Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Good morning. This is the House Appropriations Committee. It's Friday, Friday, March twentieth, twenty twenty six. I believe it's the first day of spring. It is. Right. It is just after 08:00 in the morning, and we have a very busy day ahead of us. We are going to do a straw poll on this budget before we go home today. And I think we're doing pretty well there. In the meantime, we also have six bills, possibly seven, that we have to deal with. So just to let you know, we have we don't have that one. We have the T bill, which is what we're about to hear. We have an unclaimed property bill, a treasurer's bill, the homelessness response, Chair Wood's bill, the yield bill, the emergency management bill, the unaccompanied homeless youth bill, and I will learn later whether we're going to do the landlord tenant bill. So we have six or seven bills today, many of which are not uncomplicated. We will see how we go and what, But I think the bigger storm is going to be Sunday, not today. So we will discuss all that later on as we hear weather updates. And in the meantime, we have Damian here from legislative council, and we have Logan, and we have Chris from joint fiscal office. So who wants to come up to the table and talk to us over to you, Bill?

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Damian, do you get elected? I guess I threw the sharks cut off.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We're nice, we tell jokes.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For such a long setup, that was a good punchline. All

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: right, so what do we have? I think this is part of the T Yeah. T bill on a page and a I have another copy of that big stretchy. Yeah, I think we have a few. And then there's a fiscal note. And Damien, thank you for coming this morning. I know it was I really appreciate it.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: The kids are old enough to walk to work, right?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Well, yeah, unfortunately, they they repealed those allowances for child labor. And it's a day off from school. It's parent teacher conference day. So I'm going right from here to a parent teacher conference.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And you know what? We do not need to hear the whole two bill. We just need to mostly hear the stuff that's related to us, and then

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: we'll vote it out. So

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for the record, I'm Damon Leonard from the Office of Legislative Council. And the bill is H nine forty four. The biggest section that relates to you is section one, which despite being boilerplate, adopts the whole 900 plus million dollar transportation program. So, that is the largest appropriation in the bill. That is that's boilerplate every year and then of course, it's dependent on you actually appropriating that money. Inside the bill itself, there are a few things that affect appropriations of the state. Section four allows for waivers of certain bonding requirements for contracts below 250,000 where right now the waiver rate is at a 100,000. The section eight of the bill allows the Green Trek Mountain Transit Authority to seek voluntary member contributions, grants, donations, and other non assessment revenue to build their budget so that they need to take less state money.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: And I'm I know that's been an ongoing problem. So they finally they haven't been doing that.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So they have a charter. You need to amend their charter to allow them to do certain things, and this is one of the steps they're taking. I I don't know that this will solve Yeah. All of the challenges that they face, but it opens stores for new Great. New revenues to be built into their budget.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Excellent.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is section nine allows for an extension of public private partnership authority for the agency of transportation. There's another project that they're looking to do. The project you may be familiar with is the Exit 7, travel, twenty four hour sort of travel plaza right off of Exit 7, in Berlin. The let's see. The section 11 increases maximum grants for the transportation alternatives grant program. It doesn't actually change the

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: amount of money going into

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the program, but you may see that goes from 300,000 to 600,000 with a one year increase to 1,200,000.0 to help get some federal funds out the door.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the underlying bill in sections fourteen and fifteen, the your house transportation committee was going to propose to direct one half of pilot fund revenues to the general state aid for town highways program, and that's one half above pilot payments and grand list stabilization payments.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Can tell us what age that is on your scale?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. I'm going quickly.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: 15. 15. 16. 14.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sections fourteen and fifteen. Yep. I'm working off of my outline. Oh, is there That I'm not scrolling for you. Okay.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: The pilot special fund. Yep. Most of it is not new, but

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the your house transportation committee proposes proposed to take basically one half of the excess revenues. So the local option tax revenues that exceed the commitments in the pilot special fund and directed to general state aid for town highways. Your ways and means committee proposes stripping those two sections out.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh. Yep. Pretty bad. Yep.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then section 16 includes a $192,000 appropriation from the transportation fund to the agency to continue the Drive Electric Vermont program. So that was 325,000 last year. They're proposing to continue it at a reduced rate.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: $1.92?

