Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Good morning, good afternoon. That's right, good afternoon. Tuesday, March 17, Happy St. Patrick's Day twenty twenty six here in house transportation. And we're adjusting the schedule as our joint fiscal office is not here yet. We're going to the 01:30. Right here at 02:00, we're going to the 01:30. We appreciate the agency setting testimony regarding rail trail, rail banking and federal rules. And this should be some presentation and then perhaps a chance for some Q and A. I want to ask the agency, whether it was Jackie or Michelle, are going to queue us up. And if you'll recall for the committee, there is a bill on our wall that two of our colleagues presented regarding one portion of the rail trail piece that's out there, and one of the Vermont rail trails. And it is a federal bank, and I want to understand what that means. And we can take it from there. But more in general, what is our role in a federal rail bank system?

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Thank you, Chair Walker. And for the record, I'm Jackie Casino with the agency of transportation. I manage the rail trail program. And also give a moment for John Dunleavy, who is able to join us to introduce himself as well. John, if you can hear us.

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: Yes. Can you hear me, folks?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Mhmm.

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: Yes. My name is John Dunleavy. I served as an assistant attorney general from 1980 until 2019. From 1984 until 2019, I was assigned to the agency of transportation. And from 1994 until my retirement, I was the chief of the Transportation Legal Unit. And in that capacity, I participated in the legal proceedings that resulted in rail banking of several of the state owned railroad rights of way. And I'm happy to talk about that. I don't know if you wanna go on with Jackie's presentation at this point.

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Sure, Or Johnny. I was just gonna make a few points, then I'll hand it back over to you because I imagine you might have a number of questions about that process.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Sure.

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Thank you. So my understanding is we're here to brief the committee on the rail banking authorization process, the agency's role as the designated trail sponsor for these trails across the state, management and operations of the trails, inclusive of roles and responsibilities, what the agency is responsible for, what entities outside the agency help with. And then it'll give us a moment also to highlight the role of our management plans that are required to be completed based on our federal funds. So just a reminder, I know I was here earlier in the session, but AOT is the trail sponsor for 145 miles of rail based lines that function as multimodal corridors across the state of Vermont. We're responsible for the maintenance operation, marketing promotion, communications and engagement with trail towns and stakeholders. These are four season trails with a variety of trail users and trail use is diverse and growing, I'm happy to report. These trails, as we touched on earlier, do have a significant economic impact, both to the state of Vermont and in particular to the rural communities that so many of our trails run through. So with that, I wanted to give John a chance to discuss the rail banking process and the agency's role as the trail sponsor, and then just open the floor to questions about that. And then after that component, I have some slides that go into a little bit more about management operations, how we engage with folks outside of AOT and the management plans as well. So John, I'll hand it off to you if that's all right.

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: Okay. Sure. Well, some short background. Since the eighteen eighties, the federal government has regulated railroads. Beginning in 1920, the federal government took over regulation of railroad abandonments. And then in the nineteen eighties, because there were a number of railroad bankruptcies at that time, Congress passed the Federal Rails to Trails Act, which provided a way of authorizing discontinuance of service over rail lines while preserving them as part of the federal rail network for possible future reactivation of railroad service. Vermont was a pioneer in that and was involved in working with the city of Burlington on the Burlington Bike Path in the new North End, which involves a portion of state owned railroad right away. And that case went up to the US Supreme Court and was one of the leading cases establishing the constitutionality of the rail banking process. This particular line that we're talking about today, the Beebe Spur, which is up in Northern Vermont on the East Shore of Lake Memphremagog between Downtown Newport and the Canadian border, was proposed for abandonment in the 1995 by its previous owner, the Canadian Pacific Railway. The state ended up, purchasing the right of way from Canadian Pacific, subject to Canadian Pacific having the right to remove the rails. And the federal interstate commerce commission, which shortly thereafter was replaced by the Federal Surface Transportation Board, authorized rail banking and interim trail use of this corridor. What what this means is that it continues to be regarded as part of the federal rail, the national rail network. And the state of Vermont is designated as the trail sponsor and took over responsibility from Canadian Pacific for ownership of the real estate. So there are a number of camps along this particular line, which runs right next to the lakeshore, And there are a number of leases and private crossings going down to the lake and all of that kind of thing. It's fairly involved from a real estate management standpoint. And so this has basically been the state of affairs for about thirty years. There have also since the state took over ownership, and this is another factor that affects how it's managed, there have been federal aid projects to improve the trail. This money comes from the Federal Highway Administration. And as with most federal grants, has strings attached, and there are various procedures attached to it, which I think Jackie will get into in her presentation. But that's sort of the legal background for it. And, obviously, I can answer any questions that you do have. I don't wanna get into unnecessary detail, but I certainly am prepared to answer questions that you might have now or at a later point.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Thanks

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for your

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: testimony. I think the big question really is if it's rail banked, then the federal government has stipulations associated with this right away. And so do those stipulations limit what we allow and what we don't allow to use the rail trail?

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: Well, first of all, we have to take action that keeps it intact for possible future reactivation of railroad use. In other words, and just as with an active railroad, there are relations with abutting landowners. But the concept of, trail use is that it's interim trail use. The the theory is basically that the public interest in operating the trail will provide funding and interest for for managing the real estate. And that's basically what's happened here for thirty years. It's been, kept open. It's I think most of the actual, restrictions on or on its use arise from the use of the federal highway money to improve the trail. It's has to be in general, under the federal funding from federal highway, motorized vehicles are not permitted on non motorized trails and pedestrian bark walkways, this which is considered. However, there is an exception for snowmobiles during snow conditions where state and local rules permit. We also because of the the Americans with Disabilities Act, have to prevent access by motorized wheelchairs, electric bicycles, and other similar devices that facilitate access by, people who aren't ambulatory. And I think Jackie's prepared to get into that in some more detail.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So allowing snowmobiles well, we have could the state pass a law that says no snowmobiles on that BB Trail?

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: Well, the state certainly can regulate snowmobile use. I think one of the issues we get into, though, is that we have I think there are four state managed rail trails that are rail banked. We have the Limono Valley Rail Trail, the Osiskway Valley Rail Trail, and the the DNH Rail Trail, all of which have been improved with federal funds. And we get into an issue of equal protection and equity. I I think we would have to show some very exceptional circumstances for special restrictions on the BB Spur.

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

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I appreciate you joining us this morning. This afternoon, I keep wishing it was morning as much as we got to do. Appreciate your work on it in the past, and appreciate your time joining us and your flexibility on changing the schedule as the floor is done to us.

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Jack, I guess it's over to you.

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: That's all I had to say. Again, I won't answer questions if you have any, but I think at this point, I'd turn things over to Jackie.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Thank you very much.

