Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning, we're back in action 10:45. We'll get a few minutes after we're going to spend some time talking with our legislative counsel Bradley Shulman and we are looking to put some language together on sections one through three on our miscellaneous Ag bill. And to start to check off some of the boxes of sections that we have. I think we're going get fairly close on this. I hear some rumors that the coalition might be meeting a little bit later today, Farm Coalition, to impact some language on that. Let's see what we can get done today. Welcome, Brandon. Glad to have you here. Thank you. The floor is yours.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good morning. Bradley Schumann with the Office of Legislative Counsel. And today, I will be doing a walk through oh, sorry. I'll be doing a walk through miscellaneous agriculture bill s three twenty three sections one

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: through three,

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and I'll pull the bill up and share it on my screen.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Committee, much like what we did yesterday, I mean, let's tear this thing apart. Let's get to it. We gotta change language later. That's what we'll do, but let's get to something if we can. It's not a hard ask, but we're gonna reshape the language. Let's get it looking the way that we want it to look. So that's all I have.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So last time I was in, I think we might have skimmed over the legislative intent section, and I know that Steve Collier may have presented some language about legislative intent yesterday. So let's go over the intent language as as written here. And so since enactment in 2004, it's the 10 of the general assembly that municipalities shall not regulate farming by bylaws. And the Supreme Court's tax rate decision misconstrued and reversed the application of that twenty years of history. And there's some I got feedback that some of the the language here can be

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: more mental. Sorry, Bucket. I'll just let you Have you seen I did. Yeah. So I was comfortable with that. Keeps the keeps the word misconstrued, but it puts it in a greater context Yes. That at least I was comfortable with if if you thought that was fine. I understand there's no retroactivity issue here. Sure. The point of this isn't to signal anything for the Supreme Court, I'm just making clear what the intent is. Yeah, and I think that that's fine.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There was a piece in the the language that I saw yesterday that I I think is is okay.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: And I can't pull it up right now. So And

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and I actually I can pull it up to share. I think Steve shared it with the committee yesterday. Okay. I didn't see it.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I don't remember. But I didn't pull it up right away. Should be

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: on the committee web page.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Okay. They put it on there. We didn't do we didn't walk through it with Steam.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm gonna unshare my screen, and I will be able to share the draft language that I do have at home in just a moment.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. So Robert, it's under

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: It's an under. I don't

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Robert Plunkett. It's under his name from yesterday.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I get credit for it.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: You do. Yeah. They call it the Plunkett amendment.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As long as it's in stone. And so what

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: how do I have? Am I sharing? Yeah. Yes, I am. Okay. Get away. I think that's gonna put a Yeah. Here. Yeah.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There we go. Okay. That's it. And okay. And so the Steve added in That section. Yeah. Yeah. In 2015, acts of revolt number 64, the general assembly substitute the word accepted before required to modify the term agriculture practices. It appears that change of the word may have made that intent unclear. I I would I would probably unless the intent is unclear, and we want to assert that the intent from the general assembly is unclear. If the intent of the general assembly was clear to say that that wasn't supposed to be a change in this way, I I would recommend changing that language to say it was not the intent of the assembly to to make a change to what is subject to the required agricultural practice. That that's the only piece that I I found that I would I would recommend changing here, depending what the the intent is. I guess that would be a place for you folks.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Agree with that. I mean, ultimately, I think it's not gonna to matter, but it's true that the intent was to make it

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And and it's yeah. That's that's exactly right. And and and then there was just some softening in the language, which which I agree with. And for reference, the house bill, the corresponding house bill on this issue does not mention tapestry at all, so that it is an option for the committee. It's just to kind of leave that out and just say it has been the intent of the general assembly for this long, say that farming is subject to the required agricultural practices rule is exempt from municipal bylaw, and that is the purpose of of section two and three of this bill. And and leave it at that. So that that's an option too if the committee does wanna leave Tap Street out there.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: But I want you to fingerprints are all over this. I want you to handle

