farm products from this farm. But muffins or more complex products may be a little bit difficult to figure out.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Or would you do it by revenue? You know, you grow blueberries and you're selling blueberries, you're selling jam, and you're selling muffins, and your sugar impacting it comes in to make and a little bit of lemon to make the jam cost $20, and the flour and the yeast sugar and the salt cost $20. You have $40 coming off farm, but you're selling $50 worth of blueberries, whether in the jam, in the muffins, or in the the quarts or pints. So you're still above that 50% threshold?

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. Yes, and I do think you'll see the language as an S-three 23. I think concerns have been raised because there are other metrics you could consider about if total annual sales is the easiest metric to understand and or meet?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: We had a lot of Missouri muffin discussion last time. Yes.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: And I was just Yeah, I mean, from Blueberries, is that did you go by, if you priced out the ingredients or is it by weight or what? I'm just wondering how conscientious farmers would figure this out.

[Bradley, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Is there guidance?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure if there's guidance. The Land Use Review Board is the entity that's in charge of interpreting the statute with the district commissions. So I can look to see if they have produced guidance on this. They have been looking at this issue in one of their upcoming reports. And so you may want to hear from them about that. But I do think, as was just being discussed with Representative Nelson, I think it is about the product that was grown on the farm, in the multiple forms it may take at a farm business, and that's its value as opposed to It doesn't say weight, it just says sales, so price. And so then the last sentence that is part of the existing exemption says that this exemption shall not apply to construction of improvements for hosting events or farm stays. So for that second category of accessory on farm businesses, currently those do not have an Act two fifty exemption and they're not being discussed in S323. Only this second sentence, this middle sentence, is what is being amended in S323. So here is the language in S323. Starts on page eight.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Kevin, sorry, we've got another question.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I broke it out in the next slide. It's not yet full of people. It is a lot.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: I'm confused by the farm state. So what is protected? You say you can't build units for farm stays and be exempt, right? Is that what

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you're saying? Yes. Currently, spaces and farm stay units do not qualify for the exemption for Act two fifty under this language.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: So what does the farm stay in special events? What is protected?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So under earlier in my slideshow back on

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Regulation of the use of the property, but not the construction. Is that what that

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Currently, the language regarding the municipal regulation applies to those. So a municipality will not be able to use their zoning to prohibit the farm events or farm stays. They could only apply site plan review to those types of construction improvements. For Act two fifty purposes, whether or not an event or a farm stay would trigger Act two fifty jurisdiction is highly fact dependent, so they may or may not require an Act two fifty permit, which would default to what are the other Act two fifty jurisdictional triggers, including number of units built or the size of the parcel?

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think that the third bullet there was added not in our committee. So we did spend a lot of time two years ago working on accessory on farm business, it did result in some changes in what became Act 181. And I think the Environment Committee added that third bullet just in an attempt to just be sure that everybody understood that what was being proposed here was only for what it's for and not for what events. And then I believe there was later some different interpretation of what the impact of that third bullet was. And I don't wanna I don't wanna go off on a tangent here, but

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm I'm not sure what you're talking about. Okay. Other than I can tell you that act one eighty one did also have in it a requirement for the land use review board to review etcetera on farm businesses and other working lands businesses as part of one of their upcoming reports and make recommendations if other changes to the statute should be made. And so they are currently working on that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, good. And that was a report that we were supposed to have gotten in February, and the board asked for an extension. And we won't be getting that report this session. It won't be unfortunately until after we're done. But I think that's something to be thinking about as we think about changing this language now. But okay, I won't go off in a tangent. I wanna try my question again.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Is this John? Go ahead. So if you wanted to build a hotel for farm stays, you weren't exempt from 50. But if you owned a hotel on your farm and you're using it for farm stays, the municipality can't regulate how you're using it if you already have it.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Is that what saying?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. And I'll just add the caveat of it may trigger the need for an Act two fifty permit, because the determinations are pretty site specific. Need to build it. Yes.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Right? But if it didn't, otherwise, it could cause NNAG two fifty if you wanted to build a structure. But if you already have it, what this does is protect you from letting you use it as the farmstead. Am I being clear? Not really.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not sure I understood the last part, but 6001T is a specific exemption for Act two fifty permits that is not related to accessory on farm businesses for farm events or farm stays. They do not qualify for this exemption.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Where's the gold standard definition for accessory on farm business? Because I see it's referenced here in '24 and then it's also in 10. Are they identical or are they slightly different?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There's a consistent reference to the definition here. It's on the first slide of this slideshow.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Right. But then it's also in the municipal title 24.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So that reference is this.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Same one?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. That's why I put it on the slide so you could see it if you wanted to look at it while we were discussing it.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: But it started in Title 24? Correct.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Until Act 181, Accessory Uniform Business was a concept that only lived in municipal zoning. Okay. So this is the amendment. I'm not going to go through the slide, but this is what is in S. Three twenty three as passed by the Senate section four. It starts on page eight and goes into page nine. Let's zoom in a little bit because it's a lot of words to look at. The second sentence is being amended this way. No permit or permit amendment is required for the construction of improvements for an accessory on farm business, for the preparation or processing of qualified products as defined in 24 BSA 40 four-twelve-eleven A. 1.1, provided that more than 50% of the total annual sales of the prepared or processed qualifying products come from products produced on the farm where the business is located. Or, so now they're adding another choice. So no permanent or permanent amendment is required, provided that not more than $250,000 adjusted for inflation in total annual sales or the equivalent value of donated farm crops of the prepared or processed qualifying products come from products that are not produced on the farm where the business is located. And so it's now creating a different metric, and it's providing an option. So either to be eligible for this exemption, more than 50% total annual sales come from products from that farm, or not more than $250,000 worth of sales or donated crops come from products that are not produced on that farm.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So this creates another option or second option. And does it mean that at the extreme, you could be selling products that came entirely from off the farm?

