Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're live.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Good morning. This is Senator Natural Resources and Energy, and it's the March 26 and we're going to talk about eight seven twenty three today and we're going to start with representative Larry Sakowitz who is the sponsor of the bill.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Thank you all for having me. The record Larry Sackler, representative from Randolph. Here to talk about seven twenty three, don't be surveying post on the land. This bill was initiated because of some guidance that was given by the Fish and Wildlife Department last fall that seemed to indicate that what the current practice was around the dating of signs that are proposed to land instead of the dating feelings from the moment you reported in the town hall of the town clerk from that moment granted sixty five days. The guidance that the commissioner gave was that it was from January 1. It was a reinterpretation of the statute saying that it was good for the calendar year instead. This was not the common practice and caused quite a bit of consternation amongst lots of landowners. And there was a bunch of requests for us to make the law clear. And so this bill came out of that. And so one of the things this bill does do is it makes it very clear that the posting is valid from the date that the reporting was made with the Templar for three sixty five days. But we also made two other changes to statute. One change is that the dating of the physical signs is no longer required. We heard the testimony that this physical dating of the signs every year is a burden to land owners. We didn't hear at least in my mind compelling reasons why lenders were required to make this change every year. And so we dropped that requirement. We also learned that Vermont is an outlier in terms of how this is done in nationwide being the only state that requires the annual date of science. This puts us more at what other states are doing all around the country. And then the other change we made was response to testimony that we heard concerning the detailed rules around the placing of signs. And so we heard testimony stories like there's a landowner who will call a warden because they haven't, they felt like they were, most of them was getting violated and the warden moved off the property and see if it was properly posted. And if there was the slightest defect in the posting, the entire property would be considered not posted. So a hunter might have entered the property on one end of the property which most probably would posted, the wording would go around the property and if they saw a single sign anywhere, it could be it had been nowhere near where the sign, where the 100, you know, entered the property, if there was anything wrong the entire property would be considered not posted and that seemed unreasonable to the community. So we heard for example that you know if a single sign had been taken down right now the signs are required and this is still the case, signs are required to be no more than 400 feet apart, you know, it's hard work and they go out with their tape measure and find that the sign is four zero one feet apart, a land cannot be considered posted. And so the other thing that the community did was inserted a reasonableness requirement into the law, which says that in my words, that if reasonable person were to look at the property and see that it seems to indicate that it's posted according to the guidelines that are in statute, then we will consider the listing. Landowners required if they find out that they're not meeting the technical specifications to make the fix, But for that particular moment in time, we need to consider posting this. And that's the bill. That's what we did. It's pretty short and sweet. And we're very happy that we've gotten a majority of the committee and asked to agree. And if you have questions, I'd love to

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: answer them. So in in this construct, let's say I'm a hunter stopped by the town's first office chairman where the posted areas are in that in that town. And then they Uh-huh. You know, proceed to a parcel of land, which they would not just move posted, but they see signs Mhmm. With no data. What should that

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: hunter do in that situation? You should ask the land agreement. That's that's what they shouldn't do. And we heard in testimony pretty clearly that the vast majority of hunters hunt on land when we have permission on land. Right. And that's common practice. And one of the things that we heard in testimony as well is that the problem that we're trying to solve by making these additional changes to the law, our problems are caused by a very small number of uphunters who are originally not following the system until long. And so what we heard is that these changes that we made will have virtually no effect on the vast majority of them because people who are going to do it

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: like that. Okay. So that's what they should do. Legally, let's say that hunter enters that piece of property that is not registered with the town, but there are signs around with no dates. Legally. Is that hunter or landowner in violation of any statute according to what's here?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: My understanding is that web is not reasonably posted if it's not recorded with the town of Oakland and Agencies.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: you. Thank you. This is helpful. I'm wondering about this. Is there in current law,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't think it's in

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: the bill, but is there in current law something if somebody defaces posting signs or takes them down, is there a penalty or is there violation for that?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Yeah, my understanding is that that is not a violation of wildlife, fish and wildlife rules or statute in that section of statute, but it's covered in other cases about animals. Okay. It'd be a better, but not in the Yeah,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: we'll take the groupies. There's a couple different bills floating around out there posting, but there's also two different issues because they're two different titles. What you're talking about when a game warden shows up, that's title 10. That's very specific in there. What how you have to be legally posted. Certain conditions have to be met. If if then there's a natural title, there's another one that if you just put up five or six posters on the roadside you could not register for the town clerk. Your legal still we would post it but the problem is is that there's no poster on the backside of the property. So when somebody goes out patting on your property not really knowing where that property line is because very few properties in my district are actually surveyed and swag somebody sees them on their property and they call Gordon. Gordon shows up says I know Johnny used to be a game He shows up and says, well, I'm here primarily to enforce title and legally you're not posted in the court. But there are other the other statute allows them to be prosecuted, but not criminal. So we're gonna hear from legislative council on that. Yeah. And that brings up,

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: I think what you're bringing up is more of the sort of our when someone enters land, they doing it under title 10, the hunting parts of our statute? Or is it just trespassed that's not supposed to be on the property of Egypt? And that makes everything a lot more complex and brings some pretty extensive testimony around understanding the differences in the nuances in this law of symmetry.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I mean, I I'm I'm also a hunter. If I show up and I see it realized because according to decision game law, I have to be no more than 400 feet apart. You have to walk between and the trees block view of the other poster. I don't know. Once I realize that, an ethical harm would say, hey. I'm I'm on posted property. I really should leave. Or go get permission. Yeah. Because there is a provision in there for posting with permission on.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: I need to sit up

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: for fifteen seconds. Oh. And we'll

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: get it works. I'll do

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: that in fifteen seconds.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: And representative Larry from Randall. That's correct. And just reported the bill or any more discussion.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: What was the vote in the committee?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: The vote was nine to two.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Very clear. Yeah.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: It's a pretty circular, so you

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: have a pretty straightforward build.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. Thank you for taking the walk. We have multiple on our walls, so we Bills bowed this on our walls. We heard you all were doing it. We're like, okay, good.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Yeah. Yeah. I was very happy with the discussion that we had in community, very happy with the resolution that we got to, and then it's it's a good one.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Thank you so much

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: for having If you wanna stay for the for the discussion in law, I should probably get back to my community so if

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: you have further questions for me please do let me know. Okay

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: next we're gonna have a little walk through with Raymond Schulman, the legislative council. Morning. Good morning.

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: Brad Shulman, also legislative council. I'll be walking you through the version of the bill that's as passed by the house. And I'm looking at the only book, that weird sick copy.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: This bill

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: makes some changes to how to boost your land, hunting, fishing, trapping, taking a game for wild animals, and we will start with the bill here. So it's entitled 10, section five thousand two and one. We're on page one, line six is where we're getting started on some conforming changes to change our language to conform to universal drafting standards. And then we also changed some language in starting at line 10 to make it consistent in this statute to say that we're referring to huntingtrapping or taking a game or wild animals, just change that language to be consistent throughout, so no substantive changes at this point. Also changing section B to make sure that we're just referring to notice signs to make that clear. We're not changing the requirements of the notice sign with the exception as representative Zachary Wood said, with the exception of changing the date requirement and removing that date requirements from the notice sign itself. So notice signs no longer have to be dated, they still have to be maintained and notice signs still have to be of a standard size of design as the commissioner self specified. So section C states that the notice sign shall be recorded annually with the clerk and it defines that annually or excuse me, it states that the posting shall be valid and enforceable for three sixty five days after the date the posting is recorded, just to remove any ambiguity about whether the posting is good for three sixty five days or just the remainder of the calendar year in which it's posted. No further changes there. So section D we are making two changes. One is we're clarifying the practice, but there was a question mark about this in a footnote on the Supreme Court case clarifying the practice that the land has to be posted and recorded as provided in this section in order to be enclosed for purposes herein. There was some question whether the land has to be recorded in order to be enclosed and this section clarifies what the committee thought was the practice is that the land should be reported in order to be enclosed.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Which page

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: do you want to

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: read?

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: No, we are on, my apologies, we are on page two lines fifteen and sixteen. Moving on, and this is a change here to address an issue that Representative Sackowitz discussed. Accidental or unintentional deviations from the requirements of subdivisions A and B of this section shall still be deemed effective to prohibit or permit by permission only hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking a game of wild animals if the notice signs would lead a reason for the to believe that hunting, fishing, trapping, or taking a game of wild animals is prohibited on the land. Property owners with actual notice that their signs deviate from the requirements of the section shall take reasonable steps to ensure that their notice signs comply for the section. Bill shall take effect on passage. Just to give a little bit more context on D, so the land you'll notice the accidental or unintentional deviations from the requirements of subdivision A and B of this section. The reported requirement is in subsection C, so this does not give a property owner this leeway so to speak on the reporting requirement, it is just on the actual sign itself and the requirements that are in statute and incorporated by statutes in subsection state. And that is the bill.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Go ahead. A couple of questions at the bottom of page two, property owners with actual notice. What is actual notice?

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: When they subjectively know. So when they have knowledge themselves that they know that their signs are out of compliance, they have to take reasonable steps to

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Does that mean somebody's told them or they just have a feeling that their signs are out

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: of compliance? That

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: is a good question question

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: because actual notice is what we call a subjective standard. So that means what a person actually knows themselves. And so it is if a person has a feeling that their signs are out of compliance, a reasonable person would take steps to ensure that their signs are in compliance. So perhaps an example might be, we had a very strong windstorm that knocked down a bunch of fencing that the property owner knows that their notice signs were posted on, right? So that property owner might not have actually seen the notice sign on the ground, but they can have a feeling they can be reasonably surprised that their notice signs are have been taken down and should be taking steps to fix those. But it is a reasonable sense, right? And so if their property is dangerous or they're not able to access their property based on a natural disaster or something of the sort, they wouldn't necessarily be required to do that immediately. We're talking what a reasonable person would do. So what a reasonable person would do does lack specificity in the statute. However, it also tries to encapsulate realms of possibility of quarantine of the land, nature, and having the reality of having these signs outside. Someone just might not know that one of their signs flew down and they're not aware until they call it game And they say, Oh, shoot, one of my signs is down. I had no idea. Allow me

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: to consent. Okay. Okay. Or it

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: could be somebody saying, Hey, noticed your signs are out of compliance.

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. So somebody tells them. Okay,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: but it's not just like they were not aware and then they're suddenly not in compliance.

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: That is correct, right. So if you're not aware and then you call the game order or something and then you become aware, that does not mean that your land is no longer enclosed just because you have one of those kinds of accidental or untenable deviations from the surgical requirements of

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: the section.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. And then my question before about the, I guess it's vandalism, if somebody takes down, are there penalties specific to the land posting sign?

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, there is. And it's in the section of the statute. I don't have the number off the top of my head, but it's between 25 and $100 is a penalty.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay, for somebody taking them down or Yes. So

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: if you could break out just what this bill does is different than what the statute states for anything.

