Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We are live here on Wednesday, 03/18/2026, a little about a quarter after 01:20 after one. We are still working on markup of our T bill, and we're waiting on legislative counsel. But there are a couple of other subjects that are still sort of outstanding that people may or may not want to bring up. And I guess for right this second, we'll start over here. Representative Corcoran?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, no, a couple ideas. One messed with things that I don't know have brought to my attention with JFO and the chair, but a couple things that, or at least one of the things that the representative from Burlington wanted was a little bit of money directed to drive electric. I think found a path to accommodate that. Last year in our negotiations with the Senate, I think actually money came in during the conference, we borrowed some money from the pilot fund of all things, and under that agreement, we were supposed to pay that back. And so that was accounted for in this year's budget. We were given the word from the powers that be that we don't need to pay them back. So that's money on the table that we don't have to cut anything, don't have to do anything. So it would be my recommendation to take that original payment payback to the pilot fund to be funded for private electric. And I believe we're talking about $290,000 ballpark, somewhere around there. And so that's the first one. And then the second issue I want to bring up is with this Miles Face program, obviously we're going to start accruing Mike starting January to July. And I think we would need Legis Council to or not, join fiscal to give us a ballpark of what that's going to generate. And whatever that number is, I think we should make a statement of where that should be corrected, wherever it may be. But it's very rare that our committee gets to decide before we actually are told before the money goes, this is a little bit unique in the fact that it hasn't been spoken for. So I think my recommendation is looking towards the towns, whatever program or whatever we decide. So those are two issues that I put out there for discussion.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think we heard in the testimony with Drive Electric that there is funding through at least September. At least through the September. And that there was other work that the agency was working in negotiations with Drive Electric. There is, at least I gather from testimony, there's an expectation that Drive Electric has a role within the agency, and that there's an expectation piece there. Those are some of the pieces that

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: I remember about that part.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Burke, did you want to?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Yeah, was just going to say that I think that would be a great thing to do, I mean, and we've given them three twenty five last year. Two ninety sounds great. And I think that they do really important work. And I know the work because

[Candice White (Member)]: I believe the work they're gonna

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: be doing with the agency is sort

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: of separate from what their normal operations do. So that's great that they're going

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: be working with them and they're a very important resource. But they do need that other money to just perform. They are doing advice with people on these or they went to site, it's very comprehensive. Stakeholder meetings, very happy. So I would appreciate that very much, Jim, thank you.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Representative? Yeah, I would support this too, mean, for reasons that Representative Burke said, but I spoke to two different organizations outside of AOT, ACCV, the other one goes with, this is where they get data on electric vehicles. I mean, how much are used, where in the state they are, all of that. And that's important data that is used across the state to encourage EV adoption, which is a goal for the state and whatnot. There are no more incentives and all that, so I think it's, and I've been arguing, improving on EVSE infrastructure and with drive electric on education and whatnot, I certainly would encourage this. We may not need it forever, but we, as we want to continue to encourage adoption, think it's well done. We were told by the agency maybe some NEVI funds could be used for it, but on clarification, they would ask Drive Electric to do other things, not what they're doing now as part of that. So yeah, I think that's a good way to go.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Representative Bob? What's the breakdown of Go ahead. What's the breakdown of that February again? A lot of it's for informational. What's that? Can you refresh my memory? That $290,000 The

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: $292,000 right now that we're I'm sorry, I'll make sure I'm clear on the question. There is an emotion on the table, which we may have to get to, but there was $292,000 on the VAA that the agency could not have to pay back to the pilot fund, courtesy of the house appropriations. There has been discussion of a request for 325,000 or $250,000 for Drive Electric. Potentially, those monies could line up. What Drive Electric does is promote the sale of electric vehicles in Vermont, well as provide the data. Perhaps somebody else could answer it a little bit more extensively than, they've been part of the electric vehicle program for some time. And then last year in the T Bill, we put 225,325 thousand last year to support the work that Drive Electric does. So I'm not sure.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: And that information for everybody Wow. To know

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: about electric vehicles and the benefits. That, of course, not everybody agrees with. But anyway, a certain portion of them, I guess 15% of Vermont.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: More than that, they talked about how they advise car sale companies, and how to put in to transition and how to move forward with putting in chargers at their place, businesses, where chargers are. So they provide a lot of data for a number of people aiming associated with sort of the industry. And we've been giving them the

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: money for years, it's about that much.

