Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good morning. It's Friday, February 27, the last day before we take a week off. I know a few of the senators in this room are very sad that we're taking a week off, but I'm not one of those. We've had a very productive week. We're one week over from crossover. The ag committee has been very, very busy, very proud of some of the legislation that we're putting out. Going spend some time this morning on the Quality Industry Adversey Group. They have asked for a half hour. We have that half hour. I will also say, I'll listen to the testimony, but I might have some suggestions about another time that the people that are going to testify today might want to pop in. With that, who would like to lead off?

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, let's, I think we had

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

[Alyssa Price (Equine professional)]: Good morning. Morning, I'm Russ well, how are you?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Good, thank you for coming in this morning. Just called up who you are, where you're from, and the floor is yours, Alyssa.

[Alyssa Price (Equine professional)]: Absolutely, well, morning, Chair Ingalls and members committee. My name is Alyssa Price, and I was raised here in Vermont. I attended primary school and high school here, and this is my home. Horses have been part of my life for as long as I can remember. Growing up in Vermont, I learned responsibility, work ethic, and commitment through caring for animals and being part of the agricultural community that defines so much of our rural character. I would get off the local school bus at a horse farm, and it was run by another lifelong Vermonter. And I would work and ride there until my mom would pick me up in the evenings. Unfortunately, that barn is no longer in business. It was sold as a second home, and now the horse portion of the property sits empty. The barn owner couldn't make it work financially, unfortunately. When it came time for college, I left Vermont to pursue a specialized education in equine studies at Centenary University in New Jersey. And that is where I earned a Bachelor's of Science in equine instruction and training. While there, I competed, trained and worked in professional equine facilities. I experienced firsthand what a strong recognized equine industry looks like, one that is understood as agriculture, supported as agriculture, and treated as agriculture. After graduation, I could have easily stayed in New Jersey. There were more established barns, more dense horse populations, more shows, and certainly more immediate job opportunities. But I didn't want to build my life there. I wanted to come home. I wanted to live in Vermont. I wanted to work in Vermont. And one day, I truly hope to raise my family in Vermont. So instead of staying where the industry was significantly easier, I chose to return here and invest in this state. During my senior year in college, our family found a former horse property in West Halifax, Vermont. It had potential, but it required a significant rehabilitation. Fencing needed rebuilding, the indoor arena infrastructure had to be replaced, a new footing had to be installed, water systems and electrical infrastructure needed major repair, the inspector's list of over 150 pages of repairs was daunting. And these were not cosmetic upgrades, they were essential agricultural infrastructure investments necessary for safe professional operations. And over the past year, we have invested substantial time, labor, and capital into restoring the facility and reopening it as a working equine operation. And today, 100% of my income comes from lessons, boarding, training and shows. And this is not a hobby for me. This is recreational land use, and this is my agricultural business. And like any other livestock operation, our expenses are real and ongoing. We purchase hay from local farmers. We buy grain and bedding from local suppliers. We rely on Vermont based veterinarians and farriers. We maintain fencing, equipment, tractors, water systems, and pasture land. We manage manure and steward the open fields as well. Every horse that's boarded at our facility represents reoccurring economic activity that supports other Vermont agricultural businesses. In economic terms, equine operations generate multiplier effects in rural communities. Feed suppliers, hay producer, trades people, and service providers all benefit from a stable equine sector. Yet despite operating as a livestock agricultural, horse facilities are not taxed consistently with other agricultural farms. Property taxes are one of our highest fixed costs as of right now. They do not adjust for weather, fluctuating hay prices or seasonal revenue. They are due regardless of business cycles. And in the northern climate with long winters, high feed costs and narrow margins, the property tax structure can determine whether a farm survives or closes its barn doors forever. Some might say raise your boarding rates, but it's not that simple. Many of my clients are young riders and working families. They make sacrifices to even afford participation and some offset costs by helping with chores and barn work. And if we raise rates beyond what our regional market can bear, horses leave, enrollment declines, revenue drops, the burden cannot simply be passed on without consequence. Vermont has clearly articulated its goals to protect agriculture, to preserve open land, to strengthen rural economies, and to retain young Vermonters. Equine agriculture advances every one of those goals. We preserve open acreage and pasture land that might otherwise be subdivided or developed. We support hay production and agricultural supply chains. We provide youth with hands on exposure to farm life responsibility and animal care. And in my case, we represent a young Vermonter choosing to come home and build a business here. If the tax structure makes operations like mine unsustainable, the outcome is predictable. Small barns will close, open land is sold, and young professionals relocate to states with more supportive agricultural policies, such as New Jersey. Now I could have stayed in New Jersey, but economically, that would have been easier. But I chose Vermont because this is where I wanna build my future. However, commitment alone does not make a business viable. Policy matters. When equine operations are treated differently from other livestock farms for tax purposes, it sends a message, whether intentional or not, that horses are recreation rather than agriculture. But from a management land use and economic perspective, the daily work is identical to other forms of livestock farming. We are not asking for special treatment. We are asking for equitable recognition under agricultural tax policy. If Vermont truly wants to protect working lands, support rural enterprises, and retain young residents like myself, then tax policy must align with those stated priorities. I am committed to building a sustainable equine boarding and training facility here in Vermont. I want to grow it responsibly. I want to reinvest in infrastructure. I want to contribute to my local economy. And one day, I want to raise my children on the same kind of working land that shaped me. But that future depends on whether small agricultural operations like mine are given a fair and sustainable framework in which to operate. I came home because I believe in Vermont. I'm asking you to make it possible for me to stay, and I really appreciate all of your time and consideration in this matter. Thank you.

