Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: And we're live Tuesday morning, May twelve, twenty twenty six here in House Transportation. One of our regular guests from a time long ago is, the purpose at least the next while is to find out what the Senate has done with our perfectly crafted legislation and find out what kind of crazy twists and turns they've taken. We do have the agency here and the judge counsel and our fiscal analysts to tell us. My understanding is it did pass this morning. So now we will be able to get a final version here at some point and a final review and probably some updated joint fiscal notes. We're And gonna cover all that or as much as we can over the next hour or so in an hour. Welcome Logan, you got first dibs and tell us what's been happening down in the basement.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Thanks. So for the record, Logan Mover at the Joint Fiscal Office. Document should be posted shortly. I'm gonna walk you through the budget on a page first as it sort of came out of the Senate. I don't have an updated fiscal note yet, but I'll do a final version as it sort of went through the the senate. I'll share my screen here. Should be up shortly. I sent it to Gabby for posting. So let's see, there were a number of funny related changes that happened. Are also in this year's T bill or, and things related to transportation, there are a number of things occurring in a couple of different fields. So there's the T bill where some of the stuff resides. There's nine thirty three, the miscellaneous tax bill, which also has one important piece, which I can get to in a second. And then there's the budget, which has a few of the other things. And at various points, they were sort of in the T bill and then in these other bills and taken out and moved around. So, I'll try to touch on all of them. It does get a bit messy. So, if you have questions, let me know. So, this is the budget on a page, which you all have seen most of the things in sort of the B900 secondtion, that's the transportation at the budget, stayed the same. As you'll see here, there is one change that they made, but really it's a few changes, but really the one section. This happened in sections four and five of the T Bill, Senate's version of the T Bill. And this has to do with shifting around some monies within the program development, specifically within the paving and then the state highway bridges section. So, what this is showing here is we'll start on the right under the TIB under state highway bridges. So, as you all remember, you transferred the money from the TIP into the T fund, and then use that for its own highway aid, the Senate count with a different sort of construct. What they did is within state highway bridges, they added $1,750,000 of TIP funding going to those projects, and then in turn reduce the amount of T fund within those projects by 1,750,000,000. And as in spring up 1,750,000 T fund we used elsewhere, You'll see above, they added $1,700,000 of that 1.75 that they freed up into paving, specifically into the district wide leveling. And then they had $50,000 leftover, which we'll scroll down to the bottom into the one time appropriations. You all had a Drive Electric one time appropriation of $192,000 They took that and then added that 50 that we got from there to make it two forty two one time drive electric. So that's sort of the first sort of

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: change they made. Can you remind us, in our bill, when we took the funds out of the TIP, where it went?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: So you all transferred it from the TIP into the TIP fund. You not withstood the TIP language, just put it into the TIP fund, and then did a one time appropriation to Town Highway 8. Right,

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So, they put it into the T fund and put it primarily toward paving and then a little tiny bit toward drive electric.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Correct, yeah. And they did it through essentially swapping out monies within projects in the state highway bridges section.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Is there an advantage of how they, you know, putting the TID fund into the bridges, then pulling a little bit out of the bridges.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I believe their reasoning was they didn't wanna not withstand the tip lanes. Oh, okay. That was that was sort of how they came about this. I don't know from a budgetary standpoint that it makes too much of a difference, but there's a desire to not sort of withstand that language given optics really bonding, which we can get into in a minute. There's some projections on that. And so they came up with this construct instead.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Burke?

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Yeah, didn't quite get when you were talking about the 1.7. What's the, where does the extra 50,000? Go?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: To drive electric? Yeah. Was incredible.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Okay, great.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: So that increased the 192 that you all appropriated up to $2.42.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yep.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: All right, then the other changes, so those are the changes, I guess, that occurred, that are still occurring within the tvild currently. Some of the other changes that happened are happening in the budget. And so under the one time appropriations, the one that stayed the same between the two is relocating the central garage. As you all know, there's that money in the budget that you saw that is still being in there as sort of the state match to relocate the central garage. The Senate budget construct added in $300,000 of general fund going to AOT to public transit agencies for this demand response volunteer coordinators, non emergency medical transits. This was also received funding last year. I think it was $600,000 last year. This year, there's $300,000 general fund for that purpose. Next, this was in the House's budget, this Caledonia County disaster aid, this is a general fund. This was in the House's version of the budget. It was in a different location. The Senate, after sort of talking about it more with the administration, is now appropriating this money to AOT. They will use it. I don't if the specific language is. There's essentially a number of projects in Caledonia County that were denied FEMA aid. This money would go to help fund a portion of those projects that were affected by that disaster.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And that came out of the general fund?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yep. That's also a general fund appropriation.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Then it shows up into transportation.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: It is an appropriation to AOT, so I just marked it here, and then I noted that it was a general fund, it should show up in the other funds, but it is sort of an appropriation rate to the agency. And then lastly, there were some changes made to the pilot special fund, which you all heard about. So the one represented here is a one time appropriation of $3,000,000 coming from the pilot fund. This is going to AOT to do essentially additional town highway aid funding. This is on top of the already $31,000,000 This will be an additional 3,000,000 coming from the pilot fund that would go to the towns. Related to the pilot fund,

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: unless there's questions on just the one time So that came out of the general fund again? So that came out of the pilot fund. Oh, the pilot fund. The pilot special fund. And that is going into town Highway A program? Correct.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: That'll be an additional one time on top of what is already there sort of base funding. 10%.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Represent Bert, let's try to reshare.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: So Town Highway Aid has a fund for a million dollars.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Is there a list somewhere?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: There is a list. It's on the agency's website. If you're curious about specific time, I can give you a rough estimate. It depends on sort of changes in mileage, but you could give a sort of rough guess of how much more that would be.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Yeah, I'm just interested in reporting to my town.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Sure, I can send you that. Representative White?

[Rep. Candice White]: Thank you, Logan. Apologies for coming in a little bit late. I'm just looking at the one time appropriations. So the Drive Electric Vermont, is that $242,000 in addition to what the House proposed? Is that

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: $50,000 above what the House proposed.

[Rep. Candice White]: So it's 50,000 above.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: So we have proposed to

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: $190,000

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

[Rep. Candice White]: Okay. And then Center Garage. Thank you.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I don't recall the pilot fund if it's all made out of

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: a local option

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: tax. It's the payment in lieu of taxes, special fund.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Right. It all comes from the local option tax. Doesn't come from the general fund anymore. We use their own money to send it back to them. We don't actually have general fund money that goes there, right?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's all coming from local often just no more general It all comes from pilot fund.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So there's been a consideration of changing something more accurate. That you're aware of, I'm aware of. Representative Burke?

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Yeah, and we had several different scenarios that were discussed about how to use the access, so in certain percentages, what would this windbreaker be?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yep, so within the budget is where it ended up being, I try to get all this right. So there's a construct within the Senate versions of the budget that would say that essentially three fourths of all sort of excess local auction tax receipts after you sort of pay for your pilot payments and all these other payments. Three fourths of the excess would go into this new special fund that is being created called the local option municipal transportation special fund. And then that money would used, would be appropriated to be used for town highway aid, town highway structures, and then the class two roadway programs. So you essentially have your pilot payments as they exist now, Once those are made and 75% of the excess local option tax revenue goes into this new fund, and then sort of the year after I believe is how it's set up, it is appropriated out to one of these three uses, Town Highway 8, Class IIs and town highway structures?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I have a You're already still asking questions, yeah.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: So if it's split between the 10 Highway 8 and the structures and the roadway?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Class II roadway placement.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Okay, so how does that get off? Because some of

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: those are grant programs, so they're not

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: gonna go equally to all the towns.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I believe currently it is sort of left up to the discretion of the agency of how those will be appropriated each year and what manner. Damon can correct me if I got the wrong. I think he drafted the original language. But my understanding is it's the money in that fund can be used for any one of these three areas, and then it will be put forward in their budget proposal, and then maybe you all have the final decision. But my understanding is it's just up to their discretion.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: I guess we'll see in the language, but is this for one year?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: So this would be ongoing until it's changed by the general assembly. Yeah. And this language is not in the T bill. This is in the budget. So it's not in the bill that you all will be sort of looking at with Damian.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Pouech was up next Representative in the number one

