Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Good

[Speaker 1]: afternoon, this is the House Transportation Committee. We're back from our lunch break and we're going to be taking up a transportation sports study that I believe was requested by the Senate. I don't think we did that, but we enough on the people that were involved in the study to present their findings. And I'll turn it over to you.

[Speaker 2]: Thank you very much, Mr. Vice Chair. Good afternoon. Thank you to you all, members of the committee, the opportunity to share our presentation today. We are here to talk about Act 181, the transportation support study that was authorized by Section 37 of law in 2024. So I'd like to start with a few introductions. My name is Marcella Dent. I'm Regional Planning Coordinator for AOT. And my role in this endeavor was as facilitator and support. Here in the room, we have Dan Courier, who is with our public transportation team. We also have Chris Pouech. Chris is our transportation engineer that looks after development review as well as ACT 145 transportation impact fees. Online, we have Matthew Orancio, who is the regional planning manager. And we also have John Slason, is the consultant that we worked with on this endeavor. AOT decided early on that given the nature of the study, especially there was quite a lot of stakeholder participation, it was appropriate for us to engage the help of a very knowledgeable consultant and that is John. We'll talk more later in the presentation. Great. So Jon will share the presentation here and then I am going to just set the stage a bit to get us all on the same page. So we are talking about Act 181, the Transportation Support Study. As you are aware, this law made changes to Vermont's planning framework for coordinating state, regional and municipal land use, and did that in part through the standardization of future land use maps across the state. This is undergoing, this work is happening now. It also reforms Act two fifty by amending jurisdictional thresholds in certain areas. And the areas that we were most concerned with for this study are those Tier 1A and Tier 1B areas, will see the most reduced Act two fifty oversight. Of course, one of the goals of Act 181 was to increase housing production and development in Vermont, especially in those smart growth patterns. So in Vermont's existing downtowns and village areas, having that dense urban compact area and then rural countryside separating those spaces. And then it authorized the transportation support study, which is what we will dive into here. And this support study asked the agency to review the revenue and benefits that were received for transportation through the existing, the previous Act two fifty landscape, and to suggest ways to preserve those revenues and benefits. And this also included a special call out for transportation demand management and transit as well. And so if it's all right, I'd like to hand the rest of the presentation over to the consultant that we worked with Jonathan Slason, and he's online.

[Speaker 3]: Great, thank you. And for the record, Jonathan Slason from RSG. And you can hear me okay?

[Speaker 4]: Yes. All

[Speaker 3]: right. Well, thanks to Marcella and the AOT team. We were able to work on this project together. I know we have some time to spend reviewing this study, but I want to be respectful of that. And I have a number of slides to go through, but I also want to ensure that we are all understanding the materials that we prepared. So please feel free to interrupt, ask any questions that you'd like to discuss. Obviously we'll be the chair and we'll be looking at the time. Marcella, they're being in the room, apologies that I was not able to be. And so thanks for being flexible for remote today. She'll be able to, if you're able to then flag with Marcella, if I don't hear you ask the question, she'll help me repeat it. So with that, I'll introduce the study process. As Marcella mentioned in the Act 181 authorizing legislation, it asked for a transportation support study to be produced by the agency of transportation. Namely because of the stakeholder engagement and the process that the AOT was asked to go through, it really necessitated the need of a third party. So RSG contracted to undertake this study. Myself and the firm RSG with my partners, we have a long history of working with these particular topics of Act 145 and Act two fifty. We've been able to bring a lot of that institutional memory to bear in this particular study. The task two, we reviewed the revenue and the benefits of Act 145, which we'll define here shortly, but that's the transportation statewide impact fee and Act two fifty review generally, both of which are affected by implementing Act 181, particularly in the tier one areas, tier 1A and tier 1B, which were the really the emphasis of this study. The task three conducted a wide ranging stakeholder engagement process. We had over 13 meetings with various partners. We have a slide that goes through who those partners were and what type of information we heard from them. And then lastly, we put that together into a findings, into a final report, which synthesized the tasks, what we heard and identified a number of challenges, but also opportunities for you all to consider in terms of the legislative next steps. So I mentioned Act 145. This is the statewide transportation impact fee. I mentioned in the report that this is a unique circumstance. The state of Vermont is the only state in the country that we believe has a statewide impact fee. Most states that do have impact fees authorized in statute have them occurring at the county or municipal level. Without county government, Vermont has the state and municipal level impact fees allowed. So the Act 145 was created around 2014. Chris Clough started, he's in the room. He's been helping administer the program as part of the development review from the agency's perspective, but it's been administered by the Act two fifty process. And so that's why it's a topic in this study is that the Act 145 statewide impact fee would no longer be collected by projects, by land use development projects that are occurring in the tier 1A and the tier 1B areas if they are exempt from Act two fifty. So the authorizing study asked us to evaluate what is the revenue potential impacts of no longer collecting this statewide impact fee. In summary, the revenue is not all that substantial, particularly relative to the cost of the capital projects that we're talking about. But let's not get there quite yet. First, why did this Act 145 get created? It was created to particularly balance this scenario called this last in dilemma. And we've defined that in the report as being where the level of mitigation or the local development review process or the Act two fifty review process asks for mitigation that sometimes is out of scale with the level of particular impact of the land use project. And what does that mean? That means is that sometimes it's that final level of vehicle use that passes through a particular facility that then exceeds a certain standard of service or a level of service that the agency has defined as acceptable. In the transportation vernacular, we have a level of service that's similar to a report card, A, B, C, D, and F. And if we exceed those thresholds, namely defined by delay per vehicle, it's often that we ask for mitigation. And that mitigation occurs by expanding the facility and adding more capacity to accommodate more vehicles. And so this was the genesis of this Act 145 project or the fee came about around Exit 16 in Colchester, that diverging diamond. And what was happening was that there were some incremental land development projects, but every incremental amount of vehicles that were being added, added congestion to those important intersections of a vast public importance. Because not only is it an interchange, but it's a state highway going through in an area of a lot of commercial and freight activity. And so any of those vehicles were adding more congestion to this area. And finally it reached a point where it was failing in terms of those level service standards and the land use projects were going to be denied and they were not able to go forward without funding some very substantial costly infrastructure improvements. So Act 145 came in and said, we're going to realize that this project has sufficient public benefit that will benefit multiple parties and that we're asking for the ability to participate in a fair share contribution method. And that is what designed the Act 145 process in that is allows the land development process to go forward while funding that large infrastructure project. But the infrastructure project didn't necessarily have to be physically built by that one development or that land use project. So this is a really unique circumstance in impact fees and where the benefit of this Act 145 process happens. You'll see some comments later on is that when Act 145 is not available to us as either a land development project or not available because the project is exempt from Act two fifty, there's some concerns about that. So we've talked about some existing revenue. The Colchester Diverging Diamond has had over $300,000 collected for that project. There's a roundabout in St. Albans, Hartford. These are example projects. They're spread around the state, largely Chittenden County centric just because of the number of projects and the land use changes that has warranted Act two fifty review are just more numerous in Chittenden County. One particular piece of 145, which we'll get to as we talk about transit and travel demand management, is that ACT 145 was designed particularly to address vehicle capacity. So we will understand that it may have limited effects or benefits for non vehicle topics. So we mentioned about the revenue, generally around $160,000 annually has been collected. While modest, it has been acknowledged as a benefit because it's non federal dollars that can be then used for other project sources. There's been about 35 physical projects being funded by Act 145 and fees have been collected from over 150 Act two fifty land development application projects. I'm gonna pause kind of at each slide here just to make sure Marcella can jump in if there are any other questions.

[Speaker 5]: There are representative Pouech, is there a representative one?

[Speaker 6]: So since thanks for showing us this Since act one forty five started, is a few years ago, I don't remember the exact date, there's been a hundred and fifty six act two fifty permits that have collected this transportation impact fee. Is that right?

[Speaker 3]: There's been a 156 land use permits that have paid the impact fee.

[Speaker 6]: That have paid. Okay. Yep. And and those have been applied to 34 different projects so far?

[Speaker 3]: 35 different projects. Yes.

[Speaker 6]: Thank you.

[Speaker 7]: So just, So these fees are charged to commercial projects that fall within Act two fifty. Areas In or throughout Vermont, or is it population based, or is it based on traffic getting to a certain point and then it triggers Act 145?

