Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Welcome back to the House Environment Committee. We are gonna continue our conversation on the beverage redemption PRO bill and hear from, beverage redemption center owner Casey Harrington. Welcome.

[Casey Harrington (Owner, Beverage Baron, Barre)]: Hi. Thank you. I'm Casey Harrington, owner of the Beverage Baron in Barrie. I've been in the bottle business for a long time. My first job in high school was counting bottles at the M and M here in Montpelier. So I've been doing it for quite a few years. Going through this bill, I have some concerns and. My first concern is there's no floor on the. Handling fees. That's really concerning to me. Right now, as you all know, there hasn't been any redemption centers opening up anywhere. There's a reason for that. There's no, there's no profit in it. People aren't making money. When the, when the handling fee was set, the minimum wage was at $5 an hour. So we're paying people upwards of $16 an hour to count bottles. That's never changed. So it's there's that's obviously why people aren't opening up. People are closing. We pulled our certification last year because there was no incentive to be a certified redemption center at all. So the biggest, my biggest concern with this bill is without a floor, basically, you're telling me that my feet could go down, not up nowhere in there. It says it's gonna go up. I've testified at least three or four times over the last six or seven years. And every time I testify, I want, I want to raise the non commingle handling fee just 1¢. I've been promised that for I think six or seven years. And every time this bill doesn't even have it in there, but every time there is a bill that has that by the time it it gets passed and goes to the governor, it's so convoluted with other stuff. Everybody's added stuff on that it gets vetoed. So I'm I'm still looking for that 1 1¢. Not in here. The other there's a few other things in here. The late manufacturer labeling. I touched on that. I looked at that briefly in here and that's great that all the Vermont containers have to be marked with Vermont on them. That would be great if those only went to Vermont, but they're going to all the surrounding states too. They're not paying a deposit on those, but they have that Vermont on there. So, you know, they're hurting. They're, they're making our system look like there's a higher rate of return than there actually is because all those purchased outside of the state that are returned in the state artificially inflates that number. So that's something to consider too when you look at your rate of return. There's talking here of trying to get more redemption centers opened up. Palmera, our pickups right now, we're having extremely hard time with them. They're understaffed. So if you're looking at, you know, adding all these redemption centers, I don't know if the infrastructure is there to take care of that. And once they start picking up more redemption centers, it's going to be less profitable for them. So at some point, the system as a whole, somebody has to pay for this. And I keep going back to that. There's no floor on our handling fee. And what's going to happen when the system can't pay for itself? It's not going to start coming out of us because we're at a break even point now when we start losing money. I mean, you can't force somebody to take the bottles. I know it can be there in the bill and all that, but we want to be a partner with the state and we want to provide a good service and an efficient service. But we can't do that if we're losing money that that just isn't going to work it's not feasible. I go back to the same thing. If there was any profit at all in it. People would want to take bottles back. Nobody wants to. It's not enforced now. If I brought back two big garbage bags full of cans to say, I'll just pick out Dollar General. Right? Because there's Dollar General brand. If I bring those there, they they would have no clue. They wouldn't give me my money for those. They don't have they don't have a Tom or pickup. They don't they don't have any means to pick that up. There's very few people in the state that are taking bottles back right now. And I think we're we're the top two, maybe three in the state. And I want something that works for everybody, you know? So I guess my main thing, really, my main thing that I keep going back to is the handling fee versus a minimum wage. I mean, it's it's gone up threefold and we're still expected to do the same. I see there's some provisions in here for some grants for equipment. I got an estimate on a reverse vending machine that would do like 120 containers per minute, and it was upwards of $400,000 And I looked at making that commitment, but not knowing where this is going to go every year. It's hard for a business to make a $400,000 commitment where one year we talk about putting, or actually it's the same year we talked about putting a return on water bottles, wine bottles, all this stuff. And in the same sentence, we're saying we're going to get rid of the bottle bill. So as a business owner, how do you, you know, how do you invest in your business when you don't know year to year what's going to happen? I see there was some provisions that did talk about, you know, grants for some, for some redemption centers to put those machines in. I don't know if anybody's really got a handle on the cost of those. Like I said, we're at 400,000, a little under 400,000 from Tamara because they designed the system. They went up. There was a certain percentage that went up because I think some of the parts were made in Sweden or something. There was a like a tariff thing on that, but that's, you know, roughly where we're at. So I don't know how many millions and millions of the grants, you know, are going to be available, but at $400,000 a piece, it's not going to go very far. Where do you choose those? Like we've been doing this for a long time. What's our reward for doing that? If you're just give those machines to three other people around us, you know, that don't do redemption now, all that's going to do is cut away from our business. So that's, Now, I'd be happy to answer any questions. That's really all I have at this point. I would like to support something. I'd like to partner on this bill and come up with something that works for everybody. But I I don't see this as something I would support right now.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thanks for your testimony. Thanks for joining us today. So it sounds like you've looked at investing in technology, but haven't yet. Curious how much of your commitment to being a redemption center is based on the it brings people in because they buy the drink, they buy beverages from you, then they return, and there's a synergy there. Yeah.

