Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good morning. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It is still Thursday, 01/08/2026. It's 10:30 a. M. And we are with the Agency of Transportation about several different items in addition to the budget adjustment. So we have our first guest is Andrea Wright, manager of Environmental Policy and Sustainability at AOT. So welcome, Andrea. I don't think you've been in here before, so We'll why don't we introduce ourselves and introduce yourselves and then

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: you can

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: tell us about

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: the work.

[David Yacovone (Member)]: Good morning, I'm David Yacovone, I represent the Lamoille, actually district. Morning, Wolf. I'm John Kascenska from the town of Bergen. I represent 10,000. He has six Caledonia District.

[John Kascenska (Member)]: Hi. Mike Nigro. I represent Bennington and Peltus.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Marty Feltus from Levin. Robin Scheu from Middlebury. Fifth Bonele from the South End Of Burlington.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Wayne Laroche represent Highgate, Franklin, Berkshire and Richmond. Hi, I'm from Duncan County and I represent the Windham Court Street. Thank

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: you. This is Tom Stevens. Hello. I'm Waterbury. And Waterbury Twirls.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Starting to get to

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: another meeting or coming in.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Okay. So introduce yourself. Yes, thanks for having me. I'm Andrea Wright. I'm the environmental policy manager at the Agency of Transportation. I manage the Environmental Policy and Sustainability Program, which focuses on all things really policy related for the nexus between transportation and the environment, but certainly over the last few years has had a focus on climate mitigation and adaptation. And so with that, we managed the implementation of the NEVI funding, which we're here to talk about today. My colleague, like we said, is joined online, Hilary Del Ross, who is really overseeing the day to day implementation of the funding. So she's here. I will go through it, but Hillary's here to answer any questions. Great, thanks. So I guess I will start off. I did provide a memo yesterday. Hopefully you have that. Really, I just plan to run through that sort of high level as far as the program goes, focusing on the funding aspects. There's a lot more to be said about that. And at the end of the memo, I mentioned some required reporting from the House, Transportation and, Senate Transportation Committee. So we will be submitting a more detailed report on it's an annual report required on the NEVI program and our progress towards meeting the state goals for the EVSE rollout. EVSE is electric vehicle supply equipment, charging equipment. You'll hear me talk about that. We'll be submitting that report, next week, so if there's any further interest in that. But, this will just sort of focus on the timeline of the funding and with mostly focusing on last year and positive funding. So the IIJA, the NEVY program, the apportionment from Vermont was $21,200,000 That was apportioned in or signed into law in November '1. It took quite a while for the guidelines and different details. There was plans that needed to be developed. So the way the program works is there's an annual plan required, and you do not get access to that year's apportionment until you have an approved plan. Some of that guidance was lingering. It took time to develop those plans. There's an alternative contracting method with this, because it's not just building a project, it's maintaining those assets for at least five years through the guidance. And so we had to come up with alternative contracting methods that we call design, build, own, operate, maintain. So that's a different contracting method than what we have used in the past. So that took some time. It took other states time as well to get this going. The first compliant station was put into place and considered operational around, I think it was late fall, early winter in 'twenty three. And then in the '4, Vermont opened its first station in Bradford. It was the sixth in the nation, so we were pretty close to the beginning of all of this. So that was 2024. During that time, we sort of used pilot with that alternative contracting that we developed. We kind of used that as a pilot. And then shortly after that, rolled out an RFP. By December 2024, we had made awards on a number of contracts in total of about 7,300,000.0. And then in January 2025, we had the executive order that paused the funding. Do it through the appropriation or anything. They just said, this program's been taking a long time to get going. We want to look at it. We want to revise the guidelines. We are rescinding approval of the plans and, hence, access of the funding while they develop new guidelines. So that was what we heard.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So it wasn't even a pause, and you'd get the money. It was taken back.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: It was paused. We just did not have access to it. At that time, we had been apportioned 16,700,000.0 of that $21,200,000 And that put a pause because we had only obligated the funding associated with our first station and some administration. That put a pause to $15,800,000 of that. So we were on pause. We had to stop some of our contracts. We paused our contracts. We didn't cancel any of them. And we awaited the new guidance. And of course, there was the lawsuit that Vermont joined. That was in May 2025 to try to regain access to that funding. In July, it was late June, early July, that we learned that we were unsuccessful in that lawsuit. We did not prove the harm needed to be successful. Right around that same time, the Trump administration did begin developing new guidelines. And by August 11, they had those new guidelines out. They had a two week, period to provide comment on it and then required that plans be submitted by September 10. So really a quite, quite a quick timeline. Those are updated plans, annual updates of plans are required. And so we got right on it. We got our plan to our Federal Highway Division office, by August 25. They had it approved by August 26, and we had access to the funding by August 29. So that 15,800,000.0 was available to us. Shortly after that, the federal government released the federal fiscal year '26 apportionment, so another 4 and a half million. We obligated those funds, very quickly as well. And so we have all of our $21,200,000 obligated. We feel like that is safe until something else might come up. But for now, we feel confident that we have access to that funding. We have about $8,000,000 that is expected to be expended through our first solicitation and with the operational station that we already have, as well as some of our administration costs on that. So that leaves about $13,000,000 that we will go out for another 19 locations in the spring, likely spring, with a second solicitation for those remaining 19 sites and up to the remaining $13,000,000 that we have.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Do have a question from Mike?