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

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: were more substantial when there was an electric vehicle incentives. And I believe there was a group involved in educating salespeople and there was a whole bunch of statewide programs. But that's come to a halt, which is why the money was specifically put in last year for them. So all

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: the other money's gone. This $2.92 is all they get left

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: from all these programs? There's potentially a proposal to give them that money to continue the work that they do. I guess I want to make sure you still have the floor to your question. I'm not telling anybody to answer the question. Guess Representative Burke can try to help answer his question about what else they do.

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: Well, just aside from that, the estimate that the sales tax collected on public charging is $1,000,000 annually. That's something EVs are contributing to the economy. In terms of what driving electric does, it's a lot of stakeholder engagement, public outreach, technical assistance, variety of things that have I mean, I could sign out more specifically.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: You look at their website, you know, there's a section here shopping. So where to buy cars, how to identify a dealer who does a car, you know. So they also steer you to where to do this.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: You know, stop, they should know any. Anybody wants to buy electric car, just walk into a dealership and they'll give you all the pros on that. And that's free because they want to sell you

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: a car. I don't disagree with that. My understanding is that they were involved in a lot of that education piece that was put together to help dealers be able to do that. But I wouldn't say that for certain.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: And nor am I Sounds redundant.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Whether we should or shouldn't do this. I'm trying to make sure that you know what they do or don't do.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: Represent

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: Casey? With the layoffs and stuff going on, don't know, I don't feel very good about taking the money, know, we're laying people off and contributing to prop up an industry that ought stand on its own. I mean, how long are we gonna cobble this industry along? So I just in lieu of the layoffs that we got going on, I don't really feel right. I don't I don't think this is a necessity. I just don't. There's other places for that money to go. That's just my opinion.

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Did hear oh, representative. Is I would have to agree with that. EVs cannot stand on their own. As soon as they don't have all this money to entice them to buy or tax breaks or they don't have to pay I know they're gonna start paying mileage tax, stuff like this. Don't They appear to be able to stand on there all in all. So we're gonna keep carrying them until they get up past their goals, which they're never gonna reach anyway by the original ones. And we're just gonna keep throwing money at it,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: it sounds like. Well, there hasn't been a motion yet, but that is the discussion. I guess, Representative Burke?

[Mollie S. Burke (Member)]: There are no more state incentives here with federal tax incentives. These are making it, We're paying and we're paying the infrastructure fee, happy to do that, contribute to the gas starts. So I would say that we're sort of on our own. It was very helpful to have the incentives to be able to purchase new vehicles, and it also helped to get the very low income people to get into really more efficient or affordable means of transportation. The Mollie S. M. A. T. Program. Were, you know, Drive Electric has gone hand in hand with our incentive programs. It was a state program that we were able use federal money to do that. But then we went to Obama.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Lalley?

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: Yeah. One of the things that convinces me that this is a wise investment in the current climate is we've got a lot of global uncertainty with gas prices going on. There's that. But more importantly, we took a lot of testimony that indicated that there are a great number of EV leases that they are coming due. So these are going be a ton of cars that are going be out there and available to get to people. And those are really affordable options for a lot of people who are very cost burdened right now. And of course, prices being what they are adding to that. So if this can help them get a cheaper ride, I'm all for it. And so there's a clearinghouse that helps people make that transition, which as someone who is herself kind of EV curious, but still on the fence, I think that that could be very helpful for someone contemplating, I need a vehicle, what are my options and why would I even want to think about an EV? Why would that be something that might be good for me and for my family, my household expenses? So to me, it seems that it is providing a really important benefit right now. But I agree with you, not something that maybe hopefully we phase out of this over time and we don't need it indefinitely.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Oh yeah.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You're all set, sorry.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I'm done, I'm good.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Let me make this at least a little bit more process oriented. Is there a motion, or is there an election?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I'm happy to make a motion, but I'm reluctant to do so without a full committee, because I know how

