Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: You're live. Sure.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's good. There's a word about

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: childhood death thinking now, and their top recommendation is about graduated and licensed in Vermont. Given our interest in safety, I wondered if we

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I figured we'll just we can definitely take that out. I yesterday and I know we're live, but I'm gonna say it anyways. Thought there was a little conflict in the numbers and everything that I don't see and I can say this. When you go from 60,000 stops down to 40 and the you've cut in half the number of tickets you're ready, but you had no policy change, I don't understand.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I I I don't I just I don't get the numbers in relationship to the conversation about the policy, so I think we need to spend a little time on this.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Agree. Thank you. That's why I asked the question of staffing. Yeah. Right. Can you can you believe it on staffing? Yeah. Or

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is it

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Well, and then

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think the follow-up to that is how many man hours are you putting into or not, excuse me, how many staff hours are you putting into enforcement? You know, those two questions together, I I just it just doesn't feel, it doesn't come together to me in the field, guess.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I'm hoping the data we get will help give us

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: some more. So thank you for asking for this.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah, of course. Michael? We went live, and I asked where Mhmm. Oh, where's Michael? So I think they sent out a

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, sorry. I was in Elkhart. I

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So Lose track. We are the Senate Transportation Committee. We are going live. It's Thursday, January 15, and we are here to, talk about reduction of chloride in the state waters with Michael Brady from oh, I see he's the deputy chief of. So we're very honored to have

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: you here. Thank you for

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: having me, chair. I see your sense of humor. It's

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: a lot. So,

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: again, it's Michael Grady, state of council. Last year, you saw a bill that is very, very similar to this. It's not exactly the same.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: It's good.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Created a chloride contamination reduction program at the Agency of Natural Resources to provide voluntary training to commercial salt applicators. And once those commercial salt applicators were trained and certified, when they were applying salt or salt alternatives and there was potential damages from their application, they would have the affirmative defense that they were not liable because they were following the PMPs. That was in h three nineteen as it came out of senate natural resources, which was a bit of a of a miscellaneous bill. And it went to the floor, but ultimately was sent back to committee, and parts of that bill were cut up and sent into other bills. But this program did not was not attached to other bills. So senator Watson decided to introduce this as a stand alone, and, you know, that is what is in front

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: of you today. What was in h three nineteen, but didn't get to a vote on the floor of the senate. High level, like, legging, they are to go through the bill. If you could do that just from a very high Sure. But the area that we were concerned about was municipalities, access to grants, and the ability to so I'm hoping that there's something in there about that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Can ask you, Corey Sparrow,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: you tell us if anything changed? Because also when we left here, thought you had stuff in

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: there about what it would cost for me to spell is to cover their salt files and thyroid cover.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. Wasn't like this bill. I I maybe inartfully Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: About but that was what I was trying to get at in my question. If it And then I'll get into the new bill. Or is So there is no longer a cover requirement in the bill. When I was in here last year, put the first version of the bill, there was a cover requirement. Yep. And there was concern about the municipal ability to pay for the cost of that, and there was conversation about grants or other funding for that. But the cover requirement has been removed. What it replaced it is a report by ANR on how many facilities are covered, how many are not covered, how many are within a 100 yards of a surface water, and what it would cost to cover and or move those facilities that are in proximity to a water. No mandate. No need for funding because there is no mandate.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And that's

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: that's Well, I think that I think we should go through because I I will articulate my concern. Town of Elmore on Lake Elmore had a sulking sand pile uncovered for years within