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Yep. And a quick explanation again of what that program does.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That program provides support for various programs and activities related to encouraging EV ownership. It includes coordination of consumer education and outreach events. If they've got a website that includes information on EV ownership to sort of educate people about home charging and public charging and maintenance and other considerations.

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: It's not about incentives. It's about telling people about incentives.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's about telling people about incentives or other opportunities, and there aren't any incentives currently. So

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: gas prices, but that's

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the good news. So yes. But they also include technical assistance to municipalities and businesses that are trying to add chargers and technical assistance for infrastructure development and so forth. Thank you. So let's see. Go back to my outline. The so section 19 is going to affect the state budget in the future. This is the mileage based user fee.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Tell me again the

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And this starts on page

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: 21.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 21 of the bill and runs basically to the end of the bill. K. The your house transportation committee put in an initial version of this. The house ways and means amendment strips out all of that and replaces it with a new version. So the house ways and means amendment takes what was in the house transportation amendment, and it replaces it with a new mileage based user fee, and it actually retitles the chart, the chapter road usage charges, creates two subchapters in there. The first is the mileage based user fee. The house ways and means program is simplified to a program where at the end of so from inspection to inspection, after your second inspection in a year, they read your mileage, figure out how many miles you traveled, you get billed from the state, and then you

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: They would figure that out.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the current proposal. There's a proposal on the senate to go to two year inspections, that may have to get updated. Although that's delayed, and it includes a direction to figure out how to update the mileage based user fee. But the so at that point, you either can pay your bill as a lump sum or break it out into monthly or quarterly payments to make it more affordable. The estimate is that it'd be an average of about a $154 a year for a new owner, which is designed to track the average amount that a person driving a regular internal combustion engine pays in gas taxes over the course of the year.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So I have a plug in electric hybrid.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You will stay on the infrastructure fee plus gas tax.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So I will not be subject to the mileage loss? Immediately.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there currently, there's no there is no plan to transition other cars, but one things that AOT is working on is a plan to transition because the gas tax is flat at this point because vehicles across the board are getting more efficient, and it's not tied to inflation, which means that year over year, we have less money to maintain bridges and roads. So they're they're looking at transitioning to something that better tracks actual usage of the highways.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right. Which makes sense. And Tom has a question.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What is the relation

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: to on this as an excise tax?

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: Many states that we like to claim are low tax states also include excise taxes on vehicles. And this is this is, you know, this is setting out just EVs. So it's a little bit won't call this insurmountatory, but it's just it's just about I understand the need to to charge people on the mileage, but what is what would be the difference between doing something like this, which has been talked about for years, which no one is still not sure how we're going

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: to do it kind of thing

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: as opposed to just saying

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: if you have an EV,

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: you you should or could oath an excise tax. I'm not advocating for that. I'm just curious.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So the the difference is is that, an excise tax, and I'm not an expert on excise taxes. But the difference is that this charge is based on how much you actually use the infrastructure that you're paying for versus an excise tax, which charges based on something like the value of your vehicle. So and my two colleagues from JFO may be able to talk a little bit more about that, but what could happen here is, so if you own an EV but you drive very little just to go to the grocery store or the hardware store, etcetera, and you're not using infrastructure a lot, you wouldn't pay a large bill. But if you're on the roads every single day racking up lots of miles and consequently contributing a lot

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: to the wear and tear of the road, you'll pay more. Is this cons this

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: I'm sorry. I'm miss I'm missing this as

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: I think about it. Is this considered a fee or a tax? Because a fee is a usage thing, choose it's called, I choose to

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: buy an EV, so therefore I'm choosing to pay this in in a way I'm choosing

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: to pay for this fee for the

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: usage of the roads as if it's

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: a toll, as if it's a,

[Representative Thomas Stevens]: you know, a municipal

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is this is considered or called a fee because it is tied to your usage. So similar to tolls, etcetera, this is