[Unidentified participant]: Thank you. Thank you.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We've been asked to wait to ask questions until after everybody's testified, so we will be back to see you in a moment. Thank you.

[Alyssa Price (Equine professional)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: You're very welcome. Who's next?

[Unidentified participant]: Hello.

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

[Mindy Hinsdale (Former farm owner; Vermont Equine Industry Advocacy Group co-founder)]: Chair Ingalls and members of the committee. My name is Mindy Hinsdale. I'm a seventh generation Vermonter. I grew up in Charlotte, attended CVU, and graduated from UVM. I owned and operated Steeple Ridge Farm, first in Ferrisburg and then in Charlotte for thirty five years. I was a full time working farmer. I sold my farm nine years ago due to rising costs and now operate a small business. I serve as vice president of the Chittenden County Farm Bureau, secretary of the Green Mountain Horse Association Board, and I'm active in other agricultural organizations. I am now partnering with Heidi Krantz to establish the Vermont Equine Industry Advocacy Group. What are we proposing? We are requesting an update to the income eligibility definition for equine farm businesses so qualified horse farms are classified as farms and owners as farmers under agricultural statutes. Current statute limits qualifying income largely to breeding. Modern equine farm businesses rely on multiple livestock based income streams generated on farms. These include boarding, training, breeding, lessons, leasing, trail rides, and summer camps. These are agricultural activities centered on the care and management of horses as livestock. As with all other farmers, equine operation operators would still need to earn 50% or more of gross income from on farm agricultural activity to qualify for programs such as current use and disaster relief. This proposal updates definitions without altering acreage thresholds or program structure. Consistency. Equine farms already meet required agricultural practices and environmental standards. They are regulated as agriculture for water quality, land use and operational oversight. However, under current statutory definitions, many are excluded from full participation in current use and disaster relief. This results in inconsistent treatment across agricultural statutes. Clarifying the definition allows these statutes with how equine farms are already regulated and operating. The proposal maintains existing standards and provides consistent application of law. Alignment. Agricultural programs are designed to keep working land in production and support farms facing operational risk. Professional equine farms steward pasture and hay land year after year and face the same weather and infrastructure risks as other livestock operations. Current use preserves productive agricultural land and reduces pressure toward development. Disaster relief supports recovery from flooding, drought, and severe weather. Equine farms experience these impacts directly affecting livestock health, pastures, fencing, barns, and infrastructure. Updating the statutory definition ensures that property valuation policy and disaster support reflect the agricultural realities of these operations. Fiscal impact. This correction has a defined and limited impact on the education fund. It does not expand eligibility categories beyond qualified working farms, nor does it change acreage or structural requirements. Current use has always represented a deliberate balance in support of working land. This proposal applies that balance consistently to a group of farms already operating under agricultural regulation. Horse farms are working farms. Equine farms are livestock operations. They provide daily feeding, turnout, veterinary coordination, manure management, pasture rotation, fencing maintenance and infrastructure upkeep. They comply with required agricultural practices and related oversight. Flooding, heat, mud season damage and severe weather affect livestock health and farm infrastructure directly. Many equine farms operate on former dairy or livestock properties and continue to maintain those lands in agricultural use. Typical farm scale. Professional equine farms operate at a scale common within the state's agricultural landscape. Nearly half operate on fewer than 50 acres. More than 70% manage up to 180 acres, primarily pasture and hay. Smaller farms are especially vulnerable to property tax pressure and climate disruption. A single flood event on a 30 to 40 acre farm can eliminate a season's productivity. Clear eligibility standards allow predictable recovery and long term stewardship. Economic ecosystem. The equine industry generates approximately $46,000,000 in annual in state expenditures and supports more than six fifty jobs across veterinary services, farrier work, hay and grain production, farm labor, and related supply chains. Equine events generate an estimated $37,000,000 in annual visitor spending. Weather disruption affects feed supply, veterinary access, event scheduling, and rural businesses connected to these farms. Disaster eligibility therefore supports both individual farms and the broader agricultural economy. Infrastructure. Equine farms rely on barns, fencing, manure systems, farm roads, and indoor arenas. In this climate, indoor arenas are essential for livestock safety and year round operation. When core agricultural infrastructure is treated inconsistently, recovery slows and financial risk increases. Clear statutory language allows farms to plan investments and respond effectively to weather related damage. Conclusion. This targeted update to the definition of farms and farmers ensures that qualified horse farms are fully recognized as agricultural operations under existing statutes. It applies established program standards consistently and supports a livestock based industry contributing more than $80,000,000 annually to the state's economy. Thank you for your time.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate it very much.