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Thanks, John. It'd be great to have you continue to sit in in case things organically pop up. So I just wanted to take a few moments to go through the process for management and operations on these trails. So the next few slides will detail trail management operations, inclusive of roles and responsibilities. I touched base on this my last time in front of this committee, but just to reiterate, our partnerships with the regional planning commissions, the rail trail councils, municipalities, key stakeholders are really critical for the success of these trails. These partnerships are really formalized primarily through the Rail Trail Councils. There's been one established for each of these four trails. And they play a critical role in serving as the conduit for the trail towns, for stakeholders, local trail based businesses, and other groups to the agency. They really provide the opportunity for a voice in the management of these trails in a collaborative and a consistent way across the state. The primary function of these councils are to support management plan implementation, identify and prioritize local projects, engage with trail communities, coordinate volunteers, and to support a variety of educational programs and events that happen across these trails. So you really are our eyes and ears because quite often folks are operating businesses or live locally that are part of these trail councils. And similar to the regional planning commissions, the Rail Trail Councils provide that regional perspective and balance. It's really critical for these statewide assets, ensuring that not one voice or one perspective is overshouting others. So that's the idea behind them. Just, again, a reminder of who's doing what on these trails. AOT is responsible for the maintenance and operations on these trails. That's us. It's not another group. One exception is during the winter for grooming. We're very fortunate to have great partnerships with groups like the Red Flame Agog Trails and VAST across the state who really ensure that the trails are groomed and are open and are accessible during the winter months. My team does not have a groomer, so it's not something that we do. A well managed trail system also needs clear policies and procedures for what can be done, when, and how. So our trail operations focuses on establishing consistent and clear policies and procedures for really everything you can think of soup to nuts, from trail standards and guidelines, from our trail surface material to our branding that's been approved by the chief marketing office for the state. It also looks at allowable uses and use permits, as well as agreements in supporting public and private trail access. So everything from crossing of tree nets to trail heads. So just taking a look statewide, we have four sixty one ongoing property management agreements. We have over 50 on the BB Spur alone. So there's a lot of abutting property owners along all of our trails. And part of what we do is ensure that we're working with them to, A, make sure that they're in compliance with our rules and regulations, also, B, we are responding to them as well. There's 27 trailheads that are maintained across the state, primarily by towns, as well as the rail trail councils. And then finally, again, for those corridor wide activities, whether it's utility agreements or grooming, we have master license agreements. We also deal with encroachments and enforcement issues and in resolving user conflicts. And just to highlight, one of the ways that we do this is through a multi pronged approach, through education and outreach, through making sure our signage and promotional materials are clear, and then we have to engage in enforcement. And so just to take, for example, winter trail etiquette is one thing that we do in terms of partnerships with the various groups that groom the trails. We make sure pre season, we have a sit down with them. We make sure to check-in with them regularly throughout the season and at the end of the season to check-in with them as well. So there's that soft touch that's really important. There's also, if you go to our website, railtrails.vermont.gov, there's more information than you ever really want to consume in one sitting. But one of the things is what's allowed? What can I do on the trail? So we have promotional videos, both for summer use and winter use. So I just wanted to take a moment and show folks this because I feel like it, as long as it plays, it highlights how we operate on the trails. See if we can do this. We just try to be multimodal here. But anyway, there's some good examples on this website that show how a variety of users can safely operate on the trail, in the winter and the summer. Apologies for my lack of technical skills. So again, going back to just thinking about whether it's winter trail etiquette, so we can get going. The promotional materials we hand out, working with key stakeholders, making sure that we're listening when complaints come in. And then if it does get to the point that there's repeat offenders, trail user safety is significantly impacted, or the trail itself, state property is being damaged, then we engage enforcement partners. And that's something we do across all four trails. It's also something that organizations like VAS do during their season as well. So in general, think I we've been very responsive in those situations. I just want to take the last few slides to talk a little bit about our management plan process. Management plans for each of these four trails are required for the agency to complete. It's also just good practice to do so, right? The Memorial Valley Rail Trail was the first trail that we completed a management plan for in 2022. And we are just wrapping up the final three, and we worked on those throughout 2024 and 2025. I just wanted to give you an example of what that looks like and the engagement process for one of our plans, which was for the BB Skir Rail Trail. Here up on this slide, you'll see there's five primary goals for the management plan process. But in a nutshell, what a management plan seeks to do is to garner stakeholder input outside of the Rail Trail Council. The Rail Trail Councils are entities that meet monthly. So this is something that's above and beyond that. Really the idea is to get input on regional priorities as well as any potential projects and issues. And really what it does is it articulates a vision, defines goals for a cohesive trail system. And through this planning process, the public has been able to provide input through online maps, surveys, stakeholder interviews, and public meetings. Just one example for one of our trails is for the BB Spur. There was that public input tool and survey. We had over 400 people for all three of our trails to participate in that survey. We conducted stakeholder interviews. The BB is pretty unique in that is, I like to say, a small cog and a larger hub. There are a variety of trail groups in this area that operate either trails or facilities that connect to the BB or are interested in connecting to this trail. So it really serves as a core or an anchor for this network. We were able to participate in a great event that happens during the summer in Downtown Newport. It's through Wednesdays on the waterfront. I tell you, if you offer free ice cream, you get hundreds of people, in particular children that are very interested to comment on the planning process. It was a great event and we were able to get a number of folks involved in the planning process through that. And then the Rail Trail Council as well for the BV Spur. So there was this engagement component. There's no need to reinvent the wheel. We also looked at a number of planning documents or projects. The city of Newport and other groups have completed in and around this area over the last few years in particular. And so from those two areas, we were able to really have some key takeaways. And what we heard from what these groups were really interested in doing in the next few years is looking at improved connections to existing trails, to Downtown Newport, cross border connectivity to Quebec. There's a rail trail right across the border as well. You can actually take your bike and go right through the border patrol and connect up there. So it's a great opportunity. There's other organizations that the agency is working with to also look at gravel routes around the lake as well. So there's a lot of things happening. We heard loud and clear folks want public lakeshore access, right? People are interested in additional facilities and amenities like signage, benches, repair stations, things like that. Folks are also interested in looking at shoreline restoration opportunities along the lake where some areas have been impacted. Maintenance issues always come up. And then more events. So this in particular, because it's such a short trail, is a really great example of where those events that are drawing in hundreds of people every summer, whether it's through Men for May Dog Trails or Downtown Newport, you might have a family that comes in and the adults are interested in riding their mountain bikes on single track on the InfoMagog Trails, but they need somewhere to take the kids. So here's the BB Spur, right? So that cohesive connectivity for this trail is really important. And that's what we heard a lot about this past summer. Won't go into too many details on this, but for each of our trails, from all of that that we gathered, we develop a vision for each of the trails and the Rail Trail Council helps us with this as well. And then if you're really interested in planning, you can dive into the five primary goals that are associated with this trail. I like to think of them as buckets. And then it's not a plan that sits on the shelf. The idea behind this plan is really a foundational roadmap, both for my program as well as the trail council to really sink their teeth into and take action. So an example of that is this first goal right here to cultivate a distinct trail identity anchored in the lakeside location and many trail connections. You take that a step further, how are we gonna do that? Here's one action step that is supportive of that goal, right? So to support the evolution of the Rail Trail Council to include stakeholders, engage membership, cultivate trail champions and advance initiatives that focus on improved community connections. Each of these strategies has lead roles identified, whether it's the agency, the RPC or the trail council or others, and it gives us a timeframe. The idea is that each rail trail council is working on their version of this in their annual work plan in partnership with the agency. So this is a very structured and clear way for us to be able to hear from folks the areas that the trails run through. So I just want to take a step back and just say, I think for us and the program, the highlights really are the opportunity to engage is through that Rail Trail Council, through the management plans, then of course contacting us directly. Do

[Kenneth "Ken" Wells (Member)]: all those trails have snowmobilers on them in the No. They do. Okay. What was the decision to have the BB Spur go to snowmobiling this past year?

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Yeah, so I think that's an excellent question. So the BB Spur has always been open to snow machines. And the difference is that some of the routes that the local club has been using, the lake has not consistently been freezing over. And so some of the local residents who have bought the Spur have said, instead of us just using that because there is a cross trail that goes across the BB Spur. So their question was, can we take the BB Spur back to our homes when the lake is not frozen over and we're unable to access this area? And that, I think, is just something that's been perhaps a little bit different, given the conditions of the lake, to my understanding.

[Kenneth "Ken" Wells (Member)]: One side of the decision's been made that's locked in for the long run, paternity?

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: It's the statute that these trails are open to skim machines, that all four trails are. And again, Vas can speak more to this. But the vast network is extensive in that county, and this is not a trail that people are really interested in using as a corridor trail. It's not even really a theater trail. It's really open to folks that live on the trail and are wanting to give back to their homes. And if you think about it from a, again, not a vast number, so, but if you think about it from their perspective, I don't know if it's that exciting to ride up and down a four month stretch of trail, but straight and flat when they have such an extensive network. So again, what we've heard both from the Move For May Golf Trails group this winter, as well as the local club, is that things have been going well. They've been making sure to communicate with each other on a regular basis. And the agency has not received any calls or complaints since the snowmobile season has started. So again, so far it's been really working very similar to our other, we have over 140 miles of trails outside of this trail network that are open to VAST and they go through downtowns, right? More Ville, Hardwick, very narrow areas where there's a lot of quote unquote stuff in the right of way, and folks need to slow down and be respectful. And so far that has seemed to be working.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative White.

