Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning. It's Friday, February 20. Everybody gets ready for some snow. Sounds like we have a little bit of that coming. We are going to spend an hour and a half or so talking with the stakeholder groups on sections one through three, which is talking about regulations on farming through communities through zoning. We've had some great progress as far as an agreeance, but we still have some final points that we ask the stakeholder groups to take the wheat and figure out where they can align, And just to be fair, we are going to listen intently, but the intent of this committee is by day's end is to understand where we're gonna be. We are going to finalize this section, and by Tuesday of next week, we will have that language cemented in because we are working down through our miscellaneous ag bill, and that is the prized piece of it as far as we're concerned. Who would like to start off this morning? Want me to go? Whoever would like to start off with some agreements amongst the stakeholder groups, and I'm fine with whoever wants to. Want an indigo.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Good

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: morning. Good morning. Thank you

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: for coming in. Sure. Steve Collier from the Agency of Agriculture. Thanks so much for, first, taking so much time on this bill and on this provision. It's important, and for your patience and allowing all the stakeholders to continue talking. Unfortunately, although we talked a lot, and I think really all of us in good faith tried to come to an agreement, we didn't quite get there. I think there's still that possibility, but I'm very sensitive to the time, as you just mentioned, Senator. I think what I is it okay if I sort of level set to how we got here and then talk about what remains in dispute? Absolutely.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think that would be helpful,

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: and the floor is yours. Okay. Thanks. So as you all know, the reason we're here is the Supreme Court decision, and the agency's first inclination, like I think many people, was just to undo the Supreme Court decision because its interpretation was never what the legislature. So that was our first request, was just let's go back to where we were, because this wasn't intended. This should be fixed. The we talked to the League of Cities and Towns, and they had some concerns about the status quo. And when we talked to their about their concerns, we felt that some of them were legitimate. So to just push to go back to where we were wasn't necessarily the right thing to do, and it might not be politically feasible either, because it wasn't as clean-cut as where we were was perfect. We do think where we were mostly worked and was fine, but on the margins, there were some issues. Those margins we talked about before is that in order to be farming, to be excluded from zoning, the standard was you needed to have four contiguous acres. So there really didn't seem to be there still isn't really any concern about farms on generally speaking, about farms on four contiguous acres, but the other way that you could be subject to agency of agriculture regulation and not to municipal is you had to be a commercial farm, but you could be on no defined amount of acreage if you had $2,000 in annual sales or if you had a spot with schedule f. So those requirements are fine most of the time, but pretty squishy at the margins. So we talked to you about the goats in the basement that we had on a tenth of an acre, and there's some other examples with chickens in very densely populated areas where you could sell eggs, and their case that went to the Supreme Court was ducks and eggs on a half an acre and $2,000 And so we always knew that the margins, were a little bit vulnerable, but we were also very reluctant to raise the requirements, because then if you don't meet the definition of farming subject to the required agricultural practices, there's no protection for zoning. So of course, we want people to be able to farm, want people to

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: be able to grow food, want people to be

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: able to do that without any more layers of regulation than is necessary, and most importantly, we want all farms across the state to be treated the same. Now farms, as you all know, face many, many, many challenges, and adding another layer of overlapping regulation, something that they don't understand, something that they haven't had to address while they're navigating labor issues, floods, drought, pests, falling commodity prices, losing their land. And we've gotta keep in mind the backdrop, we keep losing our land. We our farmers keep getting older. So everything that we're doing is trying to make farming as possibly viable as it can be, and whenever you add more, that's just another layer for farms to navigate. And I think, again, that it's been, it's worked well. Farm towns have never zoned farms, but, you know, in general, there's never been a reason to. There are always cases at the margins, but the general structure was effective. But in talking to the league, and we wanted to be we wanted to agree with them. We wanted to come to a compromise that would come so we could all come to you and say, look, everybody thinks this is fine. And so in doing that, we recognize that not having any land, being farming, can cause problems, and if you, you know, get 30 pigs on half a year, might be, you might be exporting your manures, you might not be violating the RIPs, but you still might be causing quite a lot of problems in your neighborhood, and ones that we can't effectively address. So that's where we came up with, you know, the effort to compromise, we say, okay, we don't want you to regulate farms, but we understand that livestock, especially livestock needs some land base in order for you to be able to manage the nutrients in place. So that's where we came up with the one acre proposal, is if you're going to have livestock and be farming exempt from zoning, you need to have an acre. That doesn't mean you can't have livestock on less than an acre, but on less than an acre, that would be up to the towns. Some towns that per permanently pond, they don't care. Other towns, if they're densely populated, they may they may they may not ban it, but they may regulate it, put on put on some requirements. So that's sort of the, you know, the first step we took at compromise. Let's We agree. Agree that you need to have some amount of land to have livestock. So that dropped it. It used to be you needed four acres to have livestock, or be a commercial farmer that actually dropped the standard from four acres to one acre. You don't have to be a commercial farmer on one acre as long as you've got enough land to manage the livestock. You used to have to have four acres for commercial, this is dropping it down to one acre, but you need to have enough land for the animals you want to manage. The other thing we did, and the league agreed to this, which was fantastic, is, you know, as I said, a lot of our concern about raising those standards was boxing people out of protection, and so, which, growing food does not create the same issues as raising livestock, and so we proposed to the league, and they graciously accepted, why can't we just accept growing food plants regardless of whether you're farming? You don't need to be a commercial farmer. You can grow your own food, and that's not going to be subject to zoning. So that completely, you know, a lot of farming is just growing food, separate from livestock. So that's, zoning's completely out of that equation, regardless of whether you're commercial, regardless how much land you have. So, us, that's a great clarity. I don't think towns were regulating that anyway, but to make it clear that if you have, like, a tenth of an acre and you can grow some food on it, you can. And, you know, that's and that's an important protection, potentially, depending on where you are. The other issue is we do want people to be able to raise their own food regardless of whether they're farming. Livestock creates some issues. Poultry seems to be, especially if you have a small amount of poultry, is a lot more manageable than a lot more places. So we also propose, you know, except for just growing food, can people also have a small backyard poultry flock, so that they can raise their own eggs, they can raise their own meat, they can have another way to grow food regardless of whether they're commercial farming. Again, we graciously agreed to that. We were thrilled about that. Said, okay. Like, this is this gets rid of a lot of the concerns we had about raising standards. Everybody in Vermont who's got a little bit of land can grow food, can have can have poultry. So livestock remains, you know, the touchstone issue that that I think where we're still having to come to. So everything we proposed in that vein, the league agreed to. They were they were comfortable with all those proposals to address their concerns about livestock issues in densely populated areas. The place we have not been able to reach agreement is they want the ability to regulate, to broadly regulate farming, farming, not just livestock, but farming, in tier one areas. So tier one areas are, it's a new concept, they're not fully defined, they're partially defined. Some of the tier one areas, so it's tier one A, which is more nested populated, and tier one B, which is more planned growth areas, and those maps are coming in, they're being evaluated, there's still more maps to come. Tier one A is pretty densely populated area, it's probably doesn't have many farms, although we think there are some. Tier one b has a lot of farms. Tier one b, like plain growth areas, equals existing farms. And so, like, we understand that they wanna regulate those areas, but we, as the agency of agriculture, cannot think of a good reason why farms should be regulated differently when they have enough land to be able to farm, which is part of our, you know, we've just talked about why they need to be subject to different regulations just because of where they're located. And a lot of these farms are going to be farms that have been there a long, long time. Suddenly, and they might be in three towns. And so they might be having to go through zoning in three different towns just because of where they are. Okay. And there's already pressures on those farms because of development pressures on those farms. And the more growth that comes in, the more pressure it's going to be. We recognize we're probably gonna lose some of those farms if they're in plant growth areas, but we don't wanna facilitate that. If a farm can be viable and successful in that area, we don't want to do anything to raise the burden on them. And there's the other part of this is, you know, our farmers are all getting older, where median age is about, median, sorry, average age is 56. Mean, I our farmer, we're not getting the next generation of farmers. Well, if you don't, if you're not born into a farm and have the land, it's very difficult to support, have resources, it's very difficult to start farming. So a of the, a lot of times, the only way you can start farming is on a small parcel. And it may be that a small parcel in those planned growth areas is the perfect place to start a new small farm, and it might be a produce farm. It might, it often will not be livestock based, but if you can start something in a densely populated area because you have customers right there and can get that customer base, we don't wanna do anything to discourage that either. We wanna, we wanna, we wanna do everything we can to encourage that, because every, just like towns are worried about how to grow, every piece of agricultural land in the state is precious, and the only thing we do is lose it. You we you all know this, we've lost 56% of our harvested crop lands since Act two fifty was implemented in 1970 specifically to protect farmland. In the last five year census period, from 2017 to 2022, we lost 11% of our agricultural cropland in Vermont. Like, we're we're not ending it. We're losing it. And that's going to continue despite all of our best efforts, but we don't want to facilitate that. We also don't want to tell farmers what to do with their land more than we have to. But so so there's this balance. We completely understand the league's concerns, and so what we've been trying to do with the league is is to try not to be overbroad. We think so the things that they want to be able to zone are in statute, and it's things like, and these are things that they can zone other institutions, and we understand that, and graciously, they're saying they don't want to ban farming in those areas, they just want to be able to regulate it. But it's a list of things, like like setbacks, which we already regulate and already have to meet town's town standards unless we curb a variant, granted variants, but it's things like screening, lighting, and landscaping, and, you know, density, and yards, and

