Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Alright.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Good afternoon, and welcome to the House Environment Committee. We are starting our afternoon with a conversation with our legislative council of seven seven eight, an act relating to dam safety, and some research that he has done for us. Welcome, Bradley.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you, chair. This would be, seven

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, sorry. Was three. Reading my script in the wrong line. Seven twenty three, an act relating and posting land. Next up or later today, it would be seven seventy. Something like that. Forgive me.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: Here we are posting land.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Bradley Shumman, office of legislative council. Go ahead and share my screen. So I together a sheet of some other states that have constitutional right to hunt and also permits posting a property with paint. The goal of this was to try and look for some examples of how how states have navigated the the balancing of a constitutional right to hunt with property owners' rights to exclude individuals from hunting on their property. And all states do that in some way but differently, and there isn't necessarily a key takeaway or the right answer that comes from looking at all of these statutes. Each state does something just a little bit differently. They all achieve the same goal, but it is about or attempt to achieve the same goal, but they do things a little bit differently. And just as a reminder, you know, our Vermont constitution and we're fairly unique in this regard, but our constitution provides the right to hunt. We're the first constitution to do that. And we also have the right to hunt on private property that's not enclosed. And so that language in particular is is unique among this the constitutional provisions that I've looked at. As as we'll see from the sampling, most constitutional provisions will say you have the right to hunt and trap, but this is not meant to diminish a person's property rights to to exclude people from hunting. And But if you're finished with your thought Yes.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Pause there because people refer to it as the right to roam. Okay. It isn't really. It's actually the right to hunt and fish.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's correct.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Isn't actually the right to hike and recreate. That is correct. That is correct. And

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: and so I I think before I begin, I I do wanna say that it it is tempting to get caught in the weeds of another state's attempts to to kind of regulate these activities. And and I think we can learn some lessons from other states, but it it it is also very easy to kind of get lost loots to the forest to the trees, so to speak, and to use maybe an apt analogy. And so we'll go through these with the idea of lessons we can try to pull lessons learned from other states. So we will start with Arkansas. And all of these states have a right to hunt by voter approved amendments within the last twenty years. And so by a voter approved amendment, the Arkansas Constitution provides a right to hunt, fish, trap, and harvest wildlife in the state. Each of these amendments refer to hunting in a slightly different way too.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: I'm not