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

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So the 50% is gone, so you're not matching. You could have up to $250,000 from off the farm. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Richard. So if I'm reading this correctly, if Jack wants to sell his SERP at a prime stand up in Saint Albans to become an to have to become an effective community for Chittenden County, he's he can sell his SERP and if his SERP value is $2,000,000, he can still get $1,900,000 worth of Burtt's apples to sell at his place. But he's over 50% his own product. Mhmm. And he's four 52% his product, 48% Burtt's apples and cherries. There's cherries. Okay. And he could sell those at his place as well. Or as long he is he isn't more than 200 or. So it's not and, it's or. So you have two different metrics to measure by. Yes. That clarifies the problem I had. Thank you. That's good.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So after all our discussion last year, it sounds like Jack could sell nothing but 250,000 of Pennsylvania beaches.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Okay. Yes. And

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: he wouldn't need an Act two fifty permit, right, to do that?

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. And how old are you?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm gonna show you measures. Greg.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: So I just wanna make sure I'm clear on this. When I was reading it, I was reading it to say that you could sell 50% your products, 50% somebody else's so long as you're that, not the 50% you're purchasing for somebody else never exceeded $250,000 Am I reading that wrong? I don't know.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That is not my understanding. However, I was not there for the discussions that the Senate had. And so I do think you can work on it and clarify the language to address the specific intent. I'm not sure if Bradley has any other information on the intent about if that was

[Bradley, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No, that was not the intent. I think the intent was to permit farms. You could sell nothing from the farm so long as not more than $250,000 worth of products comes from sales that are products that are not reasonable.

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: Because it says for and it would mean that you could not, you would be capped at $250,000 regardless.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: You're comfortable. By sales, we're talking about retail sales from your farm to the consumer, right? That's what sales means. Yes. And

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: this is, so this is on a farm, so we're only talking about farms, and we're only talking about act two fifty permits, and we're talking about is this a is this a farm stand?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It may be, but we are talk this language is specifically talking about prep, prepared or processed. So it is the value added prong of this. So it could be more than just a farm stand. It could be a facility that makes jam or muffins. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Not a factory, not great, but a processing facility.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: It doesn't have any retail exposure Yes. Okay. Michelle?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No, I don't. Okay. So I think the only last slide I have is that these are the other two pieces of language that are in S-three 23. They're the two definitions that are being added related to this. So the Senate added this definition of adjusted for inflation. So it's February adjusted for inflation, which means adjusting the dollar amount by The US Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers, all items published by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics from fiscal year twenty twenty six through the fiscal year for which the amount is being determined and rounding upward to the nearest whole dollar amount. And then it also added this definition related to donations. So as used in the subsection, donated farm crops means charitable contributions of farm crops that are allowable under 26 USC section 170 and that are made to an organization that is unrelated to the owner of the land. So it's introducing the use of the word farm crops here, which you may want to consider if you should keep qualifying products so that it's consistent. Because donated farm crops is not the definition that's used in '26 USC, it's just an example about

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: taxable donations. So the 26

