Farmland Access & Stewardship Working Group

AGENDA Farmland Access & Stewardship Working Group Thursday, May 11, 2017 12:30 pm -3:30 pm Downstreet Housing & Community Development, 22 Keith Ave, Barre VT

Desired Outcomes: ● Increase understanding and awareness of how ag enterprises fit into regulatory processes, and identify potential next steps ● Align the Soil and Water CCT with the Farmland Access & Stewardship Working Group ● Promote greater alignment of meeting Vermont’s agricultural and renewable energy goals ● Improve connections between working groups, cross cutting teams, and task forces of F2P Network

Attendees: Taylar Foster (Pete’s Greens, F2P Farmland Access and Stewardship Working Group Chair), Katie Michels (High Meadows Fund), Maggie Donin (Intervale Center), Abbey Duke (Sugarsnap Catering), JJ Vandette (Efficiency Vermont, F2P Energy Cross Cutting Team Chair), Nancy Everhart (VHCB), Kimberly Hagen (UVM Center for Sustainable Agriculture), Andrea Stander (Rural Vermont), Vera Simon-Nobes (Shelburne Farms, F2P Agritourism Task Force Co-Chair), Karin Chamberlain (Clean Yield Asset Management), Natasha Duarte (Composting Association of Vermont), Pat Sagui (Composting Association of Vermont, F2P Food Cycle Coalition Task Force Chair), Stephanie Smith (VAAFM), Mike Ghia (Land for Good, F2P Farmland Access Task Force Chair), Erica Campbell (Office of Senator Bernie Sanders), Anne Margolis (Vermont PSD), Jake Claro (VSJF), Sarah Danly (VSJF)

Meeting Summary and Next Steps:  Updates: o Farmland Access Task Force: . Changes to VT Land Link website, including addition of farm seeker profiles:  Needs outreach about how this is NOT the total of all people who have signed up as a seeker – some are signed up on site without a profile . Re-launching farm transfer network of New England website – attorneys, accountants and other service providers can post for their services o Food Cycle Coalition: . Has a website intern, Francesca Boulton. If you have resources or thoughts related to Act 148 that may be helpful, please contact [email protected] or [email protected] . Regional toolkit with Hunger Free VT in terms of managing organics as a local resource: HFVT has internally funded their share of the project  Merging with Soil & Water CCT: o Vote in favor of having Soil & Water CCT merge into the Working Group o There is an open position if anyone from the Soil & Water group would like to become a working group co-chair with Taylar  Case Study of Ag-Enterprises & Regulatory Process o Case study presentation by Abbey Duke (Sugarsnap), Maggie Donin (Intervale), Stephanie Smith (VAAFM,) Andrea Stander (Rural Vermont) . This is a unique situation because of Act 250 permit overlay on the Intervale. o Short-term solutions: More clarity needed around both Act 250 regulations (a lesser number of cases) and local regulation (land use, event permitting, etc) . How could we bring existing resources together to crowdsource knowledge, in terms of people who have done it before and have experience, towns that have dealt with this, and resources that exist in agencies and municipalities?  It’s hard for farmers to know where to go for answers. Our group has some TA providers – opportunities to link them with farmers? . When people come up with an idea, getting them to slow down and go through a bunch of steps can be difficult – many stories of people who went way down the line in changes to their operations before banging into a regulatory requirement they couldn’t comply with e.g. septic updates – finding a way to help people not get into those situations would be a really good service to provide.  Need to start asking these questions far back in process – town differences are important to consider even when looking for a piece of property . Updating existing resources  There is a guide from the Agency and NOFA, but maybe it needs to be updated – add more examples, including examples that are more complicated  Potential case study project: Vera Simon-Nobes may pursue, potentially a good student project o Long-term solutions: Regulations are currently reactive: innovation happens a lot faster than any regulatory framework. We only realize we have a gap once the innovation is happening. Let’s shift to planning proactively. . If we can create a culture in the regulatory world and world of ag that has the goals we all agree are important – if those become the pillars of how regs and decisions are made – then we may end up with more consistency overall. . Agricultural Enterprise legislation: has not yet become a bill but is still in the House ag/forestry committee.  The Agency will not be actively bringing stakeholders together but would participate if other stakeholders were organizing.  Potential for this group to organize more conversations and advocacy around this . Citizens have a role – so much is being driven by market demand – they need to be engaged in this. Consumers are unaware of how much clout they have in these matters. Connecting the dots for them could be beneficial.  Energy Siting/ Act 174: o Act 174: presentation by Anne Margolis, PSD . If a regional or municipal plan is determined to be consistent with the standards it will receive stronger deference re. land conservation measures and specific policies when the PSB looks at orderly development . The standards ask regions and towns to look and plan for future energy use across all energy sectors and to identify potential areas for development as well as areas that are unsuitable. Constraints to be taken into account in mapping process include ag soils, protected lands, and Act 250 ag soil mitigation areas. . How to get involved: Each region has multiple meetings on their draft plans and final plans. People can also go to the Northwest Regional Commission, which is the central contractor for TA for the other regions o F2P Energy CCT: Update from CCT chair JJ Vandette . Ongoing discussion of the ag-energy nexus – stay tuned for an event o Guide to Farming Friendly Solar (by Kimberly Hagen, Alex DePilis, Chris Sargent/TRORC): Update from Kimberly Hagen . Key takeaway: it was really important for the case study farmers to be full partners in negotiations with the solar company and the utilities. Not all farmers are in that same position to be able to negotiate. . Important to remember that grazing as the compatible use to solar is not always appropriate example – to do it on crop land is still diminishing the agricultural use of the property.  Next Meeting and Next Steps: o 2 more meetings this calendar year – ideas welcomed, especially anything Soil & Water has been working on in the past o Explore idea of attending/having report-outs from/have a co-meeting with the state technical meetings

