Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning. It's Thursday, February 19. A little bit of an abbreviated session. We have a joint session with the house at 10:30, but that doesn't mean that we don't get some work done. We are going to spend some time this morning with our counsel, Bradley Schulman, and we're gonna go down through some hemp regulation and current use. Just a little context of why we are doing this, we have been working closely with the cannabis Control Board, Mr. Pepper, and the reason being is that with just the whole travel of where hemp has gone through the COVID times and all of that and through the trials of setting hemp and cannabis up in the state, we have lost some regulation. Just a quick story, I was at the Grocers Association last night and I met up with a producer of hemp infused beverage, and she was really interested in talking to me. In fact, she sent somebody over to get me because when she found out that I was the chair of this committee. And so the conversation went like this. He said, we need regulation. And I said, well, tell me why you need regulation too. I need to make sure that when I am selling my product or I'm trying to sign contracts with people that are out of this state, that they understand that I'm gonna still be in business, that I'm not gonna get legislated out of business. I need security, and they need security to to show that Vermont understands what this business is. And so that was great because that's kinda what this bill is, this is kind of like what we're doing. But she went on further to say, and I as well, that yes, it has been discussion in our ag committee that we understand that when you source your product, lots of times it comes into Vermont higher than the levels that it needs to be. The THC is too high, but that when the product gets made into what you need it to be, that it's below the levels. But in a sense, you're breaking federal law by bringing that product in across state lines. He said, Yes, that's very problematic. I said, Well, we have talked over and over and over again on the committee about sourcing hemp from Vermont being that before when thousands of acres were grown and nobody really benefited from it because of just not understanding what really needed to happen, we'd like to make sure that when the hemp growers grow that maybe they would come to you and you guys would strike a deal and say, Hey, I'll grow you 30 acres as long as I know that you can procure the product from me. And she says, That is great. She said, But I just want you to understand, if I was to do that, I don't need 30 acres, I need 300. 300 acres. And I said, well, perfect. So we're on the right track then. She said, yes, please continue. And so we worked closely again with the Cannabis Control Board and our council is gonna go through the language of the fruits of our labor And hopefully with everything I just said, we solve the problems that we're looking to do. So Bradley Walden.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you. And just for the any the language I'm going to go over was just posted to Nick News website. So if you would like to pull that up and follow along, you may. Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And feel free to correct anything I just said, sir. You know, I just wanna make sure that because it has been kind of a steep learning curve going through all of this stuff. It's not very often that we get told regulate us more. And so we just need to make sure that when Brian reports this on the floor, that he's very comfortable.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: Parts of it. I will, yes. So

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: to give a little bit of background, because it tricky to understand, perhaps the SCCB will have some more information too, but hemp and marijuana are hemp and can hemp and marijuana are part of the same plants, the same cannabis plant. Hemp in the state of Vermont is regulated as an agricultural product, cannabis is not, or marijuana is not. And so they're the same plant, but they have different intoxication levels, and so hemp is supposed to be less intoxicating than marijuana, but they are, up until recently, been both Schedule I prohibited drugs at the federal government. And so Vermont's hemp program goes as far back as 2008, where the Secretary of Agriculture did some pilot programming about regulating and cultivating hemp for certain purposes, and part of that context was that cultivators had to sign a form saying that they know that hemp is a controlled substance under federal law. Federal law changed in 2018, where hemp, as defined by having a point 3% THC, delta nine THC concentration, was not considered a controlled substance. And so that kind of opened the door to permitting states to regulate hemp in a way that created agricultural opportunity for individuals. However, what also happened was that there are different strains, and this goes outside of my area of expertise a little bit, but there are different strains of hemp, different ways to process hemp that can make it more intoxicating. Different strains, Delta eight is one of them. And and so to kind of capture this increased number of intoxicating hemp related items. The federal government in 2025 changed the definition of hemp from just Delta nine at point 3% THC concentration to anything, any THC concentration at point 3%. A lot more products are going to be excluded from the kind of hemp protection, so to speak, because of that federal change. But that is still up in the air. And so, because there are people in Congress who are trying to kind of consider and grapple with this as well. So, it's an evolving area of law. So, we'll go to the bill here, and so I just have the language as an amendment. I'm sure that this might change, but I just had it as an amendment language, a type of amendment that will be determined later. And our first section here is we're transitioning the hemp processor oversight from Title VI, from the Secretary of Agriculture, to Title VII under the Cannabis Control Board. And so everything here you will see is underlined as if it's new. It's not necessarily new, it's underlined because we're moving it. And so, I would go through the places where this has changed. The Cannabis Control Board also has some information about where things have changed or why. Let's start with the findings section. I will just note for the committee that the findings section here is quite different than the findings section in current law, and actually, what I'm gonna do is because I'm gonna go back and forth, I'm gonna unshare my screen and then just share everything so I can go back and forth with the statute as written and the statute here. Okay, so I'm back. And so I I just want to note that the findings could potentially use some work. I think the good finding here is that the legality of pet pet products in interstate commerce is unsettled and continues to evolve. And but the findings here are vague, and findings in current law talk about hemp as an agricultural product, what it's used for, the history of using hemp in agriculture. Those findings aren't here anymore, and that would be something for the committee to consider. But we'll go on to the legal analysis here. And so these definitions are brought over in large part from the statute as currently written. We have essentially three categories: growers, producers,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: growers, producers,

