 pleased to be joined by Gus Selig. Gus, you have some updates for us. Hopefully we were trying to get you guys engaged in some technical support for farmers looking for assistance. Why don't you just tell us what's happened since we spoke with you? Okay, well, Mr. Chairman, we're acting Chairman. Thank you very much. And Senators Hardy and Senator Collarmore, it's good to be with you today. Joining me are people who will be able to better answer your questions as you delve down, which are Ella Chapin, the director of our Farm and Forest Viability Program, who's actually joining us from her vacation. So thanks, Ella, for breaking away from it. And Mariah Knopf, who is the person at the other end of the phone when people do call our offices looking for assistance. And I'm just going to briefly say a few things. We began, and you got a report from us that I think Linda has and has posted on her activities through July. But really, from the beginning of the pandemic, we turned our Farm and Forest Viability resources toward helping farmers navigate through the pandemic. We lab generalists gave us $50,000 because they understood we could immediately begin to connect people with resources. And there's really been two forms of work. And you followed up them with an appropriation of $192,000, which we're using some of, but most of which is going to both private contractors that we have long working relationships with, as well as some of our usual partners. And Ella will, it's in the report, but Ella will go into more detail. There's been two focuses of our work to this point. One has clearly been helping people navigate the availability of resources, whether they've been federal in nature, like the PPP program, or now that the agency of agriculture is standing up programs helping them with that. We've also helped a number of ag businesses and forestry businesses who have needed to pivot their businesses into dealing with and developing the plans to do that. And Mariah's happy to share with you some of those stories, but that's the brief overview, the work when we reported to you at the end of July had touched 146 businesses were now well past 260 businesses that have been seeking assistance. And I think Linda, do you have a slide you can share with the committee that Jen provided this morning? So why don't we just put that up for a moment. And so this just sort of sums up the types of work and the types of assistance that we've been providing, whether it's financial and cash flow planning, dealing with shifting markets, developing online and direct sales strategies, but also health, well-being and mediation resources. When we reported to you at the end of July, I think at that time 45% of the businesses would help for dairies, obviously with a rollout of the ag agency's dairy program that's gone up. As you would expect, it's a little bit more than half, but there's a lot of work going to other parts of the working lands, businesses that include value added enterprises, slaughter, diversified lofts, livestock produce, and so on and so forth, as you can see. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Ella to go a little bit deeper than I have. And then, and we're happy to answer your questions. And I think we're hoping to not take more than about 15 minutes and overview and be ready to answer whatever questions you have for us. So Ella, the floor is yours. Thanks, Gus. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, Gus. I'm just going to add a little bit more detail and can answer any big picture questions folks have. And then, Mariah will share some stories from the work. Essentially, we have long always been the long term sort of non-emergency planning program supporting many organizations around the state that do the business assistance work, business coaching work across the state, including UVM Extension, Intervail, NOFA, the Center for Narcultural Economy, Wyndham Grows, the Sustainable Jobs Fund, basically every organization that does really in-depth business coaching, business advising for the agricultural sector. And now also in the wood product sector, we fund and guide that work through our long term business assistance. When we, in mid-March, when we realized things were really changing rapidly for businesses in our sector, not to mention every individual in the state, we really launched an essentially new and slightly different version of our program, this rapid response business coaching, which you've heard about. I just want to articulate that it is a really different format and structure, although it does use many of the same business coaches. We've leaned very heavily since mid-March on private sector independent business consultants who had more flexibility than many of the organizations in our network during a time when many of our organizations had lower capacity in staff with children who were at home and other needs. So consultants have really helped fill a lot of the gaps that we saw starting in mid-March, but at this point and with the CRF money, we are particularly supporting those organizations in our network to take on new projects to do COVID related rapid response assistance. So we've really stood up a new program, not unlike what we did after Irene, but Irene didn't have nearly the scale of impacting the number of businesses that obviously we're seeing today during this pandemic. So we feel really good that we've been able to do this with the financial support from WELEB and a few other smaller contributions we received in the spring. And now with the CRF money to extend this work through December, it's been incredibly important to the businesses that have asked for help. And it's also been really critically important for a lot of the organizations and particularly the agency of ag as they launch the dairy and then the non-dairy grant programs as well as the Department of Forest Parks and Rec and other agencies were providing a lot of sub support structure for folks who are trying to navigate those grant programs. And in March and April and into May, we were primarily supporting or a huge amount of our support was going to businesses trying to navigate federal programs, IDLE and the PPP and other loan and grant and unemployment programs. So that's really been where the report that we submitted to you for July 31st shows that about 59% of clients that we've helped out of 192 helped through the end of July had received help around sort of financial planning and cash flow management and figuring out the rapid changes and what was happening with our business financially. Sometimes that's used to also then apply for some of these relief programs, but 87% of clients had received help with one of the various state or federal relief programs. 41% of businesses that had been through our program across the different types of businesses that you see on your screen had received help with changing markets and losing some markets and finding new places for their products. 30% had received specifically help with changing retail, going either online or to retail sales channels and the sort of internet infrastructure or sales and marketing infrastructure that needed to change in order to do that. And then some smaller percentages, but still very equally important, helping folks access new forms of capital, helping folks with land access and transfer issues that relate to COVID and then about 20% needing help with sort of regulatory and food safety and new COVID related procedures and practices. So those are there's just a real range of types of assistance that people have gotten. You saw sort of the on your screen sort of a summary of that, but I just wanted to help you understand that much or most of what we've been doing is helping people navigate sort of financial and market sales related shifts and particularly accessing the various many various federal and state programs. I wanted to also mention that this has been a really interesting opportunity to reach some types of businesses that or some business owners that maybe in the past had not sought out help from the viability network and we're seeing folks come in because they're perhaps applying to one of the state grant programs and they needed some help just understanding how best to do that and they've gotten just a little bit of coaching from either Mariah on the phone and on our staff or she's put them in touch with a business coach to do a little further assistance and then they realize oh the viability program overall could help us in the long run with our business and so we are seeing some folks come in through this rapid response program and ending up in our our viability program overall for the longer term. So I think I will oh and then I wanted to just go over sort of how the CRF funds are going out the door. We have about a hundred thousand a little more than a hundred thousand of the hundred and ninety two thousand committed to about half a dozen organizations and almost a half a dozen independent consultants to do various types of business coaching programs. A couple of organizations are running some cohort programs where peers hear from each other about how they're navigating COVID time. They are then getting one-on-one business coaching on the side so both the Sustainable Jobs Fund is running a couple cohort groups as well as Wyndham Grows. The NOFA Vermont is receiving some funds to launch a marketing and sales assistance program as well as do some work with meat processing businesses giving an extension and and Farm First and the Vermont Ag Mediation Program are all receiving some funds to do some additional work with clients that we send their way or that they hear of that need COVID related transition help and and I think that's most of the organizations that we are currently contracting with. So a lot of those funds are already contracted and and getting some work done on the ground and we expect a lot of that work to happen during sort of late August through through the beginning of December. Well great. Sarah Collamore. Thank you Senator Pearson. Thank you very much Ella and Gus and Mariah for joining us this morning. If I did the math correctly and maybe this is in the total report which I admit I have not read yet but if 55 percent of the folks that you've helped out were dairy I'm assuming that's about 143 dairy farmers of 55 percent of 261. Can you break down how many were large medium and small and do you know or perhaps is that a question for the agency of agriculture how many of those farmers have actually received a check by now and then the same would be true for the non-dairy to be fair to everybody. Yeah Mariah might have a sense of a breakdown between small medium and large or for the dairy farms that we've been helping but it's been a real breadth across the board. You know as you know there are far fewer LFOs and MFOs and there are CSFOs and small dairy farms. I know that what generally we've helped many many many small and CSFO dairy farms just trying to figure out eligibility and how to access and prepare their financial materials for the dairy grant program. I think we've also helped with sort of changing business models and doing some direct sales for dairy farmers across the spectrum of small to large but we definitely over the past month have helped a very large number of dairy farms. In fact at one point when we got a report from the agency this was probably two to two and a half weeks ago now we heard that about half of the completed applications they had received and that they were reviewing had had help from one of our advisors. I don't know if that stat is still true but maybe Mariah can provide a little bit of an update and and definitely I don't think we're aware how many folks have gotten checks but we know that there is you know a very multi-step process at the AG agency with like I think three levels of review so we know it does take time once they have completed applications and getting to a completed application it's not easy. Thank you. Mariah did you want to chime in? Yeah I can speak a little bit to that and thank you Senator Collin Moore for the question. So in terms of the the size question I would agree with Ella that we've worked with the majority on the the small and certified small operations we don't have the exact numbers on the breakdown of each farm type as also not not every farm we work with ultimately fills out the intake form that we have so I can give you kind of that general sense and and that we have worked with a real diversity of businesses and that especially seeing the need for support among smaller dairies with who don't have computer access with help for this the STERI grant application. I would also say in terms of the whether you know how many folks have received payment at this time the agency of agriculture is keeping very detailed track of that and they do have that broken down by farm size and whether or not those farms are hitting their maximum amount. What I understand from the agency as of our last update is that large farms have all hit their caps basically on just milk price losses alone whereas small farms and certified small farms are not hitting their cap on the price loss alone and need to include other economic harms in those applications. Thank you. Ella well does anybody else have a question Ella you Senator Hardy. Oh that's okay go ahead Chris you can go first. Well Ella you mentioned something that as I re-listen in my mind as I'm organizing my life here is like excuse me for being late and everything. You mentioned that farmers are now engaging with your other services outside of COVID relief and can you just tease that out a little bit because this committee went round and round about the idea that as we're using this to reach out to farmers we ought to make sure everybody knows that some of these resources are available and it was bizarrely challenging to get that through in the end but it sounds like maybe that was worthwhile and we don't get to celebrate victories very often so could you just tease that out a little bit for us. Sure um our long-term business planning program is essentially a two-year commitment by the by the client by the business owner or operator or their family and so it's a it's a pretty it's a pretty deep dive and often a business coming into our program might get to know one of our business advisors first or be working with NOFA or the Interval or UVM or one of the organizations on some other programming maybe more production related and they hear that they could work with that same advisor or someone else in that organization or within our network on you know a business plan or a succession plan but you know the depth of our regular programming is is quite substantial and people sometimes think about it for years before they say okay I'm really ready for that program so at least for VHCB our our viability program has always focused on long-term deep engagement with clients and and conversely the client or the business needs to be ready to make that kind of longer-term commitment and be looking at really big picture planning issues in their business and that said many of our organizations that we fund and support and are part of the viability network doing that kind of work also have their own programs that are for shorter stints of assistance whether they focus on beginning farmers or they focus on production help or whatever it is so there's multiple entry points for folks into our network and then ultimately to a longer term business assistance program when it's an appropriate fit because our because VHCB manages this as sort of a funder and and providing guidance and and ensuring sort of the quality control of the program and our staff don't actually deliver that business assistance you know it's a network that does that you know we've we've been able to stay focused on that long-term assistance really in-depth work while those other organizations provide some of those other services where was I going with that thought I think when Irene hit none of our organizations really felt like they had the right funding to do the emergency kind of planning work that they needed to do to just help people assess their financial situation and yet it was the same group of business advisors that had the right skill set for that so we at the time just sort of released some of our contract some of our contracted funds that were out there already with organizations we said you know instead of doing three