Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. It is, Wednesday. The, eighteen, eighteen, we were gonna have, one present a presenter, but she was having under the weather and having some problems with her internet and probably couldn't get where we wanted to do, so we're just going spend a few minutes to talk about our miscellaneous Agville and see where we're at and start lining up after today. I mean, after this week, we're gonna have about single digits as far as we finish the fill ups. So we're making good progress and we just wanna make sure we're still on track. So committee sections one through three, We kind of know what's going on with that. We should hear back by Friday as far as where that is, and I just think that we can all quickly have that kind of wrapped up depending on where all the stakeholders are at. From what I understand, they're making progress. Anybody else have any more to add to that? Yes.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Thank you, mister chair. Yeah. I just wanna on the record, though, I did receive word from Vermont Farm Bureau. I understand that the House Ag Committee met with Jill Remick about proposed changes within current use to allow for grazing rights. What struck me as interesting is the tax department would look up files with Schedule F to confirm that the landowner did in fact receive money for allowing a farmer to graze animals. So it seems like we're trying to remove Schedule F in some cases, but in other cases. I just want to note that I understand that in the spirit of compromise, there'll probably be some movement on the monetary threshold, whether it's still going to be at 5,000 or whether it goes between 2 and 5 or back to 2, I don't know. But I still think it's important, at least we think about putting and I know that the ag department is or agency is well about putting schedule that back in, but it does impact grants as well from the federal government if you don't file a Schedule F. That's it.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: On that, I don't think that there's, so there's a few things in politics, right? There's a few things that you do. You have the administration, you have the House, and you have the Senate. This is Senate Agriculture. I want this bill to be Senate Agriculture's bill. When it's all said and done, I know we have stakeholders that are coming in and all that. I want it to be something that we can be happy with. We're in here doing a lot of good work, and so I, you know, I think at the end of the day, if we just wrote something right now, everybody's a winner. So I want to just keep that in mind as well. So if that's something that has to be there or whatever, when it's all said and done, don't think there's any poison pills that we're gonna have to agree to or not agree to. I've left it up to the committee a lot of this stuff and the stakeholders to have their compromises, but I'm gonna, what I want to do, what I want to do by Tuesday at the very latest, if Friday, if we can't get it done Friday from what we hear, on Tuesday, I wanna wrap this sucker up, one through three. Thanks. No matter where it goes, we've had times, self employed deadline, but I thought we might do it last week. We gave a whole extra week, and there just comes a time, I can remember it being in this situation before with Senator Mazza, where I was just trying to get some compromises done, and then Senator Mazza said, Ingalls, there's just times where you just got to make a decision, and I think that we're at that point, one through three, because I think they can argue about it in a good way, not saying that it's adversarial, but it's just time. Unless anybody else has some more thoughts about one and three? Good? Yep. Okay. So Tuesday at the latest. Four and five, I think we pretty much have decided that maybe that was not gonna make make the cut. Yep. Yep. How does everybody feel about that? Great. Okay. So drag that off. Yep. The accessory on farm structure permit, we talked about that offline for a second. We haven't really taken any testimony on it. Sergeant Major, what do you want to do with that? Do as a committee whatever you tell us. Let me just

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: see if I can get some testimony. Post office and make a decision.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: I'll make a couple calls to make sure.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Okay. All right. I just

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I'd like to I can, I mean, I'd like to see if we can help?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yep. I agree 100%. Give 22. If there's anything that you need me to do, let me know. If you need me to reach out to anyone, let us know, let the committee, whatever we can do to help. Okay. Okay. Seven, I think we're just down to a simple definition as far as just to change the language to make it non profits, right?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Right.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sir, Plunkett, you're on that, Start with that language part of it. Sorry to make you a language guy, I would appreciate if you were if you were the one that would, keep that on track. And then we could close that out. Got everybody's understanding? Yes. We haven't done a lot with farm kitchens. Next week we're either gonna take some more testimony on that, refresh ourselves with that, but it's still something that's hanging out there that we haven't really taken a lot of time on. So any thoughts on that other than?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Just that we can hear more. Good

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: with that for right now? Yep. Okay. Section 10, we're gonna talk about that some more. We have some more discussion going in on Friday, and I think the struggle is going to be for us is to recognize what our goal is, which is to keep people off of prime ag lands. And it just happens to be that we're talking about solar siting. This committee believes in renewable energies, but we also believe that our ag land is premium, and that we need to find a way to have a compromise to keep them off of

