Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Good morning. It's Friday, 02/20/2026, and we are in house transportation looking at our response letter to house appropriations committee that's due at the end of the day today, so that each of the members has an email version of the letter. And our alleged counsel is here to look at any changes that we may wanna make, and then be looking for them to deliver it on our behalf today. So if we can sort of take it up and if anybody at any point that has some comments, we're certainly there. Thank you for the work that you've done overnight. I appreciate it. It's not an easy task to try to take everybody else's comments and put them together. And we're certainly getting there, I think. Some of the wordsmithing changes that I had is in the second paragraph. I guess it's technically the third paragraph. But nevertheless, I'm not sure that's a style issue, but Vermont continues to experience significant transportation funding challenges. I would like to add the word structural in there that it's not just annually, but it's a structural long term piece. So whether you want to remove significant or not or just put structural or significant structural, but Either way. Just want to say there we go. That's one of my suggestions. Would nevertheless, to me, I can take it out if nobody cared or not, but I've shortened it up a little bit. I wanted to say that it was a structural transportation funding challenges because that's the what you described in the next section that we described.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: The it's loading screen. K. What else? If we have to do

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: comment, was it 1.5 or one point two?

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: One point five was the corrected number that Logan sent me last night.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. Summary, just had 1.2.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: I had 1.2 in there in initial graph. I'm just make

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: that part before I just keep on

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: saying Yeah. 10.5.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We gotta make that mental change there. Right?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: That statement, we, I mean, I think it's fine if we could pick that to death, but can we say not keeping up with inflation or something like that? I don't know, but just say that construction costs at risk. Transportation fund revenues do not keep up with inflation, estimated to increase by only 1.5%. I think that says that. Yeah, does. No, I'm sorry. Yeah, it's

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: good sales in a few spots.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office Analyst)]: Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. In a typical year, the agency of transportation can only fund about one third of municipal grant requests. Yeah. Just in a typical year, the agency transportation funds only thirty minutes compared to the without 50.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Maybe instead of a typical year, the agency is only able to fund.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yep. Instead of keener, it's just the agency if it's only you. I guess do we really make a point about the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: effect of that, about forcing the municipals and putting it on the property tax payers? Should we sort of say that? Or not? Is there arguments like, well, can't take the money because this creates property taxes?

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Think we not be shy about connecting to it, forcing this to be borne by property tax. Because that is the issue in my town. It's like we cannot afford to do these things, some of which are needs, not just wants.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So then delaying numerous municipal projects while increasing the, was it leaving the towns with only local property tax?

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Increasing the

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Delaying numerous projects and or forcing increases in local municipal property tax. Okay, let's get this right. We

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: have three select board eyes on this, right? They may be in this committee. This is how we would look at things. We heard that.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Manifestation budget in many small municipalities is the biggest thing. It is, yeah.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: The area

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Project that costs us.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Grants need too.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: You made a couple $100,000 in culprits.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm glad that we expanded it, because it seems like it was the first time we introduced the town hall and peace, so I'm glad there's little bit more there. Yeah. They've heard the 60%, so

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: if you wanna leave that in or take it out, go ahead.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: I'm wondering if the sentence, the state and local maintenance backlog is growing. Right now, can't add more projects to the list. The list is full until 2035 or '24. To me, that's a pretty significant. So I'm just wondering if we wanna say state and local maintenance backlog is growing, MDAS accepting no new projects until 2036, 'thirty seven. I can't remember the actual date or year. But there's still new projects. Exactly. The point that they can't even accept any new ones to put on the list for ten years is, that to me is really telling. So

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: I think what we're trying to say is, and there's no capacity to add current project or additional projects to the current program for the next Yeah. Ten

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Or they cannot access new projects until 2036.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And what kind of projects are those? Are we saying those are regional, they're local, they're municipal, they're all don't.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: In populated towns, structures.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I agree with what you're trying to say, and I think we do want to say that because they've stopped taking the I don't know how you say it, but they're not taking any additional