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: she can vote, but I

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: think she should be here for that. I I can make a motion and leave it open so she can come up with an action vote just to move things along. But that's obviously your discretion. Like I said, I want to make clear, this isn't money that we're cutting. This is money that's basically sitting there, and we have know, it's in our discretion of where we should put it. And I just think that this is one avenue that we've heard plenty of testimony about that I feel comfortable. I will say here, I understand the other side. But to move things along, I move that we approve $290,000 from the

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: unspent

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: monies that were supposed to go to the pilot fund in FY twenty six by the of year.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Right, so for the discussion we've been having now, we actually have a motion that we're, are in effect debating to a certain degree, then we'll, if I feel like people have had enough chance to speak, then we'll move it to a vote. I would for my particular piece, I'm very concerned where representative Casey had come on. We heard that the Drive Electric work that was handled for the agency was within a group of 50 to 60 people at IC. And it seemed to me, wouldn't straight out said, but it was inferred that between the work that they have with the agency, between the work they have with other people, other organizations, other groups, that there wasn't a job on the line, that they did not see that as part of their future decision making. And we know that we've been through two, the agency has been through two sets of reduction in force, one in the fall and one again at the first of the year. So I am generally of that mindset. But that is just the direction that I would be leading. And I'm concerned about the view of how that's taken. But I think almost everybody's spoken on that. Anybody else would like to speak on it? I'm not looking to delay it any further or not, I just want to make sure everybody has something to say.

[Candice White (Member)]: Just speaking to the $2.80 something dollars that seems to have

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: 292,000. That's 292,000.

[Candice White (Member)]: Fallen in our lives. We just become aware of. And I just want to point out that pollinator program that supposed to be federally funded and the federal funds were on hold, and I think that was $160,000 And I've been in touch with Jeremy Reed to kind of see where that program is. I don't have an entirely clear answer. It sounds like the practices are continuing in the agency. I'm trying to get confirmation on whether that means that those specific projects tied to the FHWA grant are going forward or not. But that is a program that I certainly have a personal interest in seeing funding for. But I understand that

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: time is of the essence. And we're talking about specifically Drive Electric requests and motion right now. We can move that if you wanted to bring that up in the next spot. But Drive Electric, the proposal before the committee is move language into the bill that would instruct the or is to add to the bill that the $292,000 related to the pilot and the receipts fund be directed towards Drive Electric in this budget. Are hoping that's the motion. That describes it, you're right. Does the agency want to comment on that at all?

[Michele Boomhower (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: The agency supports the governor's recommendation and I have no comment on the availability of any excess receipts fund that may otherwise have been programmed or not by the agency.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay. Anybody else with comments? Otherwise I would like to see if you are in favor of the $292,000 being directed to drive electric, raise your thumb. One, two, three, four, five, six. And those that would be opposed? Is yours up or down or anything of stating? I'm I guess it does.

[Candice White (Member)]: I guess, like, can I abstain?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: No, you're a mess. I feel

[Candice White (Member)]: like we don't have all the I feel like I've better answered questions. I guess if I have to go up or down, I would go up.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Pledge counsel, JFO, you can see in our straw poll that the move, the motion carried, there would be 200, we'll move to direct to include that in our T bill. Okay? Are there other subjects, pieces or not that anybody would like to bring up at this point?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: We're not representative of public. No?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, think not myself. Have some

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: EBSE, some language on both transparency of charging and then a working group to look at it. But we've decided not to try to get it into T Bill, looking for other avenues to move that forward.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: You. Now's your time if you wanna go. If not, that's okay too.

[Kate Lalley (Member)]: This is just on money stuff, right?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I think that we are at a spot where I'm not aware of anything else that we are looking to move, we need to go back to looking at reviewing the language of the entire article if we're not quite there, to start checking off would be our next step.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, or direct because they're gonna need to come up with new number if we decide to expend the potential revenue from the end buffer. Oh, that's

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: the second part of your motion, I'm sorry.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Because if we're never gonna do it, then

