Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Please limit. Thank you. Okay, we are back into action. It's 10:30. We're gonna spend some times on sections one through three on our miscellaneous Ag Bill. This is the language about farmers begins to respected by local authority. We're spending a lot of time on this bill, on this section of it. We're going to have Steve Collier, General Counsel for the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets, and Abby Willard, Director, Agriculture Development Division, Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. We are going to go down through our language. We have Bradley Schulman, our attorney tomorrow, coming in. We're trying to put some patient touches on where we stand. I don't know exactly where we are just quite yet. We have the language in front of us. The committee will listen today and listen tomorrow and make a determination of where they want to be. So as it stands right now, who would like to lead up?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I would if that's okay. Welcome,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the floor is yours, sir.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Good morning. Good morning to you all. Steve Collier, Canadian State of Agriculture. I really appreciate all the time you're taking on this issue. I know it's kind of a lot of spiraling over actually some kind of small differences, and so what we are hoping to do is really just have a conversation with you all of where you think this should go, because we've been grappling with it for a long time, and I've talked to all the stakeholders who've come forward so far, and really, we're trying to find the compromise that serves everyone's interests, so it's our proposal. I continue to believe the differences between the Farm Coalition, the league and us are pretty small, but they're still important, and particularly important to some folks. So I would like to have answer whatever questions you may have, but also just kind of go through, again, a little bit, like, why we are where we are, that's okay.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That is exactly, yeah, if we could just start from the top, and as we go, we'll interrupt and go and talk and flush things out. And, you know, again, I tend to agree with you. I think just, you know, talking with the committee, you know, in the conversations, no formal discussions about really nailing it down. This is what today we'll do and tomorrow as well. But I don't think that the differences are vast. I think we just got pressures, all of us deeply have pressures from outside groups and just trying to find that compromise. As you're very well aware, I think that no matter where we end up today that farmers win. You know, I so, yeah, let's get into it. Okay, great.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: So just to take it from the top, the easiest thing to do would have been to simply restore the exemption as it was. So I mean, always thought it was there. The Supreme Court understandably perhaps, misunderstood the language, and so they they ruled in a way that was never intended. Easiest thing would do is say, okay. We're just gonna fix that. And then you wouldn't have to do much of anything that's there except restore what was in place. The problem with doing that is no one wants it. None none of the stakeholders wanna go back to just where it was. So so if that's why we're not proposing that, that was our first kind of thought, let's just fix it. Let's go back right to what we wanted. But nobody wanted that, and I think from our perspective, there were a couple of real reasons why it doesn't, objectively, it wasn't, the old status quo wasn't perfect, and so there were some ways to sort of remedy that. Remember, the old standard was you had to have four contiguous acres and be farming it, or you had to be commercially farming, meaning you either had $2,000 on average in agricultural sales every year or a schedule out. So it only applied to people with four acres or commercial farms. That's it. But because of the $2,000 or the Schedule F, the size of that commercial operation could be quite small. And so we always recognized that that was a potential gap in terms of us, you know, regulating a half an acre sheep farm in a mill of downtown, you know, arguably, you could make the $2,000 threshold, maybe the RAPs that we enforce don't really very well apply to that area, but we are always reluctant to raise the requirements because that means people don't have any protection, and some farms can be really successful on very small parcels of land. So that was one kind of gap, is the $2,000 The other gap was, from our perspective

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So before we get that $2,000 the committee's heard me ask it. I've yet to find anyone that is affected by the $5,000 versus the $2,000 I'm sure they're out there, but they haven't crossed our paths yet as far as being in this room. Not saying to cross the paths, that's probably unfair. We haven't seen anybody yet to say, Well, that is really going to hurt me as far as jumping to that $5,000 I get it, I also do believe, and I think that Senator Collamore and I might have had an offline discussion about it, something that you said the other day, or I should say that something you've said the other day in this room that to make it a little bit stricter might get away from some of the people that really aren't farming. They're really not farming. They're raising animals or they're raising pets. Well, they're really, really not farming just quite yet. I think that's as much protection as there is along the way, that making it that you guys don't have to go in to defend something that isn't really in the realm of what farming is. So that's just kind of the talk that I have. Anybody else that wants to jump in on that, feel free to put their thoughts on that. That is one sticking point I think that we are having with the advocates. Should it be two, should it be five? Where's that number? How did we get there? Why? I just wanted to