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: our prime ag lands. I honestly think that's gonna come down to how we word it and save it because there's, we wanna protect our farmland, yet we have people that own the land for generations and they may say this, we're gonna give up this section because the town's moving this way and it makes sense for the town to move this way. And if we put it in such a law that they can't sell it, you know, I just don't believe it as legislators. That's what we should do. It's, you know, if there's enough uproar, then somebody might come along and buy the land to protect it. But I still want to leave that choice up to the landowner. So I'm having a hard time with that because yeah, you know, we don't want to lose them to solar fields that, and we don't want to sometimes lose it for housing, but I'll give, case in point, my family farm is on the Northwest Side Of Bristol. Beautiful prime ag, but at the same time, if our town starts to grow, that is the only, were separated by a river and a valley and then we separated by a drop. So the village, one of the best ways to go is the norm. And, you know, if our society grows and we need housing, we put such protection on that land. That's what worries me. Is it good that we did that? Yes. But is it bad that we stifled ourselves, some other way? So I think

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: it's concerns. So to your point, a couple of things.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: One is it's a little bit exclusionary to

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Okay. That's why I

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: included that. Yeah. The, the, and I'm glad you did that as well. I think one of the things also we're kind of telling a landowner what you can and cannot do. I'm not sure I'm good with that. The last thing is, yes, we wanna protect the this farm, and and I don't know if we can give right of first refusal to farmer that we can open it up, and if and have x amount of days where farm any farmer can can do that. I I just I have have an issue. You your your family farm and you just you want to get out of the farming business. Your family wants to get out and you want to sell the land, but you you can't. You can't, you you know, you can't, you know, make it, or to to grow your town. You know? I I I'm I'm having difficulty with that. Now all that said, you know, like, and I've been to one of the centers, those are right along. Our our charge is to protect our farms, and we're I'm I'm scared. I mean, look at that. Our dairy farms dwindling exponentially. I just, I don't want to, but I don't want to have a hammer to,

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: get that smoothened. So it's gonna be in the verbiage of how, because if the farmer chose, say, we could go to the land trust and say, Okay, I want this land protected forever, so I'm making this decision that from here on out, nobody, so I sign on to the land trust. If you're another farmer that say, now I want control of my land right up until the day that I'm gonna sell it, and then I can decide if I wanna sell it to my interest or a big industry, you know, the manufacturing company that this happens to be a partial when zoning all works out, but as legislators have paid it so they can't. And the other thing is like when they come in and farmers are saying, you know, we have a lot of small farmers come in and saying, you know, where our land's going, but we can get in and drive around and I can show you meadow after meadow after meadow that's growing up because it's not getting fired because there's not enough people fire me to do it. Down in Addison, there's meadows that aren't touching the motive. They're not prime ag, but they're ag, know, they can grow. So I get torn and sad because I am. I wanna protect our, what, our most valuable resource is our earth to grow our food in. But we've seen, you know, New York, we've learned from other states, like you said. So it's that balance we have to find for our fellow Vermonters that we don't, the one that said, I wanna conserve it, there's an avenue to do that. The one that says, I bought this, and now I wanna sell off some of it to either keep farming or to sell it here to buy that farm there that's closing. I, I, I, you know, somehow we have to word it that it protects all parties. Because if there's a big enough uproar that, when we had, back in the eighties, my parents had thought of subdividing some land in the town, had zoning meetings and that. People were like, We don't wanna see that metal building. My dad said, All right. That point it was, Give me $100,000 And nobody wanted go

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: up there.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yeah. So it's like,

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: we ended up, between the head go through active 50 and once he saw all the stuff he had to be there, he's like, Help the co founder. That's my concern for my caliber of honors. Yes, I want to protect the countryside, but I don't want it shut down. You've gone to that land for thirty years and decided now, hey, this is what I'm going to do.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. So just want to position what I'm saying here. This second 10 is specifically about citing solar, new electric generation facility siting. The first two provisions I don't have any trouble with, but maybe now that you've mentioned that, Steve, the first would add the Agency of Agriculture into the PUC and ANR. Which I like. I think that's good too, because we're talking about farming. Interesting. And be clear, that's for every energy facility, not just sold. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: I'll interrupt just to that. They brought that question up. We should have ag come in and