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: he needs to get to the point. I thank you for direction. There is a what representative Corcoran now what we're gonna discuss is that representative Corcoran is pointing out that, at least from the perspective, and we'd have to get feedback from the GFO and from the agency on this in spots, is if we're going to if this is build fastest and we do implement a mileage based user fee on the first of the year as expected, there will be revenue generated in this mileage based user fee that is potentially not currently spent in the 2027 budget. It would be from January 1 to June 30. There's some level of money. I don't know what that would be. I've heard estimates from between 300,000 and potentially up to a million, depending on when people file, depending on when they file their report, depending on whether they pay in advance or not, depending on a lot of factors. It may or may not result in any level of money. We don't know what that money would be. It would be purely based on an estimate. We don't know what consumer behavior would be. It's a first of the type program. It's a completely unknown what that number would be. It would be an estimate of some sort, potentially. We don't always have the opportunity to put money in places. This could potentially be an opportunity for us to, as a committee, decide whether we do or don't want to spend or direct some of that spending. My repeat of what my understanding of what you were suggesting earlier. We don't know what the amount of money would be. We'd have to ask for some estimate. I suspect it would be fair to say that it could be as from a couple 100,000, maybe up to short of 1,000,000. We are looking and have looked for, obviously we spent a significant amount of time at my direction on trying to find a way to help Town Highway and Town Highway 80, and we have no idea if that's going to make it or not make it. This might be something that's more direct, that we have a little bit more direct influence on, that we may be able to build some language around a sort of if this happens and what that money would be, we want it directed to a town highway support, which is pretty uncontroversial, think, generally speaking, or non partisan. It could be town structures, could be bridges, could be It'll probably be a formula phase. It's easier. Anyway, if there's comments or discussion or do we wanna leave it alone, that's what's on the table at this point. Representative Casey. That's a great idea. You doing?

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: Put it towards the towns. The towns that have been level funded for how long now? Mean, don't know. Is so nice. I think you should put it right up on Bethel Mountain, on that, right over there. I know exactly where it is.

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

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: to drive it all the time years ago. I don't drive it like you do now, but I used to go back and forth Brandon Northfield on a regular basis. You drive it slow. Put my notes so good. We are not allowed to earmark money to specific projects.

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: I know I'm all here.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I'm just thinking

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: of evaluation. That's why we have this big white book that the agency creates.

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: But I think it's a great idea to put up. I do want to

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: clarify, this would only be through the end of the budget year. This isn't something that would an ongoing

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: No, yeah, it's

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: a time opportunity. Where would

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: it go in the future?

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: The governor's recommended budget would come and tell us how they want to spend it.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It would be

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: money that's going to, yes. Are we out of the rails? Is there any part of this that doesn't fit into something that we can do? Try. It's still got to go through other committees, you can get me wrong.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, just need a number,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: if everybody's comfortable, sort of

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: maybe try to get a number,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: we can tackle this a little bit. Was that a hand I lose a hand up here. Is that a representative Pouech?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I I like what Casey's idea. Since it's one time money, you know, we can't start anything new or whatnot. But I know our towns will take whatever they can, and it's equally distributed among all the towns. If somebody told our town, you know, you got another $30,000, they know what they do in our road program, we call for whatever it might be. So they've got plenty to put it on and I think that's a great idea.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Wasn't sure if the question's going be whether the agency wants to comment now or announce it. I don't know if you want

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: to comment now or not.

[Michele Boomhower (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: No, not quite yet.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: And does anybody else in the committee want to comment? Concerns with doing this? Is there a warning flag popping up to anybody why we shouldn't try?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I'll make a motion. Yeah, well I move to have Joint Fiscal do analysis that they can to give us a ballpark number that we can have for discussion to put towards towns.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Second. Anybody in favor?

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: Aye.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We'll be looking at what language we need to be able to do this. That sounded good luck.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: I think the concern I'm going to express is I'm not sure

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: we could get a number and get language that's going

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: to work on this in the time you have to

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: do before you need to vote, I will have to apologize to say that I guess I shouldn't be mumbling. I don't feel that it's I know that there's I think everybody's aware that we're expected to finish this two bill today, But I don't think that we can go back through an entire get the walkthrough with the changes that we've just made and do a walkthrough of the entire bill today, unless we're going to come back after floor and work into the night. I think at this point they have marching orders for three or four pieces, like that drive electric, this. The language changes on the m buff, like putting the entire proposal together. We still have to prove the things we've asked them

