Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Good morning. Today is Wednesday, March 18 for the Ways and Means Committee, 9AM. And we are looking at H928, an act relating to technical corrections to fish and wildlife statutes. Bradley, would you like to join us?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, I would. Thank you.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And folks, just so I don't spoil the source, so I am spoiling the surprise. I don't know. We already have an amendment for it. So exciting. Awesome. Yeah.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Bradley Showman, Office of Legislative Counsel, and I'll be sharing an amendment for

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I think we need to know what the original was.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Right? Yes. Okay.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Cool. Yes. So I will be sharing the virtual bill and the amendment. And let me pull up the original bill.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Folks, when I sort of bring an amendment along with the original bill, it is not because I'm trying to get in front of anyone. It's because we are in the air traffic control portion of the legislative session. And so if we are going to be able to pass all the bills we need to pass this week, we need to really have amendments often the first time we look at them. And that's why I'm really asking folks to be looking ahead at the bills that are coming over from the committees here, liaison to really turning into a broken record. Bradley, floor is yours.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. And So I'm gonna stop sharing my screen and I'm going to share my entire screen, which means I'm gonna close my email really quick. Just to avoid the pop ups. My desktop is eating files today and it's not great. Okay. So H928 is a committee bill from the House of Environment. And this bill sets out to change the licensing fees for Excuse me. Licensing fees. Penalties for violations of various hunting regulations that are set forth in title 10A. It's a curious title because that title is created by rulemaking for the Department of Fish and Wildlife. But we're coming in to make changes to the penalties. And so So this statute, the penalties themselves are in title X and the various rules regarding hunting and hunting activities are entitled 10A. We're amending Title X, which are the penalties. The legislature sets the penalties with in consultation with the Department of Fish and Wildlife. And so that's what this bill does. And so this bill changes a number of the penalties from different point violations. We are on age 29 as introduced on page one. I'm scrolling down to page two. And so this bill would just change certain penalties. For example, this first one here, gun suppressors are no longer no longer unlawful based on a bill passed last few years. So this is being changed. It's no longer a violation to use a suppressor because suppressors are no longer unlawful. There are other changes to various activities related to hunting in this piece. I'm happy to go through these penalties and hunting penalties and things of that sort. I think the committee might be if the committee is interested in that, the committee might be more interested in the other pieces down here.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I don't think we need to unless

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank you. And so, just gives the Department of Fish and Wildlife the authorization. It states that all annual licenses shall expire on December 31 of the year for which they're issued. Under current law, this section would give the Department of Fish and Wildlife the option to have three hundred sixty five days after the date the license is issued. So license could be good for an entire, calendar year as opposed to just expiring at December 31 if you bought it in September or something of that sort. And then the license fee section, and

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: this is a section that we

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have an amendment to. So I'll show you the text as it exists, and then we'll look at the amendment. So these are just an example of the licensing fees that are in current statute. And we'll we'll see big game licenses and then the big game tags here. And this is as path to the house environment. If the board determines it is necessary to issue or require additional big game tags or big game permits that are not otherwise identified in this section, the department may issue such tags and permits and may assess a fee for such tags and permits of not more than the prevailing rate for big eight tags. And so the issue is that the department sometimes issues an additional tag for a hunting big game. Instead of one turkey, you might be able to have a tag for two turkeys. And right now, if they issue an additional tag, they can't charge for it, and then so they want to be able to charge for it. And so this would give them the authorization to issue a big game tag for one that's not identified in the statute and then charge prevailing rate for big game tag.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yes, sorry.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: So if I can interject here, I believe this is for allowing you to hunt doe during the regular rifle season and if you do so, there's a process for obtaining a second buck tag. So this is what that would be in reference, or is they set a fee for that second buck

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if it's because I've heard turkeys when they've talked about it with the specific animal. I can't tell you which of the specific animal provided the impetus for this, but I think the idea is the the same. If they want to issue an additional tag for a large a big game animal, they they want to have the authority to do that and to charge for it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So my understanding is that they issued the And I did not hear turkeys. Heard does. But it could be turt It might be all the animals. I have no idea. When they issued the new tag this fall without authorization. They had to issue it for free, and they didn't wanna do that.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: That's what I've been hearing.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So I'm

