Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And we are. Good morning. It's Wednesday, February 25 here in house transportation. We're gonna have a presentation this morning from Forest Parks and Recs. We looked at the agency and the trails piece and how they manage trails and looked and talked about. We've also looked at e bikes. E bikes is also part of a couple of bills that we've heard about. And the agency, transportation, said that they're working on issues related to e bikes on forest land and whatnot. So they thought it might be a good idea, was suggesting it might be a good idea to hear what they're doing. I know there's concern in the committee from hearing where e bikes are headed to thirty, forty, and 50 miles an hour and how that's going to play out on land next to pedestrian or hiking. And also, I don't know if you go what the direction is as far as regulating the speed limits or regulating the bikes themselves or what direction. But we have a bit of an issue now, and it's not huge. It seems to be headed in a direction that potentially could be more. We're looking to hear how different parts of the state handle it. And your group is not one that we get into our committee very often. So we're very happy to have you join us this morning. Welcome. And whenever we're ready, Claire, introduce yourselves. George, go take us.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Great. Thank you so much for inviting us in. My name is Claire Pouech. I am the Recreation Program Manager for the Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation. And for the past year and a half, I've been serving as the chair of the working group that's looking at e biking on state lands. So just to give you the framework of where we're talking about, what is biking on state lands, we are specifically looking at FPR lands. So these are the state forests and the state parks. We are not considering WMAs, which are managed by the Department of Fish and Wildlife, because that's all managed through the use of WMAs pool. Biking on FPR lands is governed by our Sorry.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So in Pittsburgh, we have some land by fish and wildlife and people mountain bikes there, I know. And it's what you're saying, have their own rules and you have your own rules. Or do you?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Yes, that is very true. I'm not aware of a wildlife management area in Hinesburg that allows mountain biking. I do know there's the Hinesburg Town Forest.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And it's linked to Yeah,

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: I can look into that.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, so I'm just curious as we go through this, do they have their own or not? Yeah, so

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Fish and Wildlife has their own rules, and there's an official rule called the uses of WMAs rule. It has a longer title than that, but that's what we call it in shorthand. And that says that biking on WMAs is allowed only by designation by the commissioner. But on FPR lands, which again are state forest and state parks, so places like Little River State Park or Camel's Hump State Forest or that's a state park too. Sorry. Mount Mansfield State Forest. We manage that through FPR policies. And specifically for biking, it's the FPR policy four, which also talks about horseback riding because in 1991, they joined them together. So that's why that is. As of now, that policy does not include e biking, and so that's what we're looking at now. Right now, bikes are allowed on forest highways and park roads. So these are places like going through a campground like at a state park, or places like Cotton Brook Road in Stowe, which is technically a forest highway, even though it's a very popular recreation corridor. This picture is also another gravel surface Forest Highway, this time in Willoughby State Forest. These are dirt roads in the woods, generally. We also have a number of multiuse trails. One that's commonly used is the Wells River Railbed through Bratton State Forest. It's a rail trail, but when they designated rail trails, sometimes they went as rail bank and sometimes they went to the adjacent landowner. And in this case, in Bratton, it went to the adjacent landowner, which is us. And then finally, we also have mountain bike trails. So these are narrow, natural surface trails. Lots of very popular destinations like Perry Hill in Waterbury, which is also on that's on CC Putnam Staples. Yeah.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So it says does not include e biking. And then does that mean e biking isn't mentioned with biking it just talks about biking. Yes. Says yes or no to e biking. Exactly. And when it says aloud on it says well that means biking and it's silent whether you bring a new bike or not. Exactly, yes. Thanks.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You mentioned rail trails, banked or not banked. What's your interpretation of whether something is, when it's banked or not banked, what difference does it make? I know that they have an opinion. I was wondering what Forest Parks and Recreation's understanding of that in terms of or not.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: So my only understanding is that the rail trails that we manage are not rail backed. They were given up entirely. Entirely. Yes. And so that's when they reverted to the adjacent landowner, which in Groton was us. Then also there's the Rust River Trail down in Jamaica State Park. That is another former rail bed that reverted entirely to our ownership.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And if they're rail bench, it has different levels.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: And I don't know all of those rules because we don't manage any of them.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Neither do I. I have one business understanding that there's a very clear difference between whether it's rail banked or not rail banked. It doesn't matter who manages it and where it goes from there. It's understood in your organization that it is two different things.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Thank you.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: So e bikes, so as you mentioned, representative, I can't see your Ouch. Ouch. We don't mention e bikes. And previously, we had assumed that they were motorists. So and then the statute was passed that they are considered bicycles and and not motorized vehicles. In that same statute, landowners or managers are given jurisdiction about what is allowed on trails, specifically multiuse trails and natural surface trails, which, like I said, we have many of. So it's really like, we needed to put together a process to figure out what to do. Contextually, e bikes are allowed on a lot of adjacent roads and multiuse trails. So trails that connect into our trails, in most cases, e bikes in some sort are allowed. And then the other really confusing thing is I gave you those examples of the forest highways. Sometimes roads through state forests are actually municipal roads, and they're still municipal roads. And obviously, e bikes are allowed on those. And you can't really tell the difference as a user. And sometimes they go into the state forest and then they end The municipal road ends and it becomes a forest highway, which is under our jurisdiction. You also can't tell that. There's a lot of It's not confusing if you're a person on the road because it's just a road that you continue on. But jurisdictionally, it can get kind of confusing. I think you guys, it sounds like you've had quite a bit of information about e bikes. I just went into that, you know, we look at all the different classes of e bikes for each of those types of resources from class one, class two, and class three. So as I said, we needed to figure out a way to consider whether eBites were a good fit for our resources on FPR lands. So in fall twenty twenty three, 2024, sorry. The ANR Lands team, which is comprised of directors from across the agency of the divisions that manage lands, formed a working group of state lands and state park staff to look at this. They're considered e bikes. And as I mentioned, I am the chair of that working group. During last '5, we developed a list of questions that managers had. We conducted research into those questions, as well as consulting with experts from adaptive sports, from mountain biking, and from biking in general. Then we looked at each of those resource types, looked at the potential impacts, and we drafted a policy update. We then put that out for review for state land staff. We put that out back to the ANR Lands team and the ANR leadership. This fall or late fall, November, December, we put it out for public comment. And now we're in the final drafting phase of incorporating that public comment. Once we finish that and everything's approved, we will work with our partners to implement what we decide, because a lot of this has to do with public information to the people using the resources. So this is what we put out to the public. This is, again, this is a graph. This isn't nothing of this none of this has been decided yet. But considering our resources, what we proposed was to allow all the types of e bikes, class one, two, and three, on gravel surface or paved forest highways, designated natural surface forest highways. So some of our forest highways are more for winter use, and some of those can be appropriate to bike use, and some of them are not. Park roads and our multiuse trails. Then decided to just restrict to just class one e bikes on mountain bike trails. We proposed a speed limit of 20 miles per hour and then lower if needed. So there's some places like Wells River Rail Trail through Groton that goes through campgrounds. So in those areas, we would propose less of a speed limit. And then the policy also allows for short term closers. We close most of our trails in the spring for mud season, so it's things like that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I have a question. Back when you had mentioned designated natural surface or it autograph? Some are appropriate for bike use and some are not. What makes something appropriate for a bike use and what is it?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: So it really depends on that surface. Some places are well drained and there's not going to be a lot of impacts to that surface. Some of them go maybe a little too close to a wetland and it gets a little soft and then it would cause more damage. That's a very small part of our forest highways, but it does exist, so we wanted to put that in.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. Just as