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

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: can we assume that there have not been issues with snowmobiles and skiers or snowmobiles and snowshoers on four different rail trails that AOT oversees. There have not been issues. Right, correct. Mean, there's not been an issue that's been reported to us. There has not been an issue that in terms of our regular communication with the local clubs and the rail councils, that has now been an issue that has come up. So I think we heard some testimony from another member who proposed a bill to get the BB Spurrow closed to snowmobiles because there was concern about interaction between snowmobiles and skiers, very narrow sections. Can we assume that the users of the trail that are unhappy with the current situation have not gone through the appropriate channels to communicate their concerns or try to come up with a resolution? Yes, would say the agency has not heard directly from any trail users that this is an issue as of this year. I think we heard ahead of the ceremonial season from a select number of budding property owners. So I would say yes to your facing and shooting. And the abutting property owners, you had heard from them prior to the snow season that they were concerned? Yes. Going into this season, heard from them. Once they shared their concerns with you, where could they go from there? Yeah, so I offered to attend local select board and city council meetings. I was now invited. And then I also let them know that the virtual council meets monthly. Happy to have folks attend. There's often other agenda items, but they're open to the public. And then ahead of the grooming season, we met with the Minfor Maygog Trails Group, as well as VAST. And so those are the folks that are grooming the trail, not VAST, but the Minute for Trails group, as well as VAST who's operating on the trail, just to have a conversation about how Minute for May Dog Trails rooms, where they lay ski tracks, concerns they have, opportunities to partner on other trails. And we can go on and on because they work together quite often and share other trail networks as well in this area. And we're doing that at the end of the season as well, to check-in and see how things are going. So if they went through the appropriate channels, do you have tools in your toolbox? If you hear that there are concerns because trails are really narrow or going too fast, Are there bits of signage that they could deploy? You've Yes. Got some solutions in And this trail is marked at 15 miles an hour, which is always an option that a community has if they are concerned about the speed limit for snow machines on state lands elsewhere in the state is 35 miles an hour. But we do have a number of downtowns and villages that opt to request that lower speed limit and work with Bass to do so as well. And so typically, we were to, just like any trail user complaint, whether it's a loose dog or an e bike or a car on the trail, as soon as we hear a complaint, that's something we wanna know the details of. What's going on? Where is it happening? Is this a repeat issue? Is this a one time thing? The more details we can get, the better. And then in a situation like what you're describing, my first response would be to engage the local club. Because they do have safety committee, they do have the opportunity to bring on enforcement during the winter seasons as well. That's something that works statewide for BAS.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Burke?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Yeah, I just want to say, I find this whole thing so exciting, really, that the state maintains these trails, and it's a lot of effort into it. It's a really good thing. I really hope someday to get on the Royal Valley Rail Trail every year, still need do it. But I may have asked you this before, have you ever been on the West River Trail? I have. It's been a while, but yes. The West River Trail is an old rail trail, single gauge railroad, that used to go in from Brattleboro to Jamaica. And there was books written about it called 36 Miles of Trouble, because there were frequent derailments and bridges

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: going down,

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: and picture of the train over the West River. Anyway, but it's just been revived. A group sort of found that it didn't really belong to anybody, the land, they were able to buy the land, create this whole Friends of Western Retrayal, and it's just a really so many people use it for walking and biking and skiing, and part of the, I don't know if there's been any snowmobiles, you know, you're doing that too. Anyways, it's just another sort of thing that happens then that I've heard of. Great. Makes sense.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. We're running out of time with all of our guests for our next presentation. Representative Wells?

[Kenneth "Ken" Wells (Member)]: Woody Page, representative Woody Page from Newport came in and testified as my

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: classmate was attesting to. And I think he

[Kenneth "Ken" Wells (Member)]: had over 100 signatures of various complaints of not wanting machines near their land, not wanting North Country's Nordic team to be pushed off the trail by snowmobiles, etcetera. He probably should contact you.

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Certainly can. So this image right here is the Baby Spur as well. So it is not a seven foot wide path. It's just not. And so far, my understanding is that the Nordic team is able to operate just like Memorial Valley Union is on the LVRT, among other ski clubs are. The Phil Pouech League is in that area as well. The Macphermay Ag Trails Group puts that on as the sponsor of that. So again, so far from what the agency has heard from folks, once the season started, things seem to be functioning as they always have been. I think there's a lot of, understandably, questions, concerns ahead of the season. What is this going to look like? How could these things coexist? And again, sorry about the feedback. Our video is really great and shows how do snow machines and dog sleds interact. How do snow machines and skiers interact on the trail? And so there's space to do that, space to share the trail. It's one of the things that makes these trails so accessible. It's not a private network. It is open to the public.

[Kenneth "Ken" Wells (Member)]: And Vas clears that tripling?

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: The Minverbago Trails clears this trail. They groom this trail, I should say. Excuse me.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Representative Corcoran? Yes, speaking of Representative Page, while he was here, this is for John Dunleavy, there was a letter that he submitted to this committee. And I believe the assistant, coworker, Scott Witted, I think that might just, by the I'm pushing his last name, but you're CC'd on this document that was dated 09/30/1997. You were obviously the assistant back then too, but he highlighted a couple of sections, and it's unfortunate we probably can't put it up on the screen so we know, so you can reference it, but a couple of things that he highlighted in this was motorized vehicles are not permitted anywhere on this trail, and this is regarding the BB Spur rails to trails. Now, just wondering if you could comment on sort of the analysis that was done by your, I don't know it was your boss, coworker at the time stating that, we are allowed to ban motorized vehicles on this trail.

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: Yes. That letter was written in the context of a application for an act two fifty jurisdictional opinion, and the ruling ended up being that there was, no act two fifty jurisdiction. The current law in this area is, both of the federal law says that motorized vehicles are not permitted on pedestrian and bike paths that receive federal highway funding, except there is an exception for snowmobiles in the snowmobile season. And that is also addressed in the current state statute on rail trail use, which is entitled five, section three three four zero eight sub a. So, yes, I am aware of that letter. Might have froze up a little But I've a certain context. It was thirty years ago.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No. Absolutely.

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: There have been changes over over that.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so you feel it's really not relevant to the compensation that is before us, or not before us, but

[John Dunleavy (Retired Assistant Attorney General, AOT Transportation Legal Unit)]: Well, it's part of the history, but I don't think it's the picture as to the current situation.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Okay, you get the last word pretty Have we got a sense of the average length of time that is snow covered?

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: In this area?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah, it'd be the trail. That's what we talked about.

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: That's a great point. Every year is different. Yes.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Oh, it is. So that's certainly a good question. I think

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: we have better coverage in this part of the state than we do say on the DNH Trail, though it was a very good year for the DNH Trail and the local conversation there as well. So I don't, but I'm happy to get back to you on that. I can reach out to the local club and just ask them, and I'll reach It the ski club as

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: may be helpful to understand the inconvenience.

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Right, right. I know that they just recently speaking with the head of the Men for May Dog Trails who grooms that trail, he said we're done for the season. And it's a little

[Michele Boomhower (Agency of Transportation – Director of Policy, Planning & Intermodal Development)]: early, not the game would be happy.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: But I can follow-up on that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: See you next time. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Lalley, for coming in. And Jack, thank you for coming back to the

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And committee

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think now sort of moving to the kind of two twenty piece. We're an hour plus late after Florida. But we are talking about the local options tax pilot program picking up on the piece that we heard in the joint session with the Senate. And I think Logan, I'm not sure if Logan or Ted is gonna take us through setting the stage for what I'm looking for the committee's support on is that what we're gonna see or not see related to the amount of pilot funds that are out there and collected through local option tax split. Maybe we'll talk about it more after we see the information. But we know that 12 towns are going to come on board on local options tax, and the pilot fund is already fully funded. I know that town highways network is not going to be satisfied by our effort that we do to fix the T fund, which everybody has worked on tremendously. That doesn't bring help directly to any of the town highway aid, town structures, or any other activity that goes on within municipalities across the state. So that's what the conversation is about. We're looking to build on, we're used to doing things ourselves, I guess. So we were on that joint session, that joint committee hearing. And now we're looking to get a better understanding on pilot money, local option tax money, and the language that Damian walked us through at the end of last week about potentially doing something in our T bill to help our town highway network. Thank you for joining us in committee. We're happy to have you. You want to Ted, you want to introduce yourself and sort of take us through how does pilot work, how much money there is, all the pieces that you're bringing together, and what we anticipate on these new towns, and all kinds of questions I'm hoping we're going get to.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Sure. Ted Barnett, Joint Fiscal Office. It's good to see you all on your home turf as opposed to a joint committee room. I am going to spend most of my time talking about the various uses out of the pilot special fund and its stated revenue with updated numbers from municipalities that have voted to adopt a local option. With the big caveat. Obviously, these numbers don't include Stowe's changes because those require charter change that go through legislature. So this is just looking at the municipalities that have elected a 1% level option tax on sales or any combination of meals and rooms taxes. And so I'm going to show you information based on what we'll be signing the law in the FY '26 DAA, and then what we're looking at based on what is currently in the governor's recommended budget for fiscal '27, and then our new estimated pilot fund revenue. I'm happy to, if I did give you all a presentation on general pilot and payments municipalities, and there is some information for other presentations on how those are calculated. That's not going to be a part of this presentation, but I'm happy to follow-up with folks who are willing to get into those weeds and understand mechanically how specific towns, what is included in state owned buildings and how that correlates into a specific pilot payment. So within this document, kind of a roadmap of how this works, The fund balance at the beginning of the fiscal year is in line one, and the two columns here kind of in the salmon color, those are going to reflect Table. You're blocking out.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Remember that table AI generated? It's a strange