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I want you handle

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: that language the way that you're gonna be comfortable with because you've got so much in there, so

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Making it clear that that the intent is to overturn the ruling, I think is important. Important. Okay, okay. To not leave it

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: to any interpretation of And any part the committee that's got anything that they want to add to that, if they want to do anything like that, but I'm fine with just, But

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yeah. Go ahead. So thank you, mister chair. I just the suggestion. I would say sub a, little a, is fine because it it expresses the intent general assembly that a municipality shall not regulate farming. Then in line 10, sub two, I would say that if you leave out misconstrued the intent of the general assembly and just started it with and reversed applications the past twenty years, that would be close to what maybe we could do. Okay.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That that that that works as well. Misconstrued. Didn't

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Yeah. I know. Yeah. That's it. I thought the

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: It's almost a shot at the

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. The other context makes it less harsh to me, but I agree with senator Collamore. Okay. Just taking that phrase out to have it be a statement.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: And then in sub three, line 14, I would say if we took out unchecked, so yeah, this is what Steve achieved. Okay. I would just say to avoid unintended consequences of the decision and reference the decision, it's necessary for the General Assembly to clarify every statement. I think it cleans it up without impugning any sort of disagreement.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: It's a Supreme Court decision. I don't

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: know if it makes it any better, Rob.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: That's what Steven suggested to remit the misunderstanding announced in the case. The general assembly clarifies Okay. And restates that he spelled. Okay. I'll take

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: that out. Take Take that out. Out.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Says misunderstanding, but I don't think that's terrible language.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Should we really say the intent is to overturn?

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I think so. Really? Yeah. Okay. What's being done by the legislature here.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: It's the to the senate. And I'm I'm never one to to go, you you messed up. Which is kinda does. What what I think clarify instead of I think it does say that. Okay. And then just there aren't any line numbers, but it's under Yes. To clarify it. Assembly to clarify. Yeah. And I don't Okay. Do we need overturn? I mean, just I I would say clarify rather than and just leave it at clarify.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Most of this isn't gonna have any impacts at all because it's it's gonna look at the language anyway. This is just stating the intent for for later interpretation. Okay. Okay. I guess I'll defer to allege counsel on how we should do that. The House seems to not want to do overturn, and I think it's very clear what we're doing with that, but

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You know, I mean, I think if the committee's uncomfortable with the word overturn, perhaps we could cut that out and in a draft, and we we can talk about what kind of language the committee would like me to to turn over, but I could I could send a draft that maybe doesn't include that specific word, but the intent is clear. I think one other thing I I would want the the committee to consider adding is sections two and three of this bill do not only overturn test stream, they also give individuals the we don't wanna call it the right to grow food because I think that that's a weighted term, especially in bylaws, but it gives individuals it prohibits municipalities from regulating by by law individuals from growing food anywhere in The States. And so that is and in addition to the pre tax rate status quo, where municipalities could potentially, it sounds like based on testimony that they have not, or at least we are not aware of a municipality that prohibits people from having a backyard garden. But this bill does go beyond the pre tax rate status quo, and in doing that, permits people to grow food and have poultry in their backyards. And so I would recommend adding, and I'm happy to do that if you would like me to, adding a finding that is also good.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We're good with that, yes? Okay.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just making a note here before I move on, and we wanna keep, well, we'll discuss that in a moment. Okay. I'm going to unshare my screen and reshare the bill. S three twenty three. And that's on. Okay. So we are on page three, section two, line three. Yep. And Okay. So the first thing that this bill does is amend municipal bylaw section to state that municipals cannot regulate by bylaw the cultivation or use of land for growing plants, including for food, fiber, Christmas trees, maple sap, horticulture, viticulture, and orchard crops. So it's growing plants. Raising, feeding, and management small backyard poultry flock, excluding roosters. Farming that meets the minimum threshold criteria of the required agricultural practices practices rule and is therefore required to comply with the required agricultural practices rule. This section here, subsection c, restores the pre tax rate status quo, and so this is the the issue of tax rate. This section in isolation would would do that. And then the construction of armed structures, including as defined in the prior agricultural practices rule, that also would establish the the pre catastrophe status quo with that piece. Mhmm. We're moving on to page four. We broke out the definition of farming and and moved that here. So it was kind of nested, you know, under farm structure, and that that could have been potentially confusing, And we added the definition for poultry because this section does give individuals give people promoters the the ability to have backyard poultry anywhere in The States, just regardless of whether or not they're suffixed to the fried aquaporator practices. So that's a change to the statute. As I said, this statute restores a pretest task three status quo and then some with respect to growing food and having backyard. Any questions, concerns, the committee, this piece here?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: And