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: a note, know that you guys are more interested in e bikes, but we made some changes to the equestrian use as well to match the bikes of also allowing ungravel surface or paved forest highways and designated trails, and then park roads just outside of operations because of the potential conflict, unless there's a horse team site.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The interaction of e bikes and equestrian is not considered a problem in most cases then, is that?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: So that's where we designate the trails. And so there are trails that allow, many actually trails that allow both, especially in Grapin, for example. So, we look at those to see if that could or would or would not be a conflict, and that's how we would designate. And all of the designations through our long range management planning process. So we put this out to public comment. We got a lot of interest, two seventy eight comments through online form and email. A little less than half were supportive of what we had said. A little more than a quarter were very concerned with the whole thing. And then a little less than a quarter were concerned with parts of the policy or not other parts. And some of those concerns were wanting more access for e bikes, and some of it was wanting less access for e bikes. That 24% is pretty mixed. The common themes in the positive direction, people were very supportive of providing more accessibility to state lands, especially for people with disabilities or less abilities. We had very poignant comments coming from people, for example, with cancer who could no longer bike but use an e bike to get outside during their treatment. And it was very important to them that they shared that comment. There's been research, and this was noted in the comments, that the impacts are similar to regular bikes, and so associating them with regular bikes makes sense, matching the adjacent landowners and managers. And then there's also quite a few safety concerns, both for the bicyclists themselves, e bicyclists, and for other users. There's concerns about resource damage, speed, our ability to enforce the policy, and then, as you said, the non compliant or modified e bikes, which don't follow We put the definition from the statute in the policy if that's what we were allowing, but people are concerned with either people personally themselves modifying the e bikes or the bicycles that are a little bit more like electric dirt bikes that people think are e bikes that don't actually fall within the definition. What we're doing now is we're incorporating Oh, yeah.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So, we heard testimony that you really can't tell the difference sometimes between what we consider mopeds and

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: speed bikes that pretty much look like a moped. So then what's the difference? Because they can go pretty fast at the, I don't know, level of

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: them so tight, three or whatever that higher means.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Class three can go up to 28 with assist.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Correct. Yeah, so that was, I mean, we did hear that.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So that's a concern for

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Yeah, I think that is a concern that we heard in the public comments as well. The statute does say that Class III e bikes have to be labeled as such, but I don't know how much people are doing that. What we're doing right now is incorporating that public feedback, seeking final review and approval, and as I said, we are developing an implementation plan for this is approved. We really think that a lot of this has to do with the public information safety messaging. We co manage a lot of our trails with partners, and so working with them to get the same messaging out on behavior and safety in particular. So that's where we are with our work on incorporating e bikes on state lands. You guys have more questions, Ruth? Yeah.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm going sort of summarize this. You don't control the rails trail folks. And what you're saying is, hey, on some of your lands, you've identified places where bikes are allowed and anywhere a bike is allowed, an e bike class one, two, or three is allowed, which parallels rail trains. Yes. So rail trails, bikes are allowed, and they're saying, hey, class one, two, or three are allowed, again, following the statute of those definitions for those three classes.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Yes. The only thing to add to that is that unlike B TRANS, we also manage mountain bike trails. Our proposal is just class one e bikes. Class one mountain Yes, exactly. And

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I assume that I can look at a website and it show all the trails by you folks and where bikes are allowed and where they're not or not.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Yes. The best way to bike where bikes are allowed is actually not our website. Our partners who help us manage our mountain bike trails are keep up the websites that mountain bikers use.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, yeah. All trails or something. Yeah.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: And so that's the best place to find out about mountain biking right now. And then for the roads, we're working on improving our data. It is there, but it's incomplete.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Has there ever been any pace of actual enforcement where park ranger, I guess, somebody's zipping around in a camping area. And it's like, no, that's not allowed.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Well, I guess it depends what you mean by actual enforcement. We don't have law enforcement officers at FDR, but we certainly have talked to people about their behavior or using a type of equipment that