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Charitable donations. Yeah. So that statute itself is just about charitable contributions. So it's more about the second part of this language, which is charitable contributions made to an organization unrelated to the owner of the land. So I find it slightly confusing to use farm crops in addition to qualifying products. I think you could use both, or you could leave it as the senate has sent over.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay. So with qualifying products, you're talking about that first slide you put up about the second or third paragraph down that listed everything, gluten, honey. Yep. Yeah, qualifying product, litter culture and everything else. And this is so people can basically make food for donations?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, yes.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So it means if we go back to the I guess it's your slide six, the change so there's the 250,000 in sales or the equivalent of donated farm crops. So it's donated crops, not donated. So I'm thinking about a processing facility.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: So if you're making jam, if you have a farm and you don't raise blueberries, but somebody donates blueberries to you from their farm, you're covered? You could be exempt?

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

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Okay.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is a little confusing in the context of donation to then be processed, but I think, yes, someone could be donating their crops to you to be processed into something that can be then donated.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Can be donated, okay. All right.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I might phone a friend on that. Is that also your understanding? The level of donation someone is donating to the accessory around farm business to be then processed? Or is it after the fact the processed product is then donated?

[Bradley, Office of Legislative Counsel]: For the purpose of the exemption?

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Bradley, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Actually, that's a tricky question because Kirby and I kind of helped Kirby the definition of donated farm crops. So I want to confirm with him on a particular piece of what was, if he has some background before I answer that question.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So something you could hear more about potentially or try to be more specific about. Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah, I think I can imagine a scenario where there's cleaning and products come on to the farm stand and you want to somehow include those in the totals. And then another situation where those products are going into a plastic facility. And is the intention to cover that situation too, and is it covered? Okay, John.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Right, and I was wondering about donated livestock, right? That's not

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: a crop, for example. Or, yeah.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's not defined here. So I think you can clarify by adding a definition here or you could use qualifying product.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, makes more sense because you cover a lot of reasons for you.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, I think qualifying products. Because it's already defined. It's not a bad idea.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't know if it's not a problem. Personally,

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Jed, do you have a question?

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Yes. Is adjusted for inflation where you've got to get out a calculator calculator and and look look up up your your US bureau's labor statistics. Is that common stuff to put into law? This is awkward somehow.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm not familiar with it, but I do think, I think that this language was worked on with Kirby in our office. Oh, ahead.

[Bradley, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, yeah. Cina, of Legislative Counsel. I didn't hear you smile last time, sorry. But yes, that is a common statutory provisions to adjust by inflation. So I did work with another legislative council, time it's John, on that specific language. Sometimes administrative agencies will actually publish a table to show you to help people calculate it. But there are ways to calculate it. Then this specific language does appear throughout our statutory texts.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I think we saw an example of that with the housing, the farm worker housing Value? Or lack of? Yeah, yeah. So how that the Labor Department maintained a number that adjusted every year using similar language.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: Greg?

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

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: But it just seems like when I read this, I struggled to understand, not that I'm lawyer, so that might be a good reason for it. But as a farmer, I was really having a hard time seeing that it's two separate criteria to decide whether or not you were exempt,

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: that someone would be exempt. I think it's a good

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: point. Could it be provided that break down into two sections of either A, more than 50% and then B, 250,000? I don't know if that's where necessary. It doesn't seem like it's necessary, but

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think you could consider ways to make this a little more succinct. I

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: saw in my chair, I

[Bradley, Office of Legislative Counsel]: like, have to get it

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: to be this, and if it does, I really don't like it. Knowing now what it means, I'm cool with it, but it's only because of knowing that it's an or and not an and is that we understand that. Yeah, it would be

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: nice if it was a little bit easier to understand. I'm gonna

[Unidentified Committee Member]: sell $250,000 of beaches this year. And

[Rep. Gregory "Greg" Burtt (Member)]: nothing else? Nothing else. John, I

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: don't know why I'm having such a hard time grasping this. What does it mean construction of improvements for an accessory on farm business? What does that mean?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Sure, so that's a defined term in Act two fifty, and it's the prevailing jurisdictional trigger for all the other uses of jurisdictional triggers. So it is basically the construction of anything. So beginning the site preparation for a business or a commercial entity, they define it as construction of improvements. So it includes even just site preparation, but any cognitive change to a site in furtherance of a business is part of the definition. So this is a piece of jargon that's Act two fifty related.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: So what that would mean is if you have no structure at all, you can build a farm stand, and that would qualify? Yes.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Or just a site plan

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: review? Yes. I have a committee discussion question. Maybe now isn't the time, but Well I

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: guess maybe we should, before we move into committee discussion, just see whether for alleged counsel, there are any other clarifying questions about the intent or the meaning of the of the language here in section four with the background.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: Can services be an accessory on farm business? I mean, there certain agricultural services that might not be part of the farm, but that people would come on to the farm property for really farm related things like a stallion and people bring mares to our farm type of thing.

