Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning. Well, morning. It is Friday, February 6. We are going to spend some time talking about second one. We're going be Patriot, Water Quality Division Director, Executive Agriculture, Good and Markets. Our goal in this committee is to spend some time today on sections one, on Tuesday, one through three, and then on Wednesday to do some markup to see if we can close out sections one through three on our miscellaneous bill. Laura, welcome to the floor, Schwartz.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Thank you. Good morning. Laura Petra. Been working here for twenty one years. So, I've been working on water polies with them all the time at the agency and I'm very familiar with all of these top committees. Mister chair, I didn't realize that

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: we were hiring people when they were four years old.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I love

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: to be I love to It is not a birthday, but I'm gonna be happy.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: You need a water permit or something? Do you need a some project going on? Yeah. Good. Well

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Yeah. So, yeah. So, I've been in a role of overseeing the Required Act practices, or REPs, for probably sixteen years. I have a lot of experience dealing with homeowners, landowners, all types of folks, and trying to manage water quality issues. Whatever questions you have about this language or experiences we've had, I'm happy to share

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: with you. What do you have the questions on? What are we missing? What are we doing? Do you have any concerns with anything on one through three that you see that's problematic? Steve, as well, anything that we ought to be talking about with this. What we're trying to do is we're just trying to be informed of everything. There's a lot of converging opinions about what we should do during this section and all that stuff, we're just making sure that we're not missing anybody's voice, anybody's concern, because then we're gonna mark it up. Anything in here that is problematic with the agency or anywhere, any advocacy groups that have spoken out, anything like that, that's what we're looking for.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Well, I'll just give you a final little summary of kind of my understanding of where everything is, which is

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: just That's perfect.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: It's a very challenging situation as you can imagine. You know, there are definitely people who have neighbors that maybe have real impacts, maybe don't. It may be personality based, it may be truly actual based. And so navigating all those different variables, I think, can be very challenging for people and for the regular entity to do that work. And so, historically, we had operated that our understanding was the agency of ag was in charge of all agriculture. And of course, as the intro leaved up, the situation in Essex proved otherwise with the Supreme Court decision that came out. And I will say, so at this point, you've got the leading cities and towns looking, and it makes sense in terms of we want development in certain places to focus in those areas and to make sure that you've got protection so that people can do that development in a way that's being equal. And you have then the other spectrum, is all agriculture can be all agriculture. The agency has decided to be in the middle, essentially where there is a space where recognizing both sides have lots of merit. So trying to find that balance, because it is very difficult, you did right to harm, and that helps, right, where there are agricultural issues, but it doesn't stop anybody from taking action from somebody if they should choose. And the REPs are not nuisance regulations, they're farming regulations. The agency has authority on large farms on instance, but these ideas of it smells or it's loud or whatever it is, those are the kind of complaints that most commonly come up. And what we can walk in and do is say we can assess them and if they can assess what is going on, and are they following good agricultural practices? Because if they are, you should have those problems. But that doesn't always appeal to folks, right? Because it may not be about the smell of dairy. It's about the neighbor and the junk car or something, you know, like something else is frustrating them. And so a lot of times those will end up in whack a mole situations where then the next problem and the next complaint will follow. Again, I don't want to begrudge anybody who has a complaint. Take all complaints and take them very seriously, but I will say just over experience, it is not uncommon for some cases to get highlighted with lots of stuff. So if you spend a lot more time on those cases, so it is a resource challenge, nobody in the end is happy, right, because we don't have all the powers and tools to make them have what they desire. We look at it from an agricultural perspective and do that work. So that's why this middle ground was chosen to say, you know, in some spaces where it does get really tight and really close, people are focusing on making sure that there is development, and hopefully towns would have, and I think they do, this ability to, a lot of them have community gardens or other spaces where they make agriculture a priority for the community, you know, most people can grow gardens in their yards as well, right? That is not something that the agency or anybody wants to prohibit, but when it comes to livestock and it comes to agriculture in these densely populated areas, that's where we see the hardest challenges. So that's why we drew the line there.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So the languages that we have up here, the four acres, I just want to make sure that if we go on past this, as written, and I don't know if that's what it's going to be, but we have language in front of us right now as written. Do you have any concerns of the language that's in there the way it is right now?

