Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Committee Member or Staff]: Good

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: afternoon. It's Thursday, 02/26/2026. In house transportation and be here all week. We have Burlington International Airport with representatives today. My understanding is they have a potential request for the T Bill or some other piece. So Jeff, welcome back to the committee. Last year, here to give us a nice presentation about the airport, and we're happy to have you back. Let us know what you're up to. Nick's on the line as well. So good afternoon.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: I'd say thank you, chairman Walker. First, before I allow Nick to introduce himself, I don't get the opportunity to control what he says very often. I want to introduce Alexandra Cohen from my team. She's our marketing assistant, and a lot of the great stuff you see on social media and our websites and everything throws through through her and very appreciate that she was able to join me. And online is Nicholas Longo.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Yeah. Good good good afternoon, everybody. Hopefully, you can all hear especially when there's in person, so I'll keep it brief. You're in great hands with Jeff and Alex. Although I do love the view looking over Jeff's shoulders to make sure he's doing a good job and more importantly, sitting next to a very talented Michelle Boomhauer. So, a lot of lot of great connections with with this state and, certainly with you all. We we have a lot to talk about. We have a lot of things happening at the airport. My name is Nick Longo. I'm the director of aviation. I've been with the airport now going into my fourteenth year, and I'm quite excited about all of the progress we're doing. Thank you, chairman Walker, representatives for having us here today, and and thank you for those that were able to come join us at some of our tours last year. The door is always open. Like I said, we have a lot happening at the airport. Most importantly, it's because of the the millions of people that we serve on an annual basis, and that's why some of the things that Jeff is gonna be talking about are so important, and that's why we are looking at expansion. We're always open for questions. I'll be online throughout the presentation here, but really, really appreciate just the time. It allowed me to spend a little time with my family today and my three kids. So thank you. Thank you all very much.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Yeah. Good. Alright. Like a show stopper. Don't get everybody's attention.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I need