[Speaker 3]: The answer is that, Chair May I answer? Yes. The Act 145 process is funded across the state. First and foremost, the project, the physical capital project has to be on the stip. So on the statewide improvement project list. Now that list can be amended annually. There are two projects that were brought forward that were a 100% developer funded. There was a signal project in Derby on I-ninety 1 and there was a signal project in South Burlington on Kimball Ave. Most of the projects however have been moving through the public process and put on the stip. They're statewide in nature. There's projects in Hartford as I just described in Derby, but most of them are Chittenden County centric. Now the process is that the land development has to go through act two fifty in order to trigger the act 145 fee. So that is the first critical test. The land development process project can be residential, can be commercial, and they can occur anywhere in the state. But if as long as it needs to trigger the Act two fifty process, then the Act two fifty process reviews the transportation impact. And it may determine that there's an Act 145 project, a physical capital project within a few miles of the land development project. And therefore that's the nexus where the land development pays a fee based on the number of vehicles that pass through that physical land or the physical capital project. Does that answer those questions?

[Speaker 7]: Yes, and I think the one part, again, just to clarify. So it's commercial or residential, goes through Act two fifty, and these are projects that are in proximity of a transportation project, which is on that master transportation list of projects that are underway or will be underway.

[Speaker 3]: That is correct. Are obviously more nuances than that, there

[Speaker 8]: But start with the basics.

[Speaker 3]: That is the general basis.

[Speaker 4]: Thank you.

[Speaker 5]: Representative Casey. What are

[Speaker 9]: the administration much does it cost to implement this? How many people are how much are the administration costs for this program?

[Speaker 3]: We did not get a fine number of that. There is one staff person and he's sitting there in the room with you who is delegated with administering this fee on the behalf of

[Speaker 5]: the

[Speaker 3]: agency. In terms of the scale of effort from the consultant role, we did have a conversation with the AOT staff, which involves primarily Chris Clough sitting in

[Speaker 10]: the room.

[Speaker 3]: He annually looks through the STIP, identifies what projects might be eligible for consideration in the Act 145. So this was the other nuances that I was just alluding to. The projects have to increase capacity to the system. They should be relative to providing not just benefits to one land development, they should be generally providing transportation benefits at large to many parties and they have a pathway toward construction. So they've been identified in the STIP and moving forward. So Chris looks through that list every year. So there's a set number of hours for that. But then aside from that, it's more of the ad hoc development review and those, and his primary job is that development review. So I would say that's not Act 145 centric, but there are a handful of development review applications that triggered Act two fifty and are approximate to these Act 145 projects. So in terms of the extent to Chris's annual workload, this is not a substantial part. And so the cost of benefit, if you will, we think is fairly, it's more obvious in the state's favor that the $160,000 per year revenue far exceeds the cost to administer the program.

[Speaker 9]: How long does it take to do a review on average? A reserve?

[Speaker 3]: A deferred 2%.

[Speaker 9]: How long does it take

[Speaker 4]: to do a turnover

[Speaker 9]: on a review?

[Speaker 10]: Afternoon, everybody. Chris Lalley, Vermont Agency of Transportation Development Review Engineer. It depends upon the size of the development. If it's a smaller order one, it can be reviewed fairly quickly. I review Act two fifty applications with these developments quite a bit. There are just a few trips through Act two fifty that can be reviewed very quickly. I mean, in a matter of fifteen or twenty minutes. But if it's a larger order application that has 75 or more trips or 100 or more trips, That takes a little bit more time to review. And they can also involve a tracked impact study, which is usually done by the developer, which is the document that has a methodology and analyzes those trips. That can take a little bit longer. That can take a few hours to review that, discuss any changes or any comments with the engineer who created it in case there's any discrepancies or anomalies.

[Speaker 11]: Thank you, Mr. Scherer. It says that transit and TDM programs have not been funded with Act 145 fees. Could they be?

[Speaker 10]: Not at this point because 145 has been just through, I call them almost brick and mortar capital projects, true capacity bearing capital projects. For us, mostly traffic signals, roundabouts, and turn lanes. What we do accomplish with 145 with respect to TDM is we will take a discount off of the fee to a developer. So if the developer is building, they're going through Act two fifty, they have to pay a 145 fee of, we'll say X amount of dollars because of the capital projects we've identified. If we found out, oh, they're building a sidewalk that's connected to the sidewalk network, we'll take 10% off the fee. Oh, they're building a bus shelter or they've got an active shuttle bus running on behalf of development, we will take 15 to 20% off the fee. So it's a matter of a deduction off the current fee than it is a 145 for multimodal on its own, if you will.

[Speaker 11]: Okay, and who sets those fees or those incentives? Is that something that's done internally at AOT?

[Speaker 10]: It is. There's a form on the website that we call Act 145 guidance. I actually wrote it and conferred with other internal individuals the time was written for the percentages on that. That seems an opportunity given some of the challenges we were hearing about

[Speaker 11]: this morning transit and our, you know, think this body's interest in promoting smart growth to sweeten the carrots that are offered. Thank

[Speaker 0]: you.

[Speaker 6]: Just to recap and make sure I have this right. Act two fifties are flying around all the time. They come through you and you look to see if there's any ongoing projects planned, I guess. And then there's an assumption, there's a traffic study that describes the impact to that planned area. I mean, lot of times there's no traffic study, so that would mean probably it's not gonna impact it.

[Speaker 10]: No, even if it's a small amount of trips, it can impact it. So we already, as John alluded to, I looked through new projects, new capital projects once a year, determine them and put them on the map. But the ones that are existing are already there. There's an online map that actually just shows them as little dots. When I review the ACT-fifty applications, I will see where those developments are, and I actually use a measurement of three miles and five roadway miles. So if the development is creating under 75 trips, say it's an org environment, I'll go three roadway miles out. Are there any F-one 145 dots or project in that area? If so, I'll assess the fee. If it's a larger project, I'll extend that length out to five miles since it's more trips, and probably more influence farther out.

[Speaker 6]: Then you determine the amount that would go into this fee, this fund. Yes.

[Speaker 3]: There is a calculation that is established when any capital project gets added to Act 145. Every physical capital project has a unique fee, and that is based on the cost to build that project or the estimated cost at the time and the capacity of that facility. And you divide the cost by the capacity and you get a cost per vehicle. So it's as simple as that.

[Speaker 10]: Representative Pouech? I missed the majority of this and I apologize, but trips,

[Speaker 4]: what are they? What do you consider, but it's

[Speaker 10]: a trip. A one way trip. So if you're leaving your house to work, that's a one way trip. That's considered a trip. So there is a manual we tend to use called the Institute of Transportation Engineers, trip generation manual, very, very technical sounding, but it is a book that we use that can determine the number of trips based on the land use. So if it's a restaurant of a certain square footage, you can actually plot the points on the graph and it will tell you the amount

[Speaker 12]: of trips that's created. In a particular period of time or?

[Speaker 10]: In general for the land use.

[Speaker 12]: So like in the course of a year or a month or a week?

[Speaker 10]: The trips are usually determined, that's our interest, our amount of trips in a day. Then specifically to us, we really count on as far as congestion for intersections, AM peak hour and PM peak hour. Those are the main sorts.

[Speaker 4]: I

[Speaker 5]: guess a question, we don't spend a lot of time on lane and use per se, so I can see why we're generating a lot of questions. Is there anything that goes back and looks after the fact about how we've adjusted and predicted and sees whether it does or does not ever, whether it was appropriate or whether it worked or whether it caused more or less impact than what we anticipated. I guess I'm saying I'm thinking of some places that were recently, somewhat recently built and the impact on the highway and the traffic was far more than what perhaps or maybe some some people's perception would be that a lot more should have been expected of the developer because of the impact on traffic, as an example. Is there any post war work done on anything that's kind of come through this permitting process?

[Speaker 10]: Multifaceted question. I've got some answers for that one from a development review standpoint. From ones that I've seen where it happened to be, workouts were done for the land use after it's built and cars are coming in and out of it. In many instances, I found it's actually been a little bit less than what the trip generation manual has stated. In other instances, we've spent with Act two fifty and with our eleven eleven permit process. If there's a land use that's on the brink of needing a mitigation, this for me has usually manifested itself as a building that's on the state highway and it just, from our analysis or consultants analysis, it just about meets the warrants to put a left turn lane on the state road that a developer would have to build. But it's not quite there. We will actually ask for sometimes a post monitoring study at one in five years, where we'll ask the developer, upon building, please, or I'll get in touch with them in a year and five years to get the actual data and see. Interesting you mentioned the left hand turn lanes.

