Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You might close the door on your way out. Thank you

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

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Good afternoon again, Thursday, February 26. Twenty twenty sixth. Back in house transportation. Earlier today, so we're looking at a few minutes of committee discussion, then our alleged counsel should be here in the next ten minutes or so. He was gonna start working on queuing up for tomorrow in terms of sort of marking up our IT bill for this year. But before that, one of the items that was discussed earlier, well, and also heard committee testimony on before, was transportation alternatives earlier. And I want to make sure that if there's a recommendation we're consolidating around or coalescing around about changing the percentage grants and whether or not moving the cap or moving the cap and having it come back to a lower amount. If there's a concern, I guess I'd just throw out there that I want to make sure I understand. If we change the 50, wherever it's at now, fiftyfifty to the eightytwenty or 70 fivetwenty five, that fiftyfifty is 50% to water quality projects. So there is, I got to believe, some level of somewhere, the reason that money was put in there, there's some group that advocated that's going to come and push back on our change to make it seventy five-twenty five. Are we able to pay for that? Or maybe there won't be, but is that a question that people are concerned about? I'm not happy to go to

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: 100%, and I think there are arguments that we did get for the static research project, probably five years, something sitting on the bottom line that can't be spent because pounds are pants on these projects.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Given the need is very specific for making streets more walkable and bikeable, a particular way to say it works to school, we could consider putting some kind of a cap on around the discretion to use it for, like some kind of language to say our intent is to use it for. Traffic calming and all the things that we talked about that are so hard to do. There's so much limited funding for it. Just so that it doesn't end up getting used on salt sheds or something, alternative opportunities for the funding.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: There's not enough money to build the salt shed, right? Is that right? So we spend money going down a path that ends up getting canceled, is that what I heard?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yes. And then it doesn't get

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: built at all, but we spend a ton of effort getting ready to build it. Is that

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: what I we guess one of the

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: things we didn't hear was

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: what is maximum branch or something like that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's currently maxed at $600,000

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: 600,000 Okay, thanks. And

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: then the proposal is to increase the cap, but Representative Corcoran had some concerns about that.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Concerns about that?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The raising of the cap. I don't

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: have concerns about that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I said, Representative Corcoran.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Oh, Corcoran.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: He said that, well, he'll be back. My understanding is if you got $4,000,000 and you raise the cap to 1.2, you could give out four grants and all any other town that requested might be shut out. But at $600, you've got to divide it up at least eight ways. So I don't know if that's what he's meaning, we're gonna let him speak to that. But that could be, even if he doesn't say that, I could say that that's potential if you raise them. But the other argument was, if they're too low, you can't get things built, maybe you should raise the mark. Representative Burke?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Would, based on our conversation this morning, would propose to 100%, not do any 20. And because, first of they need flexibility in getting that money out the door, and so if you designate that you can only use for 20% of this, it just gives them more flexibility. I would also like to propose, which is sort of in the language now, that priorities be given to high-tech projects and Safe to Schools, because I found out that ever since the Safe Routes Disposals used to be a separate federal designated thing, separate from the transportation alternatives, once they blended it into the transportation alternatives, depending on how money has been given out to say for its disposal. Maybe there are no implications. I don't know. But I think that that's a really great use of that money, and that's the money that can be used, I think that doesn't cost a huge amount of infrastructure money, it's like paying a coordinator to get families on board, to get volunteers. I know at our local school, were able to install a very nice crosswalk, improvements that aren't hugely expensive, so maybe it wouldn't require that much money, but you could do how many projects. And regarding the cap, I think that we'd have to see, like, okay, so how much money is it? What do we save? Or whatever. So I I get representative Corcoran's concern. I think we just need to sort of think about that, how many people would be applying for that maximum. Should we be somewhere between the 600 and what they've proposed?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative White and then Representative McCoy.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: It's

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative White got you heady, though. Sorry. Excuse me. Sorry. I said Representative White and then Representative McCoy. My bad.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I didn't even think I had my hand up, but I'll I'll take

