Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Bridges Health And Food Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee endorses $167,700 for Bridges to Health and hears food-security, right-to-grow discussions
Summary
The committee agreed to sign a House Health Care Committee letter recommending a $167,700 budget adjustment for Bridges to Health (recorded 7-0-1) and heard a Food Security Roadmap Coalition presentation; members discussed a possible $1.5 million 'Vermonters Feeding Vermonters' BAA request, statutory fixes to RAPs, and whether H 537 (right-to-grow) should be combined with broader fixes.
The Appropriations Committee voted to sign onto a House Health Care Committee letter recommending a $167,700 budget adjustment to support the Bridges to Health transition.
Committee members moved, discussed the motion’s wording and whether this was the final committee action on the subject, and then the clerk called the roll. The recorded vote to endorse the letter was 7-0-1, with one member absent.
Separately, members noted they had heard a presentation from the Food Security Roadmap Coalition and that the Vermont Food Bank had asked the committee to consider a BAA request for a program described as 'Vermonters Feeding Vermonters' (reported in the meeting as approximately $1.5 million). Committee members said they had not yet received a formal request in committee and asked staff to follow up; members agreed to continue discussion tomorrow and invited testimony from groups scheduled to appear, including the League of Cities and Towns.
The meeting also featured an extended policy discussion about how to fix a statutory ambiguity that members said had been implicated in recent litigation (referred to in the meeting as Tapstreet). Counsel and staff advised that adding a findings or legislative-intent section could provide context to courts but that courts still primarily analyze plain statutory language. Counsel said statute-level fixes are possible and suggested two pathways: amend the statute directly or use statute to supersede administrative rules (RAPs) where appropriate.
Members asked staff to draft sample language to clarify definitions (for example, what constitutes 'farming activity' subject to RAPs) and to consider whether H 537 (a bill about a right to grow vegetables) should be combined with statutory fixes. They also discussed municipal zoning examples (one town, Essex, was cited) that had restricted larger-scale agricultural activities in residential areas while potentially allowing limited backyard gardens. Members asked legislative counsel to provide a brief refresher on how existing cannabis growing rules intersect with the proposed drafting.
What happens next: staff and counsel will prepare drafting options and the committee will reconvene after floor activity to hear additional testimony and consider BAA requests.