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: put it in. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's a very good question. I'm wondering whether, and you may not have data for this, Steve, how many farms would be involved if it was stayed at five and how many at two? In other words, I'm trying to get a picture of the differences between those two numbers.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: It's a great question. We don't have any specific data. There are, this is all based on the USDA survey census data, so it's not perfect. It's based on the survey, but still, we expect, we think there are about 5,500 farms in Vermont. That threshold is set as $1,000 in sales, so very small threshold. There are a lot of farms that make less than $10 a year, as an example, because that was a the league wanted to have the $10,000 standard at one time, so I looked at the survey data, and surprisingly, it was something like 50% of farms make less than $10,000 Now, granted, these are all pretty small farms, but there are people who are farming and can be successful, and that's kinda why we pushed back and said, that's too much. Can we go lower? And they agreed to go down to 5,000.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think that's a very, very important point that you made, as you started out with your comments at the beginning, that the stakeholders, they knew what they wanted and they knew what they didn't want, and this is already a compromise that's been made with one of the larger stakeholders now have a say. And are they gonna be upset if we don't stick to that five and then drop to two? Are we gonna lose them elsewhere?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: That's a great question. And so the way that our proposal is designed, I do not think the difference between 2,000 and 5,000 is important. I don't, because we're dealing with livestock separately, where the issues, I think, legitimately arose were with livestock, not with other kinds of farming on less than four acres. That said, we committed to the league that we would propose $5,000 as a compromise, and we're not moving off that position unless we can reach further agreement with them, which we're still trying to do. We still would love to get the consensus where everybody is right exactly in the same spot, but realistically, I do not think there's very much difference, because when you talk about, when you take livestock out of the equation, you're talking about farmers on less than four acres, and the difference is whether they're making 2,000 or 5,000, and I, I'm sure there are some. I don't think it's a lot, but you also, you take a lot of the importance out of that question when you give everyone the right to grow food, because these are people, we're not talking about livestock now, we're talking about plants, So you already can't be zoned now for growing food, so the importance of having that $2,000 threshold or $5,000 threshold goes away when you're talking about gardening. So it no longer matters. With poultry, there's a little bit more variability because with the proposal, you would be able to have a small backyard poultry flock, so again, that doesn't matter if you have the $2,000 or not, but we have had, there are a fair number of people who raise poultry on less than an acre sell their eggs. So there are, and that's what we got with the ducks in Essex, was that whole issue. So we wouldn't be stopping the small backyard poultry flock, but you might be making a commercial poultry operation on less than an acre subject to zoning. And then the question is, is that okay? Arguably it is. Do you really want 200 chickens in Downtown Stow on a half an acre? That's a legitimate question, but I still think it's a small group of people that are impacted by that, and the 2,005 is not a big difference. I think it's a good question for the league. If they had other things that are important to them, how much do they care about that? Did they

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: have that data driven, why they picked 10, or did you start returning to pick 10 and Scott?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: There was, I think a lot of people felt that $2,000 was too thresh was too permissive if you take away the land. Because if you've got four acres, the $2,000 doesn't matter. But if you've got a quarter of an acre and people are just trying to make that threshold so the town can't touch them, you know, that's nothing wrong with a person trying to do that, but it's maybe not the type of farming that has been traditionally exempt from selling. So just like the $2,000 number, you know, there's no there's no magic numbers anywhere here, I don't think. I think the the key was trying to only I think the important thing from my perspective is farming was always evaluated as being commercial or bigger scale, like big enough scale so that you could actually be regulated by us. Yep. Because we we don't we don't have the capacity to regulate tenth of an acre lots. You know, tenth, it's just not what we're designed to do. So that 2,000, 5,000, I know there are folks who are very passionate about it. I think when you deal with embroider issues, it sort of becomes almost irrelevant, but that doesn't mean other people can't disagree with that. But anyway, that was the gap we were trying to fill, was we didn't want to increase eligibility requirements to make farmers nonexempt, but we also wanted to make sure that, you know, right now, farmers can be zoned, all farms can be zoned, so, you know, we think it's really important to get away from that, and so if we're nibbling at the margins, we maybe are not thinking about the big picture as much. So anyway, that's the one. The other one was, you know, as we talk about livestock, like, with the $2,000 and schedule f threshold, there was no land based requirement at all. So the only land based requirement was could you comply with the RAPs, but again, the RAPs really aren't set up for 10 different acres properties. I've given you the example of the goats that we have downtown living in a basement, centered heifer being raised. What's the difference between a pet and livestock? And it it's true. There are, you know, there are different ways to regulate this, but I I think importantly, like, what the so so basically, we are trying to go back to where we were with plugging those gaps. Both the league and the Farm Coalition are are asking for more than they have, and and that's where I think our proposal is different. We're asking to go back to where we were except for in areas where everyone agrees it should be different. Growing plants, backyard poultry, and, you know, so on. And also, right now, we only regulate livestock on four acres unless you have the unless you're a commercial farm. And so we're proposing shrinking that down to one acre, because we think the one the four acres is, you know, maybe too much, because we do wanna encourage farming, and the league is okay with that. So the only place that we are asking for more than the farmers had, or more authority that we had, is where there's consensus with the other stakeholders. In contrast, the farm coalition, understandably, but they're asking for more than they had. They're asking to say towns can't regulate livestock at all, if the agency determines that there's enough, that they can properly manage their waste and nutrients. So the waste and nutrients issue, which we propose from the one to four acres, that's a fine standard when you have some land, but people can export to waste. So you could arguably have, you know, five pigs in your garage, clean out your garage every day, bring it to a manure pit somewhere else, and be properly managing your nutrients and waste, because you're not discharging waste to a neighbor, you're not doing anything necessarily that's violative of the RIPs, but we're not set up to regulate pigs in the garage, and that's not, you know, that's not what we were You need, for us to be able to adequately regulate you, you need some land, because that's what we're looking at. How are you managing your land? And how much land is that, you know, that we can up for discussion, but we really can't effectively regulate pigs in a garage, or, you know, an emu in