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: to do.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's actually see the entire bill. We need to come back here when you have the pieces together that we just asked earlier, being a Drive Electric and

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: I have drive electric drafted separately, I have all the changes that you asked for the T bill before lunch drafted, and those are matching, posted by now. I have the changes to the AMBAF drafted, and those should be posted so we can go through all of that. The thing we don't have is a projection for the revenues that are going be coming in on AMBAF, which is somewhat dependent on the number of newly registered cubicles, because you won't have mileage reporting periods pending. But that, you know, within that first six months, so it could be a fair looking on the head.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Well, I mean, you still have the opportunity for someone to pay up front.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Pay as go. Pay as

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: you go. I know it's like perhaps you, but unfortunately that's how we operate to see if we need a number to come off. Well, they're not, you know, it's accurate.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Whole thing is our budget's based on best of its estimates.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Do we need to put

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: a number on? Can we not just say, you know, what's collected during this time? We could put an estimate on it, but that can be applied.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Is it one of these things where you have to put up to a certain amount, or does it have to be just the fees that are collected under this program for this period are directed to the town highways?

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: You could draft it to say that up to blank amount collected from the program within this period of time shall be directed to the town highway aid and then make that contingent on sufficient funds being collect, a certain minimum level of funding being collected. The things I would want to hear about to be comfortable with how to draft this are the logistics from the agency side as far as how quickly are they going to have receipts and be able to, you know, administrative costs and other things that are working out in the initial period there, whether there's anything like that we need to figure out, or whether we should set, you know, like some benchmark points where they figure out what their receipts are at that point and start putting that in. But those are sort of the logistics. I can draft language that says up to blank amount from revenues collected are dedicated to this, and that this is contingent on whatever you want to set the contingencies being net positive revenues in excess of whatever it is, etcetera. But I just don't know the logistics on the back half. Contingent funding is doable.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's I feel like I'm not sure whether we'd be giving this its proper testimony and its proper review. We've already gone into a couple of areas like that. Whether it's something we can move on that quickly or not. Whether we've heard the testimony that we need to and whether we've given the agency a chance to review and comment. I'm a little concerned that we're not following our normal procedure, but I'm not saying that should stop us. I'm just sharing that I'm not sure this is moving this quickly on the last minute thing without testimony is a good idea or not. But I sure do believe that the committee is pretty unified on helping towns. You look like you were or were not looking to speak. I'd be interested to hear what the agency had to say.

[Michele Boomhower (Vermont Agency of Transportation)]: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the record, Michelle Gopenhauer from Mon Agency of Transportation. I think the logistics of dispensing, distributing the money through the town highway aid formula program for revenues collected from January 1 to June 30. Obviously there's a little bit of time for closeout that happens at the end of the year. I would expect that by the July, we would know what the number was and we would simply cut those checks based on the formula. So, I don't think it's that high of administrative burden. I also don't think it's that substantial an amount of money in the scheme of things. So, not sure that there's a need to set a specific cap. Other committees may comment on their rights. I'm not sure of all the ins and outs of appropriations in that regard. However, in general, I would say that the agency will not have had time to consider whether we concur with this recommendation or oppose it. I would generally say we'd likely oppose obligating these funds based on the fact that they are outside of the governor's recommendation. But just to speak to some of the logistics that I think you were looking for.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: Okay, this would just say that if you're drafting things so that you're allocating the funds to the next fiscal year, a little less complicated from my end. Again, I can't speak for the agency on their end, but from my end, if you draft it, you can have language that says net revenues collected during that period after fiscal year closeout shall be allocated to Townhattan and public and shall not affect.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: We don't want to affect this year's budget. Yeah, shall not affect that. Certainly all the ballots, such an issue with budget. That certainly makes it easier. I'm not sure that that is worth it not, does it end up being a new budget? Well, it's a new budget,

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: but the problem in our scenario is I'm just going to sweep it because there's generally fully employed language where it gives a secretary discretion to move money around,

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: their shortfalls. But not if it's sickly, that says. Sure, they can go up there.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I mean, we can get testimony on that, but I'm pretty sure he has the authority. Had one

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: of my contacts, so hopefully we

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: can probably say yes. They took