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, so this bill removes the date requirement and it permits and it clarifies that posting is the recording of a posting is valid for three sixty five days after it is reported, and then it also permits accidental unintentional deviations from the posting requirements so long as the property owner did not have actual notice that the signs were out of compliance.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So I've had I think we had the commissioner in Fish and Wildlife, and he presented his, you know, Fish and Wildlife side of of posting issues. Part of it was I'm gonna not paraphrase it, but I'm gonna try

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: and use my memory. That

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: so hard. Yep.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. Commissioner.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yep. So he said that, basically, by requiring the dating, at the time, the issue was the date started in January. Mhmm. People didn't wanna have to go off January and redate their size. By requiring the dating annual annually, I think that his recommendation was that we push it back to whatever you originally posted that people were gonna do all to make sure that their posters are still up. Mhmm. If you get a windstorm or some, you know, tree falls over and knocks it down, then when you go to to redate your signs, we'll make sure it's leaving the postage that you wouldn't notice then that your postage would miss it. So so anyway, that's my 2¢ on it and I'm still being open minded about it and we're gonna

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: do the motion. Does that help?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Thank you very much.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Representative Stockowicz just emailed me and said the vote actually was ten-one. Ten-one? Yes. Also, we're waiting for 10:40 for the commissioner to show up, so we'll take

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: a little break. Nine? Nine. Sorry. We're live again.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Hey, good morning. This is Senate of

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Natural Resources and Energy coming back from a break and we're joined by Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife. Mr. Machalder, welcome.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Thank you so much. For the record, Jason Machalder, Commissioner of Fish and Wildlife. First, thanks so much for having us to hear comments on some of the nuances. So I'm joined by General Counsel Ken Smith and Colonel Stedonia District Director Of The Warden Service, and I'll read through my comments, we didn't we didn't reverse, but I know that that Hannah has some some thoughts on enforceability around strict liability and intent or not in a reasonable person standard. Forgive me if I say your I know this this bill in its form is something that you're only receiving. And the colonel may have some thoughts as well, and and we're always happy to come back and and elaborate more on on any of the questions you might have that's going to take longer. But I want to say special thanks to the House Committee. Did listen to Representative Seidlitz roll this out this morning. I know they put a lot of work into it, they're proud of the bill and they should be. But I'll get into the parent case we run along. There are three pieces to this, the first being a landowner's ability to post three sixty five days a year, I think that that was our very supportable from our perspective and something that did away with the consternation around posting it difficult times of the year, which fully take responsibility for again, but I think that makes it, that makes everyone feel good, and it clarifies a nuance of the statute that we felt some people were okay with and some people weren't, lane owners, wardens, prosecutors, that's Chinese validity. But second, the ability of its current form removes the dating requirement, and I'm not going to oppose or support at this moment, but I do want to expose what we feel could be a vulnerability. So on its basis, this would appear to remove some burden on the landowner who at the lost hands now has to visit signs once a year to add the date. Dating signs, we don't feel it is a frivolous or burdensome ask that the department places on people, status places on people, but it's a step that places a person on the landscape and on their land boundaries to ensure that signs are present. Language has been added, then we'll try to cover this issue at the end, which I'll talk about also, but as we've spoken about it, posting is a right to hunt in Vermont, and so posting should be a deliberate act. So putting a landowner on the landscape to ensure those signs are there is what we feel dating does. If we don't have dating, I being being a human myself, I signs are there, what could go wrong? Right? Years years go by, signs go down, squirrels may pass out of the signs and they're no longer there. And while I feel that a hunter and an angler must exercise all prudence to ensure a landowner is respected. I do feel that the landowner must acknowledge that there are hunters out there, anglers out there on the landscape who are due some acknowledgment of their right to hunt. Legible data science are good fences, which as we know are made good neighbors, and I'm not talking about people who willfully trust us here, I'm talking about unknowingly crossing someone's boundary in a snowstorm, having signs not present, whereas if there were dates there I

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: feel like we could cover that.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: And that's just a word of maybe a little experience, little bit of caution. And I said I would be quick, I'll wrap up by saying I would like to again caution the committee around what might be seen as the fail safe language at the end, which I believe will contribute to a difficulty in prosecution, which is the reasonable person standard. Proving a person is reasonable removes strict liability for wardens, and strict liability is an aspect which traditional allied law generally relies upon in Vermont, sort of you didn't have to know you were speeding, you just had to know you were driving, we put some laws in place, you just had to know you were hunting, and you cross this line and you're guilty, right? We don't like to put the burden of intent or the burden of reasonableness on a standard, not to say that he couldn't live with this in his form, right? He'd understand that we're not the driver's seat here and I'm respectful of your wishes, but again proving a person who is reasonable is similar to proving a person intended to do something, and I would love to offer the colonel or counsel to elaborate if you wish. Wardens do like cut and dry language, and when they have it prosecutions can happen. Think there are other folks in the room who can attest to that, and I think having this language, this sort of folks have called it de minimis language, and I don't exactly know what that means, but sign blows down, still prosecutable. I think that that's asking for a way to interpret the sentence we get on the line in the courts. But that's generally all I have, and I'd love to take any questions that you have. I did hear a question from the committee on is there a fish and wildlife law that prevents signs being tampered with and there is it's tend to be a safety two zero five, and I think it's a 10 criminal violation. You you could back me up on that, but certainly it is against the law to to mess with any signs and and it can lead to a loss of license

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: anchor localization.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: If any of that was mealy mouthed or not clear, I'm happy to elaborate, but basically wanted to follow my 2¢ and any hope that we can provide.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I don't think I have any questions at the moment. I am just appreciating your comments on the switch from strict liability to reasonable person type standard note. At this point, it sounds like you're willing to go with this, that this is fine. It's the preference. I just want make

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: sure that I'm understanding. Sure.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But the preference of wardens to have more, so I guess black and white, or just clear language, which you feel like a strict liability standard would be more black and white.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Straight liability is always better with traditional allied law because most of the time it's unobserved and you're dealing with people who are relying on their own ethics, right? And so can't have can't have wardens everywhere when a person is caught trespassing. We don't like to have to interpret what the intent was, and having some sort of reasonable person standard is a challenge for us, because not only do you have to prove that the event happened, but you have to prove that this person was reasonable, and then lump on say the right to hunt for a person. I think I just feel like it's asking for trouble. Full disclosure, I've had some trouble wrapping my head around this scenario, what it would look like to prosecute a person who unknowingly trespassed or maybe willfully trespassed, saw that a sign was down and then took a liberty to cross, right? Not that that would happen, but let's say that that did or a person blindly stumbled through some supposed signs in snowstorm following a deer track, didn't see the signs, they would still be prosecutable as they would be as the law stands today. If they walked squarely between two signs that were 400 feet apart, they would be guilty today, right? But now proving that that person is reasonable adds gone to

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: the works. Yes, the snow is so blinding that they can't see the signs, should they be out there shooting at something? That might be a-

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Fair point.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Not a safe

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: thing to do, but I think this, and Bradley's not here to ask our attorney, but I think this is a reasonableness standard for the people who are posting the signs, not for the hunters. So it's that the property owners have to be made reasonable efforts to post their land and to keep their signs in good order. It doesn't seem like it's the opposite on the other side, there's not a reasonableness standard.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: So I've got it up in front of me here and it says, if notice signs would be a reasonable person to believe that hunting fish attractively or taking a gang of wild animals is prohibited. That is pointed at the hunter the Where?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Line are you on? I'm sorry.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: That's okay, it's line the reasonable person is line 20 of page two of the girdle's graph.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Oh, I see. Okay, so it is on both sides, okay.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Yeah. Fair. And there are reasonable steps that a landlord would

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: have to take, which you'd understand.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: And again, I don't want to lean toward the negative here, I don't want to say that this won't be won't be a challenge, but I do think it will be the challenge taking a piece of district liability away. And I also understand colonel didn't address that for nothing. If you'd like to hear from him in more law enforcement center,

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So I know warrants have brought police power, not only fish and wildlife, but also. So so I'm I'm gonna ask you to to put two different hats on. If Somebody is not legally posted in regard to fishing game law. They at least had the intent to post. And somebody calls, you know, fishing wildlife or dispatcher and says, hey. I've got hunters on my way. That then triggers oh, I should contact the warden. And we get there and find out that the lane is not posted legally and according to official law, like, title camera title to me. So But the landlord landlord wants to have the individual prosecuted, and now the warden is a law enforcement officer, which happens to warden burn.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: I'd like to defer that to the crowd. Okay. Would

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you like to come and

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: address the two different parties that I'm trying to vote. Sure. But it's gonna be totally on three. Hi.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Good morning. Justin Simon, director of board of service. So you are correct, senator. Title 13 for what you're referring to, criminal justice. That's true. Correct. However, the title title 13 also has a reasonableness standard in it, And I can give you a very personal experience of this. So this this fall, an individual trespassed on my in law's property,

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: which is. She was trying to impress a a lady friend and was out going around

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: in the. They interacted with

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: the individual, called local law enforcement. The individual drove by no less than five post incidents. Other person who was not seen.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: The individual was given a notice against trespass because as a general rule, the reasonableness standard is used as a defense that is well received by the courts. And so typically in first offense, criminal trespass cases, a person is given a notice of stress test. They are not charged even though my mother-in-law was she's my wife said about that. I I wondered. But Pretty. The advantage and and to be clear, I don't personally post my land. I do help my neighbors with theirs. Don't mean to split the way, I don't care what

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: comes out of this other than

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: to say if the landlord takes time to post their land properly, I deserve people, I believe people trespass deserve to prosecute and currently we can do that under the current language of Title 10, Poaching Private Preserve, which is the section we're talking about. I didn't know, I didn't see the size, I didn't mean to, none of that matters. It is strict liability, and we prosecute people, and we are successful. If we introduce a reasonable person standard, I believe this will go the

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: way of title 13, which is then

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: we will no longer prosecute. We will give notices against trespass, which bills also expire after two years. So then someone comes back, they get notice again. So it creates this oodle loop of not actually getting prosecutions. That's my fear of purpose. And and I again, if that's the way the body bills, then that's the way to go. We'll do the best we can with it. But there is there is no wiggle room in the current it exists in the book, not the bill. In the current language, there is no excuse.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: You either did or you didn't, and that's all that matters. And we have successfully prosecuted that on more than one occasion. And people have said that. I didn't see it.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: I didn't know. It was

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: a snowflake. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I mean, this time you had a question for Rex Sackowitz in trying to understand, because it that as you pointed out, there's a and I missed the first time, there's a reasonable standard on both sides. So it's the hunter or angler, whoever, do they reasonably believe that the property is not posted and therefore they have the right to be there? And on the other side, did the landowner make reasonable attempts to make sure all their signs are in good order, right? So it seems to me that maybe they were trying

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: to make it sort of

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: reasonable on both sides and they didn't want to do one or the other without doing both to make it fair to both sides. I don't know if that's their, was their reasoning, I'm not sure, but

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I would just equate this to the recipe. Some things look really good on paper and many bring them out of the oven and they don't, they serve you.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: But it sounds like the way you're interpreting it or under current law, the strict liability for land posting is also like excessively strict. Like you're literally tape measuring out 400 feet and, you know, if a sign doesn't have the correct date because it's been rubbed off, you know, that it's not bound to be posted. So that seems frankly unreasonable. So I think maybe they were trying to get some kind of balance with it.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Completely understand and respect that, and that's why I said I don't want you to take my testimony, I am trying to lead you along. I'm just telling you from my perspective, this language will make this law nearly unenforceable on a first offense which seems to me to undermine what that committee was trying to accomplish and if it ends up with this then we'll do the best we can but I suspect simply based on my experience with the criminal justice system in Vermont, it will lead to a lot of very angry landowners because the wardens aren't going to be able to do anything. And my personal interest in this is that the anger is then directed at the law enforcement officer because the layover doesn't necessarily care about the downstream side of the criminal justice system. They deal with the officer or

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: the warrant who's in front of them, not the

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: courts and prosecutors who say, not making mistakes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So would you be in favor of taking up that first reasonableness and just leaving in the second one?