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: a shed

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: that it's on a quarter of an acre. We're just not set up to do that. And so the question is, do do towns get to do it? They have been able to do it. Towns, before the Supreme Court decision, they could regulate Uh-huh. Whole livestock on under four acres, unless somebody was commercially farming. And they could also regulate livestock on more than four acres if the landowner didn't have a certain specified number of animals. So you could have 100 acres and two horses, the town, that was subject to zoning by the town. I don't think towns were zoning that, but they could. So the coalition is, like, using the Supreme Court's decision to ask for more, which is legitimate, but we already agreed, yes, more, everybody should be able to grow food. Yes, more, everybody should be able to have small backyard poultry, but they wanna expand that even further to towns can't regulate livestock, the agency of agriculture should, and without any minimum land based requirement. And I just, I don't, I don't know what the basis is for taking away the rights towns have had that seem to work pretty well. We haven't had, I'm not aware of big problems with a town allowing a few goats. We want them to. We want towns to allow livestock wherever it's reasonable, but that doesn't mean it's farming with these to see if agriculture can adequately regulate in downtowns. You know, we can't be looking at 20 ducks in Downtown Burlington, We but we'd have to, if it's our responsibility. But a town with that has a government, and that has we we want towns to allow that, but it's just we're trying to not change the status quo. So that's kind of where, like, we're not asking for anything new. We're asking to go back to where we were, but plug some gaps where everybody agrees it's appropriate to do that. And then on the flip side, the league, you know, they've been great. They they could've they could've easily come in here and said, We just got the biggest win from the Supreme Court we've had in a long time. We should. It should be about local control. We should be able to regulate farming. Why not? Fortunately, they're not taking that position. I don't know if it would have any support in this building or not. No, maybe

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: we ought to spend a little time on that. I don't want to take away the thought process of the committee. Maybe we ought to just look at the overall picture and say, Okay, we agreed to offer this for word for word for word. We just said yes. There you go. What is it that that the farming community lost by agreeing to this end of the Supreme Court decision? Where where what did we lose?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: That's a great question. I would say that there are two potential people who lose if we if you adopted the languages in front of you. It's somebody who's commercially farming livestock on less than an acre. I don't I don't know. They're they'd have at least 2,000

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Less than an acre.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Less than an acre. Because if you have more than an acre, that could still be us. They wouldn't lose anything. If you went to funder an acre and you're commercially farming, this is not pets, this is not the hemo and the croc, this is commercially farming livestock on less than an acre, those people could be newly subject to missed those topics. Because under the old system, if they had $2,000 or a Schedule App and they were on less than an acre, that would be us. It's like the ducks in Essex. The duck farmer wouldn't lose because he can have a small poultry backyard poultry flock under this language. But if you had livestock, if you had pigs on less than an acre, and you were commercially farming them, those people could lose under this system. I don't know if those situations exist or not. Can we put a waiver in that if they're doing good farm practices and are under

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: the allowable, under an acre that they could continue? Is there a way where we can put in that somebody can't start it

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: up, but if you are doing it right now- You'd already been doing it?

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Yeah. As of this date?