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: processors related to hemp. So we define growing as planting, cultivating, harvesting, or drying up hemp, selling, storing, or transporting hemp grown by a grower. And then grow also means to produce. The word produce is the term the federal government uses to talk about making hemp, growing hemp, and so we copy that language, but we also use the word grow because it's a diet culture product. Grower means a person who's registered by the board in the U. Department of Agriculture to produce hemp. Grower also means producer. And one thing that has changed throughout this is it's changing the Secretary of Agriculture to replace the agriculture with the cannabis import. We have the definition of hemp, which has not changed. The definition of hemp or hemp infused products with just reverse the federally defined tetrahydrocannabinol concentration level, I'll just say THC level for hemp derived from our vein by processing hemp plants and parts, and then some items that it might be used for. And we're going down, and so one change here, so notwithstanding subdivision A, so notwithstanding what we define as a hemp or hemp product, Hemp or hemp abuse products do not include any substance manufacturing intermediary or product that is prohibited or deemed regulated cannabis by the board or is unlawful in interstate commerce. And so this is a little bit of a change. This piece here is not lawful in interstate commerce. It's a change from the current law. Current law says it's a reference to a point three THC concentration. This is likely a change to just cover the changes in federal law, but it is a signal that hemp products can be unlawful in interstate commerce, and it won't be considered a hemp product if it is unlawful in interstate commerce. We're going down to other exceptions here that are currently in the law. Process, we define processing as storing, drying, or trimming, handling, or compounding hemp. Process includes transporting, aggregating, packing hemp from a single grower or multiple growers, and it also includes manufacturing hemp products or hemp infused products. Processor is a person who's licensed by the board to process them. Okay. And so this section has changed quite a bit from the current law. And so what this section does is categorize people handling hemp in different ways in three categories, producers, which are growers, processors, and hemp products. And so, essentially, how the board is setting up the regulatory scheme is if you're a producer, processor, or have a hemp product, You register those you register those products with the board and the nature of those activities, and then provide evidence that those activities conform to the requirements of federal law and regulation, and then apply for registration or renewal on the form provided by the board, and then pay the company with me. Same thing with processors, all persons engaged in processing hemp, including trade and hemp derived naphthenoids and process intermediaries shall be licensed by the board. You apply for the license. All products need to be registered with the board prior to sale within the state. You apply for registration or renewal. And then there's some information about how you could be denied if you failed to establish activities, comply with state law, refusal of the board, or refusing to allow the board to investigate your facilities, failure to pay the fee, and failure to submit information.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: So how does one show evidence of the THC And so you'll be able to

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: provide testing, so chemical testing or scientific testing about the concentration of the THC in that given product. On-site? You should be. And so the board the board might take the products and review it to to make sure, and but the the growers or the producers should be able to do that on-site, or sometimes there might be an off-site situation that they could, that would have to be in state likely, but there'd be an off-site situation where they could send it to for testing and things of that sort. I think that, my sense is that that would depend on the grower or the producer who's responsible for making that determination.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. I have to pull

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: up the law on this section as it currently exists, and and so what is removed is this, what is removed entirely is this section. So, this section, hemp as an agricultural product, is removed. It is still defined as an agricultural product in the statue, so that's not changing. But this section here is being removed because it refers to the pilot programs that started in 2014 and continued in 2018, the federal pilot programs that permitted hemp to, permitted states to authorize cultivation of hemp. And so this section of the statute as it currently exists refers to federal law that has expired or been repealed or not or substantially changed. And so likely, the thinking you know, this this drafting is from the cannabis control board. So likely, the thinking is that this these provisions refer to expired federal law and just need to be brought over, and hemp is defined as an agricultural product elsewhere. However, there's one piece at the very end that I want to bring to the attention of the committee. And this piece here, the cultivation of hemp shall be subject to and comply with the required agricultural practices adopted under this title, is nowhere to be found in the bill as we have it here before us. And so that may be something for the committee to consider, hemp cultivation should whether hemp cultivation should comply with required agricultural practices, and I think to discuss moving forward. I just wanted to flag that for you, that this is not in the middle.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: But if our intention is to move the oversight out of Title VI and Title VII, why do we care whether they satisfy the RIPs? And I think that that is

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: certainly a policy question for one in a discussion with the the agency of agriculture. Any discharges into the waters of the state could be souped up into federal regulation anyway, whether we like it or not. Okay. And and so I think that that would be an issue to really grapple with here, especially oh. Well, sorry,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I apologize to interrupt, but just a thought on that is, as we're flushing this thing out, if it is our intention to make sure that they are ag product and that we want that product grown in the state, I think it gives the farmer more protection if they are under an RAP. But know, again, I want to discuss it. Just think that if they are declining and then somebody doesn't like the idea of what they're doing and growing in an area because of whatever, maybe misinformation, misunderstanding, or they just don't want that there, I think it gives them protection to be under an RAP with the agency of that. Okay.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's exactly right, especially with respect to municipal bylaw, regulation by municipal bylaw. That is the key to be protected from municipal bylaw is being subject to the RAPs. Yep. Definitely, thanks for the community to consider. I want to flag that piece for you.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Can we make a note of that? I want to make sure that we get that in there. Sure. I think it's important to have them.

