Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oh, and we are live. There we go. Wednesday, 03/11/2026 here in House Transportation. It is 02:00 or thereabouts. We are taking some testimony from pavers, from the Papers Association. We're looking for their feedback on the T bill, on the amount of money we're spending on roads, road construction, peace, and anywhere else that I don't if you would like to go first

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: or will like to go first or

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: Yeah, I asked. You're in Hattaca.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Can you hear me, Bill, Hattaca?

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: You're muted. I have to ask.

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: I apologize. We've switched over to Teams at Beckham. I'm not used to the Zoom.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: Okay. So I just have to ask you, I'm Patty McCoy from Poultney, Vermont. Are your parents Dale and Bennington?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: Yes, they are.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: Okay. So you were born exactly an hour after my daughter.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Wow. Okay. Well, there

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: you go.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: Yes.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: We'll be bringing Will back to this committee. Yes. Hi everybody, thanks for having us. My name is Nick Sherman, I'm with Leone Public Affairs. I'm here representing the Paving Association of Vermont, and I'm joined by Will Hattaca from Hattaca Industries. Mr. Chair, if it's okay with you, we'll just maybe have Will introduce himself and give a quick little overview of Peckham and their operations here in the state of Vermont. And then I will jump into reaction to the proposed paving budget for FY '27, and then we can answer any questions you might have.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Can you

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: guys hear me Yeah. All

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yes, sir. All Will.