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Oh, Okay,

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: that part.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's what it says. There we go. It's not. You can't trust the computer.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We can trust that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We know we can trust that. I wouldn't

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: go so far as use the word intelligence, but it's all natural as opposed to artificial.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: How about actual? Yeah, actual. There we are.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So apologies for that. Yep. I will resist the temptation to move my cursor close to the table lest it shows that it's AI generated. Okay, so yes, the two columns that are headed in a salmon color reflect FY '26 information, and then the next two columns to the right are FY '27. Lines two through 10 refer to various appropriations and expenditures from the pilot special fund. It is worth noting that although there are various appropriations within the pilot special fund, the actual amount that is spent for these various line items, appropriations or spending authority, the actual amount that is spent in these different line items are different. So within this fund summary or budget outlook, we break that down. We have information about appropriations and expenditures, and that is contained. Oh man, I almost did it. In lines two through 10. And then finally at the bottom, which is I'm sure the numbers you all are most interested in, are information on estimated revenues in fiscal years '26 and '27. So I am happy to walk through I'll move to going through the line by line, but I already asked the question mark.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Just a quick question.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I'm assuming that I get this, the 1X, that means one time for corporations within that fund, and the ones that don't say that are ongoing. So the reappraisal listing program that's going out until whenever. So that's where I'm just trying to figure out like what's embedded in those numbers. So basically you have what, two, three, four that are embedded into the program and the rest are one times?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes, that's so right. And I can, I'll walk through the slide by line for y'all.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, that was sort of my question. The ones that are sort of fixed and then the ones that the appropriations look at now each year, they're saying, hey, what's in there? Let's apply it somewhere else. So some are fixed. And then I'd be curious, is there a formula for the fixed, like the correctional facilities, or is it a number that's in statute? And then these others, you're going to say are just one timed for this year's budget.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Exactly. Yeah. So that's a good segue. I'll do the line by line and provide color commentary as necessary for each. So starting on line two with the general pilot payment, these are the payments to municipalities for the value of state owned buildings within their jurisdiction. If you remember from the joint hearing on local option taxes, these are based on the insurance value of state owned properties. There's a state owned building inventory. AOA has a contractor. The contractor goes out and assesses a certain percentage of them, and they maintain a master sheet of all of the state owned property buildings within a specific municipality, and they receive payments based on those assessed values, the CLA within a specific municipality, and the town's budget. And there's a calculation that's done by folks in the Division of Property Evaluation and Review of the Department of Texas. And so towns every year in the fall receive a payment for the value of state owned buildings. And so within both the FY 26 PAA and in the FY twenty seven gov rec, that appropriation amount is $12,200,000 We have final information on FY '26. We know those payments have already gone out the door. And so in the second salmon color, it shows that the actual expenditure in that line is $11,350,000 The appropriation is in there for 12.2 to be they wanted to make sure they had enough spending authority. They don't necessarily know when they're constructing the budget how much final payments are going to be because it depends on a number of factors. So they budget that a little conservatively, but we'll note that the actual payments that went out the door were a little lower than the appropriation amount.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So sticking on two, you mentioned the CLA and all that. So if we just took a snapshot to this year of what those payments are, will they be is it exact the same next year or that adjusts a little bit based on CLA? But there's some kind of rate there that sort of says, apply this number and put it in the formula and out came this year, 12.2 and estimated next year, 12.2.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, so they're taking a look at what they anticipate the mechanics of the CLA and the value of state owned properties. So, there are two main factors in that is the collective value of state owned buildings. Over time, the value of those buildings increases, or if the state acquires more buildings, that gets added to the pot. The governor here is that as CLAs are decreasing substantially, as property values go up, pilot payments are multiplied by the CLA. And so what that means is that the pilot payments, there's not a lot of upward pressure. If anything, the CLA is keeping them roughly where they are. So yes, the Department of Taxes and folks within, as part of the budget development process, they're probably doing some work to understand what the pilot payment might be and including an appropriation amount. And having looked at these payments, I don't anticipate them being substantially different going. They might go for

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: most just a little bit, but unless we build something big, large, a new state building. Okay, thank you. The

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: next line is the correctional facilities pilot of $40,000 So this is for folks who have a correctional facility within municipal borders. It's an additional payment. This amount has been the same since the start of the pilot program in the late '90s. And so that number is consistent, and it's within the budget. And there's a way to calculate that additional payment based on the towns that have correctional facilities.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: It's

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: above and beyond what they would have got. So it's like an extra bonus because maybe the municipalities have more costs associated with it.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Exactly. I'm sorry, Ted. That hasn't changed. That 40,000 hasn't changed since

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: when? Since the beginning of The pilot started started in in nineteen ninety

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: ninety seven. 'ninety seven. So it's been Turns out it's a popular year in testimony today. I know. Who knew?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The payment for Newport and Springfield correctional facilities is based on a contract. I won't go into the details of those specific contracts are a bit beyond my knowledge. But yes, since for these two specific correctional facilities that's negotiated with the towns, that's pretty much the extent. And that number is also expected to be consistent and it is in the budget.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So these two towns would get their general pilot adjustment. And then they also get some of that 40,000?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: They do not. They're outside of the correct.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Correctional institutes are divided up. Some get this number three and Newport and Springfield get number four.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Correct. And so in total, there's 192,000 for correctional facilities through the pilot program. The next line is the municipal brand list stabilization program. This is designed to reimburse municipalities for property tax revenue that they lose when properties participate in the FEMA buyout process. This was a million dollar appropriation. Actual expenditures in and this was intended when the appropriation went through. This was intended to carry the program for a few years. In FY '26, the estimated expenditures for that program is approximately $82,000 And then in fiscal year twenty seven, it increases to $200,000 as more properties make it through the buyout process. The telecom valuation project line in item six is two years ago, communications property was to be, it specifies that it would be added to the grand list as real estate. So this line is for a contractor to help PVR establish a schedule of valuation for that communications property and help towns add that property to their ground list. Line seven is something y'all are more familiar with than I am. I'm certainly not in the transportation space, so I will defer to folks who have more knowledge, but it's a one year appropriation for disasters that don't qualify for federal assistance, but you all wanted to provide some money for township for those types of projects. And then the last line is there were per payments. There are per parcel payments to municipalities for maintenance of the grant list and reappraisal costs. So those were previously provided to the general fund, and this shifts it to the pilot special fund. So this is in FY26 BAA and then also carried forward in the GOMREC budget. And so yes, the total uses in FY26, if you add up all the expected expenditures, is about almost $16,700,000 And then for expected expenditures through the FY twenty seven gov rec construct, it's approximately $16,100,000 Comparing that to revenues in line 10, where we put our heads together with the Department of Taxes on this one in FY twenty six, estimating almost $14,900,000 from the current pool of folks with local option taxes. Note that the effective date of the shift in allocation, so before fiscal year twenty six, revenue from local option taxes was allocated 30% to the pilot special fund and effective 10/01/2025, that decreased to 25%. So that's considered here. And so in FY '26, the difference between revenue expenses means that the fund started with 15,000,000 at the top of line one. Expenditures are estimated to be almost 16,700,000.0. And so the balance is, sorry, the fund balance is 15,000,000, expenditures are 16.7, revenue is only 14.8. And so expenses are over revenue. And so there's a difference of approximately $1,800,000 between revenue and expenses. And so the fund balance goes from 15,000,000 to 13,000,000 estimated at the end of FY '26.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: It's not sustainable. That's what you're saying. What