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Any reasonableness standard will muddy the water and make it challenging to enforce. There is only one comment about reasonableness in Title It says, if the signage would be a reasonable person living league, that's all it says, and it is an ex connotorciable person. So and I'd say that to say, if you had a reasonable standard in here, I believe there's a good chance

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: we can end up there.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: That said, one would certainly be better than two because two really monies a lot, but any reasonableness standard will be deferential to the person trying to take advantage of the situation, I. E. The first nonprobability. Okay. Again, don't literally. No, I'm

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: just trying to understand it. First of I'm looking at the bill. Mean these are the nuances that we have to understand in order to make a decision, so don't worry about it.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: There is no doubt that current policy language is challenging and it sets the bar at a level that Title 13 does not. But on the flip side of that, that's what allows us to say,

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: it doesn't matter. I don't care if

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: you didn't mean to, you did, here's your ticket, go to court. And judges have routinely appellate that. We have not lost cases of poaching private concern because someone might have said, I

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: didn't know, I didn't see it, it's not.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Right, no, I understand that. I understand that. It's just on the other side. It's on the other side. It seems like excessively unreasonable. So it gets that level of

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: it doesn't matter what your excuse is, it's a high bar on the front end to say you have to create the situation that allows for this to happen.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: That's why I'm saying, like, if one unreasonableness is better than two, then maybe we just do it on the I

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: would certainly say it. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Go ahead.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So the only thing that really changed in here is the date. And and we had we took testimony from you before. And you backed away from the, you know, January one day and said when, you know, you would accept that when you post the original posting land, you go on July 4, and you got people there, you know, celebrating the fourth, and they go and help you put posters on that. That starts your annual day.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Posting party. Yeah.

[Carol Dawes (Barre City Clerk/Treasurer; Chair, VT Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Assoc. Legislative Committee)]: Posting party.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: And I think, you know, this is a complicated situation because we're talking about two different constitutional rights. Constitutional right to hunt, fish, and follow and to own and protect property in Vermont. So from the enforcement standpoint, I'm hearing you say that it's more it's a lot easier on the warden to enforce the law as long as it's in accordance with title 10 the way it is now. On title 13, it becomes more old as far as interpretation. One of the problems I have with as being a legislator is a lot of times, we make laws that we either don't intend to enforce voting hearings. So do you have any any other I mean, if I had the vote on this bill right now, I would support it because I think by requiring people to date their signs, they're gonna go out and make sure that those signs are off. And you know if they boil down well they got responsibility put them back up as they're going be legally posted. I

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: do have comments that I think might reset this and if I miss some argument I apologize, but looking back at where we started here, the consternation that I brought through the reinterpretation of statute was the words used this morning, We were in a good place except we had this question that would come up every year. The first piece that I mentioned this morning, the three sixty five day allowance fixed that in our minds better than we could have hoped. It not only allows someone to post on a data to his shoes, but in our minds, and counsel can weigh in, allows someone to go out and write 2026, 2027 on that side, which some folks allowed in the past and some folks didn't. And then all you have to do if you don't want to go out and visit your signs again the next year, which is up to a landlord, go to the town clerk and re register that next year, pay the $5 and you're good for two years. Then in 2027 you go out and you're right '28, '29, or whatever, I may be getting my dates wrong, but hopefully the point is across. So feeling that that is achieved, the other two pieces I feel we can live without adding again the reasonable standard, I think we've beaten that one enough. But getting to the point where we were a year ago, we and granted this brought a lot of awareness to the posted land, a lot of landowners voices reverted and they still will be heard, and I'm appreciative of that, but going back to this day last year we simply wanted clarification around when a person should post to allow people to have three sixty five days of posting that no attorney could argue with, or no defense attorney could argue with, no warden could argue with. And we're there with three sixty five days of posting. Added A to it, it has landowner accountability, and it allows for a hunter to see on those signs, yep, back away or they go knock on a door, right? But I do feel all the work that went into this, I do feel that the reasonableness, reasonable standard is a challenge for prosecution and court workers. Three sixty five days I think gets us there. The date is, talked about the date, removing a date just removes the accountability piece, and I know that's hard for landowners to hear, why should I be accountable, but I do hope that my point is, that, you know, the whole footprint of the farmer argument, right, getting on the land and having an intimate connection with your boundaries, by date, will ensure that that happens, and I hope that's not too burdensome or too hard for folks to to hear, but I don't mean anything as burdensome by being in in a real way. If we don't require dating, we're going to have science labs.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: That makes sense? Because

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: much as my portion of it, the man uses straight. Okay.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: And I don't want to have counsel not have her minute here if she needs it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Super. Great. Any other questions for the commissioner or person? I

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: do want to put on record that a lot of deer hunting happens in snowstorms, bear safety with a great exact record.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I know. If

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: it's gone so hard you can't see in front of it, then maybe you should make sure you see something up. That was my, I know that we'll have fun in the snow. It's better for tracking if

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: there's snow.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: There you go, I do want

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: that at the bottom. Thank you all so much.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, thank you. Right, Ms.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Smith, you ready? Oh, if you want to. I don't have too much to add.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Go ahead. I think if you wouldn't mind just talking to me, if that's okay, that'd be great. Thank you.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: The only comment that I would add to the testimony, sorry, to the record, my name is Dan Smith, talking general counsel in the British and Wildlife. And just for context, the reason that the language in Title 10 is different from the criminal trespass language in Title 13 is because of this constitutional right to hunt fish. And when the language was originally adopted, it was intended to be used by landowners so that they could protect their own land so they could hunt on it. So there really are two diverging reasons for the, there's a reason why the laws are written differently, why there is strict liability standard for posting, enclosing your land fronting and fishing versus the reasonable person standard that's by it. It's typical criminal trespass. So, I'm confused by that. There was the trespass, sorry,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I didn't No, know it's right. The trespass law was put into place to say, I can't trespass on your land because you want to hunt on it, so you don't want me on your land hunting and taking the gain that you might get.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Is that the concept? The ability to enclose your land against the public hunting and fishing on it was intended to protect your right to hunt on your own land. You get first dibs.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: First dibs, I'm thinking. Okay, that's what has it, I mean, it seems like it has grown beyond that. Yeah.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: That it's more than about hunting. Absolutely, the context has changed. Yeah. The language in 5201 has not, it hasn't changed dramatically. Minor changes have happened, including, notably, the hunting by permission language, which was added a couple years ago, which was intended to really encourage a discussion between landowners and their neighbors about what they were allowing and what they could tolerate because there's strict liability. And we wanted to avoid somebody unintentionally violating the enclosure law.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Oh, the language in entitled tense not entitled 13. Correct.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Correct. Yes. A couple of years ago, we had the visibility to also post against hunting without permission.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Right. So it can say, my neighbor cannot sell my land, but some you can't. Right.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Because you're a supreme public land. But if have that conversation with you, yes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay. And didn't the didn't Fish and Wildlife Department actually provide at one time the countywide commission only signs.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: I think we still provide all of

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: the signs. That's another, you know, talk about reasonableness. The department's trying to work with the landlords to get to get them to be reasonable about how long people are home. Because I can remember one of the disadvantages of being old is that when I was a game warden, we used to have people that were post their land and then expect the game warden to come up with patrol. And I said, no. You know, the district board and I work for it, these guys know who they are, who he was, would say, unless it's posted in accordance with fish title 10, fishing game law at the time, I can't come up here in the ocean land. So we would actually have to go out and control the property to find out if they if it met the weather and the law. If it did, then we we that that she suspected somebody was on that property, honey. And, we had to go and respond to it. Some wardens would use that as an excuse not to go to that call because, well, this guy is a a problem. He's calling in her times, but, you know, it's complicated. It really is. And if it's gonna be enforceable, I think it's we need to stick to the title to version.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: And just to the the commissioner's testimony that the department will the the wardens will enforce whatever laws decided. I think that it's just important for the committee to recognize how the reasonable person standard changes

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I am absorbing, strict liability, intent doesn't matter. Reasonable person, intent doesn't matter.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Right. The way that it's written right now, it says that if a reasonable person believed that company was free of the bid, then they'll be charged. But yes, that can be difficult to establish depending on the context.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay. You know, feel like first day of the bill is Yeah. You know, it wasn't a big hit point.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Just a little bill. Yes. These last words. You.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm Thank sure we might have more questions.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Yeah. Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I actually think we might wanna

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: talk about. I'd love to hear a little bit more from Russ afterwards.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah, their discussion about this issue is we didn't feel to get into it

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: with him. And now that I understand a little bit more about it.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Really? Yes. Unless you were

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: not yep. Yep.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Very fine. Said that Vermont was the only state that requires dating signs and posting on the on the nation. Is that correct? Anybody on that doubt? Are we the only state that requires?

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I don't know. I don't know. It's great, but

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: happy to happy to be able report it.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: They kind of sound like when they said that, they used to play the leading cards. Well, where do they want to stay? The union bar was still good.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: I think some of that can be answered by, if you look at states that require signs, how many of them actually require you to see the sign before you're liable for trespass. Texas has been thrown out with us to say that it's right to hunt, uses perfect pain, but perfect pain we're not, right to hunt we're not, we may not go on other people's land,

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: or you may not,

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: and in Vermont, that's not the case. So some of it's out as normative, some of it is likely out as to apples, but we

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: can find that out later. That

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: would be helpful if you're able to update us given with, something written, that would be great.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: NCSL, I'm like, how do we get NCSL?

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Especially where it was what are our main ring states in? That's really Sure.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Yeah. That would be educational for me too.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I bet NCSL came to say.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: But

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: it's like, I mean,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: are people who come here

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: to hunt from giving far away. Oh yeah,

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: but a lot of people cross borders. Sure, really. Okay,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: before we move on, I just want to check-in with Colonel Steadon. We also had you

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: on the list, but he

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: kind of

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: brought you up sort of simultaneously with the commissioner. Was there anything more that you wanted to add to your testimony on the bond bill?

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: No, no, thank Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: We are going to move to, there's quite a few folks who wanted to testify on this, and there's more than are even listed here. So, we're going to start with Mr. Antoinette. Welcome. I apologize, I'm gonna have to leave at 10:15 or so. Don't be surprised. You're allowed to do it with me. Welcome.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Thank you for having me. My name is Jeffrey Mack. I live on Vermont, I live in Shoreham. I have had a lot of experience now with policy property and never had a problem with deer hunters. My problem has always been with hounders. I have been posting my land to keep calendars out of

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: my

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: property and there is some really difficult issues with posted land and keeping your land posted and being in compliance. People will know that keeping your signs up, you know, going to the flirt is easy, you go sign up here, you're a flirt and that I do. And I do live in a Windy Garden, Vermont, where I live, the wind does well. And I've had calendars, One person across my Road a couple years ago, he was staring at a poster sign. Signed, dated, the year, was on his phone, and what he said was, I'll bet you his land is not legally boasted. I'm gonna release my dogs on his property. I said, I haven't had nice bed. He's not he said, oh, I think I'll bet you there's a sign down somewhere. He ended up not releasing his dogs on my property, which I was thankful for. And Christmas Eve of this past this last December, I had a houndered drive down the road, stop his dogs in the road before they got to my property. My property, every houndered in the county knows my property is falsehood for a reason and that's hounders. He stopped his dogs, he pointed his dogs to the scent because a coyote had just been flushed and ran across my property and he let those dogs continue across my property. I got it on security camera, I filmed it on my phone, I called the game warden, game warden came, we discussed what happened, the first thing he did was take out his phone, started his measure tape, started with me there, going around the property looking at signs. We got the one sign, it wasn't dated properly. He said, you are now not in compliance. We no need to look any further. So when I hear testimony about being hired to prostitute, if all the signs aren't dated and there's one down, well, I can tell you from experience, it's even harder to prosecute. Even though you are absolutely, everybody knows, including the name word, including the houndered, that the intent was my land is posted and they don't want you on with your dogs. Like I said, to this day, he denies that he let his dogs fall on my property. Even though I got it on two cameras, he said he did not do it. So I'm a big fan of purple paint. Purple paint can take all that away. Dating, signs blown away. I got a sign that I go by every day that's hanging by one staple on somebody else's property near my house. And the wind's blowing and ready to take it down. If this bill does not pass, that land will not be in compliance. That land is not legally posted anyway. So if we want property rights, this is not about hunting rights, property rights. This is about people staying at my property with their dogs. It's very clear. You do not end if my land was in compliance, if that houndered did not wanna show his log, his dog, where they've been to a game warden, they would actually have to get a warrant to seize those logs and look at those logs to see if those dogs are actually who was telling the truth? The landowner with cameras or the hounders saying I didn't do it, I didn't do it. So I am a fan of purple paint. Purple paint would take all that away. They wouldn't blow away. They'd be less than 400 feet. We're gonna show them the fountain every year or two years, whatever you wanted, but it wouldn't have to be dated. When it on the right, you have on their property, both from when and where they want. And right now, it's not possible. It's almost impossible. If you have a large large parcel, there's gonna be a sign down. It's not gonna be dated. Right? And that's just we all know that. So for a bank or register with the town, Everybody carries a phone in their pocket. There's many apps that will show you exactly where my property lines are. If you went to the town and saw how I was supposed to be good on your phone, you could see exactly where my property line where