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: ports, this whole list of things that

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: had nothing to do with farming. And the reason they had nothing to do with farming is because towns have never regulated farming. So it's like, it's it's putting a brown peg in a square box, and it just doesn't fit. So we've been we've been saying we're not opposed to taking a 40 densely populated area when you need them, which is why we came up with the one acre proposal. But let's make let's make the regulations hit the farm instead of just saying, we don't want you we don't want farms trying to put up a you know, grow blueberries and and sell their blueberries on the stand. They have to worry about landscaping and and screening their blueberries or whatever. And the town might not do that, but if you give the authority, they can. And in some towns, they'd be like so so we so Josh Hanford and I had a, I thought, a pretty productive conversation yesterday after we all met. And what we proposed was, let's we understand, it seems like livestock is the issue, right? And there are some livestock in densely populated areas can cause problems. Our regulations may not always be successful at addressing that problem. Can we limit the scope? Can we make it that perhaps in tier one, that towns have the authority to regulate livestock when they're causing a public safety or public health risk? And that if, you know, and if you do that, you know, maybe there's a little bit of process where you come to ask us to address it. If we can't or won't within a, you know, timely period, then town's gonna apply this only to that issue. Like, that's we haven't you know, the agency hasn't gotten behind that entirely yet, because we're just still talking. But that's something that seems more constrained, the problem, and so sort of want to create another layer for every farm just because of where they are, but if a farm is making it impossible for their neighbors to live because of their livestock practices, like, don't think that should get zero attention. So we'd like a compromise that sort of addresses in the most densely populated areas. There may be a role for farms to play, even when it is farming. They already have full discretion when it's not farming, but even when it is farming in those areas, perhaps the town should have a right to enter. And there's one case we all know about.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We're talking about it on Tuesday. Perhaps. So I think it'd be a good thing as you guys are trying to flush that right now. That would be yeah. If there was such a thing as a test case, that probably is the test case. Yep.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: So I know it's a long winded summary, I apologize for Oh, very helpful. But I think so where we are is we're a couple weeks from the crossover, so what we really would like is consensus so that any committee that has an interest in this can hopefully address it quickly, but we're not there yet. And so I don't know if we can get there by Tuesday or not. I'd I'd love to, but I'm not I don't know. That we

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: are not we are never going

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: to agree that every farm in tier one should be subject to zoning just because they're tier one. You you may make that choice, but we're not going to agree to that. We just don't think we can say that again. We, the agency of agriculture, is not going to agree. At least something changes maybe, but right now, we have no plan on agreeing that in tier one, all farms should be subject to zoning. Correct.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: And that's all tier one, tier one a. Correct. Correct. Because I I there is a distinction, I think a significant distinction in in those two with it being in the density of the population. But it seems like, and correct me if I'm wrong, you guys are getting to a place where you're almost seeing Kumbaya. We're trying. You know, and

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: the farm groups have been great. They have interests that are are different, and they had some different proposals, and they still would prefer those proposals, but they've shown some flexibility. They also might they'll speak for themselves, obviously, but I I think they also really want to get to a place where we're all comfortable. So I I don't know whether we're gonna get that full consensus. We've never honestly been that far apart, but if you're a farm in tier one who's never been subject to zoning and you said they are, then we're a long way apart for that specific farm, Where I think we're willing to move is if you have a, if a farm is a livestock team, and it's managing livestock inappropriately and causing harm to others, and we can't address it, then, you know, that seems like a fair, it seems fair for towns that have the ability to. The hard part is defining where that is, because we don't want, there are a lot of long standing dairies, tier 1B, and we don't want towns suddenly making them screen their manure beds. So, great. So I don't know if that's helpful, if there's any question.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Pretty good, was very helpful. Ready? I'd like to hear from Steve if that's it.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Yeah. Thank

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: you. Okay. Thanks so much. Yeah.