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: just gonna take care of that.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yes. And then I've affirmed the amendment that I have just sort of tightens it slightly.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yep. Thanks. And and so this is the amendment. So we are on draft 1.1 of the amendments. And this just amends section three, which we just discussed. And we are on page two of that amendment. And so, this adds some more language, but it also kind of tightens that authority to give more legislative oversight. And so, if the board determines that it is necessary to issue or require additional big game tags or big game permits that are not otherwise identified in this section, the department may issue such tags and permits and may assess a provisional fee for such tags and permits of not more than the lowest fee for a big game tag as provided in subsection a. So it sets a more specific dollar amount. And the department shall seek legislative approval of the provisional fee pursuant to 32 b s a six zero three, then one year following department's assessment of the fee. So it requires the department to come back and, put that fee into statute or requested the fee be put into statute. And then the department's failure to obtain legislative approval of the provisional fee shall avoid the provisional fee, and the department shall not assess a new provisional fee for the same big game tag or big game permit. And so if the department fails to get the tag into law, they can't just simply turn around and issue a new one just over and over again. They would have to get authorization the first time, and then that's it if they don't get the authorization statute.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: And when I was thinking of OPR a few years ago, rolled out what they called the early bird special for all new licenses. And I was thinking about it this way. So the first time a tag is issued, it's the lowest fee possible, but there's still a fee. And then they come to us, and the fee can go up however they would want it to.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: So can I just ask a I'm still trying to understand this a 100%? So if I get a tag for deer hunting, for a large deer hunting, I'm limited to the number of tags that I can get a license for or I

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can purchase. That's correct. Yeah.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: So if it's just one tag for the season, but then you're saying if I go into dove season, I can take a dove, but then I lose my tag, so I need to get another tag. I'm trying to how does this work?

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Yeah. Because so we've been talked about what they're going to do, it's been put out there for the general public already, that they want more dough shot during the regular breakfast season, which hasn't happened before. It's the dough season for archery, early muzzleloader tags during the late muzzleloader season. So now you're going to be able to undo during the right season. So to do that, to incentivize that, okay, if you get a doe and you also get a buck, and there's a point limitation there too or whatever, you get a second buck tag, which has never happened before. It's incentivizing people to get the dog, to bring her down to certain areas. So again, there's that second tag that you don't want to pay for it in advance, right?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You know if you're going to get one.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: So that's my understanding of this second buck tag that they're looking to be able to charge a fee for. You want another buck tag once you get the dough and your original buck? Then you got to pay this extra fee to get that.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: So without going into the weeds too much, but practically speaking, you're out, you're hunting, you get a doe and you get a buck, bring them both to the waste station, you have to go inside and buy another tag.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Right, and I mean it can happen, that's the question that I asked at the time was how long before you turn in your deer can you get another tag? Like I said, pretty much instantly. Okay,

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: all right.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: How many tags can we get? I don't know the total tags, it's

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Do you have an answer?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have an answer, I think it does vary between animal, but I don't have a specific answer to that.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: If folks want to follow-up with Fish and Wildlife offline to get all of their Does that feel okay? Yeah. Okay, cool.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that's it, Emma. And so that is it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Great, thanks. Any other questions for Bradley? Thank you.