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we are now at section three, page four. This section amends the required agricultural practices rules, and there's been testimony or and and or concern about opening the ramps, about amending the wraps through statute. The legislature has, in the past, amended the required agricultural practices rule by statute, by a bill, and it it very likely has the authority to do that. That said, it has not, that we're aware of, amended the required agricultural practices rule and had it been subject to challenge. And so I think ordinarily, when an administrative agency has a rule, they go through LCAR rulemaking well, not the LCAR rulemaking process, but just the rulemaking process more broadly. In this instance, we have the executive branch asking the legislative branch to make a a change to a rule, and the legislature has done that before. We can't say with 100% certainty that it won't be subject to challenge, but it's done this in the past, and it is likely that the legislature has a voting to do this. I just wanna flag that as a potential issue if individuals want to take that action, it's possible, feasible that that could happen. Perhaps not likely, but feasible. What this rule does is amend the section of the required agricultural practices rule that will determine whether farming activity is subject to the required agricultural practices rule and therefore exempt from municipal zoning. And so the changes here, I think Steve discussed this quite a bit yesterday, the change from $2,000 in income to $5,000. So you'll see how on page five now, we're on line six. You see a, b, c, d. If a farmer is meets any of these requirements, they are subject to the rules. They are subject to the required agricultural practices. So one increase in the rules is increasing the annual gross income that a farmer might be generating from $2,000 to $5,000 so that the farmer had to generate more income to be subject to the rules. This also changes in seed, changes harvesting crops for sale or donation to be subject to the rule, and raising animals in certain ways, livestock in certain ways. And then in this section would change the the amount of land that the the department the agency of agriculture would consider, you know, a farm that it would regulate. So it goes used to be four and above. Now it's between one and four. If you're raising, feeding, and managing livestocks, at least one and less than four continuous acres in size. So it doesn't matter how many and if you have income. If your farm is that big and you're managing, feeding, and raising livestock, you'd be subject to the required agricultural practices rule except for municipal bylaw, and the secretary would have to determine that you have a sufficient land base for appropriate nutrient and waste management. So this is another another change that kind of brings more people into the RAPs and but also these municipalities, in theory, unless a farmer meets those other criteria, scrolling back up in a b c and d. This if a farmer is raising livestock on less than one acre, the agency of agriculture would not have authority to regulate them unless they meet those requirements other requirements, a b c d above. And then f as well is raising or feeding managing livestock on less than one continuous acre or on or between one and four continuous acres in a municipality that lacks bylaws. This this section discusses some municipalities that like bylaws, there's a little bit over a 100 of them that do lack bylaws ordinances or bylaws to regulate livestock. The secretary determines if the opportunity for a hearing for livestock are causing significant adverse water quality effects, and the required agricultural practices should apply. So kind of like a catchall if if, someone is engaging in farming activities, doesn't meet some other requirements, and there are no bylaws to the municipality, the agency could step in in the situation if if something is helping the public.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: So, Bradley, on page six, line nineteen and twenty. After consultation with the appropriate municipal authority, I'm not exactly sure what that means in a sense I I understand it doesn't mean that they have to approve what the secretary has decided, but consultation is like, hey. Here's what I think. Okay. Thanks a lot. See you later kinda thing. Or is it more involved than that?