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: ask Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, Brian. No. No. That's alright. Yeah. Then the second piece

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: of that was to redefine primary agricultural soil and then add in secondary and local importance agricultural soil. And I think I'm fine with that too, and I don't think there's anything in section 10 that if a farmer with fifteen, twenty acres wants to sell to someone that's gonna put houses there, this doesn't address that. This is only if you're bringing in an electric generating siting situation, I think. Then the third provision does go on from there.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So the five acres.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yeah, it requires certificate

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: of public good. I just think that that is beyond us. Yeah, and that's why I think there was a little bit of a bump in the road

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: in the last twenty four hours on that piece. And I get that. I understand that too. So I don't know. I need, I guess, clarification from Bradley Schillman or whoever that would say if a farmer wanted to sell it for anything except solar or gas, he could, he or she could, because I don't think there's anything in section 10. I guess that just opened the door that we've been talking that would

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: kinda preserve it.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think there's really kind of a couple things going with all the discussions that were going on that that section 10 probably isn't gonna get in with depth of what you've said, Senator. But think that those are discussions that need to be had over and over and over again as how much do you want to, Senator Major as well, the IAA, our charge is to protect the farmland, yes, but at what cost and who do we wanna and whose rights do we wanna take away? Do we wanna take the landowner's rights away to make sure that we protect our farmland? So that thankfully at that point in time is not part of what we're trying to do in Section 10, but it's a discussion that I want to keep on having over and over and over again. Whether we're all back here at the same spot next year, I think it is a discussion that has been waiting to be happening in this building and it needs to be talked about. Whether we carry it later on in life or if somebody else carries it on, I think it's very valuable discussions because we are responsible to make sure three hundred years from now that we haven't used up all our land to grow food. Mhmm. So I guess the the other

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: thing I have a little bit of an issue is is that why are we just exceeding solar? Yeah. I don't know. Yeah. And and and if I if I'm in the solar industry,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: there are lot of people in

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: there that just got a I'm reading a letter from this phone. Yeah. Then that that that says unsolicited opinion on s 32. And, you know, it's a once again, not on stage one. Why why aren't you excluding buildings? Why are you you excluding you know, I I almost think it sets us up for some kind of lawsuit because

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: That's what I was thinking about.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yeah. Sorry to interrupt, but it's like Why only on one thing

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yeah. Rather than Why just this industry? Why not any other industry? Of

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: course Act two fifty kicks in and that and that's it. Is it on solar fields? Why not? I mean, it's good. Yeah, because it goes through the Right.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So, and again, kind of getting in and out of Section 10 and out of Section 10 a little bit with what we're talking about, which is fine. I like that. You go into some of these communities, as Senator Heffernan was saying, and the only place to expand is going to be on a prime bag piece of soil. I can think of the problem they're having at Lowell with their solar exciting field is that if they were to expand, however, the only place that they're going to be able to expand housing into is the field that the solar people want to take. So they're having that wrestling about is it best use? Is that what people have come to Vermont to see? The town is basically saying, We don't want them there. But there's other forces saying, well, we are charged with other legislation that you guys have passed in the building that says that we have mandates that we need to meet, and so this is what we need to do, and this is where we have a chance to do that. But yes, I think it gets down to, there's a lot of communities that the only place that they're going to be able to expand in the coming years is what we're trying to protect. So I think what we've got out this conversation is that one thing that we need to talk this agency of agriculture to how they feel about some of the language in this bill. So I will get, we'll get ahold of them.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: I think adding them into the mix here would solve a lot of our problems. Because then you have an agency coming in to ask the area of expertise that they have. Very good. People can come in and give reasons that, Yeah, we need this resource not here.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay, so we'll have a conversation with them. Ready to move on? Yep. Yep. Section 11, milk producers. I think it's seven. That's pretty much, if we just said the language in that bill, we'll just, what I'd like to do is just one last time before we agree to anything, have Bradley go down through that and make sure that we would be all good with that. Yep.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Well, Yeah. I guess. They made a case for it. I don't know. There were no new positions created. It seemed like it expanded the ability of the agency to grant more money to farmers. Don't know if it seemed like a good idea.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I didn't have any problems with that. I think if the language was good and everybody was good with it, that's something we could just check off the list when we go down through it the next time. So no more than testimonies on that. 13, again, something just repealing something that they haven't done for a lot of years. It's non controversial as far as what everybody's saying, so we would be good with that. 14, again, just they're not trying to do anything. All they're doing is just allowing them not to time out on their ability to take

