Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: You're live.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Alright. Good morning, and welcome to the House of the Environment Committee. This morning, we are gonna be looking at two proposals of amendment from the senate. First is on h nine twenty eight, technical corrections to fish and wildlife statutes with our legislative counsel, Schulman.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Morning. Bradley Schulman, Office of Legislative Counsel. And I'm looking through the side by side comparison for H928 that I sent you folks, and it looks like you have that. If you'd like me to put that up on the screen, I will. Otherwise, we could just look here. So I I stitched this together from the amendments that passed the senate yesterday. And and at the end of this, we'll it has a more detailed outline of the changes to the points violations. So we can look at those now and and go through those. You'll see on page two, the first change there, is on section SS. This is a 10 violation. The house passed version is on the left. The Senate proposal of amendment is on the right. And they're taking out the Senate's proposing to take out the 10 violation for section 5.3 of the Bear Management Rule. That's taking more than one bear per calendar year. That's being moved to a 20 violation. We're looking on page three, and now there's three highlighted instances of amendment here. And and so the senate proposal is adding to 20 violations in the bear, turkey, and deer management rules here. And to get a better sense of what these changes are, it's actually I hate to make you flip back and forth, but it's just a function of how I put this together. Flipping to about page nine of your handout. And it says there's a separate chart that says points division change comparison with statutory text.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I'm not seeing page number.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. It looks like

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 10 BSA 4,502 B3? Yes, it is.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What section of the bill?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's actually after the effective dates on the bill. I put it in separately.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Paypoint violations.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. There we go. And so, this piece is, it goes over that first part that I I just mentioned that's moving. And so, we're looking at the 20 violation Subdivision 0, And what the Senate is proposing is adding to the 20 violations, four point zero to 4.1. This is fair management. And then restoring what was crossed out before at 4.2, 5.3, 6.1, and 6.2. So what are those? So I've highlight I've copied the statutory text that these are referring to, and I've highlighted them to correspond with the changes. So the changes here are violations for seasons and shooting hours. And so with respect to the start of the season, early season, and taking bear. Split to the next page. The shooting hour is one half hour before sunrise.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Would you be able to tell us what they were before? Were they all going to 20? I assume they were something less before.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So these were 20 violations before. So 4.2, 5.3, six point one and six point two were 20 violations before. Four point zero and four point one were just five point violations.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So they're just being moved into the statute?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So they're just being moved into the 20 violation. So it's not necessarily changing the statute, the underlying violation. It's not changing the statute itself that that tells you what the violation is. It's just changing the number of points that are assessed for violating that statute.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. And so it's possible to tell us the change?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the change is four point zero and four point one were previously five point violations. And then 4.2, 5.3, 6.1, and 6.2 were the house proposed removing those violations, and they would have been five point violations, and now they're 20 violations.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. Start starting at 5.3.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Four point two? Four point two. 5.3. Yes. Six point one and six point two.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They were all that.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They were all the House proposed to make those five point violations. That's the default. And now they are going to be restoring them to being 20 violations. Because before the House amended, they were 20 violations.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: now it's coming back to being 20 violations. Wade.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Just to remind me, what's the penalty for a twenty?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a three year suspension.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: And a five?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is no suspension penalty for a five. To get a one year suspension, you need at least 10 points in five years. Okay. Thanks.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And just some wildlife supported this change?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: These are their changes. So And these are these are changes from

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: They brought us the five, and then they wanted to go back to 20?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I think so, and I I don't know the rationale for that, but I I do think so.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: The rationale is because it's been that way for a long, long time, and there hasn't

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: been any changes, and they decided to upgrade those.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I wonder. So maybe they downgraded them with us. But, anyway, keep going.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was a starting point. It's a downgrade. So we're looking at the top of the next page on it says four point two shooting hours. So these are, again, 20 violations.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Page. Can you wait? Yep. Yep.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, highlighted text.

[Dennis (Redemption Center representative)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: You want me to put up on the screen?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would that be Amy

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: or just With tell us the Sarita could help her find the page since you both have it.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna put it out, put it up on the screen.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Here's the slide. Good.