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Burke asked my two questions, which is great. That we can expect this could be ongoing unless it's changing, assuming the budget passes, and that this lump sum, and what was it this year?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: $3,000,000.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: 3,000,000? That is one time. That's one time. Next year, what's the estimate of what it would have been this year if we did it?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I would have to go back and look. Don't remember off the top

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: of my

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: It was in one of my older fiscal notes, probably out of the Senate transportation version, but I don't remember it being much this year. There's potential for it to be greater in the out years, but I would have to go back. I don't know exactly

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: what would have been this year and estimate of what it would be next year. And then once that money is available, let's say next year being passes, then the administration will decide here's some money and then they would decide how to allocate it above and beyond what's allocated automatically now.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Exactly, yeah.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: They would decide which bucket it goes in.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Correct, yeah. And it's written so that any funds that are appropriated this new special fund would sort of be in addition to what is currently within statute. It wouldn't replace any of it. So, it'd be in addition to what is currently statutory required, and it also wouldn't be subject to the inflator that is on those programs. It grows every year by inflation. This money would sort of be separate from all of that.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So you'd still calculate the inflator. Yep. And then here's an extra amount of money. Was going say pile of money. Here's some additional funds that then the administration will say for that particular year oh, let's put 50% in bridges and whatnot.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Okay. So I believe we estimated in fiscal year twenty seven, little less than $145,000 and then about $4.86 in fiscal year twenty eight, 486,000 in fiscal year twenty eight.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So less than half 1,000,000.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Less than half 1,000,000. And that is sort of dependent on, because it comes after sort of the payments out and there's a list of other things. There's expenses related to the grand list and approval assistance, pilot payments, the payments to the prisons and some other things in there that all have to be paid first. So it could fluctuate with that sort of where our estimate is a little less than half 1,000,000 probably.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Okay, thank you. So the Senate made that appraisal part permanent. We did that on a one year basis, so Senate more

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I the appraisal is still one year being appropriate in the budget for only one year, I don't believe it has been sort of permanent at this point, but I would need to double No, check just one wanted or

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: to theoretically that we could speed up 3 plus million if that was above.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Theoretically, if that was not, those payments were not made, yes.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Robin, could you repeat the name of this new proposed fund again?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: The local option municipal transportation special fund.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Local option municipal transportation

[Rep. Candice White]: fund. You said, so the Senate has put this in the budget. The budget, yep. Okay, and that'll be 75% of the excess of the pilot fund.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Local option tax revenue, which goes into the pilot fund. Right. But it is different because the pilot fund has, as you all were shown, it has a balance in it. So we're not touching the balance in the pilot fund. We're only talking about revenue every year that comes in.

[Rep. Candice White]: And it's not clear whether those assessment fees will be a permanent part of the local option taxpilot fund or not?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yes, I believe so. So,

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: pilot funds, payment in both of our taxes. So, my understanding is, in my town, I have Lake St. Catherine State Park, so we get payment in lieu of taxes, they just give us, we think it's worth this amount of money, and then they pay based on what they think, which is the way ended up. So that's pilot. Is that what this pilot money is? Does it come from the general fund?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: No, so this is If

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: it's coming from the local auction tax and you happen to have state lands in your town that you're getting pilot money from, you're literally giving your local options tax percentage to the state, and you're turning around, sticking it in this pilot fund account, and paying you back. You're actually for your own land, estate home land. We're paying for them to I just don't get it. Don't

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: don't

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: get get it. It.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: So,

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: we're funding the pilot program so that they can pay us the money that is due to your municipality if you have state who remains

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: in it. The state does not reimburse the towns for their lands with state general fund money. They do it with money that their state share of local option banks. That's worth collecting. Yes. And if you dig in it further, you'll see the testimony we took that only in the last two years, fiscal prior to this, had they fully paid all of the towns the money they were due. There's also no effort within this building to ever make due all the IOUs that they sent the towns for all those years shortage of the pilot money. But there sure is a big fight over the excess that the towns are sending in now to use for other state projects, because we've already sent it back to them for their lands and now we're going to not send it back to them to help them with their town highways. Yes, you're From my perspective, you're describing it accurately.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: Correct, so we're not sending it back to them. We're holding a percentage so we can say, hey, this is the state. Hey, look here. Every year we're gonna figure out which of these three buckets were to fund and give you some money. It's our money.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Give you back the money that you generated in

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Those pounds, Representative Byrne?

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: So, if have a local option tax in your town, whether you're one or two or 70.5% of that money comes back to the town, right? Yes. It's just the excess money that goes to the state after after they pay all the other organizations to pay, that's what this money is, right?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, wouldn't use the word excess, because it's 1%. You get $75 back in your town, and you know that when you pass your local option, the state's going to keep 25¢ of your dollar.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: And that 25% pays for some things, and then there's leftover money, Yes, so this money is

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: but now, yes, and this has grown. Used to have to use state money to pay a pilot. We no longer do that, we use the local option tax, 25%, to pay for the pilot, And now there's a battle going on over the additional. And 13 towns just will start collecting new money in July and that will increase the amount of, that 25% will grow that the state has. But it's not access because it's agreed up front. The state of the model is keeping 25%. We and the committee tried to send some of that back to down Highway 8, and that was from our committee that did not survive without his house burden. The Senate has taken up that charge not only for future money but also out of the existing surplus to try to start a fund, additional support for town highway and town structure.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: And they took the same process that we did, they paid all the bills and anything above and beyond that. Right.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: And they didn't go after $3,000,000 of the surplus to start the fund. And to look at it annually. But it is amazing that yes, we didn't pay the towns for years, now that we're collecting more money from them and this other place, we're sending it back to them. So the state does not have the burden of state highways, prisons, mean state prisons or forests. They don't have that burden anymore. The towns pay themselves. Yes.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: So you say we're gonna have more money this year. Is this because of the 2% local option tax? Or this is just because more towns are going to 13 set the one

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: towns added a local option stack this year.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: And then when this money, the 25%, is going to be up somehow into one of the three buckets that Logan mentioned, is that money only going to towns who have a local option tax,

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: or is it spread across the two fifty one towns? It would be spread across the town highway network through the way that it is today, or the structures that My understanding of what Logan to Burn goes today is the agency would, based on programming, be able to put it into one of the town buckets, but it has to go into the town bucket, and it would have to be above the statutory minimums. But they would have the flexibility to perhaps put more one year into one area and more one more into another area. But it would be networked, not individual.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: Okay, not individual funds. Because I will say again, my shopping opportunities are in the city of Rutland. So that's where my tax dollar is going to. And then if you're going to, that's my money that's being put into this local option tax because I had nowhere else to shop. And then you're not giving me, affording, 50, maybe to reap some of the rewards that my tax dollars are giving to the city of Rome. So I'm glad to hear that it's going to be cool for the two fifteen tenants.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: As a fellow Vermonter, I'm glad you shop at Rutland instead of at Glen's Falls.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: More often.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So you need all the help you need from me.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: It's a great city, every single pizza.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It's a skip for next year.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, we're at a bit of a lull. I would like to ask for moving back to a little bit different subject, We might ask a little quick. The volunteer money, you estimated it was 600,000 last year? Believe that was 300,000 for this year. Can we get testimony either from yourselves or the listening agency? I'd like to know where we spent that 600,000. How did we spend it? What areas of the state benefited from it? What did they accomplish with that 600,000 and why do we need to give them 300 more? What areas of the state they operate in? What did they do for volunteers? Where did the $600 go? So we can understand why they might. I think addition

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: to Ross, McDonald's could definitely come in and take for that funding.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'd like to understand what we did with that $600 and why we're going to get another 300. That was temporary last year. There's no such thing. Do you remember something about that? So

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: it was the Town Highway A program as it currently exists. Yep. It was the state aid for town highway structures Okay. And then class two roadway programs. Those are all existing That's the one that I read here. Yep.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Okay.