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: a

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: few within yards of Lake Elmwood. The pressure was on them to do that. The reason they didn't move quicker, and they now have a covered pile that is out of the range and all. But the reason they didn't move for more than a decade is they couldn't the the small town just could not afford to do it. And it was and they started saving money and they went over and it was through no attempt of themselves, but you've got a town with, you know, 1,500, 1,800 people, that it it was a heavy lift for them. So from that, anything to move down the road that helps set the priority of any public funds to go help these towns deal with that, I think they need to be at least I'm interested in making sure that they're toward the top of the priority list.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I I fully understand that twenty plus years ago, EPA rolled out a rule that would have required coverage of all municipal salt sheds, and there was, like, nationwide resistance. There's a there because of the cost, because of the there was ambiguity in the rule too. And and EPA had to repeal that rule because it just I think there would have been a municipal riot. But you know? But that that is a is a concern, and I understand that concern. That would be a future discussion bay after this report comes back about whether or not you as a policymakers wanted to say, we believe that coverage is necessary, and therefore, we're we will either fund it or not. That that will be a future decision. But but I I do wanna provide context for why this bill is even here. So you all know, I believe, about the fact that the state has water quality standards, and those water quality standards require that the waters meet certain uses and that the ANR is required by the federal Clean Water Act to go out and assess waters every two years to determine if the waters are meeting the water quality standards. Increasingly, waters of the state are becoming impaired by chloride or are close to impairment by chloride. And when the water is impaired by a substance, there's supposed to be a plan that's implemented to bring that water back into compliance with water quality standards. So for for waters that are impaired by chloride, the the source is is application of of road salt. Yes. And there are waters, Colchester, largely in Chittenden County that have to do something to address that chloride contamination. The agency of natural resources believes that this is a step towards that. And hopefully, if this is implemented widely, they won't have to go to a mandatory plan. But if it's not and this isn't implemented or if it's not successful, there might need to be a mandatory plan likely in those areas, the watersheds of the impaired water. So Colchester might have to have certain requirements for salt application in proximity to the the impaired water South Burlington. As I said, that's that's what you're trying to avoid that mandate by implementing a voluntary program that actually gives a commercial applicator a benefit or two. And the not just the applicator, the owner of the property where the applicator is applying salt. So that that's the concept here. It's not it's it's really intended to address a water quality issue without going to a full mandated plan.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I totally get that, but I I would say to you, I think every town in the Champlain Watershed is going to we're headed to that same

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: peak. And I I totally think that the Colchester's in the South Burlington needs some help, but they have a lot more resources than when you get into the upstream of that, when I get to the Elmhurst of this world, which struggled to do the right thing. I've also got towns like, you know, small towns like Eaton and and they they just don't have the resources. So

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: Oh, thank you, mister. So my understanding of what we did last time,

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: we this is voluntary. So this is not a required thing that any of the applicators have

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: to do. This is kind of the start of it?

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's still voluntary.

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: So that I think

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: No. I I totally get that, but in all of this, we're moving more and more and more toward the place where there's less we're we're yeah.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Ultimately, we could see a

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: municipal cap on liability as well.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: That's another so but that's not in bill.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not in this bill, but it's related to to a provision in this bill. There's a provision in the bill that gives municipal solid applicators who could be training. You know the local roads training. Mhmm. This requires if the local roads training have requirements about SALT application. And once a municipal employee beats that training, that municipal employee would receive an affirmative defense. Excellent. But but that's not what the league that's not that's not the league's policy goal. I believe the league is looking for that limitation on liability similar to state limitation on liability for municipalities and municipal employees. This is not that.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. Yeah. I would just say that that concept would, I think, alleviate some of the concerns that some communities have

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: about moving forward with this. At the same time, I'm in favor of this bill fully

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Yeah.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: With or without that. So it should be exported separately. Is the ask of us as a committee to are we taking possession of this bill?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: No. That's why he's here. Okay. We're just on review. We're we're gonna review it and make sure that it because I know we we particularly do have an interest in municipalities and and their salt and sand vials. And so why don't we just briefly go through this and get anybody passed, we can say legitimately we went through and reviewed the bill.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Just a couple quick questions. Go ahead. You might answer during your review. So do we, I would think that ANR has information on where the chloride is becoming a problem and if you could provide that and are there trends so that we could see how close we are getting to.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are there trends in?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: In the chloride concentration in the impacted waters. So that's just one question I would have. And you don't have to answer all these now, but just and then now

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can I can give you a list that ANR has, and they list all the impaired waters that don't have a cleanup plan?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And they list what the water is impaired for so that and it's not, you know, the full water. It's not looking at the entire Range Ski River or separates its segments or or or tributaries of those larger waters. And it will tell you exactly what the water is impaired by and chloride is on there. It's on there.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. And then I'd like to know, there are probably towns who are doing a great job of limiting the chloride. I would suspect that they would.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I mean

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It would be nice to know, Windham District has really amazing trucks that have the kind of chloride that, you know, the spreader that is much more sophisticated than other towns. So I I think it'd be good to know of towns that are are doing things the right way or or the appropriate way that protects the environment?

