Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: That's the attendance updated and live.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That is excellent that we are live here on Wednesday, 03/11/2026. And we're going to pick up with the transportation alternatives. I guess I didn't find Damien during lunch, but the way I understood it from the committee is that the committee's direction is to go the idea of giving the agency a 100% leeway on the projects and without the limitation or the divide between water quality and transportation alternative projects, and to increase the maximum to 1,200,000 and to put a, I guess what was a floor where those 300 just makes that 600,000 and give them a year to get the money out the door and come back and tell us differently or not next year. So that is all I guess back in in 1938. And that is the direction of exactly what she's agency recommended, but probably a little bit of a step further. Evelyn White, you had a

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: comment on floor? Can

[Candice White (Member)]: you remind me why we have a floor? Is that just something the agency wanted? So that's saying that a $300,000 project task is too small to be No,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: no, no, was a maximum, not really a floor. It's like a maximum amount.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: We're putting

[Candice White (Member)]: the max at 1.2, right? Per

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Per year.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay. And then it will go back to go back 600. It would

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: have gone to three. Now it I understand. Okay, thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It was originally 300,000 max. It's not a floor. It was 300. It was moved up to 600, but Sun set it to go back in 2027.

[Candice White (Member)]: So it's gonna go 1.2 for a year, and then it will go back to 600.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Got it. That makes sense.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, now the question is, did we make sense to It's not a lower. It's a well, if the 1.2 would come back to 600 instead of all the way back to 300. Let me way at things.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Your Zoom meeting here, and I'll pull up I think I got all that down into an amendment. If it looks good to you, I can

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: send it. The only thing

[Unidentified Committee Member]: they actually wanted to make clear is that they have the ability to do the FY 27 awards. He wanted some language around that I believe. Well this language. His language was when he said the way statute was written wasn't like quite clear or did I misunderstand that? Right at the end he wanted something to identify as a website.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It was cool.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Because the awards get handed out January to March.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: March, yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And the money would and then when they continue through we want to make sure that we're not getting any of that yeah. It wouldn't be dropped down until so I guess it would be at least July 2027.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I I just wanted to point that out. Maybe we don't need to

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: do anything. Maybe we just Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not sure I follow. Yeah. So it's hard for me to say.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Get to know Quebec. You know Okay. But I just yeah. Thought he's made it. Speak to him. Yeah.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: As folks like to say in the building, you can always give the other side something to fax. So

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Yeah. That works.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I've seen it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Somebody said that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I've seen it not work.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They changed orders.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Got you.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So let me pull up the transportation alternatives language. So what I did based on our conversation the other day is you'll see highlighting in here that relates to anything that was discussed as possibly changing when the high was last in the discussion. The committee has had further discussions with the agency since then. But based on what I just heard so the current statute here, we this is yeah. I I'm doing it on the fly.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Okay. So

[Michelle Windham (Agency of Transportation)]: So we don't have anything to follow?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Except for Yeah. Let's follow what's on the screen. Okay. So the current language here, this paragraph subsection c, left with the $300,000 highlighted. It sounds like that's not changing. This is the what it reverts back to as the maximum grant in future years. So after f y twenty twenty seven, there's session law at the end of this that covers through f y twenty twenty seven. So we'll get to that. And that's got the 1,200,000.0.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. But we do wanna change that.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You do wanna change those? Yes. We want the

[Unidentified Committee Member]: new max to be 600,000.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Yeah. So there we go. This is why we're going through.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Alright.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that change. I guess I'll highlight. So then the next piece here, this is the current language for how the funds can be used in subdivision or subsection f. So it was last updated in fiscal for fiscal year twenty twenty four. So we're striking fiscal year twenty twenty four and saying fiscal year twenty twenty seven and thereafter. And we're striking all the language around limiting 50% to stormwater, and it says grant program funds shall be awarded for any eligible activity and in accordance with the priorities established in subdivision two of this subsection. And the eligible activities are set forth in federal law. And so this would include pedestrian and bike, storm water, safe routes to schools, and other things that are included under the federal permitted activities. The next subsection, there was some talk about giving preference to certain things. The existing law already gives preferential weights to projects involving bicycle or pedestrian facilities as a primary feature. And so question is whether you want to change this or just leave it the way it is in the current law.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative White?