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: Okay.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Morning. Good morning. Doc Hanford, Love Legacy's Towns. Thanks for having us back. And, there's been lots of conversations. We've had many of lunch meetings with with folks over the last few weeks. And, you know, I do think there's been a lot of compromise, and we're very close on a lot of issues. The right to grow food language, I would say all the groups are there, essentially. Any types of vegetables, any type of fruit trees, any type of sugar trees, and hens, backyard poultry. There were some other animals that folks wanted to add in, and it's just, we can't just pick, because if it's not listed, it doesn't mean it can't happen. It just means if we're listing it, it means you must require a municipality. And when we reviewed, there isn't a municipality in the state that doesn't allow backyard chickens. And so we put that in there. So I think that that language, which is new, it's a new right to grow food everywhere that a municipality can't prevent, which we think is positive, but I think we're there on that language. I think Steve described the process and the differences quite well on these densely populated areas. Unfortunately, we don't have another term other than tier one right now. It used to be designated downtowns, designated ghost centers, but the laws changed and everything's being put into tier one. The difference between tier one A and B is actually, they all start as 1B, and all those areas are eligible, and then towns, cities likely, probably just 10 TIP districts, will select to be tier 1A. So we're talking about the same mapped land that the RPCs are doing, which is mapped because there's water and sewer, and because there is a plan for growth, and because the state has said you must allow a minimum, 20 units per acre, so there's gonna be high rise apartments in these areas, you must allow any type of housing, you must allow emergency shelters, you must allow a number of issues in these areas. So these are the areas of Vermont where land values are gonna quadruple, and where density is gonna be pushed, in the grand bargain of Act 21 to helpfully relieve pressure off the rural areas. So it makes sense from our perspective that these are the areas that also receive Act two fifty exemption for everyone. So now every use will be on the same playing field as agriculture with exemption from Act two fifty. So there will have to be someone deciding whose building, whose impact on the neighbor is appropriate. And if they all have exemption from Act two fifty, well, farms are gonna face that same pressure with, they might complain about what their neighbor is doing to them as well. If there isn't municipal zoning to call those balls and strikes, who is? So we believe those are the areas where you're gonna have more conflict and more court cases, and yes, some of the tier B areas, especially in the smaller villages, have farms in it, AKA the village of Orleans on 4.5 acres with a pig farm. That has so far not been addressed by the way agriculture relates it, regulates it. Municipalities have regulated farms. Full regulation was zoning for the last ten months. That's the law of the land right now. So far, the town of, the village of Orleans has moved forward with zoning enforcement to deal with the pig farm that the village is an uproar around. That's the only actions that are trying to address that problem. So, you know, we can't support something that doesn't allow that to take place, that enforcement. It is also true that in these areas, maybe we can get to this language, as Steve mentioned, that we can refine these zoning and land use regulations that are more tailored to farm, so we're not having a standard set of what municipalities can enforce land use zoning apply to farms as well. That may be how we reach this compromise, because as Steve said, there are conflicts with livestock and maybe some other uses, and if it's in these dense areas, we should have a way to regulate everyone fairly. Someone that's next to a farm, that's next to a daycare center, that's next to the fire department, there's gotta be some rules that can apply to keep people safe and just follow sort of common sense. And that seems to fall to municipalities in these areas without Act two fifty and without a farm HCV ag rule that doesn't address these other issues. So that's where we still need to probably work on some language. You know, the only hesitation I think we have is that if we start coming up with new terms, new definitions for what new zoning concepts are, it's untested,

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

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: hasn't, these existing definitions have been tested time and time again. They've been tested, they've been held up in the Supreme Court. These are the things that the courts and lawyers understand in what municipal zoning is and how you can enforce it. There could be some risk if we come up with new terms and new definitions, we're sort of defining that and working out as you go, that it won't protect either municipality or agriculture, because someone will test it and there'll be new court cases. Maybe there'll be any. So the other issue that sort of we put on the table in language to try to address existing farms in these tier one areas is exempting existing farms. If you're doing business there, we don't wanna change the rules on you. You've obviously been doing a good job of maintaining those relationships in those neighbors because we haven't heard about great conflict, with the caveat that farms in these areas that are under current zoning action not be exempted. So that would be the Orleans case, and the Essex Junction case, that's it, that we're aware of. Otherwise, we'd be open if we can get tier one authority, not to ban farming, actually to ensure it can exist, but under the same zoning regs that every other property owner has to follow in those areas, because people live in close proximity and there's a lot of competing interests. It's not the same as on the rural parts of town. They're zoned differently. And so, that's where we are. I think that it sounds like the agency is finding a way for tier one areas to maybe embrace that concept with some parameters on what could be the municipal zoning areas of enforcement for municipalities. I won't speak for the farm groups, but I think they're on board with that as opposed to going with the agency's original proposal as a one acre, one acre anywhere and under any municipality can regulate it, that seems like not really narrowing to where the problems are, maybe capturing another set of issues out there. So again, everyone has worked really in good faith to try to find a place for us all to agree to and not make any problems worse that are out there. That's sort of where we