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I could have sworn you'd put it up there earlier when we first started. Then we'll skip you. We'll go

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: to represent McCoy. You can put that together. I

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: still haven't made a decision on what I think is the way to go. As far as safe routes to schools and bike ped paths, my concern is for those municipalities, because that's who we're talking about here, it's municipal monies, salt sheds are incredibly important for them. And the reason why is they keep canceling is because they're so expensive. They'd have to wait years. And I would hate to see a salt shed that finally has everything in place and they don't get it because we funded a safe route to school or something. Salt sheds never get built, and we're all about environment and conservation. That should be top of the heat to put salt in sheds so it's not leaching out into the ground. So giving 100% for AOT to decide, I don't know if we should still have a percentage that has to go to something other than bike pad and Safe Routes to Schools, because there are other avenues for them to get money for that, because they're not the downtown transportation fund and whatnot. I don't think salt sheds would fall under that other program, unless there is another program that municipalities can avail themselves to build the salt shed that I'm not aware

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Is the idea of removing or changing the split or removing it and going 100, is it our mindset that those projects that are currently going under water quality be excluded or just that it wouldn't be required? Do you think that is it your thoughts that it would still be these would be still projects considered?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: They are, but the I

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But are we telling them that I just wanna I'm looking for a quick I

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

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: be excluding them? Would we be excluding them in our mindset or would we just be now part of a bigger pool of projects to I

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: think Z Trends, Jeremy, sort of came around after all that we've discussed saying, you know, if you just leave it up to us, we'll tend to be the bicycle tag programs. But they would still have the ability if there was a salt shed or other qualifying ones under the water quality to go. I think that's what he said at the incident. We know that they define eightytwenty or 70 fivetwenty five because they're proposing. And I think they're proposing it because they're having a hard time getting funds out and they don't wanna lose the funds.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: That was my, what I wrote down was their first impression was getting the money out the door. And there are a lot of eligible bikeped things that they could use They're having a hard time repurposing things for now. And there's just not the demand for the salt sheds under this particular program. And I think we've heard from a couple different sources that there are clean water funds through other avenues in our state government that are actually more generous and more productive for towns to pursue for that kind of funding. This just seems like it's sort of a well intended, but a little bit mismatched for the need and the costs of building a salt shed and then the expense of it. It doesn't seem to be just well matched for addressing that need. Not that it's not super important.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm not sure where we're at with hands up soon, or not, or whether you want to speak, but not sure who else did have something. I'm looking to be able to get I could

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: just say one thing, that given the backlog and the number of dollars that are backlogged, we certainly can revisit this again if we want to rebalance it. I would be more concerned about losing the federal match, and maybe a couple of years, get this money out the door. And if we want to redirect it towards something that's more significant, we might do it then.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm looking to sort of pull it together and give our legislative council some direction on what language we might, that we want to write. That's what I'm looking for. I am I guess I could just say, this is what I think you said, but that's what I'm just trying to accomplish right now, and then we're gonna be up from there, which is to say, we want to adjust the trans go ahead.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I think that we have one unanswered question, which is, if we go 100% on BikePed, Safe Routes to School, are we leaving the Salt Shed community out and there are no other options? It sounds- It

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: could be heartburn, it's not biped 100%. We're freeing it up for whatever, I mean, biped is one of the criteria that's eligible under enhancements. Week's an old

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: one. It's

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: salamandering crossings. But I'm just saying there's there's pollinators. Like in an answer. There's a bunch of them. But I just want to make clear that 110 doesn't mean 100% towards like that. It's opening up to whichever is eligible under the criteria of a transportation alternative. Yeah, and the only thing that is weighted under this currently is bike bed. I think it's weighted 10% or something like that. I forget the number, but bike bed was one of the categories that's actually weighted.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: And wasn't environmental also weighted 50%? Isn't that what we're discussing? Yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's fiftyfifty, Wait a minute, right? It's