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: Alright. Yeah, my name is Will Hattach. I work with Peckham Industries. We're a family owned business. You know, we're basically all over the Northeast, but we do have a location in Chasseberry, Vermont. And then over the past year, we purchased two Corcoran's up in Northern Vermont, the Cockins Rock products up in Lindenville, in Coventry as well. My role with the company, I'm in our materials business, which is hot mix asphalt paving and our quarry business as well. So I oversee operations in all of New England and Upstate New York.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: Appreciate well-being here. Vermont Paving Association incorporates the companies that you see paving the roads in the summertime here in Vermont. And we come before this committee every year to speak to the budget and appreciate the opportunity to do that this week on crossover. Start by saying that we are supportive of the proposed FY twenty twenty seven paving budget. We really appreciate seeing an increase in that budget after a couple years where there's been a downward trend. I think this is really critical for maintaining the infrastructure and supporting the industry that is critical to maintain that infrastructure in our state. So I want to just start there, we are supportive of the proposed paving budget. As we've said, when we've come before this committee in past years, one of our top concerns and priorities when it comes to the budget and legislation in the paving sphere is sustainability of state transportation revenues and specifically the ability of the state to be able to come up with the matching funds to be able to draw down federal funds. I know this committee spent a lot of time on this issue already this year, I would go into that detail as much as you want, but suffice it to say that that continues to be a concern. And I think from the trends that you're seeing from legislatures, fiscal analysts, and from the analysis that the agency has this is an issue that's coming to a head and needs to be addressed. And we appreciate the work that this committee has done, that the legislature has done, and that the administration has done in bringing forward a proposal this year that not only maintains but increases paving funding, that was not an easy proposal to develop. The agency and the administration made some difficult decisions internally to ensure that will happen. Because sustainability and consistency are so important to the industry, and I'll talk a little bit about why, we are also supportive of the proposal to gradually reduce the purchase and use transfer to return that funding to the state transportation fund. We think that's appropriate use of those funds, and we think it is a good way to help create that consistency and sustainability over time. So we're supportive of that. I will say that part of something that we're concerned with in terms of right now, have a proposal that addresses this year. If we don't find a way to make the fund more stable going forward, we could very well be faced with a year after year situation where we're having to come up with a one time solution. Last year got rid of the JTOC transfer, which was supported and was the right thing to do and has helped. Even with that action having been taken last year, this year, we find ourselves in a place where more money needs to be found to be able to sustain the transportation fund. That trend is projected to get worse over time. Consistency in the paving program allows companies to plan. And when they're able to plan, they're able to be more efficient. They save money. They have crews that work in multiple states. They have crews that work in multiple different parts of our state. If they know where those projects, when they're going to be bid, when they're expected to be implemented, they can maximize their efficiency, which translates into lower bids for the state. It helps the state save money. It helps them maintain workforce. This is seasonal work. And if they know that there's going be consistency in the program from one year to another, they're better able to support their workforce, plan for their workforce to come back after the winter and not lose those workers potentially to other states, or even if they stay within the company being unapproved, that's sent to New Hampshire or Maine to do work there. So those are just some examples of why predictability and consistency are so important and why ultimately one of our biggest concerns, and we're really here asking you to support this year's proposal, but also take a real hard look at the purchase and use proposal, which I know this committee has been supportive of and do something that's really gonna stabilize things in the long term. While we appreciate very much that the proposed paving budget has gone up this year over the trends from the last couple of years. We are worried that if we don't create a longer term solution, that next year we might be in a position where that drops back down. And it is, while we definitely appreciate an increase, it's hard year over year to have a paving budget that kind of goes up and down for all the reasons I just said for planning, for consistency. Volatility is more costly than a process that's stable over time. And I I I think that the last thing that I'll say about the current proposed budget and this ties into, I think, sustainability issue is we also think it's very important that Town Highway is funded and funded at workable levels. This is in part because that's work that our members do. It helps support the industry and keep them sort of stable here. But it's also, as you've heard from the agency explaining the trends of how this process works, and maybe Will can speak more to the science of it. But if you don't maintain roads, they become more and more expensive to fix the longer you go without doing that maintenance. And that's true of the towns too. And if we get to a point where the towns are unable to, or it is increasingly challenging for them to maintain their program, those pressures will translate into pressure on the state fund. And if you do something like bring purchase and use revenue back, you'll have an increased stability in the fund that will help not only support, I think, the state work, but also the town work as well. So they kind of go hand in hand. And we appreciate that this committee has been seriously considering this, has been generally supportive, think, and there's a long way to go, but we just wanted to come in and express what the proposed program means to us and how that affects us both now and in the long term. Will, do you have anything you wanna add to that?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: Yeah, I echo all your comments there. The consistency of the program is super important to us just from a pure business perspective, right? I mean, it's on any given year where you could potentially lose 25 to 50% of your work. Makes it tough from a business to say, hey, how can we continue to invest in Vermont when we're really not sure what's gonna come out the following year? Or how can we maintain a workforce year after year and get people to come, you know, wanna come back and, you know, work, work in our state. So that, you know, consistency is important. And as Nick alluded to as well, you know, as the roads continue to deteriorate, they become exponentially costly to fix. Know, a full depth reclamation can cost, you know, four to five times as much as just simply doing a quick mill in overlay, which is what we'd like to see. So yeah.