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you very much.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Good. Committee, Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office. I will share my screen so you can have but there are simply some words that'll just be bigger and behind me. So broadly speaking, we're estimating that the bill would have minimal positive impacts to license fee revenues. This is reflective of the as introduced version, but it's not incorporating the slight The estimate is the same regardless of the amendment or the underlying as introduced version. Some of the mechanics are slightly different. And so the positive impact fee revenues would flow to the Fish and Wildlife Fund. For the provision that would allow give the Department of Fish and Wildlife the discretion to change fees from expiring on December 31 and move that to a three hundred and sixty five day license, they're envisioning potentially a very modest positive impact. What they're seeing the most likely case of that is for phishing licenses. They would potentially make this adjustment and folks who are visiting in the fall, they're saying, Oh, if the license expires on December 31, I'm going get a two day permit. But if it's valid for longer, they may decide to get the annual permit. So that's the main impact they see there. And to note, this is not a change they're envisioning implementing in the near term. It's likely a year or so out, so it wouldn't impact anything in fiscal year twenty seven. The additional big game tags would also increase license fee revenue. We're also seeing this as minimal. Emailed a bit with the department. They provided an estimate that if they were able to charge for that second tag, if you all have been talking about, and charge non residents $30 and residents $15 it would generate $18,000 in revenue. So relatively minimal within the context of the Fish and Wildlife Fund. And I will note that in the as introduced version, we wouldn't know how many types of tags and the number sold, but given that there's now this process, if you all adopt the amendment of a kind of check-in, we would be providing you all with updates as they implement the game text.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Okay. Perfect. Yeah. Sorry. Go ahead.

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Well, so there's a dough season.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Correct?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Think I'm an expert by any stretch of debate.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Let's do Ted questions first and then we'll get to the questions.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: I have a question that actually may be a legislative council question. I know the difference between a fish and a buck. What is where does big game start?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That's also not a Ted question. You agree? In official, though,

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: in Statue, there are six big game licenses. There's an archery, a muzzleloader, turkey moose bear, and an additional deer archery, big game text. Those are the ones that I pulled out of statute. Yes, it sounds like there's a second buck potentially for Doze that folks are talking about here, but that's what's in statute. So the definition of big game is as described as statute more than a species. Those big game tags are outlined in statute. Yep. I got it. Thank you, Teddy.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Maybe after crossover, we can all get a lesson in how entrenchment can work. Does anyone have any other questions for Ted?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I will join with that.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you, Teddy. Thank you. Bill, if you wanna ask.

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Representative Higley,

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: the president's.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I don't know, it's up to you. Bradley.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Do you want me

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: to go back?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, can just go.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Yeah, yeah.

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: So there's a doe season, right? So you get a doe tag, which you paid for. So if I'm hunting and I don't get a doe, can I use that tag during the rifle season that we're talking about?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if we're 100% positive off the cuff. Don't think you can, but I don't know with 100% certainty about that.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Bill was unanimous out of environment. Thank you. But I don't know who was absent. Yeah. The motion to amend would be delightful unless someone does anyone need anything before we move forward? Mark, you look like you're thinking about words.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Yeah, I'm thinking about the wording that we've changed, I believe we've changed the wording in here, where they have to come back before they change it again, correct? Mean, they have to

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Like a one year provisional.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Right, that doesn't mean they can't come back and change that new fee, they just need to make sure they come back. Okay,

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: all right.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Yeah, then if this helps, and again, is AI, so I'm not 100% sure.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Oh gosh, is everyone doing it these days?

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Every bug, who shouldn't.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I'm sorry, continue.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: It's four deer, but it's pretty complicated when it comes down to it. And as far as that Earn a Buck program, if you purchase that second Buck Tech app, have already reported Earn a Buck? Earn Earn a a buck. I didn't even realize that, so Maybe we don't even know if it's true. But anyway, you've already reported an antler listed deer, like I said, in that current year, and your first buck had at least an antler with three or more points. I told you there was a point restriction there, they want you to take the bigger bucks first. So that's part of the provision too, for you to get that second license.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: You have to let the small bucks pass. First time.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Pass the buck.

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Passing the buck.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Passing the

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Passing buck. Robertson and Masland, I think you were going to say something about our amendment to H928. Yeah.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Is it our amendment or as we respect my amendment?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: It is a ways and

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: means amendment. I move that we vote favorably on the ways and means amendment to this bill.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you, draft 1.1. Representative Masland moves that we amend H928 with draft 1.1 of the committee amendments.

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Second.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Canfield seconds. Any discussion? Seeing none, it's a quick and please call the roll. Thank you. Representative Branagan is absent.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I'll vote yes as representative Burkhardt. Representative Higley? Yes. Representative Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland? Yes. Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page? Yes. Representative Waszazak? Yes. Representative Canfield? Yes. And Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We have voted the amendment favorable ten-one. Thank you.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Vote bill favorably as amended in this committee.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Masland moves that we find H928 favorable as amended.