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: if you

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: don't get to do that?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: In FY '27, since there are a number of folks who have or municipalities that have adopted a local option tax, When you add the additional revenue from those municipalities and also grow the sales and meals and use tax base for folks who currently have a local option tax, we're estimating that the revenue from fiscal year twenty to twenty seven would increase from $14,900,000 to almost $16,200,000

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Plus one.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I'm just trying to do the math

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: in my head. So it's like

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: a plus one. If you go on the expenditure, a little over a million bucks. It's a little over a

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: million dollars. Exactly. And so that combined with the fact that the money for non federal disasters is no longer it was a one time spending And so the difference between revenue and expenses is in fiscal year twenty seven right now, we're estimating if all else holds from here, they're almost exactly aligned. It's 40,000 more than expected revenue than expected expenses. And so the fund balance would go from 13.2 to 13.25 estimated, roughly speaking. So the deficit or the difference between revenue and expenses, right? Whereas negative in FY '26, in FY '27, we're expecting that it'd be roughly similar.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Would that be a timeframe that you're saying that all those towns would have come online? That would be the entire amount of those 13 new, potentially 13 new towns? Because they're not all going to get online in the same timeframe. It an estimate of that entire business? They can limit it to five, etcetera. So I guess clarify where that estimate revenue comes from, what makes it up, and what would it

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: look like in 'twenty eight or 'twenty nine potentially. So it is incorporating a bit of a so since if it's effective July 1, the additional local option tax, you're not seeing folks submit returns in August. So, this is all factoring in eleven months of revenue within this estimate. Municipalities would see three disbursements of revenue, so it's a little bit different for them. But yes, as far as I understand, there's not going to be a substantial delay in these local option taxes coming online through the Department of Taxes. That's why the I fastest estimate and we checked in with them.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Of all 13? Of the five. They're not going to limit

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: it to only the five.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Appreciate the investment.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Representative Pouech? Yeah, couple of questions. Trying to understand what are obligated and what aren't necessarily not. The number five muni stabilization, those properties are identified now and there's a timeframe for how long we provide some help for those municipalities, but then there might be other properties that come in. Any idea on whether the payment, I guess it may, the next storm might cause more properties to be purchased out, I guess. So on that number, any thoughts on, is it stable? Could it go way up? Good

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: question.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The 200,000 is more reflective of the current magnitude of properties and the amount we would expect to see in the program. There is a certain time limitation for the payments, and I understand they scale down eventually over time. I don't remember the exact mechanics and how they would come off, but I will note that these numbers, I wouldn't expect them to see them ramp up substantially. I would imagine that the expenses would be roughly similar to that, but it depends on how many properties make it through the buyout process. We didn't assume any additional storm, for example, where we're looking at the properties that are currently in the pipeline who are Is

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: this fund in statute that it will continue forever? Or is it just the $1,000,000 here's how it's going to be spent and it would have to be renewed?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So this fund, as far as I understand it, this money was intended to cover the expenses of the fund for a couple of years, and in which case there would be an evaluation of the properties that are currently in the buyout program, some forecasts of how much revenue would be needed to make those payments. There's not a dedicated revenue source as far as I remember. And so I think this million dollar appropriation was intended to stand up the program and then folks could reevaluate funding needs in a couple of years once we have more data on the number of properties that have actually made it through.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: In line six and seven, there's a set amount of funds put aside, and when those are gone, they're gone. Yes, and the telecom valuation

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: project is $500,000 The Department of Taxes is anticipating spending about $150,000 per year, so three years. And so ending in fiscal year twenty eight, right? And the extra 50,000, they may have additional costs beyond that. But yes, that is a one time. It's related to contractor costs in building this valuation model. So once that's done, it should be done. And then yes, the AOT, non federal disaster physical time Program, limited to fiscal year twenty six.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And over the years, we've built up this surplus. In previous years, have there been other expenses like five, six and seven, now have disappeared? Or are these sort of that we had the program, it's been running since 'ninety seven, And, you know, we figured out what power providing support for the municipalities, which primarily this does. Have there been other, like, one

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: time allocations of the surplus prior to April or five, six and seven? I will note that the pilot special fund payments to municipalities have been prorated from the beginning of the program up until fiscal year 'twenty four. And so there was not enough money in the fund to make full pilot payments. And so folks were not taking money out of the fund with permitted payments. The telecom valuation project, the $500,000 that was in the DAA, is an adjustment of an appropriation they originally received in 2024. It was $150,000 to build up this valuation model. And so that was the first, to my knowledge, use of the pilot special fund that wasn't the items that are traditional in the payment, the general pilot payments to municipalities and correctional facility pilot payments. There was a payment to Montpelier that once pilot payments were fully funded, that payment was discontinued. So up until it was fully funded, the pilot program, which is 2024? It was the first year it was fully funded.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: How did the balance get so big from there to now?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: for a large span of time, the balance stayed pretty much the same. And so only more recently when revenue started to substantially outpace expenditures did the balance grow. I will also note that in the appropriations process, folks were doing estimates on the amount of payments they could make. And they were making estimates of the amount of revenue that they were expecting from local option taxes. And they were likely budgeting conservatively to make sure that they weren't substantially strung down a fairly minimal fund balance.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Thank you. How many

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: we heard, what, 13 towns for this year. Do you know how many added last year, the year before? Or do have a ballpark about what participation has gone up in the last three, four, five? I don't want you to go back to 1997, but can you give me an idea of do we know what the participation has gone up for a town over the last how many years might go off the top of your head? Does anybody?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So I would prefer not to use numbers off the top of my head. I have a general sense. I can provide a committee and I There might be some folks who know the answer to that question as well. Yeah, yes, I'm happy to I have information from the Department of Taxes on the number of town going back from 2017 to 2025, and then I'd have to fill it in for '26. But the number in '26 was five to seven counts.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yep. I understand that. But we are not going to have situation where people that aren't on the witness list get a chance to come in and comment whenever. But we're asking you, so I guess I will say I'm asking you. Would you like to comment from the gallery in terms of if you specifically know the number of towns that have added in the last five years, to limit it to that please.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I do have Josh Hanford, probably the season towns. The substantial increase in the last two years has directly resulted of the change made two years ago that allows local auction tax to be adopted by the voters and not through a charge. First year, there was seven added and this year there was 13 added.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: So thank you very much. So you gotta think when these towns start getting their money for their infrastructure projects and their pieces, that this activity that likely to grow for several years to come, or who knows what. So the projections that you've made for this next year becomes likely to be higher depending on economy and activity, etcetera. But certainly participation interest. I believe we heard in earlier testimony that it was way more than 19 towns and I think we heard 30 some odd towns inquire about information regarding the local option tax. That is a substantial interest beyond what the 19 that put it on their ballot. So I gotta believe that the number of 1.2 or 1,300,000 for this 25% share when we look to continuously increase. The reappraisal listing payments there, that B139, the 3,400,000.0 that's out, how many years is that out there budgeted for or appropriated for? I'm sorry, I missed that.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: How long is that going for? I am going to defer to Chris. But as far as I understand, in the governor's recommended budget, it was a change in session law that would adjust these payments for FY27? I know there are lot of conversations about potentially continuing that change long term.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Not in the law to require to continue it past. Maybe you could comment on how long that

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Christian threat fiscal, this arrangement was first proposed by the governor in his FY twenty seven budget. The house agreed to do this shift of costs beginning in FY twenty six, which ended up making it in the BAA. This was really the first time this had been contemplated. And to be clear, the House of Operations Committee has not finalized its decision making yet on the budget, but my understanding is continuing as the governor proposed is included in their construct. And this cost state, it grows a little bit over time, but it doesn't grow like gangbusters. It's somewhat stable. It's been hovering in like the low 3,000,000,000 range for the last five years or so.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It has to be proposed every year. It's not in a statute that says it's going to be there in 2028 or 2024.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There are proposed language changes that would make this an allowable expenditure out of a pilot fund in statute. And just to remind the committee, the legislature not withstands and changes statute all the time to pay to to change which pocket

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: it takes bills out of. So

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: just because a decision is made at the present time to do something doesn't mean a future legislation.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, I'll reserve my comment on that for real. I appreciate that. Representative White?