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: Oh, it doesn't have the. The page, it's all yellow.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yeah. Our page will look like it's it's all

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: yellow. Okay.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And and so at the top of that page, I'll talk as I'm trying to put this up. On the top of that page, we're looking at four section 4.2, the shooting violations. Those will be a 20 violation on the senate proposal of amendment. Remember, the senate proposal of amendment is on the right hand side. 5.3 is not taking more than one Black Bear per calendar year, and I'm just gonna click share. Get this up on my screen. I have to press here. And 6.1, any person hunting, pursuing, harvesting, or in any manner involved in the taking of black bear with the use of dogs must hold a valid big game hunting license, use only department registered dogs, and have purchased a valid bear tag. In addition, the person hunting, pursuing, harvesting, or in any manner involved in taking up a black bear with the use of dogs must hold a valid bear dog permit or accompany a bear dog permit holder. The permit shall be carried at all times by the permittee while hunting with dogs or taking black bear and exhibited to a game ordered landowner or law enforcement officer upon demand. Six point two, you can only take black bear by legal methods.

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: Representative Pritchard.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Thank you. So I do have a question, Bradley, on 05/2003. Okay. A person shall not harvest more than one black bear per calendar year. Presently, fish and wildlife is thinking of changing that. They're thinking of extending the season and adding a second

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: limit of two. Mhmm. So how does how would that affect how would that word word verbiage affect them from doing that?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: And what changes would they have to make to does that not allow them to do that?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in the the plain reading of the statute and the violation here is that if a person took more than one Black Bear per calendar year, it's potentially a 20 violation. I'm not familiar with I would have to research and get back to you on the department's authority to grant exceptions to these to these rules and statutes and things of that sort, because I don't have the answer to that question right now if they wanted to change it without getting a statutory authorization.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: What is 10 BSA forty eight twenty seven?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Taking a black bear doing damage. So it's a a bear, bigger property. And and so 6.2 is legal methods. So a person shall not take a black bear except by legal means or methods. And if the subsection b is if you take with a a bow and arrow upon demand of of game warden or other enforcement authority, you have to show proof of having a prior archery license or having passed a hunter education course approved in Vermont. And and so just kinda scrolling scrolling past a page to the following page. Looking at Pete and Paul. Turkeys. So it is the proposal amendment is to add to 20 violations 4.1, 4.4, five point one, five point two, and 5.4.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Is it the same situation where they toggled back and forth between these requests?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think they are adding these pieces. So they're these are additions to their request from the house. And so there isn't a corresponding thing in the house if the house crossed off here.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. Answer that again.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's They are adding fees. These are these are being added to what the the house proposed.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But we can downgrade them to five and then put them to 20.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's exactly right. Yeah. So that this is just It's new. Yeah. So it's at it would essentially be from a five point violation to a 20 violation.

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: Thank you.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So, four point, section four in the statute is spring season for turkeys, and 04/2001 is the date. The spring season for turkeys is May 1 through May 31. 4.4 is during the spring season. So we're at section four. You can take two bearded wild turkeys per person per season. Number five is the fall season. And, and so, you can take turkey in the fall season with bows and arrows, and the fall season starts October 1 to the Friday prior to regular deer season. And then on the next page, there's shotgun bow and shotgun bow and arrow slash crossbow season, and then the dates there for sixteen consecutive days beginning twenty one days prior to regular deer season. 5.2 is shooting hours. One half hour before sunrise, one half hour after sunset, and five point four for after scroll. My apologies. And 5.4 is the bag limit, one turkey per season.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: K. Right.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And so we have deer at the very bottom here. You they're adding sections 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 7.2, eight point eight point two, 9.1, 9.2. Section 5.1 says a a person shall not take more than four white tailed deer in a calendar year. Only one of which may be a legal buck with the following exceptions. And then there's some exceptions for youth, novice, hunter season or excuse me, new youth and novice hunters. They shall be allowed to take two legal bucks provided that one is taken during youth or novice season not to exceed the annual limit for four white tailed deer. Person shall be allowed to take one additional buck not to exceed the annual limit of four white tailed deer provided they have purchased second buck tagged, previously taken and reported antlerless deer in the current year, and previously taken and reported an antlered buck in the current year that had at least one antler with three or more antler points.