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: sure that that really has any deep meaning, but it's just interesting that there isn't a a uniform or a best practice kind of thing that has come out of a lot of these voter approved initiatives. But the amendment does not specifically give individuals the right to hunt on private property. So the amendment does not alter, repeal, or modify any common law stat or statute relating to trespass, private property rights, eminent domain, public public ownership of property, warning law concerning firearms unrelated to hunting. And so when these amendments were passed, I think perhaps if you're pontificating, you know, perhaps that there were some, you know, policy discussions or perhaps there were some a more robust back and forth about the relationship between hunting and and property rights because each of these amendments does specifically discuss property rights in-depth in slightly different ways. And so property owners in Arkansas may post their land against hunting with signs paint signs, paint markings, or enclosing the property with a fence. And the signs or paint markings could be no more than a 100 feet apart and posted or painted at each point of entry. The color of the paint markings is not defined by statute. And so each of these statutes has, interestingly enough, has a different way to post with paints. So some will specify the color, some will specify the distance, some will specify the size of the paint marking itself or what you can and cannot paint. And so we'll see that how each of these states kind of deal with that piece differently. To hunt on posted property, hunters must obtain written permission from the property owner, and knowingly entering posting posted property without written consent is a misdemeanor. Arkansas separately prohibits criminal trespass. And the interesting thing about Arkansas from what I could tell is that a person commits trespass if they enter and remain unlawfully on another person's property. The statute doesn't explicitly require that, a property owner post no trespassing signs. It just says enter or remain unlawfully means to enter or remain in or upon premises when not licensed or privileged to enter or remain upon the premises. So how that works in practice, I I am not 100% positive, how that works in practice, you know, it might be beyond our conversation for today. But suffice to say that property rights, how you exclude someone from your property, really does vary greatly from state to state. And things that might be common sense in one state might not be the practice in another state. And even if something isn't specifically required by statute, there's secondary sources, recommendation from law enforcement to post your property anyway because it might be it might help you to set that reasonable expectation that you don't want people on your property. And so it is possible to get very deeply deep into the weeds about how to exclude someone. So this what I'm talking about here is just my readings of the statute and just kind of some key takeaways of of how they decided to to do this. For Kansas, in 2016, the Kansas prop constitution provides a right to hunt, fish, and trap in the state, and the amendment does not explicitly give individuals the right to hunt on private property. The amendment shall not be construed to modify any provision of law relating to trespass, property rights, or water resources. So Kansas, is also interesting because it is a crime to hunt on private property without first obtaining the owner's permission. Criminal trespass is a separate crime. A person commits commit criminal trespass in Kansas if the person is not authorized to enter the property and the person remains there despite an order from the owner, restraining order, or the property is posted as provided in the statute that prohibits, that permits people to post against hunting or other reasonable manner likely to be noticed by an intruder. So property owners may post signs stating that hunting is permitted permitted by permission only. Property owners may also mark their property with purple paint. Land posted with purple paint markings is considered posted by written permission only, so you don't need actual words to say that. That's just what it means by statute. And the distance between postings or signs for either signs or paint is not defined in statute. So this is a state that has kind of conflated their trespass and their posting against trespass statute and their posting against hunting statutes. And and so we'll see a couple more examples of this. But sometimes, states have decided that posting means posting, and one statute will refer to the other or incorporate the other by reference. And so here in Kansas, they incorporate signs posting against hunting or posting that hunting is by permission only. They incorporate that into their criminal trespass statute in order to kind of, like, bring those in closer together. Not necessarily a takeaway for how Vermont should do it, but it is one of the states that that does that has tried to grapple with this issue and tried to kind of link those things a little bit more closely together. Montana. In 2004, the Montana constitution provides the opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals or provides the excuse me. Provides the opportunity to harvest wild fish and wild game animals as a heritage that shall forever be preserved to individual citizens of the state and does not create a right to trespass on private property or a diminution of other private rights. It's a big sentence with two big ideas right there in it. You have the right to hunt that does not diminish the other private property rights right there in in the same sentence in this constitutional article. And so it's a curious way to kind of deal with that issue and kind of shows how closely related these two issues are. So Montana's posting law concerns trespass generally, and that law also applies to hunting. Property owners in Montana must post notice to deny others entry to the property onto the property's owner's private land. Property owners can post either notice signs or use fluorescent orange paints. Paintings must be 50 square inches, and except when mental metal fence posts are used, those entire fence posts must be painted. Signs or paintings must be played at placed at each outer gate and at normal points of access to the property, and the statute does not define how far apart these must be, which if I'm going to pontificate, is potentially problematic because there's a lot of space, potentially that we're we're discussing, but I'm not particularly familiar, but it's not defined by statute. What this one does do that I didn't see in any of the other states that I looked at is this statute requires the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to educate the public about these posting provisions. And so it's and it barely specifically call calls out hunting, what can and cannot be hunted, or where hunters can and cannot go. And the statute, I think, was unique in that regard in in explicitly directing the Department of Fish and Wildlife or Fish, Wildlife, and Parks to to provide that education. And Idaho, another interesting one. In 2012, the Idaho constitution gets a right to hunt, fish, and trap in the state. The amendment does not explicitly give rights give individuals the right to hunt on private property. The amendment provides the right set forth herein do not create a right to trespass on private property and shall not lead to the diminution of other private rights. So similar to the Montana statute. So this is an interesting one too. So similar to Vermont, Idaho had and does still have. These statutes are both still active statutes. But similar to Vermont, Idaho had posting against hunting and posting against trespass. And and until 2018, the posting requirements were separately stated in both of those statutes. They were the same thing in both statutes, but they were separately stated in both statutes. And and prior to that amendment, so after 2018, that's changed. Prior to the amendment, the statute about posting against hunting prohibited all hunting on private property without the owner's permission even if the property was not posted. Now private property owners must post their land to prohibit the hunting. The statute regarding posting against hunting was also amended to refer to the posting requirements listed in the criminal trespass statute. So we have the hunt the statute posting against hunting, the statute posting against trespass, and the statute posting against hunting was amended to refer to the posting requirements in the trespass statute. Right? And so instead of having them listed out in two different places, the statute posting against hunting in Idaho just refers to, okay, if you post in accordance with the trespass statute, you have posted against hunting. And that is what they did.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: 660 feet.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Yes. So and and that's that's quite a bit of distance. That's probably the bit the bar the the biggest biggest distance, but they can post by paint or paint markings post by notice signs or paint markings, and another one where the paint marking actually has to be pretty big. Right? So a lot of the statues that we look at, it's like a line. In Montana and Idaho, it's it's a big square. So it has to be, like, 100 square inches. Or if you're pasting painting up a post on a metal fence in Idaho, the top of the metal fence the top 18 inches of the metal fence have to be painted. And then a summary of findings. So they did look at, so there are 24 states with a constitutional right to hunt. Of those, 16 permit posting against hunting using paint markings. Of the states that permit potent posting with paint markings, two of them require notice signs in addition to the paint markings that that I could find. And so even if you can do paint markings, you still need some kind of notice sign there that says no trespassing or something else, which is curious why they've done that. But they At every at every place? Presumably. Yeah. And so it it it leads to the question of of what is the point of posting with Paint. Maybe and and I don't have the answer to that question. I found that curious myself. But that came along in those two states.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: There's a lot of curiosity in here.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: There is. There is.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's like a rabbit hole that would be. Yeah.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And and and that's that's kind of exactly why I I I mentioned at the very beginning since it can get overwhelming if if you're looking at each of these and trying to kind of think, well, what about this? What about this? What about this? I I think it is helpful to get some lessons learned about distances, about the relationship between the trespass statute and hosting and hunting statutes and whether those are effective separately or how they interplay. But it is it it does it does lead to a lot of questions.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And Maine didn't come up, presumably, because they don't have a constitutional right.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: That is correct.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And so and all of these are more recent. These the examples that you gave us are relatively recent. That's very intriguing. I wonder what that's in response to. But just also, can you just refresh our memory on in Vermont, we have a constitutional right to hunt fish, but it's doesn't say you have the right to be on private property to hunt fish. It just says you have the right to

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: hunt fish.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Says you have the right to hunt and fish on the lands not enclosed.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Not enclosed.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So it puts the onus on the property owner to enclose the land from hunting. And so in that way, it does create a limited right to hunt on private property.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Yes.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Questions on this for Chad Lee? Representative Pritchard?

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. It's interesting. One of those states, I can't remember where we were closed, was either by painting or by actually enclosing a lamp fence. Yeah.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: One of them does have the option to enclose by a fence. And and I found that that curious, that offense is sometimes called out, and offense is sometimes not called out in statute. And and I didn't find a rhyme or a reason to it. I'm wondering and this is the the extent this is where my knowledge stops about these other states because I'm wondering if, there might be a separate statute or a separate presumption if a property is fenced in, don't climb over the fence, or or something of that sort at play, and I don't have the answer to that question. I just I did find that curious.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: And the the so Vermont That's 100 feet, I think. Right?

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right now, it's notice signs every 400 feet.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay. So here's my question. If as long as that 400 foot line maintained, it's still legally posted, correct? I guess what I'm trying to say is, so we got 400 feet. You had to have one sign here and one sign here. But if you had a sign at a 100 feet and 200 feet and one of those signs were missing, you're still within the law. Correct?

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: As long as it's as long as you have two signs that are at least that are no As long as there's no gap

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: a gap more than 400 feet.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yep. That's exactly right.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Austin?

