Committee weighs S.484 changes on pesticides, fair stormwater relief and farm tax rules

At a committee meeting Thursday, members discussed S.484, a miscellaneous agriculture bill that would establish a temporary $50 per‑product pesticide registration fee to fund collection of end‑of‑life pesticides, add a study of sustainable funding and an extended producer responsibility (EPR) option, grant limited stormwater permit relief for the Rutland County Agricultural Society, and change use‑value and income‑tax provisions affecting small farms and farm real‑estate transfers.

The bill matters because it ties a near‑term funding mechanism for pesticide waste collection to longer‑term EPR planning, changes how fairgrounds may comply with a three‑acre stormwater permit, and adjusts tax rules that affect farm succession and small or charitable farming operations.

Chief counsel Michael O'Grady summarized the draft and the committee's options, saying the “amendment from senator Calmore is on your web page” and walking members through the bill’s parts. He told the committee the first 23 pages contain beneficial substances provisions that “have not changed” and described the pesticide provisions beginning on page 23.

Pesticides and funding

Under the draft, the bill would add a $50 registration fee per pesticide product; revenues would be deposited into a pesticide fund for collection of expired or end‑of‑life pesticides until an EPR program is implemented. Section 3 would require a study that “look[s] at options for sustainable funding sources to reimburse solid waste management entities for all costs associated with collection, and then including a look at, creating an extended resource responsibility program for pesticides,” O'Grady said. He told the committee that industry and advocacy parties had agreed to the pesticide language as drafted.

Stormwater permit relief for Rutland County Fair

The draft removes a full exemption from the three‑acre stormwater permit and instead provides that the Rutland County Agricultural Society would not be required to pay an off‑site offset fee or an impact fee under the three‑acre permit if the society is registered with the Agency of Agriculture and performs what is “practically possible” on site as determined by an engineering feasibility analysis. O'Grady explained that if an operator cannot meet performance measures on‑site, the usual options are an off‑site offset project or payment of an impact fee into a fund used to perform projects in the watershed.

O'Grady noted site constraints at the Rutland County Fairground — including a railroad easement and a state highway along two boundaries — that could limit on‑site measures: “you can't go into their easement, for anything that they won't allow,” he said. The language in the draft, he said, “is crafted carefully so that there's some protection for the fair, but not a total exemption.” The committee chair said he would offer the provision and that the agency’s secretary (Secretary Moore) appeared supportive of the narrowly crafted relief.

Use‑value and tax provisions

The bill would change eligibility for agricultural use‑value assessment so that donated farm crops could count toward the income test for parcels under 25 acres. Under the draft, an equivalent donated value of farm crops of $2,000 per parcel (up to 25 acres) would qualify a parcel for enrollment; for parcels larger than 25 acres the draft references $75 per acre with a cap on the counted income (the draft sets a maximum total counted income). O'Grady summarized that the change is intended to allow some charitable farms to qualify for use‑value treatment.

On income taxes, the draft would allow a reduction in taxable income for certain net farm profit items up to $10,000 in the tax year, O'Grady said. The draft also restructures a capital‑gains exception for the sale of farm real estate: the land must continue to be used as part of the farming operation after sale, and the buyer must be a relative (by blood, civil union or adoption) or an employee of the farming operation for at least 10 years. O'Grady proposed reordering the statutory language so that the continued‑use condition applies to all qualifying buyers.

Committee decisions and next steps

Committee members debated whether to keep several accessory‑business provisions (sections 4 and 5) in the bill. Members said including that language could slow or complicate passage; the committee chair said he would remove sections 4 and 5 for now and return to that subject next year. The chair stated, “I will take those 2 sections out,” and the committee directed counsel to revise the draft accordingly. Counsel agreed to update the language and circulate a revision for quick review; members scheduled a brief reconvening around 11 a.m. to take another look.

No formal motions or roll‑call votes were recorded during the portion of the meeting summarized here. The draft contains an effective date provision of 07/01/2025, and committee staff said the tax and fee pages will also require review by the finance committee.

What was not decided

Committee members and staff discussed but did not finalize whether the committee should move the bill out that week or hold it for further amendments and use as a legislative vehicle later. The accessory‑business provisions and the exact engineering standard for “practically possible” stormwater measures were deferred for later work.

Next steps include counsel circulating a revised draft reflecting the removal of sections 4 and 5, staff coordination with the finance committee on fee and tax pages, and the committee’s planned short reconvening to review the revised draft.