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: I didn't even think about the water issue or the municipal piece.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So I said, yeah. Pull a string, the shirt comes undone. Yeah. And so we wanna make sure that the intent is clear from the beginning.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Our clothing, Please, please.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: This is how hemp is currently regulated. So, as I said before, the Cannabis Control Board is trying to kind of streamline producers, processors, products, and try to make the statute just a little clearer on that. But it's also losing the statute as written is also losing some specificity in the laws currently written, and so that would definitely be some good policy questions for the court. And and so right now, as written, as a matter of law, you know, growers and producers have to provide their name and address, have to, you know, provide them with the growing or producing or testing hemp, and also have to provide the location acreage of all the parcels where the hemp will be grown and provide a statement that the seeds obtained for planting are a type of variety that do not exceed a federally defined THC concentration level for hemp. So that kind of regulation is is not written into statutes. It's not written into law. It could be as part of rule making and regulations. We'll get to that later in this bill. But this kind of level of scrutiny is is no longer in the law, and the committee might want to kind of consider that, what level of regulation you want in the law, and what level regulation you want to permit the permit or require the CCP to to for rulemaking. And, you know, provide if you're applying as a processor, you have to provide the location of your processing site. And if you're applying to test hemp for hemp products, provide a location at the site, approve certification required by the secretary, and then any other information provided by rules. It gives the the secretary authorization to, you know, verify the information and and then grounds for denial, which are are largely the same here in the the proposed bill.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Does that, that's what the committee thinks, and our lawyer mind over there as well. I believe that should follow the rule making that, to put it in policy. That's just my opinion. Is that leaving that too broad, Rob, if we don't put it in the policy? We don't put it in policy. Right. If they put it in, will it have as much weight as a rule if they put it in the rules as it does as policy? Yeah. Guess the question Yeah.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I have Brian here. Yeah. I that.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: I answered yes. Yes.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. And and I agree. I I think the weight is is the same in rules versus the law. However, the the only benefit of having it in the law is that you know for sure you're getting specific information. And so part of the rule making process is that the cannabis control board could propose rules that might have this information or might not have this information. And so if there is something that the committee thinks should absolutely be part of that process, it is a nonstarter, that probably should go into the statute as direction to the cannabis control board to inclusion of the bank use. So it is a policy choice to give them discretion or not. And and if there are things that the committee feels strongly about, that should be included in in the regulation and application for applying for being a processor, producer, or for products. They should consider putting that in the statute. I'm just showing you that there is a difference. Right? As currently as that's in the law proposed, it's not. And then there's subsections about providing or retaining test results that the secretary would do to inspect and then retaining information for inspection with Public Records Act that's not in the bill right now. And so it might be something that the committee can consider. We have rulemaking authority. This rulemaking authority is discretionary, and we have this May I just highlighted here that is also discretionary in current law, and these these provisions are brought over from current law. So require hemp testing during certain growth levels, authorizing certain methods of hemp testing, requiring inspection or supervision of hemp during sowing growing season. The board might require rules about labeling and information as to comply with the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetics Act or to conform with federal requirements. It's similar to current law. I think this this piece about specifically conforming with federal requirements is is new, but it's likely the the public had to do things before anyway. Establishing registration requirements, disclosure of labeling an amount of the cannabinoid known to be present in the hemp product, consumers have that information to know what's in it. And then some new things. So seven to nine are new. And so require that license registrants, including out of state purveyors and registered hemp products, obtain and maintain commercially reasonable insurance, for which producers or consumers, consumer products in the final form shall include a product liability insurance. The board may provide rules to prohibited hazardous additives to hemp products and specific and specify additive limits relative to substance substances that are toxic and not generally recognized as safe and designed to make products more addictive or appealing to people 21 or obviously consumers, and then specify when a registered hemp product that contains more than zero point four milligrams of THC must be restricted for sale for persons of 21 age or older or both. And and so I just wanna highlight these pieces of

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: sorry. Go on. Sorry. So

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: there's there's a vagueness to maintain commercially reasonable insurance. What would I mean, does that mean? I mean, instead of putting a, like, a number on it.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Or a statement that says to the level of

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: Yes. Production. Yeah. The level of