[Speaker 0]: I mean, I'm assuming that when you're hunting, you might have to go across a lot of different properties if you're following an animal and tracking an animal. So could it be a scenario where, you know, a hunter could be tracking an animal and then get and get to posted land and have to stop. I mean, is that I mean, I assume that's what happens.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yep. That would be correct.

[Speaker 0]: But okay. And I'm okay. Representative Park? Yeah.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Thank you, Chair. I just wanted to share, and I did share by email to the members of the of our committee here, but one of the points you had made, I think this year, this visit for this year, that the word enclosed and the word enclosed, you were saying, are essentially interchangeable. So I did a little word analysis, and back in the 1700s, enclosed had a very specific meaning. They maybe looked at this since then, but that was about the time when England all land was public domain, and could graze your animals on anybody else's land. And so the enclosure act, with an I, enclosure act in England

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: literally required people to put a

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: fence, little fence, stone wall or a fence around the property to protect their property from being used by others. It did have a pretty particular meaning of a very strong boundary delineation fence or stone wall. So I thought that was kind of interesting, that they're not necessarily

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: interchangeable. Yeah. And that's that's a good point. And and so the how the word enclosed is put into practice is through the statute. And so this statute does not require a doesn't does not require a fence or a stone fence or or does not refer to what a term vents in in England. And and so it's not necessarily an issue in terms of effectuating the rights in the constitution if the legislature decides to define a term in a certain way based on its its policy its policy decisions and things of that sort. Sure. And so but but you're correct in in that there is a history of fencing property. I'm not as deeply familiar with that history of fencing and property, but the legislature can also, in its its authority, choose to define how these rights interact. And and so that's that's more of what I meant is that the the legislature is is permitted to define these terms. And and we use enclosed with an e just because that's how our language has has evolved. And so when I answered your question, I was more or less thinking in terms of language and our authority to define terms. But you're right that way back,

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: the terms were different. And and and that when that work in close was viewed as to the constitution, it was intended to be would require a pretty strong boundary delineation. And I understand since then, you can't find it in the statute.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And and and those could be policy choices for for the committee.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Yeah. Representative. I

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: don't know

[Speaker 0]: if there's a state that uses ONIX, like technology

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm.

[Speaker 0]: Or how they post. I'm not do you know that state or whether that's working or not?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. I'm not there, unfortunately.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's just an app that people use. It's not a state sanctioned thing.

[Speaker 0]: I think it is. I think there is a state that says that's about the news. Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Let's see if you find out. Yep. Representative Satcowitz, this isn't directly connected

[Representative Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: to what to what you're giving us right here, but I was just wondering if in the course of your research, if you came across any information that talks about the frequency of of the posting of land after a state has passed purple paint. As we've we've heard in testimony that the the the from from folks who are who are inclined to oppose it is that they're afraid that more land will be enclosed because it makes it perhaps easier to post these. So I'm wondering if if if states that have done this in especially in recent times have have seen an increase if that or even if that data is available. I have not come across that data. And

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: and and that might be if if it's possible to get testimony from a Department of Fish and Wildlife like, entity in one of these other states, you know, that might be a good question to to ask. But I have not come across data or research that has assessed the amount of posted land.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Tagliavia then.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I don't recall reading or having you when you were going over these. None of these states have a renewal requirement once it's posted.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. And so I actually that's a good question. And I don't recall very many states requiring an annual renewal of the posting. Most of them do require you to maintain the posted signs in a way that's legible and things of that sort. But having to refresh the sign every year or date it, it it's not something that I can recall coming across with with frequency. I think I might be able to pull up one or two.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: But, yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Very interesting point, Other questions, thoughts? President North actually, you asked commissioner if he wanted to offer language, and I haven't heard back from him.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. You? No. I have not.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative Chittenden. Can I ask

[Speaker 0]: a question about the bill? Yeah.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I just wanted to return to the end of the draft. We're at the we're still on 1.1. Yeah. On page three, a section about the what what I was thinking of de minimis deviations from the requirements around land posting and the language in here is accidental or unintentional deviations. And I guess I'm just wondering, because I thought we talked about the de minimis language, which from my brief experience last biennium on judiciary is language I'm familiar with, is commonly utilized in lawsuits, and the court system has a very clear use of that language, and I was curious you didn't use the de minimis language and why you used this language.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So it's

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: And what the difference is.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. No. And and I think the, you know, the language here is we were in committee, we were talking about kind of a de minimis or reasonableness standard. And and so, you know, I think language on either of those would be would achieve the same same or similar goals In terms of using a a kind of a a reasonableness standard or something of the sort here, the idea would be to avoid scenarios where individuals post but don't record their property because there are some benefits for when individuals don't post their property. So in terms of, like, hunting licenses or things of the sort, you might get some preferential treatment when you don't post your property. And so the thinking here was to make sure that the mistakes were accidental or unintentional as to prevent some kind of gamesmanship for people to try and get a benefit when they're have technically unposted land but still have signs out there. You're but you're correct. The language could use some work, and and, you know, there is, you know, language out there that I wouldn't be able to pull it out now, but, you know, there is some language out there that that would just discuss a more particular errors on the song as opposed to accidental unintentional errors, just more particularized errors in a de perspective, and I could draft that for the committee.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I got a little lost on your answer. What I'm hearing is you're not using either type of language, de minimis or reasonable, as a standard, but there's no standard language actually no standard set in this language. Is that what

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you're saying? The standard here is is more of a reasonableness standard. Right? And so accidental unintentional deviations from the requirements of the section shall be still be deemed effective. And so there isn't necessarily a an exact phrase that would fit this particular situation where the goal was to prevent individuals from trying to game the system. Right? Trying to, like, both receive the benefit of having their land unposted, but also having signs out there that are posting. You know, perhaps that that concern was overwrought or overblown and because I designed the language to try and make sure that we are looking at the intent of the property owner, and we're looking at the we're looking at the perspective of the property owner. And so if the property owner accidentally misses spaces assigned at a certain fee or if a property owner accidentally, you know, tears a sign or or doesn't replace a sign and isn't aware of it. Those kinds of mistakes would be brought into this exception language. That said, I mean, if the committee wants to narrow this to only be to only fit certain exceptions to I'm saying, you know, only I I I can't get the language right now, but, you know, to to narrow this exception, we can.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: And this might not be a question for you because I don't know if you were in the committee for all of our testimony, but did we hear evidence that people are trying to hunters are trying to game the system by being both posted and unposted at the same time?