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: everybody to start agreeing with me from this point It's not gonna work for some of us. I'm sorry. I know you're now I hear you have a little bit of a time crunch. You know, I'm I'm I started late, we're making up for it with plenty of interruption. That's great.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: That's great. Appreciate the time. And thank you, Nick. I provided everybody a quick packet with our new economic impact assessment. I will be referencing a little bit from it specifically from page 22, if you want to see the comparison. I did provide written testimony. I'm going read that real quick. So it's on record. And then Nick and I are here to answer any questions that you guys have. So Chairman Walker and members of the House Transportation Committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. We recognize the many difficult decisions before you as you crafted a difficult transportation budget, and we are grateful for your time and consideration. First on behalf of the airport administration and the entire team at the Patrick Leahy Bronson International Airport, I want to express our sincere appreciation for our strong working relationship with the administration, Secretary Flynn and his team and Michelle over here on my right, as well as members of the General Assembly. It's been really great to get to know a lot of you over the last year or two in my role. The open lines of communications and collaborative spirit are deeply valued and necessary to the continued success of the aviation industry in Vermont. As Vermont's largest commercial service airport, we view ourselves as a critical economic asset to the state and to the broader region. And I've shared a lot of that data with you today in our economic impact assessment, which we just completed. These are fresh off the press printed Wednesday by my team. In short, in less than eight years, when our last assessment was completed, we have nearly doubled our economic output and the revenue we generate in both state and local taxes. Since 2018, we've seen a 14.4% increase in total jobs supported by the airport, bringing that total to 5,645. This accounts for a 91% increase in total payroll providing for monitors $325,400,000 yearly in payroll. The combined airport regional value, which includes economic output and existing replacement value is 1,900,000,000.0, an 80% increase over 2018. And with that 1,000,000,000 of that is a yearly contribution to the region and to the state. And then on taxes, the airport generated in 2018, roughly $34,500,000 in state and local taxes. That number has increased 81% to $62,500,000 And a lot of these numbers are referenced specifically on page 22 of the economic impact assessment. Now this growth is not accidental. It is the result of strategic investments, partnership, entrepreneurial drive, the commitment to meeting the evolving demands of Vermont's economy and the tourism sector. The aviation industry is dynamic and highly competitive. As we manage the second busiest airfield in New England in terms of total operations, we are also working to meet the needs of the region's businesses, tourism economy, military partners and general aviation community. As we often have said, and this is Nick's favorite quote in the world, you can build a mile of road and travel a mile, or you can build a mile of runway and you can travel the world. We are deeply grateful for the state's annual $500,000 allocation to Leahy BTB. These funds are vital. However, today we respectfully request that the committee ensure this allocation is not restricted solely to capital grants, matching grants or the airport improvement program, but instead be aligned with federal statute specifically 49 US code 47,133, which allows funds to be used for capital or operating costs of the airport. Current state statute references this provision. However, the practice in practice when we submit our annual invoice to the state, we are required to provide a detailed accounting, timely appropriation directly to specific grants. We respectfully request that the statute and administrative practice reflects the flexibility allowed under the federal code. Greater flexibility will allow us to deploy these funds where they are most needed, whether for capital match requirements, operational resilience or strategic investments that strengthens the airport's long term sustainability. Additionally, while we are not formally requesting an increase in funding today, we do believe the committee should consider the broader fiscal picture of the aviation industry in Vermont. The state's contribution is currently capped at $500,000 with those funds derived from the aviation fuel tax revenue. Based on available estimates, we believe airports generate between 3 and 4,000,000 annually in aviation fuel tax revenue, the majority of which is produced at Leahy BTV. We understand there are ongoing discussions regarding municipal authority to adjust local option tax percentages and that the implications for aviation fuel tax revenue have been reviewed. To be clear, we do not have a position on this policy discussion. However, because specific figures being cited regarding aviation fuel tax collections, it has prompted us prompted us again to again see clarity on the total revenues being generated by this tax. We respectfully request confirmation as to whether a comprehensive accounting has been conducted of the total aviation fuel tax revenues collected statewide and a detailed explanation of how those funds are allocated. Transparency regarding what is generated at Leahy BTV compared to what is appropriated to our airport is essential for long term planning, both for the state of Vermont and for the airport. Clear data allows us to reasonably forecast capital planning, assess sustainability and ensure alignment between revenues generated and reinvestment. This is not a new request. Over the years, we have sought a full accounting of aviation fuel tax collections and the resulting balance. And we understand that compiling this information has been often described as complex. However, given the vast majority of aviation fuel sold in Vermont is purchased at Lahey BTV and given the significant economic engine the airport represents, we believe that a transparent and comprehensive report is both reasonable and appropriate. To be clear, at this time, we are not asking for an increase in our appropriation. However, we do believe that in the future, the state's appropriation to Leahy BTV should more closely align with revenue generated, potentially in the range of 1,500,000.0. Our goal is simple, to ensure that Vermont's primary aviation gateway has the flexibility and support necessary to continue driving economic growth, supporting thousands of jobs and connecting our state to the world. And thank you for your consideration and, happy to answer any questions or ask Nick to answer the questions.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Thank you. Representative Burke is.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: Yeah, thank you for this. I'm just wondering what happens to that excess money.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: From my understanding, Nick, you can chime in here. A lot of that is because the FAA requires that we reinvest in aviation program, that is being distributed throughout the aviation network in the state of Vermont.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: Throughout all the different states. The state gets the money and distributes it to The UK. Thank you for this. So you're asking for a change in how you were allowed to work with the $500,000 annual contribution from the state. And is that something that requires change in statute or yes?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: No, we're not entirely sure. If it's an administrative practice, Michelle and I have been having a conversation beforehand that they're looking into it as well. We But just wanted to clarify and bring to the attention that the federal code allows us to use it for capital or operating costs. And that flexibility

[Mollie S. Burke (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: is really critical for us. Okay. So federally, you think you're good. It's just whether state wise Okay. Something that needs to be And then you also, just to make sure we're understanding clearly, so you would just like an accounting of where the airline fuel tax is going.