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: you're

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: paying for the usage of the road as opposed to a tax where you're paying on the value of the vehicle or some other value of something else. So this here is a fee. There there is a rental car EV rental car usage charge in the next subject chapter that I'll get to, which is probably more into a tax. But the again, that to some extent, it is, you know, semantics, but, you know, this is tied to usage, not value. So you could be driving a Chevy Bolt, which is a, you know, low cost EV, or you could be driving Mercedes Benz EQB, which is a relatively high cost EV. If you drive the same number of miles, you're gonna pay the same amount. Thank you. Your purchase and use tax will be different, but that's a separate issue. And

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: that's a tax.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That is a tax, and that's on the value when you buy it.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Great. So, the ways and means simplifies it down to just that one payment method for now. It adds exemptions. So, there's an exemption for US Government vehicles and state government vehicles as well as for EV rental cars. The concern with EV rental cars is because you can register them in any state. Is the the concern is that the companies would just stop registering them in Vermont. So instead there is a charge on each rental transaction for an EV in Vermont to hopefully cover some of the usage in Vermont.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Are we doing the bill or the amendment? We're gonna do both. I mean, but you're you're talking on the bill right now.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so this is the it's this strips out an entire section from the bill. So, the if it's simpler, we can do this is on the amendment.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We have the amendment. The amendment is on our committee page is passed by ways and means. So Just wanna make sure I'm

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: looking No. That's okay.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right. So we're sort of talking about the amendment right now. Yeah. I mean, it's the m buffs, the mile Yep.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we should fee. In the in the bill itself, all of the m buff, mileage based user fee sections are stripped out, and the ways and means bill replaces them with new sections with the exception of the technical changes to the infrastructure fee, which just dedicates that money to the transportation fund instead of the the short term program that was is still at ACCD to help subsidize, chargers at multifamily residences and small businesses. So that infrastructure fee was used to help build out level one and two chargers, which are the the slower chargers there. They're the the very slow and the sort of moderate speed home charger type chargers. And this would direct that money back to the transportation fund now for plug in hybrid owners or hybrid owners. Well, plug in hybrid owners are the ones who are covered by that. So you're $44.50 per year will go now into the transportation fund for general purposes. So but, the other changes in the MBOF were mostly around things like appeals and what the process is for for that and cleaning up some things where it was duplicative language. Then I mentioned there is a road usage charge on EV rental cars to capture their usage in Vermont when they're rented. So what happens is the rental charge, you'll see taxes and fees on there, and this will be a new 1%, tax on the EV rental charges only.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I mean, what BEV is?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry. That's a battery electric vehicle. Oh. As opposed to a plug in hybrid electric vehicle.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So. Okay. Yeah. There are BEV is the term our statute uses to differentiate battery electric vehicles.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: EV or something like that.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. PHEVs. PEVs, all plug in electric vehicles, which includes those that are plug in hybrids, both where the internal combustion engine is used to drive and where it also is just a range extender. So there's there's a variety.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Much more complicated than this. Technology

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is moving fast.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yes.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that that's the MBUF program. The other things that are worth noting there is that the the fourth instance of amendment in the ways and means amendment will proposes to transfer $2.2000000 dollars from the transportation infrastructure bond fund to the transportation fund this year with 1,700,000.0 of that being allocated to general state aid for town highways. And the remaining 500,000 just allocated to general purposes in the T fund. So that's that's the other major thing there. We're coming up on the half hour and I don't want to make

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Christian. But I know you also have to go. So.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I I do want to yield to my JFO colleagues here. If you don't have any other questions on the language. Okay.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: My mark then.