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I don't know if

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we heard evidence on that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And both posted and unposted at the same time? Yeah. That's what

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: you mean by gaming the system. Yeah. So maybe commissioners?

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Mhmm. That would be on the landowner. The landowner. Yeah. It's

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Well, I think the only bet the only incentive that's out there that I understand is for hunters. There's some kind of license. Does anybody remember the testimony? I think did we hear this from the commissioner that it was a concern that because there are some incentives in the hunters licensing amounts that maybe you get a lower you can pay a lower amount for your license or permit if your land is unposted, is my understanding of the incentive of your own land. So my understanding is the only incentive out there right now to not post your land is for hunters. And so the gaming of the system concern is that hunters who own land and post it, which many do, especially if they have a significant amount of land that they want only by permission only for other people to be hunting on their own land, that they might be hosting but not exactly posting and could take advantage of this language. My understanding of the testimony we heard

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: of the war responding to.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: Take advantage of the lower license fees. Oh, lower license fees. I've never heard of that. Somebody correct me, please.

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Okay. So the only thing that I'm aware of is on antlerless permits. When you apply for them, there's a landowner permit you can apply for and a resident permit. If you don't you can't apply for a landowner permit if you post your land. You have to apply for the residence. It used to be a difference in fee. It's not any.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: So that's the benefit related to not having your land posted that the commissioner was describing as a possibility for if we had this de minimis language, somebody would be able to take advantage of. That's what I'm understanding. Is that what you were responding to when you through this language?

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And that's that's the idea, is is trying to kind of draft language that, you know, addresses that potential concern. You know, if if the committee does not think that that particular concern is needs as much attention, you know, we can draft something that's a little bit more narrow or draft something that is just de minimis deviations from signage requirement shall not be deemed ineffective to post. And and we can and we can change it to to that without necessarily putting in language that make sure that those de minimis deviations are accidental and unintentional.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I see a bunch of actually, representative Hoyt had his hand

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: up. Yeah.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: I just wanna make sure, like, I sort of understand the current landscape and what he's trying to do. So now, like, a technical violation of the posting rules can invalidate an enclosure. Right? Like, there's you're not following the rules, like, to the letter about where something's posted or how far apart they are, things like that. Right?

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So the law doesn't necessarily require that, but that has been the practice of the game work.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: And that's been the practice. And so I understand there could be frustration, like, if I tried to post and I was, you know, and someone was hunting on it and they worked, but I said, well, you didn't post it correctly. Guess that get that. So this would move it essentially as more like a reasonableness. Right? Yeah. Like, if you're look if you're going to a piece of land and it looks like the landowners evinced, like, an intent to enclose it, then that would be okay for him. Yeah.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: That's right. Yeah.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: Okay. Because that seems to me I could understand the frustration, sort of the ticky tack violations. But at the same time, you know, if I go to a piece of land and I see that the pope their signs, like, you know, it's reasonable for me to think that the landowner does not want honey. Okay.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And this and this does, you know,

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: in that Sorry. It doesn't really matter if it's accidental, unintentional or demise. Right? It's just like if there's if if a reasonable person would believe that the landowner intended to post the land. Right? Isn't that kind of the idea?

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It does say if the notice signs or paint markings would lead a reasonable person to believe that hunting, fishing, and trapping, or taking a game is prohibited on the land.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: So it wouldn't have to be accidental necessarily. It's just it's just the intent of the landowner. I mean, reasonably clear enough for a person to look at it and say, hey. I should know that that's bullshit.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And and that it is if that is perhaps the same outcome. Yep. But, you know, one could envision a situation where that was an intentional mistake by the landowner. And and if the committee is okay with that so if a landowner knows that they don't have a sign, if they know that they're signed, they have signs a, b, and c, each are 400 feet apart, and sign b flows down, and a landowner knows that. And is the property still enclosed? And the landowner has the opportunity to replace the sign and chooses not to. You know, is the land still enclosed? And so the accidental or unintentional language kind of tries to capture a scenario where a landowner is saying, I can't actually fix this sign right now, or I don't I'm not aware that the sign was was incorrect until you get out there with a game warden or something of the sort. And so that's what the language is meant to do. Right? And so it is a reasonableness standard, but it also has a criteria of accidental or unintentional. That could easily be taken out and just say any deviation from the requirements so long as a reasonable person is led to believe that hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking of game is prohibited on the land. You could take out the accidental or unintentional deviation piece and and have that and that that is a fine policy choice. That this language was just meant to to address that one concern.

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: K. And the practice of these technical violations, that's not in statute as much as it's a practice of game warrants. That's that's what they do. That that's correct. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is that a sacraments?