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: you would know

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: where I was, where I wasn't, you wouldn't have to be on my property. If you were an ethical haunter, you wouldn't have gone near my property. So this is where I see him. This is my experience in Iowa to be able to prosecute somebody, especially when they intentionally look for a Dodge Throw on my property.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you very much for your testimony.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: You bring up a really good point about the apps and how technology is to the point where it's a lot easier to see property lines and to see exactly where you are in relation to the property line. You can literally see your little dots on the map. You're like, oh, I'm on this side

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: of it versus that side of it.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Do you probably use the-

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: you know, technological Onyx. ONNX is a very popular one that we use. Although

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: that said, we might name it as properties all around it.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Like, it's not in Italian. In a

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: lot of it's only as good as the records

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: that it creates. Right, that's fair. I'm just wondering, today's time that it's used.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Yep, we do.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: What I'm hearing from you, we were chatting a little bit before your testimony too, is that the standard for keeping the posting signs in good condition and, you know, now dated, but also just even up there and 400 feet apart, that's really hard to do on a big piece of property and in a windy area. I mean, I know Shoram is really windy. Sure is. When you heard this discussion we were having about the reasonableness standard on both sides, and I was trying to say, you know, is it, what I was hearing is two reasonableness standards are hard, but maybe one would be better. You comfortable with a reasonable language for landowners in the bill saying if you've reasonably tried to maintain your posting signs, your land is legally posted, as long

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: as you register with the clerk. Well, the girl said that, it's still gonna be really hard to prosecute. This is, you know, this is where the whole issue is. You know, like I said, everybody in Wyoming was posted, but they still literally let the cops go on my property, knowing that there's probably gonna be a sign down. So if they know that game wardens are gonna have trouble convicting or finding somebody guilty of either way we drew this bill, then what, it shouldn't be hard to prosecute somebody for being on your property when you have all the intent that you don't want them there.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And the purple paint law would be better because it is like a permanent

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: marker on the tree It doesn't have to be dated, it's not gonna blow away.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So purple paint isn't in this bill?

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: No. Look it up.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: No, know, but I'm just,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: it's still on the table as something to talk about if we're getting testimony on it. So need to just go ahead, you were in the middle of a sentence.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Well, I said, actually here, how hard it's gonna be to convince somebody either way, the purple paint takes that away because it'd be up. We go to town, we register, we can go measure, I'll throw the paint's there, and okay, now we gotta work with whoever was on their property. That'd be the next step.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And if we don't, you know, I mean, the bill doesn't have purple paint in it, and if we don't feel like we can go in that direction, is there something we could do to tighten up this bill to make it easier to make sure your land continues to be posted?

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Yeah, would say you register with the town. Every hunter, no matter what they're hunting, would have to go to the town, see where the area where they're hunting, and I would just like the colonel said, onyx is a good one. You're on onyx. You're registered with the town. It's their responsibility to know where the posted land is.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: You know, why is it the landowner's responsibility? The huge burden on the landowner to make sure his land is in compliance when he doesn't want somebody on his traffic. Mhmm.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: So did you not did you ask anybody to prosecute?

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: She told me, he looked at that one sign and said, your next one's too fair. You are not in compliance. There's nothing I can do.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Vote on the board.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So your point is, is it still hard to prosecute even without the reasonableness standard? Correct. Because it's, these minor issues with signs make it really hard.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: You own them, how long is where I do? 10 acres. 10 acres? Yeah.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: You would think with all the acres they have around them, can stay off my 10, right? No. Not the way it is.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Ruth, any questions? Well, actually, for

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: a head on board, but I'm

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: gonna go board, but it's word by your testimony, but we have intent in the law all the time. Mhmm. It's foundational, actually. And in some ways, with liability is kinda the exception. I guess I'm having a hard time understanding why it's within 10 to build into this, instead of strict liability, it would be so why do you believe prosecution just wouldn't happen?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Well, don't think they would never happen. And I think that I would defer to the colonel for more specifics on this, but the way that criminal trespass is typically pursued is that a notice against trespass is issued first, because then everybody is clearly aware that you're not permitted onto the land. So prosecution's for sure doesn't help until there's a second defense. But I do, I mean, I think that hypothetically, if there's some op, like there could be prosecution, it just creates more discretion for both the law enforcement officer, which is challenging, and more state's attorney.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So from our perspective sitting here, we have to weigh that against the testimony that waited to the posting system where we have it now. We've done it. We don't have anything.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: I would say you have to weigh that as well as the purpose behind the 5,201.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: The government approves?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: I think if you're looking at the original intent was to put a burden on the land owner because otherwise there is this idea that you can hunt on land that's not enclosed. I mean, I think that, again, acknowledging that the context has changed, but that's the reason why that street liability standard was originally imposed.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Can I ask a follow-up question? Sorry, this

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: is a little awkward, but-

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Do you want some moves so you're turning around? No,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: that's okay. Also sort of following up on Senator Bongartz question, and you said this before when you were at the table, in Title 13, because of this more squishy, reasonablest standards, let's say, the first violation would be notice a of trespass, is that what, and saying you can't trespass, you can't go on this land for two years.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Generally, that's my understanding.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah, that's what happens.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: That is how I'm on the most part.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay, so if somebody goes on land that's posted no trespassing with a no trespassing sign, and they claim they didn't see the sign, but a reasonable person would have said, Oh, there's a sign there, then they could get a no trespassing

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: violation.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I assure you there was no way that gentleman got on my in law's property without seeing any of those signs.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Right, so they got a notice against trespassing for two years.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Yes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I mean, does seem like a notice against trespassing and what is, and if somebody still does it.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: That they

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: can be charged under criminal trespassing.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Right. So, I mean, but that, I mean,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: that would actually help be helpful to you if you, if

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: these people who are repeatedly letting their dogs on their land get a notice against trespassing, and then they do it again, then there's a second violation.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I think one of the things to consider in that scenario, O'Mann, was that if that were the case under Fish and Wildlife Law, they'd lose their license. Under Title 13, they would not lose their license, so they'd still have a license to hunt.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Right, but I'm saying that if this were changed and the reasonableness standard, and maybe I'm

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: confusing this in my head, but

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: if this were to go into effect and somebody went on to his property and that it was determined that a reasonable person should know that his property was posted, would they get like a two year notice to not go on his property?

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Potentially, yes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. Which would be helpful, right? That's what happened. That's what happened

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: in this case. They got a notice, jumps But there's also, and you correct me if I'm wrong, from what I understand, and I've had this conversation with Jason Batchelder recently, it's five points on a hunting license if they're caught in violation.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I so I'm not I'm not sure if the cops got five points for violating a notice or a stress test?

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: No, five points. Like if my land was in compliance and it was posted legally, that hunter would have then been issued five points on his license and he already has five points. This is the conversation I had with Jason Batchelor a couple months ago and he said, yes, I would do that five points on the release. I

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: think the violation in on this No. No. I think the violation in on that sounds 10 points.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: I'm gonna check

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: right now. Well, he told me it was Yeah. Five. And you might've just gotten

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: confused on that. Maybe that's

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I think it's more, which in your case would be good.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Yes. No. No. No. So under the hunting license, they need 10 for a year suspension, I believe. You're correct.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: And he told me that it would

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: be a five point violation for if somebody had her doubts on my property and my lane was legally posted.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: You're gonna

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: help tell me about this.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So if under this bill, if your land is, there's a reasonable evidence that your land is posted, maybe one of your signs is down, there's evidence- Pure intent and

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: my land is posted.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Right, that they could get a five, maybe 10 violation plus a notice to not go on your lands for two

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: years, right?

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: It's 10,

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: it's your loss of license.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Just 10, if your land is legally posted and they're caught on your land,

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: I'm sad.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: But the issue right now is that this isn't happening because it's really hard to maintain your signs because of the nature of your property and Yeah,

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: and we'll see them watch them every day. Yeah. To make sure that they're all stale up.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Alright. No. No. This is helpful. This thank you very much. So common. Well, it's gonna end up in

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: a question. Know, there are always bad actors and no any group no matter what. So if if your property is legally posted and then you'd be unable to issue him 10 points of his license, that would have been impactful if he lost his license. Correct. Wouldn't you be don't you think that would be a good reason to keep it title 10 the way it is? And, you know, not notwithstanding the not putting aside the the dating issue. But

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Like I said, you have to be in compliance whatever way this is about landowner rights. Whatever way this is written up, it should be enforceable by the gang wards

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: if you've been violation somebody on your property.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: It shouldn't be like, well, it's iffy because one sign wasn't dated, or it's iffy because there was really a whole strip over there. There was no sign. So was he really trying to post his land? It needs to be enforceable. K. With the 10 violation, Purple paint be a perfect

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I don't wanna go with purple paint right now.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Purple paint?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Not in the building. Yes. Not in the building.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Absolutely foolproof. Just about it. Purple paint, when registered with the town, you'd be in compliance every year. Everybody can go by Purple paint. Why would you not why are you against Purple paint,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: may I ask?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Because how many you know how many prop property owners actually have their land survey? You can go and paint your line. Next thing you know, you get a lawsuit because you posted somebody else's property.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Wouldn't that be the same same signs?

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Maybe. But

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: You but the But if

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I put a sign up, wanna make sure it's actually on my you know, there's blaze lines on trees. I'm Round page

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: covers it right up. Yeah. You are wrong. And I'm telling you, these phones will tell you exactly where your property lines are. I mean, I know that where my property lines are. My property is served. I know where I'm at.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I got 250 acres. Yeah.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: And you probably know exactly

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: what you're because I surveyed my wife. Right.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: And most people don't.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I love this conversation.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: Yeah. But he said the signs would be the

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: same as the purpose of paying. If I was calling and signed on your property, you would say, yeah. You're posted with my property.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Do you

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: have any questions? Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: We got people to. You very much.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Thanks.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Next one is Carol Dodds. Very soon.

[Carol Dawes (Barre City Clerk/Treasurer; Chair, VT Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Assoc. Legislative Committee)]: Good morning, committee. Morning. For the record, Carol Dodds, I'm the Berry City Treasurer. I'm also the chair of the legislative committee for the Vermont Municipal Clerk and Treasurer's Association. And I'm going to keep this. I'm not loud enough. I'm never not loud enough.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: You deserve that.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Carol, it's so nice to see you.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: You too.

[Carol Dawes (Barre City Clerk/Treasurer; Chair, VT Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Assoc. Legislative Committee)]: I'm going to keep this very short because I know you've got many other people to hear from. The Clerk and Treasurer's Association's interest in this bill is very narrow and it is addressed completely in this bill. And that has to do with the language that takes the ambiguity out with regards to what annual recording is by referring to it as three sixty five days from the date of recording in the clerk's office That has satisfied, us completely, and it takes away any of that concern about, ambiguity about people having to, register, record their document on the January 1, which of course is a holiday, or other times that would be inconvenient for a land owner. This is the one thing we were most interested in in the bill, we're very happy with the language. So I'm happy to answer any questions but you probably just want to go to the next person.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Thank you

[Carol Dawes (Barre City Clerk/Treasurer; Chair, VT Municipal Clerks & Treasurers Assoc. Legislative Committee)]: much. You're welcome. I'm going to stay on just to keep listening.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Heidi has not don't

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: think she's Heidi, she's Got got Morgan's role?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. He's Morning. Hey

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer, content creator)]: there, folks. Can you guys hear me?