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: isn't. Would you say anecdotally or maybe with the data, there's an increase in problems or not?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Or concern? We started this process because we knew people were using e bikes on state of Texas. So this was happening already, and we wanted to promote better information about where it is allowed and where we think it should be and shouldn't be. Because of the shift from thinking they were motorized to thinking they were bicycles, we, since then, hadn't really been having a lot of information out there because we knew we had to figure this out. We just left the capacity until this last year to do that. And so we have not, to my awareness, seen many issues in this. I know that people have reported things like mopeds and stuff in places that they're not supposed to be. We know that e bikes are out there that we are proposing to allow, and we haven't seen a lot of problems. But I just want to emphasize that most of our resources are pretty remote and rural and not as popular as some of the rail trails. And the exception to that is that Colchester Causeway is now a state park, and so that is a very popular, much more busy location. But the rail trail through Gatin, for example, people go on it quite often when they're camping and stuff, but it's not an urban area, and I think the urban areas are where a lot more of those conflicts are happening.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, okay, thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative McCoy and then representative Casey and then representative what?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: So you you mentioned a website, so I'm assuming it's a private website that people can access. So there are private mountain bike trails throughout. Do they follow what you're recommending? So for mountain biking, there was a study in Vermont to look at the impacts of Class I mountain bikes on our type of mountain bike trails. And what the study found is that the impacts were very similar to bike feet. And since then, multiple places, including the Heinford Town Forest, for example, have allowed Class I e bikes. I believe the town of Stowe has allowed it, at least in some other properties where they can. And then in the Mab River Valley, we have mountain bike trails on the Howe block of Campbell's Pump State Forest, and those go and connect to private lands. And so e bikes are actually allowed in the connecting trails, but not on the state forest currently. And the Vermont Mountain Bike Association is in support of Class I e bikes because they have not found that there are increased impacts. Okay, so just Class I? Just Class I. Okay. Because we have a huge trail system. We totally have it. Oh, That's huge. That's Lake Valley. Yeah, for sure. Okay.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Does

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: if I go if I go up to the state forest and going to go for a horseback ride down the I don't buy the horses, by

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the way. They have

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: I pay for them. Anyways, the does do they have to have like an immunization status or because over in New York, I see that go over into certain trails over there. They tell you you have to have all your shots up to date with your horse. Don't know if you guys

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: We don't have that as part

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: of call.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Right. Represent

[Candice White (Member)]: what? Yeah, thank you for this. Just to make sure I'm understanding, so you all are looking at forest parks and rec trails, and then we have rail trails, which are under AOT, and then we have fish and wildlife trails. And I understand that you are looking at FPR, because that's your jurisdiction, will you be talking with these other entities? I mean, it sounds like there's some consistency in what you all are suggesting in some of the practice that is happening in the other divisions. But will you all be talking together as three separate groups that are working on something that is really public information, and that the public needs to, they're not gonna know if they're on FBR trails, or fish and wildlife. So I think that what is really critical is that whatever the decisions made are, that they are very clearly communicated to the public with signage, just so people can understand what the expectations are. It seems like the proposed speed limit, the ability to adjust that may be a way to, for rail trail issues where we may have the class three e bikes going 28 miles per hour next to somebody strolling their baby, maybe a 15 or 10 mile per hour speed limit in zones that will have many different types of mobility happening would be the best way to solve that. So I guess that's just my request for clear, consistent public information. Yeah, I completely agree. And we anticipate that we'd like to work with those partners in getting the information out.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: We've already been talking to new trends about what they're doing on their road trails. And then we talk to all of our partners. Obviously, within the agency, that's pretty easy, but also our partners outside. I think the one that is a little different is the Green Mountain National Forest, currently, because they're under federal rules. Their federal rules on e bikes are different than our rules. And so they don't currently allow e bikes, and we do have a place where they connect from the national forest to the state park. So we'll since it's so short on the state park, I think we'll just have to say e bikes are not allowed in 800 feet, so don't use an e bike here. So yes, I completely agree with you. And the good thing is that we partner with the Vermont Trails and Greenways Council. We partner with the Vermont Wildlife Association, as well as the other agencies within state government to get this information out.

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: What's the enforcement look like?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: So we don't have enforcement at FPR. So our enforcement is really through public information.

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: If I, hypothetically, I'm on a modified electric bike and I'm doing 26 miles an hour, is it, a 20 mile an hour zone? So if somebody sees me go by, they can assume that they're gonna assume I'm going that fast or they're mean, I've seen people sit there and say, well, person was flying and maybe they weren't, maybe they were. I mean, without a radar detector, somehow

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: that's gonna work, that's all. Well, I think it's an interesting point because when comes to rail trails, the vast portion of it anyway, they contract for, they're a very large organization with a lot of members and a lot of revenue sources that a lot of clubs don't have, etcetera. But they do contract with the game wardens, with the state police, with the sheriff in a variety of areas. My understanding is enforcement's pretty active. From the testimony that we've heard here, enforcement is pretty active when it comes to Bass Trail. They work hard to keep people off private property, they work hard to keep their rules enforced so they don't jeopardize their private property rights. But I don't know if that's an issue down the road. I assume if there was something going on, they would call the state police or the sheriff's department or whatnot. Mean, you have rangers in some places, right?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: No, we don't have any law enforcement.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But I mean, I'm sorry, that you have employees that

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: park employees, for example.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: What's their title? Yeah,

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: park, staff. I mean, there's a lot of different titles that they could have for people who are working in the parks. But yeah, so the snowmobiles, there is a speed limit for snowmobiles of 35 miles an hour and that's statutory, so that is enforceable and they can, so on state lands, it's 35 miles an hour, and that can be enforced through their contracts with mostly on state lands, believe it's with the Fish and Wildlife law enforcement staff.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: You mentioned the Green Mountain National Forest doesn't allow e bikes. Do they allow bikes?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Yeah, so it's not that they don't allow e bikes blanket. They can allow e bikes on their motorized trails. But this particular trail is a bike trail, and it's how it's designated within the National Forest System that they would have to go through a process to designate it for e bikes, which exists now within the National Forest System federally. But again, it's a capacity thing to figure that out. That's my understanding. And as of now, it does not, they do not allow it in that place. In that one spot. Yes. Okay, thank you.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Representative Keyser? No, thank you for this. Very interesting. So I understood with the testimony that a lot of this is not marked. And so they're unclear about when a road and that type. Is there any plan to put in markings of like this is a road, this is 20 miles an hour. Is there any there now that direct you to different places? How is your signage going to inform this process?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: So first of all, we do have, in many places, we have signs that say you're entering statements. So it's not that there's no signs at all. I think because we have such a variety of places, what our managers pass for is the discretion to know where to sign things and where they're not necessary. And that includes the speed limit signs. So having a speed limit sign on every single forest highway, which we know doesn't get a lot of use, is not a very efficient use of staff time. But they wanted the ability to post speed limit signs in the places where conflicts might occur or there is a lot of use. And so that will be our plan going forward, to really prioritize those areas where use is happening. Thank you. President McCoy? I'm not familiar with state owned.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: We have the