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: I do. I see the list of towns that we've got there, and glad to see Brattleboro on there. Up until last month, we were pretty willing to serve. However, I just wanted to share some information that in the meantime, I'm not sure you're aware of it, there have been 10 level three charges put in next to the comfort end on Exit 3.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay.

[Michael Mrowicki (Member)]: So if you were ever going to change from Brattleboro, if you went six miles up to Putney where there's a state park and ride, it'd be great to have a charger there.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: I'm gonna lean to Hillary to see the details. I can't remember if Putney is on the list for the next solicitation or not.

[Hilary Del Ross (AOT Sustainability and Innovations Project Manager)]: Alright. Just one second. I'll pull up that map.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yeah, you just introduce yourself for the record, Hilary.

[Hilary Del Ross (AOT Sustainability and Innovations Project Manager)]: Thanks, I'm Hilary Del Ross. I'm the Sustainability and Innovations Project Manager for AOT working with Andrea in the Environmental Policy and Sustainability Unit.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Great, thanks.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Yeah, I will say through the second solicitation, there'll be some flexibility. We have what is called fully built out status, which was required under the program. And so that gives us a little flexibility from the original requirements that had to do with how far from an interchange they needed to be and how far spaced they needed to be or close spaced, I should say.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: This is right next to the interstate as well. It's a pool.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Yeah. Then so we will go out with our RFP. Vendors will provide. We are also, in the meantime, before we even go out with the RFP, we are looking one of the challenges is finding site hosts that want to have these stations. There are requirements around accessibility and access to there has to be, it has to be safe, so there has to be lighting, there has to be access to amenities.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: I would like to pay the place.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: The magic pitch there.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: We hear you.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: It's remarkable that these 10 level threes that came in Brattleboro, they were put in within, like, two weeks. Yeah, they don't take.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Yep, they don't take too long, especially if the right amount of power is there.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Hillary, were you able to find that? What do you need?

[Hilary Del Ross (AOT Sustainability and Innovations Project Manager)]: Yes, Putney is one of the locations that we identified, and that was through when we were back when there was CFI charging and fueling infrastructure discretionary grant funding available through the IIJA and the NEVI program, we had identified additional locations to fill gaps along the state and interstate highway corridors, and Putney was identified in that exercise. So that's really where we pulled the next group of priority locations that we'll be including in the next RFP. So that would help to fill gaps every 25 miles along our corridors. So with all of the money, the two rounds, the 21 and then the 13, how many charging stations

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: do you have? It's 21 total. So I just want

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: to Oh, okay. Yeah.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: We will have up to, 28 locations is what

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: we have in our plan.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: 28 locations, but how many charging stations? That will

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: fluctuate a little bit. The requirements in the guidelines is for level three, one hundred and fifty able to charge at the same time. But with that fully built out status that I mentioned, there is some flexibility where we could have different levels of level three. We could have some level two. So it's going to be it will be determined through our second solicitation what we get.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And how long do you expect it to take before all of these are fully built out?

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: We expect that the nine that we have under the first solicitation will be built out. There's already one built out, so the additional ones will be built out by the '6, some sooner. Some are very close to operation right now. One in Randolph is really close. Brattleboro is not too far behind. So that will be by the '26. And we would hope that the others are under contract somewhere around the '6 and then built the following year.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Great, thanks. Tom?

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: A couple of questions. So our family purchased an electric car this year, we got a charger at home, but one of the, before we had that charger at home or when we travel, noticed that there's no one particular owner or one particular company that's in charge of chargers. And so which is a, know, I'm old enough to remember when pay telephones had somebody who checked on them all the time to make sure they were working. Yep. And that doesn't happen with chargers. Is there any kind of state requirement when you put a bid out and you want chargers on your properties to make sure that these things are maintained because without having gas stations that people are used to stopping in, poorly lit or broken chargers are a problem and a problem for expanding the use of electric vehicles of any kind. I'm just curious to know if there are any standards being put in place for the operators of these chargers.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Yeah, one of the main goals of and the reason for rolling out the NEVI program was to create consistency for people traveling from state to state and also reliability. And so that design, build, operate, operate, and maintain five years of maintaining that they're required to and that we will contribute to through this funding is to have an uptime requirement. I think it's 98%. Is that right, Hillary?