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I will have to talk with people at the agency about that. I don't know who would be the best resource for that.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. So since we've got, like, 14 Okay. I'll Why don't we just briefly from a very high level Sure. Go through this, and and we can review it. I will say it's not been my intention to take the bill in here, but if if there was an overwhelming interest in here, that could change, but it would have to The intention is to get us up to speed with this.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Great, thank you.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so I'll just start on page two. The purpose of the bill is to create a standard of care for salt application of salt and salt alternatives that provide safe conditions for pedestrians and motor vehicles while also improving water quality. There's a definition section going on from page two to page three. I won't spend a lot of time on this. These definitions are pretty intuitive. Apply salt means to apply salt or salt alternatives for de icing or dust control. Commercial salt applicator, somebody that buys salt for compensation, master commercial applicator, somebody that can train others in their organization. Salt is pretty much every, every type of chloride you can think of. Salt alternative is every kind of thing that's not salt that's used for deicing or dust suppression. Transportation infrastructure construction project, that is something that you probably know better than I do, but it's construction of roadways, parking lots, or sidewalks, or other construction activities. Why is this definition in here? Because they are exempt. They're not going to be considered, when they're you're looking at application of salt standards because they have either the state has their own standards or there's a different need for application of salt for salt alternatives around those facilities. Moving on on page three to page four, you see the establishment of the program at the agency of natural resources, but they are required to consult with the secretary of transportation in establishing the program. And on page four, lines one and two, you will see that the program is a voluntary education training and certification program for commercial salt applicators regarding the effective and efficient application of salt and salt alternatives, provide the safe conditions while also improving the water quality of the state.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: As part

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of the program page four, line seven, the agency establishes best management practices for application of salt for salt applicators, And they will consult with the agency of transportation because the AOT already has their own standards. So they'll try to, basically align them. And those standards will address measures or techniques to increase efficiency of applicability of salt and salt alternatives. The standard for when and how salt and salt alternatives are applied in order to prevent them entering the waters. Page five. They also need to look at salt alternatives that are cost effective and less harmful while maintaining salt safe condition and whether and how to implement equipment to calibrate monitor meters the application. And when sand is a more appropriate alternative for deicing or dust control, particularly in regard when application of sand will be less harmful to waters. They will establish record keeping requirements for those certified salt applicators. They will create and circulate a model form for record keeping. They will establish requirements for certification, establish requirements for testing. So now on page six, top of this page, many other requirements being necessary. They offer the training to the commercial. I have to pay they offer it, not required. Upon completion of the training, the commercial salt applicator shall be designated as certified commercial salt applicator. The term of that certification is for two years, page six, line seven, and eight. Business that employs multiple commercial sought applicators can get that master sought applicator certification, and that master can then train people within that organization, provided that they are complying with the best management practice. So in this, the secretary refers to ANR. Yes.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. And so all of the training that is viewed in this is ANR's training.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's an ANR program. You will see later on that that ANR will have the discretion to implement the training through their own staff or through contracting with the vendor. When and I don't know if you talk to New Hampshire. New Hampshire's got this program. In New Hampshire, they started off with a vendor, but then they transitioned to state staff. I I think you can do it either way. And so there there are alternatives for how the training is provided.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Okay. It should chief no waiting. Uh-huh. I'll hold. Page

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: six line 15, the certified salt applicator submits an annual summary of their total winter salt usage. And then the secretary of natural resources establish methods to estimate and track the amount of salt applied by the certified applicators. The secretary may revoke a certification for violation or noncompliance with the certification or the requirements. And then I think you can move down to page seven, line nine. This is the affirmative defense. Now when this bill was first introduced, it was a it was a limitation on liability. It said that the that the applicator would not be liable, shall not be liable. And there were concerns, especially from from the bar, the defense bar, and the the insurance bar and other attorneys who were who were taking away a right of action for those people who were harmed. This doesn't take away that right of action. That person that's harmed can still bring that right of action. But what happens is there's an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense means that if the defendant can show that certain criteria or conditions are met, then they qualify for nonliability. They won't be considered liable. So affirmative defense, and that's what the certified commercial applicator would receive. And so page seven, line 10 through 13, a certified commercial salt applicator or an owner occupant or lessee of the real property maintained by that certified applicator shall have an affirmative defense against the claim for damages resulting from a hazard caused by snow or ice. If the claim damages were caused solely by snow or ice and any failure or delay in removing that that hazard is the result of the sought applicator following the best management practices that they were certified to follow. Now that a permanent defense doesn't apply when the civil damages are due to gross negligence or reckless disregard of the hazard. Gross negligence is negligence that is the failure to exercise even a slight degree of care. Now if you're following the PMPs, you are not triggering that standard. And reckless disregard is basically that you know that there's a high risk of harm and you deliberately proceed anyway. Again, if you're following the BMPs, that's not gonna be a standard that's going to apply. Thanks. Thank you, mister.

