Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good afternoon. Welcome to the House Environment Committee. This afternoon, we are starting off with H632, the miscellaneous DEC bill, and hearing back from the fire extinguisher universe. Welcome back.

[Bill Smith]: Thank you. Madam Chair, members of committee, I'm Bill Smith, in state lobbyist for Fire Encryption Manufacturers Association, whether it be Jeff Terry, who's the national lobbyist, guess you could say, of Boston for them. He's worked with them for, I believe, twenty three years, and I'm just under a year. Some of you who worked with us the last time, these are the manufacturers primarily of the type of fire extinguisher you have in this very room. Amarex, for example, makes that one over there. They're manufacturer. They're a distributor. State buildings in general, this room in particular is Impact Fire in Williston. It maintain that fire extinguisher and every other one be fine in the building. So as we got closer to implementing Act 58 from 2023, which you passed three years ago, This industry came came to me through Jeff and started saying, hey, we're a little different than sort of the. The single use or the small time residential extinguishers. So we'd like to talk about how we can address that relationship and explain to the legislature and ANR why we're different and ought to be treated differently, either in regulations or in statute. So we began a process of kind of education and meeting with ANR folks and with our solid waste district folks and came to the point where we said, hey, we'd like to move forward with some legislation focusing on the commercial fire extinguishers that are subject to inspection, maintenance, recharging, refurbishment by these local distributors because every public building in Vermont needs to have one of those in it. So public building in Vermont is generally anything other than a single family home. We have a very broad definition of that, but generally you can consider commercial, institutional, governmental buildings are all going to be required by the fire code. The owners of the building required to have this maintenance programs in place and to take care of those fire extinguishers on a fairly frequent schedule so that one they stay safe. That's the number one thing so that you when you need that fire extinguisher, it'll work. And two, they stay out of the waste stream because they are a much higher quality, frankly, piece of equipment than you're gonna buy at your local hardware store. They're more expensive. But some of them do certainly sell a communication into residential usage. For example, I'm going go talk to Steve Duke at Vermont Fire Exchanger about my extinguishers in my house. Why? Because I want I understand this more as I've learned about it. It's become a priority for me. Even at that, we came to you folks with this sort of, if you will, Kat, could you put up on the screen the proposal that you've all got it. Okay. Does anyone need a paper copy? I do have a few if

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: you can.

[Speaker 0]: Can you just tell us if you is has Matt Chapin been involved in this?

[Bill Smith]: Right, right, Matt came up with what's in draft 4.1 on page 32, time of draft 05:39PM on the tenth, which put in an exemption for single use rechargeable fire extinguishers when the manufacturers of the extinguishers or their representatives collect the extinguishers from municipal household hazardous waste reduction programs at no cost. We have a slightly different version of that for you. No, we don't have buy in on this from ANR or from our solid waste districts, but we're working with them on it. I think we're going to have to keep working with them on it. But what we're proposing is that it's a it breaks it into two groups, essentially. One is what do you do with the residential ones that are coming into the household hazardous waste programs now? And we're saying they'll get collected at no cost to the programs. Why don't we just want to put the word manufacturer in there? I think it comes down to risk of liability. And Jeff, did you want to talk about that a little bit?

[Jeff Terry]: Yeah. Thank you, Bill. And again, so we've had some conversations with ANR. We've had some conversations with Solid Waste folks. And what we would like to do is we would like to work with ANR and the solid waste folks, but work with ANR so that if we are successful in getting some language in, but then we can work with ANR, what's the best way to do this? What's the most effective way to make sure that these are being collected? I think what our concern is about specifically naming manufacturers in there is if an extinguisher does end up in a disposal site or something like that, then what's, you know, could that be adding new liability to the manufacturer that's not already there? So I think that's why we decided not to have manufacturing there. But again, we wanna work with ANR in the implementation, the rule making process, and before that to figure out what's the best way to do that.

[Bill Smith]: Now, under the existing Act 58 you passed, section 7,188, does envision these other programs run by manufacturers or other entities. Says, let me focus for the record, if I may, a municipality or other public agencies are encouraged to work with the manufacturers to assist them, manufacturers assisting manufacturers in meeting their collection and disposal obligations under this chapter. And then nothing in this chapter prohibits or restricts the operation of any program collecting or disposing of covered household products in addition to these provided by manufacturers or prohibits them from receiving, collecting, transporting. So it envisions that you might come up with other things based on your industry that would work better than some kind of official program administered by ANR overseen by ANR, but not administered.