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Grab on it.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Yeah, I think you That way if they're doing best practices and it's, especially if the neighbors aren't, you if you've been doing it for years and nobody's complaining and then all of a sudden a new neighbor comes in and takes his satellite view and it's like, oh, you've got 5.5 acres there. Then he could go to the zoning board and start an issue and they have to look it up and if they, or they have to pursue it, that would be, that's what I would read out. And if we can grandfather it, provide good practices that then they can't touch.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I think that's possible. I can't, we can't recommend that just because we have this agreement with the league that we would stick to it. But I would, I would say that is along the lines of my broader thinking, which is this conversation doesn't have to be over. You know, from our perspective, we are trying to go back to where we were, but and I've said that I'm I've said this to the other stakeholders, and we continue to. If I don't know of any situations where that exist, where somebody has pigs on half an acre and they're commercially farming, but if it does, then then we weren't regulating that because or but it doesn't mean they wouldn't have the protection. And but the towns were apparently allowing it to happen. So part of my thinking is, to the Farm Coalition, if there are farmers in these situations that are having problems, let's start with the town, you know, if it's not us, and say, what what can we do? But if towns aren't allowing it, then the legislature could always step in to say, and it wouldn't necessarily have to be Doctor. Russ, it could just be, towns must allow, you know, X, which I don't think we're prepared to ask for that now, because we don't even know what X is, and we don't know if there's anybody doing this. So I know that's an imperfect solution. Think you could do the grandfather if you wanted to, but that's the other people I would say that, other than an under an acre of livestock farming, are people who are on less than four acres and are making less than $5,000. And those people could be distinctly affected, although you're not talking about livestock, so you can grow plants. So so those people, I'm not sure they really they wouldn't be affected in terms of their ability to grow plants. The only place that they might get into trouble is if they wanna have an accessory on farm business, because if you have an accessory on farm business, you also get some protection from zoning. You can be regulated but nonstop. But again, that's that group of people on less than four acres, and they're making not $5,000 And they can still grow plants, whether or not they could sell them through an accessory out farm business and sell other products, that could be up for speed. So, again, you could maybe create that grandfather if you wanted to, or we could, you know, continue the dial. We do we are aware a person who had strawberry, I think you all heard about a strawberry farmer up in the Northwest part of the state who had pick your own strawberry three acres, if I remember correctly. I think she exceeded the $5,000 threshold, but she was having trouble with a neighbor because she wanted to sell creamies too, which you can do is assess her non farm business, and the neighbor's suitor is over that. So that's but I think she would make that threshold, but if she didn't if she had less than $2,000 then that could impact somebody like her. But that's it. I mean, everyone else gets more protection. The livestock on one acre is protected as opposed to four. Person growing plants is protected regardless of whether they're commercially farming. Small backyard poultry is protected regardless of whether they're commercially farming. So there are those two little subsets that might be vulnerable, but everything else would be going back to every other farmer would be protected at least as much as they were, which right now, no one's protected. So that's kind of the

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So we're splitting some hairs here.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Yeah. And in terms of the league, like, they're they're good with this proposal. They like our livestock solution for almost all of the state, but they want to be able to zone farming in tier one a and tier one b areas, which are the more densely populated areas. I understand, again, totally understand why they want to, but it's not something they've ever had. You know, that what they're asking to do is to be able to zone farming areas that are exempt from Act two fifty because because they're densely populated, because there's this desire, tier one a and b, to have to have growth, but it's there's no nexus from the historical framework, there's no nexus whatsoever for their request. Zac two fifty has never regulated farming. Municipalities couldn't regulate farming, so it's just an extra. It's just they didn't have it, never had it. I'm not aware of any I mean, there's always some problems in some areas, but I'm not aware of any sort of broad based concern that in more than in tier one a and tier one b areas, there was a need for municipal zoning. So, you know, our request to them is we understand where you are. We're very thankful for the agreement. But, like, do you have an example? Like, why? Why do you need to be able to zone these farms when you've never been able to? And why do these farms in these areas, if they're successful, why do they need extra burdens? Why do they need extra regulation? And it but, again, my kind of feeling with them is if the situ we don't even know what the maps are yet. So it's all kind of it's all a bit speculative. But if if we get the maps and if there are some problems with farms in those areas, let's talk about it. You know, maybe we can help with our regulations to address them, and if we can't, maybe we talk about some legislative solutions in those areas. If there are some real public safety risks, if there are some real concerns, let's address them. But we don't need to sort of have this prophylactic measure where we're not even aware of any problem other than just, like, let's get more than we had, which, I mean, they could have come in here and said we want it all. So I'm not saying it's not an appropriate request, but if our goal is to go back to where we were and only expand on things that everybody agrees to, then we can, on the margins, maybe we just keep talking to each other, if there's a problem, we try to fix it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Not to, please understand, I'm not trying