[Kate Lalley (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: And you've been asking for that, but you have not.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: What we're asking for is how much is being collected, because much we don't even know

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: is any airfares? Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Language itself? Or is there any if you draft any of the actual language, complete with senate village council or not?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: We haven't because it's it's currently in reference in state statute. And so that's where we're trying to figure out, like, is this is this administrative practice? Okay. So we need to take a look at it. But I think the language

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: I know from when we talked originally about doing the language request change and Okay. We can couch all the rest of the pieces. We're when we get back, then we'll be on a pretty quick time clock there, and we've got half a dozen or more committee relevant issues. Not to say that we can't or can't do it, but I have to know who we need to hear from and where we're at. So if there's a language request I know that our alleged counsel is listening. I wasn't sure whether he had to be here or not, but I know he's here. And he's here somewhere. It's in the ether to make sure that if it is something we're gonna be able to consider, that it'll be ready.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: Our lobbyist, David Mickenberg, has been in contact with Damian on this specifically.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Right. Operating costs for I'm not sure exactly where the statement is. You want to be able to use it for operating costs or Capital. As opposed to right now, it's

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: only capital. Right now, it's being tied to matching grants.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Having Okay. Trouble with matching grants to go after?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: We could always use more. Nick is always pushing us for more grants. A lot of these funds are coming from the FAA and we're always trying to find new ways to generate revenue, including with our new building that we're opening up in a month was done with mass timber. And we're appreciative of a grant that we received from the regional border commission. It was almost $2,000,000 to help us fund that. So we're always looking around for opportunities. But with the FAA, we need to provide 10% match.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, just.

[Kate Lalley (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: So you have a whole building that's in the building?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: So we have constructed what we call Project Next, and it's to replace current gates. If you come to our airport, we have a very long skinny hallway that I affectionately call the finger. That's just not built for today's aviation world. So we've built a whole new terminal. There's very little steel in it. There's a lot of mass timber. We have geothermal, solar, a lot of that is going into the building from a sustainability front, and we're very proud about that fact.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm asking because my son does consulting on mass timber.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Oh, okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Various voices around the country.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: That's awesome.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Don't know news about it.

[Kate Lalley (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: I was wondering, do you all plan to kind of use this as sort of burnishing our state bank brand to visitors when they come in and sort of explain, look at what you are seeing in Vermont, we're all about all the stuff like you have done with some other things in the past.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: Yeah, that's one of my favorite parts of my job is to be able to brag about everything that we're doing at the airport. In fact, Alex and I drove down in one of our Ford Lightnings today, which we're moving a lot of our fleet to fully electric. We like to brag about that. We're going to start talking about the economic impact, but like all of this is connected. We have a great story to tell. The expansion of beta technologies. It's not just about commercial, it's about everything that's happening at the airport and the 5,600 jobs. There's a lot of great stories to tell. And part of the need for this flexibility is we have more improvements coming down the pipe that we need. We are already our load factors are very high in these planes. We need to be able to bring in bigger planes. And right now the airport, was built for regional aircraft, your CRJs, fifty, sixty passengers, we need the main lines to come in. I think that's our greatest opportunity right now. It's not necessarily bringing in more flights. It's the larger planes, and the airlines are telling us that.

[Kate Lalley (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: What is the maximum just at the moment? I'm trying to get an image in my head.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: The largest plane that we can accommodate? Well, every day we get a seven sixty seven that lands. It's a FedEx plane. But with our new terminal, what I like about it is it's building flexibility for however the aviation industry evolves. Twenty five years ago when the airport was built, the industry was doing more flights with fewer passengers, smaller regional aircraft. And so a lot of the gates tend to be smaller. But now we're seeing the bigger craft coming in. We need the ability and a lot of our gates can't get up to the size of a three nineteen even. And in fact, some of our gates we have to shut down to a certain size is because they become unsafe, because the tail of the plane might, overflow into a taxiway that we need to use, etcetera. So, this project is, it's the second step in a large, effort to re energize and reinvigorate the airport operations. And in three to four years, we're going to be pushing hard, if not sooner to be doing the same thing on the other side, so we can have more flexibility and again, with the same sustainability mission with mass timber, solar, geothermal, etcetera.

[Kate Lalley (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: Thank you. That's vivid image for me. Thank you.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: Represent what? You said that new terminal is ready for action in month? Yeah. We're hoping to open March 31. That's our target. Wow. Great. Restaurant too? No restaurant in this one. We did expand our restaurants recently in October. I believe we opened up Kestrel Coffee, which is a wonderful young couple from Chittenden County, right in our what we call the tip just above security. And that extra coffee jolt in the morning is great for passengers and for staffers like me. That's great. Representative Thomas.