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's it's potentially as as limited as that. And and it could be it gives the secretary discretion to to find the consultation dates. And so it does require agreement. It does require mediation, or third party adjudication, which would be, steps beyond a consultation. It could be as as limited as that. And I would leave it to the agency of agriculture to kind of more or less describe how they would approach those situations as a matter of practice. But as a matter of the words written on this bill, It would not require agreement, adjudication, mediation, or any steps beyond this constitution.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: And then on page seven, line seven and eight, again, discretion to the secretary, after an opportunity for a hearing. Again, I don't know exactly what that means. Is that a public hearing? Is it a meeting of the involved farmer and the agency? I don't know what

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it means. Yeah, it's more of an administrative hearing, so that does require a little bit more of you're getting into the process adjudication process. So it does require it could be an employee of the agency of agriculture who makes that determination. Typically, under administrative hearing laws and practices, when an administrative agency makes a decision and they give an affected individual the right to appeal, it's someone else in that agency that oversees that appeal. It kinda hears evidence in a limited kind of way, hears testimony from both sides, and then makes a determination whether or not to uphold the agency's agency's decision. So it is more a quasi judicial process. It's not judicial in the way of, like, civil superior court would be judicial, but but it's getting closer. It's beyond consultation.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: But it doesn't require an opportunity for

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a hearing. It just affords that should the secretary so return. It's giving someone the opportunity for a hearing would put the onus on the affected individual, so the farmer, to ask for a hearing.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Oh, And they could oh, be able

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: get it if they ask for a hearing. So some agencies might only give you a written notice saying, we've determined that you are a farm and you are subject to these rules, and the farmer says, I disagree with that. They might only have as little as ten days to appeal, but they could request a hearing, and that's what that means.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I was taking taking to mean almost 180 degrees the other way that someone who was complaining about a water quality violation would be afforded the opportunity to have a hearing about it, but you've not indicated that's

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It it would be it would be an affected individual. Right. Right. Like, so it would be someone who it would be someone who is it would be subject to an administrative action by by the agency. So that is a good question, though, because if you would want to create if the agency would want to create a situation where the public could complain. Because right now, anyone can complain about agricultural practices to the agency. Right? Sure. Email or call or or do whatever you want. And and so it would be an interesting question whether they would want to, especially in this new framework, to kind of create a process for an effective for an individual to complain about a neighbor, for for example, or or or to to have and if the agency decides not to act or acts in a way that that complaining individual deems unfit, give them an opportunity for hearing. I'm not sure that this does that. I'm not sure that this contemplates that piece. How I read this is that this contemplates a farmer being subject to an action of the agency that they disagree with, not necessarily complaining they were having the opportunity for a hearing. That could be a question for the agency, though.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yeah. As it was obvious, I took it to mean a neighbor who wasn't in favor of what was going on next door could put his or her hand up and say, hey,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I want a hearing.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And that could and it's Yeah. And those are those are good those are good policy questions. Okay. Because this I I don't believe this text would require the agency to create something in that way. My reading of it is that it contemplates an affected farmer.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Okay. Maybe we should say it.

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or maybe someone who thinks that they are farming and wants to be subject to the rules because then they're be exempt from bylaws, and then the agency says you're actually not farming, you're not subject to our rules. Know, feasibly that person would also have the rights right here too, but a neighbor complaining about someone else, I'm not sure. That's a good question for them. Thank you.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So leave the way it is right now, or change something, or what do you want to do with that?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Well, I'm going to suggest that, because we're almost through with section-

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I want to go back to 02/5000 as Yeah. Because that is something that's been discussed.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Okay, let me suggest this. In the spirit of moving this along, to some degree, we just leave things the way they are in the draft, knowing that, as the chair has indicated, if we get new information from any sort of meetings that are potentially taking place, we could come back to it and make adjustments to the language. That's my suggestion. We'll leave the two. We'll leave the one to four acres. I mean, I think That made sense,