really in-depth projects with three farms really in-depth why don't you work with 30 businesses in a rapid way to help them through Irene we were able to sort of redeploy some of our resources that way at the time of Irene particularly with UVM extension and that was really effective so we doing that now and we started off with redeploying some of our funds the same way as we had in Irene but it was nowhere near the resources needed to address the COVID pandemic so what I think I'm trying to say is in that shift the same organizations and people are available to do really short-term rapid response work but we and they are able to attach them to the to the whole resource network that's out there and so it's a great way to get people sort of into a system of assistance and then help guide them to the right resources so sometimes Mariah is just redirecting their interest to a resource that exists out there and sometimes we're able to sort of patch in for like a six hour consulting stint to help people sort of get over the hump of the immediate decision they need to make do I apply for PPP or IDLE or you know do I you know what what funding source do I do I need to go and how do I go about being prepared for that to then like okay now I need to think like now I know I know I got the PPP loan what am I going to do in my business like am I going to stay open or am I going to change sales channels and that can be a longer term spot I think it'd be maybe worth jumping in well I know Senator Hardy you had a question but I would like to make some time for Mariah to just share a couple of the stories because I think that'll help give some examples of this and so we are seeing a couple of those businesses transition from the sort of COVID CRF type funded assistance to where we have other funding resources for the long-term business assistance and other resources that exist out there that don't need to be covered by CRF dollars okay thank you Senator Hardy do you want to jump in with a question or should we go ahead well I'm happy to hear from Mariah one quick thing though is Linda do you have this longer report that Ella and Gus referred to I can't find it on the BHCB website or our committee website so maybe if you could email it to us or something so we have it to look at and also Ella are you doing another one sort of an update at some point okay that would be great you'll have one next week but I'd love to hear Mariah and then I have a couple other just small questions okay turning to you Mariah thank you thank you so much yeah absolutely um so in terms of kind of how we're also trying to structure the the services that we're providing for COVID response and kind of creating that continuum of service that really attaches to our longer viability program is also when I'm for instance making matches with businesses who need certain types of support that are you know they may indicate some short-term support needs as well as longer-term ones so part of what I'm I'm doing with folks is matching them with an advisor in our network that maybe that would be a great fit for them for longer-term advising as well and so really as as folks may know working with farms through these variety of challenges it's really important to build that relationship and that trust with an advisor especially when looking at that that longer term two-year programming so this is a really great opportunity to to build those relationships with an advisor network as well as connect them with the various resources across the state so that's been a really great entry point and then just in terms of a story that that kind of captures that so we had one larger operation in East Montpelier that was experiencing large losses in in their milk price and declines due to quota from their cooperative and reached out to us for COVID support to to assess that but also were considering diversification strategies to not only make up for those losses but also seeing a need in their community for local meat products and thinking that that may be a great place for them to enter the market diversify their market streams be more viable into the future while also supporting their community with food security challenges and so they entered our COVID response program were able to connect with an advisor to kind of begin the initial initial strategic planning work on that and then realizing that there's a lot more planning to do a lot more in-depth financial analysis and market research about this new diversified meat enterprise that they've actually gone on to enroll in our full program as as we recognize the need for additional resources and support in the longer term for that for that enterprise so that's that's one example of how kind of this service flow has been really effective for folks. Are there any examples of people that you haven't been helping in the short term but are gaining knowledge about the longer term options this was one of the things that we were also trying to accomplish? Yeah I can speak a little bit to that Senator Pearson so I'm receiving a variety of phone calls directly for varying types of support and within those phone calls you know even if it's something like I don't have my unique dairy identification number for for this program which you know ultimately is not something I can I can particularly help them with is I don't work on that application directly but that within that conversation I'm able to ask more about their business what kind of other things they're experiencing and you know even being able to offer you know not only the resources of our program in our extended network and explaining A what our program is and what we do in the short term period as well as the long term but also being able to provide information for instance you know speaking with a farm who is having challenges paying their utility bills and we're sharing that story with me I was able to say well I believe that there's just a program that's been launched that is able to cover some of those costs through the agency of commerce and community development let me connect you with the person who can talk to you about that program so I think that it's been a really great opportunity to make sure people are connected with a variety of resources that the state is offering including those of our program thank you Sarah Hardy yeah thank you I was looking for some stories so that's helpful to hear those directly and I I'm assuming that in your your dairy numbers are also cheese processors are you working with cheese processors okay I assumed that um and I think Caroline and um Maddie are going to speak to this issue but I'm wondering what you all are seeing in terms of the complexity of the application itself we've heard varying stories as to whether the application is easy or not easy and it sounds like if you they need a lot of technical assistance it may be more complicated and how do you come is that true are you finding that people are finding the application complicated and how does it compare to the sort of general business application um in terms of its complexity to complete and actually get money again I can take a first stab at that question although again Mariah might have some very specific examples she can share since she's the one on the phone with folks um we are definitely finding and hearing that the dairy grant application is generally more complex it has it has more questions and more specific information that it that's required then um then particularly the accd or the fpr applications that came with some very different criteria and at least from our business advisors perspective we've worked really um at length before and during the launch of the dairy program and the non-dairy program to uh to just work with that ag agency to think about how they can evaluate certain financial criteria so I think that it's just been a complex process and standing up these programs with the moment's notice has just been an incredible lift for each agency and and for us too so we've been able to work really closely with the ag agency on all of this having like weekly or multi calls every week to sort of hear where they're at with the launch of the application and since then so maybe Mariah can provide a couple of of examples but it's um we're finding generally that when people can access the help which we're providing as well as many others are they can get the answers and move forward and figure out the application and we were really asked to help everyone who didn't have computer access because all these programs are not accepting anything other than electronic applications so that you know just that piece is is a challenge for some um so it just each business seems to need a different level of help and have slightly different questions that they need help with and some need a lot of support and some need less but certainly it is a complex application unfortunately Mariah are you working also with the the forest products yes that's going through the department of forest parks and rec you are doing working is that as complicated or is that more simple I can speak a little bit to that I would say on on the forest side it's it's mainly focusing on the change in revenue from 2019 to that same period in 2020 and not really including any of you know identifying the other economic harms and so I think that to go back a step to to thinking about some of the the challenges with the dairy application I think part of that is just um technical access and ability among the the primary audience for for that grant program and that that that has just been a challenge and also recognizing you know that there there is a lack of broadband access and that some folks just don't don't have access to those um to that type of technology so I think that that's been a challenge and for those that do have access there's there's just some challenges related to um getting the proper documentation together and so what I would say that this this program has also kind of put a fine point on is the need for additional technical assistance support around bookkeeping and and making sure that those financial records are readily available for for programs like this I think that we saw that same exact issue with the federal uh relief applications as well um and so uh yeah I would say that that those have been the challenges and then around kind of that other economic harm section it's just kind of figuring out what a what are the impacts that I've experienced and really understanding those because as we know dairy farmers don't are saying you know I I'm just doing my best I'm doing my work and may not want to necessarily reach out and and feel like they're asking for support and preventing another person from getting it so um I think that just you know a communication around that has been important as well knowing that these funds are available for you you're not taking away from anybody else to to apply and to look at those other economic harms I'm happy to happy to go into detail as needed on on those items thank you sir another person could you guys give us a a sense of how long it might take uh a farmer to fill out an application both on the non-dairy side and the dairy side is it a five-minute processor is it a half hour or somewhere in between I think a lot of the work has to do not with filling out the application but preparing and figuring out the numbers you're going to put in the application so it really is that bookkeeping side and so the range I think it can take hours and hours and hours um and often may need communication with a bookkeeper or an accountant or where those folks aren't readily you know aren't on contract or on you know where businesses don't necessarily have someone that they can that they work with continually uh it means either they are spending a lot of time trying to figure that out or they're getting help from a business advisor or someone who's coaching them through that process or even showing up and doing a physically distanced visit with them to sort of help organize their financial information um so that's where the time um mostly is and that's where there's also a range from someone who has you know their monthly figures when it's not a quarterly report you need if you're looking at march through april or whatever the time period is and each of these programs is different um it's finding the right information in the right format and getting that together so that then you can identify either your changes in revenues or your changes in expenditures um and having the right information so that can take anywhere I'd say for maybe an hour for folks and my I'm just sort of guessing based on my general knowledge so feel free to jump in with more specifics but anywhere from you know maybe like an hour to prep and then I don't think it has to take super long to fill out the application um to many hours and what I think is happening in many scenarios because the information isn't crystal clear and many things need clarification from the agency so the agency has issued many versions of clarifications and FAC pages to sort of help clarify the application um is that uh you know many farmers will go through the submittal process and then be told that that it's not um that not all the information is the application isn't complete and that there's more work to be done so sometimes there's another phase of that. Mariah do you want to add some detail there? Yeah absolutely thank you and great question as well um I would absolutely agree that the time can be really wide ranging I'd say from what I'm hearing from the advisors that much more time is spent with the small operations and certified small farm operations just given that they don't hit their cap grant award as as you know quote-unquote easily as perhaps the larger operations just really on milk price alone and that there's just more documentation that need to be gathered more understanding of the justification etc. I think another complexity that is that kind of was pre-existing is that there are a variety of milk cooperatives in the state and they each pay farmers in slightly different ways or their checks look slightly different so I think a lot of information was needed about kind of which line items to look at depending on which cooperative is sending you your milk check and our network has done a lot of really great work to actually connect with um some of the milk cooperatives to actually be able to have them forward digitized milk checks directly to business advisors so that's helped streamline some of the process and we're really trying to leverage those relationships as well throughout throughout this advising work and can I just jump in on the non-dairy side because I think your question was related to both Senator Kalmar um yes on the on the non-dairy side I think we're similarly seeing a real range again but um and we haven't done as much on that just because it's more newly released and we haven't received as many requests for help but uh we did do a lot of work with the agency pre-launch of that program just around how to how to address the fact that it looks at profitability not just revenues and expenditures and um and that that I think that's been a real challenge just because even just the term profitability can be uh you know can be looked at in so many different ways and um and so uh similarly I think we're finding people it takes a real range there's been a lot of need for clarification on different aspects of the application and and criteria um and uh and if anything um either folks are realizing very early on that they're not going to they're not going to have the they're not going to fall into the criteria in the right way to show the loss in profits in profits um or they're you know really struggling to work through those different pieces marina did you want to add anything I think I would just add an additional complexity for especially that the diversified folks are kind of their eligibility just in general for relief programming in terms of what program should they be accessing like what are they most eligible for and or what program might be offering the most relief and given that businesses are generally not allowed to apply for more than one I think that there's just been some some confusion around when where and how to best access that relief given given the variety of programs and different timing rollouts of them my guess also is I didn't mean to interrupt as our chair is want