[Candice White (Member)]: There was some discussion

[Candice White (Member)]: about devoting the funds 100% to buy the pad.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: The option. This

[Candice White (Member)]: I think it was just removing

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: any structure,

[Candice White (Member)]: just giving them a priority to do whatever they

[Candice White (Member)]: could Yes, was fiftyfifty, and then there was discussion about seventy fivetwenty five, and this was just saying it's just open to whatever. Was a preference for bikeped.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I guess I want to make sure I'm very clear. Transportation alternatives have a whole list of things that are eligible. In that eligibility, in that application, they are weighting projects for bike ped today. Above that or before that, there was this split that 50% had to be water quality, the other 50% that were weighted, 50% left were weighted towards by bed. We're gonna say 100%, all the eligibility still sits there, but not 50% has to go to water quality. Water quality is still eligible, and the weighting is still there, but we're not doing an additional change to the weighting of the projects, but they're still weighted above everybody else. We're not changing, it could be a water quality project, it could be whatever the criteria were for all of the other options, which is one of the ones which is, as an example, did come up about safe route to school. They may want to one of the spot where they wait and a little shelter or something would have been eligible for something like this. There are other pieces that went through the whole Vegetation management practices, archaeology activities, transportation alternatives. There's a lot of them. My application doesn't have bikeped, and yours does. Yours would be jumped ahead of the list on the review process that doesn't guarantee you that you can get it or not. And we did not, in today's discussion, we did not have any discussion about limiting it to BikePad and we're not looking at the change in the price.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Think it's like 10%, I

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: forget when I was grading them. They they got weighted real high.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: They were like 10% above everybody else on the process margin.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: They get extra scoring points. Yeah,

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'm good with that. And

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: all water quality projects are still eligible. None of the criteria changed except the awarding piece. More flexibility in awarding them, with our goal being there's federal money to get out. We want to get into the community as quickly as possible. It's already held up. We're trying to move that forward. That's our intent. We're not writing intent language, but that is our intent. All

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: right.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So then I would take out this paragraph here from the draft and just Yeah. Omit it. And then subsection g, I had highlighted this, I don't think it actually needs to change. So the agency is required to develop outreach and marketing efforts, and the highlighted language just provides that they shall include a pricing municipalities, the availability of grants for salt and sand sheds. I don't think you need to change that because they're still eligible. And this is just calling that out. I think at the time, that was a relatively new concept for municipalities. And so that language can probably stay unchanged if the committee is okay with it.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oh, unless Also, yeah, I

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know I don't get to call people. Sorry. Excuse me, mister chair.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Unless somebody in the committee would like to consider representing representative Burke who might have wanted to highlight that projects and systems that will provide safe routes for non drivers, including children, older adults, and individuals with disabilities to access daily needs, is one of the projects, is part of the projects that are eligible. It is in here as B. And this may be a spot that that B might want to be highlighted or not. That's if a particular committee member might want to suggest that or not. And then we can talk about whether that's a good idea or not. But that's my representing those that are unrepresented currently. Represent Pouech?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I just wonder if we wouldn't it it sounds like this language was put in because transportation alternatives grant, if you're in a small town, you probably wouldn't even think, oh, hey, this might help our salt chain. But now it's part of the program. People know that we saw lots of applications even though they had a hard time because there's not really enough money to do a lot of the projects. Maybe we should stick that out and the agency outreach is gonna show these are all eligible projects. And it has that on there. Not sure it needs to be specific. It had a purpose for being scooped.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Got to recognize Tomlinson. You had the floor. You got recognized. Tomlinson, you're done, and then somebody else gets to go. Representative Tomlinson is up next, and then Representative Lalley.