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

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I Think that's We got to the end.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Most of the money stuff at least. I might miss one or two things. I think that's everything. Damien can probably walk you through some of

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: the other language changes and stuff. And that question about what this could mean for some of the town if it were, we get a couple of examples for medium and small and a high mile, whatever the mileage, what that might mean for additional supplement to the town. I'll send it back. Maybe $3,000,000 just a couple of examples to the committee of what that might mean to their, maybe not to their, I don't know if you guys want to hear it from your particular town or you want to hear some

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think I can I'll

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: just do it for all towns based on the information that's on AOT's website and sort of assuming consistent road mileage, could just supply the additional money because it's just formula based. So it'd just be some app to do that.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I mean, I don't think the model has changed very much in any municipality. I

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: don't know.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Two percentage of the month. Roughly just under 10% from what they got last year, Which is a big amount, know, that will help the missed ballots.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Logan, if the money is in the pilot fund, the misnamed pilot fund, if the money is in there and we're gonna put it into town through this local option, does it have to go into another fund to then be transferred into the fund? Can it go there directly by statute? Do we have to create a new fund or just can a transfer? My understanding is that some people tell me that the idea of another special fund is one more fund and one is to argue about money that we're trying to protect, and then seems to be a target. But can the transfers happen without going through a special fund, or does it have to go through a special fund?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I don't know. I'm sure it could happen without the creation of the special fund. I would need to speak with I don't know how easy it would be to administer and whether it'd be easier to first send it to another fund to separate it out to make sure that that amount is being correctly transferred every year. So I don't know which is easiest. I think you could do it either ways, but I guess to answer your question, I don't know the answer to that yet. I can look into it if that is something you want. This is the construct that they came up with. I don't know if that's the only way to do this. If there is a desire to change it, I can ask around and see if it makes sense to do it without a special fund.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Have to have one or not, I'm curious. I can look into it. Or how else to it's just a normal process for something like this, is there another way to do it? We already have an existing program, can you transfer it directly or not? Not sure. And all of that's in the budget? None of these pieces That is all in

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: the budget, yes. The panels.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I don't see money changing hands in the T bill. Is the TIV 1.7 and then the 50,000 additional for driver electric. Yes.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: Rest of that is everything else is our version has gone to Town Highway

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: 8, theirs goes into paving with one extra step, I guess. Going into structures and then it stops it for TPOD and then

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: it just paving with the TPOD. Because that's a

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: technical change, but the policy ending, or not necessarily a technical change, but the money difference is they're putting it into paving, we put it into towns. We, by meaning the Ways and Means Committee, did that. Our Ways and Means Committee. I want make sure the committee understands, but as far as our position and what we might think about this version, they took that additional TIP money and put it into state paving, and we, as the House, took that money to send it to the towns to help them do their budget. So we as a committee, or I guess as a House position, that will be one of the things in the T Bill, whether or we don't agree with the 50,000 more to drive electric, but more significantly, I guess, is that's the fundamental policy or variation to the second house for me, to be able to help towns and make their own city to help state highway, if anything. That's all right? Yeah. So we'll have to figure that out, what we want to do, or what we want to support or not support, assuming we end up in a computer conference. Or we come back with a proposed amendment. Financially, that's really that and the these other issues are all in the budget. The volunteer program money is not in the T bill. None of these other things. The only thing for money, as far as money goes, is that, Where our version So of theirs are that's the only piece for money on our T bill. Then we'll hear from Damien about what language policy, what policy issues we might have. That sound right? Yeah. All right. So if you can help us figure out those other well, we'll get Ross to help us with the $600,000 of volunteers, and we'll get just an idea of what the actual $3,000,000 could do to help the talent. Thank you very much. Good afternoon. Good morning there.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the record, I'm Danny Leonard from the office of legislative council. So I sent over a summary of the bill as passed the senate this morning. Gabby, if you can make me a cohost, I'll go ahead and share that, walk through it. No problem. I do have an unofficial, unofficial version that I keep from my own records of the actual language, which likely matches up to the actual official, unofficial version that comes out of the senate. But if you're okay waiting for the official unofficial version, I'd prefer to just have you use that rather than the one from my notes that I used to make sure there are no mistakes in that version.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So the one that's posted are from your notes, you're saying?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is actually the section by section summary that I prepared for all of the senate members from the various committees that were reporting on the bill. So this matches up to the transportation report as amended by finance and appropriations on the senate side. So a change from your bill right off the bat, section one, they added legislative findings regarding the state of the transportation fund and transportation revenues and then moved the traditional section one, which is the adoption of the transportation program to section two. Otherwise, section two is that section is unchanged. Section three is the annual senate section identifying the amount of money we spent on certain types of projects and the towns that those projects are in. So it's investments in things like park and rides and sidewalks and bike lanes and so forth. Section four is the addition of the 1,700,000 transportation fund to the statewide district leveling. Section five is the transfer of 1,750,000 in TIP funds into the state highway bridge program to replace the 1,750,000 T fund that was taken out. Yes?

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I guess I've I think our paving was around a 100,000,000 in the T bill. So statewide district leveling. But then district leveling is a small, but it's a sub portion of that state. What was it before?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe it was about 9,000,000, but I can confirm that for you.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: I think it's around 7. Alright. So we're yeah. About 15%. Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Give me two seconds. I can tell you. Or someone has their white book handy in front of them.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Left of mine by the Fed bedside. I was reading it last night.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. 7,000,000.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 7,000,000? Okay. So it went from seven to 8.7.

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

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right. Great. And then you'll notice here that section six through 12 are all highlighted as deleted by appropriations or finance. As Logan mentioned, section six, seven, six, seven, eight, nine, and ten are all recreated in some form in the big bill. And then the purchase and use tax provisions in eleven and twelve were removed, and the Senate adopted a version of what passed the House on the purchase and use tax, which brings us to sections

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Oh, you say they passed a version of the are you gonna cover that?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's in the it's in their miscellaneous tax bill, so they pulled it from this bill.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: They keep the little rooms and meet the meals back feet part, or they did that all general? I said it was closed. I thought it would have been part for a while, and then it came back to being closed. I guess I'm

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: not I'm not sure. So I'm saying it's close because I don't know the all the details of it. So I don't know if they passed out identical or not. They did? Okay.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: I think so.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So our understanding is is that it's identical. So

[Rep. Candice White]: But it's now in the miscellaneous

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: tax bill.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's in the miscellaneous tax bill just like what came out

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: of the house.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. I I guess we'll have to.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But out that. I do know that the the dollar amount going to the transportation fund is the same. Yeah. So I did not and I do know that there is a meals and rooms tax adjustment. I just don't know if that percentage is the same.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: It still

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: is a meals and rooms tax adjustment? Yes. The miscellaneous tax bill in the senate?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Has passed the senate. Yeah. Okay. So there's a meals and rooms tax adjustment and a purchase and use tax adjustment. The purchase and use tax matches up to what was in the house, but I was only paying to the paying attention to the t fund this morning when I was looking at that and just don't know if the percentage is one year. Right? No. It's a permanent change.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: But I'm sorry. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't one step. It's only one step of the governor's recommend. Okay.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm gonna change one step, though. Yeah. The

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: yep.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So sections thirteen and fourteen provide initial authority for the issuance of bonds. There's still legislative approval required in each fiscal year. So this is similar to what we did after the two thousand and eight recession. We provided a grant of authority subject to legislative approval for the issuance of bonds. And then each year, on a case by case basis, the legislature would approve the issuance of bonds in a in a specific amount to support eligible projects. Section 14 requires that AOT

[Rep. Southworth (guest, sponsor of abandoned vehicle amendment)]: excuse me. Would

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and this this actually misstates it slightly. It requires AOT to basically provide information on f y 20 transportation program proposals with and without bonding. So they have to identify projects that would be eligible for bonding with a comparison of costs and timelines to do the the projects with bonding and without. So the the idea is essentially, can you do it faster and for the same amount or less with bonding, or is is pay as you go going to be just as effective and or cheaper?

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So it doesn't change the bonding at all. It just sort of says, hey, show us how you could apply bonding to the budget or not.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And it's asking for a review from the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee on an amount that could be prudently issued in TIB bonds. So that'll look at the TIB fund revenues and what sort of debt service that they can support. And the treasurer is also going to do an annual review as part of the net state tax supported debt analysis that they perform. So it's it's basically asking them to come back with information on what are the projects that could be bonded, how do they compare if we bonded them versus if we did them on a pay as you go basis. And then from the CDAC and the treasurer, what's a reasonable amount to bond if we chose to move forward and authorize bonding for these years? And they may say, hypothetically here, that the revenues to the TIP fund can support $20,000,000 in TIP bonds. And then you may find out that either that amount supports an acceleration of work or it doesn't really, and it might actually cost the state more in the long run. So it requires you to come back in the out years and do a full assessment of that before anything happens in terms of bonding.