[Hilary Del Ross (AOT Sustainability and Innovations Project Manager)]: The federal requirement is a 97% uptime. And all of the NEBI funded chargers have to do annual and quarterly reports that we submit up through a federal tool that was developed for the program called EB Chart, and that tracks the uptime. It also tracks any issues that arise and calculates the downtime. So we're able to go back and keep track of that each month or each quarter for a period of five years.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: So second question, five years that the extended, is that the intended lifespan of a charger before technology changes and will they be replaced? Is there a plan for planned obsolescence for these machines and how they will be replaced? Or will this require, again, another substantial funding from the federal government to replace and repair?

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Well, I think the whole goal is so to answer your question, the program ends at five years. We don't have another funding. The whole idea is to get charging out to create that reliability, that confidence, so that people will buy EVs and feel like they can still have a similar experience to going to the gas station and filling up so that they don't have to change their lifestyle very much to get an EV. Like you said, you can charge at home. A lot of your trips are going to be covered by that. But there isn't funding beyond those five years. And the market should take over, because there'll be more EVs. More people will be competent. More people buy EVs. There should be the private investment at that point rather than having public investment in it.

[Hilary Del Ross (AOT Sustainability and Innovations Project Manager)]: I would also add here that in our RFP, we do specify that our scoring criteria take into account efforts to future proof the station, and we want to see from our bidders what their plans are after the five year period. So for some, it's being able to swap out if a certain connector type becomes obsolete within that time or afterwards that they would be able to easily swap it out with an updated connector type, or in instances where there's a location that might be poised for additional charging ports beyond the four port minimum that they can either, while they've got the ground open up, where they can lay, make ready work to support either higher power chargers in the future if they do get swapped out or to increase the number of ports to build redundancy or to establish a foundation for higher power charging for a safe fleet or medium and heavy duty charging.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: I'm just curious, because the changing technology, it's an evolving technology both on the cars, mean the used car that I purchased I was able to get a tax benefit for it, but because it's old, it doesn't use, I can't hook up to Tesla chargers or superchargers, so a twenty minute charge isn't really possible for me. Maybe a fifty minute charge is possible for me, which is fine if I'm on the road on a level three, but it just

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Yep.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Things get old really fast.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: In winters in Vermont. Like the

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: chimney board didn't come out of my car. Yeah.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It was stuck. I

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: had

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: to buy a new unit on a home charger because it was stuck in, so I had to take it off the side of my house, put that in my car, the cord was still stuck in, I had my window open and it it had to be towed.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: It's just like driving away from a gas pump and it takes the pump away.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Exactly. At least it was smaller. Bennington, want mention? Yeah.

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: So to build on what Tom was asking, this is basically just a jump start, this process. I mean, something like Tesla has always been vertically integrated and they have their own stuff and they claim, from what I understand and read it, that they will allow other automobiles to be able to use their chargers.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Only their new chargers. You could buy an adapter for $150 to go, but it only works on their new chargers.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Hilary, do you want to add?

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: Is just a jump start. This is not an ongoing government is not going to be selling electricity for people in the future based on what you're telling us. Right. Okay.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So any other questions about this one? Well, it's exciting that we're going to get going again.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: I know.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It's going to take a bit of a while.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Quick story ending. We like those. I know.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Was months there. So thank you both for coming. I know you have to be somewhere else after this, so we appreciate you coming in.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Thank you.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And then we'll have, we have Candace and Gina here. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thanks very much, Hillary. Take care.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: They're talking about the decision. They won't be briefer. Oh,

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: they're talking the next group, yes. Sorry, you changed the subject and I was still on you these.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: I was worried that they were leaving the last time.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Well, we've got budget adjustment, T fund, decision update. It's a good check-in. Sure.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Sure. Hi, everyone. Kanda Sumpfeth. I'm the chief financial officer for the Agency of Transportation. Thank you for having me in to the committee. So I am prepared to talk about our budget adjustment request, which is very minor. I also was asked to go through the September rescission plan with this committee, but I don't have an update. So depending on what you meant by update, chair, I might call Gina next. Great. Okay.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Thank you.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Do you have a preference for budget adjustment or decision making?