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Yeah, I don't think it needs to be included in terms of outreach and marketing activities. But I do think it makes a lot sense to include educational programming as a part of this suite of possible uses of this pool funding, especially if it's challenging moving it. And that might be a very small portion that could go pretty far. So I just don't really see why wouldn't be an option in the agency's guidance on this grant opportunity. I don't think it needs to be marketing materials, but I think it should be included in terms of the eligibility internally. So I think I agree with you, Brett Thompson. Think right now that's not in there currently. So that would be something that we might want to consider. But the agency suggested when they testified this morning that that could be an internal decision that they could make. And there may be interest among committee members of just finding out what they, their plans for that. What is included in it? Are you saying something isn't included in the transportation alternative grant? Yeah, so we might have been out when we had a discussion about this. This was, and jump in if I'm not saying this right, this is the planning and education to help communities learn how to take advantage of this community base, this opportunity, basically. And also This grant program. This grant program, but also other bike head opportunities. So that one of the challenges being that that can be kind of a heavy lift for particularly smaller places. Oftentimes, RPCs will help with that or a little promotion will help with that. But to have a It's kind of hit or miss how that happens now. And to have something that's a little more focused and procedural might help everybody, communities, but also the agencies. So they're not having to go to endless select board meetings and explain this and all that. So you looking for, I'm sorry. So if I can just

[Candice White (Member)]: sit where all of it, what happens?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: This is listed as a committee discussion. So we're okay in that perspective going back to court. We're still within the committee. It's hard

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: to ask for direction. Like, you want to direct the agency to have some type of an outreach program for transportation alternative

[Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: grant opportunities? I'm just wondering if that would need to be stated in this language in order to make it happen. Because right now it's sort of at their discretion. If we really wanted this to happen, I think we might need to be a little more clear about it. But one of the things that got my attention this morning was the statement that $200,000 could be used to help X number of communities plan for this infrastructure versus building just a short spit of sidewalk. So that seemed kind of something to think about, at least.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Pouech and then Representative White?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Maybe we could ask Local Motion to sort of say, you know, because an organization like Local Motion would be the one that would help do some of this education and whatnot. And, know, would it be their desire to adjust some of the language or do you feel it's good enough?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: My concern to go in that direction is that we have witnesses that we've only ever extended that to Legis Council and JFO and the agency. And I think we already went there once and I'm not ready to go there again. You wanna set it up and put them in the witness chair and request a witness? I could do that. I'm not gonna have the guests, the people that show up, think they're gonna walk in and testify in the committee without the proper channels for that. And I don't mean any disrespect about that, but that sets up a dangerous precedent for where we're going. And I'm not trying to make an opinion on the subject matter one way or another. I think I was trying to speak to that when I suggested representative Burke wasn't representative in her area. I think I was trying to help cover that. So think she wanted something to highlight safer Osborne School. So I was trying to say that. That's what I was trying to do. But I'm not gonna go in that direction. We can have it and witness if we need to or if we will go through our normal procedures to do that. We've only ever done it for what we've done it for. And I'm only trying to help in this particular case in that direction. I'm definitely not trying to exclude that, but I'm not going to go in that direction. I do not want to take out the salt language from the perspective, I don't think I do, or that I would support it because we're already reducing some water quality. I don't want to drive additional attention to the fact that we're now removing it from the piece. I'd like to kind of sort of like, can we move on? We've kind of made our decisions, or I think we have, but we're saying we want to give them the next amount of flexibility. They still have the projects. I think the representative from the transfer, or the person who's handing out and running the program was very receptive to feedback on adjusting their education and pieces. And so I might listen to those that are out listening that if we felt comfortable with the committee asking our agency people that do we think that the director of municipal assistance program can make the sort of advertising and change on the way they is that sort of with the direction? I don't know that we need a law or the change in the statute to do that. But I think we have I thought that that person, that testimony was pretty clear that they would be willing to make some changes. I'm not sure if Michelle's listening or not. So all of that, if you would be willing to perhaps comment on I'm not sure if you heard all of that piece.

[Michelle Windham (Agency of Transportation)]: Yes. For the record, Michelle Windham from Agency of Transportation. So I did not hear all of that piece because I was not in the room and I haven't listened to the tape, but I did see Joel Perrigo at lunchtime and I think he had talked about in here the fact that we have an effort underway through people to and our stand up a new Safe Routes to School program using our HSIP Highway Safety Improvement Program monies, and that they are working to sort of get that framework up and working with our partnership with external providers, including Locomotion, figure out what the best way to deploy that would be, whether it's a grant to one or a number of organizations to begin to reinvest in Safe Routes to School in that manner. And that from his perspective, having the TA program be focused on construction projects and deploying things that are needed to physically support Safe Routes to School in terms of how that program interfaces with Safe Routes to School was, I think, he that was what was in his mind and what I hope he expressed to the committee. So that was where we left it. So in terms of carved out set aside for engagement activities and outreach, I think we are looking more to the HSIP program to be able to do those types of efforts and keep the transportation alternatives program focused on construction activities. Hope that helps.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Can you pull that, the language back up there?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I was just trying to think of a compromised language. Chair said that he wants to leave the And we probably should just leave that in there. But you know, maybe we could sort of incorporate the outreach and sort of outline what the eligibilities are. You know, the agency shall reach out to the municipalities and make them aware of X, Y, and Z. Know, of historic preservation, is that the one that, what's the program that fits State food? What was that? Right? Construction and seating. Yeah, so whatever that one is, we could just say, shall We could highlight a couple, shall not be limited to, but shall include, we'll just highlight three of them, and then maybe put in parentheses what we should put that, sell sheds, what volume wants. Just expand it a little

