Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Member]: We're live. Look at that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Saved by the bell on Tuesday, April 7. We need to get back into the weeds with our lunch counsel. I apologize for that break. Here we are. Section are we at? Section 10? Section nine? We

[Candice White (Member)]: were talking about section nine.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: We're

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: in section 10.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Pulling the screen back up here. So the next two sections relate to duplicate certificates of title. The first section, section 10, is a duplicate motor vehicle title. So this is if your title has been lost or destroyed. You can ask for a duplicate title from the department. Under current law, even if you go into a DMV location and they can produce the title on the spot, they have to mail it to you. So this allows them to hand you the title at the DMV location if they can produce it there. Section 11 is I forgot about this. This is a technical correction for the title chapter for vessels, snowmobiles, and all terrain vehicles. When the chapter was updated to include snowmobiles and all terrain vehicles, they forgot to add in the word snowmobile or all terrain vehicle behind title or certificate of title. The rest of the chapter is referencing all three vehicles, so I corrected the issue in this section. And then section 12 allows them to hand you your duplicate title for your vessel, snowmobile, or all terrain vehicle at a DMV location if they can produce it on the spot.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So ten, eleven, and 12 all go together? Yep. Are there questions on ten, eleven, and 12? This was an existing practice, I think we heard that they wanted to quantify?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And it it's just yeah. Correcting correcting or clarifying the law to make sure that that's clear that they were not legally required to mail your title to you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Anybody have any concerns? Any issues about coming back to this at any point?

[Candice White (Member)]: Doesn't make sense. Okeydoke.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Section 13 clarifies where you file your title appeal. So if you have an appeal under the title chapter, currently provides that you may appeal to the Superior Court for Washington County, but it doesn't specify the civil division as opposed to the criminal division. So this is just a technical amendment to specify the civil division. And that was requested by counsel for DMV to just clarify that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: What? Person agreed by that. Do have a single division of the Washington? Anywhere on in the state? That's the only place I can go

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: of. So yes. For this particular for this particular appeal, that's how it's structured. I'm not sure what the policy reason was back in the day for limiting it to Washington County. I know many of the so with the appeals sections, there are generally two standard administrative appeal options for Superior Court well, three. One is it'll say to the Civil Division in Washington County because that's where most of state government is based. The second is it'll say either the civil division or the division for the county in which the individual lives. And then the third is to any superior court or just to superior court generally. So this change here was just to clarify without changing the law. But if there are concerns that this is too narrow, that's something the committee could explain.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Artificial is already there. Don't know. A person aggrieved, what a great word, aggrieved by an act or a mission. Or me. Anybody have any question?

[Unidentified Member]: I guess we're, I mean, it's a technical change, but we're changing it. If we're looking for testimony, should we have somebody in this saying, hey, why is it this way? As, mean, are we to the point where other courts will be willing to take on this appeal? And I don't know enough about it. Like, is something like, oh yeah, we do this all over. And it doesn't need to be just Washington. And I have no clue. But if we're going to go there, don't know, it's probably be like question on the floor. Why is it? Well

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I've got to go to judiciary and a couple other things, maybe I should start there. I'm just trying to make sure we've done our due diligence and I appreciate the support of it. We don't know.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I

[Candice White (Member)]: think it's a valid question, like why people would have to travel a month earlier. Do they allow Zoom?

[Unidentified Member]: There's lawyers out there. But there's opposing lawyers.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. I will take that under advisement and see whether we get anywhere with that. Okay. Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Section 14. So this is under the abandoned motor vehicles title, and this is exempting our abandoned motor vehicles chapter, but this is exempting certain vehicles from the need to obtain a certificate of title. And there is a list here. The intent in this was also to be a technical change by breaking the list into three different items. I did hear do remember a comment the last time we walked through this that there may have been a concern raised about this wasn't entirely technical. But all all that we did when we were drafting this was try to split it into the three items so it wasn't a long run on sentence. But I I don't know if there's I seem to remember that comment being raised that someone had had concerns about those, concerns. Anyone? Maybe I'm mixing this up with a Yeah. Different