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: to use your own words. I wanna tear this thing all apart. Okay. Don't worry about the word.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: You did say that the diff that it was a negligible difference between two and five thousand. I think I don't know where you used the word negligible, but you said it it didn't really matter one way or another. So my I guess my position would be then leave it at two. If it really doesn't make any difference, let what has stood go back in, add the Schedule F again, and then the acreage is the one to me that trips trips me up. How about if you said for those farmers where livestock is involved and it's under an acre and complaint driven, municipalities have the right to go in and regulate that. Everything that doesn't involve livestock, whether it's a half acre or a thousand acres that's just talking about plants, is the Agency of Agriculture's jurisdiction. Does that?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: That is our, the last part of what you said is our intent. We only want to change livestock under an insurer. An acre and above could be us as long as it's appropriate, as long as they can manage it.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: According to the secretary. Yeah.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Yeah. And for for other things other than livestock, like, it can be under an acre, and it could still be us. You just have to meet the threshold between the the five or the two or the schedule f. I don't like I said, I I really don't think when you when you address livestock separately, you take that out of the equation because livestock on a quarter of an acre is a different beast. It is. And I I agree with that. Yeah.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Why why would they So I did this. I had the acreage, but I didn't do it. But I did a scheduled F. My insurance company, and I had different insurance. Yeah, it cost me a little bit more, but I wanted to be able to be adopted and all that stuff. And it all kind of went together. I mean, had to have the insurance, I had to do the Schedule A, all that stuff. Why would somebody, what was it, just throwing it out there because you never know. But anyways, why would somebody who was at the $2,000 threshold be doing a Schedule F anyways? They they should be, but it the the issue for me

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: with a Schedule F is there there's really no as I understand it, you can if you have any income or expenses from farming, you can file a Schedule F. So I don't, I think you can file one for $10 if you want, so, so it's a potential loophole. Know, the question and I'm not saying anyone's using it as a loophole. And anybody can file a schedule f. Nothing about this conversation is gonna change whether somebody can file a schedule out. The question is whether you can be exempt from zoning. So if you buy one chicken and sell it to your neighbor for $10, and you file a Schedule F, does that mean that you are not subject to zoning? I think arguably To me, it kind of proves your farming. I follow, I follow the Schedule F. Well, it does, but I think the leagues, the league is does not want to regulate farming. You know, they've been very clear about that. I think what they're worried about is the as everyone is, is the person who's abusing this threshold to try to skirt skirt the corn. So you're, you know, you're on a tenth of an acre in the middle of town, you sell one chicken, you file a schedule f, town can't touch you. That that, I think, is their concern. I don't think that they care about and and but they've also agreed, we don't wanna regulate small backyard. Whole sheep's lot, so that's great. Then it's not the chicken, it's the pig. And, you know, you have a pig in the backyard on tenth of an acre, and all the neighbors are complaining. You you sell the bacon, you know, you slaughter the pig, sell the bacon to a neighbor, file a schedule out, and now the town can't touch you. That's, I think, what they're concerned about, and I think that's legitimate. You know, people can have different positions, but the reality is we can effectively regulate that pig on a tenth of an acre, and so if it's causing all kinds of problems, like, it does seem like that's a fair issue between the town, the citizens, the landowner, and it's not really the type of farming that necessitates the same treatment throughout the state. Because if we're out there looking after every duck and rabbit, you know, in the state, like, that's we're not gonna be able to do what we need to do and protect the water quality. So it is balanced, but I but it it I don't think the 2,000, 5,000 really makes a difference, but I can't, but part of compromise is, you know Yeah, I get it. Yeah, we're gonna, you know, we really appreciate the league has gotten here saying, Why can't we graduate? South Burlington has some interests that are very different from the Agency of Agriculture, so we should be able to regulate farming different in South Burlington than in Turkey, and they're not doing that. So,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: it's going to happen to

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: me that 2,000, 5,000, like, wherever that comes out, I think very, very, very few people will be impacted. Maybe some. But if we don't restore the exemption, everybody who's farming needs to save could be impacted. Except for towns that don't have something, I guess. Many do? I think I heard the league say 109 don't have a Yeah. Living bacteria on It's, I think it is around half and half, but obviously the type of can vary widely. There's plenty of communities that also, that have zoning that don't wanna regulate livestock. In Burlington years ago, there was someone slaughtering livestock in Downtown Burlington, so there was some kind of issues about that because the neighbors were seeing it, and so Yeah.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, it true in London. They were doing it. They they were slaughtering livestock. They were a licensed slaughterhouse, and they had a compost pile in in a neighborhood. They were legal. Well, that's part of

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: the thing. When you can farm, you could you could do more. Compost is great, but if you don't have a land based requirement, and keeping in mind four acres was the standard that we, the agency, thought you could responsibly farm on, and we're trying to lower that, because we don't wanna be that restricted, But we also don't, we can't really get in the middle of regulating our downtowns. So, but we're still talking with the parties, you know, we would love to get a 100% consensus. I don't know if that's gonna happen or not, but I but I do I really don't think we're far apart, but you all need to grapple with this issue.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I'd like this committee by tomorrow to try to find consensus amongst ourselves, and that doesn't mean that that's where it needs to be. But And if we can't, we can. If we gotta still keep on having conversations on good or not, you guys drive the ship when it comes to that. But I'd like to try to get one in three as close to being done as what we can. But again, I don't know that we're ready to handle that out in the room right now. Maybe there's some more conversations we need to have outside with the groups of people or whatever. Possibly, but