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Regional planning might identifying an intersection that Well, taking They're not

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: They specifically said the VTS

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I don't if

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: VTS is out

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: of sight. They're not accepting any additional I agree that we should put something

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: together. And so

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: They're still out there. I totally agree. But who who

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: is the they in this case that we're talking about?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The agency.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The agency is not

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: The agency is unable to accept new projects until 2036.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's what their chief engineer. Yes. Okay. Testified. Right? Yep. So so the the whole idea of the transportation department right now is just to pay everybody. And maintain the work that they're doing on what they're at right now. We're not asking, we're not, so a town comes with a problem and there's no way to put a new one into the budget. I know, I'm aware. Maintaining what we have is certainly what the word that I would say that we heard. I would agree with you that that's what they're doing. They're doing the minimum of what we can do. I'm not writing that, I'm just saying that's what's happening out there.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Infrastructure create the forcefulness that which you'd like to add.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I guess it said in March, while transportation infrastructure for Alphamonte is deteriorating.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Should we say while it continues deteriorating?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's an everyday thing. They like to

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: chast that upon us while we sit here. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Cheap especially Bethel Mountain Home. The agency of transportation funds about one third of municipal grant requests. I'm going spoke to the Banchakao is only legal to the Agency of Transportation funds about one third of municipal grant requests. Delaying numerous municipal projects enforcing increases in municipal property taxes. State and local maintenance backlog is growing. The agency is unable to add additional projects until 2036 while transportation infrastructure throughout Vermont continues deteriorating. Current transportation funding model feeds and projects that roughly 60% state homes will be in board condition by 2030. Are those numbers all accurate, JFO? 60%, they projected 60% but the money that we're funding only about a third of municipal grant requests. And you already looked at that part anyway, think. Okay. Sorry.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office Analyst)]: Accurate as of last night.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Hopefully. Fiscal year 2027, the ongoing funding challenges created an estimated $33,400,000 shortfall in state match for federal funding, which could impact the state's million addresses, roughly $163,000,000 of funding. To address the shortfall or to address the budget shortfall? Is it just clear enough to let the budget go? Alright, it says budget, excellent. Does that convey what are we trying to say? That $33,000,000 budget gap and they did all of these things to fix it?

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Do we want to say which will impact the state's ability versus which could? And then then we go on to say, you know, power making changes to address that.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: So in talking to Logan, we went from I I had previously the which will, but the which could seemed more appropriate because it depends The total amounts depend on how you apply for it and what you're seeking to do, etcetera. Which program it's in? Yeah. Being less definitive seemed appropriate there because yeah, your your matches are different depending on what you're doing and so forth.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Also, like, this is the choice that is made to do it this way.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yep.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: And doing things like the using the indirect cost rate diminishes how much you can pull down for projects, etcetera. So I shared this with our liaison to appropriations for a quick run through. And he only had one question that he thought his chair might ask, which is under the use of

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: federal indirect costs, able obtain federal reimbursement for a grant, reduces the amount of federal funding available for projects in this year's transportation program. And he said, okay, if she says, or the chair were to say, how many projects, how much money, and if we were able to get you how much money, what would we If we were able to fill that statement, how much would you need and what projects would they be? I don't know if we can answer that or not. Which reduces the amount of federal funding available for projects in this year's transportation program. And his question was, do you know how much that is and what programs they are? If we gave you more money, how much would that be? We know it's 12,000,000, but what would that do to what work gets done this year, was the question. If appropriations were to come up with that much money, what would we do?