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: don't remember that comment. Yeah. Representatives.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: Why what's the reason not to have a title?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So they're exempted from requiring a certificate of title here. Let me pull up the full section to get you that answer.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: The first line says a manufacturer dealer held for sale. We can't sell it without a title.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Real quick, just for clarification.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: I can speak for an A. As soon as you title that, it can be confused. I think it's probably for the purpose of value.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay. Yeah, because you title it when you sell it.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: When you sell it. Yeah, original the certificate of origin.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It doesn't get a title to sell it if they're selling a lot for a while. Okay. What mean? What you're saying is What

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: we're saying is that we're moving it on the road to go from one lot to another type of

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: thing. Exactly. So this is

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: It's the purpose of testing and demonstration. It's a demo. Okay. I didn't realize that. Same thing applies, my same question for B, I mean, educational institution. Seems like you need a title.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So this

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Just to give you a sense of the other exemptions under here, they include vehicles owned by the US government that aren't registered in the state, vehicles owned by non residents that are not required by law to be registered in the state, Vehicles regularly engaged in interstate transportation of persons or property for which a currently effective certificate of title has been issued in another state. Certain self propelled small personal vehicles, motorcycles with engines smaller than 800 cubic centimeters, trailers with an unlading weight under 1,500 pounds, certain types of mopeds, vehicles for off highway use that are deemed exempt by the commissioner, and vehicles more than 15 years old on 01/01/2024 that has been registered in Vermont and has not had a change in ownership since 01/01/2024.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So where did you get that?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That's the remainder of the section that's hidden by the ellipses. Just giving you context.

[Unidentified Member]: No, that's good.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So there is a list of vehicles that aren't acquired. I don't know what the background is on the educational institution for driver training purposes. So that's a driver's ed school or the vehicle used by a manufacturer solely for testing. That, I think we can all understand that. That's their road testing a new vehicle in Vermont, something like that.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: One more thing. So it says 300 cc's?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It does say less than 300 cc's or with an electric motor of less than 20 kilowatts.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: I mean, that would be every Bespa.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: A lot.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: 125 cc.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so it's just a certificate of title. It also includes motor driven cycles, which also covers things like Vespas and mopeds.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So you wouldn't have to have

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: a title when I bought a February Honda back in

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It's just gonna build a suit. De minimis. Right. So then I guess

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the question becomes, are we digging into this anymore or we're good? Somebody more than I okay. Yep. Next.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Section 15. These are the reimbursement for towing from public property. So a one allows towing service to charge a fee of up to $250 for towing an abandoned motor vehicle from public property. The fee would be paid to the towing service by the Department of Motor Vehicles or to the agency of transportation if the agency had the vehicle towed and submits proof to the department that it has paid the towing service for the cost of towing the vehicle from the right of way. And so this relates just to abandoned motor vehicles. This does not relate to accident scenes, etcetera. There are big changes here allowing the agency of transportation to get reimbursement and doubling that towing fee from 125 to $2.50. We last raised that fee, I think, four years ago. So just a background on the section. Questions or discussion? I don't know if you've heard from the department and agency on this yet. We did. Last, on

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the second. We did, we did. I do sometimes wonder, we've got one agency and department, and it's one department that's under the agency. Department collects $300,000,000 a year on behalf of the agency. Agency's got a $943,000,000 budget, but we're gonna swap $250 toll fees back and forth between the two. Sounds like it would cost more to track that down than what it would be worth, but it seems important for it to be in here. And it's all underlined as new, but whatever it's worth. I don't have any other comment than that at this point. Okay. We heard from towers. We heard from the DMV. Does anybody have any other piece? We had emergency services. We had the director of emergency from the agency and we had the secretary of the agency all show up for this section. We got the front row treatment. Other questions? Anybody else can save me from my comments?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Good job. Okay. Diesel fuel tax here.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: This

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: is more technical changes. We're adding subsections and subparagraphs to the section. The request came from counsel to the DMV to try to make the section more readable by breaking up things that were different ideas into different subsections. It doesn't actually change the language of the section, except to add the omitted word by, owned by or under the control of the person.