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: So what was the what was the main change between the original language and what came out of ways and means?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the original language had three methods for paying your m buff, your mileage based user fee. It provided for the option that's in here at the end of your year when you know the mileage, getting a bill for that. It provided for the possibility of a pay as you go plan, which is now a requirement in the ways and means amendment that they come back with a plan to start offering that because they haven't developed that plan yet. So it was basically at the commissioner's discretion at some point in the future that could be offered. And then for new, newly registered EVs, it would have required an advanced payment of an estimated amount and then a true up at the end of the year in ways and means. What about money's loan for town highways? With the town highways, this actually puts more into town highway than the transportation bill. So the transportation bill took what would have been about $200,000 according to the current estimates from JFO. From the the excess local option tax revenues and put that to town highway aid and this takes the 1,700,000.0 that was sitting in the transportation infrastructure bond fund and puts it there. So, this puts more money in the short term in the town highways. So it's not clear what the excess local option tax revenue would have done in out years at this point, but it was 200,000 this year split across towns based on the formula.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: John. So so I just wanna make sure I understand about the what was struck out here. 15 here with well, fifteen and nineteen. Yes. But stated I'm not sure I understand this paid for talent byways. So the generals how they changed that. I I talked to rep Walker about that a little bit last couple of days. Yeah. Changed? Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the the general state aid for town highways is a formula program. Right. Each year, the the base appropriation for it can either stay the same or go up depending on inflationary factors. Right. And what the transportation proposal was was to take those excess local option tax revenues after you've made pilot payments and everything else that, the pilot fund pays for on a regular basis, plus the payments for grand lists and appraisal assistance that have been put in as one time funds. So after that, it would have taken any excess revenues coming in, and then 50% would have gone into the pilot fund, and 50% would have been redirected to general state aid for town highways. For this coming fiscal year, that is projected to be work out to roughly 200,000 going to each. Actually, a little less less than that. So the ways in main stripped that out and replaced it with transportation infrastructure bond funds as money that is carried forward that is sitting there and unused this year. And so it took 2,200,000.0 of that and sent 1.7 to general state aid per town highways and then 500,000 to the general transportation fund. And the 500,000 covers a couple of different things in the transportation fund, one of which is potentially lost revenues from the upfront payments for the mileage based user fee, but we don't have a good estimate of what those are. And my JFO colleagues can talk more about that. Thank you.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: One more, and then we're gonna let Damian go.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: it's now one time instead of coming from Pilot.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Right? So Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's one time instead of coming from Pilot.

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: Pilot keeps growing, and and it's it's there. So what's the trade off there? How are gonna use money?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's a question for for all of you and a future legislature. So, one of the things with the pilot fund is it only started fully funding the pilot payments in 2024 and it is dependent on economic conditions. So, this the payments coming out of it would have fluctuated depending on actual tax receipts from the local option taxes. And the continued adoption of them. But yeah, this is this is a one time boost. It's not an ongoing boost. So, that is probably the trade off there. More money up front, but potentially not as much down the road unless you find another funding stream.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Amy, you need to go. Thank you very much.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you very much.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: We can. Thank you. Yeah. Hope it goes well this morning.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And if you do need an amendment, just send an email, and I can come back and get directions.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: We won't. Thank you so much. Take

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Logan, Chris, for this review.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Morning Logan River with the joint fiscal office. I can either start with the big sort of budget on a page that has all the appropriations that they're, I authorizing. You will be making those appropriations if you approve this in the budget. Or we can start with the fiscal note, which sort of goes through a lot of what Damian spoke about, but can talk to the numbers if there's more questions on that.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I want to just do this really quickly at a high level. I'm not sure what the percentage means, for example. Doesn't add up to 100.

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: Do you want me to join fiscal note or the other one?

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: The big spread. The big spread.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Thank you. Thank So so is the this is all the money that is in the transportation program this year in the big white book. This is sort of broken out by the department going down the sheet and then you have by the funds where the money is coming from at the top there. The highlighted column is all funds. So if you just add up the other ones and then that percentage is the percentage going to that appropriation or that department compared to the total of all the funds in the budget. So for example, the Department of Motor Vehicles at 51,600,000.0 is about 5.5%. So I'll just highlight some of the bigger ones here. This b nine zero three, the program development. This is the vast majority of the transportation budget. This is all the projects, all the bridges, the highways, all those sort of things. Total is $463,000,000 this year, most of that coming from federal funds. And then we have our state match portion as well, as well as some other funds, which you can see there on the right.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So this spreadsheet doesn't show what the totals were for last year, so we have no basis.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: This one doesn't. I can show you one and send the committee one that compares it to what was passed last year, just for the sake of time. Maybe this one, but we can get into

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That would be great if you would have see. This doesn't give us any context that way. Thank you.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So the other big ones are just the maintenance. This is our largest T fund source. It involves all chemical plantation funds. It's $112,000,000 this year. That's almost a third of our transportation dollars. Rail, dollars 60,000,000 this year. Total V Trans program, so those are things that are happening at the Agency of Transportation or through their shop is $844,000,000 $845 almost million dollars this year. And then we get into the sort of town highway programs. This is money that goes out to towns that pay for a variety of things, bridges, structures. You all talked about and Damian mentioned this Town Highway 8 program. They'll be receiving a little bit of extra money. Sort of in the base budget, it's $31,200,000 this year. And then if you look down here the total going out to town highways is about $89,500,000 and then you can get the total AOT programs total there at the bottom $934,000,000 this year.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yes, Wayne, go ahead.