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: of what? Is that a canvas control board or a or whatever? I don't know what that level is.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And and and I think that that's that's exactly right. You know, that piece there is ambiguous is is perhaps the wrong word, but it's it's open to interpretation. A broad scope of items might fall in that story. And so if we want the board or if the committee wants the board to require insurance, requiring insurance for specific things, it should put that in the statute. Right now, a reasonable insurance could be liability insurance for harming other people or a fix of that sort, or protection of the crops, or it could require protection from natural disasters or something of that sort. There's a broad scope of things that could fit there, and that's worth investigating the board about what they would require. Another thing I wanted to point out about this piece, it looks like this section is designed to try and capture a lot of the hemp products that have proliferated since 2018, and so a lot of there's there's some concern about the number of products, how they're marketed on on social media platforms like TikTok and things of that sort to to minors. And and so I think that that's where the impetus for the federal law came from, is those concerns of those products for liberty and and and minors being addicted to those things. And so in addition, and the board will know more about this than I do, but in addition, there are ways to synthesize hemp to kind of make it more intoxicating, and so this this rule appears to try and capture that. I think that that is a sensitive policy issue about how these products have been made, how they're marketed, and and the concerns people have about minors having access to them, but they might be marketed as as treats or honey or gummies or things of that sort that look like something that should be able to eat that doesn't have an intoxicating substance in it, but it might. And so that's that's an an issue to get some some more background about these certain products, because I'm sure those questions will come up as this film moves. The board shall adopt rules, establish requirements for licensure and processes of hemp and hemp derived products and intermediaries and hemp products. And so that is the requirement for rulemaking. And then some more discretionary rulemaking may adopt rules for establishing requirements for the consumer sale of any products and the requirements for making false or misleading or unsubstantiated claims about these products. These two are new. C and D are new in the statute. B is is is brought over from the laws that currently exists. And, again, likely because of the proliferation of hemp derived products that had come in the last six years or eight years, I I think the board might be looking at trying to create rules that that bring that kind of put some parameters on how we market those products and things of that sort. We're discussing with them, and I want to flag up for the community because that is the hot issue. Test results. Sure I'm pulling your notes around. The test results, what's changing here is that as a matter of law, we refer to as a matter of law now, we refer to as a tetraphinal THC content of delta nine THC content of point three milligrams or four. It is not considered hemp. That is a federally accepted limit now. And so this bill is changing that to just federally defined THC, so it's taking out the Delta nine. So Delta nine isn't so strain, and they're broadening the strains that would be potentially prohibited. And that is the major change here. So more hemp products with different strains that have high THC content would be prohibited as hemp, and that's how the federal law is changing right now. The board, some enforcement authority from the board, it allows the board to enter premises where hemp is growing and processing, to inspect, to make sure things are going in accordance with the rules, including taking samples, inspecting records, and inspecting equipment or vehicles used to grow process of transporting hemp. That is the same as in current law, Inspecting the retail location, offering hemp products and hemp infused products the same as in current law, and issue and enforce written or printed stop sale orders to the owner or custodian of a hemp hemp products or hemp infused product subject to requirements of this chapter, and then some information about orders. So, essentially, the court can order a certain product for being stopped from that from sale if it violates the federal state federal standards of the TC concentrations and things of that sort or other concentrations of food. And just some administrative procedures here. So if the board does give a stop sale order, the order shall include reasons, a description of the product, instructions, and any recommended measures. A person issued a stop sale order may appeal to the board within fifteen days. Person shall file an appeal by serving a letter to the board. And then so that that is just some regular administrative law pieces. And so and the administrative penalties. Okay. So this section is changing quite a bit from law as it currently is. And so I will show you the law as it currently stands in a moment, But basically, this section would give the board authority to issue violations and penalties without a limit, a statutory limit, and some applications, and then it says the board may enforce a final administrative penalty by filing a civil a civil collection action in the superior court. Okay. So let's pull up the the law as it exists. Scrolling down. You can check penalties. So the number one thing that I would recommend to the board here is or the first thing I'd recommend is the limits for the penalties have been taken out of the statute, and I recommend the board or the committee to consider the amount of penalties that would be appropriate. That is typically, that's a party that the legislature sets as guidance for administrative bodies is limits on the amount of penalties. It is unusual for a legislative the legislature to completely delegate that authority, and so it's something to definitely consider as a matter of policy. Perhaps the numbers are not what they should be in statute as as now, but that's something for the for the committee to consider. There's two types of violations. Essentially, the kind of first first type violation not to exceed $1,000 for failure to provide information or obtain registrations, and then a $5,000 penalty for failure to follow corrective action. So, you know, you got a first penalty and then you failed to follow it, you get a second one. And has grown the process tempted in violation of the requirements of this chapter or rules? It has reduced tempted in violation of the requirements of this chapter or rules adopted with culpable events at stake greater than negligence. And And so, basically, if you, you know, violated the statute three times in a five year period, done so with a commenced state greater than negligence, so you kind of knew what was going on, or the final corrective action, that penalty could be higher.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Why did they not just put that in there? Why they take that out?

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I think that would be a question for them.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Because here's the committee. Here's where I'm at. We changed that. It's gotta go everywhere in this building. Let's hold it. Gotta go everywhere in this building. So I think the question is, why won't we just keep it the way that it was unless they wanted to change that? And I don't know why they would have brought that to us for us to change when we've been very clear about what we're trying to do here, which is to help them regulate how support our farmers and then let them, after it crosses the field, and then they're in violation of anything, that they're the ones that bring the hammer down. We're not. We we have done a clear role of where we wanna be, which is to help them grow. And then after that, if they violate, why you know? That's that's my thinking. I don't know how you guys go about that. Yeah. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, Bradley. The way

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: this is written, this draft, not the current one. Okay. A grower could be fined $86,000 the first time, and to me that's a little bit