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Well, see the budget adjustment. We have this spreadsheet that Adam gave us, so you can just remind us whether it's a 900 number, Raise it one time. It

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: is in the fund transfers section. We have two lines in D101.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh, on

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: the back page? Yes. B101, A1,

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: J, and A1. That's right, the top, second and third one from the top. Yes. Okay.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Yes. So this is to backfill the pilot special fund. We had an appropriation for fiscal year 2026 of January of pilot special funds for our town highways nonfederal emergency disaster appropriation. And the $1,100,000 was not enough to sustain all of our grant agreements that we made with towns in prior years. We knew of two grant agreements for the town of Pompreet and oh my gosh. I am going to pull up the other town quickly. My apologies. Is one of them. Okay. For the town of Pomfrey and the town of Norwich, my apologies, that ran over our spending authority of 1,150,000.00. So we approached finance and management and requested additional spending authority out of the pilot special fund to the tune of $360,050, and they granted us an excess receipt request with the stipulation that we backfill the pilot fund with other funds. And we've chosen to backfill the pilot special fund, a portion with general fund and a portion with t fund. The General Fund portion is from the conclusion of one time DEFIDs from the Mileage Smart program that ended in September. The T Fund is coming from the maintenance stepped ID, but it's based on known reimbursements that we expect from FHWA for the July 2024 flood administrative costs. And those reimbursements are expected in May.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So, we have two lines here. Which of the ones you're Are you reimbursing the entire amount? Yes, yes. If you add those two lines, it equals $360,050 I

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: know they're very particular, down to the cents, but That's all right.

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: I want

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: it to be So you have to back up the whole amount. Say it again. Back filling the entire amount. This is a bit of giving you money in advance of something else.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: We already have the pilot fund special spending authority, and this is moving our general fund and transportation funds to the pilot fund. And the reason we executed the in advance of the session is because we expect invoices from the town imminently. They are done with both of these projects.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Any

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: questions on this?

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: John, this one's yours.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Okay. Have

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: you testified in here before? I see you at

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Joint Fiscal Committee Supply. Last year, once, and previously was in other departments and agencies, state Vermont.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So we have a new vice chair with Marty? You bet. Okay, great. That's the only change we have on our end. I didn't want us to not introduce ourselves. Okay, so you're backfilling with General Fund and T Fund. Is anything not getting done as a result of that backfilling?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: It's No. Painless? No. Actually, if we had received invoices from the towns and didn't have spending authority in the pilot fund, then we would have had to upheld those invoices. So this allows us to pay the towns as fast as we receive the invoices.

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: Any questions on the budget adjustment

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: part? Okay. Great. Next, Amelia?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: So like I said, I know that this committee members of this committee were a part of JTAG and the Joint Fiscal Committee when we went in on September 18. But since not all of you have seen the rescission plan, basically, I was prepared to walk through the rescission plan. This

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: is the first time for many of us we've had to live through a rescission or watch some of the administration. It's been a long time. I think the last time might have been 2009, in the Great Recession. There was a lot of it. It affected all of state government. There was a general fund rescission in 2017, 2018. I always hear that. I don't recall. But it's very possible that I was completely on a little bit, too, at the time. Was my first. And so the reason this happened is because when we had the joint revenue forecast update, there was a downgrade in the transportation front, and it was over 1%. And so as a result, that in statute triggers a decision for that particular agency. So that's where we are. Thank you. Do you want to ask a question before she starts? Yes, well, just

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: upfront before we get to you, do these decisions result in any loss of federal government capital being put forth?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Why don't we have her go through

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: it, we'll hold that question until the

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: answer is no representative. Okay.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: There you go.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: There is there is the memo, which on the second page at the the plan, which is a spreadsheet. And then there's also the addendum, which is a narrative that describes the spreadsheet. So those are the two documents that I've submitted. Right.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: They're on our website, on our committee page, if people want that. And so, okay. So do you want us where do you want to start with the spreadsheet?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: I'm gonna be walking through the spreadsheet and identifying line items. And then if there are any questions on those line items, I might flip to my notes or the written addendums. Great. So seven there was a $7,500,000 downgrade, as the chair said, for the July forecast that triggered a statutory requirement of us presenting to the Joint Fiscal Committee a rescission plan. It was first presented to the Joint Transportation Oversight Committee accepted by Joint Fiscal on September 18. So walking through the plan here, starting on line two, program development or highways, $270,000. That was an amount that I added on top of what project managers had requested to be carried forward for highway projects for this past spring and fall or sorry, summer and fall. So that would have been available in the case of project overruns. The elimination of the 270,000 basically meant that project managers were more constrained this fall to stay on to the estimates they had given me in July.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That working okay so far? Yes.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: But good question. Thank you. Line three, this is a Springfield garage project. We do have a lot of details on the project in the addendum, but the most important piece of information here is that we learned this is a delay to the project. We learned from the city of Springfield this summer about an extension to a waterline to this project site, which we would have wanted to have concluded prior to the beginning of construction. So even in the absence of this rescission plan, the agency of transportation would have likely delayed this project to a future year. That's painful. I I mean, not for me to say, but it made the list. Okay. So line four, this is a delay to the Rutland snow removal equipment building that is at one of our that is at the Rutland Airport. We had planned some upgrades to this building for employee convenience, and this would eliminate those planned upgrades. It was the construction of a new bathroom site and running water to the building. The next one, maintenance, 575,000. This is a reduction of demand driven equipment servicing and purchasing at central garage, which basically equates to the purchase of four fewer dump or snowplow trucks by Central Garage on behalf of the maintenance division this year. Those trucks are on an eight year replacement cycle. The remaining level of purchasing would leave 11 dump or snowplow trucks beyond their eight year lifespan in in fiscal twenty six. Yeah.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: So so you understand you have to have to wait, you know, replacing these things. Yeah. Is there a time frame in mind to replace them at some point?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Yes. Yes. So because of the because of the four fewer dump snowplow trucks, central garage, we'll be taking that into account for future replacement cycles. Sure.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Identify those