[Casey Harrington (Owner, Beverage Baron, Barre)]: It's changed over the last probably ten years. Ten years ago, there was a lot more rate of return. You know, people would come in, they do the bottle slip. Now we're seeing that less individuals are bringing their bottles back for that $10 to spend. We're getting truckloads all the time of, you know, the hockey team or this or that. We did a lacrosse bottle drive last year. I think they had over $6,000 worth of bottles. So you're seeing a lot more of that, which is actually, it's great that we're helping those teams out and stuff, but it doesn't help us because they're not spending the money there. They're getting that one big check and they're going. We have a couple people from Wakesfield that they go to all the resorts around there and bring three truckloads a week to us. So we're seeing more of that bulk, which doesn't help that rate of return where in the past it used

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: to. That

[Casey Harrington (Owner, Beverage Baron, Barre)]: may go up if you did the reverse vending machines and it was easier to do. But right now, you know, we're trying to we're looking at, you know, the environment, but you have Palmer trucks hauling air around these big diesel trucks. I mean, tin cans don't weigh anything. They're all full of air, big two liters. You know, they take up a lot of space, but those trucks are, you know, four times a week picking us up and they're picking up air. They're not picking up any any sort of weight. Nothing's crushed. Nothing's broken. So it's like we're trying to help out on one hand, but we're it's counterproductive. You know, when I when I see it just from a common sense standpoint, that doesn't That's not helping us out. We're burning all this diesel up.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So one thing that we've heard a number of times is a commitment to investing in the top 20 with real capital investments. And part of that would be some technology that would make sure all the material is crushed, so it would be more efficient. I guess as as someone who's in the position of being in the top top 20, do you imagine a future where you could have technology that would perhaps even increase your profit margin and make it more efficient for you?

[Casey Harrington (Owner, Beverage Baron, Barre)]: Yeah, yes, do. But when we don't know in the bill, it doesn't say what our our handling fee is. I can't answer that because if if you cut the handling fee to 2¢, absolutely not. I wouldn't want the machine. Square footage that I'm using for my bottles right now, I would be much better off to put a subway in or food service or something like that. It's profitable. I mean, there's a lot of square footage in my building from a business standpoint. That's that's a waste of space.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Does the technology would it use less square footage?

[Casey Harrington (Owner, Beverage Baron, Barre)]: No, no. Because we have the layout and with our area, it takes up almost everything. We'd actually have to put some access for our drawers on the side of the building to access the equipment. So my hard answer would be if they were going to cut that handling fee. Absolutely not. Because when I looked at that 400,000, I was I was seeing my rate of return looking at that with the handling fees we have now. And it's it's quite a bit.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I can't imagine making that investment. Right.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Casey Harrington (Owner, Beverage Baron, Barre)]: Right. And I want to because in the community, my father started the business in 1990, so I like to do a, you know, of one stop shop, you know, we'll take care of your empties, whatever we need to do. It's nice seeing the, you know, the local sports teams and all that use us. But when it gets to the point where you're just breaking even on it and you, every year we're hoping like, okay, well, this is going to be the year for that 1¢. We're open for a penny. We've like I said, we've been promised that like, oh, every single time this comes out. Typically, everybody agrees that we should get the 1% on the non commingle because our sorts when the commingle came out, I think there was like 20 sorts or something like that were up upwards of like 140 sorts. So every sort you have an extra bin, you have somebody, you know, so that's all very labor intensive. So I, you know, I don't think the 1% is a a lot. I mean, not the 1p is a lot. So.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other members have questions? Thanks so much for your testimony joining us today.