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: Yes. Are we still in 20 violations?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: These are 20 violations. Yes. Number six is regular season. So the regular season is twelve days prior to Thanksgiving for deers. The limit is, during regular season, one legal buck, not to exceed the annual limit as prescribed in section 5.1. One antlerless deer per antlerless deer permit not to exceed the annual limits. 7.1, this is October muzzleloader season For four consecutive days commencing on the Thursday, sixteen days prior to opening day of the regular season, person may take one antlerless deer per antlerless deer permit not to exceed the annual limit prescribed in section 5.1. On the next page, looking at 8.1, these are December muzzleloader season. The fourteenth consecutive calendar day is commencing on the first Monday after the completion of regular season. So so the dates and the limit is one legal buck or one analyst here, both not to exceed the annual limit described in 5.1 of the rule. And then nine is the archery season, October 1 through December 15. The limit's one legal buck, not to exceed the annual limit. And then wildlife management units declared open by the board to the taking of antler steer. The person may take one antler steer per archery. Antler's tag not to exceed the annual limit. And those are the changes to that piece, the points.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Now

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the easiest way to get back on track is to go back to the front of your handout.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Remember, actually, your own pages, and then we can talk. Yeah. That's what I've done.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That would

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be the easiest way, if I put page numbers on here. Yes. Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And and

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so no changes to the expiration of the license, the dates there. Currently, all licenses expire in December 31, and that gave the department discretion to have the license expire three hundred and sixty five days after issuance. No changes there. We're on section three, page five, and no changes to the issuing of a new big game tag or big game permit. Do you recall that piece? If the department does issue those, they have to come back to legislature and and ask to have those put in the statute. Subsection p is an addition. Subsection p is so some background here. The miscellaneous tax bill is sunsetting the fish and wildlife fees rule. The fees for the use of Fish and Wildlife Department lands and facilities. This rule was recently reauthorized and went through notice and comment was approved back in February. And it sets, fees for certain camps, and certain education centers in for under the department's control and then also does permitting and licensing. And so the miscellaneous tax bill makes some changes to the department's authority to issue those fees and one and kind of restricts that quite a bit. And one of the other pieces in the miscellaneous tax bill on h nine thirty three is to sunset the rule that provided for these fees. And so upon request from the Department of Fish and Wildlife, the senate put these fees back into statute. So these are the fees that are currently in rule. There's no changes from the current rule. They're just being put into the statute. And so the first set of fees deal with the rental of the Edward F. Keogh Education Center and partnering organizations and municipalities can use can rent the education

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just interrupt you. These are already in this is this is not a change. This is just bringing it into statute. That's correct. Do folks need to walk through the details of this? I'm not feeling like we do. Okay. If members want to, I wanna make sure that

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we do.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Just on the other page, use Education Center. Is that when you use Education Center, is it always the Edward

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That that's that's where it applies to Edward Kehoe. And then right below it, it's, like, the residential Flood Lake Conservation Camp.

[Dennis (Redemption Center representative)]: Quick question.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: What's in here now is being brought in the statute.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Does it

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: cover all of the fees that

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: are currently defined at rule?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In the rule that was specifically Sunset. Yeah. So it's Commissioner's Rule 2,000 and eight-one. And those school it doesn't touch other fees or or any

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: It's bringing it all in

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: comprehensive. Yeah. It brings that entire all those fees in from rule into statute.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Section four, there was a change. If you'll recall, the Champion Lands the Comprehensive Management Plan. Those are the words I want to say. And so the house proposed to remove the obligation to do a comprehensive management plan for the Champion Land acquisition on this land that was purchased back in '98 or '99 and removed that ten year plan. And the department testified that, you know, they provide, you know, a management plan every twenty years and things of the sort, but they weren't able to do it every 10. And so the House proposal was just to kind of remove a section of session law that required them to do reporting every ten years. What the Senate proposed is to remove the reporting for every ten years, but also maintain the piece of, and we'll see here on Subdivision 2 involve Vermont citizens and municipalities when developing and updating the long term conservation management plan of portions of the lands which are transferred to it And so it maintains the obligation to involve community members and things of that sort.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Just for those lands, not for all of their management plans?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this portion relates to the transfer of lands from the land grant that's specified here, the champion lands. I'm not familiar with the other obligations on their other lands and kind of the reporting and involvement piece on those on their other lands.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Think we had that conversation with them and that they do it, and so I'm curious why the senate thought they had to put it back. But I you don't need to speak for the senate, and I'm very interested in kind

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of getting through this. Yeah. And the department did testify that they or have testified that they do involve community members anyway, but there's that piece. And then the effective date has unchanged. And that's the amendment amendments.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Do members have questions? Representative Pritchard, are you good on these? Like, you're the recorder of the bill? Yes. And representative North?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I I just have a question for Chris. So a a lot it looks like a lot of things are getting moved from five point violations to 20 violations. Is that you would have expected? Does that seem reasonable to you? Reasonable? Oh, there's a lot better variety. Yeah.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I'll play the game fairly. You should be penalized. Okay. Great. I'm happy with