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Thank you. I just have two questions to make sure I'm understanding these different payments. So reappraisal and listing payments that Chair Walker was just referring to, those are payments given to towns who are undertaking the reappraisal process in their towns?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes. And it's based, it's per parcel. So there's an 8 and a half dollar. The combination ends up being 9 and a half dollars. But yes, it's based on the number of parcels in each.

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Okay. And our understanding is that some towns have not done a reappraisal in many years. So this is getting everybody Or a plan to get towns up to speed?

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No? But this is just deciding where to pay the cost out of. This cost typically had been out of the general fund. This proposal shifts from the pilot fund, but the towns can't be used for a parcel payment.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Are they a dollar to help

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: with equalization starting at $8.50 to maintain the interest?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah, that's, yep.

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: Okay, thank you. And then the telecoms valuation project, could you talk about that again? Is towns that have telecommunications towers?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There was a bill two years ago to modernize the tax treatment of various communication property, adjusted the universal service, the funding source for the Universal Service Fund. And as a part of that bill, the decision was made to add communications property, which is broadly defined. It could be towers. It could be switching equipment. It could be stuff associated with running telecommunications services more broadly. And so that property was subject to a different tax. And so the decision was made to add that property to the grand list as real estate and recognizing that this would be a substantial lift for municipalities to value that property. It's complex. It's towers. It switches. The Department of Taxes, the bill made money available to have the Division of Property Evaluation and Review contract with someone to build out a valuation model that municipalities could use to understand how much to value a tower at their

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: volumes So it's kind

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: of like a reappraisal process for telecommunications as opposed to the reappraisal listing payments for houses?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's not reappraisal, it's newly Just adding this appraisal. Equipment to the grand list, yes, figuring out how to appraise it in the first place, yep. Okay, thank you.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Representive. As a town reappraisal, they were given money based on,

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I mean,

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: deeds, copies, and all that, that's where that money came from. Is this in addition to that money that comes to the town so they can do reappraisal?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So this, I do not know a huge amount about property valuation. But yes, the reappraisal and listing payments, yes, dollars 8.5 is for a grand list maintenance and $1 is for the equalization study, as Chris said, in terms of how monies receive or how towns receive money to complete reappraisals in the schedule. That's I would have to follow-up with and get more information on that.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I guess I just don't. I think there was already money that automatically comes that allows towns to do that work. Assuming this is above and beyond that because there's so much work, no, never mind.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: This is not additive, this is shifting, which is not additive, the existing statutory payments are being

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: paid out of that budget.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Thank you. It was, we heard in the testimony, previously paid out of general fund, and now it's paid out of a pilot fund. So it's not specifically a new town related expense

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: out of town, generally. Other

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: questions? Is that a piece of tree? We having any other parts in there that were

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: No. I understand that folks were most interested in learning about estimated new revenues from the local options that were just voted on across the state. So, wanted to provide that information for y'all and a look on how that would play out in the pilot special fund and estimated look based on the construct in the governor's recommended budget. So if you all have any additional questions, I'm happy to look into them for you.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But that's the information I have for you. Okay. Thank you.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. We are going to switch over, I think, to Logan. What? I'm sorry, you got a 03:50 lockdown, Is that what it 03:45? I do. Gonna back at 12:15. Well, it was right at that time anyway, over the part of the committee, so we can We're gonna break shortly right after that and come back again at 04:15 if we can. We can't go past 04:30 so we're heading for time. We do have a bunch of time broken off for tomorrow morning. Do want wanna hear I don't know how long you were have for your piece on what happened in ways and means and house appropriations yesterday. So we're I'd like to go there. Logan, if JFO can come up. While he's getting set, Monday in appropriations, the House Ways and Means information was presented to appropriations regarding the purchasing of snacks and the adjustments that are going to be handled in the big bill, but they affect transportation monies. So we need to be aware of need to be everybody in the community needs to be aware of what happened in house appropriations on Monday. It's not finalized, but it was presented. They're headed towards a straw vote on the big bill on Friday, which is why we have the pressure to get our bill out by tomorrow to move that process along. But is money, particularly if you recall the $10,000,000 when Logan's up, he'll walk us all through it, dollars 10,000,000 on the recommended budget that was leveraged for projects, primarily paving, but leveraged from $53,000,000 in projects to get to $63,000,000 more in spending heavily in the paving arena. That was adjusted into a percentage related to the amount of money that the transportation fund sends over to the education fund, and it's going to be reduced when there's some effort to true up the education fund. And now it looks like Logan is ready to take it over. Fun fact, been a little while. You can set the stage better than I probably did there.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office)]: For the record, Logan, we're at the joint school office. It's a good thing Chris is here because he presented this actually in ways of means. So if I mess up anything, he can correct me, but it's fairly straightforward for the most part. Splitting tax photos across the three major funds, as we'll see sort of the proposed construct sort of changes how some of the different revenue streams are allocated between the three major funds, the Ed fund, the general fund, and then the transportation fund. As a reminder, no policy recommendations in here, it's just sort of explaining what is going on right now. So as you all know, the government had a proposal to sort of step down the purchase and use revenue that was going to the Ed Fund by $10,000,000 per year. And then by FY thirty one, it essentially be fully phased. So all purchase and use will be going to the T Fund. Purchase needs to be going to the Ed Fund. As part of that proposal in FY twenty seven, it would essentially have reduced money going into the Ed Fund by $10,000,000 So, there's a proposal to shift $10,000,000 from the general fund into the Ed Fund to sort of make the Ed Fund pull. And then there's the question of what would happen after FY '27, because we had the shifting money that was going into the education fund, into the transportation fund. And so, as you see there in the little chart, sort of the net impact to education fund was an increasing amount, leaving the education fund and then going into the transportation fund. That's sort of how the government proposed to do things. And then within the miscellaneous tax bill, As it is in the bill currently, my understanding is that instead of doing the step down, there'd be a change in the purchase and use allocation to shift approximately $10,000,000 from the education fund to the transportation fund. And we'd be doing that by changing the percentage of money that is allocated from that revenue. So the Ed fund would go from the one third that we know it currently gets down to 27%, And the T fund would increase from the two thirds up to 73%. And that would generate, it's about $9,900,000 but right around 10,000,000 in F-twenty seven additional money for fund decrease for the Ed fund. So then to backfill for the Ed fund, they're changing the meals and rooms allocation by approximately $10,000,000 They do that by increasing the amount of money that the ad fund gets from that revenue stream to 29%, up from 25 and decreasing the amount that goes to the general fund from 69% down to 65%. So this sort of avoids creating a hole at the Ed fund after FY '27, because this is an ongoing shift. So it's the shift to the purchase news, but then there's also the shift in this meals and rooms, which sort of balances out those two funds. The general fund would lose out on the meals and room revenue on an ongoing basis. And the key fund would retain that larger share of the purchase and use on an ongoing basis. And you can see in the bottom chart there, sort of how these shake out in FY '27, the fund is up that 9.9 from the purchase and use, education fund is down 9.9. And then with the meals and room change, the ad fund is up 10.8 and the general fund is down 10.8. So, at the end of the day, ad fund is up slightly, but 900,000 in FY twenty seven, then you can fall that out going up to 31. And I'll questions or Chris has anything to add quickly if I misspoke on any of that?