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Yeah.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: At some point.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: We we would be ready to talk about the plan as part of the twenty seventh budget. Yeah. Thank you. Alright. Line six, 415,000. So this line item eliminates contracted tree cutting in fiscal twenty six. However, 80% of a typical year's worth of tree cutting is maintained in house. So a majority of our tree cutting a super majority of our tree cutting still happened in fiscal twenty six. Any questions so far? Should I keep on going?

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: No, I'll keep on asking questions. Great.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Line seven, dollars 300,000, a reduction in preventative culvert maintenance projects. These typically exist to ensure paving over failed culverts does not occur. This amount was confirmed that all culvert projects would have been completed with the oh, sorry. Let me let me rephrase that. It's been confirmed that all culvert projects would have been completed with these fund that would have been completed with these funds didn't have scheduled paving projects in '26. So we're not we're not talking about paving over failed culverts as a result of this reduction. That was the point I was trying to make. Sorry.

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: It's about containing the culverts. Is that part of

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: this line item or a different line item of maintaining culverts? There are still funds for culverts representative, but this is just a reduction to those funds.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: For one year? For one year. Yes.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Line eight, dollars 200,000. This is a 15% reduction in contracted mowing services. Our contracted mow mowing typically goes well beyond the clear zone. So with this reduction, the agency believes that we'll not be impacting what a driver can see on the highway and have a reaction time for. Great. Line nine. This is a return or repurpose of iPads purchased for the Vermont Asset Management Information System or VAMAS. These devices were originally purchased for drivers to log their trips this winter, but the addendum goes into detail about how drivers are already doing that for this winter in a different manner. So they will not be utilizing the iPads that that were purchased. Line 10. This is a cancellation of the section eleven eleven automation project. This project sought to simplify and standardize the highway access permitting process for Vermonters. There was a contract in place for this project, and it started, back in this project started back in 2021.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We did go ahead.

[Hilary Del Ross (AOT Sustainability and Innovations Project Manager)]: How did you Yeah.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: How did you choose to cancel a project that has been started?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: The division, the division agency staff involved with this project identified that the selected contractors struggled to implement our full business needs. So while we already have invested significant staff time and there is some costs related to this, it's very likely that this project would not have reached conclusion even the at all of this revision plan. So it was identified for the list. So

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: is the money spent on it already?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Some costs $800,000

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: I'm just asking you, wouldn't we lose? Did we lose money because of having to cancel this project?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: I from what I know from the division, I am doubtful that the project would have reached its ultimate conclusion or goal.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: But did it proceed at all and and charge money, fill money for something that will never be able to use?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Yes, sunk costs the same from the assets.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Well, and the thing is that it's hard to not keep going when you have sunk costs. And sometimes the better choice is to just cancel it. So it sounds like, in this case, that may be the better choice. Is there another alternative that we were thinking too? Is there some other way to get to what you need without doing this way?