Full Notes

Case Study of Ag-Enterprises & Regulatory Process (70 min) ● Case Study: Abbey Duke, Sugarsnap ● Stephanie Smith, VAAFM ● Andrea Stander, Rural Vermont ● Discussion and next steps

Discussion: o Since the beginning, Sugarsnap has tried to bring customers to the farm, but once they began looking into it, it was complicated. Sugarsnap with its neighbor Half Pint Farm wanted to bring people onto the farm for events like small dinner. What did this mean in relation to what was allowed – especially as it became more frequent and publicized? o The Intervale Center land has an additional regulatory overlay because there is an Act 250 permit on the entire site. There is also a landlord-tenant setup. ○ Having an Act 250 permit on a farm is not going to be a huge number of cases. The Intervale permit exists because there was a commercial composting operation. The permit is set up so that the land around the farmstead/offices allows a number of activities, but the permit says that for the agricultural lands, all that is allowed is agriculture. This was a deliberate choice by the Intervale at the time. ○ The Intervale is also a very public farm—when things happen, people have a lot of questions. o Also an archaeological site, so have to get permission to dig or build. o While trying to do due diligence and work through the city, the city was really supportive, and no local permitting was needed. (City regulations specify you can do x many days per year as a different use). When looking further up the chain, found out they needed Act 250 approval – dinner and tasting on the farm wasn’t necessarily falling under “agricultural activity” within Act 250. o It would be useful if there was more clarity and definition from the agency of agriculture. o Act 250 doesn’t say specifically what you can do—you can come to them and ask about a specific activity and they say “maybe.” They’re not going to look to the city for the answer, but the Agency. o They got a jurisdictional opinion from the Agency (not a binding decision – “here’s what I would probably say”) based on old case law; the opinion was that it wouldn’t count as ag and so an amendment to the permit would be needed. o Intervale is putting together a proposal for an amendment to their Act 250 permit but the process has been taking 2 years o Act 250 jurisdiction is under the district coordinator in that region ○ Decisions should be the same from district coordinator to district coordinator but it can be hard to get consistency (at other levels as well) ○ Predictability and consistency are paramount in any regulator system o Why are certain things considered ag and others not? ○ The definition of farming for the purposes of RAPs is in response to the enabling legislation, which specifically points out that the standards shall address activities that have the potential for causing agricultural pollutants ○ A segment does refer to preparation, storage, and sales of ag products – but still regulating the water side ○ Meant to address farming and water quality, not land uses on a broad scale. ○ At the beginning, lawyers’ interpretation of preparation, storage, and sales was different (more broad) than the agency was defining it o Is there any room for “nimbleness” in the regulatory arena? This is how people are trying to make viable businesses ○ There is a skeleton you can’t change, e.g. the water quality regulations, but can we create space to evaluate… o Regulations address many types of business; some of the need for consistency applies not only to activities occurring on farms but to those activities appearing in other formats as well. So consistency has to be business to business as well ○ Need for clarity on how the regs apply and whether they apply differently to different scenarios ○ This issue applies to composters as well o First it is important to understand “what is agricultural entrepreneurship?”: how different it can be from one farm to the next; what it looks like; what we want to incentivize or support; who the decisionmakers are; what needs to happen to change that process. o Innovation happens a lot faster than any regulatory framework. We only realize we have a gap once the innovation is happening. Instead let’s look at the big picture-- what are we looking for and where can we allow for that expansion? o The Agency for at least three years has tried to address the municipal RAP to create some flexibility there. We have been unable to get traction to create statewide land use regulations for innovations on farms that allow for regulation of that innovation but in a way that only addresses the issues that are likely to come of it (noise, traffic, parking.) Or even requiring municipalities to allow these things (even if standards must be met) – but not having it be conditional or unallowed. ○ Difficult to get traction at statehouse due to concerns from people who represent municipalities – their question is why people who do activities on farms have greater privileges than similar business that have to meet certain regulations. ○ Farm Bureau took part, VAAFM, League of Cities and Towns, planners association, etc ○ Currently no plans to reconvene ○ Next step, likely starting in Pawlet, is to get to municipalities to talk about enabling