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Appreciate you joining us. I appreciate your flexibility on a couple of the changes in the schedule. Nick, I'm curious, a big chunk of your business is in New York and South. So how do you approach sort of Vermont as a whole from a strategic level of looking at where you're going to put your crews, where you're to put your equipment, sort of how many years into the future do you look at? There's a lot of questions in that, but I'm curious as a market, or when you decide where your business development is going, or the time and energy you're going to put in, how do you look at Vermont in relation to its place in New England, its place in New York, its place within the seasonal kind of limitations? I mean, how does it you move things throughout the year and down? Do you just sort of look at it when you're in the family owned for one hundred years? How do you start to look at your approach to just Vermont as a small piece of a much bigger area?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: Yeah, of course. One thing that makes it a little tricky for us in Vermont in particular is the fact that we are located in Shaftsbury, Vermont, which is like in the Southwest Corner of Bennington. So if you looked at a map at what roads come out on paving, I mean, we we we rarely see roads in our area, bigger state jobs. I think the Route 30 Rupert Pollitt job will be one job. We we maybe get this year but you know, the plants themselves are fixed right so we understand that you know where where you make the actual asphalt. That that is going to be at the same location every year and there's going to be ebbs and flows to that based off what roads are paving in any given location. The construction crews themselves can travel. We really don't venture much outside of that Southwest corner. Think maybe Rutland, Castleton, we just want a job this past week in I think Castleton, Vermont, where I'm actually from. We'll we'll bring that over from New York State just because we are we are right on the border there. But you know, we we are growing. We we've made acquisitions of Calkins Rock products up in the Northwest Corner. While that may not be primarily paving, is, know, we do a fair amount of road construction in that area with the stone products. So, you know, again, it makes it tough to, you know, want to purchase, want to grow the business in Vermont, just knowing that, there really isn't outside of the Burlington area, there really isn't a whole lot of predictability as to where we could be paving, I guess. I'm not sure if that answers your question.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Certainly helps. When it comes to the bid process of working with the agency in comparison to working with other, well I guess start with the state level agency, the bid process. How does it compare to where you work the majority of your other paving projects? The timeline, the communication, the process in general for bidding. Do you have any comment on how that works and doesn't work for your business, relationship to how the agency performs?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: I think it works fairly well as far as what comes out. I think if we were to get, say, this year the increase in paving budget, I don't foresee any problems for us. You know, the earlier the better, I guess, the earlier we can know what what's coming out the following year, the better we can allocate resources. We often do bounce crews back and forth between New York State and Vermont. And, you know, it is a bidding environment. So it's not only the work that comes out, we actually have to go out and win the work as well, which I'm sure you're aware of. So, you know, it can be tough year to year. At New York State, there's a little bit more of a balance just because we have more facilities. So, know, where, hey, our Hudson Falls asphalt plant might be a little bit lower this year. You know, something downstate and say Catskill may have a better year just because those are the roads they're paving. And you in Vermont for us, it really is a boomer bus based off of what's going on in Southwest Vermont.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, the reason I'd ask is because fiber, when I first got in the meeting, there was a lot of talk about the timelines with the bidding process. Haven't heard anything that I had got the impression, in August, that it was not the most user friendly to the vendor, to the contractors, but that I haven't heard anything about it as an issue in the last several multiple years. So I'm sort of revisiting sort of the old, somebody mentioned about seat changes. I think way back when I was sitting over there, there was a lot of talk about the state and not getting them out early enough and not being consistent enough or quick enough response. I haven't heard that in the last couple of years. I'm curious if you have any comments.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: Yeah, no, that's exactly right. And I can speak to that. So I think in, I mean, it's been a long time now, but certainly a decade or more ago, it was tougher, I think. And this is where we really started coming to the legislature and talking about the importance of predictability and being able to plan. The bid schedule and the advertising schedule at the agency is less predictable and less sort of set on a calendar timeline that made sense or that worked at least for the industry. That was a long time ago. We did a lot of work talking and working with the administration and agency to try to address that. And really has improved a lot. And ten years ago, it improved a lot. We generally mentioned that when we come in here as being important, but really it's been working quite well for a long time now. And a lot of that is getting those advertisements done in the fall and So in the once the weather changes and we're able to get out there, we can hit the ground running. I mean, I will let Will go into it if you want to talk about the sort of process from bid to actually putting a shovel in the ground because he knows way more about it than I do, but it takes a while. So, you you need those projects advertised in time where you can really be up and running once the weather cooperates. And that's absolutely gotten a lot better, but it does, I think, one of the concerns we have now about it's a similar theme. If we're doing the paving budget and the transportation budget on a kind of a one year basis, figuring out each year how we're gonna make it work. I think that makes it harder to advertise projects in the fall. You don't know if you're going to have the money or what the program is going to look like or what the proposal is going to look like. You're to wait for January for that and then go through the legislative process. So that's why we're really here advocating for a long term solution and we think the purchase and use proposal fits that bill. So yes, I think the process with the agencies has been going very well for a long time now, but now we have this funding challenge that needs to be addressed. Thank you, Representative Pouech