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer, content creator)]: Awesome. I and I apologize for not being there today. I got a feed delivery at noon, so I was not able to make the drive to Montpelier a second time this week. But my name is Morgan Gold. I am a farmer out in Peacham, Vermont. I raise beef. I raise goats. I grow a whole bunch of chestnut and apple and elderberry. I also am, based on all available public records, Vermont's largest goose farmer. I have a 160 acre farm out here. The farm land is a mixture of about 50 ish acres or so that's pasture and orchard, and then the remaining 110 is forest. In terms of the farm, the other unique thing about us that I should mention is we also post videos about the farm online, and I've got a following of roughly 5,000,000 folks kind of all around the world who watch what goes on on a daily basis with my farm, my animals, me, and all that good stuff. I've been here for about ten years now. Bought the farm in July 2016. And in that time, I've actually had eight different incidents with hunters on the land and specifically related to posting. That range of incidents has gone from everything like being like, hey buddy, now this is posted now and ask you not to be here to, you know, having folks show up in my dooryard at like 12:30 at night and having to call state troopers and game wardens. And even in that instance, even being able to press charges because I did have a sign that was out of compliance at the time. And so I actually have some real concerns about where this law has been because I actually also testified to the House Committee on this bill and specifically the removal of purple paint, I think is very problematic and is actively encouraging hunter landowner conflicts. Also, I should probably note that I am a hunter myself. I hunt my land. I actually have my friends and neighbors hunting my land as well. So this is actually not about that, but it's much more about property rights. And I find it kind of interesting and ironic that like, it seems like for rural landowners like myself who is running a working farm, that the shape the law is continuing to take is it's making it harder for me to manage my land as a farmer trying to just do my job. And specifically, once a year I go out and do kind of a full update and post all of my signs. We've got a roughly four mile border that I've gotta cover. That amounts to like 50 plus signs that I'm ending up putting up there. When I do that patrol once a year, I'm usually having to replace missing signs. It's like usually about a 10% rate of signs go missing over the course of a year. These are Tyvek signs, so it's you know, I'm literally putting about 50 square feet of Tyvek out into the farm every single year when I'm putting these signs out there. Whether it be vandalism, you know, weather, mischievous squirrel, like there's a whole host of things that can make a sign go missing. But regardless of that, what that does is put it out of compliance. So I personally don't necessarily feel like the once a year requirement to walk and do the updates is a significant issue, but I will say that to maintain my compliance and ensure that my compliance is maintained, that means I'm doing it what? Like, if I'm doing it quarterly, that seems like a little bit of work. If I'm actually doing it monthly, which is probably more what I would really should be thinking about, that feels unreasonable. But again, it's not about a time period of when was the last time you checked your signs, it's about whether or not your signs are in compliance. When it comes to the purple paint component, effectively, I can update it, have a very clear marker, and then what that does is it it's very black or white. Was it painted or not? There could be a simple cancel signal that you could always have too, like brown painted if you're no longer posted or if it's been, incorrectly, posted. That's a very simple fix. And so it's it's very confusing to me that there'd be so much objecting to something that happens in most other state in many other states in a reasonable way to keep your land posted. A couple of other things just to to recognize that have happened with this. You know, when I mentioned that incident with having wardens be here, they have told me specifically I could not press charges because my signs were not in compliance. And this was an incident where I had raccoon hunters showing up in the middle of the night running through my door yard. Their hounds were actually interacting with my livestock guardian dogs that I used to keep my poultry safe. And so it's it's a significant issue that if I didn't have the five foot high fence I have around my poultry yard, I could have had either my dogs hurt, their dogs hurt, or one of us trying to get hurt, trying to separate the dogs. And so trying to create more ways for landowners and hunters to just interact peaceably, I I think is a positive. And so the way the the purple bait had been structured in this bill, I think, was better than where it is. I I think the other piece too that that's really important is when it comes to thinking about managing the updates to the signs, just to give you guys a really clear sense of the types of signage I'm doing. I've got about 1,300 feet of my border that sits right on the main road, and those signs are very easy to update, very easy to check on. I've got another, it's about 2,200 feet that runs around a dirt road that has actually been destroyed by the floods that we had here in Peacham back in 2024. It's no longer passable by vehicle. My portion of the land actually sits on like a 50 foot cliff at this point because of all the erosion that's happened. So for me to even try to update those signs, it's very precarious. And so until the the rule about January 1 was changed, I was very worried. I was gonna have to be, like, going there with harness and rope, going down a cliff on an icy cliff to try to update my signs. And then, actually, I've got about the whole the remaining fifth, almost two miles of property that runs through deep woods. So where it's woods on my end backing into woods on my neighbor's end, so there's no clear boundary markers. I use On X specifically to track and walk and mark my property lines, So that is the only way I can know that I'm posting the proper space, yet also if I'm thinking about well why you go out there and check your land, shouldn't you? It's deep, deep forest. This is deep wetlands. This is swamp air land that I'm actually having to go through to do these things. And so this isn't me not wanting to walk like a far side of it. This is me walking to a place that probably doesn't see a ton of human activity on a daily basis most of the year, and so it's harder to get in there and harder to do that. And so it's fine for me. I'm a guy in my mid forties. It's not that big of a deal. Twenty years from now, thirty years from now, forty years from now, am I still gonna be able to do that? I actually wonder about it because it is such a rugged trail that I have to go through. And I've actually made videos and posted them on YouTube before documenting what it's like to go through this. And so to just keep the mental model in your mind for you folks as you're considering this law, recognize that these aren't all just very clear boundaries that are very easy to see that, oh, here's the road, here's some woods, that's probably somebody's property. This is, hey, here's a mile of woods that goes this way and a mile of woods that goes that way. There's a property line that sits in the middle of it that that's what I'm ultimately having to mark. And so just just keep that in mind too. If you guys are serious about maintaining just good respectful hunting culture, I think making this clearer and easier for people to see, not having these issues of tieback signs getting ripped off that are just so easy to remove that they get like I said, I lose about 10% a year. I don't know. I think that that's an important aspect.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Tiger.

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer, content creator)]: Any questions?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Thank you, Mr. Gold. This is really helpful testimony. I'm wondering, have you had any livestock loss because of hunting violations on your property, or have you been able to keep your livestock safe?

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer, content creator)]: No, I've never had to do that. No, there have not been a hunter shooting one of my geese or anything like that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: No, I'm thinking about the dogs, the dogs that come on.

[Morgan Gold (Peacham farmer, content creator)]: No, but I have had cattle get spooked, and I have had cattle incidents and kind of even seen it through the activity on trail cameras. Cattle either on my end or actually on my neighbor's end get spooked and either come onto my property or come through. And usually that's in the midst of hounding season, like in like early September, particularly when like bear hounding season's really active.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Got it.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Thank you very much. Thanks Morgan.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: All right. Thanks guys.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Where do you want to take a break? Can

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I just ask another question of maybe of the group, Colonel or Hannah, before we get to Mr? Bradshaw. Do we have time? Yes. Okay. Could you come up to the table? I apologize. I'm sorry. It's okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's fine.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I'm cold knack. I'm like,

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I don't

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: No, mean,

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: think for the difficult set of

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So I just was rereading the language as I was listening to Mr. Gold, and it seems to me that the thing that makes your land posted is the filing with the clerk, recording with the clerk, that and the signs are just notice of posting.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Yes, that would be a reasonable interpretation. However, absent any one of those things, it is not posting. You know what I mean? Does that make sense to them?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah, but I mean, it does say that signs are just notice of posting, notice signs. So the actual act of posting is registering with the clerk. So

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: it's almost like the three legged stool. It doesn't stand without one of those things. So so the language may give that impression, but you have to register current.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: You have to register in the town.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: You have to have your signs, and you have to be dated. If if one of those three things is missing, then it is not posted as it currently is.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Maybe that's up for interpretation. I mean, way I'm reading it is that these are notice signs that specifically says notice even in current law that you put the notice of your posting, but the actual thing to post the land is you do it with your town clerk.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: So that, I believe they say right

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: is correct.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah, the owner so record. So recording the posting

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: filled out in triplicate.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: My god

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: that's hilarious.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: We have a copy of it. Did type it for that reason.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah, that's a little weird. Maybe we should think about that. So that's the thing. I think

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: to It's Jeff.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Jeff, I'm sorry.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: I'm sorry.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Jeff's point of, you know, everybody knows his land is posted. It's registered with the Shoreham town clerk and it's on all the maps and everything. And the issue is not that his land isn't posted. The issue is that the notice signs aren't always 100% in compliance. So I feel like that's an actual important distinction when you're thinking about enforcement. So Is that, as long as it's recorded, that's the actual posting.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: In order to prosecute in court, we have to have all three letters. And in order for those signs, as you said, a notice signs to meet the requirement of the laws that exist, not on the paper, but as it exists in this book right now, it has to be

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: dated in certain court. Been a court decision that says you have to have all three or is it just your interpretation of it?

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: We have successfully prosecuted it with it. We have not successfully prosecuted it without it because the case will not be.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: But is it the reason you haven't successfully prosecuted it is because you haven't tried or is it, have you tried and failed when there hasn't been, when there's been a sign that's maybe

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: 10 My personal product case when I was a younger warden where I thought all the requirements were met and when the defense got on the stand, they said, well, these signs are missing and the case was drawn out. Okay. So that's my one person experience.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Get into the details here.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Yes. And so so absolutely. So that's my one person's opinion. I don't know if years ago they were they tried to do this but I can unequivocally say that missing signs and the case was thrown out of the court. And I mean, that was

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: been around for a while. Was a few days ago.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: But as a general rule, in the way we do enforcement is that we will not bring the case if three parts are not there because it doesn't get through the first gatekeeper, which is the safe terms.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Well, that's what I that's what I was trying to figure out is is where where's the holdup? Is it because you don't try or because you're getting stopped? It sounds like.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Yeah I think it would be something similar to, I don't know what a good analogy would be other than to just say we have to meet all the elements as it currently is worth and not having the science data at proper distance and all that, this is one of the elements. And I understand what you're talking about, about the signs getting noticed and they do. That is the notice to a person that says don't go on here. That those signs, the requirements

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: for those signs, if they aren't met, we do not, we cannot enforce them. We do not, we cannot because of course we'll take it. So hope, okay, I know you asked

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: me a pretty question. Nuance here, that's where I'm trying to figure out like what is the actual act of posting? And it seems to me that in statute, the actual act of posting is at the clerk's office. And then the notice of that posting is with the signs. But even if a sign is down, it's still posted because it's been recorded at the clerk's office.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: And you're getting on a point that I tried to sort

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: of get out of the sort

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: of recipe and why we had to resolve this, is that it might look good on paper and your interpretation may be 100% correct, but the other part of the criminal justice system, the part that does the actual prosecution piece, it doesn't accept that sort of logic or has not accepted that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Right, so maybe this is the way they're interpreting the statute that we've written. Okay.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: I would, yes, I'm sorry.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: No, I don't think you sit here.

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: I don't

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: know who sat there.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Sorry to complicate this.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: No, it's okay. Was gonna encourage you

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: the language was not in

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: request right now.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So the

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: way that the statute's currently written, section D, which starts line 15 of page two, it states that land posted as provided in subsection B, which is the language related to signage, is enclosed for the purposes of this section. The signs are required.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: But they're required for notice? They're required for

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: the lane to be enclosed.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay, that makes sense.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: So the statute's not ambiguous about the requirement of the land both being and the state's included. Okay, that's

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: a good point. And the enclosure part is constitutional, like the land enclosed, is enclosed actually the word in that's- That's the word that's used there. Okay, you. That's helpful.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I can see a question. Yeah, because she cuts her colonel.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: I'm sorry, to step out for a few minutes to present

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: an amendment in a different committee.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Regarding, and kind of circling back to Mr. Gold's testimony, does Bishop Wildlife have a position or thought on the use of purple paint in lieu of his son?