to say the small guys are feeling this to a greater degree I think because they don't have people so to speak in their office that are charged with just following all the uh you know the the rules and the regulation I mean these are folks that are working every single day and they can't take time away from their work to be kind of trapped with all this paperwork to do before so I think it's especially important that we uh I don't know what we can do but I have a feeling that they're impacted to a greater degree than a very large organization which might have someone that that's their job to keep track of all this yeah I think that's true for the vast majority of our firm and food business operations unless you're really at a pretty significant scale folks are not only you know in they have to work in their operation not just on their operation every day and on top of it during this time people have less you know may have issues with employees and labor availability you know they're they're everybody's working double time as we all know so it is that has been a major challenge and I but I do think that this program has relieved that extensively and we have been able to meet each business that has come through our door we've been able to get them help and to help walk them through that and um and answer some of their immediate questions and then coach them through that process and support that process thank you yeah let's have senator hardy she's been waiting thanks senator Pearson um I I mean I agree on what senator colmore just said about you know most of the small farmers are are running pretty much everything on their farm and don't have time to fill an application but it's sort of a catch 22 because they're the ones that need the most help so you know I'm really grateful for you guys being able to help them um and I also just want to note um one of the reasons I think that it's probably more complicated for them is because we gave a larger chunk um we we uh downloaded the the aid so that the small farms would get the bigger grants so it would go beyond just their milk losses um to being able to have uh other economic harm included in and that makes it more complicated but it also means they're getting more money um so I did want to note that that you know the complexity comes with more aid um and you know if we could have been more prescient about how how to make it simpler that would have been nice but also I think it was intentional that we really wanted the small farms and small processors to get a larger grant um because we knew they were suffering more so um hopefully the work is worth it for them and I'm you know really grateful that you're all there to help them through a complicated process mr chair yeah thank you sorry I had to be away for a few minutes but I'm glad I'm back um I'm wondering when you do the uh small farms in there you know you take their price of milk is the extra charge that the co-ops are charging uh farmers uh because of COVID uh extra hauling costs that the haulers are getting uh because of COVID is that all added in those losses are those added into the overall uh calculations go ahead mariah I don't know the answer to that question senator star but maybe mariah has some yeah thank you senator star and yes um those those charges and and again they come in a variety of forms depending on the cooperative some of them are a COVID related surcharge some of them are um other other types of like you know five dollars per hundred weight for over over supply milk and things like that those are all included that's something that our network has worked with the agency on to develop out some frequently asked question language around and that those will be included under the um other economic harm section and there's now language being released um that should be um on the agency's website at some point soon if it's not yet around um how to claim that on the application and how to add that together and document that properly yeah it's good um when we talk about small farmers and recognizing that no matter the nature of the farm they're probably pretty flat out all day I'm curious if you've been able to develop resources that they can access after hours in other words obviously if it were me I would want to call mariah and have her help directly on the phone that would be just a great comfort but at 8 p.m. or 9 9 p.m. or whatever that's probably not realistic I'm hoping mariah that they don't get you at some level for your life are there webinars or or little videos or anything like that you've been able to do so that people can get some help more independently but still gain some of the knowledge you guys have have learned yeah thank you great great question senator pierson and absolutely I would definitely send all the thanks and and commend our partners at the agency for really developing out some really fantastic resources on their website um they not only have an application guide that that can show you the different sections of the application they have webinars for both the dairy and non-dairy application I believe uploaded to their site so folks can kind of see a walkthrough of that application and see the questions that were asked and answered on those webinars they've also are consistently updating that frequently asked questions section that are really pointed questions that also are our network of business advisors has helped to develop and suss out the answers to the issues that we're coming across when we're working with folks um so all of that is available after after hours at any point in that I I guide a lot of folks there and walks through those those questions with them as do our our business advisors as well so that's been a really fantastic repository of information great to add I do I'm not sure if your question was aimed particularly around the grants programs that the state's launching but in addition I know that some of our Sierra funding is going to help UVM do some digital um online educational materials that are COVID related uh around possibly digital marketing resources or cash flow planning tools um and that's so I think some of our partners are also doing some of that work where they see a good fit to make something just more widely available but I also will say that most or many of our business advisors are available at 8 p.m. and are talking to folks off hours just because that's how it works to consider particularly dairy farmers but just business owners in general well thank you hopefully Mariah's not but um many of our business advisors that they work on a flexible schedule are are definitely adapting their time to be available absolutely and I would just add really quickly that we do have a for general broader resources we have created a resource page that lives on our website for all working lands businesses and that's broken down by different resource types and that that is kept up to date as well maybe have maybe you've talked about this we're going to do a COVID change you know we're going to make some amendments to some of our programs that we have put out and have you run across any particular issue that we should consider maybe changing when we get to that point I think the big issues we hear about and that you're probably going to hear about in a few minutes from others who are about to provide testimony um although it's really hard to imagine changing criteria midstream but you know I'm sure that has to be taken into consideration but um the profitability piece for the non-dairy programs has probably been the the biggest the biggest criteria that challenge particularly because it's not easy to fairly and consistently define and assess profitability um so that's something that our business advisors weighed in on a lot but they're as you know you know that would require a statutory change and then just the more criteria and eligibility could be more even across different programs is what we hear is just really challenging for both businesses that are trying to figure out which program is the best fit if they're if they're not a dairy or a non-working lands business those who fall in between have been like Mariah said sort of looking at different programs and trying to figure out where they'd be a best fit who might that who might that be with that particular question what type of business I think you've got like maple businesses and um value-added businesses and um a real range I mean I I think it's probably ultimately helpful for the business to be able to have access to a couple programs because like Mariah said you know they're looking where they might be eligible for the most funding and so that flexibility but but it is confusing um so I'm not sure I'm I'm not suggesting any change I'm just sharing sort of what we're hearing from businesses as the biggest challenges are around that and from business advisors around that profitability use of profitability instead of just looking at revenues or expenses is the by far the biggest challenge along with I guess the one other one that I would mention that we've heard is that that really small farms that are under 10,000 and gross income are excluded um and that so that leaves some very small farms or very beginning farmers without access um that's that's just what we've sort of heard Mariah anything you would add to those three major categories um I guess the the only area that I would add and and with understanding that that the timing for these programs is really based around spending for the the and the requirements of the CRF funds themselves but that October 1st deadline just I've received a lot of questions about well how am I supposed to receive support for you know September October November and December losses and so just that that timing I know has been a challenge for for businesses out there yeah and uh Rose yeah I'm trying to this may be a question for just the room or the virtual room I'm trying to remember back to our conversations when we were putting together these um grant programs about this whole question of profitability and the testimony we took on that and you know a lot of the tests some of the testimony that I remember was concerned that we not direct grant money to quote unquote profitable businesses and that it was really clear that dairies were losing money but it was less clear that other kinds of farms were losing money but do you all recall did you come in Ella or Gus um and and talk to us about that that issue um or hear from your business advisors at the time because I don't remember testimony about it I mean it certainly makes sense and I understand the complexities and looking back I wish we had had testimony that would have directed us in a different way so that we aren't in this position but I don't remember anyone coming in and red flagging this in this way so I'm just curious if anyone else does I don't I don't I almost I almost think that it might have been someone from the agency or maybe even uh you know people that advised us that you can't take COVID money and give it to somebody that's already making money and not losing you know their shirt because there's so many people we need the money for those that are really hurting and you know but I like you Ruth I didn't hear a soul say you know this is going to be a problem I could weigh in on that this is Maddie from NOFA I'm on the phone um I don't know if y'all can hear me yeah did you say something about that Maddie we did yeah in the um one of the letters that NOFA and real vermont submitted we had actually specifically raised this as an issue um when you all were considering the could the creation of the non-dairy program um and you know I think the dynamic that was at play to my recollection was that particularly the house ag committee and the agency of ag really were were only wanting to give the funding to dairy farms um and so we had come in to testify and really share some stories of the types of losses and expenses that non-dairy and diversified farms were facing um and it is you know it's a much more nuanced picture because dairy farms across the board with the exception of you know some organic farms were just losing money you know on their milk on their bulk you know milk price um but for other farms it's a much more nuanced situation because they may have lost you know had substantial losses in some areas but we're able to pivot um but the issue is that holding them to this strict standard of being completely unprofitable um really is not equitable with this the questions that you're asking of other types of businesses um but to answer Ruth's question yes we did um bring this up as an issue and I'm not I'm not really sure but it didn't it didn't seem like it got through when we raised it back in May or June well of course the big fight was to get the non-dairy guys in to get money right uh exactly along with forestry and and uh you know the fairs and all these and I mean this this was all brand new to the entire uh senate and legislature and I mean so I guess if we only screwed up on a couple of things we're pretty fortunate uh well I I just want to add so Maddie um thank you for uh that reminder and I do and Bobby or Senator Starr also because that my recollection is because we were in this position where we were trying to get any money to non-dairy this was sort of a compromised position so that makes much more sense to me now that I remember back to that whole dispute about whether or not there would be any funding so this sort of provision was a compromise to provide so that that is a good reminder that we were in this position of trying to get any money for non-dairy farmers at all so thank you yeah uh yeah Ella or Anthony I'll get I'll get you too I'm sorry Ella I'll just quickly say that um we didn't provide testimony directly on this before and we don't quite feel like we're the right experts to do so now but um both no at NOFA our business specialists that we support Jen Miller um you know is very in tune with the financial intricacies of how you know how businesses you know how financials work with a wide variety of business um types and I would also offer you know Mark Canella at the UVM uh a farm viability program who's a business specialist and on the staff at UVM would probably both be excellent folks to ask more detailed questions about that and they're both helping actively helping with application submissions so they also understand the agency's programs and what a change could implicate so um you know I think we have multiple organizations including NOFA's on the phone today that can provide some of that feedback yeah um Anthony I think you had a question no actually I was just going to say Maddie already said what I was basically going to say that we were trying to get the non-dairy included and we basically accepted a compromise without thinking it through enough this no net profitability thing was something that if we had really thought about it more we probably wouldn't have done it but we were in a we were in a crunch time to try to get something done we wanted to make sure a non-dairy got in there and we basically went along with something that turned out not to be very workable for the non-dairy folks as like you said Bobby was one of very few mistakes so we're probably better off at least something we might be able to fix it's a policy question you know it's not as easy as changing the dates at the deadlines but it's something that we really need to think long and hard about making it possible for these folks six to apply for and actually getting some revenue from what uh Michael so yesterday when I was testifying in house ag this question came up and the agency uh testified that they have combined the non-dairy program with the working lands grant program and the application for non-dairy and working lands is the same application so if you're working through your application and you put in that you had a profit during that time frame it's not that you're disqualified from aid you just get shifted to the working lands fund source of funds so there's still funding and and assistance available to those those non-dairy operations that that had a profit during that time frame I don't know if that change is what you want to do but I think that that is something that you should also keep in mind so I'd like to respond to that if possible that's maddie this is it's maddie I would just want to respond to that when there's time yeah uh we're gonna uh we're gonna