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: not, it's just, that's where the funds had to go, guess. Yeah.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Now it's fiftyfifty.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's fiftyfifty, but 50% are going to the environment for the water quality project. But up to 50% that went to transportation alternatives, there are 13 different areas, some different options of a whole bunch of transportation alternative programs that they would be able to direct the money to. Happened was, I guess, they wanted to cordon off a certain section to environmental, but now we're going to say, okay, we're opening it up to you to fill every grant or any more grant requests, we have more flexibility to figure any gas based alternatives. It could still be water quality projects if they pick It could be 100% water They're going to be able to pick them.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Now, there was a suggestion to say, not

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: a law, but an intent saying we're looking at programs such as BikePed, Cypher Us to School, highlighting two or three other ones that we I see

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: that because BikePed's already weighted. We already weighed that. I have to say we, but the committee weights that. So I mean, that's already one leg up on the application circuit. And maybe Michelle can get that verified,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: but I'm pretty sure that's

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: permanently inciting. Yeah, yeah, that

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: is current statute. Yeah, that's already waived.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Representative. David Leonard, legislative council.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: What's that? I don't know if you were looking to comment or I was asking you. I was asking you a question to clarify. Oh yeah, I just was clarifying that it's not in

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: the program details, it's the statute that directs them to give preferential ratings to PIPET projects.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: This would

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: get a hint to the unfolding of asset for the right thing.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's why I think he shows up. I get over range. Sends pictures of that. It would be more of a it would be a larger there'll be money that'll be less constricted is what we're basically saying. Yeah. And but it and in that less constricted money is a freeway towards bike and pet already. Correct. Okay. Damian, I guess we would say is out of all the conversations related to the proposed or the discussion earlier, we are headed towards the idea to remove any restriction on that transportation alternative money for the agency, whereas it previously was a fiftyfifty.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: 50% of funding reserved for stormwater quality improvement projects. That's what is required now. So we could take that out, I think by the federal government, this money can be used for both of those projects. Some states only use it for bike, ped, or transportation, But we're a state that uses it for both. I would say if we just take that 50%, fiftyfifty out and leave it to the agency to decide, then there might be a critical storm water one or a self shed one. And also, if we leave it in, we might not get beat up by water quality folks that are like, we're taking them away from. And we're really just leaving it for the B TRANS to use it for these existing qualifying programs and to award it to those that are gonna use it and use up the money.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Right, well for clarification though, again correct me if I'm wrong, it's not VTrans, it is a committee. They're different members. That's what we used to be on, but we got voted off. Voted off the island. Oh, voted off the island. But there is more people than VTrans that makes those decisions, from Mollie S. Towns and Sea. There's like But I believe that's still

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: the place. We just took the 50% requirement out. That means the committee could still award for water quality, salt shed things, and transportation. But their hands might sounds like their hands are a little tied on salt shed and trying to use it for those programs, and those programs are having a hard time spending money.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And should this make it in the T bill, the person that presents that section needs to be able to deliver the GANSIC projects pieces in addition to why we're freeing up this money. We're not taking it away from water quality, but we are freeing it up because we need to make sure that the x amount of millions gets out the door. That's what's driving the committee direction, at least in some part. When we present this section, I would think those are the things that we want highlight. Yes. So when this section gets handed out, bear that background and for answering to that if it gets in the bill. So we're looking for you, Damian, to draft in that direction. And I'm hoping that Then a part two of cap. The cap, that's what I Cap is currently 600,000. We heard that 600,000 doesn't get you very far on water quality projects. They were suggesting to move it to 1.2. Then the question was pushed back to whether that reduces the amount of awards. Comments from the committee on that?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'm just, you know, gone back and looked at what are the awards for the last few years and there's a lot. I think if we increase that cap, then yeah, will allow people to do bigger projects, but we only heard from the planning commissions, recent planning group saying, hey, just small projects make big deals. Let's spread it out. So I guess myself, I'm not sure increasing the amount is maybe the best approach.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: What about the part of the testimony that was saying with the concern about getting the money out, an increase in cap for a short term helped get that money out and then we revisit it? Or was it a comment or two about that, I believe?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I heard he had to get the money out