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: That's a really important section of the bill for me because I remember it popped over to judiciary and got swirled around there for

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: a bit

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: and then

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: came back. Mhmm. My understanding, like, just in layman's terms is the concern that if someone joined this program and then under salted, that if that person, like, didn't actually provide enough salt to make sure that a a stretch wasn't slippery for someone, that that if

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: first of all,

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: that's unlikely to happen if they're following the guidelines.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Remember Because

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: they're already they're trained. And on top of that, if they did it incorrectly, if there was a risk, they would still be held liable. So someone who maybe got hurt, like, this isn't going to increase the risk for someone in any way is basically my understanding.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. And and you made a great point. The the affirmative defense only applies when you are following the BMPs. If you are not following the BMPs, if you are not applying at the rates or the frequency or the the locations, then then you don't that are the parties in the BMPs, then you don't receive the affirmative defense. Now New Hampshire had a test case on this, and and they had it was more than affirmative defense there. They had the limitation on liability. And it it will it will still be about facts because the the plaintiff there said that it was because they weren't following the BMPs there, and the the applicator could show we were following all our BMPs. They had they had the big nice trucks. Right? And we were working with a computer monitor and and they could show all of that. But then they showed video of the plaintiff falling on the grass. Oh. And that's where the plaintiff got injured. Right. The the the applicator had no duty to treat the grants. Right? And so the there will always be facts in these cases that that I can't imagine at this point. So to say that there will never be liability if they're filing the BMP's, I don't know because you can't make up some of these things. We

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: I know. Let so quick. Yes. Quick. My concern is how does one that is following or thinks they are and they're trained following BMPs prove that they were once they've solved it?

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm talking about and I'm thinking about the guy who plows driveways and solves commercial parking lots too. Right. So in some respects, the the larger companies are gonna have an easier Yeah. Way to deal with that because they will have the equipment. But ANR is also supposed to create a model form that the the applicators that aren't using that equipment can use to track their applications. And tracking of that application is very important because on page eight nine four through 12, in order to get that affirmative defense, you need to keep a record describing your activities, your application, when you're doing your rate, etcetera. And and that that is how you prove it. And I think to an extent, you know, the the the trucks have GPS now. Like, it literally you you cross into this property and it GPSs. This is the property, and this is and it measures your rate, etcetera. You can probably do that beforehand on a form. You're like, this is the property I'm going to. I've calibrated my my applicator to this rate, and I'm going at this rate across this one. You could probably figure all of that out before you even go out to

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: a property

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: and have that as a default when you go out.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It's good.

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: And these are so if someone's participating, though, it's, again, voluntary. So it probably isn't gonna be the smaller shops originally. It's gonna

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: be the really big guy Right. Who can train their bugs.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And and and that's a good point too. If you don't wanna do it, you don't wanna hassle Yeah. You don't need to do it. Right.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Let's get through this.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Page eight, line thirteen thirteen sixty four. This is also benefit that the certified applicator gets. They will be presumed not to be creating water quality issues under storm water or direct discharges if they're following the BMPs. And and I'll just skip further then on page nine, line eight, section thirteen sixty five, the secretary of natural resources conducts an education and outreach program to commercial applicators about the availability of this program on the benefit of the affirmative defense and to members of the public about the water quality issues and the issues that that it can create for pets and wildlife from excessive application of salt. So under this definition, commercial applicators would be towns too? Well, you may have not gotten into the towns yet. Commercial applicators

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Let's go. Have to apply for Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's do it. Alright. But page 10, section three, this is the report on coverage. Not a mandate. It's just ANR reporting back before January 2027 after consultation with AOT, and they will tell you the inventory facilities in the state used for storage of salt, salt, and sand mixtures. And I'll say I saw the alternatives, a number of facilities that are current covered, number number that are not covered and are with a 100 within a 100 yards of the surface water or drinking water, an estimate of the number of facilities that are not covered or more than a 100 yards from surface water or drinking water, and an estimate of the total cost to cover or move those facilities, and an annual amount of funding that we would require to meet the timelines for covering or movement. So if you decided to have a coverage requirement in the future, you would know the universe, and you would know the general estimate of what it will cost. Then you get to the municipal applicators, section four, page 11, line three, on the report 11/01/2027, ANR in collaboration with AOT identifies and makes changes to the Vermont local roads curriculum needed to support municipal salt applicators, putting training on best management practices for spreading of salt for salt alternatives. Municipal salt applicator is an individual who applies or supervises others who apply salt or salt alternatives. The applicator's capacity as an employee or agent of town or municipality does not include state employees. So the state employee applying salt on a state road that goes through the town, this is not applicable to them. They have their own program. They have their own liability protection. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary, 24 BSA section nine zero one a, that is the liability provisions related to municipalities. A municipal employee shall have an affirmative defense against the claim for damages resulting from a hazard caused by snow or ice if they completed the Vermont local roads curriculum providing BMPs for spreading salt for salt alternatives in that This calendar

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: is seen as the trainings that Vermont Local Roads does presently, adjusting what their curriculum is. Yeah.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Pontiff does not don't create a separate training program when there's already a training program. Yeah. Now the criteria are the same as for the commercial applicator. The clean damages need to be caused solely by snow or ice. Any failure or delay in removing has to have been due to implementation of the BMPs, and then they get that Okay. Affirmed with the

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: fact And did AOT testify in natural resources about this?