[Representative Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I just wanna follow-up on two points. One, which representative just made that the current situation right now, if if if a hunter is on someone's land where the clear intention of the landowner is that it's posted and they ought not to be there, but that one of their signs has the wrong date, like we heard in testimony, that a warden could choose to issue a violation. Right now, that it really is a choice that the wardens actually do already have the discretion, because what we've been led to believe, at least what I've been led to believe, is that the law is the law. Like it's very specific and that if you're not following the law, then you're not enclosed. So a warden would have to let this hunter go, basically. But what I think I'm hearing is that that might not be true.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's it's a matter of I don't wanna say it's a matter of discretion because that would probably require statutory language to say the game board has discretion. Right? But I think in any instance when law enforcement is looking to enforce what they believe is the law, It will be their judgment, and it will be a matter of did they have a reason to believe that a violation has taken place. And so one could easily see a scenario where you have five signs posting a property, four of them say twenty twenty six, one of them says twenty twenty five, and have two different game wardens enforcing the enclosure or one diff one game ward enforces the enclosure, and another game warden does not enforce the enclosure. And it would be up to a hunter who receives a penalty to if they wanted to challenge that penalty in a courtroom, try and make that argument before a judge. And I don't know what a judge would do in that kind of situation. I think it would be fifty fifty. But to go back to your point, is that it does enforce law enforcement officers, you know, maybe exercising discretion in a scenario when two reasonable law enforcement officers could come to a different conclusion based on the same set of facts, and it would be up to the hunter to either pay the fine or challenge that court.

[Representative Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: And then then my other question is, I believe that when we with this new version of the bill that we have, one of the conditions for enclosure being that it is that the enclosure is recorded with the town clerk. So if you don't record with the town clerk, you're not enclosed. And so I'm wondering if that makes unnecessary this sort of other language about accidental or unintentional because you could post your land perfectly well, but if you don't record it, you're not you're not enclosed.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's a good question. And so you can imagine a scenario where you record your posting. You go to the clerk, say, this is my posting. I recorded it. And then it turns out that you misdated a sign. Right? Under current law, I know this law says it's taking the date out. But on under current law, you could have reported your sign but misdated a sign. You could have wrote 2024 instead of 2025 or, you know, as as people are willing to do in January. And so you could have or a sign might have blown down or been destroyed or something might have happened after the recording. So the recording doesn't necessarily obviate that problem because something could happen to the signs either after you record or you could have had an accidental unintentional mistake when you're posting the signs, and and you didn't know that it was 401 feet instead of 400 feet. You didn't know that it's, you know, the dates you you wrote the wrong date on there or something of that sort, even though you went through the effort of posting in accordance with the the statutes to

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: the best of your ability.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I have a couple of just simple things. One is this posting that we're talking about is exclusive to hunting and fishing. So the purple paint is really only about being clear communicators about hunting and fishing.

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: That's correct.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And then just for committee thought, states have I think Maine, for example, has purple paint and signage as an option, either one, but the same distance. And right now, we're looking at one hundred and four hundred. I'd like people to think about that. Like, why is there a difference? And is 400 too far? Is 100 too close? Is something else perhaps a time for us to revisit that regardless of what we do, any part of it. Just something to noodle on. We do need to transition. I saw Michael outside the door. Final questions for Bradley.

[Speaker 0]: Are there penalties for, like, taking down a sign, someone

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: destroying a

[Speaker 0]: sun. But even with purple paint, someone covering it up before I paint my legs.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. I believe so. I I don't have that note, but I I believe so. And I can email you the statute.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. And I would assume it would if we did pay Right.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Didn't hear it.

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The answer was to look. Thanks, Bradley. Yeah. Thanks, Bradley. Thank you. Alright. Any adjustments? Please join us. Michael Brady here to give us the latest on the bottle redemption first.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. Bottle bill first? Yes.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Do

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: you want me to just walk through changes?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes, please.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So you should have in front of you a draft 5.2 with a February 19 date and an 08:45AM timestamp. And the first change is on page six, Which. Line 16. This was just some vestigial language language that I didn't edit out when I previously made an edit. Had it had previously said, and the refund value of the container contains one or more of the following in not less than one eighth of an inch. And that it just didn't didn't make sense before. So you might remember that last year, there they there was alternatives for your label. You could say VT or VT5, and there was three subdivisions for that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Good to say the container is not in the sorry. I was very conflicted in trying to understand the language. It's been a minute, but it's supposed

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: say in.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Say is not

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: In not less than one eighth inch type.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The refund value of the container, maybe a comma or something so that we

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: I I think a comma would be helpful.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No. I I think it should say in not less than one eight.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Maybe let's just can you read the whole sentence out loud? That might help us. It's long.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Very

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Every beverage container sold or offered for sale at retail in the state check could be communicated by embossing on the normal product label and printing on the normal product label or other approved method secured to the container, the word Vermont or the letters for v t, and the refund value of the container and not less than one eighth inch type size or such other alternate indications that may be approved by the secretary?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'll let the editors and you decide if there's a combo needed or not, but now I understand it. Thank you. Should

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I move on? Page 10.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: And

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: this is yesterday, when we were going through, I noted a place where it just said manufacturer, not manufacturer and distributor or manufacturer or distributor. So I did a search of the whole bill, and there were about seven instances where that was the case. And so I made those changes thinking you wanted to be technically correct. So

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Thank you.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Page 10, line four, that was changed. Page 10, line nine. Page 10, line 12, manufacturer or distributor. And then again on page 11, line six, and line 19, same changes. And then you can skip to page 15. And this is the consultation language that ANR had proposed to ensure engagement by the PRO with stakeholders. And it says, prior to submitting the proposed plan to the agency, the producer responsibility organization shall allow the stakeholders to comment on the proposed plan. The PRO shall either make changes in response to those comments or provide a written response on why the change was not made to the stakeholders and the agency.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Questions on and just let us know.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah. The next change is page 17, line 18. That used to say the stewardship organization. In some EPR programs, stewardship organization is what you call the PRO. And I for consistency, PRO is what is used in this chapter. And so I made that change. Page 17, line 19, that's just an editorial. It is previously said in approved plan no later than six months, but the editors say it should say not later than six months, which bothers me, but that's what going on to page 18. This is another proposal from ANR regarding compensation and fair compensation of the redemption center. So part of the program audit every five years we'll examine how the product structure organization compensates redemption centers as part of its report. And then when they make recommendations, the auditor will include any recommendation to the compensation structure for redemption centers.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: How do you just do that?