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the door coming up, but too far off. There was some discussion about whether we should or shouldn't raise the cap to all of your taxes. Then go back down at a later date, right? I thought that was discussed. Was it testified or was

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: that part of our discussion? I'm not sure what

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: No, Jeremy just saying, I think what he says, unnecessarily has to get it up. The problem is when the federal government does reallocation, they're not going to reallocate anything because they still got money on the bottom line.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So he

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: wants to flared potentially get more

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: money, giving us the difference.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: We'll get more money that's reallocated in other states.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Not whole

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: lot money that they go along there. Yeah. Brooke Haber?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Yeah, just wondered if we had a Michelle thinks about cap. If you'd like to be interrogated?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: If

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: you'd like to make a comment,

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: just position on the cap.

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: For the record, Michelle Blumhauer, Agency of Transportation. So what you did hear from Jeremy was both things, that we have a risk of FHWA sweeping away some of the money that hasn't been obligated because we've had too many projects that have been backed out of. And so now they have to be reallocated to something else that's ready to go. And as you know, sometimes it can take a while to get something ready to go. And it also reduces our August redistribution availability if we have money sitting on the table. And I think he also reminded us that the current language and statute has us moving from $300,000 to $600,000 as a cap for the duration of IIJA, and then it reverts back down to 300,000. And so maybe one approach would be to maybe you don't double it, maybe you put it to 8 or nine or whatever. So we can clear some of this immediate backlog and then have a trigger where you have to revisit this once we have a new transportation reauthorization bill. So that might help to clear the decks, get us ready to go, maybe get a few more projects out the door that have been maybe we might be able to if there is and this is something I'd have to ask Jeremy about is if we've had these cancellations and we have this backlog, could we increase the amount of money available for a grant round to also compensate for that? So that's something I need to double check on. I also I think I continue to point out that with the cost of projects and I didn't go back and look the TA website has a list of all the awards, which I think is probably what you went and looked at representing a pouch. And I think you'd have to kind of open the grant applications to see how many different funding sources do these grants have and what's the total award to determine, would there be a viability for doing a larger single project with this single source of funding plus the local match and not having to go and collect money from a number of grants, which also takes time and slows the process down? That would be my 2¢.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: In terms of

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: No, didn't. I was the one that actually was a proponent of reverting it back to the $300,000 My thought was because we don't know what the next authorization is going to be. So then I'd still stand by that. But if there's a way to do a short term increase on the awards going out for maybe one or two years if you went back, that was just my concern, because we don't know what it's gonna be, especially nowadays, the whole program could get down to 2,000,000. And then if we got a cap of 1.2, what are we doing?

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: I just wanted to ask Ms. Schulz, to confirm that I heard this right. I think I heard you say earlier that we could, Somebody had asked about using this for downtown designation, and you had I think I don't want put words in your mouth, so I'm asking to make sure I heard this right. But it might be possible to use these federal funds to add to some of the pot to get some of those projects done. Like the ones that we've heard,

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: for instance, that have these overruns that are challenging. Are you talking about the Downtown Transportation Fund? Because designation is a separate process.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yeah, think Downtown Transportation Fund. Sorry, I didn't say that right. So I

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: think what I was saying about that is downtown transportation fund is state funds only. And that's why it's able administratively to do smaller projects is workable, cause you don't have as many of the federal requirements that you have to satisfy. And also, they can move quickly. But because transportation alternative is a federally funded source, you don't want to do small projects with that money because you could end up spending more on administering the grant and meeting the requirements than you spend on the actual improvement. So I would not recommend mixing and matching the types of scopes of projects you would want to do in Downtown Transportation Fund with TA. We do have the other small non federal bikeped program, which basically I'm gonna take a look and see if the list of eligible activities matches the Downtown Transportation Fund. But those two programs would be likely more compatible.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So Okay. The suggestion is because it really is going to go back down to 300,000. We don't know. Okay, but we increased it to 600

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: Oh yeah, you increased it to 600,000. And I think in the law, it automatically goes back down at the end of II. Yeah, put that

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: in the statute because I wanted to make it So

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: the II goes away this office?