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: and then,

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Doctor. Thanks for doing this. I think it's easy to understand long term planning for this sort of thing. I'll say our town in Hinesburg years ago decided they were gonna spend x amount per year on paving. And if we do that, it was like every seven or eight years, they could go back and they adjust it. You know, they had a plan, but they adjusted if depending on the roads. So I think that totally makes sense. I think you coming in here, you know, talking about a long term funding issue is, you know, even trickles down to your industry and then, you know, you're unsure and you you can't plan year to year. I mean, I think this committee understands that. The purchase and use, I think I heard you say it's really a temporary fix. It's a fix, but it's not a permanent fix. So at some point, this committee is gonna have to look at things like the gas tax, maybe put an inflationary factor on it, and know mileage based user fee, maybe something else. If this committee gets to that point, you can understand that's a pretty hard thing to sell. Would you know your public affair, your group be willing to step up and say, you know what, it's painful, but these are the decisions that need to be made. So devil's owes in the details, but the answer is yes.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: And I would note that in 2015, when was the last time the legislature increased

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: the gas price? Whenever that was. 12/1314.

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: I don't

[Unidentified Committee Member]: know if it's gonna be a waterfront.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: We can't remember. It was

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a long time.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: It's a the proposal and the specifics of proposal matter. So obviously I can't. But the answer is, do we advocate for making hard decisions to create a sustainable system? Absolutely. Absolutely, we do. It's just gonna cost more money in the long run. Now we gotta be smart about it, but the purchase and use proposal, I think is a good way to And you're right, it's not gonna be a solution forever. But right now we're looking at kind of one year at a time, which is really If we can extend that some and get to a place where, I think it's not just the maybe politics that are hard, but implementation's hard. Mean, I I know there's been talk about mileage based user fee and local option tax and those types of proposals. And yes, absolutely, we're open to talking about that. And if makes sense, we would certainly go and advocate for things that make sense. But that also takes time to implement and how you do it depends on how much money you're gonna draw down. Other states have implemented, there are case studies, I think, to some extent, but in other cases, not so much. So it's complicated. But yeah, I

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: mean, we believe that it

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: is in the state's best interest and the industry's best interest to have programs sustainable. State teaching.

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: There was no

[Rep. James "Jim" Casey]: cases. Has Has there been a time that you remember when we were predictable as far as paving goes? Was there a time when there was some consistency there or? Well, I mean,

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: it's fluctuated over, I've been doing this twenty years. And I mean, program is for the last ten years, at least if not longer, has been significantly higher than it was twenty years ago. I mean, when I first started, it was a $60,000,000 program. I think this administration and this legislature have done a really good job of keeping it over a 100 for ten years, which is critical. And costs have gone up and your buying power goes down. That over 110 ago is different than it is now. But I think our concern right now is the projections. I mean, we're going off the same projections that this committee had seen that I think both the administration and your fiscal analysts have brought forward that show, we're not talking about a gradual decline, we're talking about an exponential situation because of a variety of factors, but the revenues just aren't there to support. So how many miles

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: do you think we should be doing? Well,

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: we come in here every year and say,

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: We're

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: out of pocket. If 300 miles a year, would add, we think would be the right level to support the system based on lifetime spans of the treatments that you put down. You gotta have a mix of the types of treatment. Know that the agency has done some explainers on that. If you want to go into it, I'm sure Will can speak to that better than I can. But there's different types of projects you can do. I think the agency does a good job of trying to mix those into any one year's program. So you're trying to get the best bang for your buck. Obviously, there's certain roads that if they get so bad, there's only one kind of treatment you can do and that's the most expensive. That's why there's a case to be made for maintaining it at a lower level more often. So, yeah, I think think 300 miles is the right amount. Is a tough number to hit. And one thing that has been concerning the past couple of years is that that number has been dropping. I mean, I think five years ago, four years ago, we were in the two fifty somewhere in there. And it fell pretty significantly last year. The other thing we advocate for is that, as I said before, the type of project you do can determine how many miles you get out. So we advocate that the agency and state be thoughtful about building that program to try to get as much as you can. And I think they do a good job of that. And it's critical as dollars get tight. Look at where you can get more bang for your buck. Representative Keyser is going to

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: Yeah, this is a question about capacity and the fact that we had shrunk our ability to burden on our ability, well, yeah, our ability to finance paving and or construction. And so the suppliers have shrunk, I would assume, some of that. They may have gone to other states and that type of thing. If we take the same example that happened this year with the transfer of $10,000,000 and the idea is that we're going to transfer 10,000,000 this year, 20,000,000 and up to 50,000,000. And I like the fact that it steps because it allows capacity to build. But do you think in five years with now that would just be an additional $300,000,000 in federal and state dollars, there's capacity within the system to absorb the type of work we're talking about? So I'm gonna let Will answer that because he's the one on

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: the ground doing the work. But what I'll just preface it, Will, if I may, by saying the capacity question gets a lot easier when there's consistency. So if we're doing 148,000,000 this year and then it drops 20% next year, and then you wanna go back up the year after, that's where it gets concerning.

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: So the committee has to be sensitive to that.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: Mean, that's part of that.

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: You don't wanna be a whipsaw. What we wanna do is build slowly or build capacity. And that's where $10,000,000 this year produced $60,000,000 worth of work. And if you get out to five years, you've got $50,000,000 and that same multiplier would convert into $300,000,000 worth of work.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: I think we can handle that if it's predictable. If we know that that's the trend, that's the direction that it's going in, we can ramp up and you can hire. Sorry, go ahead, Will.