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: are. So sounds like between you two that you guys haven't worked out other than some language maybe we're gonna be able to put together on Tuesday, maybe, about farms that are in one a areas that are a problem. It sounds like you don't want to regulate farming. The agency doesn't want farming regulated in all instances in 1A areas. It doesn't sound like you're after that. It sounds like you guys are in agreement, but you're looking for a mechanism to protect communities from farms that have become more of a nuisance than what farming is defined as, that they maybe overstepped some boundaries.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Just to clarify, a tier one, example, the Village Of Orleans is never going to be eligible for tier one A, but the area is the same. The one B and the one A area defined by the RPCs is a downtown village center, village growth area, but Village Of Orleans will never be eligible to be tier 1A. They'll only be tier 1B. Okay. And there's a process over time built into the original maps and the Town Plan maps every eight years to update those areas as things change. Maybe there'll be a new conserved piece of land that needs to be taken out. Maybe there'll be a former farm that decides to take advantage of that increased land value and expand their farm outside of the village, and that now will be planned for development of a 30 unit apartment building, and that now needs to be added. This new regime we're under of planning for growth in our dense areas and prioritizing it is still evolving, and the only term we have to use is tier one. There is a nuance between one and B, but

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: But I see you guys aligned enough to where after testimony on Tuesday that the same thing that you're disagreeing on is maybe this testimony will clear things up, and we might be able to get language done. Other than that, I think that I don't wanna put words in their mouth. Other than that, other than whatever else can happen, you you two, the agency and the league, are gonna be able to agree on something.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I hope so.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: It's it's whether we can define the scope

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: of it.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: We're we're not opposed to the idea of municipalities having ability to regulate problems with from livestock

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: We in tier

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: are opposed to them regulating farming in tier one.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: But it sounds like with what we just said, that the leagues were willing to accept farming that's already existing in those areas. Grandfathered.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Grandfathered, minus the ones that have pending court action against them too, because they're already underway, just two. But that

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: leaves open anybody else who wanted to come in and start farming, and then be in that, so that's where the sticking point for the agency would be.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: And the grandfather sounds very in principle, and it is great in principle, and it works great for a while, and then it becomes impossible to implement because you for twenty years down the road, and I've seen this in other areas like wetlands, you're trying to figure out what was what was where and when, you can't tell. So so I'm I'm not saying it's it's not a good idea to grandfather existing farms, but I think the structure should be have more integrity than just a grandfather and actually get to the root of the problem, which is sometimes livestock causing too severe impacts for others. So Yeah. Grandfather's good, but I still think it should be addressing

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: the problem, not just farming in general. And where do get into nuance on this, Senator? You know, livestock sounds like it's the majority of the problem, and and and maybe that's where it start, but what about municipality regulating that entrance and egress of a farm that is on a busy intersection that has constant trucks and tractors going out to a busy intersection and accidents? Maybe that falls under public safety. They'd say, move that over here. So there's a lot of nuance here in defining these terms, these new novel terms, that there is precedent since the zoning act was established in Vermont that uses these things to zone, doesn't mean every fund is gonna zone for landscape.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sure.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: That's used often to prevent conflict of neighbors that will appeal what they don't wanna see right to the end of their their money line. But if you put up a screening, it all probably goes away. These are all things where you try to solve conflicts. So you can see the nuance of what the language is, is going to involve detailed lawyers talking about what these terms mean and how we can ensure they meet our mutual goals. That sometimes takes some time.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So Whether we'll know enough about the situation, I don't know, explain, or that we can be hypothetical, which is always dangerous. We've heard a problem up towards the islands about the strawberry farm, and the neighbors complaining about the strawberry farm and whatever. It sounds like, for all practical purposes, that the strawberry farm wasn't doing anything wrong and all that, but it might have are they protected automatically because they're growing food, or is it going to be an egress problem, an entrance problem, or something like that, a situation like that? I don't know

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: the details of that, so I need to learn which county it is. They might not even have zoning, so then this wouldn't apply whatsoever. Okay. So I don't wanna answer No any problem. Yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good. Yeah.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: A lot of the Champaign Island's towns don't have much in the way of zoning, but I don't know this case. And

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: they no longer call it the grandfather. I'm termed for that.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: That's why I just said exempt existing.

[Graham Unangst-Rufenacht (Policy Director, Rural Vermont)]: I'm sorry to throw a faulty direction.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: I just couldn't help.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. We've heard from the league, we've heard from the agency. Anything about what we have heard and the discussions that we've had, any more that needs to be talked about before we invite the firearm groups in? Everybody good for right now? Guys are closed. Who would like us to be advocacy groups? Who would like to lead off?

[Caroline Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: I can lead us

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: off, Okay.

[Caroline Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: If that's okay.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yep. Absolutely. Caroline.

[Caroline Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Thank you guys so much for the record. Caroline Sherman Gordon, legislative director with Rutland Vermont. Thank you so much for inviting me to speak to you today and also, frankly, for your patience with the parties engaged to reinstate the municipal exemption for farming and to codify the right to grow food. Also, our coalition feels that it's important to communicate that the solution that probably our

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Caroline, can ask you a question first?

[Caroline Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Of all that you've heard with the agency and the lead, and maybe you're going to get there I'll

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: be quiet if you are, Are

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: there any new issues in there that I'd like at least address at some point in time in your testimony of what the testimony you've already heard this morning. So, I'll I'll let you know. Go ahead.

[Graham Unangst-Rufenacht (Policy Director, Rural Vermont)]: You know,

[Caroline Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: I I submitted write written testimony, but instead of reading it, I can also just respond to to what the conversation is and and to to try to keep threading that needle to get closer to the point and quicker. You know, I guess what's frustrating to our coalition is that, you know, we've been left out of out of the vote on this for some time, like prior to the legislative session, we were able to talk to the agency, but the agency wanted to be the middleman in hashing out the compromise, talking just to the league and then to us, but never really taking our input into this conversation seriously. And here we are, this week, we organized a three hour negotiation on this issue with all stakeholders involved, including our coalition. And and Thursday, we had a a constructive follow-up meeting. I have the outcome of that meeting is what I wanna share with you. That really, I think, satisfied what you tasked us with, that we're like 85, 90% there. And it's a little bit it's triggering my patience to hear when those two parties have a lock agreement where they say we're not going to compromise until we both compromise. It's kind of not taking into consideration the constructive input our coalition has offered over the time. And I think many of the issues that both parties that are dominant at the table still identify today have been constructively addressed by our coalition again and again, especially this remaining livestock issue that was brought up as the area of concern. Our coalition has the only coalition at the table who's proactively developed proposals around that specifically naming the stocking density requirement that we don't have in law that would be needed to address this in a homogenous way statewide, able to address bad actors, and also not create further anomalous results, because the legislature just passed a right to farm law last year. I personally believe many legislators might not have understood that what right to farm means is really just a nuisance protection of lawsuits, that it does not trickle down to the zoning level. So if we now gonna what I hear from the league and the agency, and this is in contrast to what we negotiated yesterday, I really would like to spend the bulk of my time to lay out with you what was where was the common agreement and what we've carefully laid out as a whole group yesterday. Because what I hear this morning is a little concerning to me, to be frank, quite honest with you, if we were to allow for livestock farms, municipal authority around nuisance, that would specifically go vice versa to what the right to farm law carefully established. I think there's a more elegant, more streamlined opportunity to address this.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Caroline, doesn't the public have the right to be protected as well on some of these situations?