innovation by amending zoning regulations o If we have profitable farms we will be less likely to see residential development in ag areas and will have fewer issues of ag uses and residential uses colliding o Possible approaches to resolve these issues? ○ Report available on the Agency’s website, from 2015 (though regs changed in 2016 re: the definition of farming.) Doesn’t address Act 250 but similar in nature. Also has info from a survey of the kinds of activities that farmers want to engage in. ○ Vera Simon-Nobes: we don’t know a lot of solutions at this point. Has been trying to track which towns are revising their bylaws to be more inclusive of diverse ag activities, including agritourism. Specifically watching New Haven and Hyde Park. If I had more time would love to see what some of these best practices are – but it’s a slow process to rewrite bylaws, and every town has its own character and need to preserve independence. ○ Burlington’s 30 day variance could be a good solution – usually farms are not looking to hold more events than that. o Some of the confusion in the case study is that as a caterer, Sugarsnap does temporary functions all the time. Why can you have a big party with 300 people but it’s not clear you’re allowed to host a dinner for 30 people on the farm? (But we think if not for the Act 250 permit it would be fine under Burlington’s variance) ○ It comes down to personal interpretation – jurisdiction triggers when there are constructed improvements on a parcel of land (plus a big enough parcel.) Whether a temporary tent and bathrooms is a constructed improvement that triggers Act 250 is in question. ○ A bigger question is, can you do non-ag activities inside an agricultural structure, e.g. dinner in the barn? Act 250 applicability may depend on whether the event is happening in a temporary structure, a permanent ag structure, in a field with no cover, etc. ○ Experience with a farm a number of years ago in Windham that got into trouble with the town – late music led neighbors to bring issue in front of the town, which then said they also needed an Act 250 permit – and that Act 250 district agreed. That decision may not have happened in other districts. But there has to be considerations of noise, parking, traffic, septic (you have to have proper septic permits – nothing will change that – that’s public health.) ○ In Act 250, they allow for home occupations – in some of the uses in question, as long as it is occurring at a farm with a home, it could potentially fit within that exception. At municipal level, potential options are home occupation or adaptive reuse of structures (can always look for that kind of language in a zoning regulation). The events permitting piece is a separate piece of enabling legislation for municipalities (considered police power and adopted by the selectboard.) Not all municipalities have a permitting process to allow for events to happen. ○ Act 250 does NOT have adaptive reuse… potential there. ○ There is a bill upcoming (H424) – Act 250 anniversary bill – reevaluating whether it is meeting its goals and what changes need to be made to address current climate, innovation, etc. o One of the elements under consideration was ability to take an Act 250 permit off of a property that no longer needs it. This is relevant to the case study -- now the Intervale Center lands would likely not require an act 250 permit. Or the permit could potentially be removed from ag land but not farmstead. However, either way seems very unlikely. (though gravel permits or other mining extraction permits can be dissolved.) o Need to address definitions and figure out regulator process. What are some good ways to reach farmers directly? It’s hard for farmers to know where to go for answers. Our group has some TA providers – opportunities to link with farmers? o We’re in a period of time where the regulatory environment is struggling with the pace of innovation. ○ Regulation is hard because there is so much variability. ○ An example is RAPs. In the rulemaking there was a rule to allow farms to apply for variances – to meet the regulation goals in alternative ways. They have an advisory committee working with farmers to come up with what the variance processes and guidelines will look like so that there will be consistency and predictability. If there is one thing that became clear in the RAP process it’s that there is a huge variety of farms out there. Then layer that with enormous differences in the municipalities… ○ Until you’re making money or causing a problem nobody pays any attention. If you start making money or your neighbor complains or an issue arises… a lot of what has evolved over time especially in terms of local regulation is reactive. “We had a problem so we fixed it and this is what we do now going forward.” This can be difficult for somebody new who comes along and is doing something similar but different. o How do farmers deal with this? Farmers don’t have the time. ○ For this group to consider – how could we address bringing some of those resources together to crowdsource knowledge in terms of people who have done it before and have experience, towns that have dealt with this, and resources that exist in agencies and municipalities? ○ Re RAPs, at