[Jeff Terry]: And again, if such a program is not able to come into existence, then those are subject to the EPR law. They

[Bill Smith]: pay it. That's essentially what ANR is trying to work that out now. But at the same time, there is this other type of I mean, there's still a fire extinguisher to certain level, but that fire extinguisher over there costs a lot more than the ones you're gonna get at Home Depot. Why? Because it has parts in it that can be reused for decades. And it's subject to a program that allows you to essentially recycle it and eventually at the end of its life, make sure it doesn't go into the waste stream in the state of Vermont or anywhere.

[Jeff Terry]: Right. So, you know,

[Bill Smith]: that's the difference.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: We get it. We understand

[Speaker 0]: your story. Okay. We need to move to language that works for ANR and you. So I just want to be clear, the ones here, and eight, both of those were put forward by ANR and then you're proposing to strike, or did you add eight?

[Bill Smith]: Okay, so it's twelve and thirteen.

[Speaker 0]: Sorry, 12.

[Bill Smith]: Actually, Roman Nemo is a little rusty, but so we're proposing at 13 is essentially the same language we've asked you for because that type of extinguisher is different than the residential ones and single use ones because of the way they're treated and have a contract to take care of them. Whereas the first one is we're saying, essentially we're saying take out the language that relates to specifically manufacturers because of this concern about liability. Right.

[Jeff Terry]: So it's a

[Speaker 0]: Did ANR put forth both of these paragraphs?

[Bill Smith]: They put forth only the one in draft 4.1, which would be 12.

[Jeff Terry]: Yep. They put forth 12, and then we are are suggesting a strike of the words, the manufacturers of those extinguishers or those representatives.

[Bill Smith]: Okay. Gives you an I guess if you need an up or down, how you wanna go with that, if you need anything other information from us, let me know. Happy to answer any questions that concern the committee members.

[Speaker 0]: You folks have questions? Representative Zachlitz?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I guess I'm still just I know you have liability concerns, but I don't really understand the nature of I don't understand how using that word creates potential for additional liability.

[Jeff Terry]: You know, I think it's again, I think that's something that we want to work with ANR in the rulemaking process, right? And I think the concern is, you know, under the you know, it could be a situation where an extinguisher is at a landfill, though that's not creating any danger, but if it is at a landfill, then potentially the state could contact a manufacturer and say, you have to go and pick up that extinguisher.

[Bill Smith]: I think because Vermont's really on the forefront of this type of programs in the country that a lot of manufacturers, a lot of businesses are unsure of what liability they might have going forward. And it's because of that somewhat natural reluctance of the business community to say, I'll take on all these jobs to do these things to clean things up. But then what happens if I get sued over? Not by the state, but by someone who is injured by their product, which is where it shouldn't because they weren't six. They didn't collect it. I we don't know how it works, but I just I can just tell you representing business groups over the years that when there's news there's new ideas coming in from legislators, everyone's wrestling with the concept of liability. And are you gonna get hit with a lawsuit for doing the best you can and still get sued anyway?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yes, sir. Yeah. I guess I was thinking more in terms of, like, what Suit for what? You know, the actual possible circumstance. It feels vague. This potential, you want to be liable, but you're not giving us specific example of how it would really be detrimental to the manufacturer to be helpful.

[Bill Smith]: That's clear. Fair enough.

[Jeff Terry]: Yeah. You know, and, again, I think I'll go back to, you know, if, you know, if a system can't be worked out with ANR through rule making and and all of this that works for ANR, then the manufacturers would still be subject to the EPR law. Right? So you'd still have the you would still have that.

[Speaker 0]: Great. We'll wait to hear back from ANR on this.

[Bill Smith]: Vince, can I ask your general idea of moving this bill forward, age six thirty two? Is that a

[Speaker 0]: This week.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Got it. Sooner rather than later.

[Bill Smith]: Thank you all very much.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: Thank you. I appreciate your time.