[Speaker 5]: A couple of the examples that I'm thinking of in our Franklin County area is if they had to do it over again, I've got to believe they would have been consistent on the left hand turn lanes as the traffic that tries to go around on the right completely deteriorates the edge of the pavement, edge of the highway, down into the ditch, etcetera, because people want to go around once the traffic's backed up, etcetera. I find it difficult to not look back and say, I can't believe that they didn't have to put in a left hand turn lane here. So it doesn't sound like there necessarily is or isn't a full system of review, but developers in my perspective should have to pay for the impacts of entire rest of the community for what happened on that left hand turn to get in there and let into their shop. Same thing, I'm not referring to Walmart in that example, I refer to a different large, St. Louis Walmart is a big project years ago. I wouldn't imagine the traffic patterns that were there today were anticipated at the time. But let's say coffee shops just a few miles in one direction from the other has created a huge problem where they didn't have to put in an up to intern rate. And those are things that come to my mind when I think about what the word analyzing of this is. It should have made a whole lot more is my perspective. So I hear what some of other committee members say about opportunities and impacts on their community when these things get approved, but I don't want to make development more expensive. But I do recognize the impact on the community if we're not looking at it a year and five years later to learn for the next ones. Because there's other national chains that want to come in and they're going to impact them even more on top of the monetization there. So it's a bit of a vague speech, but I'm really interested in that part of what we do after the fact. We can't get any money more afterwards, can we? Right, right. That's why if

[Speaker 10]: close thresholds like that, that's why we try to hold to those post monitoring studies. And then if they do yield something where it's flipped the threshold for a warrant or something, it's gap.

[Speaker 5]: It'll be time to put one end if need be. Thank you for

[Speaker 4]: indulging me for a minute.

[Speaker 9]: Representative Keyser? You guys work right directly with Act two fifty? Are you guys like

[Speaker 10]: I do. Our comment letters are set to the certificate of service group, which is the list of the coordinator and everyone involved. So our official comment letter goes to all the proper parties. So there's not any ex parte communication per se. But certainly all of the coordinators, the Act two fifty coordinators know me and I do work with them. Do

[Speaker 9]: they fulfill their job duties in a timely manner? Do they? I mean, do you know anything about that? It's like, I'll be honest with you, car dealership Rutland County and this guy's been trying forever to get through the Act two fifty process and I don't know if this is appropriate venue to speak about it but he's been waiting a long time and it's been the last from what I understood, I think you were there Chris, that they uh-uh yeah, he was he was making it sound like it was, you know, he's he's he's up to it. He's up to his, you know, his eyebrows and and and there's a there's a dealership that was already there and he's and he's going to make some improvements to the building. It's over by the airport. And so I just want to know if you knew about how timely they are or how quickly they move. It doesn't sound like they move too quickly. I just didn't know if that's consistent for them all across the state. Maybe they move a little quicker for highway stuff, but I didn't know. Maybe this

[Speaker 10]: is the appropriate place to speak about it. I would say sometimes the first thing that has to be ascertained is whose court the ball is in. It Act two fifty something ask of the developer and then they haven't gotten back in a while? Or has the developer fulfilled all of their stuff and they're kind of waiting on Act two fifty? But if there was an issue with that, with speediness of one versus the other, I'd probably tag up with the land use review board who would oversee that if there's an issue with that.

[Speaker 5]: Thank you.

[Speaker 10]: Right.

[Speaker 3]: Should we continue on, Chair? Yes, please. All right, great. Just to wrap up kind of where we are on this task two is that it was asking for these revenues and benefits. So we've discussed a little bit about the revenues. The benefits I just do wanna hone in a little bit about is that it provides a mechanism to address that last in dilemma. And this is where the left hand turn lanes could come up. So in the absence of act two fifty review, and this will happen in those tier one A and tier one B areas, the municipal review process will take over. The municipal review process has full authority as long as it's enabled by statute in conditional site plan, in conditional use review and subdivision review, the municipal review process can look at off-site impacts. If those off-site impacts, they could involve funding transit facilities. They could involve funding travel demand management facilities. The local municipalities have that authority. They also have the authority to impose maybe that left hand turn lane or maybe something greater, maybe a DDI at Exodus 16. That's the hyperbole example, but it was actually for real. And in the absence of Act 145 being available, the local land development project would be responsible for funding that mitigation 100% at their end. And so this is the concern that was noted again and again, that Act 145, the reason why it came about was providing a mechanism to allow the land use development to move ahead without funding that full mitigation on its own on that one land use application. So this is a concern that I'm just bringing up because it was noted again by multiple stakeholders that there is a benefit of Act 145 beyond the revenue that is missing or will miss when it is no longer applied in those tier one A and tier one B areas due to Act 181.

[Speaker 5]: So moving another question. Yeah,

[Speaker 6]: thanks. And I'm gonna guess I don't have any data or know anything about it that the majority of these act two fifty or act 145 situations where money is collected collectively for these projects probably happen in those areas more than others?

[Speaker 3]: Is that it happens more often? Yes. Is did I miss part of the question?

[Speaker 6]: No, no, that's just it. I'd be curious to see what percentage will now not, you know, would fall to the wayside.

[Speaker 3]: In terms of the money and the expenditure locations in the report and in the appendix, there is a separate task two report that goes into more significant depth than we're prepared to undertake today. I don't think it's completely relevant to the bigger picture, but there are some figures that show the locations where the revenue has been collected, where it's been expended. Chittenden County by all means is the center of that activity, but there are locations throughout this state that have projects and had been collected. And so we have tables that break out the amount of revenue by every physical land use project. So a lot of that can be found, I think in that appendix document.

[Speaker 12]: Thank you. Representative Lalley?

[Speaker 11]: Yes, thank you. I just wanted to ask as a follow-up. I noticed that under the stakeholders, FAPTA was one of the stakeholders. And I'm wondering in that sort of in between, this is a kind of a capacity building challenge in some ways, it's one aspect of this. Think municipalities in Chittenden, where this has been used up until now, I represent one of them, are, as you say, are in a pretty good position, most of them, to do a lot of this themselves. Is there a role that was maybe discussed where in communities that maybe don't have this capacity yet, that the RPC could act as the of go between or something to make this happen. We are kind of more broadly in this body talking about could we start to potentially have the RPCs do more types of things as we get this land use reform underway? So I was just wondering if that was touched upon in your deliberations.

[Speaker 3]: Yes, in many cases, so VAPTA for everyone's benefit, this is the agency or the organization that represents the regional planning commissions across the state. And I need to hang up a phone call, apologies there. We met with their leaders of organization, which we were able to ask them a range of questions. Given the timing of the stakeholder engagement, we were fortunate enough to meet with several communities, as well as travel demand management representatives and transit operators, as well as some developers prior to meeting with VAPTA leadership. In many cases, the travel demand management representatives and developers themselves, and some of the communities that were interested to explore tier one A and tier one B areas of exemption, they all noted the importance of RPCs. In many cases, they asked for RPCs to be the next level of support to municipalities. This could be in terms of technical resource. When we impose mitigation at a local municipal level, you need to have a standard of service by which to impose that mitigation. You need to decide when is that threshold passed that you shall necessary have to mitigate. If you do not have that standard articulated, then you will be subject to legal liabilities of a discretionless standard of service. So you need to have that standard of service. Most municipalities, not all, aside maybe from one or two do not have a standard of service that they've defined themselves. And instead they use the Vermont State Agency of Transportation's level of service policy. So there were communities that identified can RPCs help us craft this? Can we create a context sensitive standard of service? When will a certain community would like to impose transit mitigation requirements? When should a community impose bike and ped requirements? These are all things that are being asked of our RPCs. The VAPTO leadership are not surprised by those statements. Their response was generally, this is what we do. We do advise, we need to wait for the communities to come to us. However, they also mentioned that their resources are strained and that they would be looking for additional support either in staffing or other ways to support their way to support communities. But in any, but I don't wanna put words in their mouth is that they were very enthusiastic to say that is their role and they want to support communities when asked.

[Speaker 11]: Excellent, thank you so much.