[Caroline Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Right. And I think stocking density is where that where that coin hits the ground. You know, you have to have not just the right to have livestock, but you have to have the appropriate land base to do so. Nowhere in the law is there a provision that requires that. That's why neither the towns nor the agency right now have a effective way to address bad actors unless there's severe animal welfare concerns. So that's when it's already too late. Stocking density requirement, what it would do is that you would basically require anyone from when you handle livestock that you can't put 50 pigs on a quarter acre. That's too much. You won't be able to manage the nutrients and waste on-site. The agency was expressing many times the concern of people exporting their waste in order to be able to have the livestock on the marginal lands they have accessible for keeping those animals. Nuisance does not exist if you proper the livestock you have appropriately on land base you have, that's appropriate for the number of livestocks you have. So it's a relational issue, like number of animals to land base available to those animals. So if we don't enshrine that as a requirement, then you will always have a nuisance issue. Whether you give someone the ability to beat someone down over that will not prevent them from creating the issue in the first place. You will still have to just enforce and correct course other than proactively ensuring that there's a relational piece there that is transparent to everyone and avoids bad actors to being having a pathway to be created in the first place.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Caroline, do you see anywhere in any of what we're trying to solve or get to, whether it be with the right to farm bill or with what we're trying to do on sections one through three, do you see, in your opinion, any path that says that there is protections for people not to be nuisanced by the public unless there is a way to prove that the public is being harmed? Was long winded is what I'm trying to say, do you see a mechanism in place to protect farmers who are only doing everything but everything right, and all they're doing is farming, and maybe a neighbor doesn't like that they're doing that rightfully or wrongfully, or I would say in this case wrongfully, the neighbor just doesn't like it. Do you see that in all of what we have, are there protections in place to protect that farmer in the densely populated areas?

[Caroline Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: Right. Yeah, I think the language that we've been considering for that purpose is, quote unquote, provide raising, feeding, or managing livestock on commercial farms, you know, is protected provided the land base is sufficient for appropriate nutrient and waste management as determined by the Secretary of Agriculture and Food and Markets. There would have to be some rulemaking around that possibly. And the managing of livestock otherwise has to be in compliance with the required agricultural practices rule. I think if we cross that line to protect the public on the terms that nuisance, you know, you heard from many farms specifically. Nuisance is too broad of a term. You know, you heard from the many farmers that, you know, hours of operation can be a nuisance. The traffic can be a nuisance, the sound can be a nuisance. Those are all things that are germane to the success of a farming operation. That is exactly why we have a right to farm law, to protect those activities. So if we want to repeal that intent that was enshrined in law with the right to farm law just last year, then you know, then go ahead and address this through the language of nuisance, but I think that's going to create a great deal of confusion in the state and upset many farmers. Think more elegant indeed is to work on language that would thread this needle's eye around what is the is provided land base sufficient for the appropriate management of waste and nutrients. But I would like to can may I proceed with the testimony I've prepared?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Jack, go ahead.