[Unidentified Member]: And

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: to replace the old cross reference to subdivision four with a reference to subsection C, the new numbering. Other than that, the language in the section is unchanged except for renumbering.

[Unidentified Member]: What was the need for that?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Counsel for the DMV raised the concern that the way it was set up, you had and this is actually somewhat common in our older statutes. Subdivisions were just added over time, even though logically they didn't always align in terms of the subject matter that they were addressing. So to make it a little bit easier to read, counsel proposed breaking it out into subsection A covering one topic, B covering another topic, C covering the third topic within the section just to sort of be able to cross reference. Because before, I think it had been subdivisions, like, one and two related to one topic, three was something different, four was something different. But yeah. Okay. Operation of snowmobiles. This increases the penalty for operating a snowmobile that does not have the registration or the trail maintenance TMA. TMA, Trail Maintenance Assessment. There you go. TMA decal from 135 to four fifty for the first offense and 500 for a second or subsequent offense. And my understanding is that because of the cost of the TMA decal on the registration, the cost was close enough that folks were taking the risk and just not registering or getting the decal. This this request came from Vast.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So c and g don't c is the language. Other things and then g? Yeah. There are other violations that would incur the $1.35?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. And this is just We don't see them. Striking. That's right. I omitted them to shorten the lines. They're unchanged.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: One thirty five applies to lots of other violations. The new ones just apply to that particular piece. That's right. Registration.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: But g used to be c. Yeah. G used to be one of the items listed under c. Now it's getting its own line with a higher penalty.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. We will have that in for multiple topics. This will be one of them. We're also gonna get a year end kind of update on how their season went. Also, some safety related pieces and this and whatever else might come up. I'll put 20,000 on that too.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That one might start getting into the Constitutional range there. Yeah. I think that would I'd have a lot harder time saying that I think that one's defensible.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: See the price of these machines?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: They are expensive, but we're not talking about the machine. We're talking about the registration sticker.

[Unidentified Member]: Tim wants a flat fee for everything at

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: $20. I'll bring in some money. Yeah. The Supreme Court case on these fees came down to when the federal government tried to seize and the story is crazy. A guy was bringing over $200,000 in cash out of the country to pay a debt in his home country. And he didn't declare it like you're supposed to under US customs law. And so the US government moved to seize the full amount rather than just the penalty of $1,000 for not declaring it. And the Supreme Court said that seems a little excessive and denied it. So that's where we get our civil offense thing. And they were very, very strong that it was sort of an administrative requirement where a low flat fee penalty might make sense. Anyway, I've gone off into the legal weeds. Commercial driver's licenses here. So the first commercial driver's license provision, which is section 18 on page 20, this would allow during an emergency declared by the governor for an employee of a state agency of Vermont municipality to operate a heavy commercial vehicle, so over 26,000 pounds, without being required to hold a commercial driver's license while the emergency is ongoing if the governor's declaration specifically permits that to occur and the individual is performing official duties or activities related to the execution of emergency governmental functions. We've cross referenced the federal definition of what those include because as this changes, we wouldn't want the state to get out of sync with the federal government. Sorry. And so that we added that reference and then require that the individual have a valid operator's license in order to be eligible for this, and that emergency we're defining as a condition or event that involves significant imminent or ongoing risk to public health and safety, infrastructure, or property. This is based on similar language that's in New York state statutes that also provides a waiver of the CDL requirements for public sector employees in an emergency. There are other provisions of federal law that give the department the ability to waive, for example, the operating time requirements for a private CDL driver if they're, for example, driving the leaf supplies up to Vermont following flooding or a major storm or something like that.