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not this year, but last year. I'm just gonna call him DG because I can't pronounce his last name. DG was there, very involved throughout the whole process, said that they they I I don't wanna characterize this testimony. It's they they did not object. Okay. And then just as with the commercial sought applicator, gross negligence, reckless disregard removes the affirmative defense, and the municipal applicator needs to, maintain reports records. And then West is about the training. The chair asked about before on before 01/15/2027, ANR shall solicit interest from third party vendors for training and certifying commercial applicators. Secretary shall recommend to the general assembly a fee to be charged either by the state or by a third party vendor for certification of commercial salt applicators. Any fees that has to be approved by the general assembly. And this bill included the contingent, funding, as I think I think I think

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: it's three of these are on appropriation.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I when you're creating a new program these days, you put this in so that at the end when when or if you don't have enough money, you use those agency. This would be codified. It would be put in the books if it was passed by both houses and signed by the governor. But section six says that ANR would not have the duty to implement it until they were received appropriations Mhmm. From the general fund for that purpose. Last year, did they say what those dollars would be?

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I have to get any of

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: those referees. I can't recall because I think it had the contingent funding language in it, and I never and I don't think of number.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: There was numbers and ads introduced to not after Right.

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I I I will try to figure that out for you. If someone gets the appropriation, we can bring that.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So I've heard little whispers about, ANR's role our transportation's role in the trainings. And so I'm gonna say this out loud. We we if we as a committee could get an email from the agency about their feelings about all of this in Passa Brown, we'll make a decision of whether or not we need anything more from you in that. But it would be nice if we had an email from the agency on that position of local roads and how that fits together. And if it was sent to Megan, then Megan would send it around to everybody.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Shelby, you want me to start? I'm sorry. Sorry.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I'm done. You've done well. We asked too many questions. That's why we're not enough. But we need to move on. Understood. Thank you. Thank you.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Good

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: morning. My name is the chairman, president of committee. Quickly share screen here.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Great.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: So good morning. I'm here to provide a federal transportation policy update. It's something that we like to offer the committee every year just to let you know what's going on in Washington. That varies from year to year. Sometimes it's an appropriations bill. Sometimes it's a standalone bill. Well, this year, it's the really big bill. It's the reauthorization of the IIJA. The bill that's generally reauthorized every fifth year and provides a big chunk of the federal dollars that we get for highways, for public transit, for rail, and aviation. Just to quickly go over how this federal funding comes to us, for the transit and highway modes, it's rather simple. They're formula funds that are allocated annually over a five year basis, preventable funding stream that allows us to plan for projects and services. Aviation and rail are almost entirely competitive grants. We have to apply for them. If we're successful, we undertake projects. If we're not, you don't. It's that simple. So this chart illustrates in simple terms the continuum between these dedicated federal funds that we get for highways and transit, and then how we veer into the competitive nature of aviation and rail. So the current bill expires in September. It's hard to believe that it's been close to five years already, but it's been that long. And the way that the transportation program is funds federally is a combination of the Highway Trust Fund that collects fuel taxes and also the general fund, because for the past fifteen to twenty years, the Highway Trust Fund hasn't been collecting enough revenue to offset the outlays of the program. The gas shocked. Yeah. Well, the the gas tax hasn't been raised, the federal one, since 1993. So, to your point, mister Cherry, it's no surprise that at some point that bond just couldn't keep up. The funding that does come to us comes in different buckets, particularly on the highway side where we have to undertake specific activities. And for the federal government or for congress, this kinda shows you, you know, the the priorities that they have when it comes to the dollars that are attached to these programs. At the top of the list is the National Highway Performance Program. That's that's the funding source for the National Highway System. So think of interstate bridges, coverts, reconstruction, all of that. Then you get into the surface transportation block grant program, which are the most flexible. That can cover literally anything that we wanna do as long as it's highway or or public transit related. Then you've got specific programs for safety, for Great Crossings, the Metropolitan Planning Organization. The last two on this list were brand new created in the IIJA. So the Carbon Reduction Program and the Protect Resilience didn't exist prior to that. They were added to the list of formula programs for the IIJA. Here you can see the dollar amounts that are associated with each of the programs. Kind of the point I want to highlight here is that we oftentimes forget that the IIJA was both a surface transportation bill, but it was also an economic stimulus bill. So what they did is they added a lot more funding to it than traditional trans transportation bills. Just the formula component of what we got into the IIJ was a roughly 35% increase over the previous five year bill. And the two highlighted programs that are circled, which consists of the NEVI program and a special bridge program, both came out of the general fund. That's one of the things I'd like to talk about today is what's gonna happen when the IIJ expires because I think we're generally familiar with one time general funds. They don't they're not recurring by definition. And here, where for bridges in particular, the dollar amount is very high. That's an average of $45,000,000 a year over five years for for bridges. So I don't have a crystal ball. I don't know what they're gonna do in congress, but there's some tough decisions that they're gonna have to make as it relates to all the general funds that went into this bill, in addition to the general funds to shore up the highly trust ones. So one part of the general fund is simply there to keep the formula programs going. Another part were all these add ons. The bridge program was one, but there was also 20 different new competitive grant programs inserted into the IIJ. So we're used to Tiger and Build and, you know, some of the ones, the the rail Chrissy program that have been around for a while. But 20 out of 26 were not around prior to the IIJA, mostly general fund funding. What happens to these programs? That's one of our concerns. Think of the electric buses that we purchased. Think of the the bridge replacement in Reedsboro, the bridge replacement over the Winooski River. All of that competitive grant funding came out of these programs, and we're not sure what's going to happen. We don't have a lot of precedent for what occurs when general funds enter the high of the surface transportation program, but we have a couple that can give us some glimpse in terms of what what can happen. The first one was back in 2008, 2009, during another financial crisis where the the state received about $300,000,000 in one time funding to get the economy going. Right? Our unemployment rate was relatively high nationally, not not just here. So what happened? We received that $300,000,000. We obligated them. We undertook the projects. We completed the projects, but that that money disappeared. Right? It never came back into the the formula programs that we have.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So one time general fund. But that's we we you know, I need to make the point. Like, the Irene money that came sometime later, those two chunks helped us pick up on on a lot of bridges. But what we had was excess match money that had built up in the bond fund to be able to do that. And we were able to draw down that other states would have been eligible for, but they had to turn back because they've learned. So I think there's a lot for us to learn from that. Our but we had some excess match money of our own that helped us. Yeah. That definitely never hurts when when there's funding, especially one time funding. So