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And I just don't wanna make that decision. It's not up to us to make that decision where it's up to them. They're the ones that are regulating. We are just helping them with the rules and helping to be very clear to our farmers where we lie. Then once that product comes out of the field and they do the bad stuff, then somebody else is gonna bring the hammer down. So I suppose it'd be my thing, Well, talk with them and just leave the room, leave that in there. The agents or the cannabis control board wants to change that, then let them change that. I suppose that's the conversation we have with them. Yeah, I agree. Or at least have them be the ones to set that policy. For them to say, Okay, yeah, we heard you, ag committee. Yeah, we're gonna go in there and we'll set that policy of what the penalties will be. I think it's a lot safer for us for them to do that, and then we don't get in arguments with any other committee in this building because they're the ones that did that.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And one other thing oh, I'm sorry. If Don't add Okay. Thank you. And another thing that is removed from the proposed bill is kind of the guardrails on how to assess the penalties and and administrative law notice requirements and things like So let's go over that. So first here, some guardrails. So the secretary may give consideration to the appropriateness of the penalty with respect to the size of the business being assessed, the gravity of the violation, good faith of the person being in the violation, overall compliance history of the person in violation. The secretary shall use the following procedure in assessing penalties, shall issue written notice of the violation, setting forth the facts and Sorry, my controls are Setting forth the facts and I'm sorry, there's just some pop ups on my screen. And the notice required under the subdivision of the section self applied to the following. So, the notice be served by personal service, service of certified mail, advise the recipient of the right to a hearing if a hearing is requested, providing that. And the notice shall state the proposed penalty and shall advise the recipients that if no hearing requested, the decision is final, and the notice shall advise the recipient that they have fifteen days from the date of which notice to proceed or request a hearing, and any agreed party can file, so a final decision can appeal to the Superior Court within thirty days. This is required by the Administrative Procedure Act, and it is not in the statute as currently written. It is something similar is written into the Cannabis Control Board more broadly, And so if it is their vision to include administrative protections to hemp growers that they would provide to cannabis, perhaps a reference, perhaps putting this information back in. But these these pieces don't require a notice written notice, what he did wrong, opportunity for appeal, right to the right to appeal to the superior the superior court. And and if the statute is silent, you actually get the right to appeal right to the Supreme Court from an administrative decision. So as written, the statute takes that out. It only gives the board the right to file a civil collection action in the Superior Court to collect the penalty, so it does not give the rights to appeal, arguably because it's silent on the right to appeal an individual who have rights appeal to the Supreme Court because that is the Administrative Procedure Act law. But I I I do think taking some of those things out, it it is at minimum worth referencing other administrative procedure protections in the cannabis title seven or or considering putting those back in as required by the administrative Procedure Act, something for the committee to consider here about why those were taken out and what the board is envisioning there in terms of protecting growers from pests as they think are unfair. The fee section also changed quite a bit, and so it is simplified. Producers, processors, or any products, these are the registration fees, and the fees under current law are quite a bit more. And so application for growing less than 0.5 acres of hemp for personal use is $25 Application renewal registration to grow or process hemp seed is $100 and accept as provided below under section four down here. An application of renewal registration to grow a process or grow and process hemp commercially, and for these things, you can look at the fees. And so the fees are quite a bit higher based on acreage and more pounds of of hemp being processed. That has been taken out of the statute entirely for much smaller fees. And and I'm I'm flagging that view because those are policy considerations to be taken into consideration. And then for application of renewal registration to operate exclusively with an indoor facility in order to grow our process, so just some kind of caveats here to reduce the fees required for certain uses.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Bradley, who gave us the language in that current bill? So who decided to process? Yes.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So what is up is the Cannabis Control Board. I received this from Mr. Pepper. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: And did he indicate why he dropped them somewhere?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: No, but I just think, so he's been so respectful. We'll answer that at the end. Okay. That's fine. So yep. Yep.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And I realize I'm running out of time, so I will okay. So, the end. If I

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: can So here's if you're okay, so here's what I think that we need to do, and I'm looking for counsel on this. I like what I see, I like all that, I like everything going on, but there's just so many We get to the findings, or not the findings, but the administration stuff, the fee stuff, and all of that, and I am in the mind of where Senator Heffernan was going and that, know, where, who, what. I think the next step is to just get everybody in the room, you, cannabis control, their attorney, let's hammer this stuff out. I don't think that we disagree with anything other than to we'll get down to those sections and let's complete the bill. But I think it's very important for us to have them dictate what they want us to do, because it's not really, we're really looking for them to tell us what they want us to do, not us to tell them what they want to do. I don't want to take over their role. I really, really don't. Been very clear from that. So if we could, Linda, get with everyone, James Pepper, their attorney, Mr. Chauvin, and get them back in, hammer this bill out so that when we're all said and done, once we see the final copy, we should just go and sign it. Maybe a hemp grower or two? Think we're even beyond that. I think we're just into the point now where let's just get everybody in the room, let's get what they want to see as the final bill so that we can stamp it. Okay.