[Speaker 0]: Next up, we actually, I think, have someone from the cell of noise. Theron Sleeper.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Thank you. I'm Theron Leight Sleeper. I'm the general manager at the Central Vermont Solid Waste Management District here in Berlin. I'm here today speaking on behalf of the Solid Waste District Managers Association in opposition to carving out fire extinguishers and, frankly, any other hazardous waste materials from the bill as originally intended and written. Reason for that is, as far as we've heard from the fire extinguisher manufacturers, they haven't proposed any alternative solution to managing these materials that come to us and we are required to deal with per statute per our charter and the regulations that ANR sets. And our main concern here is the costs of managing these fire extinguishers that do come in to our facilities. They're included in the standard fare of the materials we accept and manage. Some of our colleagues are paying up to $160 per unit to dispose of and manage these fire extinguishers appropriately and safely. And so our position is that if they're well, number one, we'd rather not have any carve outs to this bill, because the whole purpose of this extended producer responsibility legislation is to help shift the costs of managing obsolete and unused products to the producers of those products instead of Vermonters. So any revisions to this bill around fire extinguishers, we would ask for an alternative program that provides collection and proper management of fire extinguishers at no cost to the districts, a requirement that service to the solid waste districts to collect the fire extinguishers that we accumulate occurs at a regular frequency to keep the number of extinguishers within our permitted storage capacities, a requirement that all brands and all types be accepted by any alternative collection program, a requirement that the extinguishers are collected to be recycled, and a prohibition on landfilling of fire extinguishers. Those are our main points we wanted to cover. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about how we deal with these fire extinguishers and what kind of volumes we're seeing.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, volumes comes to mind and then the sort of breakdown between the two different types that we've heard a lot about, so the rechargeable versus the ones that don't get recharged.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Yeah. I have volumes here from Bennington County solid waste.

[Speaker 0]: Is that where you're from?

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: No, it's not. I just don't have the numbers right in front of me. Our colleague Scott was kind enough to send those along on short notice.

[Speaker 0]: Remind me where you are from.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Central Vermont. Vermont. They're in Berlin at the industrial park there. They were seeing, on average, about 30 extinguishers come through. I know that Chittenden County sees a lot more. Pretty every year or months. Annually in their summer season. Both kinds. Are they broken down? It's not broken down on specific types. We could gather, given a little more time, more numbers on the volumes for different parts of the state, if that's helpful. They were paying about anywhere from $4,000 to $5,000 in that summer season just for fire extinguishers. As far as the different types go, there are, as I think mentioned, the commercial versus the residential types. Customers don't know the difference and they just bring them all, which is fine. We're there to deal with those, but we do hope that some of those costs can be shifted away from our constituents and to the producers as the legislation intended. The other challenge is that the guidance that is online as far as disposal of these specifically sends people to their local hazardous waste facility, their local government or environmental agency, and that's us. That's part of the EPR is an outreach program. We're already set up to manage these materials, but as I mentioned, our main challenge is the cost of providing these services.

[Speaker 0]: Would you be willing to submit your written testimony? Because that was a very succinct and clear list of your ask for. Absolutely.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: I have a copy that my colleague Jen from Chittenden Solid Waste, I'd be happy to pass this on to It

[Speaker 0]: is. Like that part. Yeah. If I

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: can just pass it up.

[Speaker 0]: And then a digital would be really great to put.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Yeah, of course. Thanks.

[Speaker 0]: Do members have questions? You actually said your last name, maybe if it's Lay Sleeper. Lay Sleeper.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: It's hyphenated.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Oh, that's weird.

[Speaker 0]: That's not l a y? Yep. Representative Austin.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Just to clarify, do you collect fees now?

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: We do.

[Carol Dawes]: And how much do you charge now?

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Currently at our facility, I believe it's $3 a piece. $3 a piece. And so would you want all that covered or percent of that covered? We would ask for the extinguishers to just remain in the bill so that the cost of covering those would be submitted on a reimbursement basis as with all the other hazardous products that we manage. So you're charging 3, but it actually costs you 160? It doesn't necessarily cost us 160. There's a lot of different ways to manage them. Some districts pay their staff to discharge them. Others pay to have them picked up at a special collection event. We collect them and send them to a fire extinguisher company and they process and deal with them on their end, but that's not available to all of the districts. So we're trying to represent all of the interests from all of the districts, including those who are paying up to 160 a piece, which isn't us because we have this connection with a local fire extinguisher company that can deal with them. But we're here representing everybody.

[Speaker 0]: Can you just describe the risks posed by having these at your facility?

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: So it's pressurized canister, which means that if it's struck or punctured, there's an explosion risk. There is some respirable nuisance dust risk. Those primary are ones, but mostly because it's a pressurized canister.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: It sounds like you're mostly here because there's a cost to your organization for disposing of them. Is that correct? Yes. You said it's about $5,000 for which organization did that amount?