[Rep. Candice White]: Person one? So it sounds like the treasurer is going to get back to the legislature with some recommendations and it's the same annually. And is that

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's authorized for FY 2028 through 2032. So during that period, they're asking for annual reports back. This is similar to what happens with the capital bill each year When they get ready with the general obligation bonds that are issued for capital projects, they do an assessment of how much debt do we currently have, how much could we prudently issue this year, given the fiscal state of the state and the bond market and so forth? And then they look at that and they decide whether to go forward with issuing those bonds or to trim back or to issue more. Typically, my understanding is that sedax assessment is very conservative in order to protect the financial health of the state. So they tend to recommend issuing less than half of what the state could conceivably support in order to provide a significant buffer in case you have an economic downturn or something. So

[Rep. Candice White]: in terms of timing, so this committee will hear back from the treasurer and maybe see DAC in January or February, because the agency is going to already be working on their budget and

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: probably need

[Rep. Candice White]: to know her bonding information in terms of

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So the agency's requirement is to come so CDAC and the treasurer review this in the fall. So they're directed to do this review in the fall along with their other bondings so that the the budget can be built with that in mind.

[Rep. Candice White]: That that makes perfect sense.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the AOT is coming in and is directed to basically identify projects that could be bonded and then a comparison of costs and timeline if you chose to bond them rather than doing them on a pay as you go basis. But they the original proposal and that's what I didn't update in this line here, them to build parallel transportation programs for the bondable areas. And now they're just being required to identify projects that could be bonded, but they're gonna come in with a normal white book and a separate sort of update on what you could bond if you wanted to.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Megan, Section 13 authorizes issuance of transportation infrastructure bonds.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Subject to legislative approval.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's saying go ahead and say we're going to issue these or we're going to vote on them. What's the difference between that? What is the impact of adding that portion of language versus saying Section 14, go do a study and tell me what the bonding is or is not possible for these projects and what alternatives would be? Is 13 not putting the cart before the horse in terms of whether we even have projects that are available and whether we do or don't want to. Why would we I'm not saying why. We're authorizing the bond, but we haven't even gotten the projects of what might or might not be eligible. Are we taking a step before we have the information?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think so because of the subject to legislative approval language. The language the request in the Senate side was to base this on what we did following the two thousand and eight recession. So the language essentially mirrors what we did then. We established the TIB program and authorized the bonds subject to legislative approval in each year. You could just as easily say the legislature will, you know, will examine the potential to bond some transportation projects in fiscal years 2028 through 2032. And pursuant to that, would, you know, ask and the treasurer to perform their analysis and report back each year. You could just as easily do that. It would accomplish the same thing. I don't I don't think you need to use the authorizes language. It just happened to be the request was mirror what we did following the two thousand and eight recession, and so this language mirrors what we did then.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Are you telling us the Senate version is telling us we're going be coming out of a recession or a recession?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, it just was looking back at a time when we did this before.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's the last time we were that short on transportation bonds?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Was an instance when there was a lot of money coming into the state because of the ARRA, I believe it was at the time. There was a lot of money coming into the state. We had a large backlog in bridge projects and a number of bridges that were structurally in need of maintenance or replacement or repair. And so at the time, the bonds were looked at as a way to accelerate that process, particularly in light of the additional funds coming in. My understanding is that the debt was paid off several years ago. So instead of being a thirty year debt, they've actually paid it off significantly faster. But it was a few years of bonding, then the state moved away from the bonding and went to a pay as you go basis because we caught up on the bridge projects. Well,

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: appreciate you mentioning that because when I first got on the committee who sat at the other end, we heard substantial testimony about how tremendous it is that we had paid off the bonds and we didn't have an expense of carrying debt. That, I didn't pay attention a lot, but I remember that pretty I remember pretty clearly that was celebrated as a success, right from the secretary's testimony all the way through. I don't know that you were here at that same exact time. You were in the building.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was. You were in the building. Was downstairs.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Sitting in a different spot, too. But I remember that being pretty highlight and central to the opening remarks and whatnot. So I guess I'm hung up on this authorizing the issuance of transportation infrastructure bonds, given where I started the committee that we were relieved to get out from under them.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So I think from a drafting standpoint, you could change that language and get to the same effect if this is something the house supports. If it's not something the house supports, then you could also move to remove this language from the final version. 150.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Was asked to. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know in the in the senate, there were some different opinions expressed on the bonding issue. But as they say, you know, that's that's policy issue for all of you.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So We're saying we're gonna look at what we can we wanna look at potentially adding bonding into our strategies moving forward from '28 to even we really more specifically in section 14 want actual named projects and work that we could actually do. Is that what this is telling me? Yes. 13 is sort of a bigger structural Bigger structural Does any of it talk about, or does it make it clear or possible that that's about spending potentially far more than we do today overall? That we'd be making the investment perhaps sooner in order to pay it off longer? Are you talking about increasing the amount of transportation construction activity? Is that what you're trying to signal? Yeah, think that's what the signal is.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: But my concern too is, you know, we originally did this, sort of the leftover of money had to be paid off the bonding debt, pay as you go money was quite substantial. I think when we did this, it was 18 to $19,000,000 that that assessment was bringing in. And now if you look at what it's bringing in, it's probably about, I don't have the number, but it's a lot less, 13,000,000, know, to fund revenue. That money is not there to sort of do what we did when we originally thought about this idea, we had, like I said, a chunk of money, pay as you go. Now that chunk of money's not there. Now you're just paying off the bond, money to move, and that is going to keep

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: on going down and down.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: That private trader would say the same thing, I just don't think it's probably a wise idea to

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: go

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: out, know, buying, you just look

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: at the numbers. That have the tip?

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Whatever, but I know the tip money's way down from what it originally was, I want to say it's like $13,000,000 now, so. State of the drastic Here we go. There's an LST fund. Anyways, I probably started looking up before I state that.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So,

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yeah, there the I think there was an opinion expressed in the Senate Transportation Committee that this may help the state accelerate or catch up on some of the infrastructure needs before construction prices rise. There were also concerns raised about the cost of debt service and risks if the economy goes down and questions about how much the TIP fund can support. To be clear on the language here, I've I've pulled up the underlying language. So the the language says that the state treasurer is authorized to issue TIB our transportation infrastructure bonds in an amount approved by the general assembly. So, basically, that amount could be zero, but it has to be approved each year. It then says that the CEDAC shall annually report on or before September 30 of the preceding fiscal year an estimate of the maximum amount of bonds that prudently may be authorized, and the treasurer in consultation with the CEDAC shall review annually any requested issuance of bonds as part of the net state tax supported debt analysis provided to the governor and general assembly. So that's that's section 13. Section 14 provides that AOT shall prepare both a proposal that includes the use of bond proceeds and then a proposal that does not include them, and then submit a written report or report that basically identifies projects. And I believe that so they're they're basically going to look at this and then report back on the projects with an analysis comparing the present value of the costs for the projects if you either bond them or do them on a pay as you go basis and a comparison of the schedule. So that's that's what's there. The underlying language does include the two proposals. So and then that comparison of how they would work. So the with that language regarding the So the language here that says the state treasurer is authorized to issue in an amount approved by the general assembly, that could very easily be changed to something else to say that the general assembly will consider authorizing or intends to consider authorizing the issuance or could just be struck and ask CDAC and the treasurer to come back with their analysis of what's prudent. So I think in all those instances, if your intent is to examine bonding, you get to the same place.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Just to look at the tin bond at 16.3, but that is down for weavers. Other

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: questions on the bonds? Alright. So sections 15 to 23 get us into the mileage based user fee. 15 was findings and intent that they added in the senate side. 16 is the bulk of the mileage based user fee. The highlights here are, as it passed the house, the only option for payment was this annual payment at the end of the mileage reporting period. As your remember, though, this committee's version included the estimated payments or a pay as you go option. And then the fourth option that the Senate added is a flat fee of $178 per year. To correspond with that, they also capped all of the the maximum mileage based user fee at a $178 a year, which works out to about 12,700 miles of driving. So for folks who drive more than that, you would be paying a 178. That's it. Gotcha.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Dom, I wish I could remember. Can you remember last year, we had those couple of payment options. What happened to it?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Ways and means stripped out everything but the annual payment.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Yeah. So

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: yeah. Yeah. So in the in the ways and means amendment to the mileage based user fee

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Perhaps if it hadn't happened in less than twenty four hours with 17 pages and no witnesses, you'd be more familiar with what That was just stating a fact. Was no, not meant to be any interpretation. I'm saying it was 17 pages, it was less than twenty four hours, and there were no witnesses.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So it's hard to keep up with that, is what I, there's no judgment. So this goes back to exactly how it left here.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Plus the option of a flat fee. Yes. Right. Yep. So it goes back to that plus the option of a flat fee and a cap max cap on any of the options. All of the options cannot go over a $178 a year.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So in other words, you if you choose, you could just pay the flat fee and not get your car inspected.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Say that again?