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: a

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: test. That seemed pretty harmless. They're lowering the standards. They're just allowing people to take the test until they can pass it or whatever. Good practitioner. 15 through 20, probably the easiest part of all of that. That was over in ten minutes as far as the testimony we have in that. I mean, I think we should be very good with that. 21 through 22 was just them consolidating the way they were gonna do their business. I was very happy with everything that they said about that. If anybody wasn't, I think I could agree with all that language. '23 and '24, removing the permit fees. Everybody seems to be on board with that. I haven't heard in the building as far as anything with that. Section 25, I don't know if that's something that we're gonna have time to get into with the floor drain stuff. If you guys wanna take more testimony on that, it's really up to you guys. I'll do whatever. I know that it gets people pretty anxious once you start talking about it, but again, if we have time, you guys wanna talk about that some more. Just to reiterate what it is, it really is about washing vegetables and having the water go out through in daylight versus going into a system all of that. They said they're allowed to do it outside of the building. They can spray it and hold it all they want, but as soon as they come into the building, it changes all of that.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Do we know why that provision, an was Ag request that it be in there? I think that came from Paul. Paul Rolfsniff? Yeah. Oh. And that's calling for a study, though, so Right. That It's like the Sort going up. There is that, sure, but it's also sort of, well,

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: we don't know enough about this, this is why it's in

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: a very complex, we don't

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: know if we don't know.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So we heard Paul's position on that, which again, maybe we should just have HCI Agriculture come in and talk about that. And then we'll see where that goes and see where if that's gonna involve ANR.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Well, it's requesting ANR and, agency of, ag to the state worker group for the report. So it's both agencies.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And then, Linda, do we have We probably don't have it conveniently, but we have two other things that we're talking about. One is we're gonna have some new language with a cannabis control board. They're coming in and they're going, I think they're going to get that bill is going to come back out of them. Talking when we spoke the other day, does anybody have any problems with the health part of what the Cannabis Control Board is asking us to do? I think we were very clear of where our position was, is that we weren't trying to change policy. We were just trying to support their policy and we're going have some more language. We're going to talk about that some more, so we'll have some more discussions. But does anybody now have any hair standing up on the back of their neck about any part of what we talked about so far with that?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: I think it's gonna improve for hemp fiber. Honestly, not just for the medicinal cells, but it's for the fiber in that tube, because it still has. It had to be washed. Now we had to give it to the dentist. I

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: guess I'm fine. Yeah. We got some language,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: then we'll back on that. Hey, Linda, the only thing that I would ask, we have a bill that came in about current use and settings. We don't need that today, but if we can have that for tomorrow just so that we can pay attention to that. There are two other bills that we have. One is the cannabis bill, HEP language, they're working on the language that we talked about yesterday, and Bradley had some questions about it, and James Pepper are going back and forth about how to get that, so we'll get that language back in there, make sure you guys are good with that, but we do need to take some testimony on this other language that Linda will get to us. What it is, is about current use, farm structures, and what's happening is a lot of the towns now are losing their positions as far as listers and all that, and so if Senator Major was building a building on his farm, the town lister would come by and say, Well, Senator Major, you're in current use on that. You got to make sure that you apply for this and apply for that. There's three farmers right now that put buildings up and thought that they were automatically enrolled in it and then come to find out that their tax bill went from like 30 to $50,000 higher because that building did not get put into current use automatically. I know there's a lot of different positions to be said. Let's see some language before I start throwing out assumptions about what I think or what it is, but I think we should take a look at that and we have time for that. That will be next week. And that's a separate bill? Well, we'll bring it in as part of the- Okay. The only way that it can be anything is that we bring it in as an amendment to a section of our to the miscellaneous bill. Going down through that, I don't think we're that far away, right? When you talk to them

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: all so far, you can argue about

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the effect that they, if you want. I think the hardest part that we're gonna have is to determine where we're gonna be on this section 10, and then then once for three. But, again, I think that we can be agreeable Yeah. You know, to almost anything. I just I wanna get I want everybody nodding their head in the right direction on that, and and I think that can happen. Yep. Okay. Any more questions about that? We'll take a little break. Everybody good with that? Yep. Okay. Linda will go off for a moment.