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Ranch ramp, the D And H Ranch Ramp.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: And there are kiosks. When you park your car and you get out, there's a kiosk, you get a DNA trail trail. Are there kiosks for the state lanes? Can say 20 miles per hour, invites, Okay.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: It's not every single place where you enter state lands has this kiosk, but the vast majority do, especially in the places where people are recreating. Okay. Right, thank you. And that's one of the places that we're developing signage. We have to find out what the signage is gonna say once we get the approval, but signage just say, that's the first step. But it's not the only step, because not everyone stops to read the kiosks.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Where does the forest parks in the right budget

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: flow through within? I happen

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: to know that after who's Which authorization?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Who is our committee of jurisdiction? Think Yeah. It's ag and forestry.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And you're putting in full time before it won't. We don't have time, anything else?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: This is helpful, because we've been discussing, this and just to sort of see this portion of state governments saying, hey, this is something you want to put, really clarify and understand. It seems like your process seemed very fair. Thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Very much appreciate you coming in. It's a chance to hear from a different area.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Thank you, everyone.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And we have to take some level of action on e bikes and related to trails portion. It's nice to know that there is partnership or there's discussion between agencies and partners. We appreciate it. Thank you very much. For the committee discussion piece, I I know that some of you worked on some e bike portion in August. We had a discussion about e bikes and related to speed limits potentially on the long term related to rail trails. I am not sure that we're at a spot where we are, please, go right ahead.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I'm realizing you just disappeared specific with particular trails, things like the Burlington Bike Pad. I mean, think that it might benefit us to fear being more emotional about this, or she will, that somebody did not have, I mean, if we're going to talk about, in general, I guess, Barbie was going to be talking about, I just think we need more information before we make any decision.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, was bringing up the beginning of the session, maybe last session too, just that there can be some confusion out there, landscape is changing with some plaster bites and whatnot. And just sort of saying, what are the rules? What should the rules be for safety and real long environmental damage? It does seem like the rail trail folks, fishing, parks and recreation, starting to sort of get it feels like in control. What may not be is like the Burlington, these more areas, even the streets, and my town and other towns where I do see these other bikes popping up that obviously they're not class one, two or three and young people driving them. And I'm just sort of putting it out there. Is it is it a concern? Do we need to sort of look at it? I certainly hear complaints on some bike paths that and we've seen some accidents too, there's certainly been in the paper, not necessarily just in Vermont around that. There's been some deaths, bikes that aren't really e bikes. But I'm finished, just so I'll put that out there.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We're answering the discussion. I'm happy to add something What out I'm, I guess I'm representing peace.

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: Should the should the rules be a la carte all over the state or should they be shouldn't they be different? I mean, you're in the city area, I don't think it should be the same rules that go into rural areas. Just Yeah. I mean, I just said whenever if we're considering rules, just hope we consider that. And I think that

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: it matters who's running it as well, and who has access. And so I think what I'm looking at is we're coming to the end of this week. We've got a couple more. If there's going to be any language request about what we should or shouldn't do in relationship to the evolving e bike usage and the e bike technology, and rules related to, if there is something that, I'm not sure, it sounds like we're ready to propose any kind of language or not, I'm looking at it saying, okay, there's openings. Wanna make sure this is something that we're not ready to move on as a committee, but we've taken quite a bit of different We have had, about against having a motion in the GAN, but they have been here twice, and we didn't necessarily get into this subject that much, but we could. You have different entities. We did go for I like this objection that we heard

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: from another group. We heard from

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the rail trails. We're actually likely to have them in again for another topic that they can comment on this. I don't know that there's language ready, or there's not, or that it's a request ready, guess, is what I'm It's gonna be hard to do something unless we're doing it soon, I guess, is what I'm getting at. And I don't know that I hear that or not. So, Representative Tomlinson and Wright, and Representative Burke?

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Just to clarify, there is language on a proposed study on regulation of e bikes in August at Section 14. So, there's some language there. It's not proposing any regulation, and I think there's a lot of nuance and a lot of different stakeholders in it. But there is some language around putting together a study in that bill, if it's something that many wants to consider.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I guess I'm going to get to the point, like when we're Friday on markup, if we think that's something that if there's people that really want that included, then we need perhaps a review of it, we need to request some time to review of it, date in or whatnot, because we're not gonna put August on the table. We're not taking a vote on the whole bill. I am willing to take potentially proposed amendments or pieces that we have then taken enough testimony on that we would be in a spot to take some level of action on. And that's really what I'm trying to drive at. And I'm not trying to be as open about it as we can. If it's not going to happen on its own, And it's got, like, the next little bit of time. We really ready for a study or are we not? And what are we ready for? So I don't know which one of you guys was next, or one of you guys could go.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I was gonna say, I don't think that was ever the intention was to move eight sixty two, to put out some proposals that we might incorporate. That's what we're doing.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And that is what I'm trying to push at. It's time to really push now. You're either making a proposal soon, and we're going to have another look at it if we need to, or we've had the discussion, we've driven the conversation, you're queued it up for next year, for what you might want to be looking at. And that's sort of where we're at. It doesn't