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The section just changes the cross reference. We added that in another cross reference that we changed in a different statute because we're moving the titles. I added that in. And then the last piece here is current use. The changes I'm out of time, so I'll summarize the changes here. But we're at page 11, Some changes to current use. These changes concern enrollment, changes of use and enrollment of new buildings. And so, it changes the requirements. So, first, an owner has to certify at the time of application or enrollment that agricultural land or buildings enroll by the owner will continue to meet the requirements for enrollment in the program, and that the owner will immediately immediately notice what's changing, immediately notify the commissioner of any change in use that makes the enrolled land or building ineligible for for continued use value appraised. Yep. And and then there's some some of this language here. In the event that the owner of agricultural lands or buildings enrolled in these value program fails to timely notify the commission of any change that disqualifies the enrolled land for the use value program, the owner shall be required to repay the commissioner all benefits if properly received because the land or building is subject to use value for instance or creates a kind of recruitment mechanism for failure to notify changes in use. And then there's an interest penalty potentially. It's not a penalty. It's a reasonable interest on any benefit repayment. And if the owner fails to promptly repay the benefit, the amount shall constitute a lien that runs with the land in accordance with subdivision of this chapter. If the commissioner has any use, any reason to believe that the enrolled agricultural land or building may not be eligible for use value appraisal, the commissioner may require that the owner to certify in writing under oath within thirty days following request that the buildings remain eligible or file a change in form. So basically, if the commissioner is is has reason to believe that the use has changed, they have authority to require either assertion that it hasn't or a change in use form for those early days.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. I'm somewhat even questioning why that's even in there when there's already rules on current use, but again, when we get everybody in the room, unless you have something

[Bradley Schumann, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't I don't have the the history of iPod. Okay. Yeah. So I yep. And then the last piece here is a little quicker. It's qualification for use value appraisal. So this section changes if a new building is constructed. And so it shall be initially presumed that new buildings or improvements on enrolled agricultural land or how or on a house site adjoining the enrolled agricultural land are farm buildings for use value appraisal if the new buildings or improvements are a kind typically used in agriculture. Assessing individuals can communicate with the owner to ask about the intended use of the improvement, and and the commissioner can determine whether the new building or improvement is eligible for these value programs. Commissioner can require the owner to, you know, provide information to determine eligibility, And in the interim, before the commissioner makes a determination assessing officials' assessment of a new building or improvements to the owner claims since a barn building shall be at u at use value appraisal to ensure adequate time for enrollment and to prevent erroneous fair market assessments of foreign companies.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That's suitable language for the bill that we're gonna be taking up here again. The other the second part of the bill that is on the miscellaneous language, and I'm probably going to suggest to Canada's control why don't we just drop that language right off of this bill, because I just think it gets out of the flavor of what we're trying to do here. It goes from regulating hemp growers into act policy. So anyways, we'll talk about that. We'll get everybody in the room. My encouragement would be to say, why do we need that? Why is this important? Cannabis Control Board, why is this important to have that language in on this bill when we're just trying to regulate and give clear guidance to have groceries? That's where I would be on that. Any other questions for me? Nope, we will have. We'll have you in as soon as Linda can get you scheduled when your schedule is good and we can get everybody in. Thank you very, very much. Appreciate that. That was good. Thank you. We're running a little bit over. If everybody's good, if we can just jump right into the next segment and make sure that we don't get these people away from us. So yeah, we're going to spend some time with feeding Vermonters. And who wants to lead this segment off?

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: I will. And I

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: think Abby's gonna Yeah. But

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: before we start, I don't have the Zoom link emailed to me. I sent it to you this morning, did you get it? I didn't. I mean yesterday I sent it again. Yeah. And your email is?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: While we're waiting for that, want to have Abby, do we have any opening comments before we go? We can start with that for just to save some time here because we have cut you off about seven, eight, nine minutes.

[Abby Willard, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: I'd be happy to go if the committee welcomes that.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Abby Willard, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: Okay. For the record, Abby Willard, Vermont Agency of Agriculture Food and Markets. Excited to be here with the Vermont Food Bank to talk about the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program. This is a program that's existed at the food bank for quite some time, but due to act 34 last year of 2025, statute created a grant program at the Agency of Agriculture to support the food bank to provide food to people facing hunger by supporting the purchasing of local food from Vermont farms. So so we now have a role in this program, and an opportunity for state appropriation funds to support the food bank in the implementation of the Vermonters feeding Vermonters program. Part of the legislation of act 34 said that, the Vermont Food Bank in consultation with the agency of agriculture would provide an annual report to the Senate Ag Committee and the House Ag and Forestry Committee on or before March 1. So I think in part that explains why we're here today and the report that Chris will share with the committee. An important piece that I just wanna note is the thoughtful connection that Vermonters Feeding Vermonters is a program and this partnership of a granting program through the agency aligns with Vermont's food security roadmap. And an aspect of that that's really important to the agency of agriculture is this inextricable link between achieving food security through farm viability and support of viable farm businesses. And so just acknowledging that concept that Vermont's food security depends upon a viable agricultural sector is an important message for us to keep front and center. So the f y twenty six appropriation to the agency of agriculture in support of the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program was $500,000. That and Chris will talk and speak to this, but the decision was made for us to establish a grant agreement with the food bank that supported one aspect of the Vermonters feeding Vermonters program that was targeting the procurement of local food from local farms and then the distribution of that food through the established food bank partnerships and distribution channels. That's not the entire cost of the entire kind of scope of the Vermonters feeding Vermonters program. There's additional aspects beyond what our grant agreement provided granting funds for. So if it's helpful, I thought I could just very briefly go through, the establishment of the agreement for the granting program and note that in the governor's recommended budget for fiscal year twenty seven, there's not an appropriation towards this granting program to the food bank in support of the Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program. In October is when we actually established the grant agreement with the food bank. We allowed for pre award costs dating back to July 1, which is when, act 34 put into effect the availability of the funds and would make the funding available for the entire fiscal year '26. Again, we targeted the focused purpose of this granting program and this 500,000 to purchase to support the purchase of local food from Vermont Farms to be distributed through the grantees distribution channels. We set three targets for the distribution and the, execution of those funds, which was aligned with, again, the language in act 34 that this body supported, which was we wanted to track the total amount of food purchased from those grant funds, the total number of farms that food was purchased from, and the total number of distribution sites where that local food was distributed through. We built into the structure of the grant program, if it's helpful to know, an interim report that would be due at the February that could coincide with the timeline of submitting an annual report to the legislature, and then a final report, on or before 2026. And then the distribution of funds happens in three claims. So 40% upfront at the beginning of the project, 40% at the submission of an interim report, and then a withholding of the final 20% of the grant award until the final support final report is submitted. So that's our standard kind of like distribution of funding of forty, forty, 20%. And that's it. It's been great to work with the food bank. They're a long standing partner of the agency of agriculture and to have this very direct relationship of the establishment of a granting program has been, a joy to engage in. And I think Chris and the team can share a whole lot more about the specifics of the program and the accomplishments that they've had thus far.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank you, Addison. Good morning, how are you?