[Caroline Gordon (Legislative Director, Rural Vermont)]: So I'm gonna share my screen to I think we're making also more progress if we can share here what was agreed upon by all parties in principle. As Collier said, that we haven't been able to reach a full consensus, but everything you see in the draft legislative language here on my screen that's marked in green was agreed upon in principle. There's a few small areas in red that need really your decision. And what's not on here in red, but is this question of livestock in Tier 1A areas, and how to address that. I think, yeah, it would be really helpful if the agency and the league could come forward with how they what's the specific language they're envisioning there. I'm curious to see that come forward as soon as possible. But what you see here is basically a proposed amendment to 24 BSA forty four thirteen A1. This is the framework where there's some zoning allowed, but only to the extent that regulations do not have the effect of interfering with the intended functional use. And this is where the leak has agreed and all parties agreed that whether a right to grow food should be nestled. And I want to mention that we also agreed that zoning may not functionally prohibit the ability to harvest, donate, and sell products derived from these protected land uses. We all agreed this right to grow food should include the raising, feeding, or management of poultry and excluding roosters. This was a compromise our coalition was willing to make here. Just a couple things on this poultry thing. The framework of functionally prohibit, again, does not work if you specify a specific animal number without having the stocking density requirement. That would create ambiguous results. Let's say someone has a two acre parcel, you set into law at least six chickens have to be allowed. That would send a green light to a municipality or allow for six chickens and nothing more. And that means there's no relational piece to what is the appropriate land mass for having six chickens. And in that scenario, that becomes functionally prohibitive to have the appropriate number of livestock for the land base that's available to them. There's actually law suits pending on stuff like this in states like Maine, where zoning ordinances that are ambiguous in that regard and arbitrary in that regard are being challenged in the courts. So if we want to avoid that here, then management of poultry needs to be allowed. And then either we have a stocking density requirement in statewide law, or the municipalities will have to define the stocking density in their municipal laws, but it has to be appropriate, a relational piece, a land base relative to animal numbers and nothing less. And the league agreed to not including a specific number here, as did the agency that would solve the issue on stocking density for the right to grow food in this moment. Then in terms of here's the key piece in terms of where can be some zoning allowed for farming in tier one a areas. That's where there's the broader agreement. Also, our coalition agrees that tier one b is just too broad. The league sees that every town is a tier one b area. You heard testimony just on Wednesday that some farmers operate across 13 different towns. This is something also very important to our coalition, to create a confusing patchwork of too many differentiating regulations. So I think we could all agree to tier one a. Obviously, it's up to your discretion whether you want to include tier one b or not. That's why that is an orange here, what tier one a is in green here. So I think everybody agreed that there could be some zoning that doesn't functionally prohibit farming and the erection of farm structures in Tier 1a. And then what was discussed as well, that there would have to be nuance around this. So what came up this morning is the question about livestock. This language you see here does not make a does not just focus on livestock. It's more about creating a level playing field across farming operations. Many farms are livestock operations. We live in a northern climate. So what is the, I think, more elegant solution we've worked towards to, and what's in green here was in principle agreed upon, that new zoning regulations should align with the protections established for farming from nuisance lawsuits under the right to farm law, and not apply to noise, smell, lighting, and hours operation. That's what's legally called a negative definition, so those are the areas that zoning should not apply to. And then what we also all said we want to work more on is to, so what should zoning be applied to in those Tier one areas? This is an orange because neither the league nor the agency has yet proposed any specific language around this. This in orange is the language that our coalition has worked on and submitted two weeks ago to all committees involved. So we already did our homework on this as a coalition. What we can agree to is that requirements ensuring safe ingress and egress of vehicular traffic and pedestrian safety is reasonable, including functional enclosures of livestock adjacent to roads is reasonable, sufficient parking, appropriate signage, pavement markings if required, personnel to manage vehicle movement on and immediately surrounding the premises, siding and setbacks of newly created buildings in a way that doesn't create public safety concerns. This includes fire safety concerns. So this was a draft that I think this is where most of the committee's work is going to be focused on finding what is really the language that meets everyone's interest. Seems like livestock should be addressed in this. I think we have also developed this specific language on requiring appropriate nutrients and waste management opportunities on the land parcels available for livestock farming. And I don't think our coalition would be opposed at all to including that in here as well. But again, it would also have to be in alignment with the Right to Farm Law that previously, before the two parties left the room and talked amongst themselves, that was agreed upon before. And, you know, if we achieve that in Tier 1a, I think the really good news is that also everybody agreed that outside of Tier 1a, we would be able to restore the farming exemption as it was prior to the Supreme Court ruling, that we could also do that for farm structures and all the other areas of the state, which is the majority of the state. And if we would do that, then, you know, that would really be the goal. And yeah, the other changes here is just to add a definition of poultry. And then we also talked about and also this, we were all very happy. Everybody agreed there would it would be good for this broad coalition of agricultural stakeholders, but also together with the agency and the League of City and Towns, giving the ongoing housing development agenda and also the many unknowns about like how will these new zoning regulations possibly affect farming? Will it lead to the death by the thousands cuts? And what about livestock farms? And what about the right to grow food not including livestock in this proposal? That it would be constructive to keep working together and to have a study committee where those three issues are going to be addressed, and you see draft language around all of that in this proposal as well. And then with that, I don't want to take too much time, but I thought it was just really important to show with you in green here, like how close we really are, and that the areas that are left in orange are, I hope, very manageable for you all. Really, know, some of you have been involved in this right to farm discussions over the last six years and to be very, very careful how this compromise around livestock should be struck to not circumvent that. And with that, I want to close.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thanks, Caroline. We're going to move on. We got a couple more groups that we want to give time to and equal time to. And I appreciate your testimony very much. And thank you for the highlighted of what you said, it's very helpful. We have NOFA and we have Farm Bureau and who would like to go next? Sylvia,

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: sure, that's

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: great. Good morning, Amber Perry from Mount Farm Bureau. I just want to acknowledge the significant effort made this week by all stakeholders involved. We came very close. There's a broad agreement among the parties on several key points that you've heard in previous testimony. There is some consensus around regulation and where it should apply within the tier one and we believe that's the tier 1A. We weren't able to reach that agreement, but you've heard that the leak and the agency are working on figuring out what that regulatory could look like within tier 1A. Just want to keep it really brief for you guys.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: No, it's fine. I want you to be able to say what you want to say as well. It's important. So let me ask a question as far as what you're touching upon right now, because you're talking about the agency and the league and that you're kind of waiting for them to hammer a few things out. What would be the Farm Bureau's position on that?

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: We would not want to see that patchwork regulatory authority openness about these. Like you heard from Tucker, 13 towns, they're operating 3,700 acres, I think, cropping. Just trying to keep that really minimal

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And I think we're there with that, right? Mean, I think we are. I mean, think we're, and correct me if I'm wrong, I do not want to put in words into the Farm Bureau's or anybody's mouth. But I think from what I'm seeing is that we are really just getting down. Hear Caroline's comments about animal numbers and all of that, which is important as But it sounds like we are really just getting down to how much regulation is gonna be at 1A and then obviously 1B, but

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: I would say that Farm Bureau would not agree to 1B. We pre looked at some of the mappings. We see that within tier 1A mapping, we're capturing active farmland. We know that there's going to be more farms captured within tier 1B, and we just, we don't want to miss that.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: So did you say within tier 1A there's exosomes? Potentially, yes. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This all came about from 01/1981, I think, Act 181? Is it LERB that is mapping this all out, or

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: who's doing the word LERB, I think?

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: No, the RPCs are.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Oh, LERB approves the maps.

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: Yep, and then LERB approves. Okay.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: But there are instances where 1A straddles municipal lines, so even restricting it to just 1A doesn't completely solve that issue for farmland. But the 1B, at least if I'm understanding how they're mapping, is much more likely to impact farmers by including several town hallways. Correct. Okay. I think I'm getting that. And

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: I just want to close with this coalition came recommendation from the Agency of Agriculture. We represent a broad perspective of ideas, and typically we do not work together in this kind of capacity. We've invested nine months in this issue in seeking that solution because we all recognize that importance, and we will continue to work together until we get there, but we're close.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Does anyone in the room know when the mapping will be done?

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: I heard as early as December.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Rutland will be the first likely to have properties approved this summer, and Rutland is not Rutland is skipping tier one b because the interim active duty exemptions are larger than that, and you're gonna go right to tier one a, which is probably gonna be another year before they're eligible. And, I I would differ. I don't think there's a chance whatsoever that there could be a tier one a that's touching two different communities. It and less hips tossed.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Rutland City and Rutland Town or

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: Rutland Town would would not be eligible for tier one a. There's not any eligible area on the maps for Rutland to be tier 1A. Tier 1A has like a 24 step process of proving your eligibility.