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: I just had

[Candice White (Member)]: So I think it was helpful to hear about this study group that Claire brought us up to speed on. Recognizing the different groups that are overseeing biking in different parts of Vermont land makes me think. I think it would be beneficial to hear from maybe Burlington City Parks on how they're handling their trail along the lake. Fish and Wildlife sounds like they are regulating some lands and they have some jurisdiction over e bikes, so it could be helpful to hear from them too. And I'm not sure whether we need a separate study group knowing that there's already a group kind of in discussion, I think just kind of pulling the different pieces that we haven't heard from would be helpful to the committee conversation. Yeah, I

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: mean, I just kind of looked at the language that's in that bill, sort of looking at the study of regulation of electric bicycles. And I think that this was, for me, like, okay, it looks like Parks and Rec, or they're kind of already doing that for themselves. And looking out what other people are doing, they've defined it, seem to be defining it in a reasonable way, I think it still leaves open what municipalities are doing, what are we doing just on the train roads. We know what we're doing on rail trails, but is it clear, are there needs for clarifications or changes to our existing statute that would help? One of the Vermont leads of citizen towns might be somebody who might weigh in on this, whether they see a need from towns to clarify this or whether the statutes are good enough to enforce. We don't want people driving around towns souped up electric bikes or dirt bike kind of things, which you do see around, I've seen them a bit in Burlington. So I'm not sure what's in here might be exactly what they want, but I think that it's still a reasonable thing just to understand what's out there, what are the needs, and maybe Vermont League of Seas and Towns might want to weigh in on whether they see municipalities needing some support.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: It would seem reasonable that we would have consistent rules across the whole platform, regardless of where we're coming from. And just because of where we're coming from is so fractionated, we may not get that. And I think that would just confuse the public, frankly. And I don't know how to get to that, except just to request that agencies talk to each other.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Is that a question or a comment?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yes, agree. But the huge piece of municipalities who have a lot of roads in this thing are not in that conversation with the agency. I think the LCT has to be

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: kind of

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: maybe regional planning commission, or maybe somebody that has RPCs to deal with the municipal issue. And I agree, I mean, seems fractured. And it would be coming if somebody's driving on Municipal Road and then heads to a highway, then like Route 30 and Point Lane. Well

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: you're in the village now,

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: now you're not here on the Municipal Road, now you're on the

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: State Road, and it'd

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: be good if there was You

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: can't drive as fast here because you're gone from the town that allowed me.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I mean, right. Know, consistency, I think, is the key. So I think we do need to call in other people

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: inside the state. So you're thinking maybe they're not leaving for the same time. It might be somebody just to ask.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yeah, under regional conditions, they

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: probably have a lot of

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: input as well.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I'm not trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Do you know what I mean? If it doesn't exist, fine. But we've heard some questions. And even though Claire gave a great presentation of what that organization was doing, if they didn't decide to do it themselves, there'd be more confusion there too. But it's great that they picked up the fact that it's the way the rail trail folks have said, hey, we gotta clarify this. We're coming up with our rules. What about municipalities? And we don't want every municipality to come up with their own rules. I guess my assumption there is that's gonna be an agricultural issue because they have forest. It's not us.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: We're hearing this today because we have a lot of other state rail trails, etcetera. Correct? I mean, that's my assumption.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Who was in the face of?

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: I haven't I haven't heard of any complaints down my way. Anything about electric bicycles at all. I just haven't

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I haven't.

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: You know, I I'm I'm sure there I'm sure there has been. We just haven't been kicking around for a while. I just haven't heard it be an issue. I don't know. I'm not sticking up for them one way or the other. Just don't If you've some problem areas, I don't even know how you're gonna enforce them. You know, so we could sit here and solve everything that we want, but still enforcement's gonna have to play a role if they're gonna make it work. Other than that, we're just beating a horse here for no reason. I don't know. I don't know what other towns do. I'm just gonna go by my mind. Haven't heard anybody say anything about gambling electric bicycles. I haven't heard anything about. So I don't know. I rode them once. I thought they were fun.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm feeling like I should. Did you I'm sorry, whoever's going

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: to No, mean, just my husband walks the realtor a lot And his comment on the electric bicycles, because they go by so quickly, and it's like, they have to have a bell or something on them to avoid people that they're approaching because they're walking. They're going fast past them.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Me try to clarify what I'm trying to do. We have X amount of two weeks, three weeks, two to three weeks left to finalize our T Bill. And so we've heard testimony from lots of different areas. Free Mountain Transit, as an example, says, we have this language. We would like it inserted into the T bill. So it goes to Damian, goes to our ledge counsel. They review it. They make changes and edits and recommendations. We We put ledge counsel in the seat. They present the language. We sit here as a committee or at least as the chair and the vice chair say, what other areas do we need to hear testimony from this? Does anybody in the committee have questions? Who else do we need to bring in? We take testimony on a proposed language that somebody wants, in this case, an agency that we have some level of jurisdiction over Green and Mountain Transit. And we then set up time, or I set up time to make sure we hear from both sides. And come Friday, I suspect that the vice chair is going to say, I move that we put the Green Mountain Transit language into the T bill. And we're all gonna go yes or no. Or somebody's gonna argue that we haven't heard enough testimony or it's there for it or against it. And it'll either go in the bill at that time, or we'll get more testimony or it's done. That is what I'm trying to get at with anybody that has. So now the Burlington Airport has come to us and said, we have an issue with our $500,000 transfer that we get, the money that we get into V Trans. We think there are strings and conditions to it. We'd like to change the language to it. And I said, take your language, send it to our alleged counsel. They will edit it. They will come into the chair. They will present it. We will have Burlington Airport tell us why they think they need that. We're going to ask anybody else that would have a reason like the agency, like the federal government, whatever it might be, to comment on that language. And then we're going to get to a Friday or the following Friday. And somebody will say, I move that we add this language into the T bill. And we will either straw vote it yes or no. And then we'll need more comments or we will vote it on or vote it off. So what I'm trying to get at with this thing like the e bikes is if say we have this particular piece of language, yes, I wanted the T bill, then I'll put Damien in the chair, he'll present it, we'll see what else we need, and we'll bring it in. So if you have those things, we haven't been clear enough about how the process works. If it is not language that I am trying to drive, then I am not going to come and bring it. I'm telling you that you have to say, yes, this is the language that I want. I'll say, send it to Damien with a copy to me. We'll put Damien in the chair, and then we'll see what witnesses we need on top of that. The difference I think, and maybe I'm going too far, just because I don't want to drive something doesn't mean that it won't get into the T bill. But then I'm saying you have to say, this is the language that I want. And I'll say, Okay, we'll send it to Damien. Damien can't work on it for the committee unless I say it's Okay. In fact, he'll work on your own pieces. For the committee, say prepare it for committee for presentation. Put them on the And we will hear it. And then we will schedule the other witnesses' piece. So if you have something you want in the TV bill, you've got to say specifically, this is the language I want, or this is the piece. And I'll say, Damien, get it ready for here, and we go from there. And I'm not sure that I have made that enough clear. If I'm not, that's not how the process works. I'm hoping maybe a more veteran can explain. I think that where we've run into before is that when committee members have ideas, they think that it's going to be the chair that'll drive it. If I like it, want it or believe in it, I might do that. But if I am neutral on it, and you still want it, you'll have to drive that. And that's what you have to do, if that makes sense. I'm not sure if I'm being clear. No, that's clear. The time is ticking, the days are getting shorter.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: Hopefully not. The days are getting so.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So if you have something, just, you know, that's the process. Absolutely. Do we have time next couple