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Good morning.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We have a hard stop at twenty after. I hate to cut you in that way, but tell us what you'd like us to know.

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Yes, I'm Chris Meehan, and I'm the Chief Community Impact Officer with the Vermont Food Bank. I live in Middlesex, Vermont. And I am going to share my screen so that we can take a look at the presentation that I have. It's on our webpage, too. Okay. Would that be

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

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: So yeah, I'm here today to tell you a little bit of an overview of Vermonters, AV Vermonters. I will try to be brief, but I'm going to tell you a little bit about fiscal year to date, what we have been able to accomplish. An overview of, well, first I want to say thank you so much to this committee for asking, for supporting Pass Act 34 in 2025. Russ, I'm sorry, but you're sharing, you're all, oh, needing to go back. Chris, do you

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: want me to handle the Slack part and you can handle the talking part?

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: That'd be helpful. I mean, I can

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: There's a lot to do about.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We all have it up. We have it here as

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: far as Okay, we'll look

[Abby Willard, Vermont Agency of Agriculture, Food & Markets]: we can also share it from here if that's helpful.

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Oh yeah, actually Abby, why don't you do that part and Chris can just follow-up on our

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Thanks Abby. I had it. Okay, so Vermonters Feeding Vermonters, as Abby mentioned, is a program of the Vermont Food Bank, and we work to provide fresh, local, nutritious food to people facing hunger, and while we're doing that, we're able to build relationships and support our farmers and to reduce our environmental requirements. You can see we have some guiding principles that really you know, sort of help to guide our work, and I won't go into those today because I wanna share a little bit more about the results so far. There are three components to Vermonters Seating Vermonters. One is large scale, wholesale direct purchasing, and this is what the state funding has supported. We also provide grants to Vermont Food Bank partners so that they can connect globally with smaller farms and purchase food, And we have some special projects and grants to work with food bank partners to provide culturally responsive goods to folks in Vermont. So as I said, really what the state funds have helped us to do is to provide those large scale contracts with Vermont farmers. And so here are the strategies, the goals and strategies related to specifically to the state investment. It's to purchase a diversity of fresh, nutritious, locally produced food to pay farmers a fair market price and really to provide them with those large scale contracts so that they have that security knowing that sales are coming and they can predict before the growing season begins when they're doing their planning. And so here are the results for this year so far. We have, the Vermont Food Bank in total have purchased over $1,000,000 with Vermont farmers and those large scale contracts, and 500,000 of that was thanks to the FY '26 state appropriation. We have worked with 21 farmers to do that direct purchasing. We purchased over 40 types of produce that has been distributed to over two thirty six Vermont Food Bank partners and events. And based on a large scale wholesale food purchasing research project that was conducted by UBM, that is 165,000,000 into the Vermont economy. And so the $500,000 the state has invested has resulted in 800,000 estimated to the state economy. Some of the benefits of our direct purchasing part of the program is that we can provide full pallet quantity purchasing. We are also willing to purchase surplus crops. We have a flexibility on the varieties that we purchase. And we, as I said, we are able to plan contracts at least six months ahead of time. Some of the things this past winter, 2035, we did a survey of our farmers that we work with. And here's just a few of the results that they named specifically about this program, that 100% of them reported they have increased stability as a result and increased gross sales. 100% of them report increasing the amount of food that is going to families with limited incomes. And 92% of them report an increase in the amount of food that is kept in Vermont. And, you know, one of the real, the feel good parts of this program is honestly how it makes farmers feel about their food staying in Vermont and going to folks who might not otherwise be able to afford it. So here are just some quotes that, you know, it feels really good to know that the food is staying in Vermont and, you know, by working with the Vermont Food Bank, they're able to know that this food is going to food insecure families. And just a few more quotes here, just, you know, noting the stability that this provides them, knowing they're going to get a reasonable price, they're able to hire enough person. We've had a lot of really positive results coming back to us from Vermont Partners. That's all I'd like to share.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, let's get through some numbers, As far as your asks and all of that stuff, this committee could totally understand where to advocate for or what's going on. Tell us about where you've been in the building, what you've got for money, what the governor has said, and all of that stuff so that we can know.