[Casey Harrington (Owner, Beverage Baron, Barre)]: Yeah, I mean, I'd be inclined if the handling fee was going down, even as one of the top two redemption centers, I'd want to get rid of the my thing would be to get rid of the whole thing. That's all. Thank you.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Members, thoughts on retention PRO questions? We have Michael Grady. I think he might even be right outside, I think. Sure.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Comments now. Sure. Okay. Go ahead. So I'll just be bold and say it. My mistake is to just let the whole redemption program die. We'll blow it down the program. Barely on much support. Now at 3.5¢, we should just kill

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: it and go for the drug packet in.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: A recycling based email.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The Please Yeah. Join us, Michael. What

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: are you recommending that's happened?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: But it's all eligible for BlueBin. In fact

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: To be clear, though, BlueBin's not a PRO.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Right? No. It's not currently. That's what I'm saying, is to focus our effort rather than try to revive the redemption system to focus on recycling based PR standard packaging responsibility system that's that we can put together a PRO for that. We'll definitely a system that we can put together get a PRO in place for all the packaging and and make make it make it responsible for all packaging, you know, cardboard and glass, everything. And just but to have them focus on recycling it rather than redeeming it. And then as an offshoot of that, this is really start to focus on reuse. And I think there's a real opportunity there. We agree on

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: that, but how to start that one?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: And that, you know, when start wintering down the overall recycling.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Little buckets of I mean, is

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: that that would be awesome.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Thank you for your comments and being bold. Yeah. So we

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: have and for we

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: have Michael, we'll just look at current changes, are very few, and then we can segue into discussion further discussion.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Say it again? Please. So Michael Grady with legislative counsel, you should have a draft in front of you with the draft request number 250991. Still committee bill draft.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Our favorite number.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Draft 6.1 with a '2 '19 date and a 03:32PM time stamp. If I'm just focusing on changes, I can just take you to page 13. And the first change is in the requirement of the submission of a stewardship plan by the producer responsibility organization. Previously, that date had been 01/01/2028. It was pushed out to 04/01/2028. And then moving down on that same page, going on to page 14, in that plan element of convenience of collection. Why don't we just turn to page 14 you'll see that there had been the proposal that when approving the convenience of collection requirements and a proposed plan, the Secretary of A and R may alter the number of points of redemption, depending on the adequacy of redemption service in that area. Provided that in no case shall the Secretary reduce the number of redemption points below the levels required under subdivisions one A, I and double I. And what are those requirements? Well, that's back on page 13. That's at least three points of redemption per county, at least one of which provides an immediate return of deposit, and at least one point of redemption per municipality with a population of 7,000 or more person persons that provides immediate return of deposit. The subdivisions that are highlighted on page 13 going on to page 14, it's really there because I just restructured that that subdivision. There's no substantive change other than what you see on page 14. Moving on from there, page 18. This is the date for implementation of the plan. The PRO shall implement an approved plan not later than nine months after the Secretary's approval. And those are the three changes.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It was previously six. Previously six. Members have questions on these changes or legislative council? Team, no oxygen in news. Is everyone here? I

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: used up all the oxygen, sorry.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Thank you, Michael. It might help if you stay with us. We have next committee discussion. Excuse me? On both? Well, let's do the PRO right now. And if we have time after the budget discussion, we'll go to another. But anyway, let's do redemptions right now.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Logan. Thank you. I mean, this is this is tough because it is a compromise, and I think it compromises, too much in a particular direction. But on the whole well, I, I I strongly agree, actually, with representative North that we should just make sure we can recycle all packaging and move to a zero waste economy to the extent that we're capable, it this seems like a necessary next step for improving our, more limited

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: cycle rules.

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

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. Don't know this business, but why couldn't we increase the cost of the handling fee by a fee? Because I'm thinking that, I mean, I agree on that, you know, and even with the nickel or whatever it is return on bottles, this bottle's along the roadside all the time. And it concerns me, you know, that we go back because I don't I wonder if they would do that. They would just throw them out or I don't know. I mean, I'd be in favor of it if I knew people would do that, recycle the cans and the bottles.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. So, yes. It's a good reminder that historically, the bill started as a kind of a a litter program, anti litter program, and it was successful in doing that. We have made several attempts to change the handling fees, and we did change the handling fees. When did we do that, Michael? It's only related to the commingling agreement.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Commingling. That's in January, which was vetoed. But prior to that, I think it's been over been a while. It's probably more closer to fifteen years since the anarchy was amended previously.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And it was amended when we when they went to a commingling. Right? There was then it became sort of two classes. You were either in or out.