[Unidentified Member]: You know if the city downstairs had ANR or their version of ANR to a drive by the section or look at it.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't believe natural resources looked at this downstairs.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: I was thinking CDLs, but hazmat. Mean, there's some very specific things that are necessary to know what the hell you're doing when you're transporting Sorry.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So this waives the CDL requirement.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know exactly how it impacts hazmat and the extent to which there are things beyond the CDL that you may need to operate. So that's something the department may know more about or I can look into more closely. Another thing that's worth noting is that current statute already allows waivers for members of the National Guard and fire departments to operate heavy vehicles without a CDL. So this follows along that, but the hazmat issue did not come up downstairs. And I know that's something that you know a fair amount about. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Does the oh, I'm sorry. If you were

[Candice White (Member)]: Well, it just brought up something that's probably not related, but the whole issue of during Irene when you were having machinery, was the land of rubrics. Is that what you were thinking about when you said EMR?

[Unidentified Member]: Well, yeah, I mean, just the whole, yeah, how that all went down.

[Candice White (Member)]: And I mean, they really weren't supposed to, it actually wasn't a good idea, because we removed a lot of rocks that actually

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So the works through my own team. Yeah. The issue of whether or not you have a CDL doesn't get to the issue of whether or not you're allowed to do work in a waterway. It just And that was a waiver of an environmental requirement at that time to allow extraction of ground gravel. I

[Unidentified Member]: was conflating the two. That's where my mind was going toward

[Candice White (Member)]: that When you said that, realized it was different, but it just brought it up and remembering that remembering that it was really bad.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Think the I'm not sure if you've heard from the department on their intent behind us. They spoke to a lot of what they were looking at downstairs. So that might be worth carrying on. I don't recall any testimony on the hazardous materials question downstairs. That's something there. But the environmental issues that occurred or the issues with operating in waterways and so forth after Irene that was related to a waiver of specific environmental requirements that we have in the state. And so that that wouldn't be impacted by this directly.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Section there two around line 16 of the dashboard, you're saying that we have this emergency, but you have to have a valid overall a valid regular driver's license.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: That's right.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yep. Meaning it's not suspended for any other reasons, etcetera. Yeah. Or possible

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: too that an individual who is an employee of a municipality or the state may not have an operator's license or may just have a permit. So this is saying you have to actually have a regular driver's license. That's chapter nine. You don't need a CDL. So that's that's all that's saying is that you you do have to add a minimum to have a regular driver's license.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Right. What's the duration of a situation like this? I think The emergency, the timeline, guess you're not checking the guy's driver's license of a person or the operator, who's ever going take over. You already know whether they have a valid license or not. I guess it's an emergency or how long the emergency might last.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's going to depend on the emergency to some extent. And as far as you know, the question is how long does the significant imminent and ongoing risks of public health safety, etcetera, continue? Because once that's passed, I think you no longer have an emergency.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Because I have a driver's license in no way, shape, or form, versus the idea that I can get jump into a 26,000 pound vehicle and operate correctly or safely or whatnot. So why have section two at all? You either the person assigned to you to get into it and run it is gonna have an idea whether you can or can't run it, whether my license is suspended, not have it, or whatnot. Why have that section as opposed to, know, that doesn't just because I can drive my wife's car doesn't mean that I can drive a 26,000 pound emergency vehicle of some sort or heavy equipment of any sort whatsoever.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I think I would let the department speak to this. So this is language that was requested by the department. I think my understanding downstairs is they felt like you should at least know how to drive. But that's my paraphrasing of the discussion downstairs, but there wasn't a lot

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: of discussion about this. That's why I'm thinking what's an emergency emergency. The emergency is imminent, like right then and there, saving something that's happening versus an ongoing, now we're still in the ninety day section and I'm allowed to drive a commercial dump truck back and forth all of the gravel or fill is different than jumping in and responding at the moment of emergency, that's all. Do I have it or not have it? We're going get their feedback on this section at some point, not right now for the whole section, but this is on a list of testimony from the DMV. And they're hearing what we're asking, so they'll certainly be prepared to comment on