switch gears here pretty quick are there other questions for Ella or Gus or Mariah to uh Gus did you have something well just as you think about what's all ahead of us I just wanted to add not to this point of a non-dairy but um we don't know what congress will do when they come back our delegation is pushing for an extension of the December 30th deadline they're also pushing for more money to come through the next bill if there is a bill and so I just would encourage you to think about given that you'll probably be at the end of your session or out of a session how do you deal with that um so our program will run out of funding December 30th and the assistance so you I just I don't have a solution today but we're happy to work with the committee about what kind of contingency plans are there should there be an extension of the December 30th deadline and or more funding uh to support the agriculture and working lands businesses of the state I think just has to be part of your thinking whether you delegate to join fiscal or do something but hopefully there's gonna both be an extension and some more resources yeah thanks for that Gus yeah we we've already talked and approached about the date I brought that up a couple of different times and and that seems to be an issue that we can deal with because what they don't want to do is complicate you know previous people that have applied with with changes in the system and disrupt the the programs and I think the agency is supporting changing the date um which will make it much easier um so uh and if if we do have more money coming which like Gus said God only knows I guess and probably he doesn't either uh if if those guys will go to work and and help the the economy um but um so we we don't need to make drastic changes if if the deal's working for the non-dairy to get switched into the working lands as Michael just stated I think they've got or they got six six million or they've got quite a lot of money right and 3.5 million how many 3.5 yeah and have Maddie have any of your people run into a problem dealing with with that so I think that the bigger issue is you know I think Michael's right that folks will get funneled into the working lands program if they you know were in fact profitable um the problem is that they still won't be able to touch that five million you know I'm glad that in some ways the agency combined those two programs um but it really obscures this issue and my concern is that anyone who was remotely profitable is going to get funneled to the working lands program which is a smaller pot of money and also has a higher cap I think the cap is 50 000 so that might get used up more quickly it's also first come first serve I'm like the dairy program uh and so that 3.5 million which has you know a higher cap and less strict eligibility might get used up really quickly and the five million that has this no net profit provision attached will just sit there so that's the heart of my concern so are you saying that most of these non-dairy businesses are making money I don't know the answer to that to be honest with you um I couldn't give you an estimate of how many of these businesses are making money but no net profit is a really strict criteria to impose only on this particular class of businesses and it just I think it'll be interesting to see the reports that come back from the agency of ag and I think it'll be really important for them to report on these two pots of funding or actually really three pots of funding because the the 3.5 from working lands was in two different bills but I think it will be really interesting to see the breakdown in how those different pots are being spent down as of their September 1st report as due next week because again that's my concern that businesses won't be able to touch that five million and frankly the criteria that they show no net profit is just really inequitable and challenging because you all probably know farmers are not like the most profitable businesses to begin with so imposing this standard on them during a pandemic when they've had to work so hard and have had such losses they've lost entire you know market channels and such expenses if they've maintained even say they were say they made a hundred dollars in profit between March 1st and August 1st that does not by any stretch mean that they're whole so to exclude them from the same you know type of relief that other businesses have access to to cover their losses and expenses due to COVID is just really unfair. Well Chris you had a we'll talk about that but Chris you had a question. Yeah I guess I'm you know as we try to figure out some way to address some of these inequities and and lack of efficiency let's put it kindly I'm wondering if if there's any logic to taking the five million that we offered in in the farmer relief for non-dairy and moving that over to the working lands program so that if indeed most of our non-dairy farmers are coming in through that so that we make sure the money gets them I mean at the end of the day that's the goal. Anyway just curious if if that solves or maybe an easier way to come close to solving the problem just curious it. Well I think one once we get that report on how the different funds are working and the fund balances and all of that we could certainly talk about that and and we'll have we'll have time I would think I know a props would like to get some amendments and only do one block of amendments but we should get that information from the agency prior to getting those amendments ready I believe but I still I still feel funny about you know if these small businesses they're doing probably their own paperwork and if they can't figure out how to not show a profit you know maybe they ought to get more creative with their paperwork and and they're all making a profit I mean it it's if they're doing their own thing seems as though they could figure that out but anyways Allie. I'll just comment I mean I think I know I know what you're saying Senator Starr just generally but when it's for only a portion of the months of the year I think that's where profitability becomes really not a great tool to assess just for a certain portion of the month especially for seasonal businesses so say one business there's two businesses that are practically identical and one of them bought their feed for their livestock during that time and one bought it pre-march 1st all of a sudden you have this huge inequitability between these two businesses that otherwise in the end of the year will both show probably negative profits for the year but during that time their income versus revenues is substantially different just because of when they made a certain annual purchase so this is where it's just especially looking at profitability for only a few months of the year is really maybe not a helpful tool in the agricultural no we shouldn't have had that in there but I mean we got stuck with it it's not it's not really demonstrating profitability of the business overall right and and and another example would be a csa farm which i think chris center pierce and maybe raised last time you met you know i was talking to the csa where i get my vegetables and they for example you know do a lot of their spending early in the year on you know things like seeds and other you know implements that they need to start plants in their greenhouses and things like that so they're they really have a large outflow early in the year and then the majority of their income comes in say between march and may with you know their csa signups and their plant sale but then they're again like spending that down throughout the rest of the year and their other accounts through restaurants were often lost or are really uncertain for the rest of the year so that's just another example where you know this particular time frame doesn't actually demonstrate a farm's overall profitability for the year it's just a kind of cross section which really disadvantages potentially a lot of business types another example is like maple producers the maple open house weekend would have you know was scheduled for mid-march just after the pandemic hit and so that you know was a really hard hit because i think a lot of maple producers get income through that you know kind of agritourism those types of events and because of the timing they had that loss they may have made up for it later in the year but then they also might have fall events that are cancelled so it's just not a really it's not giving us a clear picture of the actual success and viability of these businesses yeah um i thanks um senator star i just wanted to add that i was thinking the same thing that senator piercin was thinking about in the easiest fix maybe to just shift the money over to this the working lands fund um if that has different criteria i know that the agency was concerned about having to reprogram their software which is a cost and i've heard that in other instances where we want to make tweaks to programs and they tell an agency say oh that'll cost us $50,000 to change that code so i think because we need to act quickly i think that i'm thinking about it that way may be an easier fix than changing the criteria i want to chime in there if i if i may um i i talked to laura ginsburg from the agency's development section and the development section was the section of the agency that was most involved in the development of the application about in how far the profitability clause is an is an issue from the agency's perspective and how i understood um if the easiest to understand the issue is to look at the agency's flow chart where the eligibility criteria basically can be followed in a flow chart matrix and you can see there exactly where the profitability question comes up in the application and um when you answer yes the profitability question that you get moved over to the working lands program but there the the problem is that you have to have at least one w2 employee so that um basically the um the issue remains for those profitable farms that are sole proprietors so from rover mont's perspective it's again um an issue that hits the hardest the the small really the small farms with no employees um that are basically doing everything by themselves and um i would i would recommend to hear from laura ginsburg and how far um removing the um the profitability clause would be a feasible um easy easy or not so easy fix that particular question i think they can answer best um my my what i heard and i of course i can testify for them uh what i heard that solely were moving the profitability clause might not be too big of an issue actually um but please confirm with the agency directly um and um i don't know can't really speak to the idea of whether it would be easier in comparison to um remove the money in the working lands fund and how far the working land lands fund is um as equitable as the other program um yeah thank you uh chris well can can maybe michael just remind us um this net profitability criteria does it apply in the accd grants and others i i don't think it does right and and just just okay so the nods uh for those listening suggest that's correct so that's a real problem i mean i mean there's just no justification to treat a small sector of our agricultural economy different than everybody else you know i i agree with senator polina we it was it was a tricky negotiation we were up against people that wanted it out all together but it was a mistake and i i really do feel strongly that we we ought to think of it this way we should be forced to justify the difference and i can't think of a single justification for that no i think it was totally you know we we were running fast and we tripped when that came along and didn't think of it um but if it was only michael how big a job would it be just to delete that little section for drafting it's not hard at all um it's just striking out a subdivision the it'll be about implementing i've i've mocked up a document for i've heard a lot of the input and i've mocked up a document where you can walk through the act act 138 and make the changes potentially that you would want um so whenever you want to do that i can i can walk you through um it's timing it's the no net profit it's the reversion um all the all the issues that you've been hearing once you want to walk through it and try to make your decisions about what changes you want i can i can walk you through all of that yeah um so are there other questions for vhc b staff they've been with it with you guys for me part time for an hour and in 20 minutes um and ellison vacation thank you well that's kind of bad well we really appreciate you coming off vacation for an hour and a half two hours to be with us ellen and certainly appreciate all the hard work that you folks are are doing to make uh make this program or these programs work and uh gus will will keep in mind that if we do get an extension about your your dollars uh where you are helping and uh running out at the end of the year so um we'll keep that in mind and and if there are no further questions uh thanks a lot for for everything you're doing and your time gus did you have something i just saying thank you and we'll see you soon yeah okay thanks again thanks everybody great work take care so much folks so um we we um we have um um maddie and caroline with us um is there anybody else on linda no no um so would would the committee like michael to run through any changes to see what it might look like uh to to move forward uh with some a few changes uh brian thank you mr chair there was one other thing caroline uh sent us i don't know whether we're going to have time to deal with it or any interest in dealing with it it had to do with the uh slaughter situation and um i did get a chance to at least start to read it she emailed it yesterday i think um so i might suggest that at least we if we have time this morning to take five ten minutes to uh to walk through that there's there's a demand for that that is outpacing uh the ability to keep up with it so uh maybe then we should move to caroline to run through that uh uh issue sure would it would it be all right if i said one more thing about the the non-dairy program just while we're on that subject well so we can come back to it no uh you you may as well jump in right now before we get started in a different direction okay sorry to start to jump in but um there's just two more points that i want to make one is about the application and i just want to flag for you all i don't know if you actually had a chance to um see the application itself i know that it sounded like michael was going to try to get a copy of it um but from what i understand the net profit question is just a checkbox on the application um and i think that was you know an effort to to not make it too burdensome for folks to answer that question which i appreciate um but it also you know could lead to people checking it in a way that's not truthful which i don't think is necessarily a good idea um but it does mean to my read that it might be an easier change than um than we think it is and so again i and i've heard as much also from folks at the agency so i would echo what caroline suggested about having either lorgenberg or abby willard come in to talk about that and then the last thing or this one to flag it's actually an issue that's come to our attention pretty recently um and i hate to to pile on more because i appreciate so much you guys trying to address the um you know the deadline and this eligibility question so uh but the one other issue that we've seen with the program is that farmers markets are specifically called out in the non-dairy section in act 138 um but that $10,000 minimum gross sales threshold actually means that majority of farmers markets also won't be eligible um so i just wanted to flag that for you as another issue because as you all probably know farmers markets you know often operate on shoestring budgets and most of them have volunteer staff so that $10,000 gross sales minimum means that they won't be able to access that that money even though they're specifically called out as a category of of organization so just flagging that for you also all right chris matty could i just make sure i understand um is it $10,000 of gross sale for the market itself as a business versus what is sold at the at the market yes yep i believe the way that would have been maybe michael can weigh in on this but i