[Katie Waterman (Equine farm owner, Ferrisburgh)]: Hi, Chair Ingalls and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I'm Katie Waterman. I am pretty much Alyssa's story twenty years later. I see a lot of her ideas were mine when I was 23. But I am a lifelong Vermonter. I grew up in South Starksboro. I started working with horses at a young age and actually fairly early on, I rode with Mindy Hinsdale, who is just testifying. I own and operate a business involving the training and care of between eighteen and twenty five horses at my farm in Ferris Berg, and I earn all of my income teaching, riding and caring for horses. I purchased a 98.2 acre parcel that was leased to a dairy farmer enrolled in current use and enrolled in the land trust. I moved to Perrysburg in 2012 with a dream of finally building my own farm. We constructed a 14 stall Morton barn and a 200 by 82 foot indoor riding arena. The arena was canvas over steel and lacked a foundation. I researched extensively to find something affordable, and it was sold to me as a non taxable structure because it lacked a foundation, functioned much like a greenhouse and could be dismantled and removed in a single day. We moved into the farm in December 2015 and then we received the property bill tax bill. Previously, had been paying $3,500 per year with the land in current use and the houses are homestead. The new bill is approximately $14,000 with the farm appraised at 1,400,000.0. Every square foot of my buildings, including a hay storage shed, the barn, the huge indoor arena was taxed at a commercial rate. We grieve the taxes and we're able to reduce them somewhat. We demonstrated that no comparable equine farm enrolled in the land trust had sold for that amount. We explained that the indoor arena did not add significant market value and that if I were to sell the property, I would actually dismantle and resell it. Even after that reduction, the tax bill increased from 3,500 to approximately 12,500 per year. And that increase was crippling. We move forward anyway. I have subsidized my equine boarding with training and lessen income. But I can no longer operate at that same level due to a severe labor shortage that has worsened since COVID. Horses require constant care. Feeding and turnout at my farm began at 06:30 in the morning. Stalls must be cleaned, all the feed prepared, the aisles swept, and only then could I start riding and teaching. In the evening, horses are brought in from the field, stalls cleaned again, horses are fed, we have to clean all the tack, And then I have to maintain the facility that does not even include mowing pasture maintenance, fence repair, painting, plowing, and maintaining the two riding arenas. I've downsized to 17 horses with two very part time employees and complete the remaining work myself. I actually just fed this morning, so I've been up since 05:30. I often work more than sixty hours a week. I am 44 years old with a school aged child, and this level of labor is not sustainable. Over the past year, have barely broken even meaning I can pay my bills and my mortgage, but I haven't paid myself a salary. And I've been boarding 17 horses. I'd also like to add here that I afford my property taxes by renting half of my home to a permanent renter. And my husband pays for our health insurance because he works his job in construction. This is not only my story. It reflects what many in Vermont's equine industry are experiencing. I cannot continue to work at this level by while absorbing this kind of a financial hit. In addition to property taxes, equine farms are often excluded from agricultural disaster relief and other assistance programs because our income streams do not fit neatly within existing definitions. When flooding, extreme weather, other emergencies affect our operations, we face the same risks and losses as other farms. We are not always treated the same when it comes to relief and recovery programs. Without horses, there's a lot less demand for hay land and crop land. There will be fewer opportunities for young people to engage in agriculture. I feel we are at a breaking point. If Vermont wants horses to remain part of our working landscape and agricultural economy, something has to change. And recognizing equine farm buildings appropriately under the current use framework and ensuring the eligibility for agricultural disaster relief would be meaningful steps forward. It would acknowledge that we are working farmers committed to keeping land open and an agricultural use for the next generation. I personally would really committed like to remain in Vermont and raise my son here, but we are considering a move to North Carolina. So I just wanted to add that. Thank you for your time, everyone, and your consideration.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank you. Thanks, Jeff. Can we get everybody on the screen? Can we see everyone, please?

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: So yeah, while we're doing that, did Ferrisburg give you a reason why your taxes went up almost four times?

[Katie Waterman (Equine farm owner, Ferrisburgh)]: Because of my buildings that that we put up. I mean, my indoor arena was considered a taxable structure, and it's 200 feet by 82 feet.

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

[Katie Waterman (Equine farm owner, Ferrisburgh)]: I grieved it twice.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: And they don't recognize that as an agricultural building because of being equine right now, correct?

[Katie Waterman (Equine farm owner, Ferrisburgh)]: Correct.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I'm gonna just say I don't understand, and I think I do understand why and where. I just don't understand in these days and times why this hasn't been fixed. I'm just going to be very honest about it. For people that are in this business and farming and putting their hands in the ground and getting them dirty and all of that, I think a lot of this comes back just for generations of people believing that raising horses in business setting isn't farming. I don't get it. I really don't. I'm I'm tell you that I don't know what we'll do this year, but I know this, that no matter what the election cycle looks like, there'll be people back in this committee that are aware of your situation, and we're gonna fix it. I'll make that commitment. It's bold, but I'll make that commitment. That's all I can tell you. I don't know why. I don't know. I don't understand, but there's no argument knowing what we know, which is enough in my opinion, knowing what we know, I do not understand and cannot understand why you're being treated differently than, I I look at it like this. We have people who are just signed up for current use that don't even farm, and they're getting the benefits of current use. Know, again, what's the timeline? It starts today. Don't move. Who makes it?

[Katie Waterman (Equine farm owner, Ferrisburgh)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Okay. Anybody else? Yep. The one thing that I would add to piggyback on senator Ingalls and and Collamore. Obviously, it's it's too late in the game this this year, this biennium. So I would say as soon as we start up next year, send information and letters to the agriculture committee, and then we'll begin working on a bill to try to get this ship as fixed. But it's the old saying, squeaky wheel gets the oil, so that's very important in doing that.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Sure. Well, I'll have to say that Mindy was in here last year pressing the shingles, and was trying to feel it fell a little bit up that ear. So we made that commitment. I hope that we follow through. We will.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We'll follow through. We'll leave and see what, we

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: have

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: some other current use things going on a week that we get back. We're off next week, but we're back on Tuesday, and I have some other current use following through the holes of some current use stuff on apartment size, and this discussion will come up again then. You are more than welcome to join us. It is not going to be the focus of what our meeting is, but there will be questions asked of people that are in the room that administer current use, and continue we with the discussion then. Well, thank you, and we'll be chatting.