[Speaker 3]: So moving ahead on the stakeholder list, we engage with a wide range of individuals and organizations, and that's why the consultant team was hired to do some of this work. We met with the land development, Chris Clough and other members of the permitting team within the agency. The agency conducts every Act two fifty application. I think it's weekly or biweekly, a meeting across the agency, bringing different organizations and divisions together to all review land development applications. This is an improvement over historical patterns so that you get all of the transportation ideas generated in one room. This provided us a really good idea about what that process looks like so that I also could answer those questions about the level of effort. We met with a number of transit operators and the transit organization and association itself really gave us a good fundamentals of the fact that transit is funded very differently. It's not developed it not funded on the backs of individual land development applications. Although there has been some land development applications that have funded transit. It is not the fundamental way that transit is funded And that piecemeal development by development funding, ad hoc funding of transit doesn't provide us the system wide benefits that we're really looking to achieve. More questions about that can be answered later and we have Dan Courier in the room to help support that. I mentioned travel demand management representatives. We do not have a statewide entity that speaks for transportation demand management associations. These are folks that facilitate car sharing or on demand mobility services or bike and ped advocacy organizations. These are these organizations that do not have that as I said, a statewide voice for them and how have they been represented in the land development process and how does Act two fifty and Act 145 account for them. We met with numerous developers, landowners, residential developers across the state where they work and how they view fees, how they view Act two fifty, how they view Act 145. And we were able to really understand their opinions that ACT 145 has a lot of benefits to them. They saw where the fees go to. They benefited from those fees because it expanded the capacity and the capacity then gives the system more availability to increase the density and diversity of land development. We met with the Land Use Review Board itself to get a number of perspectives about how this whole process has unfolded and continues to develop and evolve today given the fast changing nature of this tier one A and tier one B definitions and who is pursuing those tier one A and tier one B exemption areas. I've got two slides to quickly summarize what we've heard from those stakeholder meetings. And then we can ask, take some questions. And then we've got one slide to talk about insights and takeaways. So just giving you a sense of where we are and looking at the clock. We've talked about the revenue benefit not being substantial relative to the cost of the capital works. However, it is a revenue source. And if we want to retain that revenue source, we have some opportunities for you to consider. Most of the projects, the physical projects and the land development projects have been Chittenden County centric given the level of activity over the last ten plus years that the Act 145 has been in place. There's a wide interest in preserving the fair share concept. That's particularly of importance or value when land development happens on more costly roads when mitigation is required. So namely state highways, if we do need to put that left hand turn lane in or put a traffic signal on a state highway, the standards are higher. We have bigger facilities, bigger roads, more lanes, more square footage of asphalt with that emphasis of providing through mobility. These roads just generally cost more and given that act 145 is focused on state infrastructure. It's a benefit to have a fair share contribution on those more expensive facilities rather than imposing that mitigation on one development itself. And there was a wide variety of, excuse me, a wide consistency in the stakeholders conversations to that last in scenario. So again, that fair share concept where if one development was that last vehicle that passed the threshold, is there a way to avoid paying a 100% of that project themselves? Is there a way to pay a fair share contribution? So there are opportunities at the local level to address that opportunity. And namely that's municipal impact fees. As I mentioned, the state is unique that it has a statewide impact fee for these particular projects that rise to eligibility. But every municipality in the state of Vermont has statute authority to impose municipal impact fees. And that would allow fair share contributions to be made by land development for the projects that are of interest to that particular community. And therefore it would reduce the cost of any land use application on its own. I'll continue quickly and then we'll pause. Many of the stakeholders were familiar with the standards of service and the review that Act two fifty has conducted for years. There is a little bit of trepidation as to how the transportation impacts will incur or the analysis of transportation impacts will incur at the local level. I mentioned how there was some interest from the communities to go to the RPC and ask for some technical support. That is generally probably what will happen. However, there were some stakeholders that wanted to ensure that the feedback was heard that at the local level, every community can decide for themselves. And so therefore we have two fifty or more individual opinions of what is the standard of service instead of one agency asking for what is that standard of service. So it creates more uncertainty in the local land development process and uncertainty in the land development process generally increases costs and slows process down. So that was a statement. That consistency is that concern, I guess that's that second bullet point. And there was a statement that there was a lot of value that the state has had over the years by having that consistent Act two fifty review. There was the general support of fees generally, as long as they know what those fees are paying for. And the acknowledgement that any fees are upfront costs and those upfront costs challenge the pro formas and the financial performance of any land development project. So I know as a state and you all, all of us are dealing with the costs and the reality of funding our transportation system. Fees

[Speaker 5]: like Act 145,

[Speaker 3]: fees like municipal impact fees, they are all a temporal shift. Who pays? When do they pay? And they need to be balanced relative to the land development process. So I'll pause there knowing that we'll have a slide here to talk about some opportunities and insights. So any questions on what we've heard from the task three synthesis?

[Speaker 5]: We may have got all the questions out before we got there.

[Speaker 9]: Did you get any negative comments on Act two fifty when they're asking are there different entities that you were talking to, the ones that commented?

[Speaker 3]: Frankly, no. There was concern There was a statement made that they know what they're dealing with with Act two fifty and the process to appeal Act two fifty has been more certain and clear. So even if land developers or other entities disagree with the outcomes, there was clarity and consistency and that was stated.

[Speaker 4]: Anybody

[Speaker 5]: else? I guess you get to move on. Talk to them as well, please.

[Speaker 11]: Yeah, I was just gonna say that I think anything that we can do that makes the development process more predictable adds value in this environment. So I guess it's a matter of keeping vigilant that we are regulating the right things and just trying to stay coordinated and complimentary with our sister committees, the jurisdictional goals and land use goals. But thank you. This has been interesting to learn about this revenue stream.

[Speaker 3]: Some summary. Any other questions?

[Speaker 5]: One more.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I'm just asking the committee a question. Is this some things that we want to take up? Want consider statute changes. Do we have an open for the meeting? Do we amend the section eleven eleven? Mean we have this information now, what do we do with it?

[Speaker 5]: My initial answer to that is let's hear what he says about opportunities,

[Speaker 1]: and then we will

[Speaker 0]: I was just hoping to the opportunity to ask.

[Speaker 5]: Good cue for the next section.

[Speaker 3]: That's right, moving ahead. So I'll move quickly here. Some summary, some of the insights and takeaways. I think I've already mentioned about the municipal review process and additional resources, both technical and legal could be helpful to municipalities. I think the comment was just made about the uncertainty that municipalities, as we said, are just more varied in terms of how they approach development review. And some of them have asked for additional resources. The consideration of state infrastructure, however, is also a concern that has been articulated that local communities might be looking out for their infrastructure, town roads particularly, knowing that Act two fifty in the state has always been there to look out for the state's infrastructure. In the absence of Act two fifty now, the local municipalities are, they should be looking out for the state infrastructure. And it's not well articulated in statute to specify how municipalities should be looking out for the state infrastructure. There's a concern also about how adjacent communities might be impacted by those other communities. I'm on my local development review board process, development review board, and we're not looking out for the nearby community when one land development happens. And so this is some consideration that should be taken or at least be aware that the AOT has limited recourse to participate at the local level and be looking out for the statewide infrastructure. Particularly the AOT is only allowed by statute to be an interested person for the purposes of an appeal of a local permit. There is no statute authority for AOT to participate at the local development review board process. There might be an opportunity there. Transit and TDM can be accommodated and incorporated in the local process. There is no statute or guidance for how the local process should involve those entities. We have some information in the report where some communities, particularly around the Upper Valley area have some experience and in New Hampshire where they were statutory, the communities have to engage with the transit operator in the area. There's nothing like that in the state of Vermont. We've already talked about the revenue effects. We've then said that the impact of removing Act 145 through the removal of Act two fifty could be substantial regarding the last in situation. We've talked about how AOT, now I've just mentioned how AOT doesn't have any statute authority or guidance as to how to participate in the local review process. Therefore, there could be potentially a negative impact on the state system, namely the performance of the system as the state has federal performance measures to ensure that we make in order to collect the federal dollars. So there is a risk here that as land development happens at the local level and AOT is not participating, AOT may be caught off guard by particular impacts to the state system. And it may be therefore harder to maintain the performance of that system. The section eleven eleven permit, was brought up in the comments there.

[Speaker 1]: Just add a, if I could, Mike, just on the impact fees there, just a little bit of clarification. You said that this brought in $1,600,000 over ten years, and if we sort of did away with that, along with tier one, tier two, that could have a potential substantial impact. How much does that money now, what percentage of that goes towards doing one of these projects that triggers this impact? It seems like it's extremely low, so I'm just trying to grasp how big of an impact would it really matter. 1,600,000.0 over ten years and you're bringing in 160,000 annually, you have 30 something projects that you did. It seems extremely low. So as to given across the construction that this has a impact of very small amount.

[Speaker 3]: Yes, I think the agreement is that the revenue itself is probably not the main story here. It's actually more of the statements that I was just alluding to where AOT is now no longer in the review process of looking out at the impacts of land development. But I agree the revenue itself by in the absence of Act 145 not being applied, the revenue itself being $60 a year, the state could probably not notice that in terms of the funding of the infrastructure.