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: to to your point, senator, there was there were no issues with, you know, obligating all these funds and expending them. It's the it's that they disappeared afterwards. They never came back. So one time

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I I totally but in in that particular case, if I'm doing a bridge that's gonna last eighty years, one time money is very helpful in catching up when you have that. But it's not when it's not good is when you do plowing roads, which we have to do every single year, one time money isn't really good for any of that.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Yes, absolutely. The second example that we can look at is the federal aviation reauthorization, which occurs separately from the surface loans and was introduced in 2023. So we have another example. The best way to illustrate this is to just show the chart of what happens when Congress decides they don't wanna maintain funding levels included in the IIJA. So the circle areas are the IIJA. And what happened was that the programs for the airport improvement grants, which is the one we use for maintaining the state airports, effectively doubled during the IIJ. So then Congress had a decision to make in 2023, which is what do we do afterwards? What they decided was one time is one time, and we're going back to where we were. So the chart goes back down to a pre IIJA level of funding. Was bumped up by about 19 or so percent, but nowhere near the amount that was included in the IIJ. And I'm not arguing that this is what's going to happen for the highway and public transit programs, but these are just two illustrative examples of what happens when there's one time general funds that gets added to the transportation program federally. So we're very dependent on federal funds. That's no secret. Generally, depending on the grant results that we get over half the transportation program is derived from federal funds. Formula funds, grants funds, in some cases, disaster relief funds. So we're very sensitive to tweaks and changes in programs and funding levels. That can have a big bearing on our overall transportation program. So what are we looking at and monitoring during this development of the new build? Well, the first one is, are the programs that we got funding from the general fund related to NAVI and the bridges, will they continue important on a policy level, also important on a funding level? What's gonna happen to the IIJ formula programs that weren't around prior to that? Carbon reduction and protect resilience. We don't know. Key to that too is what happens to the 20 new discretionary grant programs? Are they gonna be around since they were funded with primarily general fund dollars? So there's kind of two issues here is number one is the policy issue. Do they wanna keep some of these programs? Philosophically, do they agree with them? The second is, how do you pay for all this stuff? Because the general fund, I don't think was ever designed to continually add to the transportation program. So there's two levels of decisions that we need to make.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Thank you, mister chair. Well oh, well,

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: thank you, Costa. That was a great presentation.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: It was short because I I I wanted the engagement. I know there's a lot of questions when I do this. Yeah.