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I think just making sure that when the final language is put together, that everybody understands where the lines are drawn, because I do think it can be challenging if you're new to this, and especially we already spend a lot of time with towns trying to educate them on where the lines are drawn, and so if there's any changes to this, you know, if anything, would just say, you know, make sure it's simple, make sure people can easily understand it, because that's where it becomes more challenging. People start to get ahead. We may not know, right? We're the agency of agriculture. We're not talking to every town every day, and so if a town goes to a space that they thought was a space they could go into, then we have some challenges because they've already done a significant amount of work. So, making things very clear is just highest priority, I would say. And in this proposal, it says below an acre, it does not mean state of agriculture. Between one and four acres, you know, there's some variability there. And so, that's where, you know, hopefully, that space right there is where we can figure out and make that the most efficient process, because right now I do see that there's a lot of pieces there that we will need to work out with the towns and other folks that are involved.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good to see you again, Laura.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sure.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: So I just have a couple of things here. Section one is our intent section, and there was a suggestion, I believe, from Senator Plunkett at one point to rework that a little bit so as to not ruffle feathers in the patella division. Know, the word misconstrue is in there, and that sort of takes a position. And I don't know whether you wanna weigh in on that or not. Probably not. But I think we probably still need to at least have some discussion about softening the language a little bit while still making it clear that it is our intent that municipalities don't regulate farming in whatever fashion we choose. That's one thing.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Can we talk about that just a Sure. Little I totally agree with all of what was just said, think, I don't know what the language will be, but we'll work on it, I want to soften it. Because I don't wanna use the word misconstrued because I really, I think that the Supreme Court was very gracious in the way that they used their words, just said, Listen, you don't have language in there. And until you have language in there, this is the way we gotta interpret it. Yeah, we can all say, Well, they should've gone longer, they should've gone into precedent, they should've gone into all that stuff. Maybe, or whatever, I don't know. I don't see it so much as misconstrued as you should just take for granted what you thought you had. You should have done

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: the work earlier and put the protections in there with words. Robert Plunkett? No, I agree. Think that the Supreme Court had their reading, they interpreted it the way they wanted. The legislature had a different interpretation of it, and they don't want to say that they did something that was radically just wrong. But it's it's it's just a minor sort of, like I don't know what word would would replace this next turner, but

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Oh, nice shirt one. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Actually, narrow interpretive is always a good one to mention. But

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: but I can I can I wanted to chat with with Steve a little bit about some Okay? More details on that so he can wrap my head around. It's still, to be Yeah. Have. And they've had to stay the way it is to meet them.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Anybody else on that water? On that, good. Okay. It's difficult.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So the other thing, there's three thresholds here and triggers in section three. One of them is a monetary threshold, which now is $2,000 We understand that the five was reached through a compromise, and some of us may feel strongly based on testimony we had earlier this week from the farm groups that returning to two might be something to consider. I'll just leave it at that. Schedule F is no longer in this bill, which also, at some point, could be brought in and included as sort of a second trigger. And then the third one is, to me, the most well, I don't know it's ambiguous. It's hard to kind of put a lariat if you were roping scared because it's moving all the time. If we took out any reference to how much acreage is involved, what does that do? In other words, if on line 12 on page six, it starts with, and I'll let people get to that part.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Does everybody have to get that?

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Okay. So it says, is raising, feeding, or managing livestock, and then it says, On at least one and less than four contiguous acres. What about if it read, Is raising, feeding, or managing livestock and has sufficient land base for appropriate nutrient and waste management, according to the Agency of Agriculture and the Secretary, they're in to decide how wide does that make it? Is it helpful, or is it just making it worse, I guess is my question.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I think it's a resource question, right? I'll just give you some numbers. Since 2019, well, around 2019, we started to get a lot of people, because a lot of legislation changed, right, and it was like, oh, if you're farming, the town wants you to make sure that you're farming, so get an answer from the agency, which, you know, we never formally did farm to German agents. Farming was just farming, people knew it. But these nuances started to come up, and people needed answers, and so we were starting to look through them, and it's like, my gosh, this is getting a little overwhelming, and so we were like, let's create a self certification, basically. So you go online and you answer the questions, and they're basically this list of stuff, right, the 40 F and all that.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: if you can self verify that, you know, we can look at what you're doing, and we ask you to do some desktop research, and make a determination for you. And that might have gotten you, you know, the accessory on farm business ability. That might have gotten you a stormwater exemption, that might have gotten you zoning or structure exemption. So, that's why people were coming to us. Once we created that system, we have had three thirty people come through that in March, in 2019.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Okay.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Which is not a high volume, but most of them are not the ones that you go, Oh, they're obviously farming. Right? They're not large farms, they're not medium farms. They're not the farms that you think of when you think of dairy agricultural terms of iron. They're often small parcels and people who are trying to navigate that stuff, and honestly, I've seen some pretty amazing small things that people are doing, and I've also seen people try to potentially abate the system.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yeah.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Those are harder, if I'm being honest, because you can see it. But there are some very smart people out there, and they read the law, they read the rule, and they understand how to navigate it. And so, those are challenges, because you understand the outcome may not be what you think it is. Then the resource issue becomes who checks up to make sure, okay, that person got that ability to build that structure or whatever it was. Are they still using it for that purpose? Is that our job? Is it even a municipality's job? We can't be mean, we've got to regulate the farming that's water quality. Right? We have this huge surge on our back to make sure that we meet these water quality goals. We can't go chasing backyard. I built a garage, but really, it wasn't a garage. And so that's where the resource concern comes in. Then, you know, the $2,000, it's pretty easy to beat, if I'm being honest. The $5,000 I still think people could pretty easily meet that. But it will potentially take out some of those ones that are a little bit less committed and maybe for other purposes. But that's not to say that not everybody has true good intent, to be clear. It's just of that bucket that you see that space, it's a pretty low bar sometimes to me. I think that's where that conversation ends in place. If there was a magic wand that I had to say, You are absolutely agriculture and you are not, I wish I had it, but the problem is that every single situation is different, and it comes up, and it's very hard to draw in bright, beautiful lines that say, You're in, you're out. So somewhere, the lines got to be drawn, and that was the discussion.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: To me, the acreage threshold is the one that is most squishy, and I don't know what the right amount is. Is it one acre? Is it three? Is it five? I don't know what the answer is, But I think with the other two triggers still in place, it would make it a little bit easier for a small farm to navigate the process. And I don't know whether you have any sort of magic, I keep talking about magic here, acreage number that,