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Apply that 12,000,000 to the same sub. What we did for 10,000,000 to get 63, I mean, you could do it like that.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, this is already federal dollars that we're pulling down. So it's not state dollars being used for the match.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Oh, gotcha.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Gotcha. So the indirect cost, we're we're using that that money because we have a shortfall to cover basic operating expenses. But that means that the $12,000,000 can't be applied to projects. So unlike last year, we used 10 to pull down an additional 63, which resulted in a whole lot. Don't know the numbers, but this might be more of a

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: This is like there's no duplicator that we No.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: There's no multiplier on this.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: It is it it's $12,000,000.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It will not be able to put in this project. Yeah. If we didn't do this and we had $2,500,000 of state money, we could take that and the 12,000,000 that it takes, then we could put that many more projects in place. But we need that 12,000,000 for administration. So we need 12,000,000 of administration. We have to find 12, then plus a couple million for the match. And so if you had 14,000,000, you could release all that federal money for projects versus admin.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: So that can make sense to me. Could we say at the end of operating expenses for a period and then say, next sentence would be this reduces the amount of federal funding available for projects in this year's transportation program by a certain amount or approximately.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: You can do it with a comma too. Yeah. Then I don't have to re punctuate the whole list.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But it is, which I'm happy to do.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: No, why don't we just say reducing I'm just trying to get that. $14,000,000 in transportation programs. 12. Well, it's 12 plus the two. Like, as Phil was saying, if it's we've got the 12,000,000 in fed federal funds, we'd have to match it with 20% state funds to release that project.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not I'm not sure that I can comfortably say that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah, that's

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: fair. I'd

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: say it

[Unidentified Committee Member]: goes back to what I was saying is that, you know, about why we're not leaving federal dollars on the table, we're leaving projects on the table.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yes. I don't know how you're saying it. But

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: why don't we just say that?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I don't know

[Unidentified Committee Member]: how you put it into that. Okay.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: That doesn't get to your question.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, he said the question was, if I got you $12,000,000 what would that what would it get me? I guess that's what an agency question then that we'd have to know the answer to?

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: I think it would be an agency question.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So that's what he asked is All right. You want to find the money What would you do with it?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It would be similar to the projects you saw that they added with the tech, right? There's a game projects or whatever they had. So

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office Analyst)]: for the record, Logan, we're going for the directors to up. If you got less

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: than $10 in

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office Analyst)]: general fund money and you wanted to use it for the same purpose as the federal indirects, you wouldn't get anything additional, just wouldn't you'd be using T fund for the indirects instead of the federal funds for the indirects. You wouldn't change the budget, you wouldn't get anything else unless you change the whole makeup of how you're using funds its entirety, but just swapping out 12 for 12 is just changing where the 12 is coming from.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But you're saving the impurity of federal dollars for projects down, right?

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office Analyst)]: Theoretically yes, there would be $12,000,000 ahead of your guidance that you're not spending this year. But in the current budget construct, the swapping of the funding source won't actually get you anything more. For

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: this year. I see.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office Analyst)]: For this year.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: That's money we expect to get, and we're now going to use it for admin.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: But I think it's important to highlight the opportunity cost as the last period of a larger structural problem. So I don't know how you say that, but I think we're getting there.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Pile on a little bit. Is it just this fiscal year? Because we're talking about two years, aren't we taking

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: So we last used the indirect cost rate to pay expenses in 2022, I believe. And then we're using it again this year. And in 2022, we did it because we had and last year. And actually, know And last year.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. They they we did it. I'm sorry. In 2022, we did it

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: for a very different reason. Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We had more money than we were able to take advantage of the maximum amount of ARPA money that was out there.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The problem is the culmination of the two.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: They're not isolated, so the other factor

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I think you got to factor

[Unidentified Committee Member]: in is the advanced federal dollars, the advanced construction. So not only diluting the federal dollars that we have now, we're taking future federal dollars to spend on that 10,000,000 from the Ed fund. We're sort of, we're sure changing ourselves in the out years, these public dollars in mind. And you could be just looking at our paving budget. I mean, it goes down to, you know, it's 140 and goes down to 70 something. That might be a direct result of the actions that we're doing here. But again, I don't know if you can't figure out that. That's the effect.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: While we're trying to emphasize that we did reduction in force and we're doing indirect cost ratio, I did hear the point that it's going to be for two years. I don't know if we didn't say that there in this anyway just to say, in this year's program and next. Or not as in this year's and next year's. Oh no, they're gonna do it for two years. So we have to add at least in this year's and future transportation. And down below, then it's in this year and future accreditation programs or something.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: So it's the amount for our

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: team going for metrics. This is That's what it should be. Okay. How's that?