[Speaker 10]: Sorry, and I'll just go ahead. Yeah,

[Speaker 6]: this very interesting information. I gotta assume whenever we say DRB process, there's a wide range of community DRB capabilities, where some typhoons might not really have anything really in place. I know our town's pretty sophisticated in that. I'm assuming pretty much anywhere this kicks in. They tend to be more, I'll say, established DRB systems. But what you're saying now is if well, if this goes away for these particular areas that are exempt from Act two fifty, then the state isn't a person of interest or a party to the process. Is that what you're saying?

[Speaker 3]: That is correct.

[Speaker 6]: Okay. And that you'd only could get involved in an appeal. So the state could then appeal potentially saying, hey, this project impacts this state road intersection five miles away. Correct.

[Speaker 3]: Yep. And clearly an optics concern that we've identified as the consultant side. And it would be probably a more efficient process to participate earlier in the planning process and the permit process.

[Speaker 0]: Representative Burke? But the municipality, we put the fees.

[Speaker 6]: We do, municipalities municipalities do collect impact fees, but not for road construction projects

[Speaker 0]: for the state. Yeah, that's what I was wondering is if the, maybe a misunderstanding, but if they're talking about a greater role of the state in the which is missing in the in the. Is there a greater role instead for the municipalities?

[Speaker 3]: I'm having a hard time if there's a question there to hear it.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, sorry. I'm just musing about whether there's any opportunities for revenue going to municipalities from any impact fees.

[Speaker 3]: So jumping in, can I answer that question halfway through this line?

[Speaker 5]: Let's give it a shot.

[Speaker 3]: Okay. So we talked about the section eleven eleven, and that's where we end up from that previous slide. The section eleven eleven permit is a mechanism if the statute were to be slightly amended where if the state wanted to retain that revenue that would be exempt in those tier one A and tier one B areas. This section eleven eleven permit represents an opportunity to do that. It's not a blanket answer. The section eleven eleven permit would only apply for land development that would touch a state facility and would trigger that permit, which is a work in the public right of way. That's what the section eleven eleven permit really is. So there could be a way to claw back some of that potential lost revenue. It would impose some new costs at the agency, some different review standards. So that would need to be analyzed if the legislature would like to move forward with some ability to recoup some of the lost revenue. Additional opportunities is this guidance for local review boards. So as representative Pouech was saying that the different communities have different abilities, different sophistication levels for these reviews. It's not consistent. Even some of the communities that are going after tier one areas, tier one A areas even they may not have all the capabilities that other communities that are going tier one A. So there needs to be some greater support and maybe the RPCs provide that greater support. There are opportunities to improve transit and travel demand management coordination in development review. So whether that's just checkbox exercises, yes, I discussed this with said organization or whether there's more explicit guidance to say in certain land development areas, we want you to fund transit infrastructure. We want you to build bus stops, bus stations, whatever it might be. We've talked about the RPCs, the role. So they maybe they have a greater role for facilitating what are those transit facilities? What are those travel demand management options that are most appropriate for the right context? Essex County is gonna be very different than Chittenden County. So educate municipalities about transportation impact fees. So this is where that last question I think was, is that in the absence of act 145, there could be the ability for a community to have fair share contributions. And the primary mechanism that's authorized or existing statute is that municipalities could impose municipal impact fees. Traditionally in the state of Vermont because of the state impact fee and because of Act two fifty, the municipalities that have transportation impact fees have not collected fees that fund state infrastructure. So most of them have only funded infrastructure on the local town system. So that is where there could be some flexibility and some amendments if we wanna collect local municipal fees to fund state highways. There is also this option that was created back when Act 145 was created called the Transportation Improvement District or a TID. We've evaluated that back over a decade ago and decided that it had some limitations. Maybe there's an opportunity to reevaluate that in light of the changing and the Act two fifty changes. Then the last two opportunities is to consider statute changes to enable AOT to participate at the municipal level. As we mentioned, currently only authorized to appeal. And if AOT were to participate at the municipal level, we have to acknowledge that the development review role that namely Chris, who's sitting there in the room, he received Act two fifty applications from a very consolidated central source. And if the agency is asked to participate at the municipal level, there would have to be some additional resources or process developed so that it fits within the constraints of the capacity of AOT to meet those needs. So those are some opportunities for you to consider. There's no recommendations clearly from this. We've aimed to set out the task at hand, which was to summarize the benefits and the revenues, as well as identify some of the issues and the opportunities for your consideration. So that's where we'll end and we'll take questions. I know we're at time now, whoever.

[Speaker 5]: Yeah,

[Speaker 0]: thanks. Thank you, that's helpful. Sounds like there's just so many different options to look at, all the different considerations. Thank you.

[Speaker 6]: Yeah, thanks. Fascinating how you change something and it impacts something you're not realizing it will. And we were discussing the amount of money that's collected for this doesn't seem like a lot, but having the state involved in the development process to understand what's going to get impacted by the entire state transportation system seems important. The idea of having the municipalities now collect these impact fees, I can state from our town, we have fire impact fees and water impact fees. And they've been a challenge to collect and hold on to and defend the process. So asking the town to do more, I just think could be quite difficult too. But it seems like having the state transportation be

[Speaker 10]: at the

[Speaker 6]: table and have the ability to weigh in seems important enough that moving, getting that done would be helpful. Think it should be smart.

[Speaker 11]: Representative Lalley? Yes, I think that rating in transportation and land use policy just makes an incredible amount of sense. And I think again, it's just a matter of what you're regulating for. And we're that's an evolving enterprise, it seems. So But I think this makes a great deal of sense. We're gonna be looking at a lot of transformation.

[Speaker 5]: Well usually when we fall behind it's because of significant interest within the committee and lots of questions. This is not an area we spend a lot of time on, so it's what we may have to come back to in terms of what we should do about the opportunities that are on there. So I would say that thank you all very much. Thank you Chris Keyser, thank you very much. John and Luke, you're all on the list. The one that could name on the list is not even the Eagles, we're looking at the wrong spot, right? But I appreciate it. Obviously if we took more time it's because we had lots of questions. No problem, thank you.

[Speaker 3]: Thank you very much for your time.

[Speaker 5]: There's Matt. You know, he's always quiet in the background. I didn't see that he was there earlier and I was late and whatnot, but he's always quietly in the background of a lot of meetings I'm at. Thank

[Speaker 0]: you very much, appreciate it.

[Speaker 5]: Coming up next earlier, Ashley, know which one is to impart.

[Speaker 8]: I think

[Speaker 4]: I already drew the foot. Thank

[Speaker 5]: you very much. Sorry to put you a little bit behind. We are transitioning from land use issues and whatnot back to our budget presentations. And we are district maintenance. This is, and I don't

[Speaker 10]: have the exact number right in front

[Speaker 5]: me, but it's usually $100,000,000 out of $300,000,000 of T funds. So this is a third of where our state T funds go usually. Maybe I'm wrong, Ernie can correct me if I am. It's usually a full third of where we spend our state transportation dollars. So it's a pretty critical spot. And judging by the guidance that we've been given, it's okay to grow, though. Welcome back, Aaron. Thank you. Thank you for having me.

[Speaker 4]: Ernie Patno, director of maintenance. I'll wait for Ashley to get everything going. I gotta get a bit of my stuff ready as well.

[Speaker 5]: I guess I should have also added it's not only it's a huge portion of the money, but it also was a significant part of what we had just heard about the conditions and reduction in forest. There ain't a huge chunk of them in your area. So I'm sure we'll speak to that at some point. So there's a lot of attention in this spot. I'm not sure that forty five minutes is gonna be enough, but we'll find out. We'll dig in. We don't

[Speaker 4]: have any other appointments, so it's a few folks how long we'll stay. Alrighty. District maintenance and division, like you mentioned, it's a fairly significant portion of your t funds. We have nine maintenance districts. We have the technical services, pollution prevention, maintenance, contracting, GIS system. For those of you that listening online, where everything you see the orange trucks doing, not buying them or building them, but what they're doing. So whether it be patching, cutting trees, brush, plowing, especially seeds like this year, we're plowing a lot nonstop. The next page is just kind of a recap of a geographic picture of Vermont and each region and each district and how many miles they each have. What we do.

[Speaker 5]: That's alright. I'll I'll wait. You're alright. I'm done.

[Speaker 10]: I I always thought it was 3,200,

[Speaker 5]: hardly 3,200 miles,

[Speaker 10]: and I see 6,500.

[Speaker 4]: Lane. We do lane miles

[Speaker 10]: because Lane miles. Okay. Gotcha.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. For maintenance. It's that way we could differentiate the interstate cost.

[Speaker 5]: People don't like it when you only plow one of the two or three. Yes. Down Room 4, representative Keyser, they only plow one of the lanes.