lowest level the municipality has to regulate, which is concerning to some – so there has been talk of creating model regulations. ○ The reality is that when people come up with an idea, particularly if driven by customer demand and economics, getting people to slow down and go through a bunch of steps can be difficult – many stories of people who went way down the line in changes to their operations before banging into a regulatory requirement they couldn’t comply with e.g. septic updates. Finding a way to help people not get into those situations would be a really good service to provide ○ If we don’t stay flexible about how we deal with this stuff we’ll lose a lot of opportunities and miss a lot of ability to grow these businesses and improve the communities. o If we could shift our outlook to outcomes, not how to get there… it would be a lot less costly too. The key is to look at what’s really important: health and human safety, food safety, water quality… how does the regulatory structure then pay attention to those things but allow for innovation? ○ Who’s working with the farmers and how do we educate them? We work with so many experts through the farm viability program but it feels there’s currently not somebody who can cover the whole gamut of regulation. o Other businesses work with engineers – like a permitting consultant specialist, someone you can bring in. o This was discussed at one of the viability program meetings o There is a guide from the agency and NOFA, but maybe it needs to be updated – add more examples, including examples that are more complicated o A whole other aspect is added if the land is also protected. VHCB easements have a purpose of protecting an economically viable farm as well as protecting the land. But there’s also a threshold where it goes into a whole commercial operation… balancing act. o The grey area is mostly local zoning, potentially sometimes Act 250 o Farmers need to start asking these questions far back in process – town differences are important to consider even when looking for a piece of property. o Should also never make a decision to go forward based on the fact that the neighbors aren’t complaining --- neighbors change, zoning officials change. So, get permission in writing. o If we can create a culture in regulatory world and world of ag that has the goal of achieving outcomes we all agree are important – if those become the pillars of how regs and decisions are made – then we may end up with more consistency overall. Then there can be a layer of flexibility in how that’s achieved. We could then start to create a structure that allows for flexibility and innovation, a less labyrinthine process, less reactive… instead, creating model legislation, sharing good solutions. ○ When the agency began the process to create statewide land use for preparation/storage/sales/events/educational activities, it started with goals. but the Agricultural Enterprise legislation never even became a bill; not sure what will happen in future. o The way the statement of purpose was worded triggered a lot of the pushback. o The draft language is still in the House ag/forestry committee, but the agency is not actively bringing stakeholders together this summer to discuss tweaking etc. o The Agency would participate if other stakeholders were doing organizing o From the standpoint of the legislative process, people on that committee are the first line of conversation – it’s not even a bill yet. So one action item would be encouraging people who are interested in this issue to have conversations with those legislators. ○ Citizens have a role as so much is being driven by market demand – they need to be engaged in this. Consumers are unaware of how much clout they have in these matters. They can be influential at the local level; the local planning process also includes engagement with citizens. o Connecting those dots is sometimes missing for consumers o Some of the guidance documents with the agency, VNRC, and NOFA include guidance for municipalities in engaging their communities ○ What avenues do we have to get to work more with these planners? o Planners association conferences – Stephanie talked at last year’s ○ Tension: everyone is saying they support X and farmers should be doing it, but then farmers are not always actually allowed to. That makes it different than water quality which has more consistent messaging – here there is mixed messaging. ○ Often the innovators know they’re at the edge of what’s legal, and yet it’s a good thing that they’re doing. Whatever process we create there needs to be a place for folks who already know they’re outside the law to be able to talk about changing it. It would be really useful to have some other venue for both the regulators and the entrepreneurs. It’s really hard to sit down with your regulator when you know you’re violating the regulations. Could there be something within economic development for those conversations to unfold and develop? ○ Agency of commerce and community development should also be at the table. ○ A concrete next step could be inventory of what resources are out there and also what questions are people asking. For example, the flowchart within the ____ report is great but not known by many people.