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: that. This

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: is a matter of interpretation. It may not be changed at all. But if you go on first page, section g, posted to the

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: bottom, it

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: says use of machine guns in autoloading rifles. I don't know what an autoloading rifle is. I know what it's.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm actually not familiar with

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: what an auto loading rifle is. Take a look at that. You mean, auto loading rifle?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I think that refers to the statue. I think it refers to statue, and it says a semiautomatic with a capacity of no more than six rounds, I believe.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But, also, just reminding us the change we which we made, was it from what was it from to this 10? Because now it's just going to a 10. Right?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the the the change, it did the so the house or the senate didn't change anything with respect to the auto loading rifles. What the house proposed was to remove the gun suppressors from the 10 violation because gun suppressors are no longer unlawful.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's the

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And the senate is concurring in that. I just don't know what I I don't have the definition of auto loading rifle handy.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So that's it.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Gotcha. Just says machine gun. The prohibition prohibition on the use of machine guns. Doesn't say

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: I I mean, it says it in here 40 the way you mean this?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just saying that there might be a disconnect.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: I thought they had changed that.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I'm sorry, Michael. Can you help maybe for the record also?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is my legislative council, the prohibition on what types of weapons you can use in title 10. I believe it says machine gun.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Doesn't say and auto loading rifles?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. Could you repeat that?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It doesn't say and auto loading rifles like it does in what we're looking at?

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Hold a second. Yeah. I think I think it does with a capacity of no more than

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

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In The USA four seven zero four, it says machine gun.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And where did and

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: auto No.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They replaced it. They replaced it. They added machine gun, and then they added auto loading rifle with magazine capacity. So you've set. So it's they're both in there now.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Who's they?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: You. Yeah.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: In our bill. So our bill is the addition of that. Yeah. Oh, interesting. Alright, well, I guess you'd have to follow-up.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't remember what it was.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's what brought us that change.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Wow, the difference. I have to set you capable of doing it. Semi auto, you had to pull the trigger each time too. The gun would breathe out, but an auto rifle would be like an m 16 selector switch saying full auto. Run the clip right straight through one trigger. Same thing with the BAR. So I just think that needs a little clarification. Well,

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. We're probably not going to have time to clarify that right now. Further questions for Bradley? Comments? Just

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: real quickly. Just can hunters shoot from a drone?

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. I I'm not familiar with a hunter being able to shoot with a drone. I would have to research that for you.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: No motorized vehicle. That would be

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: First, we're gonna do a straw poll on what's before us.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Stay focused. Because this fits the air.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Have another bill to walk through before the floor. All those in favor of accepting the senate proposal amendment, please raise your hand. I'm seeing everyone in the room raising their hand and waiting if Kate Logan is going to also concur. Can you hear me okay?

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

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay, I support the amendment. Thank you. All right, so that is 11 in favor of the proposal from the Senate and zero. You, Bradley.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you, Bradley. Thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Michael, would you please join us? So I want to remind folks that we did walk through the changes from the Senate previously, and I will then therefore ask Michael for the best of his recollection and hours, focus on the things that have changed since we last walked through it on May 13. Was reminded yesterday by members of our committee.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There haven't been any.

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

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: haven't been any. Oh, I thought the handling VPs have changed.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. That that is in the side by side that I I showed you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. So I'll do folks wanna proceed. Representative Chittenden.

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: Well, I just I I thought senate finance made a change.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I'm aware of. I can look. I wasn't in there when senate finance voted, but I

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: Be sure there's a senate finance agreement, but I couldn't tell what was different. Okay.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I one second. Yeah. Senator Hardy was a reporter for finance. She did not offer an amendment.

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

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yes. I did hear from Bennington who is representative of own chain Coca Cola that has a in full chest. And he is very concerned about the $1.03.0.54 0.5¢. Do want me to expand his concern?