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: the money away by hand.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: Yeah, is general authority for the secretary to make adjustments to address shortfalls in the budget and so forth. It is gathered within the statute, but there's general authority to move money around and to address things like that. It also relates to projects that for whatever reason can't move forward as they were projected to, so that the funds can be allocated to something else. And I can pull that up if the committee wants more information on it, but there's general authority in Title 19 around that.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay, I think there's a couple pieces at this point. We need to make sure that we can move forward on that. And then we should go through the changes that have been made and then be able to say, yes, we're done with making changes. Get us the full and complete mill. We'll come back to it and walk through the whole thing and finish it probably tomorrow morning unless they're insisting we come back after floor or leave floor again. So what I'd like to do, make sure that you made the changes that we already had earlier today. We'll start working on Maybe I'll come back to that. I'm not sure how can we do this or not do this. We'll take a quick break, talk about that, ask some of those questions. Before we take the break, want you to go through the changes that have already been made, I guess. Then I want to get us to a spot where we can have a complete T Bill for everybody to review and then walk through it. We sort of made a motion to go do this or was there a discussion?

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: No, I

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: don't think we can an engineer.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Forget if I did every sentence.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Think somebody else can make

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: a if they want to. Let it marinate a little bit. Maybe just go through this stuff and we can circle back around.

[Legislative Counsel (name not stated)]: Just trying to dig this.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'm not sure whether he can or can't do it this quickly or whether it's a good policy to do this or not. So we're gonna table that till after our break. What I would say right now is that I will make a motion as the chair that language that we had heard previously related to our colleagues from Derby and Newport related to the BB Square, they would like it specifically exempted from snowmobile use. I think that you heard that there was a petition. I think you heard that the local landowners on that trail have been enjoying a have had a real workable scenario for a long time. There's a group that grooms the trail for cross country skiing for the North Country High School, that there's a group of local citizens that would prefer that it not be allowed for snowmobile use. And our Republican colleagues that asked me before it, I would told them that I would certainly make the attempt to put it in the t bill. So I would make a motion to have that piece added to the T Bill. Anybody have any comments or concerns? Representative Pouech?

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I'm reluctant to do that. I think because, you know,

[Chris Keyser (Member)]: rail

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: bank trails are controlled by the federal government to some extent. And we were told that snow machines are allowed and other vehicles are not. And if we were to go down that path and be afraid, we'd have to defend it. And just seems like we don't wanna upset the whole system we have in place. And on all the rest of the trails, they seem to get along with both VAST and users. So that's what would be required here.

[James "Jim" Casey (Member)]: Represent Casey? Down my way, there's rail trail down there. I'm worried about the passage that we'd be sending to the the wrong ears that, you know, when we when we start, we're gonna start open up a can of worms is what I'm kind of worried about. Kinda like what Phil said. So, I definitely not for it. So, sleep the way it is. Representative White?

[Candice White (Member)]: I am in agreement with Representative Pouech and Casey. Based on testimony we've heard yesterday from Jackie Casino that there is mechanism for people who are unhappy with what's going on on the rail trails to reach out to this group or Jackie to go. And it sounds like they have addressed numerous issues over the years in a successful manner. So it sounded like this group had not gone through the appropriate channels to voice their concerns, which I think is important, and that we shouldn't be changing legislation,

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: at

[Candice White (Member)]: least before the proper channels have been gone through. If it comes to loggerheads, maybe we can revisit it. But I don't feel like that has been done. So I would also be reluctant to include it in the bill.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Any more discussion? I think just move the question along. I call the question that was put forward by Chair Carter. All those in favor of the Chair's motion signify by raising their hand.

[Candice White (Member)]: The Chair's motion to put it in.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: To put it in.

[Candice White (Member)]: Okay, all

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: those in favor? All those opposed? Yep.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay, so our alleged counsel has the language of the T bills, the questions we asked for earlier today. Maybe we can walk through those so that we can then be pretty close to a final T bill that we can take our actual full walkthrough through. Good. Are we on track? We need to see the corrections that were made.

[Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, corrections were made.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: Then we a break actually, I'm sorry. 06:06 is coming to the floor.

[Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, it's on the floor, right.

[Matt Walker (Chair)]: All right, then we're adjourned until after six zero