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: you know, it's under an acre, and I don't know why it's an acre.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Yeah. So when we revised the RAPs, the major overhaul we did following, that's 2015. We looked at, okay, you have to have your manure pile this many feet from, you know, a road, you know, the property boundary or the other property, you know, like, if you set up a farm within a parcel, how big does the parcel need to be? And that's where we came up with four acres. We said if you're gonna actually meaningfully comply with the REPs and be able to meet all the setbacks, you need at least four acres with livestock. And if you're doing crops together that you don't need these manure, it's really when it gets involved the manure and setbacks. So that's why we drew the four acre line. The one acre is kind of a space where you really do start to get into dense development, and that's really why that conversation came up in that space. So, those are the two reasons that is helpful at all.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: But it would involve the municipal authority if it was outside those two thresholds.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Yeah, if it's under an acre, it's under municipal authority, and then between one and four acres, it really depends on their operation, and can they manage it appropriately or not.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Okay. And aren't we in this protecting already established small farms that might fall around us. Like if I've been doing it since 1960 and these rules come up and you have a neighbor that just moved in and tries to, it's like, is there protection in this?

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I have really Not in this bill, I don't think. And should

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: there be that in this line somewhere?

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I think in the right to farm there was a provision that had a come to nuisance, which is what you're talking about.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: But you'd still have to be declared harm, I think is what your question was. Right, and we didn't get into any of that with us. Think we're all just trying to figure out where to draw the lines now to make sure that

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Well, just want to protect people that have been doing it that somebody, like you said, people that really don't belong, especially if you get somebody moving that's new and looking to mess with the neighbor beside them who's been doing it.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, think the way you protect them is to be deemed by a chief of our culture department. It's to protect and follow these rules as far as where we're at. But I you know, and I and I think, senator, where we've gotten in a little trouble with the Supreme Court decision was that I know exactly where you're going. You know, I feel where you're going with it. I think maybe that's what got us in trouble with it, that we just assumed that that was going on. Then I can also see your point to where we well, you know, how we need to protect those people. But I also do believe that we're putting this language in there to protect those people, to protect them and the fact that they are they've been there for a long time. Yeah. Maybe they don't have that designation, but maybe they ought to be working with Laura and Steve and everyone else to make sure that they can fit in that bucket. Okay, just that worries me, like if somebody gets out

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: of the measuring state and goes, you only got three quarters of an acre here, not the whole time, I thought it was on at least an acre. Well, according to this, you're subject now to our locals on it's

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: a kind of thing.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Very that's a very good point. So, I don't know

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: if there's a way to fix that, and I just wanted to point it out.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yes, I think it's a very

[Steven Heffernan (Clerk), VT Agency of Agriculture]: good point. Yes, it's Steven Heffernan for the Department of Agriculture. It is a great question, and I would say that the proposal that you have in front of you increases protection for everything except for livestock. And what I mean by that, keep in mind that the old framework was you have to be farming, which means you need four acres, or you need to be selling agricultural products, or you need to be filing a schedule left, which means you're farming. There was no protection for homesteading. It was unless you had four acres of farm. So it was all about farming. So the the the we've the protection in this proposal for not just four acres, like you now can grow food without zoning if if you decide to go this way. You also can have poultry without zoning. You also can have livestock on from one to four acres if you have enough land to manage that. Those are all new additional protections. The one thing that would be lessened is that you need an acre for livestock to be exempt from zoning. So if you have an existing three acre farm that was raising livestock with three eight with three quarters of an acre, sorry, then that farm could be impacted, but it would only be covered now if it was, had sales. So it would either have to have, it couldn't just have two pigs and be covered under the old system. You had to be farming. So I don't know how many people there are that are farming livestock on less than an acre. There may be some, but because to be farming, you'd have to also be selling. And so, there is that very small group, but I would argue that the protections are much more increased than they are reduced, but there is that one acre threshold, and just like Laura said, the point of that is the agency of ag really can't be in a 100 unit, quarter acre subdivision lot, like regulating emus and pigs and the tents. It's we want people to be able to have them as long as it's as long as it's okay, but that's a community level decision in our in our viewpoint between the towns, the neighbors, tenants. It's really not farming. It's something that people can raise their own animals, that's great, and we don't, we're certainly supportive of that, but we just don't think our small agency can do that statewide in every suburban area of the state. I'm satisfied with

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: that. It

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: may need changes for people, right? Like I think of course operations are kind of often ones that are on relatively small acres, they'll buy and feed. It may mean that their manure management may need to change, right, compared to what they're doing today to be able to adequately check those animals potentially on that log. So, those might be some of the areas, because they're not selling things usually, right? Yes, yeah. They're more