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: Is it simpler to get to?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: In in the decision to put that contract on this list, the division relayed that they are comfortable with the current process as is. The the automation project would have brought technology and efficiency. So right now, the current process, what's being sacrificed is a a slightly slower response time to Vermonters than what the ultimate goal was.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: So there's really no art technology that was purchased with this Correct. In operation?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: It it was the goal to purchase technology, but we never That part didn't.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thanks. Right.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Line 11, this is another delay to a project. This delayed the stabilization of the upper platform of the Rutland Amtrak station to a future budget year, but we re the agent agency recently completed a temporary stabilization effort to that upper platform, which the agency thinks will be sufficient for the next few years. So design work for this project is still occurring in fiscal twenty six, but construction has been pushed to a future year.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: So it's safe. Go ahead, John. So so is this not being used at all currently, the platform itself?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: No. The temporary stabilization means that the platform is, to my understanding, is being used. Yeah. Alright. Line 12. This line for public transit, a $100,000. This reflects an excess of state match budgeted for fifty three thirty nine FTA capital projects for bus and facility procurements. Throughout the year, we receive new project delivery schedules. And based on the most recent project delivery schedule, we're projecting a 100,000 less of state match needs. So this does not reflect any change to existing grant agreements with bus providers or any changes to service routes. Line 13. This line item reflects estimated savings from the suspension of most travel directed by the secretary on July 30, which was when we received the consensus revenue forecast for maybe two days later.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Tom, go ahead.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Can you speak to so travel and conference participation, it's easy to say travel and conference participation is professional development of some sort or another. And that's what I'm going to assume here is that people go to conferences in order to improve their work. Were these folks who were not able to travel to these conferences able to attend them virtually? Are they able to attend or get the kind of professional training that these may have gone by the wayside because they couldn't travel to these conferences.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Yes. I am going to defer to my colleague here, Jaina Morris, the director You of can come up to the

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: table if you want to.

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: If you'd like me to, I'll ask Michael Morris. Can answer if you want. Okay. For the record, my name is Gina Morris. I'm the Director of Administration for the Agency of Transportation. Thank you for your question. So we do have some availability for virtual related trainings. Some conferences offer them, some conferences do not. And then some trainings offer that same availability and some do not. So we've had to do some navigation with our, ensuring, I should say, ensuring our employees are able to get the continuing education that they need for certifications and then advancement with training as well as being associated with our specific position. But some of the more discretionary trainings and discretionary conferences. We not participated in those unless there's a virtual option.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: What's the definition of the discretionary?

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: I would say it would be something that would not necessarily be related to a position. Some of our positions have required certifications and the agency, if the position is required, has a required certification, the agency shall provide the training associated with making that certification. So an example of that might be in certain circumstances that PE is supported, professional engineering is supported by the highway division. And I'll use an example from my division, I have some folks that serve as special project managers. PMP or project Management Professional Certification, is not a requirement of their decision. It could be something that they would support if it were for their individual development plan, or it could be felt like it would be in the benefit of the agency for them to maintain that certificate, or obtain that certificate or maintain it, that would be a discretionary item because it's not tied directly to a requirement for the position, even though it does provide substantial benefit to the organization.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: So you still have some kind of

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: a priority list of essential trainings that need to happen here. Yes, we're ensuring that some of those folks have been there

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: for some

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: We are able to bring some training into the organization as well in a different manner. So our technical training center has worked closely with each of the division directors to understand the impacts of not getting any travel related training or education and how we can supplement that by learning trainings in house or how we could do things a little bit differently.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: And so even with the reduction that we're seeing here, there's trainings happening.

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: Yes, there's lots of training. Lots of training. Sure. Yes, yes.

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: Thank you. You're welcome.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: And I just have a second question. I think I'm all set. Perhaps not, but so the total of the recession was $7,500,000 and that's based again on year end the transportation fund came up 7 let's just say $7,500,000 short. Is that is that what is that what drove the rescissions?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: No, the rescission was driven by the economist forecast in July against January. So not yes. The economist takes our year end actuals into account in his estimates, but the delta is what it was in January versus what it was in July.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: And so, what were the appropriations and not the ways and means or the Transportation Commission Committee? What would it take to raise if we were to raise the gas tax? I know it's third rail politics, but if we were to raise the gas tax, what would it take in order to raise the amount of money? I mean, I know that we have a fundamental issue with the increase in electric vehicles and we're paying

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: for the future. Just

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: a testimony on increasing, wanting to increase the number of electric vehicles for climate based reasons. But we've all known for many years that the revenues have dropped, that have put a fundamental difficulty in place in squaring T fund revenues. But we haven't talked about how do we raise those revenues with relation to the gas tax in some time. I believe the last time we tried to last time we raised the gas tax, we also rescinded it the year later because there was such a political backlash against it. I'm just curious to know the department has an idea of what it would take in that particular way of raising revenue to kind of keep square.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: We we haven't modeled that, but the the two economists that get together for the consensus revenue may have some models. Joint fiscal office may have some models. As part of the presentation to JTAC in September, I also presented a five year outlook, which we typically create for the legislative bodies. So we did an update specific to September, which showed the 7.5 effect in 'twenty seven, because not only was there 7.5 in 'twenty six that this rescission plan was speaking to, but there's an equal, if not even maybe a little greater, maybe like $300,000 more down in 'twenty seven. So there definitely is a known transportation fund hold going into 'twenty seven. And that was discussed at the Joint Transportation Oversight Committee. But in terms of modeling on tax revenues, we do not.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: I just want to point out that I did, when I talked about my electric vehicle, I did pay an extra 80 it wasn't an extra $89 it was $89 that I think is meant at least temporarily to say, well, you're not buying gas anymore.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We instituted that fee a few years ago and so yes if you're a hybrid you pay half of what the EVs pay but yes it's like $179.89