Merging w/Soil & Water CCT and How to Move Forward (15 min)

Discussion: ● Soil and water CCT wants to merge ● Farmland Access and Stewardship has been wanting to work more on Stewardship. One of the main goals of this group is environmental stewardship – confusing to have the S&W separated out. There used to be more diversity in this group e.g. from conservation districts – those members have peeled off as the group didn’t focus on those goals much. ● Good opportunity for both groups. ● In the future, S&W could always become a task force for a specific project ● Maybe someone from S&W/Stewardship side could become co-chair with Taylar ● Is there any work hanging from the Soil & Water CCT? (no) ● Nancy motioned, Kimberly seconded, no votes opposed – S&W CCT merged into FA&S WG.

Energy Siting/Act 174 (60 min) ● Anne Margolis/ Dan Potter, PSD (tentative) ● Stephanie Smith, VAAFM ● JJ Vandette, F2P Energy CCT ● Nancy Everhart, VHCB - Guide to Farming Friendly Solar

Discussion (see presentation for more detail around Act 174) ● Act 174 is culmination of many years of discussion over siting ● 90% by 2050 goal is set by 2016 update of state energy plan ● If a regional or municipal plan is determined to be consistent with the standards it will receive substantial deference (defined in the act, higher bar than telecom siting interpretation of substantial deference) (instead of due consideration) for land conservation measures and specific policies, when the PSB looks at orderly development\ ● Asks regions and towns to look and plan for future energy use across all energy sectors and to identify potential areas for development, but also areas that are unsuitable for resources or particular categories or sizes ● The determination of consistency with the standards may apply to and draw upon the entire plan, not just the energy element ● PSD has published municipal and regional sets of determination standards, recommendations drawn from 2016 CEP plan, and additional guidance ● NOT asking municipalities or regions to meet a specific target – PSD can’t require a region or municipality to cite a certain amount of generation. But they should look at how to get from point A to Point B e.g. getting to 90% renewable, which could be self supply or could be from the utility as the larger energy sector becomes more renewable. (Utility has renewable energy portfolio that considers out of state.) A municipality or region could look at meeting that by e.g. have a certain amount built within their area – targeting areas as suitable or unsuitable but not actually requiring things to be built there. ○ Question: but the motivation is around having deference, which is about actual siting. ○ At the end of the day, that generator may decide to sell its REC in-state or out of state. The incentive to sell within VT just started this year. Starting at the end of 2018 the utilities will be filing information with the PSB proving they have the REC to match their requirement. ● Standards ask regions and municipalities to compare generation potential to targets and then identify sufficient potentially suitable areas to reach targets, based on population and resource potential. Could be flexible – unsuitable, potentially suitable, preferred. Caveat is that when it comes time for a specific project a site may be determined to be unsuitable for some reason not captured in statewide mapping. ○ Map secondary resource potential by analyzing resource availability (e.g. solar potential) and subtracting “known constraints”; next, map prime resource areas by taking base resource maps and subtracting “potential constraints” including ag soils, protected lands, Act 250 ag soil mitigation areas, etc. ○ Regions and towns can start with these maps and add areas where they would like to explicitly encourage or avoid development. ● Under new net metering laws, larger locations can’t be on greenfields unless identified by a municipality as being a preferred location – landowners are going to municipalities to say they would like to build solar, so can the municipality designate it as a preferred site. Towns are looking at ways to do this fairly and what factors to consider. ● One of the issues that was raised is the ability of local zoning to withstand challenges in the future – once you have put something industrial on ag land, could someone else make a case saying that since something industrial (energy) is allowed on ag land in X plance, my other industrial use needs to be allowed…. Are we putting our town at risk that they’re going to lose a legal challenge, due to the way zoning law is in this state? ● How to get involved: Each region has multiple meetings on their draft plans and final plans – pay attention to those agendas, and when municipalities begin planning. People can also go to Northwest Regional Commission which is the central contractor for TA for the other regions ● Question: From the point of view of a farmer who wants to install something on their land and they don’t have a preferred category designation – how does this apply? ○ This is under net metering – it’s just when you get over 1kW that you must be on a preferred site to count under net metering ○ “greenfield” is whatever is not a preferred site ○ Preferred sites include on the same parcel as a customer taking 50% or more of the output, so a farmer who uses 50% or more of the energy could fall under this and count as a preferred site ● Discussion: consideration of ag soils ○ Hopefully the RPCs will be considering ag soils ○ Ag is a natural resource that is considered in the process so the agency is obligated to participate in process for any facility over 500 kW, and can be (and has been) involved in other projects as well (determines whether to be involved based on Act 250 standards), looking at construction conditions and decommissioning to maintain soil integrity. But, doesn’t prevent installation or require mitigation ○ There is rulemaking going on right now at the Board that requires projects 150-500 KJW to decommission and restore site; projects >500 kW to decommission and restore site and also secure an irrevocable standby letter of credit. Comments have been filed relating to case by case review of projects 50-150 kW, alternate forms of financial security, and exemptions for underground facilities (currently the agency of ag asks all infrastructure to be removed to the depth of 4ft.) ○ Concern remains bc the CPG could be renewed as long as the facility is economically viable – regardless of decommissioning plan, may never go back to agriculture. ○ VAAFM obligation to participate only began in June of last year. If parcels currently in ag use leased by farmers are used for energy, may look at impacts to that farm operation from lost access to land. ○ VAAFM provides information to PSB which makes the determination. ● Overview from F2P Energy CCT ○ Started with success stories, promoted through F2P; ○ Finished energy chapter last year with some aspirational ways to reach Goal 22 ○ Additional smaller projects as well ○ June 7, 9-10:30: smaller subgroup will be discussing ag and energy nexus – might want to pull an event together. ● Overview of Guide to Farming Friendly Solar (by Kimberly Hagen, Alex DePilis, Chris Sargent/TRORC) ○ Alarming that farmers are not as included in the conversation. It was really important for the case study farmers that they be full partners in negotiation with the solar company and the utilities. ○ Other farmers who are leasing their land aren’t in the same position to negotiate with the solar companies. ○ The case study farmer who put up the panels for his own use as a buffer with neighboring farm thinks he wouldn’t be able to do that today – the issue may be at the town/municipal planning level – maybe setbacks are required ○ Who owns the RECs is different for all the projects ○ One case study involves raising the panels for grazing underneath – has tradeoffs, that model has raised glare issues and disputes with neighbors ○ Has there been quality difference in the forage? At Open View, they put birdsfood trefoil under the panels – with enough spacing between panels for light – at that point in the summer (when being used) it grows well compared to the rest of the fields ○ A case came up on a farm on conserved land in current use – putting the solar up threw into question the current use, but he was not using 50% of the energy, which was a trigger. There are definitions of when a renewable energy unit meets the definitions of current use. On the conservation side, there are a lot of requests for 3rd party owned… the answer is that the project has to have at least 50% on farm use in order to be a preferred site. ○ Concern raised: these examples always come back to grazing as the compatible use to solar. You could theoretically be taking ag soils prime for cultivation and turning it to soil/grazing. These examples are appropriate on land suitable only for grazing but to do it on crop land is still diminishing the agricultural use of the property. Concern with holding these up as examples without attention to when it is appropriate.