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: No, I think we all heard from him.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Okay. So I'm concerned too. I mean, I I talked about automation.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Michael, let's just walk through what that is. Our bill had a 1¢ for the non commingled. The senate added a 1¢ on the commingled. They're both going in this draft into effect July 1. So

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it looks like you all have the side by side in front of you, I'm just gonna work from that. Yes. So if you go to page four of the side by side, you'll see where there's the beverage container deposit that's staying at 5¢. But then you go to page five and you will see where the changes are for the handling fee. You'll see that the handling fee for beverage containers that are part of the commingling program, from 3 and 1 half cents to 4 and 1 half cents. That is new. That was not in the house proposal. The senate proposal does have the same as you for the non commingled of increasing the handling fee from 4 to 5¢. And then because for the first year of the stewardship plan, there is also a handling fee. The language at the end of sub B was changed beginning on 03/01/2029. Retailer person operating redemption center shall be reimbursed for beverage containers that are covered by a stewardship plan moved by the secretary under this chapter according to the fair compensation requirements. So fair compensation requirements of the plan for the first fifteen months, 03/01/2029 to 07/01/2030, will have a handling fee of 4¢ per container regardless of commingled or non commingled.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So they took out the handling fee shall not apply to beverages that are covered by a stewardship plan.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Because they're saying it's gonna be covered on a fair compensation plan, fair compensation component of the plan, and that will require a handling fee for fifteen months upon implementation of the plan.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Where is that defined?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Where is that? Where is that defined? Yeah. So that's under the plan. It's in section fifteen thirty two. It's on page

[Dennis (Redemption Center representative)]: g. Hold on.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On page 20. Of the side by side subdivision two b a two b.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Yeah.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it provides for the fair operation compensation plan shall satisfy all the following. The plan shall describe how all locations that redeem beverage containers are fairly compensated for their participation, provided that the PRO shall pay each location that redeems beverage containers four and one absence per container for all other means of redemption at a location or according to a separate compensation agreement negotiated between the, redemption locations and the PRO. And then you will see in sec two of the bill, which is on page 29, that this goes away, that the handling fee goes away, and that compensation is solely through through negotiation. No. That's not that's not section two. It's section seven. Yeah. Sex sex seven, page 38. That's that's where the handling fee under the plan is struck.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay, so actually, I need you to go through that one more time. I didn't notice what was in here, and maybe I'll try and say what I think it is, and you

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: could tell me

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: which is

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's go back to 1532 on page five. But there's a short term increase in the handling fee before the PRO implements the stewardship plan. And this is what that is on page five. Short term for commingled, the handling fee is increased from 3 and 1 half to 4 and 1 half cents. And for non commingle, it's increased from 4 to 5¢. But as you see on page five, beginning 03/01/2029, compensation shall be according to the fair compensation requirement of the plan. And that takes you to page 20. So beginning March 2029, compensation for points of redemption are going to be controlled by the fair compensation requirement of the plan. And you will see there that, and the dates are not embedded here, but you will see here that the handling fee is 4 and 1 half cents per container for all containers, all other means of redemption. And under section seven, this then sunsets the handling fee under the plan sunsets on 07/01/2030. So since the plan goes into effect 03/01/2029, and this is repealed 07/01/2030, the handling fee under the plan only in effect for fifteen months. And that is to provide a buffer to the redemption centers. Redemption centers testified pretty clearly in the Senate that they are experiencing cost pressures, that they are not making a profit through redemption, that they're operating at a loss, that they support the increase in the handling fee because it will allow them to continue operating. And that they were looking for some surety in the first year of the plan about what their compensation would be. On the converse side of that, which sounds like you've already received advocacy about how the handling fee will, from testimony, increase the cost to manufacturers and distributors by 1,800,000, approximately 1,800,000 annually. I believe one of the advocates said yesterday that that will kind of be almost evenly split between those that are selling alcoholic beverages, beer, and other alcoholic beverages covered by the program, and the other half would be covered by the entity selling the non alcoholic beverages. And that's just not like any sort of official breakdown. It's just how they think the market will play out.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: So I guess when I was understanding this change, it didn't it didn't overlap with the standing up of the PRO. So I'm confused now. I and then then when I read this language, does it allow for if a redemption center becomes an outlet with modern sorting, they still get the handling fee, or is there a is there a break for that?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. They they get the handling fee for the those fifteen months because it's for any means of redemption at a location.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Don't get that then. I'm afraid that actually might open up redemption centers at a disadvantage for investing in PR

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: investment by the field.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: One of the other reasons why it was ended at 2,030 is that they're not the grant program doesn't start until 2030.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Oh. On page 30