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: what he was saying yesterday. Our only worry was like if it's under,

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: but, yeah. Also doesn't include just, again, schedule out. It's not in here anyway, anywhere that I can see, so that's just gone unless we put it back in. But that's my suggestion. Leave things like I'm fine with that. I do think we're making progress, and

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I do think once we get that simple little, I hate to call it simple, but it's difficult for a lot of other people. I think once we get that last piece, we should be able to I think we're agreeing as a committee. We're just waiting for where's it gonna land. Where's it gonna land, and then we can nail it down. Yeah.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Okay. So

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we are on page seven, line 14. This is section 3.2 of the required agriculture practices. Does make many changes, but I'll go over what this section means. So, the agricultural practices of farms that meet the minimum threshold or criteria set forth in section 3.1, and so if you are subject to, as defined in 3.1, these activities are not subject to being a list of bylaws, and that includes confinement feeding of animals, storage and handling agricultural waste, collection of maple syrup, tilling, fertilizing, irrigating crops, so forth. Just typical agricultural practices, and these would be the specific things that are not subject to the municipal bylaw, management of livestock, storage of agricultural inputs, preparation of agricultural products. These are the specific things that it defines out, and then that's it for sections one through three of this bill.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: We're good? Yeah. Okay. So let's forward it. The

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: only thing we can talk about with methane is on H5 line 11, where it said for a donation. Well, we didn't just specify that it's a donation to a non profit.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yes. Good point. Yes. Good catch on that. Yep.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Okay, yeah. Definitely. And I think we, when we talked about that, said, or whatever language, Legion Council offenses are appropriate. So,

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: probably might say five zero one C non profit, that would be the IRS declaration for a tax exempt entity, cable, takes, and donations, things of that sort.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So that's what Paul is the Paul Yeah. Real estate. One of probably many. Well, I actually do have some of that here, but I haven't really I'll have Linda make some copies of it and give it to me this morning. But, again, just for your guidance. So we're pretty much through them one through three. Right? Yeah. Okay. So. Try to call yours come in. Might as we might as well let him know Brian say again with what he said and where we're at. Yeah. And because of of some meetings with some stakeholders. What

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I suggest that the committee do is leave the draft. We did raise a couple of other things, the nonprofit and an agency policy decision of what it means to have an opportunity for a hearing. I need a little more clarity on that. Does that mean, again, I don't need to open this up again, because I wanna get to what I suggested we do. If a neighbor is not happy with an adjacent farm's practices in one fashion or another, does that imply that that person who's not the farmer could put his or her hand up and say, hey. I wanna hear it.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Do you want me to can I answer that?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah. Please, sir.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Steve Collamore, agency of agriculture. No. It's it's, admittedly not the most precise language. It was language that was already there. But what it means because this would be the agency of agriculture taking authority over a property that we otherwise don't have automatic jurisdiction over. Okay. So what it means is we would be making our our determination that we believe that you're having a significantly adverse effect to water quality. So because of that, we're going to take jurisdiction. We're going to make you comply with the RAPs. But before we do that, we're gonna going to give you an opportunity for a hearing. So it's really just due process. We do the same thing whenever we enforce against somebody. If they disagree with what we say, they have already to a hearing, and and, ultimately, could probably even go to court if they disagreed with us. But it would give them a right to contest what we're finding. And at that hearing, the agency would have the burden of proving to the hearing officer that it was appropriate for us to assert jurisdiction. Because if we can't take jurisdiction, then we're not regulating that place. But if we're saying we need to, then we're giving that person a right to contest it. But if anybody can complain about anything, and we respond to those complaints, but that those people could

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: be witnesses potentially, but they would not have a right any rights under the section other other than that they already have. Would it provide any more clarity if we were specifically indicating the opportunity was for the affected farmer? We could say that