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Actually, I have a neighbor that she's on probably a half acre with two horses, and before they stop, you know, got permission to put her on our property, that it's from a facility property.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Yeah.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: But, yeah, but she's been there fifty years. It's like, I just don't want a neighbor coming along now and saying, Hey, these are the rules if you have to change. And I don't know if there's a way to protect that person. You know, once they pass, then it's gone, but, or remove, then it's gone, but how do we protect the ones that do have a horse in the village, do have I guess that's my concern. And if there's a way we can do it, great. I'd like your explanation that a child like aspires farm status, that I see where you're coming from there. So it's like, this is good. This is good. So I don't know if that really falls under this anyway, because they're not really farming, they're tending their horses.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Which technically, you know, raising livestock, in my opinion, an agricultural activity. But again, the challenge, and the experience I've had is, you know, when you move into these small parcels with regulation and say to someone like, you know, you can't have that pile of newer right because it's right adjacent to maybe leaving a property boundary with, they often have wheelbarrows, they don't have tractors. And so exporting, coordinating, all that can be somewhat challenging. The flip side of that is, is to allow those people to say you're already locked in and you're protected. There are some that say everyone would look at because that one needs something different. Like, this one might be well managed with them. So, it's how you create those balances. Think it's just the real challenge that everyone is facing in this conversation. Appreciate all the work and thoughtfulness that you're putting into this. It's really important. Agriculture really matters, and growing and having the ability to protect food is just certainly appropriate.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think it gets down to the conversation we had just a few minutes ago about making sure we listened to the what I would say, the supreme court's charge, which is to if you want to have a favorable outcome, get your language right. And that's what we're really trying to do. We're not trying to micromanage it. We're just trying to get the language right. And

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: My question is more of a procedural one. It's my paper, attorney or more. So section three that we have is amending the rules by statute rather than amending the rules through rulemaking. And my question essentially is why are we doing it this way? Legislature in the past, obviously, we delegated the the authority to the agency because we rely on their expertise, but now we have it here in statute and saying, okay, here, General Assembly, we want you to do it, and usually, I just defer to the agency's expertise on this, so just wondering why we're doing it in statute.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: I will say, just quickly for your response, As a reference, just when Act 64 of 2015 came through and it a major overhaul, pretty much most of the stuff that came in the RIPs was put in statutes that we were to do, which you know cleaned up over the years, was taped out essentially, but it's not uncommon.

[Steven Heffernan (Clerk), VT Agency of Agriculture]: That I didn't know,

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: thank you.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: It's not uncommon. Obviously, it's lovely to be able to have the ability as an agency to go out, do that process, and get stakeholder feedback and all of that. This is an issue, though, that is a bigger policy issue that the legislature does need to weigh in on.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: That answers my question, Steve. You don't have to jump in if you don't have. I appreciate that. Sort of some historical background that I obviously don't have, so great.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Everybody good? Anything that you wish that you would've asked and we haven't?

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Or we asked and you wish we hadn't.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: No, no, no. Anything that you could suffer

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: or you wanna talk any more scenarios or call details, I'm always available. Okay. We have a lot of information about what people have asked for in the past. So

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: You're very helpful today. We appreciate you coming in. And, again, keep watching us, and if anything that we are have down the wrong path that's going to conflict and cause you to have to come in later to do some corrective action. We we hope to we hope to put some really good thought on this, and when it's all said and done by Wednesday, have very definitive language so that we can move forward on this very important topic.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Thank you for your time and thank you for taking this up.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sure.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Tough questions.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Thank you. We're going to

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: spend some time now on sections four, five, and seven. We have Will Baker and Bill Remick in. And who wants to lead off?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: It's your it's the reception that's gone. Okay.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I'll come first. Sounds good.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Good morning.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning. Thank you for coming.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: I'm Will Baker. I'm the legal director of the tax department.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Wild and crazy guys.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Yeah, that weekend. So congratulations. I've been at tax for eighteen years, as the legal director for about eight years. So we had some very exciting, more technical comments to the tax sections. Sure, you're all very excited to

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: hear it.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, we are because we are so far in the weeds on this that we need to, you know, we, we understand, but you know, we just because we put it down on this paper doesn't mean that any of it doable or makes sense. So don't be afraid to talk to us like third graders because we are really out of our element on this as far as the, know, we know what we want to do, but can we do it? So we here to listen.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Okay, sounds good. And you've got a few different tax types here too. So yeah, we're going be jumping around a little bit. So I'm just going to start on section four of the bill, is the general personal income section of our statutes, the section that we're all subject to. We file our personal income taxes every year. And the first change here that has made, I'm on page 10 of my eleventh, we're looking at just your sort of annual operating income here for a farmer. We're just going to work on schedule F and the idea here in the proposal is to exclude from tax any farm profit during the taxable year that doesn't exceed $10,000 So just a couple comments on this. So what we would do with something like this is that that income is reported on the federal income tax return and the Vermont links up to the federal adjusted gross income number. You calculate your federal return every year, take one of that line, jump over to the state return and you keep going with the state return. So something like this means for us is a recomputation of the federal return. You know, in essence, so we would look at the taxpayer's federal return and look at that schedule after it was if it is not exceeding $10,000 that we can pretend that it's zero, so to speak, and then sort of recomputed that AGI as it heads over to the bond return and the calculations keep going after that. Just a couple of comments on the provision as drafted. Not a whole heck of a lot of a benefit here. Right. You're at about $300 of tax for this. What is

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: it really to, I mean, at bar with that?