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Oh, so theoretically, there's not overlap.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The fee, the handling fee and the grant program don't overlap.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: But that's interesting. Should they overlap a little? Like, if the investments don't start till 2030, Rob.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And and and, technically, it's fiscal year 2030, so it's July '29.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And then to be clear, PRO could make investments prior to that. In fact, we'll need to be anticipating that. Okay. Anyway, know there is Do members have questions for Michael further on this?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I provided a listing of the major changes in the bill. Probably a little bit more detailed than it needs to be, but I wanted to make sure that everything that I thought was you could get a question on is there. So there's a summary about eight changes that the senate made on your website.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Summary of what it could mean?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: A summary of the 18 major changes that the senate made.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: on your webpage.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: So, number two on on your sheet of the 18 item. Mhmm. Number two clearly states 03/01/2029 for the increase for the handling fee. Elsa had only increased the handling fee. 4 to 5¢ for non pulp angle. Right.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then with beginning 03/01/2029 as part of the plan, handling fee.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: The oil plan. Yep. Yep. For handling fee. And then I'm looking I'm looking for where is where that's gonna sunset.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's in the eighteenth point where it says repeal of the handling fees under the beverage container stewardship plan. That is 07/01/2030. I didn't I'm sorry. I didn't put the date there, but it's July 1. What what number is that? Number '18. It's literally, like, the last line of the summary.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. July 1. Sorry. 2030.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: That's the repeal of the handling fee. Mhmm.

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: Yes. Representative Austin. Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: So I was just wondering what will incentivize redemption centers to automate. That they're getting this extra.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They only get it for fifteen months.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I know. And how much money is in the PRO fund to help them transition?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So in the first two fiscal years, it's a million dollars each year. And in the sec last two fiscal years, it's 750,000 each year.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: It doesn't seem like a lot of money. All the redemption centers since the launch of transition to automate, but, I mean, it sounds like we're the

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: The PRO is supposed to be making sure that we are transitioning investing.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Yeah. Is there a kind of anticipated amount of reduction centers that will

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Remember, we have the geographic distribution requirements. I know there's folks in the room who are maybe wanting to add things, maybe giving Dennis a moment to comment on this part of the bill. Let's go around the room and start with Paul Burns. Do you want to say anything?

[Paul Burns (VPIRG Executive Director)]: Thanks, Madam Chair, for the record, Paul Burns, executive director of VPERG. I'd from our perspective, this legislation is the product of a lot of compromise. There's a great deal in this bill that virtually all the interested stakeholders can agree on. There are provisions that we would change if we had a magic wand, and I'm sure there are provisions that others would change. On balance, this is a very good bill. We strongly support it. Stabilizes the program and provides some important improvements that I think will put it in a better place to succeed in the years to come. So we favor that. We favor this modest and temporary increase in the handling fee as well as an important way to keep redemption centers in business, good for consumers, as well as obviously the people who own and work at redemption centers. So thank you.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Others wanna comment? Chris I'm sorry. Yes.

[Chris Rice (MMR for Beverage Association of Vermont)]: Thank you. Good morning. Chris Rice from MMR on behalf of the Beverage Association of Vermont. Appreciate the committee's work on this bill. They've been working on this issue for a long time. The bill that this committee produced, we were okay with. We don't support the addition of the handling fee increase that is coming over from the Senate, primarily for two reasons, the added costs that will be passed on to consumers, that's a little shy of $2,000,000 a year. Beyond that, the concern that you've heard already about what that might do for reforms down the road, we're concerned that that will frustrate, if not undermine the important reforms that are part of the underlying bill. That is the only way that we see moving the bottle bill system to something that is more sustainable, that is at a manageable cost. We've seen what happens in other states with this ever increasing spiral of handling fees, added costs, the need to come back for more handling fees. We see that in Maine, they're already up to 6¢, They're asking for more. So we're concerned about that dynamic. Being realistic, I can read where things are headed. If the committee in the house wants is willing to go along with the senate proposal of amendment, we would simply ask for a delay in the implementation of the handling fee by six months to give us time to implement that change, program it into our systems, so that we can do it in a thoughtful way, so that doesn't upset the system quite as much as it might otherwise with that change coming less than a month after enactment. So that's the pitch. I appreciate the time.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Leaves me with a number of questions. Was Maine trying to stand up a PRO?

[Chris Rice (MMR for Beverage Association of Vermont)]: Is Maine trying to some reforms? Every state has a different system.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: This also the inverse may be also true that this incentivizes you all to get the PRO stand it up stood up, excuse me, more quickly.