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: That was the details that we received from our colleague at the Bennington County Solid Waste Alliance.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Do you have a sense of what their overall budget is that that's coming out of?

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: I don't know what the details of their budget is. I can speak to our disposal budget for haz waste. It's about $100,000 this year. We're planning on about $140,000 next year.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: You get a sense of the scale of the of the cost compared to what you spend on other things? Yeah.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: It's it's not the most expensive thing. The volumes aren't super high, but each chunk makes up the whole and it varies too. Mean, there might be a business that brings in a lot of them, or they might just be a few here and there. It's hard to predict, which is why we're hoping to just keep it in this reimbursement based process that ANR has established for the hazardous waste EPR based on a percentage of market share, essentially.

[Speaker 0]: Are there further questions? Benning Morris? Yes, I have questions. Seasons percolating. So,

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: you gave us a lot of data. Thanks for coming in, by the way. And I don't mean to to be critical of the data. I'm just trying to understand that you're saying you charge your customers down here in Berlin $3 a container for a fire extinguisher.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: For a fire extinguisher, correct.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: But you also reported out that Bennington County pays $150 I did the calculation of $4,500 which is halfway between 4,000 and 5,000 Mhmm. 150 or $160 to dispose of. But if if a fire equipment company was willing to pick it up, and you have such a company, it sounds like, that's picking up yours. They don't pick up. You deliver. Correct. Semantics. It's a cost. They're taking them to disposable. I think the intention of the bill in my mind was that we were looking for fire equipment companies to be a player here to pick them up, because they do have some potential value to them, whether it's for training or for helping out fire companies with baggies, or dropping them down a chimney fire. There's sort of things that can happen there. I think that's what I was looking at from this bill to dispose of them because there is some intrinsic value there without cost to the consumer or to the solid waste district. That's not how you're presenting the information. So I'm not debating it. I'm just saying this is what I envisioned. You're telling me another story, and I'm wondering, would you be receptive if we could get to my side of the story where fire equipment companies are picking up the materials or disposing it.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: I think that that would be acceptable. You know, some of the I don't think you have a copy of of what Jen wrote, but that has some specific requests. If we are gonna have a carve out to Act 58 for fire extinguishers, we want to make sure that there's an alternative program to manage them. Because whether the costs are going directly to consumers, our residents, or coming through us, we have to make that up somewhere. And we have to basically set taxes and set our operating budget, and that goes back on our constituents. So it's, you know, left or right, which one do you want?

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: I want free to the consumer.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: That's where that's what we're representing as well, which means we have to shift those costs to the producers, which as I interpret entire spirit of Act 58 of extended producer responsibilities, that's it's asking those producers to deal with the waste that they produce and not shift those costs onto customers, onto our constituents, one way or another.

[Speaker 0]: So I appreciate that you are are you finished, representative Morris?

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: I think I could.

[Speaker 0]: Let me now get more. This is from Chittenden, the letters from Chittenden with the very clear five bullets, which I appreciate. And, you are representing all of the solid waste management districts. Maybe just for the record, share a little about your process and how it is that you're able to represent them all.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Yeah, of course. So we work with the Nacrasson group for legislative advocacy, and we meet monthly or so, all of the managers from the various solid waste districts around the state. We talk about issues that are of interest to us collectively in the legislature. So like this Act 58, right, which directly affects our bottom lines. It affects how we are able to budget for and afford the disposal services that we're charged with. And I'm right here in Berlin, so it's a lot easier for me to come down the hill and testify on behalf of the district managers instead of somebody coming up from Bennington, for example.

[Speaker 0]: No, no, it's great. I'm really grateful that you could be here with us. And what is your role at your solid waste management?

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: I'm a general manager there.

[Speaker 0]: Good. Further questions? Representative Tagliavia? Yes.