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Yeah, so if this is all that, if this is an individual farming, or husband and wife farming, and they've filed joint with their two spouses, should say, If they had for a profit that was either negative or didn't exceed 10,000, the benefit here up to the 10,000 would be a maximum benefit of $300 And just another example, say one spouse works off the farm, makes $64,000 a year, and then you had the farm operation going as well and it didn't exceed 10,000, that 10,000, at 64,000, the brackets get increasingly penalizing as it were for taxes. If you're at 64,000 and you would be at 74,000 with your firm income, but we're going to exclude it because of this proposal, that would be a savings of about $660 The more money you make, the higher up the bracket goes, oh, you get a little bit more of a benefit if you have some other income in there that you're taking the farm income out of, whereas if you're just farming and it's just $10,000 you're looking at $300 of tax for the year. So it does increase a little bit, but still, you're under $1,000 the Fed here with this proposal. Just something to think about.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. So at the moment, we don't have any net foreign profit exemption. Is that right? In other words, it's 10,000 a year. What is it now?

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: 0. No exemption. Okay. Yeah. We did take a look at our Schedule X, and- It doesn't trigger in any

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: way what we're talking about. It's a trigger for any of the others what we're trying to accomplish here. If we didn't have this, then it's going to make it hard to do with what the rest of what we're trying to do with this bill. If we took this out, I'll

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: No, it's unrelated to everything else. Unrelated to everything else. Also, just my other comment on this. Anyway, we did take a look at our Schedule Fs and most of them are negative. So we have very few file letters in Vermont with a schedule F over 100,000. The largest share is a loss of between 100,000 and a loss of 50,000. So yeah, no, think this is, if you left it out, it doesn't like, there's no domino effect. The other thing I would just mention about this is that the way it's drafted, there is kind of a cliff here. What I mean by that in the tax world is, know, there'd be zero tax on the $10,000 or less, but if you had $10,000 and one dollar of income, the whole thing is subject to tax. That's right. So if you're interested in moving us forward, one thing your legislature might think about is just excluding the first 10,000 of farm income, rather than no tax if your farm income does not exceed 10,000 because that would just take it out. So if you have 50,000 on your scheduled income, we would tax it as if it was 40. If you had 30, you would tax it as 20. And so there's no, you wouldn't get that like cliff of just $1 over and all of a sudden your tax bill. We do have cliffs elsewhere in the tax law. Generally, we try to avoid them and like smooth out. You've probably heard that with the property tax credit and homestead stuff. We try to smooth out those things, so if you're a dollar over 90,000 or a dollar under, you eat all this huge swing. It's a gradual.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And the reason why I'm being said about why it would, if it doesn't trigger something, why we would take it out, that it's just one less layer that we have to go to another committee and try to brand it through and less talk about. When the ultimate goal is, with what we're trying to do with this language, is to get farms to convey to other folks what the least amount of little impact that there is, fact wise. This is just going to trigger other, talking about triggers, I guess, is where I'm at now, This is going trigger other committees to be very nervous about it. Why wouldn't we just take it out when we're just trying to move these properties to further down the line to

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: You said it's only about a $300 savings?

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: $300 if that's your only income? That example that I gave on the couple earning 64,000 off the farm, 10,000 on the farm, you would have a savings of about $660 off a total tax bill of about $3,400 for the year. So it's a little more beneficial the higher your income goes, but if that's all you have for income, you're looking at about $300 Sure.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Well, does it have any negative impact on the budget? In other words, are we creating a budget hole if you multiply the 300 times 1,000 farmers?

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Yeah. While we ran some quick numbers here that I've mentioned, we haven't done a fiscal analysis of this on tax, nor I don't know if JFO asked for that. I don't believe.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: To the chair's question, the more of a hole, the bigger the hole you create, the more attention you're gonna have from the finance committees on our side and ways and means

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: across I the don't know the answer. I don't know how to grab a new one. Okay. So the next issue is just a couple lines down, and that's still on page 10. We're still talking about personal income tax here, but we're actually totally changing gears within personal income tax that we're talking about capital gain. So the 10,000 of the Schedule F, that's your constant ongoing operational income. What the next thing that we're talking about here is capital gain. So that's really exit the business. And so this proposal is to exclude from income, this capital gain for real estate that is part of the borrowing obligation. Right now, so we're talking about capital gains here. So as far as current treatment, we do have a capital gain exclusion of 40% in the statutes already. So generally speaking, if you otherwise meet the criteria you sell the farm, we do have capital gain solutions, dollars 5,000 for 40%, as long as it doesn't exceed your taxable income totals, it chop off a little bit. So we do already have a similar capital gain exclusion that's for any capital gain, not just about FAR related,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: but in the capital gain.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: And that was really, it's been in the law for years, and it's really kind of attempting to hit the same sort of circumstances when someone retires and sells their business, you know, there's a bright top back for Vermonters. So this is for Vermont.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Just changing any of what's already in existence substantially?

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: It is for farms because it goes from 40% to 100% of Okay.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: And a portion of that, I think, from property tax sales goes to the head fund?