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Of course you can. Can I offer it as this?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Please do.

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Thank you. And for the record, I'm Carrie Staylor. I'm the government affairs officer for Vermont Food

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Bank. So

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: I was here a little while ago and talked to this committee about our budget adjustment request. We were asking for the difference between the $500,000 we were appropriated in FY twenty six and the 2,000,000 we requested. So we were requesting that 1.5 difference. Currently, in the Senate version of the budget adjustment, is $360,000. There was $400,000 in the House version. And so our hope is that once that BAA passes out of the Senate, it goes to conference committee, unless that happened and I may have missed it. Pretty long. Like, was that a yesterday thing? Yeah. So in the conference committee, our hope is that that amount will be returned to about $400,000 through the conversations with those committees.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That gets you 500,000 plus 400 Yep,

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: that gets us 900,000. That would go to additional direct purchasing from larger scale farms because of the timeline of where we're at in the growing season and the existing relationships we have with those those farm vendors. And then for FY twenty seven, which would start on July 1, we're requesting the same $2,000,000 that we requested last year. And part of the the sort of budget adjustment plus FY '27 process for us is something that Chris was talking about. That makes it really important is that we're really contracting for the FY '27 growing season right now. And so the budget adjustment money really helps us bridge into the growing season, and having additional funding in FY '27 will help sort of the the state calendar and the growing season, as I'm sure this committee has probably heard from others, they don't really align well with Vermont, with the way Vermont works. Farms have to plan in January, some earlier, to really know what they're gonna the harvest in October. And that really crosses that state funding line in a way that can make it hard to plan ahead for and to really help our farms that we're working with plan ahead for the scale of purchasing that we wanna do with them. The agency has been very supportive and very helpful in their contracting process, and I do just wanna call that out. Like, working with the agency of agriculture for contracting it with Abby, it's so helpful to work with a knowledgeable agency who understands what Vermont farms really need. It makes the system work a lot better for those of us who are sort of working on both sides of the the purchase and distribution spectrum. So I I do think that if we can get just that funding lined up in a consistent way that we know we can count on, then it really allow vets to accomplish the full scope of Vermonters feeding Vermonters in a way that supports farms across the calendar, right, in a consistent and reliable way, which is what every farmer is looking for.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And so in 2006, that's passed. I mean, I know that we're still fighting for some dollars and all that. 2007, so I can understand it, the committee can understand it as well. You've been in the governor's budget for 2027?

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: We are not in the governor's budget for 2020

[Sen. Brian Collamore (Member)]: for 2,000,000.

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: We are asking for 2,000,000.

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

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Yeah. And if and that is really the amount that going forward

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: we would love In the in your in your questions to get there, you you've been into appropriations already and and pled your case with them?

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: We have, we have been waiting for the budget adjustment process to, to end. We have introduced our request to appropriations, but have not necessarily had the in-depth conversations because it is really similar to our budget adjustment ask, so we wanted to make sure that was clear.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I I totally We understand just need to know

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Yep.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: And just in our brain.

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Yep. And so next time I list is to follow-up with Senator Norris, who really handles the agriculture request, senator Kirchlik, and make sure that they fully understand. This is part of a larger request for f y twenty seven. Our total f y twenty seven request is $5,000,000. The other pieces of that request are really sort of being asked of other committees, know, Senate government operations that we've spoken to you a little bit, Senator Collamore, and and Senate health and Welfare, who we have also started to talk to you a little bit about So those it's it's yeah. We're we're doing the rounds, but have have of waited until this budget adjustment process.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Committee? All set. Well, you.

[Chris Meehan, Chief Community Impact Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Thank you so much for your time.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank you very much. I'm glad you were able to get through your presentation. Had short you. Yeah.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: You. This just took a little more time.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We appreciate it very much. We do. Thank you.

[Carrie Stahler, Government Affairs Officer, Vermont Foodbank]: Thank you all so Thank you, Abby.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank you, Abby. I think we're kind of clear about what we did this morning. If anybody has it, speak up, but I think it's important to get all groups aligned on the half part of what we're doing and just give them the room and hand with that bill out. I think at this point in time, we kind of know what we want to do. I think I know what direction we want to be in, and I do respect Canvas Control Board allowing us to have more of a say, I think we're almost to the point to where the people are saying we want regulation. I want to stay at the cannabis control board. I want you to have the regulation part of that. We want to grow hemp. That's what we want to do. And I don't believe that we would ever get that bill through at this short time point if we start making policy decisions. I think it needs to come from them. That's what they want, so that's where I'm thinking. If everybody thinks any different, just let me know. All set. Okay, good. Then we'll go off.