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: more to incorporate how big

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a program is. And, you know, I'm not being eloquent at all. It sounded more, that's

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: in my mind, but sort

[Unidentified Committee Member]: of this outline of the 13 or whatever that's eligible and just pick like three of them. And here's a couple, but it's not limited to something like that.

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are you thinking that the sentence might read something like the outreach and marketing activities shall include rising municipalities, the eligible uses for grant funds, including salt and sand sheds, safe routes to schools.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, but it's not limited to something like that. To be clear that

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: list is Anytime we say including, it means including the developer.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay, perfect. Like that. We are not minimizing water quality projects, but we are looking to increase flexibility to get federal money out the door into the community as quickly as possible. Not at the expense of another area, but to get it out as flexible as possible.

[Michelle Windham (Agency of Transportation)]: So I think the terminology around, I think this is a great way to approach it, and the terminology on the Safe Routes to School might be Safe Routes to School infrastructure projects, something that makes it clear. The building of things that are going to help people get to school I

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: feel very confident that the director of the program and other interested parties, They seem very willing to accommodate that additional publication and whatever minimum materials as they advertise it to make that happen. I'm confident that, looking at you, that that can happen.

[Michelle Windham (Agency of Transportation)]: Yes. And the other thing we'll do when we look at this language is look carefully at the current program rounds and the dates and the language to make sure everything is in alignment so that we are capturing the audience of the next round for this bump up of one to two. There's any changes there, I'll get back to the committee.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And if it's possible, we want to potentially have that webinar, possibly Friday, if we're looking at. So

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I'm alright with moving forward and out the way we're talking about, but that Safe Routes to School piece really is an educational and outreach piece, which might end up being an infrastructure change going forward. And so that what we're saying is that's not gonna be in this program, even though it potentially could legally by the federal rules. And that highway safety program would be the place to find it. Although it would be good to see that it's actually in there. It's really just we're gonna put it in there, but I'm not sure that it's actually in there. I think I'll speak for Mollie, but myself and others saying, hey, a small amount of educational and outreach to communities to show them how to do this stuff can go a long way to, you know, even just getting parents to sort of get, you know, educated and excited about changes they can do in their community to help their kids get to the same schools.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I would say that this doesn't really satisfy what you're looking to do. But it is a for this program, that's probably as far as we can go on this particular program, but it doesn't solve the bigger question of what you're trying to accomplish. Would be my take on what you're saying.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Right, I would say, that's we can do But somewhere it doesn't mean that, you know, I'm certain for this program to move in the direction it's here. Michelle and Representative White?

[Michelle Windham (Agency of Transportation)]: Mr. Chair, what I was going to suggest is perhaps we could come back with some language that clearly articulates that the agency is in the process of developing a Safe Routes to School outreach initiative that we will read through the age SIP program and that we will come back next session and report out on the progress of implementing that. So it makes sense.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It seems like a lot, but I'm trying to be

[Michelle Windham (Agency of Transportation)]: We're doing it, yeah, I want you to feel confident that we're doing it, and we're working with our partners, we want that to be seen. It's not a problem to have language, and it's a place to learn, so you remember to get back to it next year.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: These incremental steps are how things have changed over the long term. Representative what?

[Candice White (Member)]: Yeah, going back to the proposed language that Damien was sharing, I wanted to suggest that we amend that SALT, that one sentence that was highlighted to just list these different shall include construction planning and design of on road and off road trail facilities, construction planning and design of infrastructure related projects and systems. Just that It's from slide four of the transportation alternatives.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's what I was saying. But not all. I you could do. I was just saying highlight a couple.