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: or something.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Yes I'm not advocating for the gas, I just wanted to find out if you model that the drop in and how it works. Because I think for most of us, it's easy to think, well, it's gas, you know, and electric users have been kind of, but wait, we're doing, you know, and so.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And we'll hear more in the I'm sure, the effects of an FY 'twenty seven budget. So why don't we finish the spreadsheet that you've got?

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Yeah, Marcia, I can wait till she's done. Okay. I do have

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: a question, but I want to comment.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Let's finish this up. Yeah. Okay. Thanks, Wayne.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: The last part of the September rescission plan was $2,254,000 in position management savings, which were the result of a reduction in force. And that reduction in force is detailed in the addendum. But just to read off of it for a moment, we had 26 limited service positions from the IIJA, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. A number of those positions have been vacant for over a year with others recently vacated. Those that universe of 26 limited service positions were a part of the reduction in force, as well as a limited number of classified positions. So how

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: many I know there were some open positions of the 26, and I keep having the numbers sixteen and twelve in my head. But how many actual people were

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: ripped? I am going to once again just please. Thank you.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That would the only question. Thank you. Thanks.

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: So I have some numbers to share regarding this, as well as an update from John Burrard, the labor relations director, provided some information yesterday. Perfect. Thanks. So we had a total of 31 positions that were eliminated. I believe I previously testified that there were 28. And I did not account for the three unfunded positions that we had not already included on our 'twenty six budget. So the total of the 31 positions, 15 were vacant and 16 were filled. Of the 25 limited service positions, two of them were ARPA related, one was vacant, one was filled, 23 were infrastructure investment and Jobs Act related, 11 were vacant, and 12 of those were filled. So as of January 7, the information collected from John Berard and Labor Relations, 21 employees received notice that they may be impacted by a reduction in force. So I'll explain that because if there were only 16 filled positions, that doesn't equal 21. But because of the nature of the RIF process, the reduction in force process, there is called vertical and lateral bumping rights. There's other items in play. And the result of that meant that potentially more people than the original 16 would have been impacted. So six employees were ultimately separated from employment, and one employee was reemployed and rehired post separation. So the outcome resulted in five employees being separated. And that was a couple of weeks ago data. So there might have been another rehire since then.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And of the other 21, they did the bumping thing and got jobs? Or what happened there?

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: So the number 21 is an obscure number because it may or may not have resulted, like somebody may have chosen to not take the bump that they were offered. So the impacted party that would have been bumped was noticed as part of that 21, but may or may not have been impacted. And it's so situationally dependent that following the pathway through that falls within the labor relations program.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So are there actually five fewer people now? Is that the net of the whole thing or how many fewer people are now? There are 31 fewer positions available.

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: Still 31 fewer positions. Only

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: five separated, the others moved around.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I don't understand. Some

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: were vacant.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Some vacant. Were weren't there. They weren't filled.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right. There 16 bodies that were not, those positions were going away. You did a notice of potential rift to 21 because bumping things. And

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: ultimately, five were separated or were not rehired through the bumping process.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And so, I guess maybe we'd have to ask John, right? That's his name. If people were bumped, so if people, so the five were AOT people that just left the exact job that they had, If they were

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: The five is the net result of all of the 21 that were noticed. The net result of that is five. And technically, would be six that were separated. And then one that was rehired. It's not known if that employee was rehired. I don't know if that employee was rehired within AOT or over, but I believe it was elsewhere.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So this also would include people that got bumped? Yes. And would you know how many people actually got bumped from there? I mean, of the net five, were those people that got bumped, or were they people that were were in those limited surgeries? We have to ask Jonathan.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Does that save the $2,200,000 We are within $75,000 of the original estimate, And I feel comfortable that we'll shore that up in Pay Act, which is a $3,000,000 appropriation that was from last year to the agency of administration. And they, in the pay act process, go out to all of the agencies and departments and ask for estimates of what we would need for pay act. So we would have access to the agency of administration's Transportation Fund Pay Act appropriation this spring.