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Steve's explained it quite well that there's, I worry about that small, but after you explaining it as well, I'm pretty happy with the language because I wanna get back out there and start protecting the virus that we have. So my consensus is a couple of tweaks, two to five, you know, if we could figure that out and if we can protect farmers, say we haven't seen it, I just worry once you make the law, then it pops up. Sure.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I think that before That's my consensus. And with that, I think that we better get what the leak said about that a little

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: bit as well. I mean, I agree,

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: counsel, that we are very blessed to have the leagues with us on this. It could be a lot worse. It really, really could be. And they've said over and over and over, they said half a dozen times when they, we don't want to regulate partners. I mean, when they're sitting here and I take that for their word that they want to do. So I just want to be careful about how much we take advantage of somebody's good grace and that we work with them in good faith, and I think that we are, but also, I mean, how many times do you split the baby? Is, again, I don't want to appear ungrateful, but we'll do with what we gotta do.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yes. So oftentimes people will, especially if it's an appropriation issue, ask for more than what they really feel sincerely and honestly in their heart they're gonna actually get, and I don't know how close the three provisions because to me, again, there's three. There's the monetary provision of the 2,005 thousand. There's the acreage, which trips me up more than the other two, and then they're scheduled up. So those are the three. And maybe the coalition would be willing to compromise on one of those to come closer to what's in the bill. I mean, I'll put my cards on the table. Right now, I I feel like the 2,000 and the Schedule F are important, and I'm willing to certainly listen to any compromise with regards specifically to livestock farming under an anchor. Can I move my position? Yeah, probably. If somebody comes in and talks to me and convinces me of that. I don't want to get off that, but Section one, we still have to address the language where we're basically addressing the Supreme Court.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I was going to talk to Senator Plunkett Okay. About Did you explain that too?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: We just said a few. Steve, it's

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: only language that I'm good with. Okay. I wanted to ask you about that, and then any other language that, any proponents of language within what we're doing.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I sent it to your legislative council too, just because I wanted him to be aware about it. To show him? Yep. To both Mike and and Bradley. Okay. Yeah. It's just a minor tweak just to soften it. Yeah. Yeah. So I'm gonna send it to to Linda right now. Are you good with that, Amy? That's fine. Sorry. I I could have sent it to the whole committee.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Just No. It's fine. No. No. He's the only attorney on the No. He is our he is our licensed guy.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Just it softens the language. It says the same thing. Okay. But adding the little bit of history with the 2015 act, I like that a lot. Yeah. I think it also sends a signal that this is what we were

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: So this language is not what people have right now.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Right. Yeah. It changes it to misunderstanding from unintentional consequences. It's a good stretch to take it out.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So you're gonna be fine with that Senator? Yes. Certainly.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Can I ask Senator a couple more questions? Sure, absolutely. So the 2,000 in the Schedule Act, are you concerned about livestock on less than an acre and applying to that, or are you comfortable with towns having authority on less than an acre over livestock? Are those

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: I don't think they're mutually exclusive. I think the municipality does have somewhat of a jurisdictional landscape if whatever's going on

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: on that

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: under an acre is really impacting neighbors, whether it's smell or Yeah. I understand that, and I and I know I feel that way if I lived next to somebody that had 20 pigs on a half an acre. I I it wouldn't it wouldn't work too well. But I don't wanna constrict the ability of anyone to grow food, and I include livestock as growing food. So I don't know where to compromise this, Steve. It's an excellent question. Could I be convinced to just go with what we have in front of us? Probably. But my immediate reaction, because the coalition did represent, let's be honest, a number of organizations and entities that don't always see the world exactly the same way. So I appreciated that they did come out with these recommendations and suggestions for us, and they carry a lot of weight, but your agency also carries a lot of weight, and to some degree, the league does too. They don't come in here often, so I don't know if that answers

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: your question. Well, was just wondering if there was an opportunity to build further consensus Sure. On that point. And I guess the only thing I would say about that is that towns already had authority under an acre, under four acres, unless someone was commercially farming. So then the question is, how do we draw that line? I mean, you know, raising your own livestock or pets versus farming. I don't think there's a magic answer, but is asking for quite a bit more than So just how do we But I would love to be able to build, you know, a consensus on that point, and I think maybe if there was a clear requirement or minimum acreage requirement for livestock, maybe the monetary thresholds could be another point of compromise. Okay. But I think I know the league is very concerned about having no authority over my stock anywhere, because that's never been the case.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: And that's understandable. It's an added headache for them in a way. Right. Because they're gonna have to if they're gonna, you know, rule on it, they're gonna have to get somebody involved, and that takes time and money and everything else. Yeah. And I think they're worried it will hurting a

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: lot of conflicts that they used to have some say in, and they wouldn't, and we wouldn't be much of