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: And I think my first question somewhat goes back to your previous slide.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: But there's been a lot

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: of strange reporting about things that Sean Duffy has said about how funding will be allocated to towns, states based on fertility rates. And if you have a low fertility rate, you're going to get less transportation funding. If you have a high fertility rate as a state, you'll get more. And I'm wondering how accurate are those statements to what you're seeing and what really mean, are we out in that ballpark? Like, what what's

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: happening there?

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Yeah. I don't know about fertility rates, but the the prerogative for putting the transportation bill together is is congresses. You know, congress puts this bill together. There's obviously input from the administration going into that bill. But, fundamentally, it's gonna be the, you know, the transportation committees, and there's three of them in the senate, one in the house, and also the body as a whole that's gonna decide what goes into this bill. That that's where the decision making will occur. So I I don't know about specific statements made by the secretary, secretary, but but the the process process for for developing a bill is very similar to the way it happens here. We do it on an annual basis. They do it every five years. So there's elements of a lot of ideas from different stakeholders that end up in this bill, but specifically to the secretary's statements. I'm just not

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: aware. That's helpful. So it sounds like maybe to disregard some of the more ludicrous things we see him on video saying in in regards to this. That gives me a little bit of comfort because there has been some strange things that that secretary said

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: that would negatively impact us.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Yeah. The the administration is gonna have a lot of input into the bill. Oh, okay. Know, that that you know, no different than the stakeholders that come before this committee and and try to influence the outcome of our own bill. So that

[Sen. Becca White (Vice Chair)]: Do you have any concern about political retribution when we're seeing, like, money for childcare being taken from Minnesota or other, like, blue states? Do you or is that conversation happening openly?

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: The the funding we get for transportation is primarily formula funding. The vast majority of it is actually laid out in the congressional land. So no different than, you you know, the funding levels that are included in our state transportation bill. It's done similarly in congress. So once those funds are dedicated for a specific purpose, they're they're allocated to the states. There's not a lot of discretion. And you you don't go before the appropriations committee for this bill the way you do other appropriations. If That makes sense. Twenty years ago, the appropriations process was not even a major activity because when the Highway Trust Fund had enough funds They just Well, the the the the reauthorization bill itself was effectively an act of appropriations. When they're signing off on it with specific dollar amounts, those dollar amounts are there unless the appropriators decided they don't like the dollar amounts. So it's really that they're laying out the policies, the programs, the funding in one single piece of legislation. We don't they don't have to go back every year and discuss policy priorities and and funding the the way other federal programs do.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think you're. What

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: are the three transportation committees in the Senate?

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is it aviation, rail and the surface?

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Yeah. So there's the Environment and Public Works Committee that deals with highways. There's the the banking committee that deals with public transit, and then there's the commerce committee that deals with rail and aviation. I don't know the history of why it was split up into three different committees. You know, rail, we have to go back a couple of 100 years ago. I mean, it was an economic development activity. Transit, I think, is there because that committee also oversees urban development, and transit systems for the most part started in urban areas. There's a lot of history behind why they ended up where they did, but it's definitely more complicated on the Senate side, given that there's three committees that may not be aligned on program priorities and funding levels. So just give me a little history.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: They did not real good. Well, congress has had difficulty in the past re renewing every five years. Yes. Like, the last two renewals, how long did it take? And do we think it well, that the last couple, two or three renewals, did they do it in five years?

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: So that's a wonderful point, mister chair, because in in my lifetime, I've been doing this for twenty five years. I can't remember of a single bill that's actually been approved and signed into law on time, that they've all been late. And that has varied, I think, anywhere from nine months to three years. And it's easy for Congress to do that because all they need to do is pass a contract extension. They simply say, alright, we're going to continue the IIGA for another year. The problem, though, is that's going to be problematic this year because of all the general fund dollars that went into that. Those go away unless congress says, yeah, we want them back in. And

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: But they can do but could, like, continue the resolution to do that.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Yeah. That's that's the appropriation side. On the authorization side, it's called the contract. It does the same thing. Extends the program. The the issue, is a lot of this general fund money went in there for stimulus purposes. It was to help us recover from COVID. And I'm not gonna try to guess whether the appropriations committees are gonna try to continue this funding, but remember, it was designed as one year, one time general funding.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: But this this bill runs through to the end of to the beginning of the fiscal year. Correct? Yep. September 30 and September 30. And we will be within a month and a half of an election.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Yes. Yeah. Yeah. I had to view the back there. Sorry. For congress, I think, you know, election Yeah. The the the election