[Rep. Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: With respect to the question of whether you collect the fire extinguishers and then you deliver to the fire extinguisher companies. Is that something that could be worked out so that this is not is nearly a bone of contention? I'm curious how many of these fire extinguishers you come up with in a month's time and how hard it is for storage so that the fire extinguisher company may be able to be scheduled to come pick them up, save you the trip.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: So there's a few things. One is the place we work with does not do any pickups. We deliver materials to them. There may be other fire extinguisher service providers or businesses around the state that do pick them up. I can't speak to that, but I can survey the other district managers and ask them about their process. As far as storage on-site, each of our facilities is permitted for a certain number of or a certain volume of each of the waste categories that we take. So fire extinguishers, haz waste, tires, you name it. That's set by the hazardous waste management rules and the state when we apply for our permit for the facility. We have to get them off-site at least once or twice a year. It kind of depends. These materials come in waves, so it's not really that consistent of a waste stream that we're seeing. But essentially, once we have a, say, a cubic yard volume of them and it makes sense for us to send staff down to drop them off, we'll do that. Maybe once or twice a month. Or excuse me,

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: once Once or twice a year. Excuse

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: me. Once or twice a quarter, I'd say. But again, it depends on volumes that we see.

[Speaker 0]: All right, any final questions? You

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: mentioned the Crasson group. Yes. Spelling? N e c r a s o n.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: Not Crasson.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Not Crasson.

[Speaker 0]: Thanks for your testimony.

[Theron Leight-Sleeper]: Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

[Speaker 0]: Our next witness will be joining by Zoom. We're gonna shift gears and think about hosting land with the treasurer of City Of Barrie, Carol Dawes. We are welcoming you. Welcome,

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Gerald. Hi.

[Carol Dawes]: For the record, I'm Carol Dawes. I'm the Barrie City Treasurer. I'm also chair of the legislative committee of the Vermont clerk municipal clerk and treasurers association. And it's in that capacity that I've asked to have a few minutes of your time, with regards to h seven twenty three, the the bill you're considering having to do with posting land. I did send in my testimony and a couple attachments a little while ago, so I'm sure you have access to them or will shortly. So I'm not going to just read the whole thing, but I did wanna just say that the Clerk and Treasurer's Association is aware of this bill. We support the bill. This is something that we were hoping would come before the legislature this year, particularly in light of the language that you have included that clarifies the idea of year or annual renewals. There's language that you have on the bottom of the the second page of the current draft of the bill or the draft that you sorry. The draft that you reviewed on Thursday. I don't know if there's been a a new draft since, but there has been some confusion since last fall when a memo came from the Vermont Warden Service that said that the the annual or yearly renewals were tied to calendar years. And what that meant was that the the permit process began and ended on the January 1, the December, and clerks have been concerned about that because it meant that someone had to come in literally on the January 1, which, of course, is a holiday, to sign up again, renew their permit for the new calendar year, and it meant that they were out traipsing their land on in the middle of the winter to repost it with the updated information. Up to that point in time, it had always been everyone had worked under the assumption that the renewals were on a rolling year basis, and most landowners submitted their permit application in the fall or the spring and then went out that time of year to post their land. So we appreciate the the clarification that is included in the the draft that you're looking out at. I did listen to the committee's discussion from last Thursday, and I did want to address a couple comments that were made with regards to how the permit records are maintained by municipal Most clerks keep a copy of the recorded permit in a file, which is readily available for review upon request by the public. I did reach out to a number of clerks who told me they have virtually no calls for such review of the documents, but would make them available if they had such a request. Your committee did speak of the possibility of including a QR code on the posting signs that would be tied to a database maintained by clerks so people could access the information remotely. However, many clerks don't have the technology to create and maintain such a system. There are towns that still don't have websites due to a lack of connectivity or trained staff to create and maintain a website, and such a requirement would be costly, if possible at all, and would certainly be more costly than the $5 fee that's retained by clerks. It wouldn't cover the costs associated with such a requirement. The information the the applications themselves are a three part document, and I included in my my my testimony a copy of the form so you could see what it is. The the clerk keeps one copy. The property owner keeps a copy, and then a copy is filed with the Vermont Department of Fish and Wildlife. So the state does have this information too should there be a need for a property owner or a potential hunter to find out the information. I'm assuming they could also get that from the state. So I did also include a copy of the letter that came from the the Vermont Warden Service just so you could see what where the concern was that that came from the clerks. So I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you for your testimony.

[Carol Dawes]: I'm sorry, my phone never rings.

[Speaker 0]: So just to be clear, we're codifying kind of what was already practiced, which was more of a rolling process. And the rolling process, that is not a clerical headache on your end? No, No.