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: A certain subset of society will break a law. It doesn't matter what's left. Right?

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: We all know that. That's why we have Mhmm.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Homicides and burglaries and

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: officers. Mhmm.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Purple paint is no harder to circumvent than postman signs. You just carry brown paint with me or cut down the tree. It's that simple. And people might think that outlandish, but if someone wants to do it, they will do it. It doesn't change anything. And the idea that purple vein is an invaluable marker, it's no it it certainly won't blow away, but it is no less it is no more difficult to circumvent purple paint than it is opposed to this kind

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: true.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: But cutting down trees and using I mean, that's a that's an active bandage. It is. That's different than just a sign blows away and you know? Okay. I'm moving on here. Yeah.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. No. I mean, I think that's a really good point because I also wonder I hear you on that if trying to break the law, you're going to find a way. That's unfortunately part of human nature.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: See Yes, some yes.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And that's what we try to prevent in this building, I think looking at it from the other perspective, from the landowner perspective, the purple paint makes it much easier to comply with the requirement of the enclosure because it prevents the blowing away of signs, the squirrel damage. I love that squirrels for all this stuff, all that stuff. That's Prosecuting

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: the purple paint here. It's not even in the bill.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: It was in the original bill, Senator, and it's part of, it's still a relevant conversation

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: to have. Can have

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: it as a committee.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So I guess thinking from the landowner perspective that's trying to prevent, and it sounds like, I mean, we haven't gotten tons of testimony on it, but it sounds like one of the biggest issues is trying to prevent founders from coming on with hounds. Cause everybody acknowledges that what 99% of hunters are following fishermen or hog, are following the law and being really respectful. So it's just a 1% or whatever. Yeah, but, so thinking about it from perspective, wouldn't it make it easier for you all to enforce the law if you don't have to go around and check to make sure all the signs are up?

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I will, so I don't know

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: this to be fact that I would give you my opinion.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: The current requirements of the policy law as was expressed by the landlords here require the landowners to be on the line state to do the checks to ensure that it is, that they are taking affirmative actions to say you are not allowed here. Anything that deviates from that, my opinion, because this is based on the experience of the criminal trespass law, which has no requirement for any sort of follow-up or anything of that nature. Anything that deviates from that requirement for the landowner to be doing positive, taking actual positive steps to prevent access is what allows us to overcome. Because let's face people go to court and they lie. I didn't do it, I wasn't there, it wasn't me.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: Like that's what people are going

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: to say. And so the onerous, as you've heard what have been described, the onerous steps that are required of landlords are what allow us to overcome that. And that's my interest in sort of the discussion here is that in my opinion, and this is my only my opinion, and I don't, there is

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: not really no factual way to determine this, but

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: in my opinion based on the enforcement of title 13, if you move away from onerous steps that require an actual act every year, I believe we will lose our ability to hold people accountable when the circumstance is met. And as you heard, one sign out of compliance. Seems like, I understand why you're saying that doesn't seem reasonable. On the flip side, all the signs in compliance, I didn't know, it wasn't me, blah blah blah blah, whatever you want to say, it becomes irrelevant.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I hear that, it makes it much more black and white,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: but it sounds like it's hard

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: to, on the to make sure that all the signs are in compliance at every minute because of various factors. So it sounds like prosecution isn't happening anyway. So like, there's the question of which is gonna be worse.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Right, and we- And

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: it depends on your perspective for

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: sure.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Absolutely. No, no, absolutely. And we have, When the criteria met, we get absolutely successful prosecuting. And that has been my experience and has been most worth experience. But yes, is not without difficulty. But I guess the point you're talking about perfect, I don't think that makes it better. I think it removes the requirement to check on your property boundaries. With all the respect, I can fit about six cans of spray paint

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: in my backpack if I wanted to.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Doesn't take, it's not hard

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: to go out and

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: just nothing. It's no longer close.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: It's not hard to go

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: to sign now.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Exactly, that's my point.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: My point is that there is not,

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I don't know that there is an easy fix here and again, opinion, I think it's because you're balancing something that's written to the constitution against something that is, I don't know if it's legal or innate, but like, you should have a right to say what happens on your property. I mean, the taxes like as we all do, right? So I understand both sides of this. Again, if the committee comes out of here and says tomorrow it's whatever, I don't know, farm trying, it's like we'll do the best we can. It's just I don't think that we can we can get strict

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: liability, strict enforcement, and diminishment of the requirements, if that

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: makes sense.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah. I'll gonna keep falling.

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Yeah. Ahead. If you have an agent then by all means that you know we'll do the best we can.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So thank you.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: You're welcome. Okay. I'm gonna have to take a break.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: So we're

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: gonna go offline. Well, he went the same part as I did.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: You. Room live. Room live, Senator.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Okay. Welcome back. The next best part is gonna be mister mister Bradley with the North Federation portion of clubs.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Yes. Again, for the record, North Federation Sportsman's Clubs. Were an organization that has existed in Vermont since 1875. Pretty short bill. I'm going to just as an aside, I know the issue of verbal pay the design of this bill was in the primary bill. And as we heard, I believe it was a 10 to one. Everything was really discussed heavily. And what passed was didn't have purple paint. So I I guess I'm gonna start to on page two, and I'm gonna preface all of this by saying we have a on one hand, we have hunting rights, and on the other side, we have landowner rights. And overall, personally in the federation, use towards landowner rights because hunting has a very equal responsibility. This 1% or less than 1% that are not they're doing a lot of damage, you know, otherwise do feed. So I guess, I can take a look at this. I do manage two ninety acres as manager of the Ohio Homestead Association in East Caledonia. We do not post our own. We do like people to ask permission, but we we do not post. I'm gonna start at the top of on the bottom of page one, line 21. You notice signs. You'll see each one. What? Right on the top of page two, notice showing the name green at all times. And shall we do each year? And shall we do each year? And then now? But we really Federation has a strong stance here. We really do believe that data should be omniscient of the word. And then let's just look at the why that is. If if you're out in the woods and you see a zari, and it's clearly dated, there's no question but if you see a sign that does not have a date, then there's really a question and in fact, in that instance, you're going to have to go back to town to understand whether it's posted or not because you can't have a sign up when they're never been reported to the town clerk's office and that would be an illegal poster. So if signs have to be maintained and nobody's questioned this at all times, I mean, literally, that sounds to me like you're patrolling your perimeter all the time. So if and I have a suggestion, but we really feel it's very important for you to take it back in because in number one, it makes it easier for law enforcement to come in and say, clearly this is dating. And I have another suggestion. As far as the line five and six, the posting shall be valid. And of course, Vault 365 is spot on. That is I think was the intent all along. We didn't want people going out in January 1 to December to post your property. So 365 from any day we've actually worked in the posting Spot on. We certainly support that. I guess I'm I'm going to jump down to now. This would be sixteen and seventeen on page two. Accidental unintentional deviations and requirements of subsectionality into the section still shall still be unique. I personally find this language problematic because the fact that you just jammed something out there. There could be an intentional violation. Somebody who literally tore down several signs. It would be unintentional, wouldn't be accidental. It was intentional, somebody did it down something. And just on that point, I believe there's two statutes that would apply if somebody's ripping out a sock at once, if they use a type of pen, as the commissioner said, now the 10 BSA 5,205, which is injury notice, who qualify. But even beyond that, 13 BSA 3,701 C, criminal misery. Basically, if you're doing something in somebody's personal property that's under at least $500 which is signed with you, that's punishable by six months and we're up to $500 So, there's there's some flexibility here to have them prosecute them. So, I guess coming back to that, I do believe that hunters should be aware of the river and if they are on property, they should not be and there should be repercussions for that. From the start of sixteen and seventeen, I'm just making a suggestion, drop accidental or unintentional. And in line 17, begin the sentence with minor. So minor deviations from the requirements of same section subdivisions a and b of this section, new insertion, that are beyond the owner's control. And when you if a sign gets blown down, and I know that I'm locking a reasonable line here to say on one side, we should be on the side of a lean over If all all of it, the intent is pretty clear up, that this is posted right. And I just threw that out there for consideration. But I I do feel that that a person who is on somebody else's own, there should be a kind of difference. There should be a fairly severe one. Other than that, there's unlawful trafficking trespasses. Somebody is violating it outside of title 10. Unlawful trespass, you're a fellow on a piece of property you're not supposed to be on and that you've been ordered by notice, signed. Law enforcement can come in and make you aware you're not supposed to be at which point discretion comes in and it's not an automatic arrest. The individual who is the perpetrator here, you know, all the head and something to go and they can vacate the problem and they all respond. If they don't, then it we move to a different level than the new types of the rest of the person. So I guess we very strongly recommend that dating of science again, especially if there is a requirement to maintain at all times. And actually, you know, just as a thought at all times, I I I really wonder whether that could possibly be looked at to say at least once in a moment. And I I don't think it's fair for a moment. Gonna leave patrol every day. It just really lets us sit. So, again, I would suggest leaving the day in. I don't see these combat owners, especially if you shoot much younger siblings at all, at least, and well, we just wanna stay. Are there any other questions for me? I promise to

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: be ready. I I got a question. Yes, sir. Maybe this is for the fish and water rights. But, you know, are we there's two different issues here. There's two different constitution issues too. Punting rights and personal property rights. A lot of rights come responsibility too. Mhmm. So there's a responsibility of the punter punters to honor the wishes of the landlord. Therefore, there's a responsibility for the landlord to keep his property identified. And, you know, that's why I think tenant also says that signs shall be no more than 400 feet apart and or within you up one month. So, if you've got to to mister Gold's point, you know, terrain is tough. You know, it's not because of some flooding we've had. It's it's difficult for me to do. But once there once the sun drops, do you do you think that maybe what we're talking about here is do we is is having title 13 and title 10 a problem? Would it be simpler if we had one statue?

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: Should have known that we would still want to Unlawful trespasses is used in many other places, stores for example. No sugar, no shoes, no service. I think that's a very distinct purpose, although no trespass can certainly be used on property. But again, it's just discretionary. So, you know, I'm I guess I would have to take that a little bit more of a shoes. I think they serve two different distinct purposes. And yes, I I wrestle with this as well. The landowner the night versus the constitutional run down. And I when I look at this, I have to say the landowner has there's responsibilities on both sides, but I I think the responsibility of the hunter knowing where they are, I think that seems to be proven out from the best motive that people often will gladly do, that this isn't an issue, but bad actors, I mean, I have no sympathy. Any other questions? I told you to be quick. Thank you very much. So today, back to you, we're good. Yeah.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: Thank you very much.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: We just don't have anybody in our original number.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: We're live. Okay, hello everyone. This is Senate National Resources and Energy, and we're coming back from Drake. And we are looking at a amendment, a potential amendment from Senator Matos in 03/25. Just to flag it for everybody, I did have a conversation with Senate Economic Development about our amendment to S-three 28. They have some further changes they would want to suggest, which I am happy to tell you about. So we'll

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: do that, I think, at the end.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But going to 03/25 now, Senator Matos, welcome.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: Thank you. Thank you for having me. For the record, Senator Chris Matos represent the Chittendorf District. What you'll have in front of you, I won't go through it. It's a bit longer of an amendment, but really it's only a couple of changes within that section. I think for reader assistance services and sticking with element just makes it easier to show those as a full section. Premise of the amendment is for the tier one B areas currently it's set at under 50 or under units created, and then the partial size has to be 10 acres or less. So this is an area where we want housing growth, it's a tier 1B area, suitable soils, town water, town sewer might be there. But what we're running into, what I'm seeing and hearing is that there's parcels out there that are over that 10 acre threshold that are in areas where we want this development done and providing, you know, have an example, not even in my district, just over the boundary on the other side of the road, but there's an area that has a 27 acre parcel looking to do 34 units. The development is concentrated in an area as shown, I brought a little picture for everybody, I can circulate it around, it has a little red dot where the area is, and there's development all around it. There's commercial development, entertainment areas, there's residential development all around it. The red dot is 27 acres? That just shows you where the general parcel is. So really the development in that area is concentrated up towards the road, Sabre Oak Drive or road, agree with, if it's a road or a drive, but it's concentrated up towards there because of the topography of the land. It's 27 acres, topography of the land, sensitive areas, can't develop in those areas, but the issue is the overall parcel goes above the 10 acres and automatically puts them out of being able to divert by Act two fifty in an area where we want this housing, where you see where there's already an abundance of housing and development around it, this amendment would strip away that 10 acre requirement. So in tier one A, there's no requirement on parcel size as you all probably know, up to 75 acres in that tier one but tier 1B then has this 10 acre come in and this amendment would in the interim and in the permanent take away the 10 acre rule in that sense.