[Unidentified Member]: the hazmat and whatnot. Are you suggesting, I guess, for a certain period of time? I mean, Irene, as Representative Burke stated, I mean, they didn't care what they did. They just needed to get four foot weight and mend it. It was just a giant hole on

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: the ground for quarter of

[Unidentified Member]: a mile. And additionally when it flooded again in 2023 maybe there were a couple other sections that busted through, They were just following. I mean, were all just falling rock. They were all over the place, just to get roads open.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I'm just brainstorming on the issue of what is the emergency, what's

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: the level of it? And I would say

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: if Representative Casey's license is suspended, he's still got a much better chance operating that piece of equipment than I do with my license. I just need somebody to shift it. I can thrive,

[Unidentified Member]: but I just can't shift it.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Shoulder surgery goes on and whatnot. So I had a

[Unidentified Member]: guy working for me. I had to I needed these forums that were up up the road further and the guy who owned the forums, going to the company says, hey, just hop in there and drive it. I looked over a couple of my guys. Is either one of you guys know how to shift? I can they didn't have licenses, but they knew how to shift. Yeah. So I got it to the job anyways, but I didn't drive it from there. I did not know how to shift it at all. He's still, like, pushing the clutch, and doing everything he had to do, little grinding. The lot worse by was doing it.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. Well, we're gonna hear what the impetus was for this and what the pieces are and we'll go from there. I am just trying to make sure that we cover as much as can. Think if you if you

[Unidentified Member]: know how to drive it and shift it, more likely you'd

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: have a CDL, I would think. I don't know.

[Unidentified Member]: I don't know how many times it came up and doesn't the governor. The governor was the one that lifted all the restrictions, right? All the all the, environmental restrictions. So they get like Route 73 over Rochester opened up and people were blocked.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: The bridge was right out. So, yeah, during the past emergencies, there have been executive orders directing enforcement of certain laws and so forth. It's probably a longer discussion. Some of that, but I think Yeah, as far as this goes, I think the questions about what's envisioned and what the substance is here is a better question for the department. I can't answer a lot of these questions. I wrote the language, but I don't know the underlying issues. So section 19, this is commercial driver's license fees. So the first line here in 8A, this is to make it consistent with the rest of the section. Every other subdivision in there has a little sentence that explains what the paragraph is talking about. So this just provides that. And it lays out the different requirements when you're applying for a CDL or a CLP, commercial learner's permit. So your application has to include and then it lays out each item with more detail after that. So the first amendment here is just to add in the applicable fee for the driver's license being applied for. Four year fee is 108. That's existing law. Two year fee is 72. That's also existing law. This proposes to add a one year fee for a nondomiciled CDL of $40 So nondomiciled CDL is there are two types of drivers who can apply for this. The first is a foreign national who has got permission to work in The United States. So while they have that permission, they can obtain a non domiciled CDL. The limit here to one year, So they can only have that CDL for as long as they have permission to work in The United States. So this would require them to renew each year to keep that moving forward. The other instance is someone whose state has had their federal authority to issue CDLs suspended by the federal government. Residents of that state, if they want to operate a commercial vehicle, have to go to another state and get a non domiciled CDL. So that's one of the penalties for falling out of compliance with the federal CDL requirements is you can lose your ability to issue them. I don't know of any states that currently have their ability suspended. I do know that with some of the, there have been questions about nondomiciled CDLs being issued in certain states to individuals who may not have permission to work in The United States. That's currently valid. And so what I can say is that there are states where the federal government is looking at the possibility of suspending the right to issue CDLs depending on them addressing that. This

[Unidentified Member]: We're similar thoughts. So the one year fee for non domiciled chemicals drivers license, are we thinking they have those CDL from wherever they're coming from, or do they know how to ride a vehicle that would need a commercial service? This doesn't change any of the requirements for

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: them to get a CDL would So

[Unidentified Member]: have to follow the requirements in our state in order to obtain You