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: a backstop.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Like, big smell, there's not a whole lot we can do about it Right. Yeah. Other than have you manage your waste effectively. Right. If you're right in the middle of town, you don't have it. There's not anything we can do.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: That's the old expression, lipstick on

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the pig. It's Yes. It

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: it sounds as if the the number of under an acre with livestock is negligible.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: When you're talking about commercial farming, I think so. There's probably a lot of people that have a goat. Yeah. But, yeah.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: So I'm just I'm just trying to wrap my head around the under so could it be to senator Heffernan's if we grandfather and have an exemption, and then

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I just

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: don't wanna stop there, maybe an inspection every year to make sure that they have proper ways to spokeshold and things of that nature. That kind of eliminates the

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: hiring lawyers.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sorry. What could be the proof of the grandfather?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: It could get tricky. It'd be easy three months down the

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: road, but. That's what I'm that's what I'm nervous about that everybody uses this as the Yeah. As the album. Yeah. I was doing this. Didn't you know? And when you guys don't know because you weren't there. I know. So where is there where

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Maybe. Lawyers you can hire to straighten up.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Do you to get do you want to get it for now? Well, that's what I get to know.

[Senator Robert Plunkett (Member)]: You have to register by x date. And then if you don't register by that date, you don't

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: What's that mechanism? What's what's in place already that they could register to or whatever? I mean, are you competing on are you are you creating a whole another bureaucracy of something that Well, keeps us in the system. Well,

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: there's certainly no large or medium funds that the agency isn't aware of. I I don't operate really small ones.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: There are. We don't either. Let's give

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: us some real good thought before we go down that path and make sure that's what we wanna trip up the bill. I will do whatever the committee wants. I just wanna I will do whatever you guys decide. You know? That is the way that it is, but let's just be thoughtful. Let's be thoughtful about what we do.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I mean, one if I may. Yeah. Absolutely. Please. One way I've been thinking about this is if if they're already there, then apparently there aren't any problems. And so so if somebody has three goats on a quarter of an acre and that's been happening, we haven't stopped it. The town apparently hasn't stopped it. I'm not so I I And I have

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: to go back to that this leak says, we don't wanna stop farming. Right. And so we're not because we passed this, we're not gonna go and change it if it's there already. Right.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Now the town a town might have a regulation that says you can't have livestock Right. Or you can't have certain kinds of livestock, but that preexisted. That wouldn't be a change. So I I I think the you never know, there's always the anomaly, but I think if someone currently has livestock on less than an acre, they've been able to do it. So I'm not sure that anything would change about this. Okay. Now the, you know, the one difference, they're, you know, if they're commercial, then they wouldn't be able to, they wouldn't be able to do that under the agency of ag. It would have to be with their town. I don't, I'm not sure if there's any of those right now or not. But they, but again, it's whatever they've been doing, they've apparently been able to do.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sure. But

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: if there's anything that, you know, you would like us to explore with the other stakeholders to, you know, happy to do it. We really try to come to what, any changes were only those that were agreed upon, everything else was trying to get back to where we were with, you know, plugging those gaps that everybody nobody wanted us to go back to right where we were, so

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So let me say let me ask this, because I do want everybody to think about all the positions that we're having or whatever, and I don't think it's anything that great. Once we sit down with Bradley tomorrow and we start putting pen to paper and all that, is there anything so terrible that was sent today that that we can't that that's gonna blow anything up?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I I don't think so. And I know there's been some trepidation in pro bodies about amending the RIPs, which we've talked about. I don't think it's different whether you do it in statute or whether you do the RIPs, but I have drafted some language that would do the same thing. It would just be in statute instead of the RIPs. So it would just it would just say replace and repeal this section of the RIPs and put it right in title six, which is the agriculture statute. It's a because it was fresh language instead of amending existing language, it's a little bit cleaner on the one acre issue. Mhmm. Because that's that's a little wonky, the one to four, and it was amending existing language, but the whole point is keeping the four acres, because everyone was happy with that, but lowering that threshold down to one as long as there was enough as long as