Task Force and General Updates (15 min) ● Farmland Access TF ○ Making major changes to VT land link and NE farm finder to try to keep those two websites compatible. One of the most significant additions is the addition of farm seeker profiles so that people looking for farms can put up a profile in case farm property owners want to reach out to them. ■ Needs outreach about how this is NOT the total of all people who have signed up as a seeker – some are signed up on site and haven’t done a profile ■ Maggie will be doing outreach encouraging people to create a profile and also how to do a better profile with more specific background and more specifics on what they really want to do ■ Q about the clustering of properties in NEK. Stacy has been reaching out to real estate agents and the one in the state who has really done concerted posting is based in Troy, posts a lot of farms in NEK ○ A group was also down in Manchester for LFG work funded by the farmer and rancher development fund – farm transfer task force put together a CLE class that was attended by attorneys from all 6 New England states as well as a healthy amount of service providers ○ Re-launching farm transfer network of New England website – attorneys, accountants and other service providers can post for their services ● Food Cycle Coalition ○ Has a website intern who will be working with Sarah. If there is anything related to Act 148 that may be helpful, pass it on! ○ CAV met with new DEC commissioner – request that DEC talk with human services and for a more purposeful sharing of resources ○ Group wants to do more professional development ○ Regional toolkit with Hunger Free VT in terms of managing organics as a local resource: HFVT has internally funded their share of the project ● Next meeting/ other updates ○ 2 more meetings this calendar year – Taylar welcomes any ideas, especially anything S&W has been working on in the past ○ Erica: have someone report out from state technical meetings ■ Nancy is a member and goes – but they’re open to the public ■ They’re supposed to be moved around the state, not always in Colchester. If you request it to be somewhere e.g. Brattleboro it can be ■ Erica: could be interesting to try a co-meeting