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: It's two fiscal years.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Then the wrong detection.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And then reductions in state match available for projects. Like, concerned about these ongoing funding challenges and hopes to continue working with the committee on appropriations to address them. I suppose instead of hopes, we will. I just looks forward to. Sorry. I I caught

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, representative Lalley suggested he looks forward to or I assume will, so they get deeply concerned about these ongoing COVID trends, and will continue working with the committee on appropriations to address them. Probably because you work with all parties, but I don't know exactly. The effort here is to convey to them that we know this creates problems everywhere and that it's ongoing for multiple years and

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: you can't check it off

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: your list is done this year. Even after you pass this budget, we're not done. We're still gonna be right back at you again next year on this problem, with this problem that's existing. It's not going away, but we understand it. We're trying to be sensitive to it and we're trying to recognize that we're all gonna have to be working on it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I thought we'd get my ideas, is that believe it or not? Yeah, it's that's coming. Oh, that's coming.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Now we're gonna purchase and use then. Unless anybody thinks that sentence is not necessary, that's what we're trying to convey in that

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: sentence that we've just skipped by.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: We just

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: ended it at ongoing funding challenges period, and then got rid of the, and then moved on to what we're

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: doing.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So I

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: think we're gonna be

[Unidentified Committee Member]: down with that in in all of this. Right. There you go.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We could just say that, you know, the deficit effect to grow in future years.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: In the by saying that you're both deeply concerned and will continue working, you're acknowledging that this is going to have to be a ongoing partnership. And it there is a tendency to send wish list down to appropriations and kind of say, find us the money. Mhmm. So this does also convey and, again, this is up to the committee, but it does convey that you want this to be a collaborative effort, and you're not just expecting them to pull money out of a hat and provide it. So it's kind of a conciliatory thing saying we know we're asking you for you know, this is gonna be years of millions of dollars being asked for to adjust this. So but it it can come out, but it's sort of trying to be conciliatory and acknowledging that they're going to be getting Okay. However many of these. And they're gonna have a challenging wish list after

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: today. Is everybody convinced by the argument?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I think it's