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: need to follow all the other application requirements. This is just saying if you're getting a non domiciled CDL, it's a one year license with a 40 valid fee. Okay. Thank you. All right. Motorbug validation stickers. So this came, I believe, from Department of Public Safety. It came to the attention of the department that Vermont was out of compliance with the federal requirements for validation stickers. So I'm going to scroll down to that. For states that issue validation stickers, the US Coast Guard wants to see them immediately adjacent to the registration number of the motorboat. And so this would require the stickers to be placed within six inches proceeding or following the registration number depending on which side of the boat they're on. That way, when the coast guard is pulling alongside the boat, they can see the registration, they can see a validation sticker, and they don't have to go looking for the validation sticker. Questions? Ask for this department of public safety, I believe.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Let me break that down. Yeah. Did they have any testimony on that? Did.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I believe they had someone come in from Department of Public Safety to explain the issue.

[Unidentified Member]: I have written down it was to comply with The US

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, yeah, it's US Coast regulations, I believe. And there was I do remember there was a handout that showed what they were looking for, what the issue was. So I'm sure we can get the name of that witness off of their senate committee's page. I'm sure Gavin's way ahead of me.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Alright. The other

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: let's close my window. Still open for you guys, though. That's good. The other changes in this section are just splitting things out. It was one extremely long paragraph. And then the change here on line 16 of page 23, the definition of dealer is a person engaged in the business of selling or exchanging motorboats. So I just changed it to a dealer in motorboats to shorten that up. And then the other changes are just eliminating the gendered references, correcting cross references. So it's just technical changes throughout. And that brings us to page 26, personal flotation devices.

[Unidentified Member]: Here. Something in those on the line?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And then it tells you how long it's been since some

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: of these sections have been updated? There is Some of

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: these sections hasn't been touched since 'seventy

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: three or whatever. Some of these sections are quite dated. And in other instances, they've been amended more recently, but only one little subdivision or subsection. One of the things that often happens when you get changes at the last minute to avoid pulling open the entire section, one of the tricks that we will often use is we'll say 23 b s a thirty three zero six b one is amended. And so what happens then is you clean up the language in just that one subdivision. So the statute looks like it's been updated, but there's language that might not have been touched in thirty or forty years. And that that's a lot of what we're catching. I have trouble looking at a section and seeing things and knowing I'll have to fix it later. So I tend to do the whole section if I can. The personal flotation devices section, this adds a specific provision that would provide between November 1 and the following May 1, all individuals on most vessels while underway and on the open deck would have to wear a properly secured US Coast Guard approved personal flotation device. The requirements would not apply to an individual who is on a vessel in water that is three feet or not more than three feet deep and is actively engaged in either hunting or bowfishing has a valid hunting or fishing license. It also does not apply to inspected US Coast Guard inspected commercial vessels, which I left that language in. So when you're on the ferry, when you're on Ethan Allen or the, is it the Spirit of Ethan Allen, when you're on boats like that that are coast guard inspected, you do not have to have a personal flotation device on while you're underway. They are required to carry them. But when you're on your private motorboat during cold weather, or your kayak, your canoe, etcetera, you'd be required to wear a PFD.

[Unidentified Member]: That's a fine.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I would have to look to see what the penalty is. Yep. See what that is.

[Unidentified Member]: So I also have other states limit the size of the vehicle.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yes. And this does not.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So that was something I noted the first time we walked through this, is this is based on the law in other states. But it is worth noting that most other states limit it to certain types of vessels, not necessarily all vessels. And so it varies by state, But in one case, was vessels under 16 or 20 feet, something like that. So you may want to look at if you're concerned that this is too broad, you may want to look at what other states do to get a sense of context here. So

[Unidentified Member]: these are during the winter months you're talking about, right?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. It's during cold weather. The concern that was raised in the Senate was that because of the shock when you hit cold water, Even strong swimmers can go hypothermic and drown in a relatively short period of time. So this was proposed to address that concern about cold weather shock or cold water shock. What about if you're ice fishing? If you're ice fishing, you won't be out on a vessel. You're out on the ice.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So I'm

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: okay. So you won't get to where