[Representative Thomas]: So just to understand some history on the state's contribution, it's capped at $500,000 Has it been sort of steadily $500,000 in the past several years or since when?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: The last few years it has. Nick Longo, would you be willing to chime in with some of the history of this and speak better to it?

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Yeah. Absolutely. Great question. So it historically used to actually be 6% of our total grants. The grants are specifically called the airport improvement program from the Federal Aviation Administration, And that 6%, as you can imagine, ranged all over the place from 500,000 to $1,200,000 depending on on, of course, the year and the grant funding. It was changed a few years ago, I believe, just before COVID and then after COVID from 600,000 and then again capped at 500,000. What's really important about the conversation, as Jeff was saying, to be to use this $500,000, not just tied to AIP, FAA grant funding, but also our operating costs, is because sometimes we don't ask for FAA grant fundings. There's a pool of funds that we are entitled to from the Federal Aviation Administration, and, generally, we we ask for those funds. That's about $3,800,000 a year. However, to strategically plan for larger projects in the future, the next couple years, we're not going to be asking for funding so we can carry that over and apply for a larger 1 point or 15 ish million dollar grant using those entitlement funds. So throughout those couple of years that we're not asking for federal funds, that's going to be really important to utilize that 500,000 for our operating costs.

[Kate Lalley (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: Okay.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Thanks. Longer answer to your question, but hopefully that answered it.

[Representative Thomas]: Yeah. It does. And I really appreciate all that context. And there's also so there's a request in here for data on the aviation fuel tax and sort of what percentage is being generated by the international versus others. So I'm assuming like, has that request gone to the tax department or to I'm assuming there's similar challenges with that as what we've heard about in discussing global option taxes, that it's taxed at the distributor level as opposed to at the local level. So is that part of the challenge or is there any I mean, I don't know that that's something that can be addressed through legislative language, but is there any way we can support in that or what have been the challenges so far?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: Short answer is yes. And Nick can speak because he was there around when we've made these requests in the past, and we do know it is complex to get to. But the point we want to make is the funds generated from this tax have to be reappropriated to aviation. And so, want to make sure that, A, we don't believe that it's not being reappropriated to aviation, but what that number is, how much is being generated at Lalley EBTV, and then make sure the contribution to us down the road a little more in line with what we are generating.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thanks. We're in the

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: middle, Representative Keyser. Hey, good

[Chris Keyser (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: morning, thank you Good very afternoon, that's what it is. I'm having such a good time. So thank you very much. Do you have an FBO? Yes. Uh-huh. More than one or just one?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: We have just one.

[Chris Keyser (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: Just one. And do they have a fuel farm?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: Yeah, we have, yes. Nick, can you speak to the operations of Heritage?

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Yep, so representative, to answer your question, yes. We have a an FBO or a fixed based operator. They handle generally all the ground handling, fueling, deicing, etcetera, which which it sounds like you might know that. And they do have a fuel farm. They have about a 125,000 gallons of fuel storage for jet aircraft and then another 30 ish thousand gallons of regular aviation fuel for piston aircraft.

[Chris Keyser (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: Thank you. So you got about 930,000. And what's the tax on aviation fuel?

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: 6% from the state, and then there is a 1% local option tax in the city of South Burlington.

[Chris Keyser (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: I was just thinking of the revenues generated for the state. There's not a 5¢ per gallon tax on that?

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: I'm unaware of that, yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Gotta do some of your work.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: We've done a lot of the back of the map and math as well. We just want to get

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: to that number. Great, great. Okay, thank you. Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I guess, is the money I apologize for little amount I've heard, you could receive $500,000 from the state, and you want to be more equitable thinking Burlington International actually uses a heck of a lot more fuel than any other airport in the state. Can we calculate it based on what the city of Burlington is realizing, 1% sales tax through the airport, to figure out how much they're actually using.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Questions for the witness? I'm

[Unidentified Committee Member]: assuming you know what you're sending in 1% sales tax in the city of Berlin.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: We have an idea.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: But a lot of that information we actually, ironically, got from you. And that spurred a lot of the conversation when $86,000 I think was brought up about the state collecting in the local option tax in that 30% portion. And so that would mean, and we've heard this from South Burlington because they collect the tax, you know, they're around $200,000 or so a year. So I'm doing back of the napkin math. And it's like, well, that means they're collecting probably $2,100,000 And I'm not a tax expert in my account. And I mean, I've been marketing. And so that's where I'm like, well, if we think it's between three and four, this number has got to be, we just, we can't be accurate, and that this is, you know, 3 or $4,000,000. Okay, so that I'm just trying

[Unidentified Committee Member]: to figure out if we already know 1% that you're collecting. I think we could figure out fairly easily. Yeah, okay. Thank you.