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Chris, I think Logan did an excellent job covering this. Just to be really clear, because I won't admit that I'm the one that ran these numbers. You know, the instructions we were given was using whole round numbers of percentages, how do you get the closest to $10,000,000 And this is pretty close to net neutral given the size of the tax basis involved for the education fund. Being up $900,000 and a $2,500,000,000 fund is essentially neutral, but this scenario does avoid creating that $21,000,000,000 poll for lack of a better word in the Ed Fund beginning in FY '28, that in the absence of anything else happening to offset the way the Ed Fund works is that gets paid by property taxes. So you can either reduce expenditures or raise some other revenue, but if all else is equal, the Ed fund is very different than the other funds because it's expenditure driven. So property taxes have to be raised to fill the gap between what the expenditures are and what the non property tax revenues generate. This is, I think, a step a little bit closer to the gov req's position than where folks might have been if they were just thinking about doing a one time transfer, because this is a change in revenue policy that although future legislatures could change, by making a change like this you're giving instructions on how to build next year's budget and how the next revenue forecast should look. So there's a little bit more of an assurance than if you just make a one time appropriation in a given year because you don't necessarily know if you're going to have that money available next year. So this was included in the miscellaneous tax bill H. Nine thirty three. Ways and means introduced that. House approves heard it today. They have not voted on it yet. And I've noticed that 9.9 does not equal 10. I would also just like to remind the committee that the '26 BAA allowed the transportation fund to retain $292,000 that it otherwise would have been asked to pay back to the pilot fund for some excess receipts related to the town highway non federal disasters. That's a lot of words to say, I'm not worried about it being 9.9. Like this is a wash in the big picture. There might be some verbiage we can suggest to the T build up, make sure things, belt and suspenders balance out, but this is functional. We didn't say this was $10,000,000 in 2017.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Represent Pouech? So just sort

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: of the bottom line is transportation funds can get purchase and use back over time till it gets it all.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, it would only be at 73. It's a one year commitment. The change is being made to adjust it to 73%. And in the absence of future legislative action, it would stay at 73%.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Until it's to lose their number after this year.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So it doesn't go back down. It's low

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: for seventy one third or two thirds at 73.27, but it's gonna start out when they build the budget next year at 73.27.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That's exactly right. Like it's not an automatic escalator and it's not a one time deal. It is a change in the revenue split that would carry forward until the legislature decides to make another change.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: But House Bill H nine thirty three does not include a provision for an additional change on top of this the next year, it does keep this structure for next year. Correct. Representative Cohen?

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So in order to, like, it's FY 2031, those numbers from the education fund and transfer to us, and then meals and rooms, have to significantly reduce and increase. So we are taking roughly about 6% from the Ed fund, will be now over to the transportation fund this year. But if we don't reduce next year the Ed fund, which will be at 27%, down to say 21%, and increase the transportation fund. We're just going to keep getting 10,000,000 extra a year, not building up to the 50,000,000 until we get to where we want to be, correct? We want like the 50,000,000 more, giving them. But now we're only going to be giving them about 40,000,000 a year? Is that the way I'm supposed to be looking at this?

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, the top of the sort of right side columns there would be what the Ed Fund would retain from purchasing new stacks going forward. You're absolutely right, Representative McCoy. There is not an automatic escalator built into the language to continue to ramp this up in futures. I would also just remind the legislature that even if there was, the legislature next year could change it.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: But, I mean, that's our goal, is to get the 50,000,000 over a five year decline. So next year we would actually look at these and it

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: would be 20,000,000, and then

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: the third year would be 30,000,000, and the fourth year would be 40, And then finally at the 50,000,000 a year of the purchase and use money.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: My understanding is that was the Governor's recommended which is not handled inside the T Bill, it was handled here in the Smithsonian's tax bill. That's the governor, your position is what you're suggesting, it was the governor's recommend, what the House Ways and Means is presented and the House Appropriations Committee is considering. Is not the governor's recommending or represent Keyser's bill. Suggesting an adjustment of '27 70 '3. So we'll no longer talk in terms of one third and two third. We're at least potentially talking '27, 70 We met. To see what you're saying is I think

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: you understood. This is going to be a hard going fight in transportation to get our entire purchase and use tax back to zero, where it should be in transportation, to keep it all. Next year we're going to have to go back and say, well, thank you for continuing, but this year we'd want 20.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Based on my understanding of your position and the governor's recommended position, I would say you have that understood completely. So Representative Pouech and then Representative Wells and

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: then Representative White. Another way to say this, it's a one year band aid, good band aid, one year, and you either have to next year keep going after that or find other avenues for the transportation.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah, I just want to call you. It's not a one time, not a one time, but it's a step. It is a step, and that would be a continuous. We're gonna take that step, we're not going back, we're at that level there, and you're gonna keep going, or you're at least gonna be at that level. We're not coming So it's different than a one time transfer because they're in effect agreeing for it to structurally be there for the next year. But it does not take another step.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: So next year we're gonna fighting for $40,000,000 This year we were like, it's $50,000,000 Next year we're gonna be, it's $40,000,000

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Well, whatever that percentage breaks out.

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: Whatever percentage. Yeah, it's around 40. Okay. Representative Ken Wells?

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'll yield to Representative White.

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: My question is, did the committees discuss the long term, like pass this proposal for 2027, knowing the governors recommended

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah, they did. Everybody's very focused on FY '27 right now. It's very difficult to think

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: about what FY 2018 would look like, because

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: any additional shifts obviously create a general fund pressure and given a state of flux around the education fund, I think there was discussion around whether people were comfortable committing to a policy that would, you know, in the absence of other actions shift significant additional costs on the property taxes at this time, but I think everybody was really looking at FY '27.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And the shift puts it on education, on real inconvenience.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It really puts it on the general fund, by taking

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And then general fund has surplus at this point. For now. For now. This is not something that we, it's not in our committee, it's not something that we're doing. This is an informational piece of what happened in Ways and Means on the miscellaneous tax bill and what happened in appropriations. And we're discussing funding for the transportation, but we're not. It's not in our committee, it's not in our jurisdiction, it's not in our piece. This is informational piece, right? I mean, we can't take any action on it.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And our transportation budget that we're looking at pretty much stays the same.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Except for a 100,100

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: thousand Yeah.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We've got ideas.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: This is what happened yesterday, so that's what I wanted to make sure everybody knew. This is what happened. Again, today, think well, I thought everybody this is what happened yesterday. I knew you missed good stuff on Mondays. You're welcome. Come. I did YouTube it a little bit. So other questions on this or comments? Okay, I appreciate that very much. I guess we are over to Logan. Not Logan, we're done with Logan, over to Damien. My bad. And only for about ten minutes. Then we're going take a break, and then we'll come back after probably about 04:20 to 04:30 for those that are still available. And we will I'm not sure we'll end up saving a lot of votes for tomorrow potentially. I like to have everybody here when we do that for our thumbs ups and thumbs down. So I try to stall on that to a certain degree. What I want you to do right now, if we could queue up to make sure everybody's got and that you have, and if there's any pieces and changes, we are There is a new language being potentially proposed related to speed limits, the grant proposal process, and project cancellation, two things that think the committee felt could have probably used some more work based on what happened last year and the speed limit issues related to all the discussion we've had around regional planning commissions and communities. There is language that I'm trying to make sure that everybody has and push that I would like to see in the T bill related to the pilot fund information that we just had. There is mileage based user fee that we still have to get worked on. Those are the pieces that are there. And there may be some other proposal that comes to markup tomorrow. But I want to make sure before we leave today that at least on those four pieces, that everybody's got information, got the language, and got the opportunity for if we'll have any sort of discussion and move on those tomorrow. So does that hopefully rings a bell? Everybody's got pilot language that we walked through last week? We have the new if you could do it, I'd bring up potentially language that suggested AOT study. Related to speed limits. So that everybody can I believe it's also in your email? The purpose of this language was to address to continue to further conversation on how speed limits are up and are moved. And we think there's other land use activity going on related to speed limits. For discussion of that in the Senate, we need to keep some attention to this scenario. So I don't know if

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: we have that particular experience. We

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: haven't seen the most recent version except in your email. I don't wanna well, I don't don't know know how everybody feels, I generally like to have, we usually have everybody here when we do thumbs up, thumbs down, but I don't know if we can get to that spot. Okay. This is a short one, and Should

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: go quick. It's two pages. For the record, I'm Damian Leonard from the Office of Legislative Counsel. And so what this bill does is it starts by saying, in addition to the ongoing work pursuant to section 15 of last year's T bill, which was the look at getting an inventory of the condition of municipal roads. The agency of transportation and consultation with the league of cities and towns and the Association of Planning and Development Agencies shall continue examining the requirements of 19 VSA three zero nine c, which relates to the cancellation of locally managed projects as set forth in last year's T Bill to evaluate obligations, risks, and benefits imposed by the provisions and to identify potential changes to the provisions to ensure that state and federal transportation funding resources are appropriately administered. So I paraphrase that a bit, but everything that I've just highlighted on the screen here is pulled verbatim from last year's g bills, sort of generally summarizing what it is. And then I've cross referenced back to the section which has more detail on the work that was undertaken last year. And so this is essentially saying continue working on that. Number two is continue evaluating the state town highway aid and municipal grant programs administered by the agency. Again, as set forth in last year's T bill to identify potential efficiencies and improvements related to those programs. So again, just please continue working on those programs. Continue that work you started last year. And then the final piece, and this is new, is examine the provisions in the Vermont statutes related to the procedures for establishing speed limits and identify potential opportunities to simplify and clarify those provisions to assist towns to meet local needs. And you might actually say to assist municipalities to meet local needs. This is a was quickly drafted. So would that change be okay with the committee going from towns to municipalities? K. And then this directs the agency to submit to this committee and your senate counterparts any recommendations for legislative action on or before 01/15/2027. It does not call for another written report at this point. So basically saying, recommend changes to us. You will be getting a report on the inventorying of local road conditions. But otherwise, you've gotten two reports already, this is just saying, please propose some changes.