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: Yeah, I was

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: gonna say the other element to consider with that too, is just the location. I mean, we're in a business where it is commodity driven and you can only ship the product so far before it just doesn't financially make sense. So I mean, if you were to spread it out, obviously there's roads that need to be paved and you can't necessarily just you know decide which ones need to be paid. You know we're you know all 60,000,000 go to Southwest the Southwest Corner Of Vermont and then the next year that that location doesn't get get anything and it all goes up to the Northwest Corner that that's what that's what can make the inconsistency pretty tough there and you know try to maintain a business right and ultimately when we're looking at putting assets places we're looking much further than just five years, right? So if you said it just, you would need to balance it, I guess, across the state would be the best way of doing it. And yes, there would be the capacity for that.

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: What I hear is the, besides good planning, the increase to $300,000,000 in three years is, or five years rather is not out of the ability of the industry to perform.

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: I do not think that would be a problem.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I had a question around the oil. What point do you get concerned about the price of oil, as opposed to $5 a gallon. We're anticipating to do 145 miles this year. So at what point does that 145 get down to 120 based on oil? Or you really don't care about

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: No, I mean, we care. It's integral part of Well, it's a big

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: part of big part of paving.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: And we obviously wanna be competitive and bring, we wanna do the miles. So if the cost goes up and it's eating up those miles, we don't see that certainly is a good thing. I mean, as you know, the contracts have price adjust, asphalt price adjustment in them for paving. So there's protection, I think, for both the state and the industry there when things are volatile. But I don't know, Will, thoughts on that?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: Just the impact it would have. I mean, certainly that's what we saw coming out of COVID, right? I think a lot of states, even federal funding, we saw a lot of extra funding, but when you looked at the miles paved, it really didn't make much of a difference. But those are all things we don't necessarily have control over as the price of oil, the price of liquid asphalt. We certainly look to be on the conservative side of pricing that into the work that we did. But again, that's what the escalators are for to protect us against that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So we gotta see that up one or the other. It's always gotta make up the next. Oil

[Rep. James "Jim" Casey]: actually is down to $87 a barrel, it was $120 a day. So it's don't get right direction.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: Unpredictable. Unpredictable.

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: Generally, does that

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: just for your guys, you know, information, know, liquid asphalt, it probably makes up about 50% of the cost of a ton of hot mix asphalt. And that is, you know, very tightly tied into the oil market. We haven't seen that, you know, pour into our business quite yet, but assuming yes, oil goes off 150 a barrel, that is going to have a significant impacts on the price of hot mix asphalt across the state.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Ripley White.

[Rep. Candice White]: Thank you. Well, I just want to take advantage of your being here, and this is not entirely on subject, but I'm just wondering about innovation in asphalt mixture. If you have anything to share, and I'm wondering specifically, we have all these used tires all over the place and very little market for used tires. Are you working with used tires in any capacity to put it into asphalt or any other new ways of creating asphalt, maybe to use less oil and more existing or recycled materials?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: So I would say, from an industry perspective, the number one way of kind of reducing your exposure to the oil would The recycled asphalt percentage allowed in in mixes, you know, and I I think that's been a a long industry push to increase wrap percentage or recycled asphalt, to kind of go above that standard 20%. And we have seen a number of states have pushed forward with that. To your specific question about the tires, there are states out there that have worked with liquid asphalt suppliers and put that into the mix as well. You know, recycling tires is not something necessarily that Peckham Industries would do, but there are, like I said, a number of liquid suppliers that as you look at like polymer grades and rubber grades, that certainly would be a home for that.

[Rep. Candice White]: Is the state setting that threshold for how much recycled asphalt can be used in their paving products or is that something done at the federal level?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: That would be driven by the state, yes.