[Candice White (Member)]: Or just be inclusive. Just put like colon and then here may include all these, and then it's clear that all these fall into that category.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: we're talking about law here. We're talking about right in the law. And that's what we're talking about here, over here, is policy. Is that right? Have I got that right? The program details. I guess I would say it's almost the level of program.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't want to put

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the application and the program into law. Yes, I would not be sensitive somewhere in the middle. Right, so I would just be thoughtful to the fact that the law is the law, and that's what it's gonna be, and if the underlying objectives change, then you have to reflect that in the law. It seems difficult.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That makes sense? Yeah, no, I'm following it. That's why I just wanted to highlight it annually, because this is just outreach. Not changing anything. It's more what the agency to do when they market what's in the law. To say, make sure the communities know about X, Y, and Z. I think it maybe takes away from maybe the importance of the ones that we want to highlight if we just did all of them. So I just say, with a subtle do, you know. But that's just,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'd going to You can speak on it again if you'd like.

[Candice White (Member)]: Just remembering that I think we've heard that municipalities don't often know what grant programs are available. I think we've talked about maybe having a list of grant programs so municipalities know what's out there. So I think having clear language to market for, Here are all the programs that are eligible. It doesn't give any preferential treatment to one versus the other, but it is inclusive of, Here are all the potential things that could be considered for this grant.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So,

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: as a former municipal employee, didn't look to the reading books for this stuff. I would call the LCT, I would call somebody from AMT, and it'd give me a breakdown. I'd look on the website for it. I certainly wouldn't go into the law book to find a breakdown. Oh, this is like when you finally got to where you want to go, because it is cumbersome to look through the reading books. Disagree. I just, you know, two of them you want to highlight? Okay, maybe three. But I don't want to see a list of stuff in the green books, because it's already like crazy. And I think that is a program, you know, that's a program. I don't want stay green highlighted in the green books. If you want to know about the program, call the LCT, call the AOT, look on their websites to find out. And I think every community is a member of the LCT, and they have wonderful people there that you can call and actually speak to if you need to be.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I agree with that. I was just trying to find a happy I

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: think that we are at a spot where the agencies agreed to work with alleged counsel to highlight and insert the concerns, and we also heard the areas that we wanna say, also acknowledging that we didn't maybe necessarily get everything done that we want that our reps might want on that same group just repeats, but we're not done entirely. We're done in this part, or we're mostly done in this part. We're going to revise language together and back

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, too, because they're still on the floor by other committee.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But we did readjust, so you're going get your piece because we were to readjust the papers that want to tell us about our T fund spending. So I wish I I can't control the

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: floor either. No, that's fine.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You're gonna work with the agency and with the feedback on the app to change and we're not going to minimize, we are not minimizing water quality projects in any way, shape or form. Don't make changes to that sentence. Well, I'm saying that I don't want to minimize that anybody else in the building might be concerned that we're somehow backing off of water quality projects, but it's not our intent. Our intent here is to make sure the federal money gets out. If some of that happens to go more weighted toward bike and ped, then great. The water, we can look at other people, we can continue to look at why water quality projects aren't getting done. This program may not be the vehicle to completely fix those, but we are not moving away from the water quality piece. The only thing you guys take out is that 50% reference. So that is out. And we're expecting the agency will help in their program management highlight as many of the items that are available to be funded in this program. We probably already do that, but we'd like to see an adaptation of some of

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: those areas. There's a two page list in the agency. Show me the money guide for municipalities of projects that are eligible. So yeah. We don't we don't need to go there, but I'll put this into the t bill draft for markup on Friday with

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the changes. As keep it as its own or, like, this Or do

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you wanna keep it as a separate document?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Let's keep it till it's finalized. And then if we wanna move it in, somebody Okay. Motion to move it in on Friday when we move in or are there anything else that we've gotten to?

[Damien Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sounds good. I will have

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: it edited and ready for Friday. Thank you. See you guys at 02:45 hopefully. Nicholas, I think we're so we're shifting gears as a committee. We're not don't know if your witness is online yet or not.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I think he's expecting to be

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: here soon, so I don't know if he's on there already or not yet. Or does people need a break for five minutes to start at two, or do we wanna