[Speaker 1]: They've been doing that.

[Speaker 12]: We're used to that. Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: Okay. Well, I walked into that horse for a few years.

[Speaker 4]: Makes for a smooth trail. Yep. So what we do, like I started to say, we do winter maintenance, emergency response. We pick a lot of litter. We sweep the sides of the roadways for our bike and pet friends, mowing, veg management, paw, patchy, ditching. I just won't read them. It's it's the caveat of everything that you see us folks doing in your daily drives summer through the winter. We are there to help all Vermonters, and all Vermonters need to use our roadway system.

[Speaker 5]: Representative Pouech, have a question for you.

[Speaker 6]: Sorry to throw a curveball. Oh, no. No problem. But we don't have to talk about it now. But just wondering, you guys are probably the ones who have to deal with beavers and beaver dams and flooding that can happen. And at some point, I'd like to know what the policy is on how you deal with beavers. Because some that are trying to

[Speaker 10]: I've heard the courage more beavers.

[Speaker 5]: I go with the left field. So

[Speaker 6]: at some point, that would be good.

[Speaker 4]: Could you have me back for that one? Would that be okay? Because that that would be a big topic, and I am not prepared with anything in front of me to discuss.

[Speaker 1]: Sorry to throw that out. Oh, it's

[Speaker 4]: no problem. Be happy to come back and talk about it.

[Speaker 6]: So if you choose You would yeah. You were the guys that would have to deal with that.

[Speaker 4]: Anywhere near the state highway, yeah. Yeah, do

[Speaker 5]: you have that? Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: Alrighty, so this is where I get to brag about what we do and it's a shameless plug, but the men and women of Etrans, they are dedicated to public service. A lot of people have no idea that these folks give up their lifetime, especially in the winter. They just give up their life birthdays, Christmas, you name it, doesn't matter. These folks, the the service above self in the garages is amazing. So f y twenty five accomplishments, our system makes it so I can only report full of cost accomplishments, excuse me, on f y twenty five. So we plowed 1,500,000 miles in f y twenty five. And for the for the record, we're over 1,100,000 already this year.

[Speaker 0]: Can you repeat that?

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. In 2025, FY 2025, plowed 1,500,000 miles.

[Speaker 1]: Quick question. Just a side note from there. Unfortunately, an accident where the lead plow trucks was tipped over. Does that affect your ability for, you know, the storm slowing up? We're gonna get this Sunday. Is that, like, out of service? I'm trying to say

[Speaker 4]: So when Dave Thurber comes in, if he hasn't I think he comes in tomorrow. I think we have about 40 spare So

[Speaker 1]: you got one replaced then?

[Speaker 4]: Yes. We do. They'll give you the exact number, but it's pretty significant that we have for spare trucks. Yeah.

[Speaker 5]: Is our fiscal year, Patricia said? So this is the end of the previous winter and the beginning of the next one, or is it Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: FY '20 FY '25. So we're in FY '26. I would only be able to give you half half of

[Speaker 5]: the numbers. But it's more than that. That's what you're saying. Right? So

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. That's yeah. We're at 1,100,000 for this year already, and we do a twenty six week reporting cycle, and we're in week 12. And we've had 1,100,000. We're is the driver okay? The person that got in the accident? Because I didn't I didn't hear okay. They are okay. Yes. We've had a few significant accidents this year. We had another one about a week later. Very, very scary. You guys? We got hit head on. The driver our driver was very lucky, but the other driver was also extremely lucky that they were not injured. Minor injuries. Everybody's walking and talking. Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, no major injuries. Yeah. So Sorry. No, no. I always like throwing out a fun fact. So in 2025, if you lined up all of our trucks side by side, we would have plowed eight football fields wide out to Los Angeles and took a look at the beach and plowed eight football fields wide back with mechanics in tow. So that's a mile wide back down and back, if you wind up just to comprehend how much 1,500,000 miles of plowing actually would look like. So a swath of mile wide all the way across the country from Montpelier. I googled here to there. Get a little rough on tire change. It'd be a little rough on chains. We were off to a 61 bridges. We swept a 43 bridges. Always like to talk about this one. We picked up 440 tons of litter beside the highway. It is

[Speaker 5]: They're all from out of state.

[Speaker 10]: It's Vermonters dump trash.

[Speaker 4]: It is very, very sad. This task takes us around six weeks, the whole workforce. And again, our folks take a lot of pride in making the highway look good and only to see it trashed in just a couple weeks. Significant amount of that is tires. That's something that we discussed last year a little bit. I don't have the number for tonnage. We fabricated and installed and repaired 6,200 signs. We mowed 14,000 acres. And just a little fun fact, we are the second largest landowner in the state of Vermont. The biggest being the the state lands, the state forest, and then we're second. So we spent forty one thousand six hundred hours responding to emergencies, and that is an emergency that is anything other than what we normally do on a daily basis. It could be a crash, it could be a fire, it could be anything. So that's 20 full time employees year round if you if you did the math. That's how many emergencies we respond to beside the highways, and it could be anything. Anything. We we respond just to some crazy stuff. We patched 3,500 tons. To put that into perspective, a ton would be about the size of your average washer dryer in your home. So we cut 23,000 trees. A tree is labeled three inches or above in our tracking system. So and then we dished about a 173,000 feet. Any questions on our accomplishments?

[Speaker 5]: Well done.

[Speaker 3]: Thank you.

[Speaker 11]: I just wanna it's been a couple years, but I think you guys use the wood from the trees in your to heat. Right?

[Speaker 5]: We do.

[Speaker 11]: Yeah. We

[Speaker 4]: do. Not all the garages. Yeah. If we're in a residential area, it's hard to heat with a big, big wood furnace. Yeah. But we do use a lot of wood in our our facilities.

[Speaker 11]: That was that was was an interesting

[Speaker 4]: It's actually very nice.

[Speaker 5]: Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: The next slide Sorry. The next slide revolves around winter maintenance. It's just a breakdown of how many hours each month. The top slide, the cost for each month. The next slide is let's see. Just wanna make sure I got this right. The next slide is how many tons of salt we used. I did notice that on the left, says gallons. We'll take care of that as this is how many tons of salt we used per month, and this is how much that cost. There's two different graphs, and they're kinda all molded into one. We did try a different activity tracking system through the winter last year. We had mixed results. Alrighty. Now the big slide. Here's where we get into the meat and potatoes of what we do. So the FY '27 district maintenance, it's a total of one twelve, five twenty six, six twenty five. State t fund dollars, 1 10, o 94, six sixty one. Federal, twenty four thirty two. We normally don't have a big federal number. This federal number will include small scale reimbursements for FHWA projects related to the last few floods that we've had. And so it's looking like roughly $1,500,000 will be coming back to us for work that we'll be doing this summer that qualified as an emergency from one of the emergency events. The rest comes from goes to our environmental group. They get a little bit of federal funding that goes along with that. And so here's a little Just

[Speaker 12]: typically, what do we normally have in federal? Like, million?

[Speaker 4]: So the last few years, it's actually been a lot because it just won't stop raining on July 10. Ironically, '3 July in a row, which is insane. And so FY26 and FY25 has a fairly large number of to that for federal reimbursement as well. So we got a little just a quick little chart here. This is just kinda where the big pieces of the money go. So 54 and change goes to salary and benefits. The orange is correlated on the left with what that piece of the pie looks like, operating expenses, major maintenance, upkeep, environmental, hazardous, fetch management, bridge maintenance projects, the bigger ones. The the green is what we pay to the central garage. I'm sure Dave will fill you in how we we rent from the central garage. So that's a rather large fixed cost that comes out of our budget. I mean, there's a little piece of pie there. So where I wanted to go next is we've had an opportunity the last few years chatting at this table where you folks are very, very, very used to seeing a sheet that looks like this. It's always been green and white. It has about a 130 codes on it, and I would go down through and I would hit the bigger ones. In the last few years, you folks have asked as well as many others, we wanna see what you spent the money on. We want to see what you actually spent money on. And so I've given you a new look and feel this year, and we're hoping that you like it. So you are not getting the traditional green and white 130 codes. The sheet that we've sent you on it, do you all have it on your computers? It looked like this.

[Speaker 10]: Oh, it's another The other.

[Speaker 4]: What's that?

[Speaker 10]: There's a. Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: It looks like that. Sorry. I got some purple stuff highlighted in my handwriting on it. And it should say in column It's

[Speaker 10]: the it's notes

[Speaker 0]: and And it's spreadsheeted activities?