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: No, it goes away when they authorize a new one. Otherwise, it's

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: a continuing resolution. Okay. Right. So we really won't know. We don't. So

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: if it will be us? No, it wouldn't be. Because if we get to October and they don't have a new transportation reauthorization bill, then they use the old one until they have a new one. And they just, I think there might be an inflator for the amount of money.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: It's good. IJA was pretty good for us.

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah, it was great for

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: us. Yeah.

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: Yeah, we got all that town highway bridge money. Yeah, okay.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So, well, let's hope for that. So, I guess, I would, like 1,200,000.0 is a lot of money for me. That's like a lot. So if it's really historically been 300,000, but it's 600,000 because of IIJA, and worst case is it continues at $600,000 with IIJA continuing. If they renew that, I don't know, maybe $800,000 something like that. And then we'll know hopefully by next year when we're back, revisit if it's a lot more.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, like I said, I guess I'll predicate it to how much is on that bottom line for the projects to have been canceled. If they're really backed up, then we could set a higher amount, but then it goes back down next year. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I would hate to say $1,200,000 and it's two projects.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: That's why I said, yeah.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Thanks for applying. Yeah, really. So we're making that a recommendation?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Well, think we've got to really know. We've to hear back from Jeremy to see how much is sitting on there at the bottom line that needs to be reallocated.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I said it's 3,000,000.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's yeah. Observations. I also probably would like

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: to know the distribution of awards that could be done out there, so you know whether or not you're cutting anybody off at the legs or just to see if get a sense, maybe you go to 1.2 or not, whatever, doesn't matter. Just to make sure your distribution, you're gonna cover as much as you can because you wanna get the money out.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: I have written down that it was 3,700,000.0 for FY 'twenty six. That's the backlog now. And then it will be higher in FY 'twenty seven, but there wasn't a dollar amount attached to that. But presumably there's more things that will be added to it. It just gives you a set scale of the scale.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: So that's almost 8,000,000. That's right. That's 8,000,000. We have to work because we get 4,000,000 and then

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the plus 3.7.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yeah, so what all could we do with that is a very specific Yeah, task that we probably

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: was in Keyser's talking about.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I'm gonna put an application in.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Got enough to go on all there?

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: I got a couple of clarifying questions for you. So one thing I wanted to clarify is that the increased cap of 600 ks ends after fiscal year '27. So that was in the 2023 T bill. The language provides for state fiscal years 2024 to 2027, the cap is going to be $600,000 but then after that it should revert back unless I'm missing another change to that occurred. No, that's all right,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: we tried to sync it up with the So we could increase

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, well we could change it.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Just hope that it looks good.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: So we could increase the amount in the statute. You could wait till the end of fiscal year to see whether a reauthorization bill happens in the meantime. As far as getting rid of the 50% set aside for storm water and environmental mitigation, That's no problem. There is other language that was added in the same section that provides that in evaluating applications, the agency shall give preferential weighting to projects involving as a primary feature a bicycle or pedestrian facility, and that the degree of preferential waiting, etcetera, is within the complete discretion of the agency. The thing I'm wondering is, do you want to leave that as it is, or do you want to add an interferential waiting for environmental mitigation, understanding that the set aside wasn't working, but do

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: you want to keep anything

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: to direct money in that direction or do you want to

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: leave it completely open to agency discretion? Part of the incentive was to leave it up to the agency discretion. Okay so just preferential waiting

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: for bikeped left in there.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Do you know if you represent Burkaw's side of that right now?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I'd like to preferential treatment for our sappers to schools, and they've done it that quickly. They haven't gotten any grants since, for how many years it's been since they collapsed. So there's just no program.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I can't, yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We already have a waiting to

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: have But a if there aren't any applications then-