[Chris Keyser (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: So that can be figured. You have one supplier out of You have Heritage Fuel. So all you have to do is go to Heritage Fuel, find out how much they sell out of Burlington, and then you'll know.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: And that's a complicated answer as well. They could speak to the airlines buying in bulk. A lot of

[Chris Keyser (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: Heritage is your FBO. They sell all their fuel into Burlington. So they have the numbers, you're shaking your head there,

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Yeah. Yeah. If I can if I can add some clarity. So Heritage pumps all of the fuel, they don't necessarily purchase or own that fuel. So many of that fuel is owned, purchased by the airlines themselves and stored at Heritage Aviation.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: K.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: And so then that's where it gets a little complex with with where that tax comes from.

[Chris Keyser (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: I've seen that before. Okay. Thank you very much

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: for clearing that up. Great time to help. I I appreciate it very much.

[Unidentified Committee Member or Staff]: So We're trying to get there.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: You all set then? Thank you. Representative Lalley?

[Kate Lalley (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: So the tax is levied on fuel at the place where it's pumped. Is that correct? Where it where it goes into the the receiving plane or whatever? Is that is that how so when when these airlines buy in bulk, I'm just wondering when is the tax levied? Is it is it is it per like, per unit when it comes out of the pump? Or is it is it the wholesale level or do you, do you, is I see this as a, why this is a complex question. Yeah. Yeah, okay.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Yeah, you're, you're in my mind exactly on those questions on how it's levied, because there is a wholesale versus retail pumping, there's there's all sorts of different things that happen. Some airlines do own it, some do not, so the the the pumping is and sale is happening, you know, locally. So there there's a lot of there's a lot of different nuances to the the movement of the fuel.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: I I would also like to add quickly that we are not related to the tax itself, but we have sustainable aviation jet fuel at our airport. We are selling that currently, and we're one of the first in the region, I believe, to have that. And we're very proud that Heritage to make sure that we had that product available for our our community.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: In fact, we're at on a committee at Boston Logan Airport because they're all asking us how we were the first ones to get this sustainable aviation fuel, which cuts greenhouse gas emissions by, right now, about 30%, and and eventually, it'll get greater and greater. And eventually, fuel will decrease in sales anyways with electrification of aircraft, which, of course, may be decades down the road, but it is exciting to have that opportunity to be the first to sell sustainable aviation fuel.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: I would like to add a piece just for the As far as the information related to taxes and part of the reason why it's not clear, there's a significant way out of our realm, but there's a significant amount of confidentiality we heard about when towns couldn't get as much information as they'd like about their opportunities in local office tech because the tax department can't just share everything and anything. And when you're dealing with an environment with, I believe the number was like 10 or 12 or less entities that are purchasing, they aren't allowed to share it for proprietary and competitive and all kinds of areas that are outside of our purview. So we may or may not be able to do anything about that portion of it. But I do recall we went down that a little bit. Confidentiality was a big issue related to any tax disclosure. So that wouldn't We may be able to help her with the request, but we're certainly not gonna be anybody who writes a law related to that portion of it, way outside of our purview in terms of making tax statements. No, that's a good point. There a threshold of the other kind. That was as far as 10 here. And the other part is if you are hard on the 1 150, you're needed to Four minutes, we're good. I'd like to ask a question about the efforts of and I wasn't there any more than any of us were when these rules were made. But I could imagine in some way that the state of Vermont's giving Burlington Airport whenever it started, having an idea that they wanted to be sure that their investment would result in improvements in value to the airport system. And if it's spent in an operating cost, which is operated by the or paid for in the Burlington City budget, you work for the Burlington piece. But if the city is going to invest money into a municipally owned property, I would suspect that somewhere in there was a mindset that they would have an improvement in value of assets, that the value of what Vermont would have something to show for their money versus the operation of their piece. Now that may or may not have been what they thought, but that's certainly one of the questions that I have. If I'm going to say, or we as a committee are gonna say, we're gonna loosen the strings on Vermonters taxpayers money, how do we know that there is an increased value at what we're putting in, which is probably why the capital, potentially why it's important to keep it focused on capital.