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: of weeks to take care of this?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It depends on what it is.

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: I'm just thinking That's what

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: we have to see. I don't

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: think we're ready on bicycle deal yet. Just I think we're getting closer. I just don't think they weren't ready with their coming out with what they were coming out with as far as the forest and parks. And I don't know.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Think, Representative Casey, you are observing what I think that I'm trying to say. I went into that. I took extra, we scheduled extra testimony because the agency had had, we had heard presentation about e bikes, which was part of the rail trails, also part about e bikes and the technology is getting to a spot where it could become more of a problem. So I did schedule additional testimony, but don't I have any particular language that I'm looking to do it. I am trying to highlight an issue that came up. It happens to also help on a mention of 63, so I try to kind of say that they're together. So I would say that no, I don't think we're ready for language for the T Bill. But if somebody else said, I really want this to happen, then they gotta say, here's the language or here's the idea, Damian, we'll get Legis Council to put it in the language. We'll present it to the committee and go from there. And that's what I'm really trying to make sure. I don't know that I did a good enough job of explaining it before. If you have a particular section, then we got to get it presented from the alleged counsel seat. And then we will invite in. But I've invited in people that probably have testified on a lot of parts. We just didn't officially call them that they were testifying on those parts. So I think you're understanding that right where we're at. Most of everything we've done so far is talk, unless it's specifically related to the people like what Green Mountain Transit or the we haven't done the Burlington Airport yet. There again, they said they were ready to go. And I said, show me the language and they don't have any. So that's not they better hurry up because we still have to hear from multiple sides if they wanted to. So yes, representative.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: So do you want to hear all these things right now?

[Candice White (Member)]: Do you want to lay out what

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I would like you to bring them Well, we have a little bit of time. We could go through some of them, but we can I'm looking for you to say, I know that age 63 as an example is about driving conversations. I'm trying to have some of them. If there's one in particular or two or three or four that you really think you want, say I want this specific language, then I will run with it from there.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: So I

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: can say right now that, and I've asked you for this and I'd say you're maybe in process. They have testimony from Drive Electric Vermont because in age 63 there's money allocated to Drive Electric Vermont. And because they do a lot of education, they provide data for, for example, for energy action network, very important data, and also in this era when we've lost our incentives for electric vehicles, it really helped people to understand how to purchase one, etcetera. We'd like to have testimony there.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And in this case, which I try to use it as a, it is not a language request, it's an allocation request. So it's a little bit, it's the same, it's a little bit different process, but it's the same idea. You have said that, and we are working on Drive Electric with Dave Roth.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: And so Yeah, to hear what he provides, so if we're considering any funding, what is the service he's providing that would recommend to have some funding for it?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So when we get to Friday and to the whole following week, Representative Burke is likely to at some point say, I move that we move this money and some discussion about where that money would come from. Or she's already gonna have an idea about where that money would come from. And we would then eventually, we'll have to hear from we'll hear from the agency about Drive Electric specifically. We'll hear from Drive Electric. We'll hear from anybody else that might be impacted from Drive Electric that we think we should. Eventually, Representative Burke is likely to make the motion that she wants this allocation. Then there'll have to be a discussion about where that money would come from. She will be, or I have no trouble helping in that particularly, say, working with Logan, you need to end with the agency, where are you gonna look to get that money from? And that would become one of those things that will eventually straw, well, thumbs up, William straw full technically callable to, yes it's gonna get included in T bill or no it's not. So she, Representative Burke, is pursuing a particular piece that she wants and I am aware of it and we are gonna have the private election testimony. And she will eventually decide whether she makes that motion to put that money in the T bill, and whether or not we as 11 will agree, and we will hear from the other parties about whether it's a good idea or not. So that I would say, Representative. Can understand that. In my mind, you're understanding exactly what I think we're on the page of understanding what you're going to try to do.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Thank you very much.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I thanked. So, Representative Lalley?