[Chris Rice (MMR for Beverage Association of Vermont)]: You can see that from a CERT perspective, a successful PRO is going to require partnership between both the PRO and the redemption network as you have in your version of the bill. Got a maximized use of the existing redemption infrastructure. Those are our partners today. We foresee them to be our partners in the future. The concern is if those partners have a 30% increase of American revenue to continue doing business the way they've done it in the past, Concern is whether and how much willingness there will be to embrace reforms going forward. That's that's unknown, but that's that's the concern.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Michael, would this language allow for a redemption center to opt out of the handling fee? Should they be kinda well vested invested in by the PRO?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there there is the option

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

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: compensation through a negotiated agreement.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That would could preclude the handling fee.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It could. I mean, that would be part of the agreement. You'll see that on page 21. Maybe 20. Wait. So

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Sorry. What page?

[Nick Sherman (Vermont Wholesale Beverage Association)]: Page 20 of the side by side. Section two.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You can see that there's the plan shall describe how there's gonna be fair compensation provided that the PRO shall pay 4 and 1 half cents or according to a separate compensation agreement.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Okay. That's okay. That's the part I was like, I wanna make sure I understand. Okay. So it does allow for that.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It's an or.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Very clear. Okay. Thank you.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it doesn't say

[Dennis (Redemption Center representative)]: Thanks for the I'd like to thank the committee for all the work that we've been doing on this. And I I think these guys covered most both sides, so I won't bore you with all the details. One of the things I wanna touch on is is the the fifteen months. So the idea of that is that PRO starts in 'twenty nine, that money doesn't land until 2030, and we have to get from the agreement that we made with them until the equipment and things start to to go. So the incentive starts or the handling fee is sunsetted and and that handling fee or I'm sorry. The handling fee is sunsetted when the equipment is more likely or due to land, and we start going forward with that. So, the idea that there's no incentive, we in the senate, they they had a floor in there for a while, and it got changed at the last minute before it came out of the committee. And the idea of that was the incentive would would go away. So we made some compromises here and appreciate your support on this thing. We haven't had a raise in twenty years as you've heard of multiple times. Nobody sounded the alarms with consumers when Coke and Pepsi raised their prices almost two to 300% the last ten years, and We haven't got a raise in twenty. We ask that you support it. Welcome any questions, if anybody has any questions on how we got here or what happened to the side of terrible time.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Thank you. Nick. Hi.

[Nick Sherman (Vermont Wholesale Beverage Association)]: Nick Sherman on behalf of the Vermont Wholesale Beverage Association. Those are the beer distributors. Beer distributors are Vermont companies. They're based in Vermont. They employ hundreds of Vermonters. And we have the same concerns as Mr. Rice expressed about the increase in pay, both from an impact on implementing the PRO and the effect on that, and also just the immediate impact on the business. And I won't go into more detail because Chris covered it, but what I will say is that a six month delay in the enactment date of the handling fee would go a long way into to just helping these companies work into this new cost. Right now, one of the companies told me yesterday that they are dealing with a quarter million dollars in unanticipated diesel costs because of what's happening in the diesel market. This, you know, for that company would probably be nearer to that again. So in six months would really help one, come in at the beginning of their budget year and be able to start off the year with I can plan for, but also just I mean, they're facing a lot of pressure right now, and it would help with that impact. So we'd appreciate your consideration of the six month plan.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. A couple of thoughts on the

[Chris Rice (MMR for Beverage Association of Vermont)]: delay request.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, I'm somewhat sympathetic. Our bill didn't have a six month delay in it for the other hand loan fee, And we are bumping up against deadline here just to get bills across the finish line. Members have further questions or comments on this? That's accurate.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Just a comment about the $2,000,000 that the industry is expecting to have an additional cost given this 1¢ increase in the handling fee. In some sense, it's maybe $2,000,000 sounds like a lot of money, but we're talking about a penny per container that costs $2,000,000 because we're talking about a throughput of 200,000,000 containers. I mean, this is a vast industry and a $2,000,000 increase in cost is really very, very small when you put it in that perspective. And when you add to that, the fact that for decades, beverage manufacturers pocketed the $05 deposits that were left over totaling tens of millions of dollars, this really does feel like a very small ask to stabilize the system and get us to a point where we can have a much better functioning system in just a few years. This is just a temporary measure.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Also want to say that we didn't know about the increase in fuel costs when we ended doing this bill. I think the six month delay should be considered because of several different issues that are going on right now. You know, QAPI have risen.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Other thoughts?

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Just for clarification. I'm Jeff. Thank you. The six months delay on which date are we are they asking for the implementation of the program?