[Alyssa Price (Equine professional)]: Thank you.

[Mindy Hinsdale (Former farm owner; Vermont Equine Industry Advocacy Group co-founder)]: Thank you very much.

[Unidentified participant]: Thank you.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Okay. I'm glad he's joining.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah. He's here. He's in the room. Thank you, Maggie.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah. Bradley, come on up. Great. Just give me a minute. I'm gonna go get my computer. I'll be right back.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Which is? I excavated right a different time. And how did the closing go? Good. Did you get my head up quickly? Basically, getting it right at the office.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Sorry for the delay. We are gonna move on to S-sixty conversation. We have Attorney Schulman in and we'll fill up. State. Oh, what are we talking now?

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: 320 Oh,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We're okay. We're gonna do the three 23? Okay. Yeah. That's right. We're gonna do the section 10, right? Is that what we're talking about now?

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: No. Section 10, Ellen's going to come. So he's come back with the revised

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: There we go.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yes. And I just put that on Brad. Yep.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Thank you very much. I will I've heard a wise senator say this. I'll shut up and just let this go. Okay.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is just the the latest Okay.

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

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: For Senate three eighty twenty three. Bradley Sheldon also, legislative council for record here. So I'm just going to just point out some things that I've highlighted that have changed. This bill hasn't been edited with our editors yet, so it's not ready to be voted on. That's not the plan for the committee anyway. I just have that watermark there because it hasn't gone through that process yet. And so this bill might change with some language and things of the sort. So I am scrolling through to page two. I edited a finding about growing plants and embracing a small backyard poultry plot. So this, we're amending Section 24 PSA 4four 13 D to restore kind of the pretest street status quo, but we're also adding

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: the

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: right We're also getting individuals Protecting individuals from municipal bylaw regulation for growing plants and small backyard fox, like, added a finding there in that section, and then I I don't have this highlighted, but I changed the language. So the Vermont Supreme Court's decision in Taft Street reversed application of the past twenty years of law to pull that municipalities may regulate farming by municipal bylaw and to avoid the unintended consequences of decisions necessary for the Assembly to clarify if you state that municipalities, under ordinance or bylaw, shall not regulate farming pursuant to the statute. And just gonna scroll through this here, page four. And so we are on section three, page four, line 19. We clarified that donation, this would be in the wraps, clarified that donation means charitable contributions of farm crops are allowable under the appropriate United States code and that are made to an organization that is unrelated to the owner or role of the land. So that's donation of farm crops, mirroring language that's later on some tax provisions added that here to make that consistent. And so that would be in the wraps.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: This is on your

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

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, the accessory on farm permit structures, I'm not seeing that changed. So section three was just the wraps, we scrolled past that, we are on page eight. And so what I changed based on feedback is provided that so no permit is required provided that either more than 50% of the total annual sales or more than $250,000 adjusted for inflation in total annual sales of the prepared or processed qualifying products, customer products produced on the farm where the business is located. So the committee, they kind of sit with that language because it was making sure that that is the intent here. And then we changed some things from like a negative and a positive. And so I just want to make sure that that sits right there.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Are we good with that? We might need that reset?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Cool, you know, so we're worried. Typically, we have the inflation factor. Okay. So, in this piece, we're not voting on the bill today, This this piece, I put the consumer price index as the adjusted for inflation needs using the dollar amount of consumer price index for all urban consumers, all items published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics. And then so this is kind of standard language that we use to define how you adjust for inflation. And and I'm not sure the consumer price index is the best one for farmers, And I did a fair amount of research on this last night, and I determined that I just wanna spend some more time with it because I am not sure if these indices how reliable and how long term some of the indices that are more related to brook farming are, and I wanna delve into that a

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: little bit

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: more. So I'll have more information for you next time, but I have a place to start.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I appreciate that. Alright.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So for the land use value appraisal here, Let's see. Are changes that Kirby went over. Last time he was saying that the changes that Kirby went over are just incorporated into this draft. We added the donated farm crops, and then an owner of agricultural land that is eligible for enrollment due to farm crop donations pursuant to this chapter, shall retain receipts and proof of donation. So adding some some caveats and and, explanations to that. This piece is, this current use piece is related to the time of application and notifying about changes in use and changing the changing how the process of changing use might work. It puts the obligation that the owner will immediately notify the commissioner of any changes in use of any enrolled lands or buildings ineligible for continued use value appraisal. We went over this in an amendment with the Hemp amendment a couple weeks ago. This language is just pasted directly from that, so nothing has changed since the last time you folks saw this language. It's just incorporated here in this current section. The owner's change of use, shall be made in the form specified, and if you fail to timely notify the commissioner of any change of use of any enrolled land for the use value appraisal, the owner shall be required to repay those benefits, And the owner must might also be required to pay a reasonable interest on the bed of payments. And the failure to promptly Okay. Did we exclude this from