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: There you Oh, no. You can't because you you can't get your car reregistered if that's still So there

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what it provides is that the owner or lessee who does not get an inspection or submit an odometer reading will pay the $178 flat fee. However, if you get an inspection or an odometer reading within ninety days, you would receive a credit for any overpayment that would be applied to your next fee. So there is an encouragement there. Yeah. And it it's worth noting that this is for the first two years, 2027 and '28, and then the flat fee goes away in '29 under the senate construct. And that default rate goes up to $375. So the incentive gets a lot larger to get your inspection done. Yeah. Yeah. $375 works out to 20 over 22,026 thousand. Yeah.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So And now in two years, though, the flat fee doesn't go away?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The flat fee that was an oversight in the draft, yes, the flat fee is in there, but in two years, so that is an inconsistency in the draft that was an oversight, which Patrick pointed out to me. So but yes. So that's something that if you keep the Senate construct, you may want to address that It's on or before 2020 still

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: in there. Is.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You have it wouldn't take effect till 01/01/2029. So you could either address it in conference or, you know, an amendment sent back to the senate, or you can address it next year.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: And in this bill, there are no inflationary pieces in it.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No inflationary adjustment. We want you

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: to raise the fees. It would be have to be done by the legislature.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The Senate Transportation Committee's original proposal included an inflationary adjustment after 2031, but that did not survive Senate Finance. So the forty three zero five, again, just like your bill permits the commissioner to suspend or refuse to renew the registration if an individual has not paid their fee or filed a required report. And then otherwise, it it essentially mirrors what you had in the in the house. The section 17 updates the EV infrastructure fee to just the infrastructure fee just like it was in the house. Section 18 is an updated transition. So currently registered EVs would transfer into the program with their first annual inspection following 01/01/2027. There would be two options, either the annual payment or the flat rate payment of a $178. For new registrations or registration renewals in 2027 and 2028, your owners or lessees will pay a road usage charge of $89 for a one year registration or a 178 year dollars for a two year registration, that is credited against the actual fee due at the end of the reporting period, or you can just do the flat fee. So you have those options. And then if you got your registration renewed before 2027, the EV infrastructure fee that you've paid gets applied to that initial mileage based user fee. So everyone will be getting a credit for the infrastructure fee they've already paid going into the the first mileage reporting period. And then from there on out, if you have carry forward credit, you can apply that carrying forward, but otherwise, you'll just be paying your paying your mileage based user fee. You know? So, for example, if I chose the annual payment, I did a two year registration, and my annual amount due was only $80. If I've paid the $178, then I would have a balance of $98 that would carry forward to the next year. So it's it's pretty straightforward math. Section 19 requires oh.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Can I just ask when you through this whole process, if at the end, you know, you have credit that based on your actual mileage, and then that day you sell your car, would you get that credit back in the form of, I guess, check?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is provision for a refund if you're on termination of your registration, and that was actually in the house version and stayed in the senate version.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Okay. And termination of your registration could be you don't reregister or you sell your car. Yep.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or you move out of state.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Alright. Okay. Yeah.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, it could be any number of reasons.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Burke?

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: You have answered this, but I need to understand if you pay your say your inspection is due or your registration is due in November or something like that or, let's say, September, and you pay the the infrastructure fee for that. And then in 2027, you have to what happens then? Then you have to the next time you get your car inspected, you get the model, you have to check the mileage. How does that work?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: And then you can elect it for the pay that with respect to your fleet, but if it's not a year, if you haven't gotten a full year out of your registration.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So you're what's happening is that your whenever you renew your registration next as an EV owner, you're going to pay either the existing EV infrastructure fee or the temp interim road usage charge that comes in with this transition to the mileage based user fee. That will then be applied to your first mileage reporting period. So it's just to get money coming into the system and to do it in a way that everyone is familiar with. So if you own an EV now, you're already paying this at registration, and you're gonna the amount is gonna be the same. You'll have the option of, I want to do a one year registration, so it'll be 89 plus the $89 fee, or I'm going to do a two year registration where it's $178 fee on top of the $163 registration fee. And that becomes your option at that point. It'll look the same to you. The difference is on your second inspection after so not your 2027 inspection, but your 2028 inspection. At that point, they'll assess a mileage based user fee and apply that amount that you paid at registration towards that usage mileage based user fee. And then you'll get an invoice. If you've done a two year registration, your invoice is going to say you have a balance due of zero, and you may actually have a credit applied to your next mileage based user fee. If you did a one year registration, there's a chance that you have a balance due that you have to pay before your next registration.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Would you then be able to pay would you then still be able to pay elect the flat fee or will

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: you have to pay the gross amount?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You can elect the flat fee, yep. So that was something that was important to the Senate. So they have included the flat fee for folks who are concerned about the complication or not sure how the program will work. Yeah. So that the flat fee option is always there. The cap, like I said, goes away in in 2029. And then at that point, the default fee goes up and so forth as more people come into the program. But it's essentially a staged introduction to the program where there are some simpler options. At the end of the day, even for a hybrid that's getting a fuel tax credit, you're talking about two very simple calculations that go into determining the actual amount due. So and it's all done by DMV in house. It's not like filing your income taxes where you have to do the math yourself at home or, you know, by Get TurboTax software or something like that. So it's two straightforward calculations, which you should be able to see on your invoice and be able to check them to ensure that they're accurate.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Thank you.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 19 requires outreach, education, and communications, including feedback gathering. This is required under the grant from the federal government, And it's something that the Senate wanted to reiterate here, including getting user experience feedback so that they can develop and improve the interface with and communications with users as the program expands. So section 20 is a transition report, and it requires a plan to transition and expand the mileage based user fee to hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles beginning in 2029 and all light duty vehicles by 2031. Really important note here, the senate language going on only expands to hybrids in 2029. It leaves out the internal combustion engine vehicles. So a future legislature will have to decide if Vermont is going to move forward with that or not. So there, you will have a plan, but the legislature will have the opportunity to say, thank you for the plan, but we'd like to delay implementation and rollout, or we'd like to limit it to hybrids for now. So that's an important piece here. The plan has to include additional options for tracking mileage, including an option to track out of state miles. And there are three different report dates. The first is January 31 year. The second is 07/30/2028, which is a draft implementation plan. And the implementation plan is something they're required to provide to the federal government as part of their grant. And then September 15 is a final version of the federal plan. As I mentioned, the expansion is to just hybrids, and that's section 21. It expands to include plug in and mild hybrids. And then section 22 creates a fuel tax credit that will reduce the amount of the mBUF by the estimated gas tax paid during the mileage reporting period. It also eliminates the $178 cap on the mBUF. And then section 23 increases the default rate. So if you fail to get an inspection and they can't determine your mileage, your default rate now becomes $375 instead of a 178.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: What does it do to the ACCD program? Does that go away?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. EV infrastructure fee, one of the things that

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: because it was still alive with the hybrid, and now with hybrid off the table.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. One of the things that's not addressed in this amendment is that infrastructure fee for hybrids, but likely you would wanna repeal that because at this point, by 2029, they would now be getting essentially it's not really double taxed, but they would be paying more than other users if you left the or the infrastructure fee in place.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Sure, there'll be tons So of questions here. Like, well, Reverend White.