[Rep. William Canfield (Vice Chair)]: Second.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Representative Canfield seconds. Any discussion? Seeing none, the clerk please call the roll. Thank you. Representative Branagan is absent.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: I'll vote yes as Representative Burkhardt. Representative Higley?

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland? Yes. Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page? Yes. Representative Wazak? Yes. Representative Canfield? Yes. Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We have voted the bill favorable as amended, Ten-zero-one. Thank you. Cool.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Have a good day. Oh, Rebecca. Sure. Thanks. That was Charlie for anyone watching at home. It's really good to report. Cool. Thank you everyone. 09:30. Scott, do you what do you think about going before Ellen? I'm happy to. Okay, the bill's not like so confusing. Great.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Thank

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: you, Scott. Nice to see you. Good

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: morning, committee. For the record, Scott Moore joining fiscal office. Helen, I'm sure we'll go through a walk through the entire bill in terms of what it does. But the fiscal impact of this, realistically, what it says is they would no longer require permits for logging underneath elevation of 2,500 feet. In theory, there's no permits needed. There would be no fees associated with those permits, so therefore there would be potentially a loss of income to the state. I spoke with Ellen, I also spoke with the commissioner for Forest Parks and Rec, and she assured me that this exemption has existed for decades. And what this bill, that part does is just basically codify it into law and does a parity with how agricultural farming is also addressed in statute. So therefore, I'm happy to report there's nothing to report.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So we've been doing this already, it just wasn't in statute?

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Correct.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: I feel so uncomfortable with that, but I'm pleased there's no revenue impact to state. Represent a message.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Question for you, Scott, not, but this is a 40 acre permit or is

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: related? What I looked at was just the timber industry for forestry under an elevation of 2,500 feet.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Don't know about 40 acres. It's an actually 50 permit.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Yes. Okay, because it's a different permit. Think Franklin is where logging over 40 acres,

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: it

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: was

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: a different

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: check-in. Yeah, but for this it was for activity and the commissioner's specific language just says that looking quickly to see about 40 acres, Commissioner Fitzgow emailed me and said, This exemption has existed for decades. This language just clarifies the provision while providing parity with the language applied to agriculture and farming. So there's nothing in there we need to worry about. Yeah, If it's not broke, don't fix it.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: That's really more of administrative question. Is there going to be a fiscal note saying that or are we just okay with this?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I hadn't planned on writing anything, but I'm happy to send you a blank piece of template.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: No, it's fine. It's fine. It's fine. Thank you. Any other questions for Scott?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: I think I'll pass Ellen once she's here.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Perfect timing.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thanks. And Thank you, Scott, so much for your service. You're welcome. Ellen, would you like to join us? We went in reverse order.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Anything else for me about changing?

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Oh, thank you so much.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: Jessica. I

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: want to check our website of council. Hello. Nice to see you. It's been a while.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It has. Age nine thirty two. The regulation of force here under Act two fifty.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: The Act twenty eighty one

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of 2024, the big bill asked for multiple reports back from the Landry Ruby Board. And one of those reports was how to support the wood products manufacturing and forestry industry. And this bill reflects two of the recommendations from this report, which largely clarifies existing law. So since 1970, forestry and agriculture below 2,500 feet have been exempt from Act two fifty. There are a couple other specific provisions in Act two fifty laying out all of the details of the exemption for farming. And those details are also true of forestry and logging. And so this bill adds language that largely mirrors what's already in statute for exempt farming, but also for forestry. It also restores logging and pulp concentration yards to exempt status because they had been considered exempt as part of the logging process. But in 2022, when the statute was updated, they were included under the definition of wood products manufacturers, which do require a permit. So the section that changes that restores what was previously the law. So, Section one amends 6,001, the definition section of Act two fifty, where the jurisdictional triggers are. And the language in subdivision