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: a good idea. And my one suggestion is, I might say, and will continue working with instead of hopes to continue.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And I I made that change.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Right there. Will. Okay. Great. Yep. So the next section expresses support for the governor's proposal to gradually reduce the amount of the purchase and use tax that are allocated to the education fund and to reallocate that money to the transportation fund. The $10,000,000 proposed will provide the state match for roughly 53,000,000 in federal funding. And Logan corrected me. I had 63,000,000, but we've edited that so that it's more accurate. And then the stage reduction in revenues allocated to the ad fund will help to partially address the state's transportation funding challenges. So trying to convey that this is not the solution to this issue. It's part of the solution.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I was good with that. I remember when I I did have a change to the next paragraph that I would like to make. Instead of the however by itself, I would probably take that expression out and I would say the gradual reallocation the purchase of tax revenues may not be enough instead of will because they feel like we're not certain, but this is the part that we wanted to make sure was in here. May not be enough to address transportation funds ongoing revenue challenges. I just wanted to that was the my little two suggestions.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: And then additional revenue enhancements may be necessary to place the t fund on sustainable financial footing. Because of this, the committee will continue to explore potential opportunities to increase the revenue dedicated to the transportation funds, including implementation of the mileage based user fee, the identification of items currently subject to sales and use tax that should be subject to the purchase and use tax, and examination of other potential revenue sources. I think there may have been some other potential sources mentioned yesterday, but I didn't get them all down in my notes. So if there's something that I left off that you want included rather than just, like, sort of catch all at the end, please let me know.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Unless we're looking to spark a, you know, reaction in a sense.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's fine. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: And this yeah. What's here currently captures current tax revenues or the idea that we've already been talking about, which is the user pay for for battery electric vehicles, which is covered by a registration fee now, but will be covered by the mileage based user fee in future years.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I won't argue with the May, but I think we know even if that even if the purchase and use tax comes, unless the economy goes crazy and everybody starts buying cars and trucks more than they have then, You know, that'll be a chunk that'll come, but slowly will eat it up. And the gas tax, the way it is now, is going down the tubes. So we know that even with that, it's not gonna be enough. We'll need to find, there'll need to be something else. And because even if the federal government gives us more money, we have to match anyways. It's not really about how much they give us, it's how much state money we have to come up with to get it. And in the end, they're not gonna spend as much time reading this as a book.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, that is interesting, but we went right back to our letter last year and cut and paste a chunk of it because we were working on a step by step. We're sort of in a step by step effort to change it. I bounce back and forth between how important it is and how much is it read to the part where it's not only read but it's reused. So it does matter sometimes, and then it doesn't matter. I guess I would say that it is important.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: No, is.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Because we just reused our letter from last year, and we're going to revisit again next year because this isn't going to be done. Whether it's us sitting here or the next group of whatever it is, they're going be in the same situation. Put suggesting May because we also pulled back on some of the did you think? You've a good term for it. I'd call it the 'too prescriptive' or whatnot.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: I wonder if an intermediate option could be that current projections indicate that it won't be enough based on the report we saw from JFO. That's the information that we have.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Projection that we will likely not or the assessment is in fact. I guess the part of it is that other things could be done if there was a decision made about how it was funded that would bring money from somewhere else as opposed to

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: an affiliate tax, I guess, is what they could bring money elsewhere. But

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It I does say that last sentence, if it's still there, the stage reduction in purchase and use revenues allocated to the education fund in future years will help to partially address the state's transportation funding challenges. That sort of implies this is just a little help, I'm gonna solve it.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Is that okay?

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office Analyst)]: Yeah, yeah.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Again, I don't see no reason to hesitate by being bold. We have a lot of needs, and the thing I'm really enjoying about our committee this year is we are ambitious about addressing them. I feel that is starting to be something that all of us are starting to feel. I know I feel it. And this is critical to our economy, to people's lives, our workforce, our ability to reform our education system, health care, all sorts of things. And we're a rural state. This is critical. So don't see no one else in this building seems to hesitate about being very upfront about their needs. And we should start doing that too. That's just what I think. Go ahead, Amy. Yeah, I'm in agreement with R. Pouech, and specifically on the opportunity to tee up the gas tax discussion. Because I'm not sure we're not going be able to avoid that, whether it's this year or next year. But I think there's an opportunity there to start drawing attention to that critical piece of taxation.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Moving on to something else, I don't know, they're gonna be

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I appreciate that, that may not, but it's still setting the tone.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It is,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And what we're willing to state and whatnot, which is, it may not seem like it on the paper as a big deal one way or another, but it really does influence what we're queuing up, what we're willing to take on at the end of this year and the beginning of the next year for those that return. It does influence that. But we don't have to keep going over, but I will say that it does influence what we're willing to take on and what we're staging. And there are people listening that are very much interested whether we are or are not going to keep touching that third wheel.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And even us mentioning it in the letter, it is bantered about. I mean, everybody knows who knows that, you know, that's the one thing that, you know, will will have a big sympathy.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Exactly. Most immediate protected within the T Fund. But there are other political influences out there as well, yes.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Which

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: is why we're having this. Not sure. We've made a decision. Yes. Look.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Not sure where the committee is at on this year, appearing different thoughts being expressed.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I left the will in with this committee will continue to explore potential opportunities to increase revenue. I left a will there because I know we're going to do that. But I was suggesting the May because there could be other ways to solve it, I suspect, but I don't hear anybody coming to those ways. Anybody else? Or tin cup? Bake sales and tin cups? Alright, Representative Keyser, do you have any thoughts on this?