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I understand that, but then we're, yeah, I I know what you're saying. I personally can't support, I mean, I think we have Bike Bet that's enough that we start doing to make carve outs.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Well, San Francisco's is a separate program from Bike Bet.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: No, no, no, I understand that. What I'm saying now is the program enhancement group would start up. Everybody else is gonna say, well, what about me? Let's carve out this one.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: We've had the preferential language all right for big biking.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, that's what I'm saying, that's my comfort. Personally, I mean, I don't know, they're gonna have a fair shake along with everybody else. But

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

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: guess we can have that discussion.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Do

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: we have any idea what the average Safe Routes to School project costs? Mean, could it be like a $600,000 project or would it be like a $50,000 I think it could be a range. It could be, as I said, it could pay for a coordinator, you know, maybe a part time job for somebody, and then some other I I don't really know. I I can point out because I know who this, but the whole sacred school coordinator was, like, at least ten years ago. But I don't think there've been any new programs in a long time. I know they haven't. I'd be happy to try to find you for it.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So so the Safe Routes to School was a separate program. Doesn't qualify today. A Safe Routes to School project with somebody who helps coordinate whatever I've it might

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: sent a specific email to Joel and Scott Robertson, who manages the program, to clarify both the Safe Routes to School and the scoping studies question around this, to see if those two things qualify. So I'm waiting to hear back.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: And if we did, I would just add, if we did go down this road, I think we would definitely need to have Joel go in here, go over all the criterias and look at the projects that are getting funded and say, all right, does this rise above everything else for this program funds to be weighted? Sort of make a decision because we really don't know what we're rising and above.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: All right, give us really clear on how many transportation alternative programs there are. Can see that.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Criteria.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Are we giving it the full review of are the other ones not worth the waiting? We don't really know that. We're saying right now, we've heard enough from it. So we're going to go down this path, we need additional testimony of what the criteria, what are all the programs and trying put out our drugs. And then do we all agree then that we're going to wait another one? We'd have to hear and make sure we know exactly what we're saying, yes, because that's what you're That's what I'm hearing you say. That would be the direction we'd have to go. Representative Burke would like us to weight Safe Routes to School. And if we're going to entertain that, we have to know that you're what you're unweighting. Do you know what you would, if I asked every member, if you said, okay, by weighting it, that means you're taking away from something else. Do you know what you're taking away from? I don't. But we can find out when we have time to find out if that

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: makes

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: sense to people. That's the way I'm viewing it. If you're going to say yes to something, you better know what you're saying no to. So I guess that I know that Michelle is sitting there and that sounds like we might be hearing from Joel again, if that's the direction that the committee goes. That still has to get us back to the we didn't decide on the cat. Did we? Or did we?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Okay, Phil. I guess I'd throw emotion out there. I guess I really want to know if that is like 8,000,000 they have, or if that is the case, then I'm comfortable going to 122 for a year or whatever. So going back down to I don't know if we're

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: going have this information for tomorrow or ask to schedule it for tomorrow. When we come back on Tuesday, you can put transportation alternatives up as soon as they're available to print to come into the committee and explain what all the transportation alternative again or review it and whether we're going wait it or not. And that would be one of the spots that we're looking to schedule when we first get back to make decision. And then also asking for, I guess Jeremy clarified exactly what money is still there to get out. So we're not here next week. We gotta meet, that's one of the spots that we will have to have the best one out. That's why we're going through this. And we're gonna go through the next, today and tomorrow, the next five, six, seven things so that we know exactly what testimony we left to decide. This is the part where we actually are trying to make a law. It's not the background. Now we need additional background to decide whether we're out or not in the chamber law. The ironic part is I

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: think this is the time to get a word.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I just want to ask Michelle while she's sitting in the chair, as we're talking about these different programs, the Downtown Transportation Program administered by ACCD but funded by AOT, and out of which part of the It's not Jamal. My son. Okay, there we go, transferred it up, thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay, so we've sort of at least done what our plan is then. Yeah. Okay. Thank you for jumping. And then also on that early there, you already got it. This is something that's with private electric will be in the chair there when we get back. Think we'll switch chairs for the next fifteen minutes or so. I'm sure we have other questions for Michelle. We'll switch over with Damien, I guess, for a bit.