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: You heard my questions about the county. Are they going to get some extra money compared to last year? Is there any major change? I'm concerned about down highways. Do you see any downside to what came out of ways and means?

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So this, and you'll see here this one time appropriation to the town highway at the 1.7, that is just sort of one time in addition to what they were already going to get within this budget and within statute this appropriation of the nine fifteen has a sort of inflator based on either, I believe it's the CPI growth for the year or growth in AOT appropriations. So this should grow every year or at least not decrease. This additional funding that they're gonna get is in addition to what is already set out and doesn't affect that calculation in feed

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: for years.

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: It's not doing that. In feed for years, pilots not that thing.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Correct. Yep. So then there are three one time appropriations. There's some money for the state match portion of funds going to relocate the central garage. This is 1.36 in the budget. There is an additional transfer from an insurance reserve fund for the same amount. They'll be transferred into the T fund and then the T fund will spend this on the state match portion of relocating the central garage. There is the Drive Electric Vermont one time appropriation, which Damian mentioned. That's $192,000 and then the transfer and one time appropriation of the town highway aid for 1,700,000.0. Then at the other bottom page, these are just additional sort of requirements of the T Fund. We send money to BGS for the operation of the info centers on the highway. It's $4,700,000 There's Pay Act. And then money goes to ACCD. Damian also mentioned this from this EV infrastructure fee. That money gets sent to them for their program and that's about $1,000,000 this year. In this bottom thing to finish this up, you'll see that TID transfer that was mentioned earlier, $2,200,000 and that transfer from the insurance reserve fund to pay for that one time that we mentioned there. The rest of this is fairly standard. Are there any other questions on these numbers?

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Nope, not seeing any. If I could quickly take us through the

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Just on those.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: The skin biopsies. Yes.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Quickly run through this one. Damien mentioned pretty much all of these sections. So I'll just re highlight them very briefly. Section 11 is the increase in the maximum amount that we've been granted from the transportation alternatives grant program from $300,000 to $600,000 Section 12 would for an FY '27 allow them to make grants up to $1,200,000 and then afterwards it revert back to that 600,000. 16 is the Drive Electric, which we had talked about, so $192,000 appropriation. 19 is the mileage based user fee. I won't go into all the details here except for I will note in this little chart based on the current information I have and the numbers that we know, this will in the first probably two fiscal years lead to a sort of net revenue decrease due to the repeal of this EV infrastructure fee that we are currently collecting. And then in '29 and beyond, this will sort of net when you take into account, start to generate additional money. Part of the $2,200,000 that had been transferred from the TIB to the T Fund, there's 500,000 left in the T Fund to make up for this loss in net revenue. Section 19, sub chapter two is the road, the rental vehicle charge that Damian mentioned, charging the 1% on the value of this will generate roughly $20,000. And then the last two, we've sort of discussed the EV infrastructure fee going to ACCD will no longer be going to ACCD and then the transfer that we had mentioned of that 2,200,000.0 and what will happen there. Very quick. I'm happy to answer questions or follow-up if there are any after this as well. I do think there are a couple it's up to the committee. Suppose there are a couple of appropriations that historically would be taken out and put into the big bill, I can work with Dan, if that is the route you all want to go as well this year.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: What's our plan? Don't remember.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: We'll take a look and see whether it makes sense to take any of section 23 out of the bill. It might be okay to apply in the bill as it is, but I would just like to put a committee that when we market the language for the big bill, we'll have had one time appropriation language from the T Fund speak to be 192,000 for bioelectric and the 1,700,000.0 for town Highway 80 which is standard practice for electric we do when we build those are the only money changes from our check out right. Did I put skin section 23 of the t bill? Can you tell

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: us which page that is?