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I thought we if you want

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: me to take this out, that is perfectly fine. And so this was know that we So that is not this current use piece was sent to me separately after s three twenty three was voted on. After what? After s three twenty three was was voted on. And so I put this current news piece was I shared with the committee by an amendment a couple of weeks ago when we went over him. And and so I'm happy to take those piece back out, but that was not something that we had gone over yesterday. It was something we had gone over previously.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah. Because this is I can tell you this thing can apply. Okay. Okay. I'll take it out. And I know that it's gonna upset some people, but we've already been told in the building that was section 4 And 5. This Oh, is 4 And 5 that we had. Yeah. So

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: sections four and five, we'll scroll back up. So section four is the accessory on farm burning structure. Section four is on page eight. Section five is land use value appraisal for donated crops, so that you worked on Kirby. And then section six So

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: here's what is

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And then section seven is the section that we're just discussing just now, which is further changes to use value appraisal program about if a piece of land changes in use in notification. And so this is the piece that was not in s three twenty three to begin with. It's later, which had to be by amendment. I'm happy to take this piece out or any piece out of spill now that we're taking another look at it.

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

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Such paper we had yesterday, what we're just taking. I

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: thought the section four that we're reading was in our section three secondtion. Was that in section four?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So this, it's a little confusing because this piece in particular, if you recall when we went over a hemp Right. There were two items the committee asked me to put in that amendment that we were going over with hemp. And so it was mostly the hemp, and at the very end of that amendment had some additional current use pieces that the community asked me to put in. And then I and I might be mistaken about this, but I I thought I had instruction to keep to bring all of that language over into

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: You're doing fine. Yep. And So just keep keep telling us what you're telling us.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And and so I brought all of that over. So this section seven here is not something we discussed yesterday. It's something we discussed the last time I was in when we were talking about hemp a couple of week or two ago. And so sections seven and eight, while you're reading, sections seven and eight have to do with, the owner's assertion that the use of land will not change, if it does change, to promptly notify, and then section eight will address it adds a presumption that a structure that's ordinarily used for farming, if a structure is built on an old land site or a house site, and joining that agricultural land, there's a presumption that it is going to be used as agriculture, so they'll get the presumption of being eligible until it's reviewed. So that would be the process of section seven and eight in this here.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Wasn't this where you were saying what triggers this? How do you know if it happens?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah, I just, I'm a little confused on, where section four is. I know we spent a lot of time on that yesterday. Let's go back to section three. Well, is what it is. Let's just keep on going. I'm gonna I'll read this a little bit more. I don't wanna hold up the committee as far as on on this. I'll I'll work through my I'll work through my stuff.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So next section is section nine on page 14, and that's the solar siding that committee can review with That used

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: to be 10, now it's nine. We got rid of the private kitchens. Okay. Scrolling.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Section 10 is milk producers. This came straight over from yesterday, no changes. The Farm to School Programs came over from yesterday, no changes. Pest Control or Appeal, same thing. Yeah. Section 13, same thing, came over yesterday. Seed law came over from yesterday, no changes. They will require leads for the fee law. We're still in Seed law. I'm just scrolling through. The boss did one. It's just going through. Alright. 32. Page 32 at the very bottom. Is section 20. It's consolidating the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program into VITA. So most of this is the same. We made I'll I'll show I'll walk you through some some edits. So I added in, the definition of authority to mean beta, and we'll see why in a moment. But, essentially, this is moving into a subsection of a sub chapter of the VITA program, but it's not incorporating any definitions in this chapter. So and I'll show you some language there. I conferred with Jennifer over at VITA, and they want this program to kind of operate it in its own vowel's the wrong word, but they want it to operate in its own legal world, so to isolate the definitions in this section. So I added authority. All the definitions are the same. We're scrolling through to page 36. No changes here. This just establishes the Vermont Agricultural Credit Program, and it's largely brought over from the existing statute. No changes here. Okay. We're looking at a change on page 37, general powers. So a is as the bill currently was. We added b. The authority shall have the powers necessary to dissolve the Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation. So VITA has the power to dissolve Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation in accordance with title 11 b, BSA chapter 14. So that's a a chapter talking about discussing dissolution of nonprofits, and Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation is a nonprofit. That is being dissolved, which is why they're moving it over from one place in the the law to another. And this language would give them the authority to dissolve that under the law about dissolving nonprofits. The agency that the the people responsible for dissolving a nonprofit have to determine what happens with the funds and receipts, make filings with the secretary of state, and they kind of tie up the affairs. And the second sentence here is if the Vermont Agricultural Credit Corporation has any property that it owns, that title will vest with the in the authority. And so this language, it just gives them the authorization to to do that, just kinda tie up some loose ends. Yep. Scrolling again, 39, nothing here has changed. Okay. And so page 40, a couple of things that we changed just to conform these are just conforming statute, conforming changes for the rest of the statute because we're moving things. Section 22 just takes out a reference to a section that is moving and will no longer be there. Section 23 sorry, the editors were commenting because subchapter 16 should be underlined. And so this draft will be edited to catch that. Number 24, another conforming change is just changing the Agricultural Credit Corporation's program, changing the changing the chapter 16 a to subchapter 16, so something more conforming changes. Section 25 is another conforming change, taking a reference this program in b. Jennifer told me that they don't run this program in B, they don't need this authority, so they're taking it out. Section 26 is another conforming change. Change the chapter to subchapter, and then now we're moving into permitting large and medium farms. Nothing has changed here. Any questions about the conforming changes with Vida? Okay. Now we're in hemp. Very little has changed from hemp since we last saw it, except two important things. I have to show the committee. One is we are making sure that hemp is an agricultural product. I did not highlight that here. There we go. On page 47, hemp an agricultural product. This I added in a consultation with, mister Pepper. Hemp and this is brought over from the the existing statue of hemp as an agricultural product that may be grown as a crop, reduced, processed, marketed, and and commercially traded. If Vermont received the subdivisions of this chapter, and the cultivation of hemp shall be subject to comply with the required agricultural practices. Make sure that farming of hemp follows those rules. This has stayed the same. Rule making authority has stayed the same. Testing enforcements, the thing that changes the administrative penalties. And so the compliance enforcement authorities and procedures applicable to cannabis establishments shall apply to persons licensed or registered under the subchapter. So it incorporates by reference the the administrative protections in cannabis. So when we went over this the last time, there was a question, why are the administrative protections not here for hemp? And they didn't want to create two potentially conflicting programs, so incorporating the administrative protections that they have for hemp or for cannabis, it's a hemp.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Are we speaking to Pepper on the processing fee, the producer fee, and product fee?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Well, was hoping that they would want to talk a little bit more about that, so I think we should be back by the time we get back on a week from, in a week's time. So, yeah, I really want to talk to them a little bit about that. So, the Lieutenant Governor, insurance about it as well. So, yeah, I wanna talk to him about that a little bit more.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And I have discouraged on that piece. You have not. I have not. Okay. I have not.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So if you would keep your inquiry looked out, I'd appreciate that.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: And what were you looking at that it was maybe revenue size?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Here's where I was with the senator. I was like, Okay, we have people in the room that were happy about it. Get back with those people, work something out, come back to us. Tell us what they could agree to. Again, to stay out of their business. But that we had farmers that weren't happy, so that's why we weren't happy. So go work something out, bring it back, tell us everybody's good, and we'll go from there.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. I'll follow-up with them. Know Piper's on it's it's out for a little bit, but I'll follow-up with us. Okay. And then no changes. What happened? No changes. And then this is the last piece. It's the Natural Resources Conservation Council and Mortgages. So that's what we've been emailing about a moment ago not a moment ago, a couple days ago. And then so this is the language. The Natural Resources Conservation Council would like to be able to mortgage property. And the statute that they have here is confusing because it gives them the power to borrow money and mortgage. And then another section says that the real estate shall not be mortgaged. And so we're taking out the last section saying the real estate shall not be mortgaged and also taking out the need to get written approval by the governor.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: So on line 14 there, Bradley, I I don't know legalese the way you do it,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: but it seems like there'd