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: No, no, this is income tax that we're talking about. Is capital gain, income tax, and income tax is general. Okay, all of it.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I thought a portion of

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: it went to the head. Guess not.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Actually, largest concern here, like if you take nothing away other than this comment, I think that this would be helpful. You've got the exclusion here as the sale of real estate that is part of a farming operation, and that was concerning to me because I think the language as written could open up some huge holes here. So real estate that's part of a farming operation, we otherwise have a definition of farming operation in the income And tax so that could be a $5,000,000 second home with some Christmas trees in the fields. So if it's any real estate that is part of a farming operation, I don't know what that means, of a farming operation. So my concern would be that you would want to Because unintended consequences there. And

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And even creating a loophole for people to jump in and do exactly what you just said. I got that field over there. I just wanna be a farmer now. I want some sergeant there, you

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: know, all of a sudden. So some ideas could be too late to current use, like you get this benefit if it's in current use, and so baked into the current use laws, you probably know, is exclusion for a house site, like you don't involve the home. Correct. And so you could think about current use statutory structures that if you wanted to do this further capital gain exclusion, could couch it in if it's been enrolled in current something like that, just to make sure that you're not getting any real estate that is part of farm operation.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Or could we decimate that it has to be recognized by a farm, by the agency, that'd be put in there as well?

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: It could, I don't know what the agency of Ag recognizes as farms or not, so I would leave that to know whether that's a little wise or not, I would have to

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Do they recognize tree farms in that as well?

[Steven Heffernan (Clerk), VT Agency of Agriculture]: You want me to Yes. Yeah, sure. There's no formal designation of farms except through the required agricultural practices rule that we're talking about. So something can be a farming activity. It really depends on what brick you're looking at. If you're looking at I-two 50, it's simply a farming activity. If you're looking at zoning, it's what we've all been talking about. If you, you know, if you have a dairy, obviously you need a dairy license, so it's, there's no broad definition of farm, there's about 50 something definitions of farm that can then provide statutes. So it's pretty specific.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: And then just our final concern on this, this portion is exactly what Ledge Katz, Kirby Keaton, mentioned the other day and here, which is that you have, so you're going to transfer the property to its buyer, and if the buyer stops, use it as a farm to develop it, and this sort of capital gain pops up again for the fire. Even though it's the seller's capital gain, the buyer's gonna pay the tax on that, and there's no timeline on that. So theoretically, could be years later, and the tax department would have concerns about accurately catching this, and the taxpayer might have concerns about accurately reporting it, because if you think about, do you know the details of your tax return for ten or fifteen years ago? Some people who keep meticulous records might. Otherwise, that could be really tricky, both for taxpayers trying to apply and for the department trying to make sure to tie, you know, that there's an open set in there that gets away from them because we, you know, in the personal income tax world, three, six years is kind of our fulfill of what we're looking at. Going back more than six years is very rare. So that would be a compliance concern for us, I think a concern for taxpayers about how they would keep track of this and do it correctly. Think Kirby Keaton mentioned there could be liens and things like that on the property. There could be that would be an administrative program that the Department would run. And things like this in the past that have not been popular with populations that deal with it, like a land gains tax exclusion that was in place if a builder bought and built the property within a few years. And then when they sold it, they would have to check with us and take a lease, clear off the property.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah. And that's the only way it's gonna get triggered again, is if there's a lien on it. Yeah. And it's been recorded. Yeah. And the real

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: estate attorneys really just like that, that leave process and try to clear it up right on the eve of our closing. Oh, yeah. It's just another sort of, you know, administrative encumbrance on the property that need to be cleared up. So doable, but it would be it would work for all involved. Okay. Moving on to section five.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I assume for the same reasons that the language is part of, you have the same concern here.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Yeah, same concern here, part the farm operation, and we don't define that. Other than in current use, we don't define that in the Act statute, so there can be extensive property that is part of the farm operation. And then a similar concern here is that you have this looming tax debt for the buyer if they developed. So that, again, the administrative work to track that over the years. And then the requirements here about these exemptions, if you're related by blood, marriage, civil union, or adoption, just to note that we already have property transfer exemptions for things like this. Whether So it's a farm or not, transfers from parent to child, transfers from spouses, grandparent to grandchild, those are already 100% exempt from property transfer tax. So, you you could take out these references to things that already have an exemption because they the real estate bar attorney would just move that over to the very clear exemption rather than hooking into this exemption that has kind of strings attached on the roof. And we also looked at property transfers with farms where they're coded the use of farm before and after the transfer. At 2025, there were 71 farm transfers that were up for $0 which means it was one of those exempts.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yep. Strand numbers. Somebody in the family got it, but somebody that worked there ten years wouldn't have gotten that. Correct.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Yeah, this is an exemption for this family transfer. 71 in 2025, compare that to 27 transfers in 2025 that had a price. So almost three times as many exempt transfers of farms than property tax, taxable farm transfers. So we are there are so my point is that there are already a lot of exempt transfers in this. This does add another one. I don't think you need the the spouses and parent child, but the employee, the farm operation employee, that be new exemption. That is something to think about.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Are you really not changing a lot of language just to add that one exemption in?