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: So if you could speak to that, I would. Yeah, think that's a very fair statement to make. What I would say this is, this isn't necessarily taxpayer funds. Like this is collected through the aviation jet fuel tax. And in terms of budgeting process, we yes, we are an entity of the city of Burlington, but we are an enterprise fund and a lot of rules and restrictions, whether it's FAA or just how the nature of an enterprise fund runs, we have to spend what we make. And if we don't, particularly as it relates to FAA rules, we got to turn around and give that back to the airlines or get their permission to spend in different ways. So how I'd respond is that flexibility of $500,000 would allow us to continue doing what we're currently doing, where in eight years the state saw a $30,000,000 increase just in revenue and then all that. But it's line item and broken down in this report. That 500,000, that's the that's all we're getting from the state. And if we look at regionally or even nationally, we believe we don't have a firm pinpoint on this. It's one of the lowest we think that an airport is receiving in terms of allocations from the state. And Nick, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not, I don't believe that we receive anything directly from the taxpayers of Burlington from from that budget.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Correct. So the the the risk is on the taxpayers of Burlington. We have bonds, we have loans, we have lots of other things. So that risk falls entirely on the taxpayers of Burlington. However, any revenue or surplus, which is what Jeff was just saying, never can go back to the city of Burlington general fund. Just like the aviation fuel taxes has to stay in aviation, so too does the revenue, whether it's coming from state support or internal revenue, has to stay to improve the value to the traveling public and and what's called the national airspace system. It can never leave that particular enterprise fund, which is our budget at the airport. We're entirely separate from the general fund of the city of Burlington.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: And that improves the value of the airport, like, lend that to the idea why there was some level of restriction to capital pieces versus straight operational expenses. I don't know that. I just think that that's the When I try to look at what comes to the committee, what would be the other side and why would want Why do you suppose it was there? To me, if I look at when the airport did have large planes, many more than it does today, much larger ones back in the early '90s when I worked on the other side of the airport. Now they went to all the small regional planes, and now we're going back to the bigger planes. Sort of like centralized, decentralized. It happens over time. When I started there, US Air, six fairly large aircraft in a day, or six flights a day. It was a whole They had a cargo facility. They were moving air freight in and out of Burlington. That was also back when Rosnall and everybody else made their stuff there. So there was a whole different world. They had substantially larger planes than fly in and out today back in the early '90s. So we're on a cyclical thing here. This isn't new. The jetways were totally different then than they are today. We're going back to the ones that we had. And that's why we made much better better design, perhaps, and hopefully work a lot better. But I was there when it was a different world than it is, than it's gone to. So not that I know a lot about it, but I know a lot of freight moving and out that I didn't have to move back in the day. So for whatever that's worth, that's when I try to decide or try to look at what could be the other reasons, and that same improved the value overall of the airport, and it certainly needed capital funds and a lot of investment then. The building that I was in isn't even there anymore. But then the maintenance was brand new when I worked there. I watched it be built right across the parking lot from where I

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: lived, where I worked. We might have a new

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: one coming to you soon. I'm gonna need a new one because that's gotta be substantially out of date. That's right. Yeah. Representative Pouech, and then I'm not sure when you go. Yeah. I I think we answered. Okay. Representative Wells?

[Kenneth "Ken" Wells (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: Yeah. Nick, your job as director of aviation, does that cut into your side job as a rock and roll singer?

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: No, sir. It does not.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Glad to hear it, Nick.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Thank you. We we we try to have as much fun as possible as we take our jobs very seriously.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: You killed it.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Thank you.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: I'll bring that video next time we testify. Appreciate that.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: No. That's a one and done

[Unidentified Committee Member or Staff]: Okay. Yes. Yeah. Know, on the surface, it seems like a couple of things. One is that you've got enough capital projects happening all the time that this shouldn't be a problem. But I understand the flexibility would make sense. And you're looking to get clarity of how much income you guys are making in those funds. So then I assume to argue, hey, we would like to pick a piece of pie if we're generating three quarters of the pie or more, maybe we could have two slices rather than just one.