[Ted Barnett (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Questions?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Patricia McCoy? I'm just

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: wondering on the second page, when you're saying examine the provisions of the Vermont statutes related to the procedures for establishing speed limits and identify potential opportunities to simplify and clarify those provisions. Simplify, clarify or change? Simplify and clarify kind of suggests working with what they've currently got and making it clearer, making it simpler, but does that also involve changing? Do we want to specifically say change? Or is this language doing what we think it should do?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Good question for the committee. So that is, as they say, above my pay grade.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Representative Pat? Yeah. Good question. I mean, I think we've had some discussion anyways, and we had regional planning commission people come in to say, hey, in villages and towns, those downtown areas, we might want to provide municipalities more authority on certain speed limits. And I am reading this as only saying, hey, it's really confusing. What are the rules? Make it really clear. It doesn't say anything about pathways to allow municipalities to change speed limits, lower speed limits, I would assume. Or to anyone else.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yes.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: That end, one of the, I'm wondering if this would cover provisions that might change or provide an alternative to the 11:11 permit for doing some of these things. I'm not sure if the 11:11 permit location is used to

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So 11:11 permit that speed limit.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: I know it's used to do work in the right of way,

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: but I don't know if it covers the

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the speed limit provisions are covered under various areas of law. So you might encounter an 11:11 permit if, for example, you want a speed advisory sign. Something that tells you how fast you're going, if you're speeding, something like that.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Or interventions that would help.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Other signage, work in the right of way, entrances. Like, what am I leaving out, Michelle? If it's okay, Mr. Chair, for me to phone a friend.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's always okay to go not direct. Thank

[Michele Boomhower (Agency of Transportation – Director of Policy, Planning & Intermodal Development)]: you, Mr. Chair. Record, Michelle Pouech, agency of transportation. I think the other framework related to setting speed limits would be the speed study analysis, could potentially involve needing an 11:11 permit if you're going to be taking traffic count information in the right way. Think just to clarify the agency's intent on offering this language, we heard Damian's presentation last week about kind of six different frameworks around the setting of speed limits and sort of how there may be inconsistency in statute about those provisions. And I think this was set up in coordination with Toledo Cities and Towns and speaking with Josh and Jason Masmussen from the R. V. C. E. To put our heads together, taking what we heard from Damien, taking the communications we heard from the committee around wanting to set context sensitive speed limits in a way that makes appropriate sense, but also recognizes the importance of safety in speed limit setting and how do we reconcile all that. I think in putting this language forward, line six and seven here at the bottom of the screen are where we come back with recommendations for action, which is I think what maybe representative Pouech and representative White were trying to get at, then what after you put your heads together? So that's kind of the wrapping up of where we were coming from on this.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I would throw out a suggestion. I don't know if Mollie and City of Town is available tomorrow morning or not. If we want to hear from them, we put them on the we have some time in the morning, we can put them on the schedule to speak to this and to the local option tax. Those that we said that we've had from today, we can do that if they're available. I didn't put them on the list for today, is why I'm reluctant to go there. But we can do that or we can I also appreciate what the agency is saying? I will perhaps be a little more I won't speak for the entire committee. I felt that what we saw in relationship to project cancellation and in relationship to smoothing out the possibility of making grant processes easier for our towns and municipalities was less than what the committee had hoped for, which is why I'm not in intention to put it back into language. Don't think that the agency gave it the level of attention that perhaps we intended. And I'm saying that's why I wanted it back in here. And I don't think we have an answer on speed limits which is what I'm trying to get at. I'm definitely not trying to limit where we should go with it. But I'm definitely if we only have the next day to deal with it, I don't I want a placeholder for the group that takes over at this point next year. I can't fix it and solve it, but I I don't wanna lose it. That's my whole that's my intention. I don't think they've done a particularly strong job in these areas that we've asked them to focus on. That's what I've asked them to work to get it on there. That's my whole intention. If we want to go further or we want to hear some more testimony or we want to change the language, we got about a day left to do it. That But was my intention was to put a placeholder in effect and make them do the work, make sure it gets picked up for this group for the next time. Representative Pouech?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Thank you. Did I hear VLCT and the planning associations had input on this language?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. They are being consulted on on all three of those items.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And I'm happy to bring it back tomorrow if they're available.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It would be just nice to say, wait. Who do they, you know, to do it or not. It's one thing to be consulted. I'm a consultant at home a lot.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: It's not an automatic.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: To help us move our work forward, will go to them right now.

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I think the language put in there sort of satisfies where we're at now. I agree with the sentiment that clearly some of the municipalities are looking to lower speed limits, but I think the language below recommend, make recommendations does that. There's some confusion and clarification needs to happen with what we have as current statute ability. And then once that's sorted out, maybe there needs to be new proposed language and that's all allowing that study.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Do we have a change to make in there, right, there was a language earlier? Already made. And you know what, given that we have markup on things first in the morning, unless, I know we need to go to a break too, unless you, Ms. Lalley, unless you want to say something now or say something tomorrow, otherwise we're gonna, Ms. Burke has her hand up, I'm sorry. President Burke?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Oh, yeah, I'm just sorry. But, you know, we talked a lot about how actually low risk women doesn't necessarily feed you be able. But what it does is other kinds of street design. So I just wonder, you know, add that into your language, because I'm gonna do provisions. So I'm just reading this very quickly, so relating to the procedures for establishing schema, if we could say, it's following speeding problems or something like that. That I

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: would support that too, because it clarifies what our intent is in the absence of not yet having the completed multimodal guidance.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: But it, I think it, don't So just look at the speed that lets insane.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Right, well, don't want us to sort of have multimodal guidance as sort of this nice thing that we have and then it's not

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: that it's usable. I want it

[Patricia McCoy (Member)]: to be as easy to use as

[Jackie Cassino (Agency of Transportation – Rail Trails Program Manager)]: other things that So, we

[Chris Rupe (Joint Fiscal Office)]: and

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: you know, we are the policy committee that is taking the lead on combining transportation with land use. This is not coming from our other committees in this body, that imperative. And I wanna continue that progress because I think, as I've said before, that that is gonna be what makes land use reform and revitalization of our municipalities actually successful and doable. So I think that that's an important provision. So I ask you, Representative Burke, to say what you said then, to just add on to the stage.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Sam on the provisions, clarify, relate to the procedures for establishing the enrollments on data volume. Control of speed or

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Implementing traffic calming measures. Okay. This is

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: what we're gonna do. Representative Lalley, representative Burke, the agency's still here. We can flag Damian down. We have till tomorrow morning. We're gonna work on this all day tomorrow with I think we have our alleged counsel most of the day. The agencies made themselves available and will, I'm sure, continue to. Made it to peace. I would probably extend an invitation to the Leagues of Cities and Towns for a few minutes tomorrow at some point, if they're available. And tomorrow is unless this next meeting we're headed to in the next few minutes changes something, I will let you know that it does or doesn't. But my understanding, we're headed to find out an update. We have to have this done tomorrow before we leave.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: The whole bill?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The whole bill has to be done tomorrow before we leave. Unless I hear differently in the next we hear differently in the next twenty minutes, half hour, I will let you know if we hear differently. But that's currently the plan. Everything that's going to go in the T bill from here, including mileage based user fee, is going be done before the end of the day tomorrow. And I know that everybody's got things they have to go to. So we are adjourned for today, and we will be back for nine tomorrow. Please work with the agency and the alleged counsel. It's got to be an agreed upon language if we're going to make some changes. If he's got a comment on it, if we can't get that, then we'll have anything or we'll have to go up with something we can't agree to. And that is also the case on the local options tax and on the other subjects we got.