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: six,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: states what is already true, that forestry is exempt, but it does not include the conversion of land for non exempt uses. So while forestry itself is exempt, if you're clearing a site for a commercial development, that is not an exempt use of forestry. And then subdivision F in section one is kind of the inverse of the change that's also in section two. So, on a parcel that does not yet have an Act two fifty permit, because it is devoted to log forestry, which is exempt, only those portions of the parcel that support a development, a commercial development, will be subject to regulation under Act two fifty. So this is about internally sort of dividing the parcel into what is still exempt and what could be covered by the Act two fifty. Generally under Act two fifty, when there is a development, the permit is to the entire parcel. But for these exempt activities, if something is going to happen on there, like a commercial enterprise that is not exempt, the permit will only attach to the portion of that parcel that is doing something not exempt from Act two fifty. And section two covers the inverse of that situation where there's already an Act two fifty permit on the site, but an exempt activity is going to take place. They do not need a permanent amendment to do that. That's a high level version. Yeah.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Yeah. That's a lesson.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Second part of what you said, the nonexempt. Now an exempt part on the exempt. Is there any paperwork that goes back and forth just to codify it or make note of the fact that I'm doing something on a property so that there's a record of what's proposed and what happens?

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So what has been added here is that permits shall include a statement that any logging and forestry activities consistent with this are exempt from needing a permit. And so they're going be a little more affirmative now in telling landowners that, that if they're going to undertake logging in 4th Street, they will not need to get their permit updated. But this is creating a situation where they don't have to go get permission to do that. A landowner still could ask permission just to be safe and clear, they could ask the district coordinator if they're still covered. But this is setting up that they won't have to do that.

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: Thank you. That's good news.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Could this be retroactive? So in the case of a large parcel of, say, 100 acres, and there was something that triggered act two fifty and ten acres of it, and right now that entire 100 acre parcel is subject to Act two fifty. If anything occurs on that parcel, it's subject to the underlying Act two fifty permit. Is it possible to then separate to say, this is the part that's only developed, it's 10 acre parcel, so the 90 is not subject to Act two fifty, It's almost kind of extinguishing the permit on the area that's not involved in the development.

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that process already exists. It's in Rule 34 of the Act two fifty rules. Anyone currently can actually apply for that type of amendment, but it has to be specific to these exempt uses like forestry and logging.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: So like trails, it's not necessarily

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Those are not exempt.

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So is it possible then to go back and say, because trails wouldn't necessarily trigger an Act two fifty five? Never mind. Okay. Thank you. What

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: was the committee vote? I don't know.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: It was unanimous, but I don't know who was available. Any other questions for Ellen? Yes.

[Rep. Mark Higley (Member)]: I'm just curious. Anything above 2,500, you have to have a permit,

[Ellen Czajkowski (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: assuming. For logging and forestry, yes.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: So, know Act two fifty is Act two fifty, and there's all the Act two fifty things. This bill narrowly puts existing practice into statute? Yes. Thank you. And has no discernible impact to the state revenues because of that. Okay. Thank you, Ellen. Does anyone need anything else before we move towards the vote?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Seeing none, Madam Chair, I would move that we find H932 be favorable.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Second. Representative Kimbell moves that find 932 favorable. Representative Lozazak seconds. Any committee discussion? Seeing none, if the court could please follow the rule, thank you.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Branagan is absent. I'll vote yes. Is Representative Burkhardt? Representative Higley? Yes. Representative Holcombe? Yes. Representative Kimbell?

[Rep. Charles Kimbell (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Masland? Yes. Representative Ode? Yes. Representative Page? Yes. Representative Waszazak?

[Rep. Edward "Teddy" Waszazak (Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Bridget Burkhardt (Clerk)]: Representative Canfield? Yes. And Representative Kornheiser? Yes. We have voted the bill favorable Ten-one.

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: Thank you everyone. Are we going to take it? I don't, but

[Rep. James Masland (Member)]: It's a

[Bradley Showman (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: very easy

[Rep. Emilie Kornheiser (Chair)]: overreport. Alright, Kimbell is going to report. Thank you everyone. We are flying. Been 09:45. Cool, so we're gonna take a five minute break. We're gonna call it a seven minute break.