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yes, to that end, I have a bill H834 that is preoccupied with some policy changes, nothing costs anything in my bill. I am looking to get folks in to testify on various provisions of that, and if it's stymied by the school holiday this week being waived for term meeting, it's working towards that. So the first order of the day to,

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: would

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: be to have Jason Rasmussen back in after we've heard about, from Damien and Jeremy about what is allowed in the current law for reducing speeds. Just get that RTC feedback and take on it. And then the other thing that I would love for consideration in the T Bill is the class one update. This is an opportunity for us to, over the long term, maybe reduce some costs for the agency. The agency is interested, it's my understanding, in encouraging more communities to pursue class one status. There's some new guidance that I was talking with Michelle yesterday, that I think would be interesting for the committee to hear about. I would certainly like to hear about it. And then there's also potentially an opportunity to hear from, probably started before from AARP about just the takes on that. They sponsored a Smart Growth America report that looked at the issue, looking very closely with folks at A and T. Just two things that

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: would be very useful to have

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: a broader discussion about. So my take on that as far as illustrating the examples where we did try to go to the number, the speed limit piece, and we sort of understand that there was interest in that, having the agency work with our Legis Council to demonstrate what is the current speed limit issue. It also tied into the Regional Planning Commission. So I did take the step of saying, here's what I think we should It's beneficial for the committee no matter what language request that represent Lalley may or may not have. We're not gonna pass a bill off the wall separately. It doesn't work that way in this committee. It has to be an amendment into the T bill. Wouldn't have to be. That's traditionally what's done. Half is into the T bill or any miscellaneous motor vehicle bill. So then it'll come back, we're gonna have that testimony, and then I'm gonna expect Representative Lalley to say, here is the chunk of the language that I think is appropriate. Gonna have our Ledge Counsel, she's gonna send it to Ledge Counsel myself, and I'm gonna have Ledge Counsel present that actual section. We'll see if it is or is not appropriate, whatever else we will or won't need to hear from from there.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Would you like me to read that out before we

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: get I your think you should be doing that now at the same time, which is the piece that I would like to do. The testimony, I didn't do it specifically for your bill, but I knew that it was out there and I knew what we got for feedback. So I'm trying to put the two together. But if you have actual portion that you want potentially to be able to say, I move that we move this section into the T bill, that's gotta get presented from our Legis Council before we can do that. Okay.

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: I'll get on that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The class one part, I don't have that one in my mind right now, so I wouldn't be able to say what we have or haven't done related to that.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: New idea.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But if there is a specific piece and you really want it to be considered, we're going have that link council sit in the seat and say, here's the language representative Lalley wants to pull out of her bill and put into there. And then the agency The way it always works from there, I'm sorry, gotcha. Is once it's presented like that, first thing we do always in everything is get the agency's comment. And then might be the department, might be another group, then it might be advocates, and then it might But it always is ledge counsel, then agency, then JFO, if it's money related, and then whatever else after that. We do that every, right? We do that with everything. Proposal, agency, with the Legge Council, then the agency, then the JFO, then anybody else that we need to hear from from there. So I appreciate, I don't know if this is helping or if I'm kicking the horse a little too much, this is how it works. This is how I was taught it works. So thank you very much. And Representative White?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: I'm sorry for

[Candice White (Member)]: that one. I'm So, Lalley, just to clarify a question, are referencing Act 1A1 and the land classifications?

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yes, I have a provision that I introduced to the committee a couple of weeks ago in my little standalone bill, H-eight 34. So it would just be trying to bring those up for the committee's consideration of their merit for going in the policy pieces that we put in

[Candice White (Member)]: the T bill. Thank you. Then, Chair Watford, thank you for being so clear about shall we move these different pieces of proposed legislation forward. So just a couple of pieces that I'm interested in. Number one, the pollinator piece of eight sixty three. We heard some testimony from the agency that there's a plan that was ready to be released, and they're really just waiting for $160,000 So I don't know in terms of that whether if I were to want to push that forward, should I be thinking about more testimony on the benefits of pollinators? Or since the agency has gone pretty far down that road, is it really just a matter of trying to find money for that and put it inserted into the T bill for that particular piece?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: My take on that is we did hear from the agency on pollinators. We also heard them testify that they support the governor's recommended as it is. So from my perspective, we have is similar to the, I think, Burke's Drive Electric, that you have an appropriations request that you're going to have to find, have to work with Logan and with team, especially the agents are going to say they don't support it. They already said they support the governor as recommended. So we know where they stand. We're going to have to say if it's whatever that amount is, where else are we going to find it? And that's the JFO and then we will typically tax on Friday or on the week we get back, making a motion this is what we'd like to do and this is where the money is. You've probably already talked to members of the committee and to our JFO and the agency saying we are trying to move forward with this, where else are we gonna take it from?

[Claire Pouech (Recreation Program Manager, VT Dept. of Forests, Parks & Recreation)]: And

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: that would be one of those things that, from my perspective, come in when we have a committee discussion and markup, we'll make a motion at some point, we'll vote it up, vote it down, or kick

[Candice White (Member)]: it back for more info. Thank you. And so, a couple other items. So on the SALT piece, I think I shared that I do have someone in mind who would be willing to come testify on just what they've learned in the Adirondacks, working with municipalities, private property managers, and to a lesser extent, the Agency of Transportation in New York in terms of what they've done to decrease salt use and decrease costs. So I guess I'm kind of waiting to see if that's some testimony that we could schedule.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I would say I see that a little bit different, unless I don't. There is bill S. Two eighteen that came over from the Senate that is not in our committee. Likely the same as the SALT bill last year. Would probably do a little bit of a drive by potentially in our committee. That wouldn't be under the same parameters of what we've just talked about related to bill or appropriation or a T bill insert, I think at this point. That you're talking information, extra testimony that we, 's a matter of requesting like you have, then that is something we're likely to bring in to the piece. But if it's, unless I'm misunderstanding

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: it, you're not looking to

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: put it into the T Bill this year.

[Candice White (Member)]: Well, did have a piece solved in May '3 about municipalities working. I can't remember if it was being required to work with AOT, but just the broader goal is to make sure that our municipalities and our private property, and I think the Senate bill is dealing with the private property, they're all related in terms of the most efficient best practices for SALT, kind of the state, local, and private areas. So we can hold back on any kind of SALT language in the T bill, knowing that the Senate bill's coming over, but I did have some in there.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So we can, the committee, based on wherever we want to put time and how many others are being requested, we're going to want to put in before the T bill goes. We had testimony yesterday for a group by member request, that we can take solid testimony as the schedule allows. I'm I'm not not believer, said to know more than a handful of things in two years, or less than a handful. That I would handle in that way. Background information related to SALT is applicable to the committee as long as it's involved in the highways and the towns and all that, certainly it's our area. Private practice part, that's a little bit, I'm not sure where that comes in, which is part of reason why we probably don't have the bill. But any of that information is helpful to the committee, so that would be viewed that way. If you are looking to get language from your police, the eight sixty three or whatnot, you'll have to follow the same process that I think we just described to representability in terms of getting that language presented and then hearing what we do or don't want to hear from both sides. All those steps would be there. I'm not sure if that's fully answering it. Getting additional background is something I'd catch you back, so I'm still considering that we can do at any time. If you want something specifically in the bill, you'll have to follow the process that Representative Lalley, remembers and birth, who can only just go through what we just discussed on the pollinators. Drive electric in the pollinators are one type of scenario, and their language policy is the other scenario on that side. I don't think we're asking for money, though, in this case.