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: to the landowner. I mean, it's it's we know what it means, but I understand you're it's not as clear as it Okay. As it could be.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: And and yeah. So if we can clear that up, and, again, whatever the donation, it should be earmarked for a specific Nonprofit. Local whatever,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the legislature counsel is good with that.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: But with those two, and those are the only two that I brought up in all of them, and we did talk a little bit earlier about section one, but let's just put that back on the shelf. Sure. I'm gonna suggest that even though I still feel a little bit shaky about suggesting this, in an effort to move this along, that we leave the numbers, that the 2,000 Schedule f still isn't in here, and somehow I'd like to bring that back in and then leave whatever is the rest of what's the draft language. And the reason I say that is I believe there's a meeting today with the coalition folks. I don't think they were able to gather enough of the members of that coalition to make a final decision, but I think, at least from what I've learned yesterday, there is a chance that they will be able to come back and provide a compromise to all of this. So

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: we can leave it the

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: way it is now, knowing that if we are able to get further information, we could always tinker with it and change it down.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And I'm sure the coalition is listening, but now's the time. So anybody who's ready, now's the time. I mean, yes, we're not gonna vote this bill out tomorrow,

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: but we have a lot of work to do,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: and we need to move on to other subject matters, so it's time.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Thank you for that explanation.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So, Randy, Bradley? Can I ask you a

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: quick Absolutely? Is it the committee's opinion that they're going to change, more on page five in B, from $5,000 which is the changed 2,000, or is that still

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the case? I think that is something we're gonna let lie until the coalition gets back and sees what their compromise is. I think we got a couple senators who are feeling a little bit different about that. Okay. I'll let them all work that out. But I think once we do that, we're we're we're we're pretty darn close.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Could you suggest where it might be appropriate to should it eventually add schedule f requirement back in? I don't know where it would be,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: but I'll leave that to

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yeah. And and I might I might chat with Steve on that because I'm not sure the schedule f requirement because it is

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I can help. I don't think

[Bradley Schumann (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it was taken out, but, yeah, we we could discuss that.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Well, good. As far as Paul's letter, he tried to be helpful, suggestions and all that stuff, so that's all great. It's just for I appreciate that you guys should have it, and on we go with that. So we'll be talking about some of those other sections later on. Okay, we were tasked to go down through one through three, talk about our differences, try to work out some of the language. We have the coalition meeting this afternoon. It sounds like they might have some more compromising language. As it stands right now, is everybody good with what we've done today?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yep. That's fine. Okay.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Unless two attorneys in the room have anything else to do, or three, Sorry. That means only four opinions. Yeah. So it's it's where it is right now. Is everybody good?

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Can can I add one thought? Absolutely. Just that I totally understand the impetus behind the schedule f. And no problem with schedule f as a as a pro something to account for someone who's farming. The the concern is it creates the opportunity for a loophole. And so because you can go down so low, and and part of the league's concern legitimately, think, is they don't want to regulate farming. They don't want people to claim their farming when they're not. And schedule f is such a low barrier. It's really no barrier.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That is a concern of mine as well. I think I've I've expressed it in a couple of different conversations outside this committee room. I'm concerned about creating such loopholes that we end up right back in this same situation again in the Supreme Court or anywhere else because we didn't properly define what farming is.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I think it's important that the program have integrity, and that what we're trying to do is build in those thresholds. And and and most 99% of people who are filing a schedule f is completely legitimate, but it creates an opportunity for someone to sell one chicken to their neighbor, file a schedule f,

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: and claim they're farming. And

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: and that's that's the concern with it, I think. That's the legitimate concern. Most of the time, it would be perfectly fine. But if you if you have a $2,000 threshold or some other threshold that's a bit more objective, it still can be relatively easy to make. The schedule f is susceptible to really maintain the integrity of

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: what we're trying to do. Okay, anything else?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Everybody good? Kicked, Linda

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: will.