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: The midterm. Be in in November. And so Yeah. My my I I'm just gonna say my bet would be that they probably don't get it done.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: So it's it's odd because in the past, there's never been that pressure to get it done. Right? You can simply extend everything, you know, maybe include, if the appropriators agree, a little inflation factor. It was fine. This time around, though, we have a serious problem. A lot of this funding was tied to one time general funds that are gonna start lapsing October 1. But It given that if they tried to put together a bill that was gonna cut funding,

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: which it will and I was within weeks of an election, I might not wanna cut money going back to my districts. I'm this is just me guessing out loud. Yeah. My my guessing would be that it might there might we might continue for the next year as we are.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Yeah. And if that's the case, what do we continue with? That that's something that keeps me up at night. Because the general fund dollars, $225,000,000 is a lot of money. Yep. It's equal roughly to a whole year of all the federal highway dollars to get coming into the state. And if that money's not there, means you have $45,000,000 less a year, to work on bridges, and that that that could be problematic. That's very weary.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: It it it would be duke it out, will you?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It's not a nice thing. Well, I did this it might even so we we were concerned about having the match with the Yep. IJ. Did did we have the match? That might be a question for them.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Year?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. Okay. So so we are fine.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Let's see. Well, no. Because

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: No. No. As far as the IIJ We

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: did the same thing to get the match last year that the defense are doing. We had 12 what, 12 and a half million in our bill of general fund to help us make that match last And the question will be, will we come up with general fund match or what will we do in the short term to produce enough money in state dollars to make the match? And my guess would be that I'm I'm only bringing this is only my guess. The likelihood of them putting together at the federal level a bill that dramatically cuts states in an election year is probably not like, I I I think they would try to avoid that. And so I would think that a year from now, it might be a different story. But in my mind, we should plan on, at least for a year, things looking rather stable at the federal level, and and and then after that. We that's that's the amount that we might wanna plan to be, but that's only guessing.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. I'll I'll follow-up with the appropriations committee about this, just about the current our current year, FY '26. This

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: year we're fine, but that included general fund dollars that allowed us to make the match.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And the money in the institutions too. The the Yeah. That the yeah. And the cash.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yep.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Enjoyed the idea.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: We are still looking at a shutdown in January. Right?

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: The on the appropriation side, the the transportation appropriation I'm sorry. The the continuing resolution for transportation lasts through the January. If if they don't do another continuing resolution or sign a full year appropriations bill, then we're technically back to accept that. January 31 of what? Yeah. The end of the month. Yeah. And I say technically because some of these programs, by virtue of being funded with the general fund and being advanced, the profread, which is another unique aspect of the IIJ, continues. The highway programs are largely unaffected, transit the same. It's usually aviation and rail that get affected in the morning during a government shutdown, only because of the way the IIJ was put together.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: But

[Michael O’Grady (Deputy Chief Counsel, Office of Legislative Counsel)]: if there's a shutdown, the Congress won't be working on that

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: reauthorization. Correct. The staff, I believe, is subject to the shutdown too, and so is a big part of the secretary's office. You're correct, Senator. If they're not around, they're not gonna be working on a bill of any kind.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: None of us do very well with us. Although we do free. Well, we don't have but if joint disco isn't around, we don't don't move very fast. Well, I but Megan's Yeah. If Megan's not here, I'm not much of a scheduler. Not at

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Pardon. Oh.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Well Well Well well abroad. Well well well. Limit.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Right. So I think you were on till 10:30. 10:15 is what the schedule says. I can answer any questions or

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: glad to turn it off if your questions have all been

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: addressed. Might not be the last time that you have to show up here.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: That that's fine. I mean, I I you know, if they if this progresses, it'll happen before the session ends, and I'm more than happy to come back and update the committee on any developments. This is critical stuff. It's over it's one and a half billion dollars with a b, and it's over half of our transportation program. So we watch this very carefully and more than happy to update the committee on anything significant that occurs with this bill or its appropriation. What are you expecting? What are you what are you what's your timeline or their time? What do you think their timeline is? Well, as the chair noted, these things rarely go on schedule. So they're they're gonna work on them, and there's an elaborate and extensive hearing process that occurs with all four of the committees, three on the senate side, one on the house. So there's a lot of lead time for us to know, generally what's going to be in the spill by the time they go for it.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: With passenger rail, was surprised that the support continued. This year it kind of went down. We weren't sure if it would continue but then it has continued. So I'd be interested in if you have any sense, you don't have to say it now but if things are gonna change, I mean, honestly, we aren't gonna know until it happens.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Yeah. We don't know. Yeah.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: But if you hear about Braille, Absolutely, that would be

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Senator. Thank you. Yep. All right, I think if we could be back here at 10:30. Okay. Great, thank you all. Thank you.

[Costa Pappis (VTrans/AOT Planning & Policy)]: Thank you, Russell.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And we do have Utah on