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: be a period after chapter and striking provided however.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: That's yeah. That's exactly right. And another thing that's we go back and forth on the ending process, and so we were gonna hop that there. But you're exactly right.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Hence, the watermark.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Not yet edited.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Not yet edited. Not yet edited. They put this together. Thank you both as quickly as I could, and I appreciate that.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: No. You you did very well. Thank you. I figured out where my confusion was a little bit. It was just a numbering of the pages compared to what we had before and what we are right now. Can we go back to Section Four for a minute, Bradley? Yes. And any other parts committee that you'd like to go to?

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Let's go to section four ourselves. Wow. This is long.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: You're gonna have a real long day, senator.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Well, I'll be joined by the rest of the committee.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Maybe you will be. Sweet. You can help. Section six four. Page assess the What page is it? It is page eight. Okay. Yeah. There we go.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: So questions.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Brad, what are we changing to what is

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: how much are we changing to what is in statute now or law now with with our wording here on on the section four? Section four currently says that no permit or permit amendment is required for an accessory on farm business, provided that more than 50% of the total annual sales of prepared or processed qualifying products come from products produced on the farm. And so what this adds, what this changes is 50% of the total sales or adds another

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: To add to add the, the donation product or whatever what whatever it might be.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it does this actually does not have the donation product. Actually, it just does a 50% of the total sales or a

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: raw we have the two the raw number in there as for that. Okay. So we are we're not changing much. What are we changing as far as what's in statute now as far as what I'm concerned about other committees in this building. What are they gonna attack us on, on this one? Why do we change so much on this one that they're gonna be upset about?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: I think, I mean, I think adding the actual, the quarter of a million-

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: We already have the 50% in there already, right? It's already there. The only thing we've done, and so as we go to report this bill, the only thing is that we wanted to capture more people in our marketplace, and this number that we put in there allowed for these businesses to donate their product up to a quarter of $1,000,000 and then get recognized for it in a way whether it be on their taxes or whatever.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: This is not just donations, it's sale. Right. Okay. And so if it's the intention of the committee for this to be donations, I think I need to change that language.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Donations. Right, it does, right. I just want to make sure it captures donations, and if we don't have to say it, less is better.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I just want to make sure captions donations and that we do with all that we do, and I get how much we're bringing in. My big thing is who's going to attack this as we get ready to vote this out, because I'm on the Senate Secretary for office to a couple committees, I just want to be prepared for the argument that I might get back.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not familiar with who might be interested in this and find a piece. I can confer It's

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: gonna be with natural resources and and and tax. Yeah.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Finance. And so and I and I don't know the opinions of of those chairs or those committees on on this particular piece. I can't confer with Ellen and and Curry on that. It's a kind of process of being a process.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yes. Would you I'll stick with would you see where that argument's gonna come from? Okay. Just so we have a response. Well, I just wanna alleviate their fears that we're not in their wheelhouse. We're not into their business where where we're at. So, yes. Got it. Rob, how are doing?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I was I was muted and looking up the definition of

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: our accessory on the farm business. So

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: How are you? Switch. I'm going with everything except for now, Section 9. Right.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Section 9, the solar siding?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: That's the solar one that's

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Okay. Good. So you're good with everything so far?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I am. Yep.