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, it's you know, this is senator Brock's point whenever we're going to senate finance with one of these CPR programs. He looks at the audit language. He says, that's not an audit. Like, you're right, but somebody will do this. They'll hire one of the solid waste consulting firms, one of the like, the consultant that they just hired to do the final bill analysis, and they'll do that. I mean, it won't be technically an auditor, but it will be using the plain language of the word of review of the program and how it's functioning.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And the senator's point is it's not an accountant doing a financial audit.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: As he used to be the state auditor.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: So Representative. Thank you. Yeah. So this just sounds like they're they're engaging in independent monitoring?

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Effectively.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: Monitoring?

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep. They're gonna they're gonna review the program and see how it's working, compare it against other jurisdictions, and make recommendations.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: What's your question? I was just clarifying that basically that process. I can understand the confusion using the term audit, but it just sounds like compliance monitoring.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't know. Do auditors own Nord audit?

[Speaker 0]: No. No.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: You mean, fiscal auditors? Yeah.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. The title of the section is program and fiscal audit. It's kinda putting it in Program audit. Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Represents documents.

[Representative Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: I just don't know why we if there's any confusion around using the word audit, why we wouldn't just use a word like review.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: If you want to, you can do that.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, bother. Think it's

[Speaker 0]: federal programs, call it. It's called monitoring.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Not the stronger, though.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Okay. Here I am.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think we can read it.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So should I move on? Alright. Page 20. These are the the other inclusion of distributor, where it should be this is the antitrust language, so distributors might be part of that, collusion that you want to immunize. And then page 26. Going on to page 27. Remember yesterday, I asked Matt Chapin from ANR if once the PRO is set up, did they want to a did ANR want to continue to certify redemption centers? And he said no. And so section six is a repeal of ANR certification of redemption centers on 03/01/2028, which is when the PRO is supposed to be up and operating.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's Chris Rice. Is Chris Rice

[Representative Michael Hoyt (Member)]: on here?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: So so I Yep. I think it's I

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: about ten minutes ago. I do you want me to explain this or can you

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They seem very straightforward. Go ahead, Michael. I was handed that, and we had a very busy morning.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So there the the advocates representing the manufacturers and distributors are proposing three changes, two of which are time related, date related. So the first is when the Produce Responsibility Organization has to submit its stewardship plan. They're looking to move it to 04/01/2028, which is an extension from 01/01/2028.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I always wonder when we choose April 1.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I'm sorry. What?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I always wonder when we choose April 1. April 2? Okay.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: The second date change is in that same 1532, and it's about plan implementation. You may remember that yesterday, ANR brought forward language that would say, that they were going the plan would be implemented implemented not later than six months after the secretary's approval. The advocates are asking for nine months after the secretary's approval.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Chris, do you wanna explain that a little bit?

[Chris Rice (MMR), on behalf of the Beverage Association of Vermont]: Sure. Chris Rice from MMR here on behalf of the Bedford Association of Vermont. The the reason for the nine months is given and we walked the committee through this a little bit, given the amount of work that needs to be done to stand this up, the investments that need to be paid, equipment that needs to be ordered, collaboration with the redemption centers, and that's on the front end. On the back end, there's a bit of a shot clock regarding the funding. We wanna make sure that the PRO has as much time as recently possible from the time that the plan is approved until we start to go live. It was Breeze assessment that it's difficult to really make any of those detailed plans, investments, order the equipment and machinery until we have that approved plan. So that just gives the PRO an additional three months to make those arrangements in order to as much as possible hit the ground ride.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members have questions about that? Representative Tagliavia?

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: In the state, how many of these sites would be requiring this kind of machinery?

[Chris Rice (MMR), on behalf of the Beverage Association of Vermont]: So the concept that we have fleshed out so far, that's and we've mentioned this a little bit. That's as far as we've gotten. The estimate is that we would start with the 20 largest redemption centers

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: in terms of volume. That's that first slot that we hope to do. How many manufacturers in the country or in the world make these these machines?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Heard about at least three yesterday. At least three. Different manufacturers. I don't know where or how or whatever the volume is.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: But if okay. So rewinding. You you still need to meet the obligations of the sort of redemption deserts separate from technology then in this plan. So even though you're okay. Got it. And then That's the third portion of or the third request to change. You can see on your bill on page 13 going on to page 14, the convenience requirements. You have the, at least one point of redemption, at least three points of redemption, per county, at least one of which is immediate return. And then at least one point of redemption per municipality with population of 7,000 or more persons that provides an immediate return. And then there was house sites of inspection or redemption would be cited with high population density, then the advocates are asking for a new subdivision that says when approving a plan, the secretary may alter the number of points of redemption depending upon the adequacy of redemption service in that area. In no case, however, shall the number of redemption points be reduced below the level specified in subdivisions A and B of the subsection so that you have to have that that adequate number required number for county. And then you have to have at least one point of redemption per municipality with a population of 7,000 or more. And that's the floor for redemption convenience.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And this is addressing instances where there may be multiple redemption centers in one area redundancy.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: If if there if the

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: need is being served and you don't need all of the redemption sites, then they have the authority to alter the number of points of redemption.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So the question I had, though, was as it and it came up yesterday, a retailer, particularly a larger retailer, there's there may be incentive for them to have redemption opportunities on-site to keep people coming back and buying their beverage of choice at that site. So how does this d affect that? Within the context of this statutory change, can a larger retailer who already has a reverse vending machine just be like, we're gonna keep it? It's kinda like, how are they saying they have would have the right to push them out with this, Dee?