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: You count the 2,200,000.0, you count the 15 vacant spots on that 2,200,000.0? Yes. So that's not people who left, that's the total? 31. The total amount of the 2,200,000.0 includes all of

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: the positions. Yes, the vacant units.

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: And the accounts go through, you said there were 25 that were through the ARPA.

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: There were 25 limited service, and that was broken down as 23 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, or IIJA, and two ARPA. You

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: have a question? So, tax, gas price is set as a percentage of the sale price of the gas. Or not per gallons by sales tax, the price of the gas. So, if the price of gas goes up to $5 or down a dollar, does that impact how much money that you bring in terms of tax from from gas sales. Sell the same amount of gas, but the dollar value the price of gas up or down beside cause a fluctuation in your revenue.

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: I'm I'm so sorry, representative. I don't know the answer to your question.

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: Well, I'll find out.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Know, AOT will be coming to do the FY27 budget. Some of this we can ask those

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: folks Because as

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: my concern is obviously every agency isn't having a rescission. I lived through the February

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: and I had to deal with that and I took a pay

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: cut myself because of it. But that was a statewide thing. Right, it All the agencies. So we got one agency here in the problem. So I don't think we're looking

[Wayne Laroche (Member)]: at an economic problem. I think we're looking at a funding

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It's structural problem that we have. We've had that for a long time. And that's why JTOC transfer, the $20,000,000 we gave back to the agency of transportation last year. We don't have that again this year.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: Think someone should be really looking at the whole The whole picture of

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: yes, the whole funding structure, because it's an ongoing problem. So I think people are looking at that. Everybody is well aware of what's going on. And you can talk to Chair Walker in transportation and find out what they're thinking. Go ahead, Lynn.

[Michael Nigro (Member)]: My understanding, my first year here, my understanding is that the gas tax is on the number of gallons sold regardless of the price. And the transportation TIB or something, the bonding that we passed that year is based on this price of a gallon.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Is that correct? Sorry, so the first half of

[Gina Morris (Director of Administration, AOT)]: that is my understanding as well, but I'm not 100 sure on the second portion of the tip that I'm seeing some shaking in line.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: All of you are right, but there's a little bit of nuance I just wanted to add. So no, you rate it with the gas taxes on per gallon basis. So the number one thing that drives how much comes in is how many gallons are being taxed to be that are coming into Vermont to be sold at Vermont. There is also

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: a price component

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: in it though on the tip piece as well as the piece that goes into the transportation fund. So the way these work are every quarter the DMV looks at what the average retail price is statewide in the prior quarter. They then back out all the tax in that quarter to reach a tax adjusted price. They'll then apply like a 2% or 4% assessment to that calculation, reach a cent per gallon equivalent and then apply that in the next quarter. The price sensitivity for the tin piece, the 2% kicks in when gas prices at the pump are above 2.48 a gallon and it has a minimum of 3.96¢. The 4% assessment that goes to the T fund has less sensitivity because it has the minimum rate of, I think what 13.1, 13.4¢ per gallon. So the sensitivity doesn't kick in on that until the average retail price is above $3.87 at the pump. In this entire time we've had this system, I think we've only gone above $3.87 and triggered the price sensitivity for like one or two quarters and it was right after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: All right. Are you

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: gonna ask the question? Thank you, Chris.

[Andrea Wright (AOT Environmental Policy Manager)]: Have somebody else figure it

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: out. Okay, where are we?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: I just learned I'm going to defer to joint fiscal on.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Thank you for answering. Okay, so I think we've gone through the rescission. People are sort of clear on what had to happen there and why it happened, and we're going to get a new revenue forecast update next Friday. We're all going to be tender

[Thomas Stevens (Member)]: books waiting to see

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: what happens there. The meantime, yeah, you've done your budget, except who knows if there's going to be changes or not. We all know

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: that. We

[Hilary Del Ross (AOT Sustainability and Innovations Project Manager)]: are always prepared for

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: budget adjustments as a result of January.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Was there anything else you guys wanted to talk about with us while we're here? Or are we going to wait till the '27 budget to talk about all the other stuff?

[Kandace Sumpfeth (Chief Financial Officer, AOT)]: Sure. The only two items. Okay.

[Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Great. I'm not seeing other questions from everybody else. We really appreciate your time. Thank you so much for coming in. And we'll see you again in a few weeks following. Okay. Thanks very much. All right, Mindy, I'm going look at the agenda. That's it for this morning, and then we're going to start again at 01:15, and we're going to hear from Prince Rupert from Joint Fiscal Office again, but this time about pensions and OPEB updates. That's definitely going to be affecting the budget. We'll have some questions there. And then Emily is going to come in and talk about the contingent appropriations that we made last year and what we actually spent and where they are.