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: I think just given an incomplete mapping and the ever evolving implementations of Act 181, we're concerned about the potential unintended consequences for Vermont farming communities.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Graham, you want to comment?

[Graham Unangst-Rufenacht (Policy Director, Rural Vermont)]: Yeah, thank you, Chair. Graham, next group, I'm the policy director of Vermont. I just want to make clear. I think the distinction that's trying be made is that the tier one, tier one, areas themselves may not go over municipal lines, but that farms are still operating between different municipalities. And we feel that it's highly unlikely that farms those farms like Tucker's talking about 13, he's probably not operating in 13 tier one a areas. But it might be likely that he's operating in a number of tier one b areas. I think that's the distinction people are trying to make, so thank you for giving Okay, me a

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: chance yeah. Speak And

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: if you put the exemption in with that, protectant, I guess that's Steve or That's intent. An exemption.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: K. But that would be challenged, you're saying? The

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: language that we proposed would treat farms the same everywhere, tier one or not. And so you the only minimum requirement would be that your, you know, your four acres or you have an acre in livestock or your commercial farming. If you met any of those thresholds, matter where you were in the state, you'd be exempt. That what we're trying to try to refine to to try to get the lease concurrence, is that we would allow some league authority in tier one. So everything else would be exempt except for what was specifically allowed. So so ideally, livestock that are creating public safety issues, they would have the authority to regulate that.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: The the the what I've heard as our agreement sort of it it seems to not be my understanding going in because one b, no ability to regulate one b would not solve the village of Orleans problem and potentially other critical problems in dense areas. And so that that's just not gonna be something that the league's able to support. If we can't get one b, some caveats that restrict the type of zoning to have the minimal impact to just deal with We're

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: missing what we're missing and what I believe is what we're missing. I understand. I see both sides of that very, very clearly. What we're missing is the mechanism, the language, the trip that says, yes, they're complying with all the rules of farming, but something along the way has made them and then themselves a nuisance. And that's what we're missing. We're missing that trip to to just a complaint from the public. Okay? Not just a not just somebody saying, I don't like them there. Oh, I smelled it. Oh, their pigs got out. Or whatever. We're missing that trip to where they are being a nuisance to the community.

[Josh Hanford (Vermont League of Cities & Towns)]: I wish that we would find that. And, senator, I would I would contend that that's what municipalities deal with with every other industry through zoning and ordinance regs. And so it's exactly that's right. What's missing is farming in certain areas being covered by those same regulations.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: But I think what we have here that does that other regulations don't have is we have emotions of other people who's who are bothered by, oh, that poor pig is gonna get slaughtered, or that poor pig's in mud, or that so you have that emotional aspect that's coming from the public that is triggering the complaint, that triggers the visit, that triggers all of that stuff, and that is where we lie, I believe, but I could be wrong with that. If we could find the language, the point of what is going to make that farm a nuisance in your language, in in the agency's language, and the and the league's language, what is that language? What what is that? If I may. Yes, please.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I that's what I I wanna I shared some pro proposed language with mister Hanford last night, which is which is a which is a model. And if and if they're willing, I think we could work that out. But I but they may not be. I understand. We're like, we're not willing to give we're not willing to say that farms should be regulated like everyone else in tier one. Maybe the league's not willing to try to narrow the zone. But if there's a way to narrow the zoning to the actual problem, we're amenable to trying to do that. And I think we could crack the light. I did send a proposed draft to that one.

[Graham Unangst-Rufenacht (Policy Director, Rural Vermont)]: Correct. Thank you, Chair Graham. I just want to say, one, you just heard Steve say again that he sent the language to the league. He didn't send it to the other coalition. We've all been trying to be active partners in negotiations, so that is just concerning to me, one. The two things I learned in our meetings this week, one is that we talk a lot about these small operations and the agency had proposed under our one acre. It's become very clear that the lead, what they're also concerned about is high input, high output operations in these dense areas, not just small farms. Think Josh can speak more to that. To clarify your your Senator Heffernan, you were asking about the exemption. Yes. The language that we're turning forth, we're saying just tier one a. So tier one b would be exempt. The last thing I learned in our meetings

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I can't have tier one b be exempt, Graham, because all ads in Orleans or in other communities, there are some people that aren't gonna be tier one a.

[Graham Unangst-Rufenacht (Policy Director, Rural Vermont)]: Certainly, you asked me for a response. Absolutely. But but the last thing I was gonna say in response to that, I learned in this meeting that I think actually the ag group were the only group coming trying to resolve this issue with claims. The league said, we want tier one. We're not gonna make towns do that zoning, but if they want to zone as far as they can Josh came and said there's an issue in Randolph where he's on the planning commission. They have the ability to zone this pig issue in their town, but they're choosing not to put an ordinance in place. So the town is saying, we want to give towns the ability in these areas, but they're not gonna make that. They actually don't wanna directly deal with it. They just wanna make sure towns can. The league is saying or sorry. The agency is saying farms with livestock under one acre. We just heard that this pig farm in Orleans is 4.5 acres. What we have come I think we're the only ones to come for, because the language just says, We want to empower the agency. We even asked in emails, What powers does the agency need? You have the expertise. You have the resources. What do you need to actually deal with these bad actors?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, and I think just knowing a little bit, a lot more than the New Orleans issue, is that everything's not, everything's just not the way that it is sometimes. And then they might have 4.5 acres that which protects them under the right, you know, that they, oh, okay, they're, yeah, they're over four acres, but it isn't the right four acres. There's probably usable on that after the structure. There's probably usable, not even an acre of land, and you know, of what they're trying to do. So it's not always as clear as just saying, okay, 4.5 acres looks exempted from everything.

[Graham Unangst-Rufenacht (Policy Director, Rural Vermont)]: Exactly. That's why I think we offered language to give you want to empower the agency to deal with those circumstances. Because like you're saying, we recognize that we can't have a there's not gonna be a map that's gonna cover everything. We need someone who has the power to make those decisions.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. I think we fleshed that out a little bit. I gotta allow Nofah in here to give him some time. I don't wanna make you short on time.

[Amber Perry (Vermont Farm Bureau)]: That's fine. I'm interested and engaged in this discussion, I appreciate it. Madam Chair, Policy Director, Nofah Vermaat, thank you all so much for spending so much time on this. I really would just reiterate what you heard from Caroline, what you heard from Amber. We have agreement on some, and NOFA's in agreement with the position of the other farming organizations around allowing some zoning authority for municipalities within tier 1A.