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's possible.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I I that's the there's something not quite I get the point of this. I understand the intention, but I also, like, think that's a little you can't tell people they can't take back a bottle that was sold at their business. I see you. I'm Okay. Just making sure.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I think think this is about efficiencies and scale. Yes. And whether or not you want to allow for that as part of the program.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. And I think we do want to allow for it, but we also Is there any flexibility or can we build in flexibility where a retailer is like, Yeah, but I've already paid for my machine, or I'm like, I don't know. I I realized we've told yeah. I guess I'm confused about what happens if someone wants.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I I that that's I would say that that is not addressed in the bill currently right now because you had at one point that they shall maximize the use of existing infrastructure, including those specific existing ones. But there was testimony that that that would basically freeze the system as it is today and not allow for innovation. And this would give the PRO the ability to make some determinations about efficiencies and scale. So there's possibility that some redemption centers that are currently redeeming would no longer be part of the program.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative, I believe you.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I believe you you just answered it, but I'm concerned more about the percentages of redemption versus it should be a higher concern rather than the number of redemption centers.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, I I mean, I I think the advocate Chris Rice just basically said that that's what they're gonna prioritize. They're gonna prioritize with the 20 largest sites where they're gonna push out the infrastructure improvements first. I mean, that's where you will have greater percentages, especially if the machines are more efficient than the current redemption service.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: I understand that part, but if you have another redemption center that may be smaller but in a little corner that might not be as well served, that's my concern. Are you gonna lose that percentage of efficiency? That's maybe I'm missing something. That's my concern.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They still have a geographic obligation. Yes.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: Okay.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So they have to serve three spots in a every county. K. Chris, Vice?

[Chris Rice (MMR), on behalf of the Beverage Association of Vermont]: To your point, exactly the other part of that section allows the secretary to alter it. So it's maybe in a in an area that is has an overabundance of redemption opportunities that may pull down a little bit in an area where it has a scarcity, the secretary might want to bump those up. I think just one other detail that's important to remember, this is in what the secretary can approve. So this is not necessarily a PRO decision, but what the secretary may approve in the plan from our perspective. And it's I know it's difficult for you. It's difficult for distributors and manufacturers envisioning the PRO. We don't know yet what we don't know, and this is with the idea to give the secretary some added flexibility in approving something that we might not foresee today.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I think that's a great point. I think that might address my concern too. Presumably, I mean, I don't know, I think I need to think about it.

[Speaker 0]: Just for quick clarification, when you're talking about bringing bottles back and doing some shopping, I would hate to disrupt that process just for the business of it.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yes. That's what I was getting at. Yeah. Which also I I mean, it feels like isn't there a is there a legal problem with us doing that too? Like, I don't know. I mean, I guess we're changing the way we're collecting bottles.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. I mean, part of the plan is that the PRO negotiates with redemption centers for their services. And so they don't have to negotiate with everyone. But as Chris Rice just pointed out, ANR is gonna have to approve all the collection locations. And if it's insufficient in ANR's perspective to serve the need, then ANR can require additional production facilities. And remember, at the end of at the end of every year, there's a report. And if the PRO is in meeting of redemption goals, then then ANR has the ability to require additional education, additional collection, additional redemption sites, etcetera.

[Speaker 0]: Questions? I'm I'm I guess I'm sorry. I don't understand how that doesn't hurt a business owner. I mean, won't business owners be upset if they lose people coming in to bring bottles and not shop and not or not being able to do that, you know, that kind of flow for that.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I it's possible. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. But is it a huge problem, or is it just

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: a little problem? I mean

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I mean, that will depend on where the redemption locations are. And remember, you know, I don't wanna characterize. You've heard in prior years from the retail associations that they would prefer not to do Okay.

[Speaker 0]: Well, that helps. Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I don't know if you heard from them this year, but, like, in the past, they're like, we don't have enough room. These dirty bottles.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Make us do it. Yeah. Yes. We've heard from them. I'm okay with these changes. I would ask Michael to make them for the next round. I had hoped to vote this out today, but Kristi Morris, has been our stalwart reporter of the bill, is not with us today, but he will be with us tomorrow morning. I would ask, hopefully, all of us everyone else will be here tomorrow morning so we could have these changes for tomorrow morning and and anticipate a vote a vote tomorrow morning. Yeah. Think that's excellent. You have a question? Not

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: too much. I might have a question for you, Not so much for Michael. I felt like the most recent bill that we voted on, we didn't really have the opportunity to just talk about it as we moved. I felt like you maybe kind of got blindsided by some of us maybe going against it, which maybe could have gotten fixed if we had more opportunity to just talk about what we each want in the bill or what see. And I'm just wondering if we're going have that opportunity here to just talk about it as opposed to just to answer Michael's question to answer changes relative to the most recent changes he's made.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Do you want to bring up issues now?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Sure sure if now is the

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: right time, but sure okay.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yeah, so I had the opportunity last night to go to the Grocers Association thing across the street. Really glad I did. I was really surprised by the number of people over there that wanted to talk to me about the bottle bill. I ran into one gentleman and his son who owned redemption centers, independent of the guy that I know in my area that owns redemption centers, and he said the current bill as it stands is not acceptable. And the primary reasons that he noted is that we removed the floor, that handling fee floor, the 3 and a half cent floor. He said without that floor and just making everything negotiable with the PRO, what that's gonna do is whoever in the area negotiates the lowest fee, that's gonna become a cap on the fee for anybody else. And it's going to make it very challenging for redemption centers to stay in business because 3 and a half cents is already not enough. So because the PRO is not going be willing to pay any more than whatever the lowest bid is the area. That's all they're going

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: to be willing to try it.

[Representative Michael "Mike" Tagliavia (Member)]: That makes sense? And

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: that also an unfair illusion advantage is going to exist for retail shops that sell bottles, because they're going to have an end with the bottlers and the distributors who are going to be, you're one of our guys that sells a bunch of

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: our drinks, so

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: we'll cut you a deal on the redemption And we'll do all the investment here and give you the big fancy machine. It needs a little redemption centers out. So the redemption center guys are feeling like they're really being cut out in the middle of way it's currently structured. And then in addition to that, there were a couple of liquor bottles.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Both of them were just

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: really opposed to the whole thing. As they said, one of them, like there's this quote, hundreds of small local producers of bottles that produce like 5,000 bottles or less per year are not going to be represented on the piano. They're going to be left out and unrepresented. And it's just gonna be run by the big bottling companies, Pepsi and New York.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But the liquor bottles are not part of this.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Right. The liquor bottles are not part of the BRI. The beer

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: main is right, the local craft breweries, Michael Burgitts, and all that. And interestingly, all of them would rather us just eliminate the whole redemption process altogether.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That sounds like a very broad statement.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. All of them? All of them.