[Rep. Candice White]: Okay. So we have existing legislation capping it at 20%, and you're seeing other states using a higher percentage of recycled asphalt, am I understanding that correctly?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: Correct, yes. I think it depends on the mix. The state of Vermont, they have piloted some higher wrap content mixes, but generally, yes, yeah, all across. I mean, we've done jobs in New York state with up to 40% wrap, a number of projects down towards the city that have allowed for that use. Even more so on the local municipality level too. Mean, certainly, I don't know if we necessarily would want to make a change like that on an Interstate 89, but some of the local roads, think increasing flexibility on some of those would certainly help probably for every ton of wrap percent you hear, ton of wrap you throw in a mix, you probably get 1% of that liquid asphalt back. Like I said, that that will ultimately be the best way to reduce your exposure to liquid asphalt.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So I have a question well related to you sort of mentioned in terms of the ramp up and represent Keyser's question, workforce recruitment, employee retention, employee, please, maybe I missed part of that. I know it's been up and down at different times. Where does sort of your company and the industry stand in terms of hiring and finding workers? Continue to have an incredibly low unemployment rate here in Levant. Any comments to that area ramping up for your spring work? Any concerns in New York or any of your areas, employee areas? Is that a constant battle?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: No, I mean, one of the benefits of the construction industry is it generally is a higher paying industry. So we don't have quite the same exposure. We are generally able to get employees when we do need them. Just you know, peck industries as a whole. Do have a precast concrete manufacturer down in Southwest Vermont and Shasbury as well, which you know at any given time can employ up to 150 to 200 people. That's a little bit more of a manufacturing setting that does continue to be a struggle. But we've adjusted wages and try to do what we can to remedy that situation.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: Other questions? Comments?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: When you talk about the T Bill specifically, and we ramped up a huge amount of paving projects with this $10,000,000 adjustment to leverage $53,000,000 in federal spending. I know we've added our chief engineer for the agency has been in a couple of different times. I don't know if he's had plenty of conversations. The thoughts to look to the year after and the year after that, specifically in paving. Did you have any I don't know where that conversation piece goes. I don't know that all those projects have been fully identified or not. The ones that were sort of accelerated, and where does that leave us there? Are you asking specifically about the projects? Another kind of piece of this acceleration for this year and where it leaves us for next year is a question we still all have in our minds. We spoke to it a little bit.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: And I have that question too, about the answers that you've received. Well, mean, I think that, again, I think that purchase and use transfer is a key piece of that to create that sustainability. I don't know if that's what you're specifically asking I guess I was thinking that is,

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: there hasn't been a commitment to that yet. Understood. Outside of the building at one year maybe, but not the stepped up approach that maybe was in other bills that we've seen. Yeah, and I

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: think it's a big risk. I mean, if we're at 148,000,000 this year and nothing's done next year, that could drop significantly. What, 20%, 15%, I don't

[Unidentified Committee Member]: know what- The projections are about to six, seven, seven, ten.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: Yeah, so, that, I mean, that type of volatility is unworkable to the industry. I mean, that would just, we'd rather have some number in the middle year over year than that type of volatility. Now, having said that, I've been having a lot of conversations around this building with a lot of stakeholders all year, different parties, administration, legislature. One thing that I'm very optimistic about is that everybody I've talked to appears to recognize the problem and believes it's top priority to address the problem. I think the difference is common. What's the best way

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: to do that? Recognize it's more than a one year problem? We've been

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: in this committee for five years saying we gotta have a long term problem here. Absolutely. I think the committee's well aware. You think the rest

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: of the building is aware? That it's more than one year problem?

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: I mean, I've been saying it around the rest of the building too. Yes, I think there's more awareness now than there has been. I do. And as I said, I've been talking to folks on the money committees, been talking to folks in both chambers, both parties, I think there is more of a recognition now that this is an issue. Again, what the best solution is to deal with it, there are different opinions. I've expressed what we think makes sense, but whatever direction we go in, we're gonna be there advocating for a real solution, because that's what we need. That's what the state needs. I mean, this is gonna cost a lot of money if we figure this out now.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Anybody else? Will, have you gotten along with, most importantly, you always gotten along with Representative McCoy's daughter From the meetings, in such a young age.

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: I'm sorry, what was the name? I couldn't

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So hear the Patty McCoy. Patty?

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: You're in Castleton.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: We're from Bulkley. So, We're

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: at the Rutland hospital an hour after my job. Yeah.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: You're not gonna ask your parents.

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: No, I can't recall the name.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: Yeah. I think maybe catechism together if you want to St. Matthew House. Yeah, for a little bit. Yeah.

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: Okay. Yeah. My parents are currently living in, on Lake St. Catherine House.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: Yeah. Yep. Yep. My constituents. Yes. Tell them I said hello.

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: I am also still a Vermont resident, by the way. Oh,

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: are. Where are you?

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: I'm down in Manchester area.

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: Okay. You guys still in the slave business? Your parents are Yes,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: they are. My

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: aunt, uncle and father.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I know them. That's the small world that we live in.

[Will Hadeka (Peckham Industries)]: Yeah, for sure.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Appreciate you coming in and I appreciate the score on the issues that we face. And we are going to check and see where our legislative council is to pick back up on mileage based user fee discussion. So hang around. We're we're going to but hang around. And when you

[Nick Sherman (Leonine Public Affairs), representing the Paving Association of Vermont]: see David, we're