[Candice White (Member)]: I What's the ice is then?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: If I have a if

[Unidentified Member]: I happen to drag a boat for some unknown reason out on the ice and I stand in it, at that point,

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm breaking the law. Alright. I think the question is, is the vote underway? And I'm not sure that it is. Well, my buddy's pushing it. He's got a bunch of drinking. So you

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: were arrested.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: It's a good question. I don't think this is meant to capture that. To be honest, I don't I don't

[Unidentified Member]: know how any I never I don't think anybody can who's gonna force it? Who wants to pop out in the vote that's real cold to go out and see if somebody's wearing their legs. I just don't They're out in

[Unidentified Member]: the vote after the vote was first.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The amount of check here?

[Unidentified Member]: They didn't have to lie. Hold on.

[Candice White (Member)]: I think we should move to a question.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So in response to the question of what's the penalty, it's $50 It's a $50 fine.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: For multiple offenses per incident, severance? Other is

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Subject to a fine of $50 per violation.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And that would be everybody that was in that vessel? Each would tip

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: it on an individual fine? Yeah, I think. The way it's it's worded is all individuals aboard a vessel shall wear a properly secured PFD. So I think you could argue that this applies to a different violation for each individual.

[Unidentified Member]: And this doesn't include dinner cruises like the violation?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: No, that's Coast Guard inspected vessels. So it's exempt. Same thing with the ferries. As long as they're running, you wouldn't have to have a PFD on as soon as you got out of your car or something like that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We have Representative White, then Representative Thomas, and then Representative Lalley.

[Candice White (Member)]: Thank you. Okay, I have a question or a comment. My question is, Damian, did you say that these dates align with federal?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: These dates were proposed as part of the amendment. This is not a federal requirement. There's a a think five or six states have requirements around cold water or requirements to wear a PFD in certain situations in cold weather. So it is not a federal requirement as state by state. As from my reading of those laws, this would give Vermont the broadest requirement.

[Candice White (Member)]: My question is, if I think about what Lake Champlain feels like on May 1, I'm guessing it's pretty cold. So I'm just wondering if these dates are the right dates for bodies of water in the state of Vermont. Because I'm guessing that even up to June 1, it's pretty bold. And if the goal is to make sure people don't drown while out on their kayak. And I think we had an instance like that a couple years ago, and it represents Lalley more in her area, where a couple was out on kayaks, were wearing PFDs and were capsized and passed away. So I'm just questioning whether those are the right dates given the cold water in Vermont between November and May 1. And then my comment, and then you can respond, is we heard testimony last year from representative Carifano about her concern with daughter going swimming in the cold months, and how startling and slightly scary that was. And she's a strong swimmer, but had a hard time getting back to shore. And I just heard another comment, I think, from the Lieutenant Governor, when he did the polar plunge, and said, We swam out, and if we had gone any further, we were really concerned about coming back. I'm just making a comment that this new section does not address some of these other concerns. We have heard about people choosing to swim in cold water and not quite being prepared for how startling and perhaps tragic a situation like that can actually present itself.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: With respect to the question about the dates, obviously, I can't comment on the swimming or anything like that. My understanding is that these dates are similar to the other states. There is some variation.

[Candice White (Member)]: Did you say what states those were?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Off the top of my head, I can remember Pennsylvania is one of them. I'd have to look. I do have that somewhere.

[Candice White (Member)]: Yeah, I'm just wondering, like Southern, Northern.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There was a map presented, I believe, as part of the testimony from the advocate that so Representative Garofano, I think, had his bill in the House. I think this came from Senator White in the Senate. And there was an advocate who came in to speak in favor of this, who I think presented some information on the other states. And so that I can look for it on the website and pass it along. But you Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: For background part on Representative Guerrafano did ask about this bill. And I definitely sent her to the Senate to get it inserted and said her chances were far better that we would leave it in than we would put it in. So she did this work. But, anyway, if you're all set, then representative Tomlinson is up next.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: I just wanted to note, kind of piggybacking on Ralph White's comments, it does seem like some type of communication or outreach about this would be an important piece. And you shared an example from a couple of years ago, but a woman died this weekend a little while before kayaking. She was in her mid-30s from Morrisville. So I think that just speaks to this is an ongoing issue. If creating a law is a way to create more awareness or