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Oh, I'm sorry

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: I'm on page 11. Oh, effective dates?

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: I'm looking at the ways in which

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh hang on.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: So

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: section 22 is the M button, section 22 is the transcript. So know,

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: obviously the committee's fault, I actually think this language can probably stay in this bill. Yeah. As long as you're aware of it, know, it's the interfund transfer from the TIP to the T fund and the language around the 1.7 for town highway aid. We would just want to belt and suspend it with one time of focusing the big belt.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right, we usually put it in the D section and the transfers and so if we do them both, that's fine. You know what? I'll let Emily and you duke that out. It doesn't really matter. I think this

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: might be able to run.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Just ride with this.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Don't think so.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: But well Well, sometimes people like to see them all in one place. So I am agnostic. If you guys, you know, chat and have a

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: preference. It's still isolated and still relative to the rest of the budget. Okay.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So that's one. There's a second one too or is that just that one?

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There's the 192, red electric and then just the 2.2 transfer and the 1.7.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Those are all the transfers all within. Right, it doesn't affect our budget. All right, Lynn. Yeah, I'm just curious. We have a million dollars for going to ACCD for EDSE and it sounds like you want to get rid of that in section 20. Is that what I'm hearing? And why would we send something like that to ACTV?

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That was the construct that was approved by the general assembly when this fee was first enacted. The revenue generated from the EV infrastructure fee was dedicated to that department for a program that increased EV charging or infrastructure access across the state. That was the choice that was made at the time. The proposal now is to sort of, well, portion of this fee will be sort of funds that are repealed and then the other portion is being proposed to just be sent into the general transportation fund for general use instead of going there.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: The infrastructure

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: fee was put in because that was supposed to be a short term measure for only a few years until a mileage based user fee took effect with other electric vehicles. So this was always contemplated to be like this for a few years. So if you are, this would be the last year that the $89 infrastructure need to be in place on that program in our next fiscal year rather than to the last month.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Have any other questions on the T bill? It's not affecting our budget. We're going to vote. Oh, the votes were in, I had written this down, I thought, but now Oh, it's on my Here it is. The transportation was eleven-zero-zero, and houseways and means was nine-one-one. So it's pretty standard transportation bill. Are people ready to vote on this so we can move it along? We have seven bills today. It's now reporting everything I'm saying again. And

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: translating it into Greek.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: That would be more interesting for sure.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: John? Just want to mention the ripple on Christian. Think I've been

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Oh, does anybody have any questions? Passed unanimously out of your Congratulations. So I think if we don't Don't have any other questions? So first, I guess we have to We just do one vote. So It's the bill as amended by Ways and Means. So Ways and Means cleaned up the M bus, made that some purchase. And actually, Chair Walker, did you all do a straw poll on the Ways and Means amendment?

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Yeah, not her Ways and

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Means amendment back into it yet. Oh, okay. But that's how it's coming to us, is as amended. So, all right, we're good to vote on that?

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: I guess so. Is the procedure a little off?

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: It's nice to know, but it's not going to make any difference on our vote. There's no We're the only ones who have possession of the bill, they're not going to ever have possession. So whatever bill, they'll do it over the Straub of anyway. But I'm guessing that you think you're generally Okay with that amendment by law's meetings? If you want to introduce yourself, Matt. I'm sorry I'm putting you on the spot here.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity see Matt Walker, House Chair of Transportation, Juan Sheldon Wright. There was a significant effort in the union of this effort to try to look for a long term funding structure for talent and to recognize that all the work that the communities have done and appreciated help in last year's effort in Jay and this year's effort in the purchase used fixing the T fund isn't going to does not in any way help the town highways structures and bridges. Yeah. And we're trying to highlight that that need is also just as glaring in that area as it is in the state transaction of issues. So, it did go eleven zero looking to be part of that growing town money consumption pilot issue II will expect that it will the ways and means amendment will be it could pass the committee, but it will be substantially closer than it run out.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Right. And I think there's a larger issue with the pilot and how the pilot front should be used. So I I'm guessing that in the next biennium that's going to be taken. There's a lot of people who have an interest in the pilot, myself included, we've looked at it for various things. And whether it's

