[Mary Jane Newlon]

There is no cost to HB1094, and it has passed and signed by governor. Why would another bill be passed causing women to pay $175 who are having a problem paying their regular bills now. That is why the bill was passed to help not hinder. Would one bill offset the offer. The governor signed it, made it law and now another is trying to remove and replace it with their own idea. Would someone please explain to me the purpose.

[David CrabillKeymaster]

Mary Jane, maybe I can help clarify from what I think is happening. It’s actually all good!

HB 1094 has already passed and will go into effect in November, as you know. The other bill, SB 920, has not yet been passed, as far as I know. But the reason it’s also being considered is because it doesn’t have some of the limitations that HB 1094 does. I don’t think it would replace HB 1094: it would just be another option for a producer.

SB 920 would not have the $20,000 sales limit and would allow producers to sell many other types of food. So if HB 1094 didn’t apply to someone, they could use SB 920 instead, which is more expensive due to the lack of sales limitations and the health inspection requirement.

[Author]

Posts