believe the way that would be interpreted is that the the market itself um as the business would have had to have 10,000 gross sales in order to qualify which i think that threshold makes sense for farms and some of these other businesses um so that we're not giving money to like home setters who raise you know a couple of animals for example but for farmers markets that may not really work right and and it doesn't mean if you're a farmers market that operates on a $6,000 budget and you're down to $2,000 that's really a big problem exactly yeah which meant all the you know the PPE and all the different setups that they had to arrange as you all probably remember in order to operate this year all right thank you how do how do farmer markets farmers markets how do they generate money themselves just by selling boost space or yep pretty much yeah just by having vendor fees um which also they've lost because you know i think a lot of farmers or other vendors for one some vendors weren't actually allowed to bend at farmer's markets if they were vending things like crafts or initially if they were selling plants for example they weren't actually allowed to be at a farmer's market um so that impacted both that vendor and the market itself who is then not getting that you know vendor fee so michael is that the way is that the way we set it up or is that the way the agency is uh determining farmer markets eligibility that's that's the way that the definition is set up the eligible applicant definition um you you were looking at the USDA um categories of farms and income generated and you use the ten thousand dollar threshold as your minimum because you were i can't remember who just said it about the homesteader um you were concerned about that and not going too low uh and you know nobody really raised the issue of that income threshold for farmer's markets and it's just in there it's it's there yeah chris nobody starts a farmer's market in their backyard like it's not a not an area for scam uh that as far as i can imagine don't we have a pre-established list of farmer's markets so that we could just sort of acknowledge them in some fashion rather than create criteria around it yeah we have a the vermont farmers market association um is a is run through NOFA um and most of the markets at least are part of that so we do we do know who they are for sure right but and correct me if i'm wrong maddie the list has like duplicates on it doesn't it it'll have like the burlington farmer's market and then it'll have the burlington winters market on there right yeah yep you would have to figure out how to deal markets that are the same organization that have right you can't just say that there's this many farmer's markets you gotta kind of winnow the list down a little bit and the agency says that they don't know at all that they rely on NOFA's list i mean can't we just add language michael that would exclude farmer's markets from that yeah yeah you that that that's probably the easiest thing to do that's what i was gonna suggest yeah and and then it's an easy draft and then they have to come in and apply and if they're not a legit business then they wouldn't qualify anyway yeah um other questions if not uh michael you want to run through that um that draft that you fooled with sure uh there's a lot of background noise outside my windows right now just so you know it's like there's trash trucks and dump trucks and landscapers and i don't know where they are but they're all here for some reason um linda uh could you put that document up so and it might be hard for you to see but um it's the first section would amend the dairy assistance program uh and if you scroll down that linda you'll see some of the dates um the agency said that they were looking for some greater flexibility on um the dates and so one of the first dates is do they have have when they have to show economic harm it's between march 1st and december 1st you could push that december 1st to eight back a little bit but all crf funds currently have a december 20th reversion provision so moving that december first date you have to take into consideration will the agency have enough time to to deal with any application for economic harm after december 1st and before the december 20th reversion you see that same issue on page two line five um in the demonstration of economic harm for a milk producer or dairy processor uh then uh you see going down in sub g the initial application and any subsequent uh addendum to initial application needs to be submitted by october 1st so um you you've got i think that's probably one of the the more significant date changes you might want to contemplate uh farmers have not been availing themselves of the program as as you might have expected um yesterday anson said that they believe about 50 percent of the dairy producers and processors have applied uh that leaves another 50 percent that effectively would have just over a month to apply yeah right now um so that date that one's one that should be moved um so there's that and you will see that same october 1st date in the um the non-dairy program that the if you move to the next page linda you'll see the october 1st deadline for the addendum so if you initially apply and you haven't been able to show economic harm up to the cap you can submit an addendum uh but you have to submit that addendum by october 1st as well i think that that's going to be an issue for anyone that's applied and didn't receive the maximum uh moving down uh you see that october 1st deadline um going to the next page um and then if you scroll down just a little bit further uh all funds need to be expended by december 20th 2020 um that's the current cr the current crf federal crf deadline is december 30th but the cr crf federal crf bills allow unexpended funds to be put into your the state's unemployment insurance funds so the crf default bill says that any unexpended funds as of december 20th 2020 will be put into the ui fund so that's that's in a different bill but this references that that the money needs to be expended by december 20th 2020 do you recall michael if that date was put in there to give the administration ample time to collect that money and and to get it transferred that is why there's 10 days to get the money reverted back to the administration and deposited into ui before december 30th it's highlighted because as gus noted the congress is coming back and they are contemplating shifting that december 30th 2020 deadline if they do you might want to look at this date and change it based on whatever congress does michael can i ask a question i i probably should know this the word expended that doesn't mean appropriated that means the money has left one account and has been sent to another right uh yes it can't just be earmarked you can't have the agency can't have the money in its fund earmarked to go out it has to have been sent to the farmer as a grant the question came up yesterday in house ag well does that mean that the farmer has to have spent it and show receipts for it and the agency is not interpreting the expenditure requirement to mean that they're interpreting it as they've issued the grant check to the farmer and it makes sense in this program because this program is all about them showing economic harm economic harm is already an expense that the farmer has incurred right they're being reimbursed for their expense of economic harm and so i think that that's a reasonable interpretation by the agency now if this was about some future project some future um application to build something in response to covid and the applicant hasn't spent that money by december 30th the treasury guidance has said yeah that money needs to revert back but here you've already have an expense um and i i think that that it falls it it's eligible underneath the the crf terms okay thank you that chris has a question michael can you help us understand the interplay between october 1st and december 20th is is am i reading this right that right now everything if you're an applicant for either of the either any kind of farm you have to have your application in any supplemental thing in by october 1st correct and then then there was some in our original bill there was a a moment maybe it was october 15th where the agency could say wow we got a lot more coming in to dairy than non-dairy we can move some of the money what date was that september 15th okay so are we addressing that you you have that option it's it's going to be highlighted it's it's section c uh in what i've got put put together and then and then we're we've given the agency effectively all of october all of november and 20 days in december to process applications and get the money out the door right do we have i think the agency is very amenable to changing that date the october 1st date yeah okay so what have we heard from them how long they really need uh no i just heard that anson testified that he's open to changing the deadlines any of the deadlines i asked that yesterday chris i asked anson directly if you had the pen what date and he said he didn't really want to say but the process took two weeks to vet the application another week or so to make any modifications and then it was another week to actually process stuff so the check is in the mail so that means a month yeah so i'm thinking november first or november 15th something like that yep and then my final question is could we have sort of december 20th in there unless you know with a trigger unless congress extends this deadline in which case peg it to the new deadline or peg it 10 days before the new deadline something like that is that could we get away with that michael that's what i was i was thinking about i wanted to talk to jfo about how to do that that meets their needs so it's not inconsistent with some of the other um reversion language but i i think if you said something like 10 days prior to any reversion of c-r-f funds required under the cares act or are required by the federal us treasury something like that i think that you you build in enough flexibility if it remains december 30th it's still going to be december 20th if they change it to july 1 2021 then you've got until july june 20th you know and so i i think that that could be done and i just wanted to consult with jfo about how to do that and then the only question that remains is gus's question of what happens if on november first there's a big slug of new money and that strikes me as a bigger question that we're going to have to understand across the board on this business relief but i don't want to forget it divided up on the same proportion as the previous that would be a nice problem to have right to have a whole new it would save a lot of battles if if there was some simple type language like that that would be divided up proportionately like the original slug of money yeah i don't if you're not in session and that money comes i i do you wait until january first you know some of these programs not necessarily this one but some of them are are are built to expire um january first and not any of yours but some of the other programs and i i don't know will you need a special session i would expect when we get done this particular session we won't adjourn i would think tim would and the leadership would would just stop it you know we'd be on recess or whatever and we wouldn't be working but then if we had to go back we could go back because if we recess the only way we or if we adjourn the only way we can go back is if the governor calls us back yeah um so that's that's definitely something to think about you know if there is a new slug of money you likely will have to appropriate it again and hey gap go through that battle again so that that's that's up to you guys how you want to do that but that's something the whole place is going to have to figure out not right right okay so scrolling should i continue on yes yes so scrolling down you're now going into section b which is the non-dairy program and some of this language is just going to go away once you actually get to your decisions but i wanted to give you some context you got that december first issue with the economic harm and when it was accrued then you come to the no net profit issue on page six and if you wanted to get rid of it all you needed to do was to strike it out it's just one of the criteria for application for an eligible applicant under the non-dairy program you know how how would that affect the application and applicants that have already run into this problem well that that's a question for the agency i don't know how the this program only went live well it's about 10 days ago now um and so the question is how many have been awarded uh how many have been funneled from the non-dairy program to working lands because they they indicated they had a profit um that's that's a question for the agency i i don't i don't know that yeah um well and the biggest was how many people have applied and and really are affected as of today i guess right and and you should be getting a report from the agency in four days as to the participation in both the non-dairy and the dairy program and the working lands program yeah so the next issue is again the october first application um and that's really it in the oh the issue of the ten thousand dollars for the farmers market i don't have that in here but it would be uh an issue that you would address in the definition section of section seven of act 138 uh it would probably be right around um page five line nine i'd probably add it in there and so then you go to section c this is the reversion issue the september 15th um this is discretionary authority of the agency of agriculture remember at one point the senate appropriations chair wanted all money to revert on september 15th and you convinced her for this program that that should not happen uh but then the agency wanted the ability to have to access the non-dairy funds if they were available um to meet demand on the dairy program if that demand was there um so there's there's opportunity here for you to change this language if you don't want reversion uh except for the december 20th reversion to meet the federal criteria or if you want the reversion to be for both the dairy and the non-dairy or if you want the money to go to something else um well anthony spoke about doing something uh on the food uh food systems i believe right anthony yeah we talked about sending it to the food bank or somewhere where the money could be used to buy products from from vermont farmers so we still be assisting farmers directly by having them we have the vermonters feeding vermonters program from the food bank which buys produce from farmers at market prices so we'll be carrying through with the priority of supporting the local farmers by purchasing food from them as opposed to just going into some other fund well hopefully they all get used but that would be that would be very easy to do because one of your other c r f bills had an appropriation to the food bank um to meet need and so you could just say that the money was was reallocated to the food bank underneath that section of the the c r f bill i think it was uh i think it was act 136 where that food bank appropriation was made so it'd be it'd be very easy to do that um can i just sorry ron i just want to chime in quickly and suggest that you would definitely i think it's a great idea but i would just suggest reaching out obviously to the food bank um to make sure that they could take on the additional allocation because i think they have like something like 4.7 million um allocated already which is amazing and we're super supportive of that but i would just want to make sure that um this was going to be something they could manage in addition to their their workload already well and i would i would expect that um appropriations and some other committees might have some questions in regards to us moving the money from ag to a totally different um part of the of the cares bill you know i mean that's an appropriation issue not an ag issue and that that could um get raised hey um senator star i just wanted to did you see linda just sent us a little message saying abby willard from the agency is listening in and would be happy to join the meeting if we had questions for the agency um linda can let her in linda are you there yes and i can uh send abby an invitation right now if you want her to join the meeting yeah she