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. They want the six month delay on the increase of the handling fee in the short term. Of 2020? No. They want it they want the remember how the handling fee for commingled and non commingled increases? That increases July 1 07/01/2020. '26. They want that to be pushed out 01/01/2027. The fee under the plan would still be 03/01/2029. Thank

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: you. Alright, members. I I will.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I think there's value in pushing out the six months just for the computerization changes. I don't know if we can't predict.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: My thoughts.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: I guess I would suggest that the redemption centers are subjected to those same cost increases.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: That's right.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's right.

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're all suffering with the cost increases.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Cost increases at redemption centers are I guess I I kinda keep going back to, well, our this was not a request with the increase of the other penny, and it is as representative of Satcowitz, very, very articulately stated that not a lot of money, a much larger industry, and we we and I know the senate took a lot of testimony from our locally owned redemption centers that, you know, they are they're struggling just to make ends meet. And as representative North just pointed out, they have the same cost pressures.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: 1p on 3 and a half might sound like a reasonably high percentage, like it's like 28%. They haven't gotten anything in two decades.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Great if we could do a straw poll on this now, but I wanna make sure folks are solid ground.

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: And it's temporary.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: And it's temporary. Yeah.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: I'm just asking for the six month delay to be possible. Okay.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Well, that also may not be possible. Right. No. No. But not

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: the one set. So not you know, let that go. The increase six month delay would be reasonable.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It may be that it's reasonable, and we may not have time on the calendar. Right now, you are considering throwing out the baby with the bathwater by doing that.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just to clarify what you're saying.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: Are you saying that if we try to make a change, amend the amendment

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

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do this. Would to back

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: to the senate and the whole roundabout. That's and we just don't have time this week to get that done before such an accident.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: Right. The calendar. It's a real risk.

[Rep. Sarah "Sarita" Austin (Clerk)]: Even if even if it was narrow? I mean, if it even if all the things that we were asking, it was just a six month delay, it opens everything else up, or could it just Just

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: if if it doesn't cross the finish line, it doesn't cross the finish line. That's the way the calendar works.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Even by committing a committee of conference at this point. Oh. That would really delay.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: No way. Just just trying to think of all the options. No.

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: It's tough. It's really it's hard. So the bills that have a lot of

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: really big things happening in them.

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: Sorry if I missed this, but did the Senate discuss this six month and then decide they didn't wanna do it? I

[Michael O'Grady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't recall them discussing the six months. I don't know if the other advocates asked for it when I was the guy.

[Committee staff/technician (unidentified)]: That gives us a little tip as to how they might respond to us drinking.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: It was brought up at the very last minute that they would do that.

[Dennis (Redemption Center representative)]: In an essence of time, I just

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I would just say I understand the industry wanting this. They're advocating for their best interests, and that makes a lot of sense. At the end, this is a pretty small ask from them, but at the same time, And I think that they can manage without it. They absolutely make this happen. It might not be as easy as they would like. It might cause them a little bit of heartache, but it seems pretty clear that they can make this happen if they were really going to have a hard time with this. We would have heard about this, I think, a long time ago. And as our chair just pointed out, we're at the very end of the biennium here. And we've been working on various versions of the bottle bill this modernization for a really long time. And I I think it's really important that we concur and and move move this along and make this happen so that we don't come have to come back to this again for a long time.

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

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: Yeah. This is probably gonna shock some people, especially Kristi, but I'm gonna support this.

[Dennis (Redemption Center representative)]: I have

[Rep. Christopher "Chris" Pritchard (Member)]: reservations, and I've shared them with the folks. And and you talked to me about it. Yeah. You know, I'm not convinced this is gonna solve our redemption deserts. I'm I'm afraid, like, discuss those thoughts that it's gonna create. But, you know, it has the support from you know, the people that have reached out to me are the people that we're supposed to represent. And I know I voted against this every time, but I'm gonna support it and and hope for the best. So I appreciate. Well, here. I made it just very good. This is this is your gift horse.

[Bradley Schulman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not a very good artist.

[Nick Sherman (Vermont Wholesale Beverage Association)]: It's for verification that it's a horse.

[Rep. Rob North (Member)]: It might be a mule.

[Rep. Amy Sheldon (Chair)]: It's pretty good. All right. With that, all those in favor of the Senate proposal amendment for H915, please raise your hands. Sarita. Thank you. Aw. Right. Kate Logan. No just take a little long. All right. No one just take ten-one-zero.