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Well, I think generally, I like it a broad expanse because that leaves anybody go anywhere with it. Gas tax can bump anything. So I don't have any problem with being very broad.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So you're going will likely. That's the only do we change it to will likely not be enough or the projections suggest it will not be enough? And it changes the whole straight.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: So I mean, I think change the whole sentence. So we don't need peripheral. Alright. The will likely is stronger than may not. Will likely not The all of this based on projections. And if we're trying to keep it somewhat succinct, I don't know that we need to say the projection piece. We could say just will likely not because that's also implying that it's projected to not be enough based on the modeling that we've got. So I think that from a

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Will likely. Do that? That's stronger than Will? It's firmer. It is. But not as strong as Will. Right. Alrighty. Come on, let's go.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yep. It's starting to snow.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, it's already summing this out. I'm not a quick word, Chittenden. Was an English major, The I should tell you part that the committee understands intertwined, like that. The last, the committee on transportation is committed to continuing to work with the committee on appropriations to develop a sustainable revenue framework for the transportation fund. That is what we want to convey. I just is committed to continuing to the committee. Is there some way to wordsmith that one a little bit? But otherwise, just that one kind of got me to committed to continuing to the committee. Just so that

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office Analyst)]: state will continue to work. Fully committed.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Will continue to work.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Or is committed to working, will continue will continue to work with.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Mhmm.

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I'm hearing will continue to work with. And I I tried to get transportation committee and appropriations committee, and my editors told me no. So tried to cut out all those ons, but just hold on. That's not proper form. So here we are.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm assuming we're not leaving out all the other despite only naming them. I'm not leaving everyone else out. Obviously, the administration will have an opinion. The agents have an opinion. The agents have have

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: We don't need to add the term, please, any

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: charity.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Put that on. And

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the last section, that was related to the big bill piece that the JFR went through with us that had to do with a little bit of the central garage transfer and another piece. Want make sure everybody gives me a nod that they're okay with that one. That sentence that sort of covered that big bill piece about the

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: There wasn't related to anything near that. I mean we may add some things to that but I think yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. I got that last statement, Robert. So other than if given the concerns of members of community to other weather related and other things going on, I guess I would just say that I'm looking for sort of a nod or a thumbs up that we're good with the letter. And if there's any editing that we've done before we send it over, I would commit that I would only be grammatical or whatnot. I'm not going to change anything. But if I have to go back and read it and make sure that it's all set, I'm not gonna change any policy. You're not seeing the final version, guess, likely before it

[Amy (Legislative Counsel)]: goes out this afternoon. That's fine.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: This is as close to the final version, but it's only grammatical changes, if you're all good with it.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Sorry, just to confirm that by having just this one sentence about the governor's proposed budget, that is not holding us back from making some adjustments in the transportation budget prior to sending it over to the senate.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. This is what's in the big bill.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: In fact, I just wanna just wanna make sure I'm clear on that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We will be going through the language next week on the T Bill language and dealing with some of the proposed amendments or additions. And we are then looking at any potential changes of we have money changes we wanna make. We've gotta hear the fors and against on both sides of that. So I have that we can do that more. There's open slots available next week, Thursday and Friday, and there's available the week after that. If you think that there's a proposal that need to be done, we have to hear who's for it, who's against it before we can insert it, and then there would have to be a motion to put it in. So there are some committee times available. Put your heads together, figure out what that might be, and we'll go from there. I would like to just then, if that makes sense, did I answer anything else? A head nod or a thumbs up that we're good to go with the letter. Thank you very much for your work and appreciation. We are adjourned for today.