[Speaker 4]: It is. And it and it should start with activity zero zero zero one and f y 25 actuals towards the left top. And Are you able to find it? Yep. Alrighty. So we have never presented the budget to this group like this ever before. So this is new. This is new for all of us, and and it is it's a similar look, and it's sort of it's a similar feel on the left, except for there's, like, 240 codes. And the reason being is that is

[Speaker 5]: our

[Speaker 4]: checkbook. Column B is a checkbook. And what I mean by a checkbook, not quite a conventional checkbook. So training by AOT staff, FY twenty five, we literally spent 1.3, one six, 02/2002, and '95. Now the f y twenty six and f y twenty seven numbers, I would like to just share with you folks. That is the old way that we've done it because we didn't know if you would like the new way on f y twenty five. So those are the old style, the way we used to do it. However, I wanted to share though the one activity when I say it's a checkbook that we can actually look at that 1316 instituted 26,628 entries into our checkbook. So when I say it's checkbook, I mean it's a checkbook. It really truly is. So on that very first activity, there's 26,000 transactions that equal $1,316,000.

[Speaker 5]: Okay. Ernie, we still got representative perhaps

[Speaker 4]: a question.

[Speaker 6]: Yeah. So more than likely for this particular line, those are employees who have put on their time card training. But it's not just labor that's getting collected here, right? So there might be, I'm just throwing it out. Somebody got donuts for the people you were trained. Would that go on there too?

[Speaker 4]: We buy very little food at the agency of transportation. No, donuts,

[Speaker 6]: especially donuts.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah, very little food.

[Speaker 6]: But I mean, if there was another expense with the training materials.

[Speaker 4]: Training materials. Another good one would be as if they took a pickup truck to the training, that pickup truck would be built into that. So every expense that was coded as training, no matter what it was, whether it be a pencil, unfortunately, hopefully not, don't know, a pickup truck, a leaflet of paper, anything that got billed to that code, that's what got paid. Fringe, the whole it breaks it down into fringe, the whole nine yards.

[Speaker 6]: Oh, thanks.

[Speaker 4]: And so it's it's a very different approach than what you have ever seen before. I've been presenting the green and white budget. I did it for a while, I think, in 1718, and '19, took a little break, and then I've been back three years. And I know all my predecessors did the Yelp, the the green and white 130 codes.

[Speaker 6]: Just to sort of follow-up. So employees, do they have it on their phone that they I mean, how do they opt in?

[Speaker 4]: They do not. Currently, we have desktop computers. We have a tracking system that tracks all that. Traditionally, a supervisor or a senior maintenance worker style person would put the whole crew's time in.

[Speaker 6]: Okay. So they don't put any individual

[Speaker 4]: They do now. Okay. Yep. Thanks. And so I guess the next thing I'd like to do is I'm gonna go down through and I'll hit the really big ones. And then maybe if there was one in between the big ones and you wanted me to stop, because I'm sure you don't want me to read 240 lines to you. Meetings in state is the big ones, and that's just what it is. It's when you go to a meeting. We'll jump down through. Leave time, Very large number. We have five forty three ish employees around.

[Speaker 0]: That's right.

[Speaker 12]: So five forty three employees in maintenance. So the 1.28 is, just specific to maintenance employees going to meetings.

[Speaker 4]: This whole spreadsheet is specific to maintenance. Okay. So maintenance, have five forty three employees. Yes. And that varies on vacancies. But when I look today, it was five forty three, I believe. Okay. Thank you. So we had a lot of leave time there. General admin, this is a really tough code because not only does it anything that doesn't fit into these 240 codes goes into that, but hang on. A lot of that isn't labor. Also, what gets built to this code is things like media, heat, lights, water, sewer, power, rent, fuel, office supplies, phones, laptops, and then payroll. And and that is why that number is so big because there's no way to bill that stuff in those 240 codes. So the stuff that doesn't fit in any one of those codes, whether it be the usage of a truck, again, the paper, the pen, the power bill, it all falls under o o one seven. Working with towns, I would like to hit on that 95,000. This would just be just disaster work. And then I'd I'd like to come down to because it's a checkbook and it's similar to deposits and demerits, there's a negative number. And that's through insurance payments and stuff like that. So we end up with a little bit of negative over there. Technical assistance, 1,200,000.0. This is for technical assistance on state projects. There's a line further down for towns. And, again, being this is new to all of us, I'd like to stop at line 0900. There's no number in F Y 25, but there's numbers in 26 and 27. It's because o 900, it shows up in a tracking system. It's it's called commute trips, So people can it's called a fringe benefit. We need to track it so they can be taxed, but there's no cost. So there is no checkbook entry. So there there that would be a zero on that line.

[Speaker 5]: So let's see. Representative sure. Then representatives.

[Speaker 11]: Yep. Ernie, would you just

[Speaker 7]: I don't quite understand that the o 900, the new bulletin. So that is for

[Speaker 4]: Yeah, I'd be happy.

[Speaker 7]: Yeah, could

[Speaker 4]: you So just anybody that's assigned a state vehicle as a take home vehicle, that is a fringe benefit. And that's maybe about ten years ago, it got to be kind of a big deal that we were not having these people claim it as income.

[Speaker 7]: So it's a vehicle that, say I'm working for ART for you, you give me a vehicle, I use it for my work, but then I also take it home at night, back and forth the whole year.

[Speaker 4]: Yep, and that would be considered a fringe benefit. Your last paycheck of the year, they take some taxes out.

[Speaker 0]: Thank you. Okay.

[Speaker 4]: It's not a law. We do keep track of it. And it is somewhere way out beyond me for payroll, it is a thing they have to report to the federal government.

[Speaker 7]: And I just had one more question while I've got the floor. Sure. Back up when we were looking at leave time, which is 9,800,000.0. Yes. And then you were talking about the general admin account just below 11,000,000 something. So but the general admin number includes not only all your payroll, but then all these other costs.

[Speaker 11]: Yes. So I'm just

[Speaker 7]: I'm confused at how high the leaflet number is compared to the total wages.

[Speaker 4]: Oh, no, no, no. The 11,000,000 is not our total wages. That's just what got built to that code. All of our wages.

[Speaker 7]: So some wages. Okay.

[Speaker 4]: Yes. That's just And some that's

[Speaker 7]: just feeding and building. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay.

[Speaker 4]: What's what's an example of technical assistance? For a state project or a town project?

[Speaker 9]: You were

[Speaker 4]: saying you you were going down through your and you said something about paying for some technical assistance. Yeah. For state projects. So we have each district has technicians and a project manager. Yeah. And so say we're doing a complex culvert, complex grading job, these folks would come out and assist the local garage, if you will, with some technical assistance. Like like an engineer? Yes. Don't we don't we have our own engineers? Okay. So they're not certified engineers, but they'll come out and they will they will and to be honest with you, I I would like to turn it to Ashley because Ashley was a district technician and a project manager for many years.

[Speaker 8]: So, Ashley Bishop wow, that's been a long time since I felt

[Speaker 5]: That's been quite a while.

[Speaker 8]: Ashley Atkins, district manager. My husband's not watching. Technical assistance is if a garage is looking to cut a couple trees and they want to contract out, they might work with the tech team, whether that be the technicians or the project manager to facilitate that procurement of that contract to bring a contractor in to cut those trees. So it's very much like the engineering work that you might see on bigger projects but specific to district projects.

[Speaker 9]: We don't cut our own trees?

[Speaker 8]: Well, we do too.

[Speaker 5]: We do that too.

[Speaker 8]: If there's a tree that we can't cut or we need to have a lift or something like

[Speaker 4]: that, we need

[Speaker 8]: to bring in a contractor for those specific services, then that would be something that the tech team would procure that work. Same thing if a sinkhole opened up in the roadway, you want to call the technician team to come out to assess, is this due to a culvert, is this due to areas that have been previously blasted and there's just a little bit of fines that have now opened up, just to give that assessment of what's going on to then give advice as far as how it's care should be or what your care should be and then if contractors do need to come in because we can't do it with the strict courses to procure that need.

[Speaker 4]: And I also would like to point out on that, and maybe I didn't do a good job, on that left hand column, FY 25 actuals, In some of these categories, it's not just payroll. It could be payroll, pickup trucks, culvert, gravel, stone, like we get to winter maintenance. It could be cutting edges. I mean, that was built to that coal, whether it be labor or any type of physical thing that we purchased, gets it onto that coal.

[Speaker 9]: What's the what?

[Speaker 12]: On lead time that you have there in 91%, is that vacation time for all the five forty three employees, or just a certain apartment?

[Speaker 4]: No, all the people that are in maintenance.