[Candice White (Member)]: No, no, not for Salt. And then I've got EV incentives, like restarting some of the EV incentives, and the school bus

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: public

[Candice White (Member)]: transit requiring them to work together to seek efficiencies. I have spoken with Ross MacDonald at the agency about that and TBT, but inviting them in to speak on language in August, could invite them in. You'd want to

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: cut it?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yes, we can. Opposed amendment

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: to the T Bill

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: and then

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: we would take testimony on that. We're not going to take up any of bills on the wall as their on their own. We do an omnibus, so that would be the same process as there. I'm sorry, can I skip you again? Is there anybody else that would like to skip ahead of the representative couch? I think I skipped you twice, Aaron. I will apologize for that again.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I have three things in there. One is the ones that we just talked about. We need understand more on e bikes? Think we got a good understanding of VTrans, such as on rails, and parks are working on it. So maybe we can look at getting, I believe, the cities and towns and see if there's an issue there. And if they find no issue, maybe we just drop that for now. Then we add two other things. One in the existing building, 63, which is for public EV charging that there is a real time status so people can see if it's for public charging, that it's online, that it's available. And I have some testimony that I can, you know, I've lined up to talk about that. But first, Damien is rewriting the language a little bit, so he'll be ready to present that in the next day or two. And then the second piece, which came from a lot of the testimony we had was really clarification around what are the rules around EV charging? Not so much public charging because it looks like ag, weights and measures folks have got a pretty good handle on that. But there are chargers at condominiums or home associations, public chargers, or not public, municipalities. And I think it's pretty obvious if they're open to the public and anyone can go there, they fall under public charging. But if they're just for the association to use, what are the rules? And I think it's very unclear. So, I'm looking to really have a study group that would like come back and say, here are the rules right now for those sort of charges that are not public charges, they're not private chargers, but they're for workers or they're for convaluing associations. And I think it's very unclear, and I think the ACCD folks who have been trying to get grants out to these groups are running into problems. And I think, I personally discovered you have to charge sales tax. Well, condominium associations isn't doing that, I don't think. And I don't know that they want to do that, but what are the rules around them? And should we, if we want to encourage more chargers, which were clear that that's the one thing that really helps encourage electric use for people who can't have their own private chargers, then we need to just sort of clarify that. And then once we understand what the rules are around them, in the next session, we may adjust them a little bit, if necessary. So I got those three things there. E bike. Just to explore that a little more. And then the two thing on EV charging. One is public chargers that clarify the requirements and Damien will bring that language a little tighter. And then the study group that sort of looks at those to clarify, if it's a public charger, here are all the requirements. And if it's, right, if not it's public, but you're using electricity with a condo association, for example, what are the requirements? Those are the three pieces that I'm gonna try to push. I'll get Damien to do the language first. Okay.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I appreciate that. Feel I painful.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And the fourth one really was hoping this committee can look at a small amount of funding for the downtown fund, the small head, bike, traffic slowing, calming activities that can take place in villages and towns that the planning groups, they all had that same theme and they've mentioned a very small amount that can make a big difference for our newest tenants. So I'd be looking to see if there are opportunities to increase that funding a little bit.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. I appreciate, I guess it might have been painful for some or not, I feel anyway, least that I believe it's understood if you want something to happen, this is the process you have to go through. Because we reviewed them and because we talked about them, was not my intention to convey that you should consider that it's more likely they'll go through or not. That's really not, we're not raising expectations just by talking about it, but hopefully we're clear that this is what it would be. And for the rest of the members, in terms of understanding it, because we talked about it here, still just talk. When we get to the markups, and we're taking testimony, there's lots of questions, that's when I should be clarifying and pointing out why something is good or bad for the parlour. When we actually do get to markup, that is when we're deciding right up or down, are we proposing it to become a law at some point? Or in the process of submitting the Senate and those tests come out of here and it's got to go through ways and means, it's to go to approves, it's got to pass the House, it's got to go over to Senate, it's got to go through the whole thing. But when that time comes, we should have heard all the information we need, and that's when we're deciding, do we really want to make this a law or not? And that's sort of how the process works. All of the other piece is background information to help you make that decision. All everything else that we take is background, except when we're dealing with the budget, obviously that is about doing our oversight in terms of the budget piece. But all the rest of it is background information to help us make the best decisions on the bill itself and on the budget. Representative Keyser? I hope

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: we all can still remember that we're like, 30,000,000 short, right?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I hope that that's crystal clear to everybody. I'm not sure that I have to answer what you're saying, but we know that. What we've talked about for the two years. That's how I feel the reaction to what you're saying. And when the testimony comes up on any of the piece, I suspect, and maybe I'm just guessing what you're saying, how we're going to pay for anything additional or different or change that we do is going to be expected for whomever's proposing an area. We'll have to answer to that.

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: Hear from my constituents down my way. They're in general, they're saying, you know, pay my taxes. Know, Everything's too expensive. A lot of people are living week to week. They don't need that slight little increment of extra spending that puts them into financial embarrassment. I just hope we kind of consider that. I wish the whole building would consider that, but

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oh, you're certainly allowed to put a a proposal in that would help us cut somewhere. I don't I don't think I got that expertise. Well, I don't either. But I appreciate your sentiment. Okay, we are going to take a break. We are adjourned until 11:20