[Michelle Blumhauer (Agency of Transportation)]: I don't see. I was trying to find out when the next applications are due.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I guess I don't know if other people have a list, but I, Damian and I probably have a list. You've got your original ebill draft, which was 11 pages. Since then, we have language. The biggest additional potential piece that's been drafted is mileage based user fee. It's 10 pages. We are not talking about it today tomorrow because I'm meeting with next door and downstairs to talk about the local options tax issue, which might be one of the subjects, but also to talk about the mileage based user fee as the tax has to go through ways and means. And we obviously had some significant comments, not maybe an in-depth conversation, about the highway index or inflation. I want to hear what some other people in the building. When you start talking taxes, we've got to go to ways and means. And so I happened to have a meeting that was at 04:00, and that's one of the topics on it. That's why we're not, for those that are wondering, that's why we're not talking about mileage based user fee today or tomorrow. We've got to have other committees waiting on that. There's nowhere for us to go until we get more from them.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yes, Rick? Mileage based user fee will be in the T Bill. Is the local options tab and then miscellaneous DMV bill, are we putting it in the T Bill?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Mileage based user fee is a proposal that we have not been into the T Bill yet. It's not in their original proposal, we'd have to add it.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: If it happens, it will be in the t bill. The local options tax, I know that represent senator Westman was speaking about that. Is that included in the DMV bill, which my understanding Okay. Was passed out It is not. So will it we'll be discussing it and adding it to the T bill or the D- And also

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: part of the conversation that might be at 04:00 today as well, which is it's tax, it's tax related. Can We only go so far without our neighbors. So my answer to that is I have to know where they sit in that arena. And then depending on that answer, we're gonna have to come back and prioritize which ones we're gonna nail down over the next two plus weeks. So that's on the list. I could check that off as to why we're not talking about it yet. Listen till after I talk to them. Otherwise, we're not getting There's no point in If we're going to sacrifice time from other areas, we better know that we could actually do something or not.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I envision that too, and I don't know if it's going to play out, but I envision that with being amended,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the Waste Bees Cleaning Foundation, because

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: that's more their way. And you know what? Those are local options, you know. But that's just not knowing anything.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: I just happened to speak to Mr. Westley last night and he was talking about it.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: He's talking all over the building because I've gotten that same exact conversation several times. We can talk about it a little bit more tomorrow after at least I get some feedback. Now they're going to have to digest on it. I don't know how much they're at in that spot. Just heard about potential I'm listening to sort of potential additions. The Burlington Airport piece we just heard is a potential addition. But I think we need we don't have any language. And we don't know if we need what we're going to need if we're going to make a change, we would need some. We don't have a clarification on the federal rule and then what else there is. So I'm sort of at a more testimony piece is due on that. But it is a request. Green Mountain Transit has language requests. And we have heard their testimony. And we didn't come up with a whole lot of I did run it by a lot of the cities and towns. But we didn't go any further with Burlington or anybody else. That's on the list of potential additions. Caledonia Airport, there is language request. We have heard from it. We did hear from some additional senators. That one's probably at the spot of potentially ready to go. So that's sort of what we're at. There are more, but I don't have any more. We don't have any more actual language requests yet. Yet, that doesn't mean there are a couple in the works. But am I missing, I don't know if Damian has any other topics that I might be missing that I've gotten to a language level.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Well, I

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: had no. But I would invite someone to tell me that I've overlooked something.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I can also then throw out the potential discussions that I've had. They're not all of them. I've got a couple more here that aren't on, but there is this effort being done. Well, that was more of an appropriation, not a T bill, sorry. That was that one. There's a discussion about charging and whether or not we will be able to pull together a study Yeah, we have

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: a draft from Damien, so probably That

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: will be released as we Yes.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Tuesday. Yeah. I can