may as well get in on it it's a pretty good little discussion see and i i think when we have a meeting like like we're having today where certain people are in and they can get chimed in it it's almost like in the committee room it it's it's working fine as far as i can see i know michael fair was having a bit about us holding the hearing but next week we've got a bunch of people coming but anyways um here could i just ask a question of uh michael i guess uh maybe if the food bank i i love senator pleina's idea that's makes all the sense in the world uh and i uh was pleased to see sort of in related uh arena that we put some money towards a group of restaurants that were working with the food bank to produce meals that had to be 10 local produce or 10 local products and i didn't know um if that you know so that also helps the restaurants as well as families that are are struggling to feed themselves so i didn't know if that was separate from the food bank appropriation but that strikes me as something related that is in the ag sector but also a little bit outside yeah yeah i just uh this is ruth i just wanted to weigh in on that a little bit it's it's a different program that um is being run actually by an organization in windham county not by the food bank although i think the food bank is probably involved i guess i would want to hear testimony on how well that's working because i've been trying to get something going in in adison county and it's not as easy as it sounds um so uh if we are thinking about putting more money into it we definitely want to get testimony to see if it's effective and and if it's working statewide it may be working in chitney county in windham county but not in other places yeah winds are county too it's never as easy as it should be but i'm just thinking it's another option if if we need an off ramp that may be fruitful of course we want to understand it's working yeah absolutely i also just want to say let's not forget caroline on the um slaughter issue um i know senator collin more was interested in that and i've just been skimming what she sent us and i'd be good to hear more while we have her here yeah um maybe uh abby i see abby's with us now uh we've been talking about shifting some dates and some dates that you folks would like to see move um um we also talked about uh how uh moving the language uh in uh section five about the profitability from uh was it march through august or something and you you folks launched that non-dairy program uh eight or ten days ago i guess and and how if that would mess that program up if we change deleted that language about the profitability uh so that more people could get in and um so maybe could you answer any questions in regards to that abby sure good morning all welcome back good to see you um so around the deadlines um i think senator pierce and you said november 1st november 15th i think as much time as we could give applicants to apply through the programs the better so i think november 15th gives us sufficient time to review and process applications communicate those recommended for funding to finance and management and have a cut check um we did just hear from a dairy farmer yesterday that they applied last thursday or today they applied last thursday and they got no notification yesterday that their application was approved so we still need to then move that application through finance and through a budget check with our business office then to finance and management for processing of payment and then execution of the check but we were able to award a grant commitment within a week so um i think that three week time frame is probably our maximum amount of time we think we would need so november 15th sounds good to me good to us um as as michael shared we've probably received well we've seen 444 dairy applications initiated in the sales force application system only 182 applications have been officially submitted as of i think this was yesterday or possibly this morning's data yesterday data um so that's an additional 262 dairy assistance applications that are initiated but not committed not completed or submitted in the ag and working lands application yesterday there were 104 total applications initiated in the system 31 applications were submitted and none of those have yet received payment we haven't even figured out the final steps in the review we're working on filling out the final application review steps with beta this week um of the dairy applications i think we've um paid out just under four million dollar five million so that gives you a sense of where applications are at at this point um the question around um the no net profit um i think we would agree it's a really problem some category in the application um and we did decide to make it an attestation so it's just a checkbox not something that they have to document and upload any materials to approve their no net profit um it does as caroline was noting it branches eligibility to the two different house bills so the two do different working lands applications um i think the question is really around timing so the question would be how quickly would there be a change to the eligibility um kind of markup that michael is proposing um and you all would need to approve before that change is officially made in the application so if it takes a month to make that change we still have that current requirement in the application that's going to continue to carry on as applicants apply um we also are also waiting for the data to see how many of the applications get channelled over to the house bills based on ineligibility based upon a variety of criteria but one could be that no net profit between march one and august one so we don't know that yet um but we should have we will have some of that data to share um on the 31st when we do our next month report well he's gone so i'm in charge um abby thank you um i'm going to call it myself do you it's been suggested that technically removing that from your application flow is difficult just the net profitability question do you have any comment about that are we talking about a consultant that gets paid a lot of money to make that one step go away or could you comment on that yeah it's not it's not simple i mean i i hope i hope that secretary tevitz shared how hard staff have been working for the last six months to get these applications submitted it's people have been working 50 hour weeks people are not taking their vacation within the agency to sort of get these live and moving so it's very complicated um relationship with the mtx company who has been contracted by the states to build these various sales force applications and we all had to get in queue because there were so many applications across the entire state of vermont so we launched the dairy application early on um forestry was you know commerce was first then there was dairy then there was forestry and then we were able to do the ag and working land so that team only has so much capacity to make changes and modifications to applications once we have a go live date of an application um we have a limited amount of time to make modifications to that application under the current contract that we have with them once we exceed that time then we are no longer under um the funds no longer covered by the funds that were appropriated through through um eds to pay for those changes so then any additional changes and modifications are the individual responsibility of the agency so i think that anson talked about that when he met with you so where are we in that time window um we just proposed we're going to propose changes right now right today um to mtx and so we're still within that window today but again that's why i'm saying from a timing standpoint um you know we hope the moment that we go live with there's different phases so we've gone live with the application application opening so businesses can submit applications we are still working on phase two which is how the review process happens and then how the applications get funneled to which part of funds we are still in that phase um so i don't know if we have another few days our hope was to be able to start uh processing payments you know next this week if not next week um so it's we're talking days i suspect before we have a final application um and are able to make any additional right well maybe we'd ask you to um i guess i wonder you know we need to understand if our colleagues are supportive of this but um you know i'm hearing you very clearly we need to move this at lightning speed and if there was some way of of you know putting a hold on it in terms of your own vendor timeline maybe that's something worth exploring but uh mr chair we've just learned that you know yesterday would be uh just barely soon enough to make this no net profit change in terms of the programmers and actually getting it into the process uh we have no luxury of time so it'd be real pretty difficult now did you talk about moving money from the non-dairy to the working lands program have you talked about that so we understand abby that you folks if somebody applies and they've been making uh made a profit or show a profit you've been switching them to the working lands program have you had any applications in yet that you've had to do that to and is that an accurate statement yeah senator we have received 31 again as of yesterday so hopefully there's more as of today i just don't have the printout in front of me but 31 applications submitted in the ag and working lands assistance application as of yesterday of those 31 i have not looked to see how they end up being branched into which category of funds or which bill they need to be paid out of either the you know the one of the two different working lands or the the non-dairy bill so we will have that information or at least of the applications that we've received thus far by the time next monday when we submit our report to you we have talked with partners and and know that you heard kind of a position of the movement of any unspent non-dairy money to dairy it may be interesting to consider a flexibility amongst those two so if there's any non-dairy funds that are unexpended whether those could funnel to to the working lands or the non-dairy application so maybe creating some fluidity amongst those categories which would keep them in agriculture and would allow them to sort of respond to where there's the greatest demand in need especially if we extend the application deadline i think that allows more time for the ag and working lands businesses to understand have a moment to breathe in the growing season and be able to apply through the funds yeah i think that the net profit is troublesome in a sense because it is a very specific criteria and again i think you heard testimony of that it just gives you a snapshot of time within the growing season you know we found a way to work with that that language but i think the bigger challenge is just at what time and i mentioned this earlier senator at what time would that change come into effect and at that point how many applications would have already been funneled to the house bills and again i we can give you that data i think within a couple of days yeah there was con uh rose um thanks senator star i'm just wondering abby if if for example we do get rid of this language but it takes longer to do so because well you know our process um and meanwhile people are being funneled to the working lands fund um is there a way to if that fund is is expended fully to then hold applications until such time that the language gets changed um yeah that people just get kicked out and told no um sort of maybe they're put on hold but not denied yeah i think we do have the capability to hold an application in a status of like an undefined status so the moment that we as the agency recommend them for funding then that does trigger a particular funding source but we could probably hold those applications in a recommended for approval status we have all the information we need um but we're not going to make a recommendation of um for payment quite yet um again that will be related to the the different deadlines in the bills that michael shared so the september 15th the october first deadlines will come into effect pretty soon so uh we can only hold them so long otherwise they would then be you know in fear of being denied funding altogether if if the deadline were to come and go um other questions for abby on the workings of this if if not will caroline would you like to get into your abby can i just make one additional comment senator around the ten thousand dollars for farmers markets so um it's it is interesting to hear from nofa that there's a concern about markets meeting that eligibility um it may be uh beneficial for the committee to also look at producer association groups who are also eligible under this category but may or may not be able to meet that ten thousand dollar gross sales threshold to be eligible um those are the only two sort of like non-business um entities that are eligible in this section um of um what we're referring to as value added food products and ag producers what was that one abby the um ag producer associations so they also are eligible for funds under the ag and working lands and they are similar in a sense to farmers markets and that neither one of them are actually businesses but they are non-profit organizations and you know small organizations that support a large number of ag businesses so if you wanted to look at removing the eligibility criteria of having to have ten thousand dollars in um annual gross income for farmers markets you may want to look at or take testimony on whether producer association groups would want to be in that same category we do know from some producer association groups that they do receive ten thousand dollars in the annual sales um for example the maple sugar makers association at the big E or um the cheese festival for the vermont cheese council so those are events that are not happening in 2020 but they typically happen and so those associations would generally say they have that kind of gross annual income but i'm not sure that the beef producers or um the veggie and berry growers association would be able to claim ten thousand dollars in annual income yeah any other questions right now for abby if not we'll uh switch to caroline in regards to meat meat processing slaughter process to say thanks abby for jumping on so quickly yeah yeah thank you welcome thank you senator star um yeah um we're um under the umbrella of covid related ag issues we uh don't want to miss out on the opportunity to also raise the issue of how covid 19 impacted the bottleneck issue in slaughterhouses that we know um of course i'm not an authority to claim that um the the truth of my following comment which would be that i believe that um covid 19 dramatically increased this bottleneck to a situation that slaughterhouses when processing facilities are really booked out to a for a much longer extended period of time simply because there's also more homesteaders small livestock producers who have now um out of food security stands um started to raise livestock and there's just a higher demand and um in order to prove that statement with some substance i um i would advise the committee to take testimony from ellen caler who has done and when covid hit earlier with a group of people they've been surveying all slaughter and processing facilities in the states um in vermont on on this question how covid impacted them and i excuse me there was it was loud um and she told me that uh yes she does believe all all facilities are completely maxed out um so that's the one point i want to make that uh there is uh when we when we have this little bit of a session left i think there is an urgent need to address this as an issue um because um yeah because of the associated um um scenarios that farmers don't and don't know don't have access to processing their animals which is creating costs and just dramatic um like scenarios and um what can mitigate this issue is now the question you might have heard that the USDA has reached an agreement with vermont that um um so backing up a little bit in vermont there's two different um um regimes uh how to get meat inspected state inspection um and USDA inspection and this agreement that was achieved allows now state inspected facilities to take animals from USDA inspected facilities