[NOFA-VT Policy Director (name not stated)]: We do share the concern about tier 1B. We have members of NOFA farms who are in what we imagine will be tier 1B areas in the future, and we are concerned about that, and I think we would default to what Graham was just speaking to, which is that in those areas, we would like to empower the agency to have the authority to regulate when there are problematic situations with livestock, and I think that Orleans example is a helpful one, actually, this case, to illustrate what we would like to see. We are concerned about allowing municipal regulation over all farms under one acre with livestock, which Josh said kind of on behalf of us earlier in his testimony, and we are overall more inclined to support Sun Zoning Authority for towns and tier one A areas to keep that for limited. I think that actually would be overall more clear for most farms than allowing municipal regulation over all farms with livestock under one acre. And in the instance of the farm that was mentioned that has land across 13 towns, think it was clarified that they would likely only have land within one tier 1A area, almost certainly, in perpetuity. So, while there would be a patchwork, the patchwork would be, I think, limited in its effect on that type of farming operation. We appreciate that there is consensus around the right to grow food, including plants, mushrooms, orchards, maple, and poultry. And we also, I just want to say one thing that hasn't really been touched on today. We would want it to be clear that the language around the right to grow food should need to include the ability to harvest, donate, and sell food in compliance with applicable laws. Because we know that there is sort of a natural on ramp and also some blurring of the lines between people who are producing food for themselves, for their neighbors, and for commercial sales to some extent. So, we wouldn't want to needlessly draw boundaries around those activities. That would create more confusion, which has to. And then, I would say there has been a lot of conversation around language allowing additional zoning by municipalities, especially in tier one A areas, that would still not have the effect of interfering with intended functional use. So, we do appreciate the lead's perspective on that, and really bringing forward language that would effectively not be able to prohibit farming activities. I would hope that that would be able to address any concerns that people have about this path of work, the fact that we're talking about in tier one A areas. I think that's all. I think, you know, I'd just reiterate that we don't think that any changes are required to the RIPs, which it feels like maybe we've all come around to that perspective, but I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth. And I also will just reiterate that we would really be supportive of the study that Caroline mentioned around really looking for proactive ways to protect agricultural soils from development since we know that those

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: pressures We are working on some language with that, to be fair with everyone, it is on the committee's mind. We have probably brought as much awareness to that in this session as I've ever seen in the past. I don't know where we're gonna get to that, maybe nowhere. Other than that, we have started very broad conversations about that. It's in the news all over the place. Mean, I think we're bringing some good talk to it. I don't know if we'll ever get to legislation. I will tell you point blank, I doubt that we'll get to legislation anywhere with that, but whether it be this committee, the same committee that you're looking at next year, this year, or it's a different makeup, I think we've raised awareness to that. And I think that we've got enough people talking about it to where that that will continue on long after this committee.

[NOFA-VT Policy Director (name not stated)]: I appreciate it, and I did hear your discussion on that topic yesterday, and it was really helpful to hear some of the specific examples of conflicting uses that we're talking about, whether it's a farm's ability to sell some land in order to

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: allow We will have more conversation on it again after this meeting as well, so.

[NOFA-VT Policy Director (name not stated)]: Great, and I just would say, you know, I would ask that the committee consider establishing a structure that would allow those conversations to happen, and that would help that to occur more proactively, which I think the study committee recommendation would assist with.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay.

[NOFA-VT Policy Director (name not stated)]: And I think that's all.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. I think there's still some more conversations that will happen after this meeting. I feel strongly about that. I think we put some good ideas, some more framework in it. It's always very easy to say that conversation's over and then we're gonna make a decision. We're not, but I need everybody to be aware that the clock is ticking and that we are going to make a decision. And the committee's gonna make the decision with the stakeholders and listening. I think that you guys do believe that we are listening and we're trying to be fair with everyone, that we are. But we are going to, it's gonna come to an end soon. So everybody needs to keep on working hard and getting to the position and keeping on agreeing or or not. But let us be aware of where you're at at all times. And I appreciate it. I really sincerely appreciate the cooperation amongst everybody. And I know that everybody's not maybe going get what they want. Maybe they will. But I do sincerely. I sincerely, it's been mentioned already a few different times by all of you for where we are now versus where we were in the past. We're communicating in a way that we have never communicated since I've been in building. We are communicating in a way that I've never seen, and appreciative of that. So let's keep on doing that, and let's make sure we do everything we can do to protect property. Everybody, yep?

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: And point in case of what you're saying, Chair, is that if we do nothing, we do not pass some type of legislation, it's gonna be worse for farmers. So it is important that it might not be perfect, but we do have to get stuff and

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: throw It's a lot like what we did with the right to farm. I wasn't happy, 1000% with the right to farm, but it's something that we tried to get through this building for a long, long time, and we got it, and it doesn't mean that we can't keep on improving it, but I agree wholeheartedly, Senator Heffernan, that we need to make sure that by the end of this legislative session, if I crossover, that we have the bailout that can be It doesn't end there. You guys know what happens. It goes across the way. There are

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: still talks to be had, but we need to make sure that we get it out of here they can recrop their listens. So I would just encourage the two the agency and the league to include whether those farming stakeholders wanna have one person representing in the ensuing conversations that we hope will be taking place this weekend, that those folks be heard and included.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Can I make a comment on that or do you want to know? We've been consistently talking to everybody. When I go to the league to try to float something, to conclude a bunch of other organizations is not productive at that time. No. I get If I can get the league to to talk, then it it makes sense to bring everyone in, and that's that's it. It's just you can't talk with 12 parties at the same time.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That that sounds like get.

[Steve Collier (Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Then we wouldn't have talked last night because I couldn't talk to all of you, you know? So I understand, but we and the first thing I did when I saw Amber was tell her about the conversation last night. We're not trying to leave anyone out. Okay. You can't negotiate with 12 people at the

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: same time. Right. Always. That's all. Has everybody said what they needed to say today? Okay. I want to thank all of you for how hard you're working. I appreciate it very much. Alright, everybody. We'll take a a seat. Brace. He was sitting with him. We're we're back at 10:30.