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: So what would be the maximum? Would it be the same as tier 1A or?

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: Well tier one A doesn't have a maximum, it's just the number of units created. So tier one A is 75, tier one B is 50. And you know, from a cost perspective, when you're building a development like this, you want to limit your

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: infrastructure, so

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: it's not going to be going all throughout the land because roads cost a lot of money, sewer costs a lot of money, water costs a lot of money. So in the case of a development like this, if many others in the state try to concentrate that lessen your infrastructure burden because there's no money in roads, so to

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: speak, it has to be

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: caught up in the sale of the home.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: So I lighten it to the fact of, if you had three twenty acre parcels side by side, you currently, and if you wanted to stay out of Act two fifty, get under the thresholds of 10 units if you had three separate developers. Side by side, you'd be using up 60 acres of land for 27 units. Or if this was tier 1B, the parcel size wasn't there, one of those 20 acres could utilize that land to create 27 units and be able to put housing where we want it, where there's infrastructure or suitable soils. That's kind of the crux of the bill. I know it's part of the governor's bill, S two sixty seven that's up on the board for having that heart removed in the interim and in the permanent

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Act 181. So

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: thank you for bringing this. Have a number of thoughts So about one of the goals of Act 21 in general, right, is to encourage dense development, compact development. And so one of the concerns I have about striking the 10 acres in general is that then there's no boundary, right? It's kind of, it's just open at that point. And so I think that would be a potential deviation from the policy as it was envisioned to function, but I am very sympathetic to to the situations that your folks are in. And so I want to try to find a path forward, if we can. And because I, it sounds like the projects that you're describing are just like exactly the kind of thing that we have,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: you know, that we've been

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: talking about, that we're hoping for. So, one of the potential paths forward is to, because as I understand it, it's the tract, it's the reference to the tract of land being less than 10 acres that's being prohibited in this situation, right? Which is being interpreted as the parcel size. And my, one interpretation of this could or perhaps should be that it is, that the parcel size is irrelevant, that it's the development, like we're trying to build compactly. So, I think there might be a couple different ways to achieve that. One possibility is to, instead of there's two other, there's like at least one other thing I want to talk about, but one possibility is that instead of striking on a tractor tracks of land involving 10 acres or less,

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: we

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: strike on a tract of land. And so it would be 50 or fewer housing units, or I'm sorry, 50 units or fewer of housing involving 10 acres or less, involving 10 acres. That way, if the parcel size becomes irrelevant, it's just about the project. I think there was another word I heard floating around.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Is it disturbance? Is that the word?

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: That's the way, I think that's the

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: way you would get closer. So, Zap250 uses the word disturbance, think, and so saying something like a disturbance of 10 acres or less.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: It's a great thought and I really appreciate that, but what I'm thinking of as it's throughout, your stormwater infrastructure, it may go off into an area that gets that stormwater where

[Brad Shulman (Legislative Counsel)]: it should go.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: Is that gonna be a disturbance? Those areas can be larger usually, if you have a retention pond or you have a swale that has to cut down through to a stream, whatever it may be, is a road because during construction, it's usually privately maintained as you're building, and then eventually it's turned over to town, assuming it's up to the town regulations. Would that be part of the disturbance because now it's actually a town parade of plating through that area? Because those questions don't come into play in 1A. If we're talking about density, if you had a 27 acre parcel in 1A, you could build four houses on it and you wouldn't have the density, but

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So perhaps just limiting it to 50 units or fewer of housing on 10 acres or less is actually more, somehow more generous in saying just, or just disturbed because it could be disturbed for other reasons.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: Like lots, you mean the lots. If you, part of Act 181 was providing five units per one acre, so 0.2 acre lots, then say you get to 50, you get on 10 acres, right? That's how the math works out. So that translates to, if you're creating 50.2 acre lots, you're gonna get them to 10 acres. So that takes out your thought of storm water, takes out your thought of the actual road.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: That's the first time I've heard that math done. Thank you.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: I'm in fire.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: No, it's not. Okay, Ellen is look at it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Nope, don't look at that. I'm not co signing what he just said, but maybe. Oh, okay.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Because I was gonna ask, I was just gonna ask Senator Bongartz, because you've been working on this for a long time, what the logic of the 10 acres.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: I'm trying to

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: remember that. Go

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: ahead. I'll check out the House of Legislative Council. It relates to the other jurisdictional trigger of an acre being an Act two fifty jurisdictional trigger. So that- These are towns that have zoning. Yeah. There would be otherwise a 10 acre tract that I choose.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I was trying to make it parallel. I see.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Yeah, I'm but I'm wondering here, just getting this, we haven't had time to think it through. Think I'd be comfortable doing this with the interim exemptions for now and coming back to it next year with time to actually make sure that we're, you know, three years is a lot less opportunity for making haven't made a mistake. Yeah. But just this is the kind of the session we are. Let's think it out loud, so making decisions. But, you know Yeah. But I can't I don't even be sympathetic, and I'm I would not agree with the misspoke of the insurance with the insurance period. Mhmm. But make sure that. And

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: I think, you know, just as well thinking out loud in the 50 units, the 10 acres, how it all works is that, that sprawl, if you will, might be mitigated by that unit

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: or

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: per acre, the five units per acre, getting it in under that

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: 10 acres, so it would, think

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: it would create a sprawl because you wanna obviously highest and best use of property, what you want to achieve. So having that 10 acres just being the lots created versus including storm waters, disturbance, and roads, whatnot, but that's just what you think is why. I appreciate the

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: And if we did that, if we did your language, which would cover also the storm water and roads, etcetera, right?

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: It would just take the 10

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: acre Yeah, we did for the interim period, like Senator Bongartz is suggesting, would that help this and the other developments that you're contemplating for trying to-

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: You know, provide, whatever, if you have a project in place, I mean, if you could get something up and running by that time, there might be other ones that pop up, but the amount would be lessened because it's during the interim period. You can actually see how it goes, right?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, wanted to just check-in to see what it was that you, because I was making a different suggestion to keep the 10 acres, but make sure it's not tied to the parcel. Which part were you, I just wanna make sure we're

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: clear about Okay, fair enough, because I was thinking just to move the 10 acre. For the in the interim.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: No, not as far as

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: it's open.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So of course, if we know it's within the,

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: know, we won't be,

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: no, I won't be yet in the interim, Which is the interim assumptions. What is the effective way? It's a proxy for the public. What's the end of the morning?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Twenty thirty. In 03:25, you move it to twenty thirty.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: So,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: going with Senator Matos' language, but just for the interim, and then we'll revisit for next year on the call. Do you have any?

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: I think I need to get on board with it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Be Right. It makes me very happy. Center. Yes. And

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: that's weird.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: I'll let the person that knows.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I would redraft it. Can ask you a question though before you leave?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: This one. Like needs to change. Did you try out this? Do you want to do that?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: At the bottom of page three.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: Yeah, so the bottom of page three also it talks about, you know, in areas that we miss municipality, census designated urbanized area of over 50,000 residents, and within one quarter mile, they change that to, or one quarter mile of a transit route,

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: so that would include-

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: What is this I referring

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: have not rubbed my head around this. I think this could have a lot of implications and not necessarily opposed.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I just, that would, we would need to take a lot of testimony on that

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: particular part because with the, we know where we're talking about, with the, or could be the, there might just be some implications that we're, there can be a lot of implications actually that we're not thinking right now. So again, let's take it up next year.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: In the interim, should we do it in the interim part and then for the permanent? So it'd be the 10 acres and the four for the interim.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I don't know what this is referring to. I don't know what this is. Because it's

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: part of an interim exemption, it's the 50 units of housing for the interim exemption. And the first part is either in areas that are village areas, etcetera, etcetera, or in the urbanized areas that are within one quarter mile. Okay,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: over 50,000 residents or one quarter mile of a transit route, and is a transit route an official defined? Yeah. Yeah. I'm always asking you if things are defined today.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: We need to really have time to, I don't want it this. Yeah. Instead of that, I don't think.

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: The Andor's

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: getting it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah, the Andor, I- So that

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: may, may, who knows, but

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm happy to fly it to the house. Yeah,

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: I mean it does. Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Now there's just a lot that that could now hatch and I wanna dig through that. No,

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: I do appreciate it, Is that accurate?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Okay, so, logistics are I'm gonna take out the first part

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: of leave it in the interim sessions. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. The first part

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: of it. Yes.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yeah. Our phase one is the tier one fee. And then we're not doing the part. The answer or for now. Thank you. Okay. Thanks. To have more conversation about that in the future. Okay. Thank you.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Thank you. All right, so we can continue.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: All right, so we have about ten minutes, and we have at least one other Do we have another amendment to read?

[Jason Batchelder (Commissioner, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Yeah,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: We might. Yes, sir. Is Senator Weeks. Welcome.

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: Good morning. I just have a question. Know

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: you have some language. Were you able to send that to Ellen?

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Ellen actually picked it up.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: And so you

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: I sincerely appreciate it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm gonna send it to Jude right now.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: So I wanted to give you, it's the same language. It's only five words. Yeah. I'll give you something proven narrowly.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: There you go.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: So I'm senator David Weeks, represent Robin County, and here to offer an amendment to S-three 25 which which really is a modification of Act 181. The amendment is intended to support home building. The amendment only affects tier 1A application process. Currently to achieve tier 1A status you must have municipal staff in house for the purpose of capital planning, development review, and zoning administration. This amendment simply allows the municipality to contract with the RPC or other contracting capability for the same purpose. As a practical example, as you know many villages do not maintain an NL staff for this purpose and be helped with specialized staff they become ineligible for the tier one age status. So we're simply recommending that we add the words behind municipal staff, we add the words Arkansas contract and capability to the language. I'll give you an example in my world we do not in business have every specialization in house all the time we contract for what we need when we need it and then we dismiss that capability when we don't need it and

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: it keeps us lean and nimble.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: I recommend the same thing for municipal staffs. Seems like a reasonable request, but I leave it to your consideration.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Thank you. It looks like you have some thoughts, I also have thoughts. Go ahead.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Part of the intent behind 1A was to in fact have a staff and have them permanently because 1A is always gonna require staff. So one fear would be that people contract, town backs with it, gets one a status that decides next year, cut the budget, it doesn't do it, would they lose their term tier one a status? Yeah, I think that you when you

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: need a specialized staff you contract for specialized staff so it would come and go. So in one year if they're applying for this status they would contract for it to make sure they have the in house subject matter experts and then if

[Sen. Chris Mattos (Chittenden) – Amendment sponsor]: they needed it again in

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: the future they would do the same thing. They would contact our RPC, that's the concept. To answer all we know.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: My understanding of the need for the staff was not just for the application process but for the ongoing, it's really about having staff in your municipal planning department, let's say, who could be the zoning administrator or who's the person, who are the people in those roles. Because it's not, at least as I read the need for staff, it's beyond, because I'm appreciating what you're saying. Like if it was just for the application, that's like a one time thing, apply and then we're done. And that would make a lot of sense for a contract. I'm recalling is that the need for staff is to say, do you have the capacity to enforce your ongoing permits that have been issued? And so the anticipation is that it would be a need every year to enforce zoning. Yes.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: True. But it's an idea for every year of every working hour of the day and you recycle in response. You don't just contract or you don't have staff, in house staff or something you don't even know. Need to Yes,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: go ahead. Oh, sorry. Just saw it. So my first person is in the back.