uh while still allowing that meat then to be sold out of state which was not usually not the case for state inspected meat usually state inspected meat is only allowed to be sold within the state yes that's great uh we appreciate that of course but does that do anything uh for the capacity issue we're facing i uh know because it's just a marketability option but it doesn't increase capacity in any way we all the slaughterhouses are full that's just the fact so um what else what other tools do we have in our toolbox and there i have to step up to my task working for rule vermont on farm slaughter is one of my issues you know that we've have been advocating for that in the past you know this is a issue with a more comprehensive set of um issues that we want to work on you know there's still a sunset on the law and you can expect us to come back uh next biennium with a more comprehensive agenda um but what we can maybe what i'm thinking what we maybe can do now since we have COVID and we have the task to address COVID related issues is address the capacity issue and just um increase the allowances for animals to be slaughtered under the on farm slaughter provision because when we look at the current numbers and you see there that it is five cattle and um total so and then the other allowed animal numbers are um it's either or it's a total combined life weight of 6 000 pounds that is currently allowed and that is it is equal to five cattle um if you imagine a dairy farm that wants to downscale that five cattle are slaughtered quickly um so um our proposal that i submitted to you yesterday would would suggest to increase from five to 20 cattle from 50 to 30 pigs and from 40 sheeps or goats to 80 sheeps or goats and instead of having that be a total a total life weight of 60 pounds just to allow for all those numbers to be in addition to another one another so that diversified farms who have cattle and pigs and sheeps that they can slaughter 30 pigs and 20 cattle for example Caroline have have you found uh where on farm slaughter um the farmers are been have been selling out and running out of um running out a customer no running out of um having plenty of customers but can't slaughter enough animals to meet uh their needs yeah so what we what we did um I must admit that of course um my my year is also impacted by COVID-19 and the the off months from the legislative session is usually the time when I can um more closely um do what we call grass roots outreach and and have this connection to our to our farmers on the ground and since we are so busy with the legislative session it's more difficult this year than in any other year to have this relationship to the base so we have to kind of make use of tools like surveys more more now and um so what I did is just bounce this idea back with a survey that we were rolling out um just a couple weeks ago um August 18 might not even be two weeks ago so it's just up and running so this is preliminary results from that and you see that to the um survey there were about 40 percent of the respondents were farmers and of and the other two thirds were either homesteaders or or customers and um almost all of them everyone except one 73 respondents total of 74 respondents in this one and a half weeks um all said that they would support an increase in allowances and and um most of them also supported this particular proposal while about 10 percent said that it's uh doesn't go far enough while about five percent said it may go too far um and um then there were also a few perspectives on maybe why why cap the allowance at all um why not just allow farmers to slaughter on farm slaughter in in the way that that system is laid out and not have a cap at all um and then what I did just for you to have like more of a personable because we don't have the time right now to take like a bunch of testimony and have all these farmers come in I put in the survey an opportunity for everyone who responded to put some statements and support of this and so I and I organized this here under the arguments that would speak to on farm slaughter and those are like more more local meat more opportunities it is good for farm variability it is a symbol for food sovereignty and food security it is very good for animal welfare and it addresses the capacity issue of course um and I also did kind of a media scan and how that issue was was reported on by the media and compiled some quotes from from some articles that I found yeah so Brenda Brian thank you senator um so Caroline I did read it all the way through there's no date here I'm assuming that since it's COVID related if we were to change the uh the regulations it would only be in effect for a certain amount of time do you have a sense of when that might work I mean um I think this I hope that this is something that can be an advancement of the on-farm slaughter law in general and just make it as a tool more viable of an option for farms so I would my hope would be that the committee considers to increase the allowances for the on-farm slaughter law in general and I mean then of course it would be still under the sunset of 2023 currently and um unless we would remove the sunset and those same same swipe but uh might be hard to justify that since that is not a COVID uh related subject um but um I would be comfortable with leaving the sunset for an hour because we we do want to come back to you next biennium with more comprehensive agenda we do want to have a stakeholder process in the fall to have more of a conversation about also you know you will when you take testimony from the agency about on-farm slaughter you will probably um find out that what the on-farm slaughter law is is um to the agency even um they're not that familiar with it even because it's they don't promote it it's it's it's still um I don't know how to call it like the black not so popular as a as a as an institution and of course we have the interest to make it more popular and more viable as an institution and I think how the agency promotes that tool can is is critical for the success of it so that's one issue then um the whole process of that internal slaughterers can only perform the slaughter and farmers are not allowed to do that is an issue that is often mentioned by farmers and the the marketability and how that process is super wonky that customers have to buy basically a living animal and it's like a csa sort of that you basically have to commit in advance to buying and sharing that that animal as a lot as a large group of people that then basically is able now to to break that down into manageable chunks that is uh those are all barriers to the accessibility of this option and and so we would want to look at that also like education and certification of of the slaughter practices on farms as an issue that was dear to some internal slaughterers and educating more future generations of slaughterers as an issue so there's more to discuss on this issue for sure but the capacity issue of slaughterhouse that's really the the the main issue and maybe you come to a different solution in terms of how to how to mitigate and how to address that that that subject matter which is the core of of what we should discuss uh but um rovermond are suggesting to utilize on from slaughter as a tool and just to increase the allowances and hope that that um yeah can carry fruit in this uh in this slaughter season which is just rolling on i just want to jump ahead of Ruth like i'll just offer this since the basis for what you see as a covid related problem is there's not enough capacity i think it will be probably an easier sell if we continue to to bring the covid thing in so that there's got to be a sort of a date by which we take another look at it i i don't i don't think we'd be ready to just open it up and say you know you could do as much as you want forever now i think there needs to be a little bit tighter um period of time on it in order to to sell it yeah i mean that's that's what i mean the timeline is already um limited by the sunset so if we don't do if we don't review the law by 2023 july 2023 it will come out of existence yeah okay thank you yeah rose had a question yeah i would agree with senator colmore that it seems like tying it to a limited time even maybe before 2023 i don't know and then we have a compare and contrast uh period but caroline i didn't hear a direct answer to the question that i think senator colmore asked about whether or not farmers are bumping up to the limits right now i mean you obviously have a survey that says their support for a change but are they bumping up are you hearing from farmers that i'm at my max i can't do more just a quick answer to that no um thanks for um bringing that back into the conversation i i don't think that the um allowances are completely exhausted i think the tool can be still also just more utilized if people would be just more aware of it and if it would be promoted more that's that's i kind of try to um come in from that perspective i i believe that the allowances are not exhausted completely also because it's just as a tool not that popular okay so if we increase the max we it might not have any the effect we're looking for because they're not bumping up against it right now because it's a pretty big jump you're doubling you're quadrupling the number of cattle so my other question is are there enough it itinerant slaughters to even meet the demand if we made these increases are there people who can do it yeah those are both very good questions and and just to one more comment to the previous question i think that many my assumption is um my argument is that maybe many farms have not considered going through the wonky process of unfarm slaughter because the allowances is so many a school and they don't think it's a viable option um so that could be one reason for why it's not utilized enough is is that it's too little of an allowance um and the um itinerant slaughter i i don't think there's enough itinerant slaughters it's it's a it's a hard to grasp community because they're um you know they're they don't like to engage in advocacy and they're um like to stay among themselves to some degree and many of the performing itinerant slaughters i've talked to and that i had the chance to get to know are also getting old um so that is an issue but the idea would be potentially to have the hunting community potentially being being a group of people that could maybe step up to the challenge because i mean currently as we know it's not regulated who is an itinerant slaughter an itinerant slaughter is basically just something who slaughters other than the farmer for that for that customer who um who you know who hires that person um so it can it can be um it can be anyone who has the skill but not the farmer them themselves so i guess what i'm hearing is that this is a proposed fix to a problem that we've all heard about that that there's not sufficient slaughter facilities that you know there's a problem nationwide and thankfully we've been uh we've escaped the horrible infections at slaughter facilities but there's still a shortage of facilities and you know this is an interesting proposal but it's still not clear to me that this would actually provide any fix if we're not bumping up against the current uh ceiling and if we don't have enough itinerant slaughters we can change this but it might not do anything so i guess i'd like to hear more um maybe get more testimony if we're gonna consider doing this because you know it's nice to say we did something but if it doesn't do anything that's another issue yeah and i think the promotion how to promote this as an opportunity is for me it is a question for the agency to step up to the task also to show to the ag community more openly that this is a actually a tool that exists in our toolbox and i think just many many farmers are not are really uncertain with what it is how it functions and all that and boule vermond is just a very small organization with not a million heavy budgets to to do this by ourselves so we you know as a as a committee we might we might be better off to expend our energy and our money in advancing some of the slaughter facilities that were already supporting and to have them increase their their output financially somehow so that farmers could at least get their animals to um if you get to a regulated slaughterhouse then you could sell in the way the new law is you could sell that meat and in other new england states and massachusetts you know they were they were really uh they really panicked when they couldn't get any red meat into their stores and uh so you know if we do on farm slaughter spend our time doing that which we don't know if it'll amount to anything anyways because we don't know if if they're bumping up against their numbers if we get it one more uh just quick quick response uh to that i think that's a interesting thought that the advantage of course of on-prem slaughter as a tool is it's like decentralized and everybody could do it like planet independently and just do do it and realize this as an option for themselves while increasing capacity of a central slaughter facility can be an issue in terms of uh covid and infection risks when you put more staff in in one building and or being more of a long-term pro project that is not feasible for immediate relief because the implementation and planning just eats up so much time and what if you would take testimony from ellen caler indeed she's indeed suggesting that what vermont really needs is more um vermont packing house like um institute facilities at least two more i think was what i heard but she will um speak for herself so that that's just i we would support that but it's um not again the question is how feasible is that immediately because that's also that's a longer term um infrastructure issue as well building out the slaughterhouses and finding people to work in the slaughterhouses i think what i understand people are saying about how doing this proposal that roberman's proposing would not maybe trying to solve a problem that we're not sure we have on the other hand i don't see a downside to doing it either because it would give people the opportunity to expand the on-farm slaughter and we could do it in a way that said that without somebody's other things we've done with covid 19 we've said this would go into place until i think we've said either 30 or 60 days past the state of emergencies is deemed past anyway i i mean i don't see the committee moving in this direction necessarily but i think i i just don't think there's a downside to allowing more on-farm slaughter at this point any other questions on on-farm slaughter we we need more data on in regards to that caroline if you know if you could get us some numbers uh somehow um what kind of numbers pardon what are the numbers you're looking for well if like bumping up against their their animals that they're already doing if they're getting a lot more calls than what they're able to handle so they're having not to be able to do this um you know any of those kinds of issues to justify us doing this because you know we're we're on a three to a four week window with our full set session here and uh you know we've already got a little lifting to do to get some changes to our existing covid programs that we've got going and to get public testimony and and you know to do all what it should take to do a bill um i don't know if we even have enough time but you know we could we could try uh Ruth had a question yeah i just wanted to make a comment really and i mean i i think if this would solve there's no i would be supportive of it given what we're hearing about how what's happening elsewhere in slaughter facilities and it is a much longer term issue to try to expand the capacity of Vermont's smaller facilities i just want us to know whether this is going to solve a problem or not or if it's just a way to expand on farm slaughter is it actually going to solve a problem that is presented to us by covid or is it just a way to promote on farm slaughter you know there's a difference there and when we're trying to focus on meeting problems during an emergency we need to make sure that this is solving the problem that we think it might solve so that's why i would like to see more data on whether or not farms are hitting that max whether or not there are enough uh slaughter you know itinerant slaughters um and it sounds like you know hearing