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: on Tuesday, we'll be looking at having Damien in to look at this idea around public chargers and what trying which to basically is about somebody needs to clarify and bring things make it much more clear as to whose jurisdictions are where and who's responsible for what other Yes, two pieces.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: There's one to add online charging information for public chargers. And the other one is just a working group to pull together all the charging laws and regulations that are on the books now with recommendations to move forward.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And the transportation alternatives, which we've already talked about, which is finished, have a note about e bikes, I can't remember what we whether we weren't ready to make a recommendation. We heard from the Forest Parks and Recs. There's I don't know. Pretty big we're not ready to

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I don't know how much discussion we've had on whether we wanna do anything with that or not. We had said the municipalities were sort of open ended. We talked about getting the Mollies and city towns to see if they wanna weigh in the need to review laws and recommend anything new.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: There was some topic that testimony we took earlier, but not specific to the T Bill on the topic of mid block crosswalks and using a central lane in an instance where there are three lanes as for passing. And that that cleaning up some of the statutory language on that would be very helpful and doesn't cost anything.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Was that all the two ones that you mentioned a couple days ago that we went through conversation on Tuesday, I believe it was?

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: I may have. I was

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: just bringing it up again because Richard Class

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: one, updates and then provisions. Speed. Alright. I don't think that covers them all, but I've got a couple more to go through. So, I'm going to put that one down here next year. Name on this one. Okay. I still have the ones that we talked about. Pollinators, salt. You had two policy related ones that you talked about related to class one roads and another provisions related to I'm gonna read my own writing, but I have notes on that. Represent Pouech had e bikes, public charging, and also the sorting that the two that you just went over. And there was a talk about the funding and downtown piece, but I think we're reallocating our effort towards the transportation at alternatives. Okay. So tomorrow, because we're gonna break, we are going to for those representative, Keyser is gonna be on Zoom, but we're going to look to at least get the ones in there and go through the thing and check off the sections that we can and get the ones in there that are regular. And for those of the ones that I mentioned, we need to clarify before we leave. Before you leave tomorrow, better be on my list and it better be clear how we're working on it when we get back so that we make sure that we know what we're doing for the next two weeks. Yes.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I just got some information about the, Sacred to School Program might cost. And this is from Richard Armore, who said it would depend on the scope and reach of the program. That said, I believe a road test program for a cohort of schools across the state could be sustained at 150 to 250,000 a year. A sliding scale would depend on how many schools, communities, and the program would support annually.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: What was that state, though, or is it federal government?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: I think that's it. I think that's just total.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, total, but I'm just saying it's huge difference. Once again, that

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: federal dollar, you could probably quadruple that. That's everything counts in the world. Yeah, absolutely.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: But that'd be a clarification of what funds was it receiving prior to when it got shut down?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Think it was I don't know. I was thinking.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: What was it in front of? Oh, okay.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: This for tomorrow. Working on in terms of Yeah. Everything in the queue.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Or tomorrow, do you want any of the things that you've just listed off in the draft that we look at tomorrow to check things off? Or do we want to hold those things out, check off first draft part, and then I'll add things for after the break.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So for tomorrow, we need to check off the original, but we need to have Caledonia ready to go, Green Mountain Transit. So if somebody moves, put them in. And then we got Caledonia ready to go, Green Mountain Transit ready to go. We're both ready. And then we need to make sure we're going to go back through the last everybody check off section by section. Yeah. But we didn't have anybody move to put them in yet unless we won't literally do that right now. But we don't have it in front of us. So we're going be doing another we may only really be at the first draft level or if there are other changes We're still at the first draft. Cut off those sections, and then we'll start adding. And we're gonna get the ones added off, and we're going to be clear on the list of what we are working on the last two weeks before we leave tomorrow. Perfect.

[David Leonard (Legislative Counsel)]: Great. I just wanted to make sure that

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I wanna make sure your list of potentials match my list. And that without language, they're not pretty soon they're no longer potentials if they don't have language. Okay. All right. For the rest of you may or may not be clear, I appreciate your patience. I think I know where we're trying to get to. I appreciate that. And we will see you all