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Yeah. That would be a new property transfer tax exemption, and I don't the tax department would probably ask some questions about this buyer and evidence that they have been an employee for ten years.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah. Things like that. Yeah.

[Will Baker (Legal Director, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Yep. So it's really three different things here. You've got the operational income on the Schedule F exclusion, the capital gain issue, and then this property transfer tax issue. So those are three different sort of tax attributes on two different tax types. And so if you're wanting more concrete information about our concerns, I could pass them along to the Legislative Council, we can talk earlier about that. I think we're

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: going have some more community discussion about both four and five before we go have some people do more work. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. You've done a perfect job in to educate us on that. I I know I'm a lot of wise about it. I probably have some opinions about it that we can talk about as committees. Thank you. Thank you, Steve Will, very much. Good morning.

[Jill Remick (Director of Property Valuation & Review, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Good morning. My name is Jill Remick. I'm the Director of Property Evaluation and Review at the Doctor. Morgan. I just was tagging along to Will's testimony to address in Section eight seventy seven about donation of farm crops counting towards a way to measure income eligibility. Currently, the construct is there's a slightly different treatment for acres that are over 25 acre parcels versus under 25. This is specifically for if it is under 25 acres, there are sort of additional requirements to really continue to hold up the integrity of the program. So if we are expanding that measure of that $2,000 of farm income, we'd want to make sure that it is something that can be measured or evaluated right so it would to be something that was donated to sort of an official 501c3 or a government entity because our staff has to research. We do a lot of research on federal and state income tax returns for current use laws.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think it was Senator Baker that might have said that, yeah, you wouldn't want to do that because we could donate it and then they could sell it and make a profit on it. So yeah, I think we were aware of that, so that's very valuable to us.

[Jill Remick (Director of Property Valuation & Review, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: The $2,000 is a relatively low threshold as it is, so I'm not sure that that's really necessary to the standard.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, that'd be your only concern about that, that we'd have to put language in there to specify that it would go to a nonprofit, whatever, or

[Jill Remick (Director of Property Valuation & Review, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: Yeah, however, Legis Council wants to phrase that to make sure that it's like an official government fee or 501c3 or some sort of organization that has a tax deduction that can be demonstrated. That was Paul.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I'll leave Paul. I'll leave Okay. Paul, Any more questions about that? We good? Everybody good? It's like an easy one.

[Jill Remick (Director of Property Valuation & Review, VT Dept. of Taxes)]: You never know what you wanna talk about current

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: use. You. Well, we just did good. Thank you. Both very, very helpful. We're the in a current use. I think it is very important.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yeah. You know? And and having that language whatever that language that we've dealt with.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: See, worry about that, that, because that means you say, oh, to get this benefit, gotta get it to current use. Like, were just worried about the, with the tree farm. I don't know if there's a way to link it to income rather than current use because, that just forces people, like I have 77 acres that I could put in current use, but choose not to because I don't want to have the government tell me I have to do certain things throughout

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the You are the government.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yeah. To

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: your point, I mean, I I if it's even a new farmer, I I think I'm saying, I'm putting this out because I don't know what the wording is and how we, to your point, Chair, that we don't create loopholes. I don't know, but I know that we if we can close them in some way, shape,

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: or form,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: then then we need to do nothing.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: And I also think that well, and

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I also do believe it's something Laurie kind of said. I can't really recall exactly how she said that, but I will say this. And if you want to be if you wanna get the benefit of being somewhat of a barber, you've got to pay the play. You've got to do something. You've to do an act. So if you're trying to take advantage of this, then people hate going back to that word triggered, but, boy, that's all I got in my brain today. If you want to be part of this right here, what is going to make everybody aware that this is what you're doing? Current use. That's probably what you have to do to be able to take advantage of some of this stuff. You

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: are looking more from a revenue standpoint, though, right?

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I don't want to loophole, mate, that people can take advantage of advice. Yes, I got a, you know, I'm doing a tree farm in my million dollar, billion dollar house is sitting on nowadays, and I'm gonna use that to invest. Billion dollar house, Yeah. Do they have those inflation?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Only in your community. My

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: wife of rejection, property taxes are gone. And I'm the treasurer for God's sake, I haven't

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: even seen.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I don't want somebody to be able to take it that way, but I don't want somebody that's far from me. What we've heard is that some people don't take advantage of any state or federal programs that are farming just because they don't want to. They don't want somebody meddling their business. And I get that. And that's what I wanna that's the way when we farm, that's why my father said, No, if I'm going put up

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: a new pond, I'm going to

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: pay for that. Because I, you know, I'll listen to what they want, but I don't want to have to, you know, follow under

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the property. I could have done the same with some blame that I had. I certainly could have been in current use and all that. It makes it harder for me to do what I want to do later on. Let's go back to four and five. I think that section four is very complicated. And for me, it is anyways in my brain. And five, think we can get through very easy with just a little bit of a change. I see four as being a lot of work. I just want to ask the committee if that is something that you think you want to do.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yep. Well, I'd love to hear from the the farming coalition, about that. To me, it doesn't seem like a substantial break for most farmers, but if it is, I wanna hear that it is, because it does get pretty complicated, and it will become a matter of concern to other committees,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think. If the ultimate goal of this bill is to get it

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: on the floor and get it passed, the fewer exits we can have off the interstate, the better. I might be able I think

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: you bring up a very good point, how much is this worth of somebody hijacking our bill, and how much of a benefit it is to other folks.