[Rep. Candice White]: Jamie, I'm just pointing out that when we were looking at the program to expand to hybrid vehicles, it says hybrid and other fuel efficient vehicles.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Plan says This is

[Rep. Candice White]: a broader category than just hybrid.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So I mentioned a minute ago, the plan calls for expanding to hybrid and fuel efficient. The actual expansion that the senate passed only expands to hybrids. So if you have an internal combustion engine car that gets above 25 miles per gallon, which is what they defined as fuel efficient, you're incorporated into the plan, but not actually covered by the program unless the legislature makes an amendment before 2029.

[Rep. Candice White]: So maybe I'm looking at a slightly different document.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if you're looking at section 20 Yes. The plan does say other fuel efficient vehicles. However and in the construct that came out of Senate Transportation, section 21 expanded to hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles. The final version that made it through Senate Finance limited that expansion to hybrids. Okay. So even though section 20 explicitly says other fuel efficient vehicles, when we dig into the details, we're just on. So next January, what it basically asks for is for transportation to come in with a plan for how they would do it if they were expanding to hybrids and other fuel efficient vehicles. However, the only thing that's going to be in statute at that point is hybrids. So you would have to take action if you wanted to take the next step.

[Rep. Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: And just to be clear, when it's expanded to plug in hybrids and hybrids, It's at the same rate of 1.4?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: With a fuel tax credit.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Oh, with a

[Rep. Candice White]: fuel tax credit. Okay. Sorry.

[Rep. Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: I missed

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it. Yeah. So I can give you an example of of what that looks like.

[Rep. Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I have a so if you take a Toyota Sienna, which gets 35 miles a gallon, and imagine it travels 22,000 a year, your base mileage base user fee would be $308. However, because it gets 35 miles a gallon, what you do is you take the 22,000 miles traveled, divide by 35 to figure out the number of gallons, or this is what DMV does, not you as the driver. They then multiply that by the applicable gas tax rate, which is 31.51. That's $198.07 So what they do is they take the $3.00 $8 they subtract the $198 that they estimate you paid in gas tax, and your final bill is $109.93. So that in that case there, if you had a Prius or a Prius Prime or something like that that gets above 50 miles per gallon, you would have a higher m buff at that distance. And this is a lot of mileage here, 22,000 miles. And if you had a less fuel efficient, say, like an SUV that's a plug in hybrid, but when it gets around 30, you would have a lower m buff rate. And again, this is about double the mileage that the average driver puts in. So an average driver, you would expect 154 for your base. The gas tax paid would be about $99, so you'd have about $55 for your actual amount due at the end of the year.

[Rep. Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: And the cap doesn't apply for the like, were basing of,

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: like So the cap disappears in 2029 under the Senate construct.

[Rep. Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Right.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So, yep, as hybrids come in, the cap goes away under the Senate construct. Okay. Oh, yeah. Does the

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: cap go away because there's an expectation that they'll have figured out how to show Miles out of state?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's part of the hope. The other piece is there were concerns in senate finance about fairness for owners of vehicles that are buying gas that's subject to the gas tax. And if you are capping vehicles that were using electricity or that were subject to the mileage based user fee but not capping vehicles that weren't medium or heavy duty vehicles, then there was a concern about fairness. Particularly, the example that was raised was for trucks that have a vehicle weight rating right around 10,000 pounds. You can have the same model. But because of differences that the buyer may not see at the dealership or be aware of, one will have a rating of 9,500. The other will be 10,200. So one would get the cap. The other wouldn't. Their mileage is the same. Their impact on the road is essentially the same. But they're they're subject to cap and mount, so they wanted to get rid of the cap to ensure that there wasn't a class of drivers who were paying less than other drivers if they were driving lots of miles. The cap really is just for two years,

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: and then it disappears. Yes. So we figured out some of those other things are not right

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the Senate's proposal. Sort

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: of a period of adjustment, I guess, for high mileage people.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could think of it as a series of steps. So you went from no fees to the infrastructure fee to a cap dump off and then to the full off. Okay.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: We're going to substantially shift gears here for bit. We're not done with the walkthrough of the changes in the setting. We've a preview of part of it. We'll come back to that tomorrow. You'll see a little bit of adjustment in the schedule. Right now, we do have Representative Southworth joining us and the DMV and Representative Tomlinson. If you look back, miscellaneous motor vehicle we had actually a bill on the wall, representing Southworth, presented quite a while ago about an abandoned vehicle that ended up being above the value of the tow and the storage fees. You get to stay there, dog. Hopefully if you can find it. Then we had sort of looked at it as a committee, but we did not include it in the bill. It hasn't gone away. He was looking to potentially put it as a floor amendment. Representative Tomlinson has a piece to add about making sure that people are aware of these vehicles potentially out there. There is a follow-up. We did hear from the DMV on what they do to outreach to people that have abandoned vehicles. I think we're looking at some clarification, some additional guardrails around some of that. I don't want to speak for all of that, but what we want to do right now is get a quick view of that potential amendment, potentially a floor amendment, and hear the DMV's version on it and see if there's anything that we might need to do to make some changes to see whether or not where we're at. We will not be taking any formal vote on it yet. It's not quite at that stage yet, but we want you to see what it is and what the changes are and ask the questions so that people can make adjustments or not based on where we're at or something we support should it become a floor amendment. I'll Damian a little bit of time to go find the divine languages of the two. Drop all your thoughts on the T Bill and head it over to remembering abandoned vehicles and filing for, they file for abandoned vehicle title, and then it's the tow company's job to do whatever they can to do with it

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: from there because nobody came to claim it.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what we're talking about right now. So just to be clear, I have not combined the two amendments yet. I was waiting for confirmation from the the two sponsors, but they can be looked at one after the other. And it could just be if the sponsors wanna combine them, it'll just become instances with both of their names on it. So the language won't change. And we will that's what we're gonna get to. We'll talk to it or not, bring them up, and make sure everybody's aware and ask comments.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: But I also want the DMP to testify on it and what their take off is so that we can hear what they have to say.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K. So I've got the two amendments here. So the first, I'll start with representative Southworth's amendment. So Should sound familiar. Yes. This provides that person who has taken title to a motor vehicle shall only be entitled to the value of the motor vehicle up to the amount of any charges for towing and storage that are due at the time the certificate of abandonment motor vehicle is issued. Any value in excess of that amount shall be reported to and delivered into the custody of the straight state treasurer. And then the value in excess shall be determined as follows. So if the vehicle is sold within ninety days after the certificate of abandoned motor vehicle is issued, the amount due would be subtracted from the sale price, and the difference would be reported to and given to the state treasurer to be put into the unclaimed property system. If it's not sold, then the amount due would be determined pursuant to JD Power values or another publication currently used by the commissioner to determine taxable cost of used vehicles. And then, again, the difference between that assessed value and the amounts due, and then the difference would be delivered to the state treasurer. And then for purposes of the abandoned property system, another section would have to be added that provides that a motor vehicle is presumed to be abandoned when the commissioner of DMV issues a certificate of abandoned motor vehicle pursuant to 23 BSA chapter one chapter 21 sub chapter seven. That that is something that we have anytime we have something that goes into the unclaimed property system. We have language like that for bank accounts, securities, etcetera. So that's the Southworth amendment. Questions?

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So you get its company gets stuck with it. They've towed it. They're stuck with it. The DMV says it's banded, and that company can then sell it to recover their costs. I guess there's a motivation that we cover their costs that way. I guess they could if it's not sold in ninety days, they could pay the J. E. Powers the value of it, I guess. There's nothing provided to them for the effort of selling it. I mean, I guess they would just sell it as is. It has four flat tires. Sell it as is because there's

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: no

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: motivation there for anybody to like, hey, let's clean it up and sell it and get more money. There's no motivation to do that. I just wonder, you know, I guess it's better for them because there's now a way for them to recover. They could have recovered them in the past too. I just wonder how the logistics of this company is now gotta find a way to sell the vehicle.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. So the

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: There's no motivation to do it other than to recover the the basic cost.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What this would would limit their recovery to is the cost of towing and storage.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Not any cost associated with selling.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The way it's drafted, it limits it to the cost of towing and storage.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Yeah. Representative Kieser, I think I skipped you

[Rep. Southworth (guest, sponsor of abandoned vehicle amendment)]: last time.

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: Representative Tomlinson did a great job representing my question. So to that point, if you have a vehicle with four flat tires, but in perfect running condition, I would be incented to put tires on it and sell it at a higher value. And it seems to me that that's going to be a business decision about whether or not you're going to put it, if you would put any money into it because you're going

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to receive it back. Just to suggest- In this case, that excess money above cost of towing and storage would go to the unclaimed properties.