[Representative Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: The ones I talked to.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: The ones that I talked to last night. So that's some interesting information I learned just

[Chris Rice (MMR), on behalf of the Beverage Association of Vermont]: last Yeah. Thank you.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: It corroborates my general feeling. This is my last point I'll make and I'll also make it. Is that I think we're approaching this with the classic engineering error of local optimization. I can get really excited about this bill and honing it and making it just right to really craft an exciting redemption process. But then when I step back and I realize that's just a little local minimum. Would be much better if we step back and what are we trying to do overall? Again, I talked to folks last night and would rather not see, collaborates with what I believe, I'd rather not see two parallel tracks. I've heard it from Deidra also that if you were starting from scratch, you wouldn't create two parallel tracks. Would just

[Bradley Shumman, Office of Legislative Counsel]: create

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: one overall packaging EPR system that had not bothered with a power deficit system. So given all that, I mean, just depends on I'm kind of thinking I'm a no. I'm trying to do anything more with redemption. I know we really have to step back and be looking at all up. Just improved for sites like an EPR system on all packaging, not just a couple of bottles of milk. Did you ask the redemption center person that you spoke

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: with how the status quo was doing for him? Oh,

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: hates it. Yeah. He said he's been praying for a, he didn't use the word right, really hoping for a bottle bill to come through to help them, to rescue them. And what he was hoping for is just an increase of the three and a half cents to 4 and a half or 5¢ on a handle fee, and an increase in the number of bottles that apply so he can get more quantity of stuff. Either or both of those two things is what he's looking for so they can actually make some money. Because that's 3 point cents.

[Michael O’Grady, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yeah, the 3

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: and a half cents has remained constant for fifty years, whereas minimum wage has gone from a dollar to whatever it is now, 15, and they just can't afford to hire people.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: Luby. Yeah. I mean, can we talk about why those things were taken out of this bill this time around, which were present in the last time around that we tried to do this? I mean, I'm not entirely sure of the reason for it, except that it would allow the PRO to bargain down to the lowest rate that they can get a bid on, which I imagine meets the desires of the more free market oriented people who want us to have the least cost and maximum efficiency in the system or something like that, but would disadvantage our local redemption centers. We supported a bill on the floor last time around.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. We did.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: And I think a lot of us support expansion of broader packaging recycling too, at least like what we do. More bottles. And more bottles. Yeah, more materials. That was in our last bill as well. Are state partners the preferred option?

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. It's the administration and manufacturers and producers, the the distributors. Yes, we are working on compromise here, folks. This is what compromise is like, trying to improve a system that is under a lot of stress and meet the needs of multiple stakeholders. That's what we do here. Representative Chapin. I guess I'd

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: just embrace the acknowledgment that this year we haven't, I don't think, haven't heard from any redemption center owners, but we did last year, and we certainly have in the past. And I think acknowledging that some redemption owners are going to see benefit from this and some are not is a total reality and one that we should be aware of and acknowledge. And not having had anybody in to testify, I think we could find redemption owners that feel like they will stay in business and do better in this potential future PRO and others that might not. And some that are like the only one within 20 miles. And so they're all not that worried. So I think I just wanna acknowledge that, that you're bringing up representative North and just acknowledge it. I think it's one of the cons of Between all the pros and cons around this effort, it hits a certain number of individuals and their family businesses. And I don't really like that. I still support this effort because of bigger goals that I have in mind. And if it wasn't for my goal of enabling us to retain packaging materials in as close to their actual use as possible for future potential reuse rather than recycling, I envision thirty to fifty years down the road that we're gonna be reusing these containers, some of them, not recycling them. And I have seen in my twenty years since I worked in solid waste that markets for these products and the ability of MRFs to produce quality material comes and goes. And even if right now our MRFs can produce almost the same quality material and sell it into similar markets, In some cases, I think that's true. In other cases, I think that's not true. And I'm personally, I'm trying to protect raw material for the future of the human race in as close to its current use as possible. And otherwise, I would love to see single stream all the way, having worked in solid waste management, it would be the quickest path towards the highest diversion from our landfills goal. But for me, that has not been the goal of this bill for me personally. So I do support the bill, but there are a lot of pros and cons with this, and it is a serious compromise over the last couple of years.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Thank you. Yeah. I'll just also note that my final conclusion there obviously puts the redemption center guys that I'm fighting for out of business. Yeah. So even what I was stating, which is serious conflicts with that, it's a that if anybody caught that, I'd

[Representative Ela Chapin (Member)]: be surprised. Yeah.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Well, we can have further discussion on this. Books are ready now or late or tomorrow or

[Speaker 0]: Ready to vote, Amy?

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Not voting now.

[Representative Kate Logan (Member)]: Right. We're voting tomorrow.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: K. Thank thank you for

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: the opportunity to share this. Absolutely. Thank you. I wanted to clear the air. I felt like we didn't have that last time. Felt bad. It's the end

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: of it all because it just got to happen. Well, we're taking a vote. There's always like, is there further discussion? You know, even if you know, that's a legitimate question, and sometimes we've had it then. So even if you think we haven't had enough opportunity along the way, I felt like we'd spent a lot of time with that DEC miscellaneous bill along the way. So I'm sorry if you didn't think we had enough time to discuss it, but, boy, I think we took a lot of time with that bill.

[Representative Rob North (Member)]: Let's take Could just roll up it back.

[Representative Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Let's just take a five minute break, and then we're gonna come back and walk through some changes on

[Representative Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: the dam.