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the person could manage their nutrients in place. We're just getting some testimony on our RAPs for anybody that's gonna listen and look at this later and all that stuff, And I think that you and I might have had a discussion about that we're not looking to change any RAPs. We're not looking to do anything as far as with that. So can you talk about that just for a moment? Yeah.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: The so everyone a lot of people have mentioned they're concerned about opening up the RAPs, and and there's two things. One, that's normally done through rulemaking, so that's a whole separate process that we're not talking about, but the other is, I think a lot of people remember amending the RAPs and the statutory changes that went to that, which led to the change of the word, changing the word accepted to required, which led to the Supreme Court opinion, is that there's a lot of consternation over that, and a lot of that was about how heavily are we going to regulate farms, because the requirements were substantially increased. There's plenty of people around this building who don't think they were increased enough, and so they want them to go higher still. That's not part of this discussion. It hasn't been. I mean, anybody could make it part of the discussion, but the whole part of this discussion has been what is farming that's exempt from municipal zoning and what can what can towns zone? It's not about how we should be regulating farms, you know, how strict the requirements should be. That's a whole different discussion that has nothing to do with this. Somebody could use it as an opening, just like they always can, but it's not, this is not about, we believe that the onus on farmers and on us is not to increase the existing requirements, but to make sure that everyone's following them. You know, we believe the regulations are adequate. There are some instances where folks aren't following them, and we've got to do a better job with that. But we don't think that farms, you know, we believe farms are regulated more heavily in Vermont than almost anywhere, and we don't think that they need to be more heavily regulated. We think we need to make sure that people are following the rules and that there's assistance with them to be able to do it because it is very expensive, even a lot of the things that we require. And on that

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: point, anybody on the outside, anybody getting such pressure from the outside that if we pass this thing, that it's gonna be hard to get through the Senate? Everybody feeling that you're not getting pressured or anything as far

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: as anything like that? No. Okay. I did note that Steve said we're still talking with other stakeholders, which is great. If someone watches today's testimony and then taps you on the shoulder and say, Hey, you know what? It would be great if you could, in the end, come back maybe with somebody that represents a coalition and say, Hey, we finally agreed this is what it should be. Because I think that would help some of us to move forward. That's really what

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: we wanted to do I from the

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Well, you did a good job.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Time is a ticket for anybody that's listening and anybody's here because we're gonna put some language together tomorrow. We're gonna have to put some language tomorrow that won't be the you know, it doesn't have to be the final word, but we're trying to make it the final word for us to get on through sections one through three. If anybody's listening, great. Let it be known. We'll be in tomorrow at ten What time?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: 10:40

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: 10:45 with Bradley Schulman. We're gonna try to get some language down. Anything else that anybody wants to bring up? I think we've had a really open and just a great discussion. Anything else that anybody wants to get out? Are you are you folks good? Yeah.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: And I I would just say that although we're necessarily focused on the disagreements because that's what needs to be resolved, the the consensus is far broader Well, I think than the disagreements.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I I think that I think that to where we are right now compared to where the gut wrenching process was when a decision first came out, where it's not as bad as what everybody was thinking it was going to be. So I'm glad to, as Senator Heffernan decided, to get some protections back in and as well are there, and I'm glad that we have stakeholder agreements and that it's just splitting some hairs that we're at right now. Again, we wanna, you know, I think the thing I'm most proud about this committee, and I don't know if it's all right here, but I think the most proudest that I am, is that we are willing to look at the smallest thing that's going to impact farming in any way that it is and consider that so that the small person's voice is being heard. And the big person's voice is being heard as well, that we are willing to consider it all and protect all. I yeah. We do a good job of that.

[Senator Brian Collamore (Member)]: Is the house doing anything in this regard, is it this the vehicle? So they have they are. The house added

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: committee released its version last week. Oh. And it would make right to grow food include livestock. So it would basically adopt the coalition's perspective on that point. We haven't had much conversation with House Ag about it. We did before their language. They would not be amending the RAPs. They would only be amending statute, but they would create this basically Livestock Anywhere proposal, which the league is very concerned about. And so we we're still gonna be talking about that. That's what's kind of prompted this next layer of conversations and why we're Okay. We're always open to talk. Good to know it. But I don't know where they're gonna come down on that. When they did talk about it the first time late last week. A few of the representatives voiced some concern about the livestock issue, so I don't I don't think they're anywhere near

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I want the league to agree with the language that we put out. I I just think it's all I think that's very, very important. I think that if we can't if we can't get their gob, their head in the right direction, wholeheartedly support with what we have, then we haven't bargained in good faith.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: And we're so close at any point. Yeah. Like you said, we're splitting hairs now. Yeah. We should I'm pleased we did, after a conclusion, fairly quickly.

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Yeah. Well, we really appreciate all your time and attention, and it makes it so much easier when we can have these thoughtful discussions, and we're still more than happy to tweak our recommendation. We just would need to do it in concert with the league since that was I think we're We didn't want them Yeah, we were thankful for where they came, so where they got to. Yep. So, yeah. Got it.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, good. Everybody good as far as on that? Yep. Okay. I don't really want to start up anything right now. I I want to keep the focus on this right now unless anybody has any other business that they want. Right now, Rob, you're good with language, right, you said? All that, so that's important to us since it's not something that we can't do. Does anybody else have anything that they want to say? Doctor. Major, you're good? No. Patty, you good?

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I'm good. Yeah. Alright.

[Senator Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Thank you so much.

[Senator Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I know. Let's Maybe you could have told me

[Steve Collier, General Counsel, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: all the same thing in about ten to as much time and more persuasively.