[Carol Dawes]: I will say that here in Barrie City, I was Clerk Treasurer for sixteen years before I stepped away from Clerk duties and I'm now just Treasurer. During my sixteen years as clerk, of course, we're urban by the, you know, Vermont terms. I had two of these filed in sixteen years, but I did speak with a number of clerks who have, and the average is somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 or so, but they all felt that it was a much better public service to have it be a rolling process. People could make the determination when's the best time for them to get out on their property and post it.

[Speaker 0]: I think I know the answer to this, but did you discuss or take a position on the idea of purple paint?

[Carol Dawes]: We did not. Didn't think that that was unless we were somehow going to be issuing the paint, we didn't think that that was something that the Clerk and Treasurer's Association should weigh in on.

[Speaker 0]: Fair enough. Maybe there's a retail opportunity there.

[Carol Dawes]: We don't want to go head to head

[Speaker 0]: with our local hardware stores. No, we wouldn't

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: do that.

[Speaker 0]: Do members have questions? Representative.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah, I believe I believe we had thrown out the idea of having people post and not necessarily put a date on the posting that it would be kept in the town clerk's office. And that way they could just go to the town clerk and update it each year without having to go around and change the dates of their signs. I think we talked about that. And I had asked if that could happen electronically so people would just go online and just update their permission. And I guess they'd have to pay a fee, but, you know, maybe they could do that electronically as well.

[Carol Dawes]: I'm not aware of there being any kind of system in place at the moment that would allow such electronic recording. We a lot of clerk's offices have electronic recording for their land records, but it's land record specific, and it is not certainly not every community. I'm not aware of any community having some kind of a a system for electronic recording and access public access for for other records or for the payment of fees. We do have few systems like hunting and fishing licenses, but that's all through a portal that's maintained by the state.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Pritchard. Yeah. Thank you. Do you have any idea statewide how many people

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: register their I don't.

[Carol Dawes]: I I could certainly do some research and get that information back to you.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Well, the I would be curious because I I reached out to the five towns I represent.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I think that excuse me. But I don't wanna ask her to do something that the department would have readily available. They would know how many people post because of that triplicate she just mentioned. K. So please don't. I don't wanna add to your burden. I'm sure you're plenty busy.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: K.

[Speaker 0]: Go ahead, representative Pritchard.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. When I spoke to my five town clerk, one of the towns had a fair amount of people that did. I think it was about 18. The other towns didn't. There were very few people that actually posted and registered their land with the clerks, is what I found in the other towns. Because basically, one of the towns came to me with a change and said, Hey, listen, people are concerned about this change that just occurred. So I said, well, you know what, I'll go to the rest of my town clerks and find out how many people have come back to them. And the one town was the only one that it was of a concern. The other ones, the clerk said it really didn't come up. So Yeah. I

[Carol Dawes]: reached out to all the members of the legislative committee. There's two, four, six, eight, 10 of us, and asked them to share with me their numbers, And the average was about twenty, eighteen to 20 or so. Morristown had 20, Brattleboro had less than 10, St. Johnsbury less than 10. So it is the communities that that are a little more urban where you're not seeing as much of the activities. Brandon had 20 to 25, so I mean you sort of draw a map and figure out where they might be more prevalent.

[Speaker 0]: Alright. Representative Austin.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So a lot of the people, at least I've heard from and I think others, is that they're getting older. Vermont's getting older and it's harder for them to go out every year and post write in the dates of their signs. Can you think of a way that wouldn't put any more work on the town clerks, but where people wouldn't have to repost every year?

[Carol Dawes]: I hate to say something that essentially shifts the work to somebody else, but because the Department of Fish and Wildlife has all this information, they do have the forms available from around the state, whether they could create some kind of, registration database that could be updated and accessed on a regular basis. I also don't know whether we're we're shifting the burden to the game wardens who now won't be able to just look at signage. They're going to have to do some additional checking. I I don't know if if it's where the where the burdens would be shifted, and and, you know, I mean, it's somebody's gonna have to check somewhere. So

[Speaker 0]: Right. Thank you for your testimony today. It's very helpful.

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Carol Dawes]: My contact information is on my testimony, and, Kat's got it too, so feel free to reach out with me with it to me with any other questions.

[Speaker 0]: Great, thanks so much. Thank

[Rep. Kristi Morris (Member)]: you.

[Speaker 0]: Members, we're going to take a five minute break and then maybe get a little bit ahead of schedule because Jared Carpenter is already with us and it's on the agenda for 02:15, but let's just say five past, we will reconvene