[Rep. Chris Keyser]: Understood. But nothing that you did to make it more saleable would come back to you. I mean, if you wanna move these, just the observation, but if you'd wanna move these things, there's an opportunity, you might put a little money into it so you get a higher value. In other words, somebody that's got a shop, put in transmission and then get another $1,000 back from it. So I don't know if there's room there to put in, or maybe to make it more complicated, but if there's room to that's an observation.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Ultimately, it's up to the sponsor. We can certainly draft the language differently, but it ultimately is up to the sponsor and their intent and what they're interested in moving forward with.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Vast majority of the cases, these are not worth value, but once in a while they are, and that's what Lisa is trying to get at.

[Rep. Candice White]: Yeah, so what happens if the car is not sold? So it's been sitting in the salvage lot, it's not sold within ninety days.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Then what you do is you take the amount due for towing and storage and then subtract that from the value according to JD Power values or another publication that's currently being used by the commissioner of motor vehicles to determine taxable cost for purchase and use tax on a used vehicle. And then any remaining amount will be reported to and delivered to the unclaimed property at that point, one that the towing company has titled to the vehicle. And at that point, they are settled up with the state so they could put in as much work as they wanted to the vehicle They have at that

[Rep. Candice White]: pay the state for the the JD Power value of the car.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Minus Minus the towing. Towing and storage costs.

[Rep. Candice White]: So either they can sell it and not make any money, but get back to their towing costs, or they can be stuck with it and have to take buy it and put that money

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So they'll have title to it already. And then after they've delivered that money to the state treasurer, they can do what they want, including a prepared statement.

[Rep. Candice White]: They get the title because they paid

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the title. They get the title because it's an abandoned vehicle. So at a certain point in this process, the towar can apply for a certificate of abandoned motor vehicle. And then after a certain point, I believe the commissioner has a motor vehicle, has a certain period of time where if the owner of the vehicle can't be located, title passes to the towing company.

[Rep. Candice White]: Where does the value of the appraised vehicle come in? If the towing company has the title, nobody's shown up for it, it's so technically they own it, but we're just saying that the towing company owes the appraised value to the state treasury.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It depends on what the actual value is versus the towing and storage costs. So, yeah, if you have a high value or potentially high value vehicle that in its current condition has a value as as estimated by JD Power values that exceeds the towing and storage costs, then they would pay that excess to the state treasurer. At that point, they could replace the transmission, touch up the paint, replace the four flat tires and sell it for whatever they can get for it. And there's no more recruitment by the state at that point. Or no more unclaimed property. There are still taxes and other things that come with the sale of the vehicle. So there is that option there. Or if they auction it off before ninety days, then they get to keep If they auction it off as is, they get to keep their towing and storage costs. If they decide to keep it past ninety days, then they can do what they want with it after that point. But they have to pay the difference, any difference between the assessed value of the vehicle at ninety days and their actual towing and storage costs, which ninety days of storage. Oh no, it's towing and storage at the date the certificate of abandoned motor vehicle is issued. So I'm sorry, that's like fourteen days of storage.

[Rep. Candice White]: I guess I share a little bit of some of Representative Keyser's concerns about is this just going become a real burden for these companies, because there's not really opportunity to make money on it, they're kind of stuck with this vehicle. I'd love to hear the sponsor of the bill's input, if that's okay.

[Rep. Southworth (guest, sponsor of abandoned vehicle amendment)]: Under this what will happen is they will either sell the vehicle, make the money and retain their smart towing fees and anything above that goes to the treasurer's office. In that ninety day period if they do not sell

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: they have the option

[Rep. Southworth (guest, sponsor of abandoned vehicle amendment)]: pay whatever the value is of the vehicle minus their towing and storage fees and they pay that. Most of the towers want to be in their yards, storage yards, they don't want to keep that vehicles. They're looking differently as soon as they can. And this is a minority of the vehicles in the tunnels, it's by no means large. So if they aren't stuck with that vehicle, it's going be got rid of. If it's really not worth anything, it's

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: going to go to

[Rep. Southworth (guest, sponsor of abandoned vehicle amendment)]: the junkyard, it's going to be sold for scrap.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: They're going to be getting more money than that.

[Rep. Candice White]: And towing companies, this scenario is something that appeals to them? I certainly understand trying to protect a person whose vehicle was towed, they may try to get it back. But is it also, are you feeling like it's also something that towing companies would be? I'm sure that there's going

[Rep. Southworth (guest, sponsor of abandoned vehicle amendment)]: to be some people who aren't.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: What's that

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: worth, is junk or a steal or what do you get for a metal out of a 2,000, 3,000 pound car these days, any idea? Right. Pretty good. I'm told.

[Rep. Southworth (guest, sponsor of abandoned vehicle amendment)]: And there's parts of the value on that vehicle, but that's a

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: lot of difference there. Any other questions on this part? Comment on this part? Or do want do the next section and comment on both of them, I guess? Wait until we hear the other let's hear what representative Tomlinson put together.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. So representative Tomlinson's amendment here touches on a different aspect of the abandoned motor vehicle issues here. So, the statute currently provides that the department shall make reasonable attempts to locate an owner of an abandoned motor vehicle, and this would add to those reasonable attempts that the department would be required to maintain and keep current on its website a list of vehicles for which an application for a certificate of abandoned motor vehicle has been fined or filed, and contact information for the department personnel to whom evidence of ownership may be presented. And then at a minimum, it would have to include the vehicle's make, registration plate number or VIN number, or both if they're available, model, model year, name and contact information of the person who applied for the certificate. And then it would also include for each vehicle, if applicable, the date upon which a certificate of abandoned motor vehicle was issued and information regarding how to contact the unclaimed property division in the office of the treasurer. So in other words, there's sort of two steps here. The posting goes up when there's an application for a certificate of abandoned motor vehicle. And then after that's issued, it gets updated to say the certificate was issued. So title is transferred, but you can contact the unclaimed property division in the office of the treasurer at this number and see if there's any residual value from the vehicle that you can claim.

[Rep. Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: Just to note that this was inspired by hearing R. E. P. Sakhwar's amendment and learning more about this process around abandoned vehicles. And in my mind, just sort of modernizing the notice that's available to people whose vehicle might have been identified as a potential abandoned vehicle or a certificate issued for that. Also, make sure that think kind of closing the loop of helping to ensure Vermonters can access that additional unclaimed value at the Treasurer's Office building on, again, rep software submit so that folks who might find themselves in that situation are more able to access those funds. That's the intent.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just for clarification, that's twenty one days from a receipt of the abandoned motor vehicle certification form until issuance of a certificate of abandoned motor vehicle. So you would have twenty one days where the notice would be up on the period of twenty one days where that notice would be up that an application for a certificate has been filed. And then after that point, the certificate would be issued, and it would be updated to say a certificate was issued. Here's how you contact unbanked property.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative Pouech?

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Set up scenario here. I move. You know, I've just moved, and I haven't updated my registration or any of that. My car gets stolen, dumped off, I don't know, somewhere far away. How how would I get notified? I mean, I think they said they send a certified letter to your home address. That's pretty much it.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I can't speak for the department's process. I think it's better to ask the department. We're

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: going to. He's on the list to testify. But Representative Zoutler wants to add to it, feel free. We're going

[Rep. Southworth (guest, sponsor of abandoned vehicle amendment)]: put it comes to the deputy officials process, once that application is received and the letters are going to start to be sent out, it goes through an extensive process of being checked on where that vehicle is from, who is it, And even if it's out of state those lenders get sent down as well. We also go a little bit further at times where we go through the records database Valcourt which may bring up who that owner is, where they reside

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: now staying from a lot of peace out as well after the fill of time.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: It's pretty much just through the mail. Nobody would, at the DMV, say, Well, here's their phone number, call them. Just the mail.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Other questions for Damian?

[Rep. Candice White]: Don't know what our arms on

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: top of it on the mic. Otherwise, I have, please ask the DMV to come up and I guess answer the piece of your all in the end. Damian, I think, did you still have a two forty five?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am due next door in thirty seconds so and

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: that's how long it takes. No drinks and no body breaks for you. So we're gonna have you back tomorrow. We're picking up where we left off. Thank you.