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. And so related to what Representative Bartholomew just asked, Act two fifty is a construction based permitting statute, and so if you're not building anything for those services, you may not trigger Act two fifty anyways, and so that's why that's not specifically addressed here. I think that sort of falls under the other category in the municipal zoning part about farm events and farm stays, which may or may not trigger Act two fifty in part because if you don't build anything for a farm event, that wouldn't trigger Act two fifty anyway.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: It's about once Earth is being disturbed, you're in Act two fifty lands.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Good? Okay. Any other questions? Jed?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you, Doug. Ellen twice during this presentation has talked about a preferred description of farm crops, and you cited how it's used in statute elsewhere. Do you want us to make a recommendation on that?

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It stood out to me and I was not there for when the Senate Agriculture Committee specifically discussed that. So I would maybe want to phone a friend again in case there was a very specific reason why that was used instead of qualifying products?

[Bradley, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Brian Cina, I'll call up City Council in. No. I think that that was a definition that the Senate more broadly was looking at ways to allow farmers to be eligible for certain things like the wraps. There were some tax provisions of this bill that have been stripped out and things of that sort. And so Kirby and I worked on a death bill, mostly Kirby and I sat next to him while he was doing it. Worked on a definition of donated farm crops with Department of Taxation. And so this was more we worked on this thing separately and then plugged it in here without fully considering the context in which this piece was. So I agree with Helen's assessment that we plug something in and the context is just a little funky and so I think it sounds

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So my point is I would love the committee to consider recommendations, change the terminology to qualified bodies. Okay, good. We

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: get to the point where we're marking up the bill, let's flag that one. I think that's that's a good yeah. It's a

[Unidentified Committee Member]: good thing. Should should we have Kirby come in just to give us his rationale for the wording the way it is. I I agree. I think it should be qualifying products, which covers We yeah.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I mean, maybe we can ask you to just to consult with them and see if he has any, you know, anything else he wants to add. But I I think that I'm inclined to agree with the recommendation that we're hearing. You know? I did just wanna ask about the language that says you can't be related.

[Bradley, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Where

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Oh, that's in the oh, yes. Charitable contributions.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yeah. What did what does that mean? An organization that's unrelated to the owner. Is that that I mean, I think I understand what the intent is there, but an organization I mean, I understand I'm not related to Jed, but can an organization not be related to a person in the same

[Ellen Czajkowski, Office of Legislative Counsel]: way? So I the way that I read it was that, yes, you couldn't be donating. So we're talking about here farms and an accessory on farm business. And so those two businesses would be related because an accessory on farm business has to be located on farms. And so I interpret it as it meaning in that way, being a farm can't then donate to its accessory on farm business if they were separate entities. However, I am not an expert on section 170 C, so I don't know if there's any additional context and I can get it back to you, but I don't know if Bradley has additional.

[Bradley, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I do. I I did have this conversation with Kirby and we'll circle back with him, but it was more about relative owners and not unrelated in the sense of the business sense, but it was like two people in the same family doing business together. And there was a tax reason for that, which escapes me right now. But we get certified.

[Jed Lipsky (Committee Clerk)]: One alarm that keeps going off is when we have attorneys in the room and they keep saying things like how I interpret it suggests that none of this is clear enough. To comment.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: Yep, all right, John.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: I was just gonna point out that an organization could also be the owner. I mean, sounds like owner, we think like, all of us here, but it could be the land trust could be the organization also the owner of the land. I don't know where that leads that.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: All right, good. Well, if there are any other questions for Legis Council, thank you very much for coming in. That was helpful background. So we'll dig into this a little bit more. I don't know. So this was not language that came from the agency. So some of this miscellaneous bill is agency language, and this was not. So I'm not sure where it came from or how the $2.50 was arrived at or anything like that or who thought it would be helpful. So we'll have to find out little bit more. Thank you.

[Rep. John L. Bartholomew (Vice Chair)]: So what We had planned use review board weigh in on this. No, because we've just this is the first Okay.

[Rep. David Durfee (Chair)]: I would like to, when we come back from our break, see where we are, check-in again where we are with the hemp language, and then we're gonna jump into the final sections, the first sections that is of the this bill.