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

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: I don't have any opinion on who else might wanna look at it, but I imagine a lot of people would.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Yeah. On night?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: No. On other things as well.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Other things? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Committee, anything else? Why do we have Bradley, guess?

[Unidentified participant]: So on this two fifty

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Tell us who you are.

[Michelle Dice (Little Village Enterprises)]: I'm Michelle Dice for Little Village Enterprises, all around. So the two fifty is not just about the donations. It's supposed to be 250,000 of the products that are not produced on the farm so that you're able to acquire other and then sell. So I think, I think it just got lost in one of the drafts, like, in terms of language. Think the intents there, I just don't know if the language captures that.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so that's new to me because I thought, and that's good, so I thought that 250,000 of sales of products that came from the farm had to be produced on the farm to get the exemption. What you're saying is the flip side of that. Is that right?

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Not necessarily the flip side of that, but to incorporate anything that is bought additionally.

[Michelle Dice (Little Village Enterprises)]: Crops. Crops, I think is important so that it's not buying other things. It can be misconstrued.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: And so we want no more than a quarter of $1,000,000 worth of things that are bought that are not produced on the farm.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yes. Yes, that's right.

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

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Sorry.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I got you.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: I think we had it in there at one point.

[Mindy Hinsdale (Former farm owner; Vermont Equine Industry Advocacy Group co-founder)]: I think it was in there, and

[Michelle Dice (Little Village Enterprises)]: I think it's just between the different traffic.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: That's thank you. Because that's where I was really struggling.

[Michelle Dice (Little Village Enterprises)]: That's okay. I was

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: too That was where I was

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: So quarter of $1,000,000 adjusted for inflation from total annual sales of products not produced on the farm. Right. So I'll just change. I'll I'll address that accordingly. Yeah. Okay. That's it.

[Michelle Dice (Little Village Enterprises)]: Thank you, Abba. You just can't say, like, the principally produced is, like, the kind of the that has been a as I think the center column will remember, a very touchy subject. It comes to principally produced.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Comes from products produced on the farm where the business is located. Is

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: that it?

[Michelle Dice (Little Village Enterprises)]: I believe so.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Because that language is in the statute as it is, and we could change it.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Does it say principally produce or just produce?

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: It just says produce.

[Michelle Dice (Little Village Enterprises)]: Okay. As long It doesn't

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: say produce. So let's and that's and that's the key thing here. I do I want to change as less as what we can to get to what we wanna get to. So if it's something that before our times in here that has been consternation in this building, I don't want to create that. I want to keep it as narrow as we can so that we can say this is all we're doing. You had agreed to it before, and this is where we're at now. And if it's gonna do the same thing, I just don't wanna wordsmith this. I don't wanna wordsmith us into a problem.

[Michelle Dice (Little Village Enterprises)]: Neither do I.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: So everybody's good?

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Michelle Dice (Little Village Enterprises)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, good. Okay.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you very much. Thank you

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: very much. Appreciate it. We'll be trapped in Moa. Getting close. Close, getting close. Getting close. Everybody good to move on to

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: S 60.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: S 60? Yep.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Brian. Hey, Brian. Real quick.

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

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Linda, do we have a copy of s 60 anywhere that we can that's on there? Okay. There we go. Yeah. It is. Okay. All I to do is click. Yeah. Rob, you wanna help us with this?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Oh gosh, I wasn't prepared to. What do we need help with?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: No, let's just go down through, let's just all go down through the mill and I think we're very, very clear about where we want to be. The only things that we added was forestry. I just want to look for any mistakes if we want to be there. I just need an attorney's eye on it. That's all.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yeah, we looked at it before. I forget what date we had looked at it and we had a decent side by side January.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: I didn't want you looking at it Rob just to make sure that nothing's jumping out at you.