[Michael Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. From my recollection

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Non commingling went up then. Yeah. It's hard to imagine, though, that a penny is going to actually create redemption center opportunities in the places we don't have them. So that may sound like a great simple solution, but in this PRO, we are moving towards standard producer responsibility and addressing the gaps in the system that result in a lower rate of return. It's not convenient right now for a lot of people to return their bottles.

[Rep. Kate Logan (Member)]: Representative Logan? Yeah. Thanks again. I mean, I think I understand folks' concern. It's hard to imagine what this is gonna look like. And so I think we do need to give we we need to institute the PRO, and then we need to give the PRO opportunity to develop this the system. And we can, I would imagine, intervene at a later point if we feel like there's something going awry?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: Maybe some can help me with the floor. I'm wondering why we can't create a floor. You know, that can't go down below. I think many of

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: us would support that. The administration and the

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: producers

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: are not supportive of that. Representative Chapin.

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: And we're ending where representative Logan just described. Think I wish we had everybody we understood how it would work such that everybody was happy with the projection of what was gonna happen to their business and their business model. And I'm frustrated that we don't have that clarity, but we've been working on this for years and years. And I don't think reading is gonna help us get to that. I think trying it is gonna get to clarity and then the potential to tweak things if it's not going well. I understand that puts a lot of redemption businesses in a risky place, but the current environment in the past twenty years, all we've done is seen redemption centers slowly disappear, if not maybe so slowly disappear. So I to me that says, my community doesn't really have a redemption center anymore, there's only one and I hope just feel like we have to do something and try something in order for the general public benefit and the benefit of the material getting to where it needs to go. I guess I'm willing to take the risk of getting it out of our committee and through the process so there can be a little bit more discussion and maybe some more negotiation, or we can get to a place where, I mean, I do really believe producers should take responsibility for the product. And I'm not seeing other pathways to that other than this. And so that leaves me wanting to say yes to this, even though I wish it was different and more expansive, but that hasn't been. We tried that two years ago at Teen Lock. So I would support this bill even though I am concerned about small businesses who have been doing this work and feel really vulnerable. And and I am concerned about it. And I'm hopeful that this could actually, five years down the road, be supportive of those businesses. It's not clear.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Representative, do you think?

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: I'm not in favor of this. It just seems like we're taking a system that we know has is broken and replacing its it with something that we hope is better.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Percent of Logan. I mean, I'm sorry. Labor.

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: Thank you, Sarah. When I was in Booms, no margin, no business. Just poor guy. He does not have any margin. We can call it a profit. We can call it a nonprofit, but he doesn't have that luxury. Fifteen years without change, how many of us can say, what we bought at the grocery store was the same price as what fifteen years ago? He can't either. I'd like to see a two pronged approach to this. Put a pilot out there and run a pilot, give him his penny, keep him alive should the pilot fail.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Personal opinion.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What's the two prongs? You give him a penny? What's your other prong?

[Rep. Larry Labor (Vice Chair)]: You know, it's a barrel.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, like what we're setting up here. So

[Rep. Ela Chapin (Member)]: can you just help me understand this? If it

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: goes in the blue bin, you still need to take the cans out, right? You still have to bring them somewhere to be processed or crushed or what do you do with them? I'm not understanding. It seems like one is that you mix cans and recyclables together, and the other is that it's just cans and then there's recyclables. What what what's the difference? I mean, what's what's the what's the difference for the cans? They have to cancel. They use cans.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Wow. We've seen a lot of testimony on that. We've been separating them for fifty years. So Right. The difference is they go they're cleaner material that goes more quickly into new material. It gets recycled faster and more directly is the short answer.

[Rep. Sarah “Sarita” Austin (Clerk)]: As opposed to picking it out.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Getting because sort of yeah. It's needing to be sorted and, you know yeah. Alright. Let's take a ten minute