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: If it's $300 that's one thing. It was $10,000 that a farmer could save. Well, that's a whole different thing. But maybe I'm wrong, and I depend on the coalition too, or the agency if they

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: wanna weigh in. But based on what Will Baker pulled this up, it doesn't seem like it's a substantial benefit. Not to an actual farmer, but that's where that whole thing came in, you have that, but have an additional income of $64,000 now, you just saved yourself instead of 300,000 Well, well. So that, for actual farmers, this will work, but that sort of would come in to find, oh, got a five acre Yeah,

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: that was with an AGI of 64, I think. Yeah, yep. So it's 164, now the numbers get bigger and bigger, but you're still only talking $10,000 with the apartment net profit.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: So you're full of Yeah. Think anything above 64 would just be the same 600 some month.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Oh. Because that's when you get to

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: that tax bracket, and that's Okay. If I'm understanding correctly. May not You wanna do my taxes? I'm not

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: a tax attorney, but I would

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: love to talk about taxes. Perhaps I went down

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: the road. Well, let's not talk about creating any new one. Maybe we should just get some more definition

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: on that. Okay. You guys wanna do that? You wanna get somebody else in here? So who do you think? Steve, do have any idea who we might pull in on something like that? I know it's not in your wheelhouse, but not really. I mean, that's gonna

[Steven Heffernan (Clerk), VT Agency of Agriculture]: that we've had discussions with the tax department about this before, and

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I I I think the takeaway for me is the cliff may not be ideal for anyone. Yeah. But, obviously the tax department needs to build it implemented, so whatever happens in that, I don't know what

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: the revenue impacts would be, so that's obviously Any recommendations for our

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: staff, we could call in?

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Outside of our folks at the tax department, just go for it. Yeah.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think it would actually have to get to a farmer, right? It'd have to be somebody I went with Griffin Paul. Know, this has got to

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: be a farmer slash tax attorney. It's good

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: to have to be somebody that had a lot more I just don't know where it comes into play. Would say it out loud, I'm not afraid to be wrong about it. I think it has to be somebody that wants to be like Paul, who wants to get into doing this, and probably has a lot more tax exposure than what most people have. Right. That's where it's at. We've had Paul come in. I'd like to get somebody that's more mainstream farming, but maybe that isn't who it's going to benefit. Maybe it is going to be exactly what I just said.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: It's going

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: to be somebody who has done well, sold some company, whatever it is. Whatever scenario that it is, but hey, you know what? I to find a way to give back in some way, and this is what I want to do. But again, I get nervous about what we talked about, about creating loopholes and what Yeah,

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I don't want to do that. Right. And I don't want to force somebody to go into land use if they want to keep their land. It's easier just to leave it out. Well, leave it out, but Let's not forget about that we still have

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: to find somebody to come in and talk about that. Yeah. So let's try to figure out I'll leave that unlimited. Section five, it sounds like it's as simple as adding a little work change in there to employee of ten years. Sounds that's pretty simple. Am I being over simplistic on that? Sounds like we don't have to change a lot of language. We just have to add that it would somebody who had been on the property for ten years, working on the property for ten years, and as the tax department has plainly said, we'd have to go back and verify that. That how everybody read that? You can read to

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: the other exemption that exists now.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah, because it already sounds like the parent, the blood relative, and all of that, it already sounds like they're already exempt. The only one that they didn't have exempt was the ten year employee. Yeah.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: The difference is 40% versus workers. Okay. I think that's in terms of money and stuff, but

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: that would be

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: a new thing for the employees. I'd like to see language on that to to to better understand what that change would be, but yeah, I think that's what I heard. I'm saying yes.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: But not a solid committal, but yeah.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So where are we gonna find some language on that? Probably with Will who just left or Kirkby? Kirkby? You're right, absolutely. Basically,

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: we're creating a new exemption in the property transfer tax section.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Right. We're adding one more person.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Very slim.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Very slim, but we're not looking, as far as I'm seeing it, unless you guys see it different, we're not looking to create any more language. We're adding one exemption. That will Very little effect, I think, on So I think probably it's Kirby to do both of these, right? Bring Kirby in and talk about Yeah. So Linda, we just answered our question about who we'd like to have come in.

[Laura DiPietro (Deputy Director, Water Quality Division, VT Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets)]: Yes.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Number seven, that was long winded testimony. And

[Senator Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: you stuck around for the rest of this. That's warm over here.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Where are we on that? What's everybody feel about that?

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: We need to let you know if they give

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: us what language they're proposing, speaking to a nonprofit

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: for their nation.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. So that's what we need as far as that.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: To be able to track that to nonprofit and be able to track it.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Maybe we can have Kirby talk about that as well. Okay. Well, I could see us getting through those three sessions fairly quickly. We good? Swing up for right now? Yeah. Take a break. Get until 10:30. Sure. Everybody good? Swing up. Everybody said what they wanna say? Yep. Okay. We'll take a break at 10:30, please. Thank you. Thanks. Yep. Thank you.