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: No, no, everything was good.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Shall we just through the forestry part of it on page seven starting on line six and just make sure that we're good with what we see there. I'll read it if you guys don't mind. I'll go. Okay, line six, Department of Forestry operations, security special fund, a review board. A creation, this has created the Farm and Forestry Operational Security Special Fund Review Board, which for administrative purposes shall be at the Agency of Agriculture, Food and Markets. Organizations on board. The board shall be comprised of the Secretary of Ag, Food, and Markets, or designee, who shall serve as chair, the Commissioner of Forest, Parks, and Recreation designee, the State Chief Recovery Officer as designee, representatives of three agricultural organizations who can demonstrate expertise in dealing with all sides and types of farms and promote, whether through granting funds, offering technical assistance or advocacy, and who have a proven track record of working with farmers appointed by the Secretary of Ag, Food and Markets. Page eight, line one, two farmers who have received relief funding appointed by the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets, two forestry operators appointed by the Commissioner of Forest, Parks and Recreation. Member terms conflicts, a member's designated Subdivision B4 of this section shall be appointed to initial terms of two years. Therefore, each appointed member shall serve a term of three years or until the member's early resignation or removal. The member's designation in subdivision B5 of this section shall be appointed to to initial terms of one year. The member designated in subdivision B6 of this section shall be appointed to initial terms of two years. Therefore, appointed member shall serve a term of three years. I think that's all clear. Let's go to 16. If a board member has a conflict of interest as the term is defined by three VSA section twelve-one regarding the review of application for a permit under this section of the Secretary of Agriculture, Food and Markets, They appoint all their member to maintain a form with the board to review an application and recommend whether payment should be rewarded. Powers on page nine, the review board shall review applications for assistance under this section, assess the accuracy and validity of the applications, and recommend to the secretary applicants who should receive assistance under this section. The board annually shall report to the House Committee on Agriculture, Food, Resiliency and Forestry and the Senate Committee on Agriculture, the total documented Vermont Farm and Forest Operations financial loss from eligible weather conditions averaged over the previous three calendar years. In order to ensure the food, the fund is meeting the needs of Vermont's agriculture community and forest operations community, the review board shall review the application process, eligibility criteria distribution and accessibility of the fund. The Review Board shall annually, shall recommend to the House Committee of Agriculture, Food, Resiliency and Forestry, and the Senate Committee of Agriculture ways to improve the effectiveness of the fund. Officers, committees, the Board may elect officers, establish one or more committees or subcommittees or adopt such procedural rules that shall determine necessary and appropriate to perform its work, quorum, meetings, voting, blah blah blah, all that. Compensation, lines four on page 10. Private sector members shall be entitled to per diem compensations authorized under 32 BSA for each day spent in the performance of their duty, and each member shall be reimbursed from the bond for the member's actual and necessary expense incurred in carrying out the member's duties, contractual funding, the duty to implement Section two of this Act, Farm and Forest Operations Security Special Fund, and is contingent upon appropriations of funds in fiscal year 2027 or subsequent fiscal year from the general fund to the agency of agriculture food markets for the specific purpose described in section two of this act. The effective date shall take effect on 07/01/2026. Really just the same bill and we just added forestry in there. Is that how you see it, Rob?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yes.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: Is that likely to want to be looked at by the natural resources? I think that they're Well, we could pass it and make it in procession of it. Drive by it. I think from what what everybody's told me yes. A drive by. Everybody's told me that they're fine with it. Just yeah. That's why want those questions asked. Always fair. So I I would be inclined to vote it out, if they wanna look at it after that, then they can do that. Yeah. They can do that. Yeah. Before it goes to the floor. Yep.

[Sen. Steven Heffernan (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah. I mean, it it passed last year. Right.

[Bradley Sheldon (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. Yes.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: This is true. And so on, so on, scissors. Yeah. Are we ready for a vote?

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Are we gonna recommend an appropriation or put a game looking?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: No, I'm gonna recommend an appropriation on our team when we do that. I think that, yeah, I'm gonna recommend a million dollars and see where it goes. All right,

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: you ready? This is on S60,

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: the House So we make a motion to take a vote on it.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I would move that we vote out S60. S60, I

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: didn't know if it had a draft, favorably. I second.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: The House proposal of amendment is officially. The House proposal of S60 proposal.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: It is a strike off from yeah. Yep. So it's a recommendation that she made and has been seconded. And so Secretary, would you call the roll please? Senator Pallamore. Yes.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Senator Heffernan. Yes. Senator Majors. Yes. Senator Plunkett?

[Sen. Robert Plunkett (Member)]: Yes.

[Sen. Joseph "Joe" Major (Vice Chair)]: Senator Ingalls? Yes. Rote is five zeroes to zero. Who will be recording?

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Chair)]: No, you wanna, are you fine Okay. With I'm not opposed to it here, but do you want it at one? He's got such a big voice for me. We'll share the big ones. No, we're not share the big ones. I am absolutely positively kicking on you on part of that. In fact, to be honest with you, we're gonna be doing most of it, but there's gonna be a couple of maybe a section that I I'm just gonna need you on. You know, just because of your knowledge, your history, especially of the of the titles that you are able to easily go back and forth and explain it where we're gonna go humming and humming and humming. Yeah. Good. We're good after that. Everybody good? Yeah. Okay. Well, as we know, still have some more stuff to do here on our bill. We're looking really good. There's a few more changes going on. I really do want that cannabis control board to talk to those farmers. Sounds like they're gonna do that. I don't really see very many issues going on with what we have. I think we have a very good fill. We'll be looking pretty quickly to get this thing out certainly by Wednesday or Thursday of the week that we get back. Definitely by Wednesday, I really don't want to wait till Friday. If anybody's got any questions or issues or a key or anything or anybody comes up to them, let us know. Let us know where we're at. But I really don't see that we're getting into anybody's problems other than the new section which is the old section 10 which we still have a lot of work to do and I do fully expect that that's probably going to hang on a wall someplace It might not make our bill. At the end of the day I think don't, here's where I'm at with it and I've said to the people that have come in and have had real concerns about where we're going with it, It's real simple. Staff our farm fields. Staff our farm fields. We won't even have to get into anybody's business. Just make an effort to stay off our primag land fields. That will be with what we argue with when it comes back when we come back. Anything else that anybody would to add? Nope. I hope everybody had y'all. You certainly have worked really hard in this committee. We're very appreciative of it. We've worked collaboratively. We've worked respectfully, and not to put us ahead of any other committees in this building, but you should all be very proud about how you've honored one another and honored the witnesses that have come in here, honored the people of Vermont, you guys have done a