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: All right. Wanna stress- How

[Unidentified Committee Member or Staff]: do you approach the VTrans or anybody at all with these conversations and gotten anywhere or not gotten anywhere?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: Yeah. I know Nick is in regular contact with the secretary, so he can he can speak to that. Yes, the flexibility is definitely warranted. And I want to stress that we recognize that this aviation fuel revenue is critical for the overall aviation system in the state of Vermont. So we're not looking at this as a competition, so to speak. We just know what we have coming down the pipe in the next five to ten years. Nick, you could speak to that second part part.

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: Yeah. To to your first statement there, I think it is import I I think it can work when it's tied to capital, both to the chairman's statement and and to yours as well. We do have other capital needs as well outside of the grant program capital, and that that's really important as well because it, like I stated before, when it's just tied to the FAA grant program, that could be tough for us in the in the next couple of years. We had we've had great conversation with the with the administration, secretary Flynn, Michelle Boomhauer. We you know, we and and Jeff said it really well. General aviation in in all aspects, small aircraft, the economic value of general aviation. This is why this conversation is tough for me, and I I do pump the brakes every now and again because I don't want to sacrifice whether it's Burlington or other state airports. That ecosystem of general aviation is is critical to the state of Vermont, and and I can't say that enough. I I was a flyer, am a flyer, own an aircraft, use Middlebury Airport all of the time and other state airports, and I know the importance of that. So it is really vital for this conversation to be all of us together to try to figure out a solution, especially when there might be some some, tough budgetary conversations already at the table. That's why Jeff, was very clear. This year, we're not asking for anything. Last year, we didn't ask for anything. Yes, you are correct. Eventually, we would like to have that conversation though.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Thank you. Thank you, Nick. I'd also say that those are questions that I made and not a statement of position in terms of how they are made out of why it might be linked to capital specific. I'm not sure where I stand yet on the overall issue, but I'm not declaring a statement on it. We're still looking at it. We just got one more quick one before Just

[Kate Lalley (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: wondering, in the packet you left us, did you include just like a top level profit and loss or balance sheet just to give us an idea of the big picture of the Burlington Airport financial picture?

[Jeff (BTV representative)]: We didn't in this, but I'd be happy to provide that information to the committee.

[Kate Lalley (Member, House Transportation Committee)]: That would be excellent. One more quick question. Sustainable jet fuel sounds like an oxymoron. What does that mean? Nick?

[Nicholas "Nick" Longo (Director of Aviation, Patrick Leahy Burlington International Airport)]: It it is still fuel being burned. Right? It is still going into the engines, fuel being burned. There are greenhouse gas emissions. However, it uses different byproducts of fields and farms and oils versus natural oils versus the actual oil oil. So there is a reduction as this commodity and technology increases. There is a reduction in greenhouse gas emission. This isn't a a BTV thing. This isn't a Vermont thing. This is a national initiative. It's really coming from the Federal Aviation Administration that has been ongoing probably for the last decade or more to increase this commodity manufacturing in The United States to provide it. It it it as you can imagine from the prior statement, very, very difficult to get. The pipelines aren't there. The the plants aren't there, especially on the East Coast. It's much more prevalent on the West Coast, but ultimately it does reduce greenhouse gas emissions, which when we look at our carbon initiatives, goals, and even our accreditation of carbon reduction, aircraft carbon is the most challenging thing to reduce. Buildings, we got that. We got wood. We got geothermal. We have electricity. We have renewable energy both with Green Mountain Power and Burlington Electric Department. It's the it's the greenhouse gas emissions from the fuel. A great benefit that we have is electric manufacturing of aircraft right here in our state, and that's gonna be a major component to real reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

[Matt Walker (Chair, House Transportation Committee)]: Dick, thank you very much for your Thank you. I apologize for taking more of your time than you planned and whatnot. Thank you. We're going to you. Take the break until 02:15, then we're gonna have committee discussion about that transportation alternative piece. Then Damian is gonna come in at 02:30 and queue up

[Unidentified Committee Member or Staff]: tomorrow's