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: the pilot or something else, the challenges that we all heard in relation to climate issues, really resiliency, preparation for towns and highways and their costs, that's not going to go away. But either we get help from the pilot or somewhere else, we appreciate the opportunity to push that out to make sure we're understanding.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: So we're making our usual incremental progress on trying to solve some of these structural problems.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: I think that's very fair. I just want to say that I agree with the ways of means. I agree with not using pilot for this, but I also think this is I agree with the point that's being raised and that funding needs to be found

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: for this. That's right. That's right. So I think we're probably all in agreement that those are the issues.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Yeah. I think what we're doing this year just helps to continue the conversation about this. We have to make

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: some changes from this time around.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: That's right. So there's so many years in a row we can try to sort things up. Exactly. Yes. May I ask the chair question?

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Yes, you may.

[Representative Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: So the conversation about the mileage, you know judging things on mileage, we've been having that for EVs or even other cars, the way to try to equalize the use of those and whatnot, we've been having that conversation for a long time and so is lack of being able to say we're getting there or we're getting there, we're getting closer to finding the solution, Is that a practical way of, was that a practical conversation in your committee like it's too hard to track people's mileage or we don't have a way or is it a political thing where people are still having a harder time changing things in order to have some equity in the way that vehicles use the road? I I appreciate the question. Move towards my left face user for like, well, the five years that I've been in the committee that's been moved in that direction. It's been understood that we're trying to work towards that mileage based eustrine. There are no states yet in the country that have an electric vehicle mileage based eustrine that is mandatory. So we are, this is what we're rolling out January 1 is going to be the first in the country that is going to mandate that battery electric vehicles pay. So I think it's a step by step piece and the team bill last year that came out of the conference committee had indicated that the intent long term was that all the vehicles are people who need to know how much cases are going be. So although some would say that the progress may not be quick, that it's also not done anywhere else in the country, I might argue that we're moving pretty quickly overall. So you give me a little side to that but it was added as intent language last year and we will see a lot of learning going on about how we can handle mileage based misrepiece. The answer is I think we're going in that direction it's not entirely settled really step by step so and we're ahead of most other states and it's something that Fully appreciated it's just you know the lack of I understand it's sort of real, which is a legend. I think our committee spends a huge amount of time and I appreciate all the listening that's going on about financial retirement that we're in and without new revenue it's pretty hard to solve that problem.

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: Thanks. Okay,

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: we're ready to vote on the bill as amended. Is there a motion to support H. Nine forty four if amended by way of means? John?

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Yeah, motion.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: Okay, there a second? Okay, Schiff? Shift second? Means that we're going to have seven bills today, not six.

[Representative Wayne Laroche]: We don't have to be able to do that. Okay,

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: because it hasn't gone for the full, we're going get it on the tipper. Alright, I'm not seeing any further discussion on the bill. So if the clerk is ready, let's call the votes.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Representative Bluemle? Yes. Representative Dickinson? Yes. Senator Feltus?

[Representative Martha Feltus (Vice Chair)]: Yes. Representative Kascenska? Yes. Representative Laroche? Yes.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Representative Mrowicki? Yes. Representative Nigro? Yes. Representative Swirrell? Yes. Representative Steven? Yes. Representative Yacovone?

[Representative David Yacovone]: Yes.

[Representative Trevor Squirrell (Clerk)]: Yes. 1100.

[Representative Robin Scheu (Chair)]: 1100, and this is John Phil. Thank you very much. All right, thank you guys. If you want to continue to talk, if you can take the conversation outside the committee room, I'd appreciate it. Chair Walker, we're done. We can't do a role with all the just talking going on. We just finished, so if you want to continue talking, you're welcome to, but outside the room, please. Okay, we are going to reverse the order or change the order of the voting of the three bills that we have. We're going put age six fifty seven at the end because Nolan had to go and testify somewhere else at nine, so he'll be back at 09:30. So we will take up the unclaimed property bill when this one is yours. And we have Chris Roop, we have heard this one. Chris, do you want to come and remind us? Sure. James? Why don't we wait till we have the amendment? All right, why don't we go outside and we'll start again