[Jeffrey Mack (Shoreham landowner)]: Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I'm just wondering if, you know, I was just looking around to see if we had that in the room and

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I don't see them in here. I'm just wondering what they think of this because it would be, have you talked to your regional planning commission? Are they cool with this?

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: In short, no. In short,

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: no, they're not cool or short, You're just on such

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: a low hanging fruit for the goal of building houses.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Totally, I mean, I'm not necessarily opposed to it. I just wonder if that's something that they feel like they could take on and what the implications would be for their staff. And also if there are sort of sufficient experts to contact with, you know? So I just don't know what, it seems benign enough, but also I'm just not sure of the implications. I'm also sympathetic to

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: this, so I would say, and I, Because my vision of how, the need, oh, sorry, I'm jumping ahead. Senator Beck, you're in luck, go for

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: Yeah, my only thing

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: is just in the language, the way

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: I read it the way it's perhaps,

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: is that municipality would have to have all three of this. Did I know? Is that your intent, senator Weeks? No. The intent is that's why your order is

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: in there is that they would have one of them

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: but I thought I thought you were saying that they would have municipal staff or an RPC

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: or the RPC or the contractor You wanted the Yeah. So I think that our expertise would come from one of the three. If the language isn't right or clear enough

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yeah. Manage because it says it has each of you.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: Well, that's because there are so many criteria for the so when it's you're referring to each,

[Col. Justin Stedman (Chief Game Warden, VT Fish & Wildlife)]: it's Okay.

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: This is odd. This is paragraph I out of Ronald. I don't know. I

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: may not have a written

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: this is yeah. I have I have that was the draft.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Okay I think I'm reading correctly. Okay okay

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: okay that's a good idea.

[Sen. Scott Beck (Clerk)]: Yes so you're so you're thinking they would have municipal staff, RPC staff, or some other contracting

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: one of those three

[Chris Bradley (President, Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs)]: one of those okay got it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes. Go

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: ahead. No. I just think in the it might be in the RPC's wheelhouse in my district.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Mhmm.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: They have 27 municipalities, and they are experts in this that in more than like smaller gowns, they'll have staff to make that happen. So it makes sense to look at RNC and they put it into their warehouse. Well Is there staff to Well,

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: and to be fair, tier one a is a big deal, Like it is enforcing all of the Act two fifty criteria under the municipal auspices. So this was in here to try to ensure that they were adequately staffed to be able to handle that. But I do, I am sympathetic to this, but I have this concern too about what if, I mean, speaking as a former mayor, because my recollection from contracts was exactly as you were describing, where you contract for the services you need, and then you don't when you don't, like they're very, they're nimble, as you said, and in a way nimbleness is like not a thing that we want for tier one A. However, I also recall, and this may be, I'm curious for your experience in this as well. My recollection with contracts was that it was often more expensive to contract with somebody than to have somebody in house. And so one possibility was, I'm just going say this out loud. What if, and I'm, so just backing up, I have a potential option, but maybe Senator Hardy does as well.

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Yes, we should.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But I would say for now, like I would be uncomfortable putting this forward without hearing from BAFTA. Again, is maybe the kind of thing that if we had another three weeks, we could probably figure out like, because I think it's, I'm appreciating where you're trying to go with this. There are logistics around that that I think we want to think through. I can see potentially contracting for this service as a kind of a bridge to tier 1A, right? And maybe there's a, because we don't want it to be like it's on again, off again, like, oh, now you don't have contracted staff, so all these projects are left in the dust. So one, and I'm curious for the center of Hardy's thoughts as well. I'll just put on the table. One possibility is that we could say, Hey, DHCD would love to see how contracts could be worked into a bridge or transition into tier one A for those municipalities that are emerging enough or wanting to go in that direction. But that's a report that I'd be asking for, which is not the change that we ask for, but I'm trying to, you know, see what can I do that can get us partway there? Especially given the time that we have. But Senator Hardy, you have some thoughts.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Yeah, so I was thinking something along the lines of, instead of putting it as a list, adding language. So it says municipal staff adequate to support coordinated comprehensive and capital planning. And then another line that says something like municipalities may contact with RBCs or other experts to ensure sufficient capacity

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: year round or something like that.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So that it's, say you have to have staff, but if you have, if there's one specific thing you need that has expertise, you don't want to have a full staff member that knows about whatever. I'm sorry for that. A supplement. Just supplement, just supplement. That's exactly Or the word, your RPCs might be the mapping experts you look to or something, you contract with the RPC for that. So it's just sort of like, you have the staff up to supplement it. So it sort of gets at what I think you're trying to get at is that not all towns are gonna have all the expertise in house. So this would just, they may contract with RPCs or other experts to supplement, I like that word, municipal staff, something like that.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: I would love to, oh, we are overtime. It's ras. Are we okay going for a few minutes more? Yep, good. Because my inclination would otherwise mean to like, take a quick break. Otherwise, unless you have something to.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: No, I'm symptomatic, I'm sympathetic to this, and and I think there will always be contracting around the edges. And I'm thinking for that because that happens all the time. Mhmm. Contract with the RPCs. But as you said, the one A is intended to be the appeal. And we really are intended to truly have the in this capacity to do it. And when you're objecting, miss the notion of missable municipal capacity should also include contracted contracted for services. And I and that's that's not that's not off the wall at all. But I just don't think we've had undue consideration. There are implications. There are gonna be unintended. We would need to take hours of testing to really understand what we're doing here. This is just too important to do. This is a quick amendment for for me. I I I would be really happy to spend time on it. I would love to We actually could do even later in session, even though we do spend time and seems to be more time after the fact to do some thinking.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Well, that's an interesting thought. So, because it's going to come back to us anyway. And so one possibility is that we could pin this one for a potential further proposal of amendment, let's say, from the house if they don't end up taking us up. How do you feel about that?

[Sen. David Weeks (Rutland County)]: Well, think it's important that we're having this conversation and it continues in the house and

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: then it turns back to the senate. The deed is done. It was just talking about it, and Senator doesn't offer it.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Okay, I mean, I'm comfortable with that, if you're comfortable with that. I appreciate you bringing us out of the topic. I believe Senator Ron Hinsdale has something.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: Let me, sorry. Otherwise, it's gonna show on my things.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: I'm sorry. Think Senator Rutland has something else to say. Oh, did like one or two the house that's on

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: the colleague. And I can

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: help you also with amendment, because I

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: still need to talk to somebody about that.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: For the record, Senator Cage Martininsale, an original author of Act 181 and chair of economic development at the time. And I do wanna remind us of a few things because there is a lot of shared jurisdiction around tax and permit financing districts, downtown designations, offering a lot of this bill. Number one, I just want to remind us that we do say in the bill that passed in 2024, that every community should have some ability to access all of the tiers. So I don't want us to be, if we say it's kind of a big deal, I don't want that to mean they have to have a suite of professional staff. That was

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: part of our

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: original agreement to get where we got. Secondly, we had a specific discussion between the two committees, between natural resources and economic development, about how many volunteers, select board members, etcetera, end up contracting during times of flooding to really figure out how they're going to rebuild their downtown. I mean, happened with Westin, that happened with a lot of communities. Communities that might not get to 1A, but we were incredibly sympathetic to the idea that most of what we give out in government is a lot of one time grants. So it's a lot of, okay, here's $75,000 to do your bylaw modernization. Here's a pocket of money because you do have a small wave of Act two fifty amendments to deal with. We are often giving our communities only one time money, even if we get it every year, we're not really giving them the capacity like we don't have a state government often to go beyond a limited service position. So our regional planning commissions in our rural areas often do make up that ongoing continuous oversight. So we had a full discussion two years ago about how much in our areas that could be eligible for one but have used the attorney on their select board or somebody else, they contract right now also for TIF, right?

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: So TIF is a big deal.

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: You think TIF is a big deal. Most, Killington has a TIF, for example. Chip is going to be added to that. We've already said we want infrastructure in these places. We don't then require that they have the staff. They off contract regularly

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: for that.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: Good topic, Ruth.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: Yes, thank you. This is fair. And also sounds like, well, we're going to come back to it, which we'll have some more time. So thank you. And thank you Senator Weeks for bringing this up. The third amendment that we're going to be seeing on the floor is Senator Benson's amendment that we talked through yesterday. So we've had that conversation. We'll probably just meet before-

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: Just to have a quick recess.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Well, yeah, I'll just take a quick recess before we leave it on. Did I

[Sen. Kesha Ram Hinsdale (Chittenden Southeast)]: have a thought on Senator Bennington?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: But, I want to, because we're over time. Yeah. And so, want to go through 03:28. Actually, can we just chat offline about 03:20 Yeah. Events and kind of

[Rep. Larry Satcowitz (Randolph) – Bill Sponsor]: Okay, let's do that. Yeah.

[Sen. Terry Williams (Vice Chair)]: That'd be

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: great. Thank you. Great. Okay.

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: 03/28, Senator Rutland was there also in economic development. So as you may recall, our amendments struck Roman at eye to try to make it clearer that it was just the second part. I'm going to start with the consensus first. I think we wanted to work a little bit on the farm worker housing report to include, I think it's on farm housing, as opposed to, not just calling it farm worker housing, but because everyone who knew the farmer in there as well. So there's some minor tweaks there. And then they were fine with adding the order of fire districts as well. That was good. On this portion, something that they were interested in was the sentiment, the intent that was in Romanette Eye. So they're aiming to not include distance. There's no 2,000 feet identified any longer. But keeping Romanet I with just striking out the portion that says state regulations or permits. So the whole thing would say, an area certified municipal sewer water means an area where residential connections and expansions are available to municipal water indirect discharge wastewater systems and are not prohibited by identified capacity constraints or municipally adopted service and capacity units. I was-

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: What does that do?

[Hannah Smith (General Counsel, VT Fish & Wildlife Department)]: So it's eliminating the portion. Yeah.

[Sen. Seth Bongartz (Member)]: What does that translate to? Well, language to spread it does what? What effectively does what?

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So it keeps the intent that it's for residential connections and expansions where they're available because I guess that is mentioned later on as well. Relative to current law, would eliminate that it's not prohibited by state regulations or permits, which to be fair, anyone's going to have to get a state permit anyway. So that's, I think that's, I think it's fair.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: Okay. Without seeing it, it's hard for

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: me to understand. I, and so what, what I believe is going to happen is that the rules offer our amendment and I think they're going have a substitute amendment.

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: We agree with that. Okay. So it's not Okay. And our entire

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: committee's substitute amendment for I see. Yeah. Which is why we don't have it actually. Okay. But fair that it's hard to- So maybe one of the things that

[Sen. Ruth Hardy (Member)]: we need to remember after we just talked to all these things about-

[Sen. Anne Watson (Chair)]: So what we could do is, I mean, said from my perspective, I was like, I am not speaking for the committee at this I was like, I think I'm fine with this. Open to being wrong for Pat, what I would anticipate is that if we could, we'll talk about our amendment. They'll offer their substitute amendment. And then if we can recess real quick to just check-in with each other, after we have the language, and then we can go from there. Okay. All right, okay. Exciting day. Oh, I'm sorry, there's one other thing, which is a handout that I am going to be giving to everyone on the floor, which is data that came to me from the Federal Reserve, that this is about Vermont specific building permits for housing. You can see over the last ten years, it's been relatively flat with some spikes, but Act 181 kicks in in the 2024, and then we see some pretty fabulous spikes in housing permits. If you were to add up, so the data that was given to me, I haven't done the calculation myself, but if you average all of the data from 2017 to like up until like 01/1981, and compare that to the average after 01/1981 is implemented, it's a 39% increase in housing permits. It's all in Vermont. So this is not relevant. Well, that's fair. I'm just saying Vermont is in a housing crisis, understood.