from ellen caler and probably um the agency as well would be helpful in this regard as also yeah well go ahead caroline i i can provide you i did um i was of course expecting this question so i did do a public record request for the up-to-date uh registration and reporting um numbers so i can forward that to you and i can also already say that there is still a disparity uh between how many registrants have actually followed through with their reports and on the other side reports it seems to be like maybe there also have been reports made that have not been um covered by a registration prior to that so um the the kathryn macnomera the meat inspection chief from the agency of agriculture will be able to speak to those numbers and explain them and um when you see those and for us they are very disappointing um realities um we as i said earlier the um part of the issue is this the legal uncertainty that goes with the the complexity of this tool um as an institution and um i i it is though um we also have um farmers that have been successfully utilizing on farm slaughter for many years have been doing it since the uh since the allowance has since it's been legalized as a tool and um and that are familiar with the process and for for whom it works well a chuck booster from sunrise farm is one of those who's like been slaughtering the 40 lambs um every year with unfarm slaughter and um a couple others come to mine as well and um for whom they say yes for farm viability if there would be an increase that would uh be helpful and especially those smaller um animals uh as you know i've always had more issues of getting the slaughter uh slots in the in the in the slaughter facilities um so i don't know and how far there's room for testimony of that but i actually have a written testimony from um um homesteader that is uh this year trying to commercialize who says he's already um at capacity with his pigs and i will forward that written testimony to you as well yeah um other questions for caroline no and uh well thank you caroline and thank you and we'll you know we'll talk about this have you met with the house committee at all in regards to this yeah i had a phone conversation with caroline partridge and um uh john o'brien and sharon for guard about this and they're all interested but they also said that mitzi johnson doesn't um identify this as an issue to um to to consider even in this current situation that they are um you know they're following leadership and um but they have talked about it um um and they're yesterday and was it yesterday they have talked about it this week in committee and they did but they they touched on it yeah yeah well thank you caroline and um you know for bringing that forward um so uh maddie is maddie left so i think she's gone maddie's here oh did you have anything else you wanted to bring up before the uh committee today maddie sorry i guess she's not i guess um so um well with the committee uh i'm just gonna ask if you'd like to hear from uh alan alan taylor on this and and uh the ag agency uh maybe sometime next week if you know i guess i wouldn't mind hearing but i don't i don't necessarily think it's going to go anywhere for this this time i don't well it's going to be tight if it does go anywhere uh chris uh i mean i'm open to hearing about it i i am supportive of the idea but um i think the tweaks to the dates and particularly this net profit thing uh gotta be priority and if we can move something just as quickly as possible if you're aware of changes that that maybe uh senate probes and others are doing you know bill that's moving fast i really hope we can get some language together and get that cooking along um so that to me has to be in terms of our timeline the priority well uh talking with jane um and then the probes the way i understand the whole deal there's gonna be like one amendment to our covet uh funding issues uh with uh with of course quite a few different sections and i don't know michael have you heard anything in regards to any amendments no it's just it's a it's a subject matter that's going to be um on our agenda for our legal staff meeting on monday um how we're gonna put that bill together etc that that's all i know as of now yeah um rose yeah i just want i i agree with chris obviously our our priority needs to be those technical changes or fixes to the bills that we already passed um i do think getting testimony from ellen just in general may be helpful on this um issue um on that restaurant program thing that chris mentioned earlier and just in general because her ears been to the ground on the suit uh you know food and farm uh just writ large um over the summer and how things are working so getting ellen in to testify would be just good on a number of topics um the other thing i just wanted to make a request is if we could get um susana davis to come testify on the governor's proposal for um the providing uh payments to migrant farm workers and other immigrants who didn't receive the uh uh stimulation no stimulus stimulus payments in the spring couldn't think of the word um i know that it's it's in the governor's budget and since we spend time on it in the spring and couldn't actually get to uh something that worked i'd love to hear what the governor's proposal is um i know it's probably out of our hands it's probably in a probes but just to um have a little closure um that would be good to hear from susana or whoever in the administration could provide us with the details yeah yeah a quick question from michael michael why is that legal now and it wasn't quite legal this spring and everybody was worried about calling back after we paid the money out and all that do you know if there's been some changes somewhere along the way that's allowing allowing that or is it only payments they're talking about two migrant farm workers that actually pay into social security and in all the other places well the legal discussion previously it was about using cares act money and and i believe the proposal is now is not about using cares act money it's about using state funds general fund money yes i believe that's right i think that's gonna move awful hard and slow because there is no extra general fund money i mean i i don't know where he's coming from with that but can you all hear me now this is maddie again i'd like to hear some more from the administration on that and and leadership has expressed at least tentative support for it so hearing more about how it's structured and and what they ended up proposing would be helpful because i can't find details on it um and since yeah like i said since we had discussions in the spring i just really like to hear how they made it work yeah well we'll we'll get them in but so also they didn't they haven't necessarily made it work they just made a proposal so they tend to have a tendency to do that you know yeah that's true anthony you're absolutely right so it may not actually be working the way we want it to be but it's worth thinking about worth hearing about i agree um yeah um so uh any anything else that um that anyone wants to bring up um i know those maddie might have something yeah maddie tries to comment because no fun move them on tap and um supporting the migrant justice ask throughout the last couple of weeks so we could also give a quick update if that is a desire yeah well i i think we're all supportive of it supportive of it the big issue is trying to use up some of this call that money and yeah and transferring that to something else it's going to free up general fund money um that's all above board is it gets difficult down in in the corner room down the other end of the hallway um anyway can you all hear me yeah wow thank you you probably you might have heard my dogs barking a minute ago sorry about that i've been trying to pipe in um yeah i would i would definitely support um senator hardy's suggestion of having susana davis come in and testify i think she she could give a lot of insight um from the administration's perspective and yeah we have been supporting this proposal and um have actually also been supporting seeing the number increase based on what we know of the number of immigrant families here in vermont um so i would welcome more discussion about that and i also just wanted to chime in with one more thought on the discussion about reversion for any um unspent dairy and non-dairy funding i wonder if um something that would be worth considering would be kind of again having the food bank come in and and speak with you all and they might be able to suggest you know a maximum amount that they could realistically spend um in the time allotted because based on the timelines that we're talking about now it seems like that that turnaround would be really quick um i assume they wouldn't you know even get that reversion money until the second half of november first half of december which would make it really really quick for them it might be interesting to explore um figuring out what's the most that they could spend and then having the remainder you know go into working for example which is a way more um pot of money for both non-dairy and dairies and forestry businesses to access so i just wanted to throw that idea in the mix well basically you know we're just getting to september next week and um you know i i think that that particular issue about having extra money money left over is still a it's still a big question mark whether there will be any or not and whether or not our the crew that we oversee and look after are are getting as much as they need so but that's something that we could certainly keep in mind and and get them in just to hear them out uh anthony did you have a question yeah we've i should know the answer to this but my question is whether or not if we use the food bank as an example if we move those funds to the food bank they don't have to necessarily have spent it by the end of december we just have to have sent it to them by the end of december is that true michael no did i get that wrong right so the the there's two different ways that that that these grants are working for example the dairy assistance grant that is that's looking backwards and paying for cost or expenses that have already been incurred right so the the that's already been an expense so all you need to do is you need to just uh allocate that money to the farmer or a similar applicant and that that you've met the expenditure requirement for things in the future like the food bank you're paying the food bank to buy money for to provide future food services they have to make that expenditure by december 30th okay thanks i had that wrong yeah um any anything else michael would you work on on altering your draft to match what we're going to try to do or have to offer yep so i'd be moving the application deadline from october 1st to november 15th uh i will strike the net profit provision i will uh i didn't hear any input about changing the december 1st deadline for the timeline for when you get to show economic harm um yeah i think didn't abby talk about that about that december 1st deadline the addendum date uh you're going to move from october 1 to december 1 uh i think that makes sense yes yeah um but then it's about the the time frame for when you show economic harm do you want it to be beyond december 1st that how are showing economic harm beyond their application date if the application date is november 15th how would how do i don't remember our conversation about that it's it's it's they can get potential expenses right um that they need to implement uh say to implement a farm stand or something like that um they have that ability underneath both of the programs um so that that's how that they they could do it yeah or or when they just can document it in any way um for example farmers markets um that have been canceled winter farmers market that have been canceled and the market managers can confirm that in writing then a farmer that doesn't have that um marketability there can project the loss the losses from that i'm interested in in us being as uh consistent as possible so what do we have does anybody know what we have at accd for those programs in terms of this december question no i i don't i don't i can look into that what about making the funds uh more flexible for the agency to be able to move uh from one fund to another i would support that yeah so could could you try to figure out how we could do that uh michael sure that that would be in in that reversion language right now it's just allowing the secretary to reallocate from non-dairy to dairy but it sounds like you want to give the secretary the authority to reallocate from any of the programs to any of the other programs well if they're big holes i mean if they run out of money and one they've got a big pot sitting right beside it um i would think that would be after a certain date that would be fine okay so many things you got an opinion on that i've always supported that the question is the date a little bit uh if just if november 15th is the end of the applications um maybe that's the date because they would understand if there's more need but i i i'm struggling to understand how we handle the date because right now it's september 15th right and he the agency can move just one way so it does seem like abby i don't know if you want to weigh in on this if it's if the application deadline is november 15th and we make that the deadline after which the agency can move funds around then you can sort of fill in the whole space on where the application demand is does that seem reasonable yeah and i think we probably should i should think about this with our logistical team a bit also um but yeah i mean we're thinking the same way which is have the application deadline at a certain date it then allows us some time to do some moving around of funds before we have to determine which part of resources supports which application and still meets our december 30th deadline to have all dollars expended and out the door yeah yeah there is some kind of a little bit of negotiation there but i think and i'm thinking about aligning it with other agencies is also a good idea since some of the same eligible businesses and agriculture can also apply to commerce's economic recovery grant program so we too are trying to be as equitable as we can and the two and a half million of the working lands money actually comes to the agency through commerce and so we actually need to meet the same commerce requirements in that subset of those funds as commerce needs to which is another complication of our resources in the ag and working lands application so that's why we another reason why we have a variety of eligibility criteria that needs to be met in different circumstances so michael you could get something drafted up but the date would would we just hold it and tell we hear back yeah i'll put november 15th in as just a placeholder and then uh you can change that however you would like um any anything else uh that that anybody can think of that um we need michael to work on between now and in next Tuesday or yeah we meet next Tuesday no um i'll sat yes we're going to count on you to find the fastest moving vehicle there is there mr chair well um i'll uh i'll keep an eye out for it and if we can jump on we'll take a ride you just got a brand new vehicle yeah i was just gonna say it's bobby's new car oh yeah well it arrived all in one piece with no extra jams or scratches so that's good can i just could i just say there is an ag bill on the senate calendar up for second reading right now it's the chicken composting bill it's on the calendar um but did that make the leadership list i don't i don't know i don't know if it made the leadership list but if you're looking for something that's okay potentially germane that you could amend that bill and add something to it that might be something to talk to leadership about could we get that amendment by one o'clock well i think we probably better visit with with powers to be in and i think we're fine but we'll we'll talk about that next week if we run into a snag along the way um we'll figure something out that might be some sweet justice actually anything else from anybody if not thanks a lot and we'll thank you abby and caroline and maddie and we'll see you other guys at one on yeah one o'clock on the senate floor so thanks and have a good weekend if i don't catch you thank you all thank you all so much i appreciate you