[Speaker 1]: So that is

[Speaker 4]: their payroll. That is payroll only, and it would count holidays as well.

[Speaker 12]: Because I see underneath other ones, have the FML

[Speaker 4]: Yep. FMLA. Yeah. And that's called out. Okay. And that's why there's so many items here is for for the checkbook. There's double the amount of codes than there is for actually working out in the garage.

[Speaker 12]: Okay. Thank you.

[Speaker 4]: I'll go to page two, and I will just give you folks a second to see if you have any questions. Didn't a big number didn't catch my eye.

[Speaker 1]: Big numbers aren't, but just a little. I guess you can pick anywhere else, but you got one down here for $6 and

[Speaker 4]: Yeah. Yeah. It's I was like, really? Yeah. So so you're right. It probably cost a $100 to pay it. Yeah. However, I I mean, like like you folks had had asked me several times now, where's the money going? Where's the money going? This is a this is this is just printed right out of the right out of what we call stars. It is our checkbook.

[Speaker 5]: Now you're, like, indirect

[Speaker 1]: operating expenses, $36.78 here, 13.

[Speaker 12]: Is that sort of like part of the initiative that were My numbers.

[Speaker 4]: Way back in You're

[Speaker 12]: on the first page?

[Speaker 1]: Oh yeah, no, that just caught my eye, but is that like a new initiative that East Department is undertaking to come up with our $12,000,000 I'm curious, like that indirect billing practices that were. I was just wondering if that was sort of like an exercise that you guys have to do to sort of first allow or maybe it's not so much to do with you because that's really federal money but.

[Speaker 4]: And so if you were to hit me up on the old green and white

[Speaker 3]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: I'd have an answer for you. But, this is out of my comfort zone. It's new. We're trying something new and improved and more transparent. I will write that down though.

[Speaker 1]: Your budget is purely state, but there is a portion of federal dollars. Was just seeing how that's so small. I was just wondering if that was part

[Speaker 5]: of the exercise that you're doing.

[Speaker 4]: My gut tells me because the number is so small, it is not the same.

[Speaker 1]: Will Maybe your federal money is small. Yes, so it'll be somewhat in correlation. Yeah, anyways, I'll be doing that.

[Speaker 12]: Representing the board. So I notice on that second page, we're starting to get $0 and still providing those services that are in the FY 25 actuaries, but we're just coded differently.

[Speaker 4]: Yeah, that's exactly it. We don't have those codes to use available for us. Only people that pay bills have those codes. And that is why there's about 100 extra codes. Thank you.

[Speaker 6]: And just to clarify, like, I'm looking at mowing. So in that is

[Speaker 4]: So you got on page three then.

[Speaker 6]: Just as an example. So you you have mowing equipment and your employees do mowing and then you hire out some mowing. All of those costs would be in that line.

[Speaker 4]: That is correct. And using a pickup truck to get out there, the tractor, everything is built to that full contractors.

[Speaker 5]: Were you thinking of highlighting particular items to the list or going page by page?

[Speaker 4]: I was just gonna hit the big numbers, the anything over a million. And then I thought I would just, like, give a breather in case you had a question. Because I didn't wanna feel like I was reading 240 lines to you folks. Or I could just flip the page and wait for questions.

[Speaker 5]: I'd be interested if you could flag maybe your top three to five biggest activities and whether we're gonna see what's gonna go up and go down. And maybe one of my other question is your department's headed for quite a few of those protection reduction in force. What are we going to see? What's not going to happen that you've been able to do? What are you not going to be able to do next year? What are we going to see? When I looked at one of these things as an example, you washed a thousand bridges last year. Pretty good cutback in the amount of money for bridges this year. I hear maintenance testimony that says washing bridges is one of the best ways to make sure they last longer.

[Speaker 4]: Which they're gonna wash their own. They're They're gonna

[Speaker 5]: get a thousand bridges water. I'm not trying to get I know you make the best decision that you can with the money. Not after this. No, get it. You're choosing to do with your limited resources, but you're to have to make some decisions. Those are things you're not going be able to do, I suspect. What is that going to look like? Is what I'm trying to get at with our limited time. You may have to ask me back so that we have a chance to review some of these numbers and whatnot. But I think yesterday and the day before, we need to be able to say what is it we're not likely to be able to do that you're doing now. And maybe that's not the best. Maybe we don't agree or do agree. We'll get to that as we But I want to know what we care. I don't mean that we don't agree or disagree. So how about funding wise, would want to look at it differently.

[Speaker 4]: How about I forgo the next three pages of numbers and you folks can call me back if you'd like to talk about them.

[Speaker 5]: And if you can make if you have an ability to answer the question in terms of, at least, an idea, what are you anticipating that you'll be able to do that you'll be doing less of?

[Speaker 4]: I was anticipating that question. I'd be happy to discuss it. We currently have about 2,380,000.00 of salaries that are not going to be on the books in f y twenty seven. Some of the things that we're cutting are major maintenance, which is buildings. Maybe the folks won't get the new break room that they've always wanted. We will probably reduce on some contract mowing. We are going to reduce some, and it's kind of an off seat here, but we're gonna reduce some on tree cutting. But on the flip side, we have added a bunch at the last minute, 679,000.

[Speaker 5]: They were on that report. Yeah. Yeah. Substantial investment. Tree cutting.

[Speaker 4]: Some of the things we're going to save money on, this is. Right? Yep. And we have also implemented a travel ban, and that is going to get us very close to the 4,000,000 that you're speaking of. What do mean by travel ban? We aren't traveling. We aren't going to conferences. We aren't going to meet with our neighbor. They're not traveling. And you know you guys went and come out with neighbors. There is some coalitions that we indeed go to, and we have not been going to them for

[Speaker 5]: four or five months.

[Speaker 1]: Do you need any of those

[Speaker 4]: for any type of certification? No, any single certification. I'm sorry. The certifications would fall under. It would be mandatory.

[Speaker 5]: What's that?

[Speaker 4]: It would be mandatory for certification.

[Speaker 1]: So I'm just saying, so potentially there still could be some travel?

[Speaker 4]: Absolutely. Okay. More than likely not in my department though.

[Speaker 5]: Yeah. Can't

[Speaker 9]: you use like in lieu of, can't you, like, Zoom? Do some Zoom meetings? Or is it

[Speaker 4]: So technically, I I cannot think of anything unless Ashley can that would require maintenance to out of state travel for certification. So I'm not well versed Yeah. Than able to answer.

[Speaker 5]: Representative Keyser? So I'm looking

[Speaker 1]: at line 143 or 144, which is 4,700, 4,710.

[Speaker 0]: That's an

[Speaker 10]: an $82,000,000. If you want, who's it, Ivan, if for this year to work? Yeah.

[Speaker 4]: I'd I'd be happy. This this is going to exactly what I said. Hold 474710, the 1966194479, that is the central broad rent that you'll be hearing about tomorrow.

[Speaker 1]: Oh, this is a change in budget?

[Speaker 4]: They have that code, and we do not have

[Speaker 9]: that code.

[Speaker 12]: Did you have? It's a nice job.

[Speaker 1]: Was ignoring you.

[Speaker 4]: And so some of the questions has always about the green and white was, where is all this stuff? Well, the green and white incorporated like a fringe into all of those codes accounting for that 20,000,000. Like I said, this is very different. So I was anticipating a lot of questions.

[Speaker 8]: If I could expand on that. Sure. The green and white for the state of Quebec, there's one of the columns that we see that was what Fleet was. And that's our activity tracking software that we utilize. Fleet charged by the hour in that tracking software, however you pay by the month. And so that's some of those very slight discrepancies between what might be in the granite budget versus the actuals just because of how that information is inputted into the different systems.

[Speaker 5]: Do you have any comment you'd want to make about how difficult it was to go back to work today after the last two days yesterday and today?

[Speaker 4]: Been pretty tough, pretty taxing. Been here for a long time. So yep, pretty tough.

[Speaker 5]: I appreciate that. This is pretty core of what the function of the agency does. And this is really hard to see what we're gonna cut and not cut. And I can hear it and feel it. And I appreciate all the effort for all the people that are back there, what they're facing. And you can feel it in your testimony. And I think we'll probably have to come back and dig further into some of these pieces, understanding how the budget's going to get reviewed by the committee and where we're going. But I really want to say that I appreciate what you do and you can tell that you care about everybody that works for you and the things that you do. With that, Ashley, Ernie, I appreciate it. It's got to be a hard time. If I had known all that was gonna happen, would have found a better way to schedule the timing for another week later and let some time pass. But I appreciate what you have to do, and I would probably like to have you come back again.