[Candice White (Member)]: prevent events, I think that would

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: be of value. But the communication element seems to be too.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: I think this might need a little more fine tuning, this provision. Support the idea of it, but another sort of one I'm worrying about its applicability to is the sport of ice boating, where people are racing boats on the ice. And I think wearing, this can be very competitive, wearing PFT might be just unnecessary and interfere with the enjoyment of the sport and the competitiveness of it. And then I just wanted to say that I don't understand this issue in much detail, but I do know that the Coast Guard is extremely concerned about folks who kayaking or canoeing. And honestly, you really have to be in a dry suit at this time of the year. And I say that as someone who lives literally across the road from Shelbourne Bay and see people unfortunately engaging in this pretty reckless behavior all the time. And I don't think it really would matter if they're wearing PFD, the water's that cold. So I think this needs a little more thought about what problems we're actually trying to solve and how to maybe do that a little bit with more specificity.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I broke my own rules a little bit, we're in discussion versus questions and it's happened two or three times, so I guess I would push back a little bit to say, are we team members suggesting potential witnesses? That would be the next sort of steps. Questions for our alleged counsel. We will definitely have a comment from from this idea we were assessed in peace, but Me. Okay. That peace, then what witnesses we want to hear from is where we'd be next on this. And then the discussion of opinion about what we will or won't change is after that. I would say that So certainly the Coast Guard's name came up and sportsman's fishermen had a pretty significant concern around this. I think you had

[Unidentified Member]: your hand up, right? Everyone in case you're up. One last question. If I'm out ice fishing in my truck, is that is did anybody talk about that?

[Unidentified Member]: On the ice?

[Unidentified Member]: Yeah. I I haven't done it in a while, but, I mean, sometimes I

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: There That's a lot of ice. So a truck is not a vessel. So it's it's that's motor vehicle. It's not the same thing.

[Candice White (Member)]: For safety

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: and safety issues. With respect to the states, according to the witness the Senate heard from the states that have a seasonal mandatory cold weather life jacket use for certain vessels are Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, and Maryland.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Is one of those Northeast. I think

[Unidentified Member]: they both thrive and sweat.

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Like a duck boat. That's a great question. Trying to help you out here.

[Unidentified Member]: How about those little trucks? The Keys.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: Don't think they're water or

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Which what did you say? Which sport kind of is competing in the winter? I missed that.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: It's it's a I think I

[Candice White (Member)]: ice ice

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: boating. Think it's what

[Candice White (Member)]: it's called.

[Unidentified Member (possibly Timothy R. Corcoran II, Vice Chair)]: Like a sail.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yeah. So they bring them up. It's pretty popular in Malice Bay and sometimes in Children's Bay. It's very organized in Malice Bay. And it actually, I think, draws tourists and the Naval Hall

[Candice White (Member)]: sort of Regatta up there.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The Coast Guard didn't testify in this, in this event?

[Damian Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't believe so. So the list of witnesses that I have from the Senate side are Alan Johnson, Jess Lucas. Jess Lucas was from the YMCA. Alan Johnson was from the Department of Public Safety, State Police Marine Division. And then I also see testimony from the Department of Health, Sarah Gregorich, and then Jessica Barodi, who is the executive director of the Vermont Recreation and Parks Association. They also heard from the Vermont Traditions Coalition. That's where the exemption for hunting and fishing came from. So Okay.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Are there other questions on the section for our alleged counsel? Are there clarifying or pieces? Because I think we're pretty clear we're gonna wanna hear some more witness testimony on that. And I believe with our agenda, we are now on a break from now until 03:00 confirm that Senator Rutland is going to be able to join us at three. And so we

[Unidentified Member]: are