[Rep. Patricia McCoy]: Is that yours?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Hopefully, you're gonna hear from That is a lot of there. You'll hear from Gabby to pick up where we left off on the senate bill tomorrow morning. We're here available. I look forward to seeing

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: you. Thanks.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: You, Eric.

[DMV Commissioner (Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles)]: Hi, Rutland. I'm commissioner for DMV. I am not sure there's much to say. As written, we are the DMV is fine with both amendments. We have no issues. They do like, rep said, we do an extensive search for the vehicle. So if it was stolen, it was reported stolen, we would know. And it's the last known address that

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we send off the letter to.

[DMV Commissioner (Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles)]: But as written to both amendments, totally fine.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: How often, maybe it never does, does it ever happen? My little scenario of, I mean, I guess my car was stolen, I might make more than one phone call. Like, hey, it's anybody who found my car, but would I know to call the DMV that they would be the ones to find the car eventually.

[DMV Commissioner (Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles)]: That would be a rare situation. It's not common that the vehicle would

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: be stolen. It's just a vehicle outside of the road jumped. Yeah.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Has it ever happened to you now?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Stolen vehicles? Yeah, have been

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: some ten days, I imagine. And then never finding the owner.

[DMV Commissioner (Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles)]: I would venture to guess the majority of the abandoned stolen vehicles are probably crashed.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: But yeah, there have been cases.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: But even in that case, you'd wanna know to cover your insurance. But the DMV only would mail a letter. They wouldn't like see in the car who the insurance company is. We would just send a letter off.

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: If it's a lienholder, goes to

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: a lienholder as well. Any

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: estimate on the amount of percentage of vehicles that have value above the tow that we need storage? I wouldn't be able to guess. This happens and exists every day, right? Abandoned vehicles? We heard testimony from your group that there's a list or something, it's time to go check a list of and it seems to shrink quite quickly and then I don't know exactly how that works. So it's time to go something about it compared it to the donuts. Time to go text them and check a list. And he checked the list and he was the same person who abandoned or issued any of the abandoned titles. That sort of came out of birth. Yeah, safety Bennington.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: CDLs are the same.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Patrick McManny. And then generally the list whittles down and then he issues a few on a regular basis. Also the testimony we've heard from the towers is that most of these head to the junkyard. I mean not just most, like the vast majority going to the junkyard. This is not a high value. The lexis seem to find it over. Do we anticipate any other questions or adjustments that you're concerned about? Questions that you, Representative Keyser and Representative White, that you had some concerns about? Anybody had to represent that?

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: So the only way this would get into the bill is if you go to the office?

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

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: be a mandatory floor. Floor. Potentially floor. Floor, fly up well.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: On the House?

[Logan Moulton (Fiscal Analyst, Joint Fiscal Office)]: On the House. And then it would

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: have to go back to the Senate.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well the

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: whole bill's gotta go back. Oh yeah, no, it's gonna be part of the bill. Potential

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: is that after we present that in between second and third reading, we announce it as an amendment. If they would announce or if they want to be separate or together, we could work all of that piece out. And then we would come back here for a straw poll. And that's what I wanted to gauge as to where you're at and other questions you have, So that when we do come back, you've asked your questions in between now and then and we'll get them answered. I want us to make sure that we do or don't know whether we're going ahead and whether we have any other questions. So when we do come back here, we're pretty much taking a straw poll. You got a chance if something pops up over the next twenty four or forty eight hours and you have questions, we'll get the DMV or the representative Southworth or representative Tomlinson or whatever else. We are also going to have the treasurer's office in tomorrow morning because I'm really curious how they would handle these unclaimed properties. So we're going to get a few minutes from them. But I want to make sure this is a simple thing. If it does come to us after the bill gets out of waste means and appropriations and eventually back and forth, I want this covered in advance, I guess is

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what I'm saying, if we're going fall down this path.

[Rep. Candice White]: Guess the one thing is we could invite somebody, a towing company, to come in and review this and let us know that they're Okay with it. We've heard from the DMV, we've heard the amendments. We had a towar in a couple of weeks ago, but I don't think we were talking about this particular amendment.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Well, we have the grottovers association, so okay. It's that simple and the DMV is fine with all of this language and they don't see it as significantly changing their current practices or procedure, then they can accommodate the request. So we're clear on that, you don't see it as impacting the day to day operations. Does anybody else have any questions? I appreciate you joining us and appreciate your flexibility. Glad to

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be easy enough. Thank you very much. Thanks.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: We'll still work out the details and I'll see about getting towards the piece. For the committee part, we will from the treasurer's office tomorrow morning if they're available and they're being scheduled a little bit. We're working on that. We're also going to pick up on the other changes in the Senate's transportation bill. We're going to pick up on all of the more that they changed. Then we're going to hear, Patrick didn't get a chance, we'll dig more into those changes to make sure we understand them as we prepare either an amendment further, what is it, for a third of our proposal? Further proposal amendments or recommend to our speaker that we go to the Committee of Conference. Have some more work to do to find out where that is. Have limited time here, I don't know what Representative Corcoran's time says. My limited time here is I've never heard jokes about vetoing the transportation bill until this year. So those are just jokes. That's all I heard, those jokes. They're whispering jokes. Don't know. Maybe it was my own joke. Then jumping on back to the miscellaneous motor vehicle bill, our vice chair and I just looking at sections and I'm still trying to get representative Casey to report a section of his bill if he'd like. We're working on that part. Section of what bill? Miscellaneous motor vehicle. One we just passed out Friday. It's a motorcycle thing. That's in the section 24 to 29. But we can talk I'm gonna type this potentially up and get comments. Potentially looking at Candice, representative White for sections one to five. Yeah. Let's see if we can

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: copy it. Let's see.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Representative I don't have to.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: It'd be helpful. Well, yeah, was like a technical thing. Think he did like what, 5.1

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: or 3.1.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: It's almost the same, it was just a So we don't have like

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: a full

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: I get revenue? Because we didn't go down there with copy because it was like a couple lines.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: Could say it didn't go to Addison too.

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: Correct. I think they were just minor. Think

[Rep. Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: yeah. I'm gonna track

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: it down with the inventory for sure got it back. I thought I got one but I

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: could be wrong. So

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I'll put up this list but right now real quickly if you're taking notes, there's a suggestion of Representative White for one through five, Representative Pouech for six through 12, Representative Wells for 13 through 17, Representative Tomlinson for '18 to '23, Representative Keyser from '24 to '29.

[Rep. Mollie S. Burke]: I have to

[Rep. Candice White]: say I a little partial to the cave vehicle.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: A little 24 up.

[Rep. Phil Pouech (Ranking Member)]: Is that in that section? Mean,

[Rep. Candice White]: I do have. I've done a lot of our crops on

[Rep. Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: the floor when I bring

[Rep. Candice White]: my friends.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's not on the current list of suggestions, but if you want, we can make an adjustment.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We can represent Tomlinson's operators up. That's a different way.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: That's six through 12. No, no. Representative Tomlinson is potentially 18 to 23 if you're interested in the negotiation. Don't know what age. Generally, would introduce it and close it and everybody would present in the middle.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that will be next week.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: Want to do the whole intro on the clothes? It's a

[Rep. Chloe Tomlinson (Clerk)]: part of it, but there's other parts.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: It was

[Rep. Candice White]: initially section 22, but now it's the first.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: I would say that that is six

[Rep. Candice White]: in the original bill.

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: So in the ways and means

[Rep. Timothy R. Corcoran II (Vice Chair)]: now, mean,

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: the earliest Friday. Okay. Most likely Friday and otherwise next Tuesday? Are you

[DMV Commissioner (Vermont Department of Motor Vehicles)]: thinking any different?

[Rep. Matt Walker (Chair)]: It's in ways and means today. There is an amendment in ways and means proposed from the agency of transportation related to airport and the revenue. If you recall, there was a request from Burlington International Airport about aviation fuel, then there was a 2% aviation fuel thing stuck on in the Senate for a little while. I don't want to confuse them, but there is an amendment being worked on in waste and maintenance. Not as drastic as the amendment to our transportation bill, not as significant. I don't want to be drastic, that's a bias that I didn't agree. Yes. That closed it up in a hurry. Yeah. Okay. We're oh, yeah.