Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That we would lose

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: the You're live.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So it's Friday, February 27, and we're almost done the whole month. I am we're about to talk about the purchase and use sections of the miscellaneous DMV bill. Before that, I will say that thank you for coming early this morning. I'm going to go to secretary Flynn's mother's funeral, so when we get through this, the vice chair will run the committee, and I'm, because that funeral's at eleven so I, that's part of the reason I won. Thank you. So you're I will. Please. And Logan has been doing some calculations around those sections that I think around the table, what we thought was revenue neutral sections. And Logan, if you can talk to us and explain what you found.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Sure. So for the record, Logan, we're very good fiscal at office. We're going to talk about section 18, which is where there are some changes we've made to the motor vehicle purchase and use task. So, there are a few things that are happening in this section. Some of them that, my understanding, don't impact the revenue we collect and then some that do. So, the first thing on this list is the addition of the trailers that you can see in A1 there. So, this is really just clarifying that trailers are subject to the purchase and use tax, and that they're also subject to that max purchase and use CAD of 2,486. My understanding is this is current practice. This is how the DMV is currently doing it. So this shouldn't have an impact, just the addition. This is really just participation. But then the next things that occur do have some impact. So just going down the list there. So I'm looking at the, I think, the draft that was voted out yesterday on line 14 of page 22. This adds trailers coaches under that sort of motor homes, and then it says, or trailer coaches. So, what this would do, my understanding is that this would essentially add trailer coaches as another form of vehicle that is subject to purchase and use tax, but this would specify that it is no longer subject to that maximum cap of 2,486. So my understanding is that current law, they pay purchase and use up to the maximum of $2,486 By adding it here, trailer coaches would now have to pay the full 6%. I reached out to the DMV, they said they weren't able to pull out the amount of these trailer coaches and the timeframes that we had. But this would add or would increase the amount of revenues generated because you'd have these trailer coaches that would now retain more purchase and use tax every year. Again, I don't have a number on that one because the data just isn't there at this time. I think there are some other people that might be able to give you an idea of the realm. And then right below that on line fifteen and sixteen, where we're changing the weight metric to a gross vehicle weight rating, and then we're increasing that metric also from 10,099 to thirteen fifty. And essentially what you're doing there is you're expanding the amount of trucks that will have to pay the full 6% purchase and use tax and will no longer be capped at 2,486. So, based on data that I received from the department, there were roughly 1,200 vehicles last year. When they registered their vehicle for the first time in Vermont, they registered and put on their form a weight between 10,100 pounds and 13,500 pounds. So, those vehicles, if this language moved forward and things stayed consistent as they were this year, would now have to pay the full 6% on the value of the vehicle rather than the max cap of 2,486. So, my estimate says that this would generate about a million dollars in additional revenue, assuming the numbers were consistent in future years. And then, the trailer coaches, which I mentioned, I don't have the number on because we don't have that added, will also generate additional purchase and use revenue.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Now the lobbyists for drugs and said to me something about fifth wheels. And they were afraid that wasn't in your estimates, which would be on top of that. Can you talk to us about that?

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So my understanding is that is the trailer coaches that I was just mentioning. When I asked DMV for this data, said that they couldn't separate out trailer coaches from other vehicles. They couldn't give me a number of of trailer dress trailer coaches that were essentially newly registered each year and therefore paying purchase and use tax, theoretically paying purchase and use tax. So, in my draft note that hadn't been published but spurred this conversation, I had noted that trailer coaches, or I think Fit Wheels, if we're talking about the same thing here, would generate additional revenue, but I don't have the numbers to say what that would be. We would need to know the average value of a trailer coach plus how many trailer coaches each year to see what the difference between that max cap that they should be paying now and what the full 6% of the value of a trailer coach. And as you all know, trailer coaches can be very expensive, so it could be substantial as mentioned. I just don't know. I don't have data to say one way or another.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Is it the same issue for the trailer coaches as for the trucks? It's just the difference between the $10.10 $0.99 and the thirteen five hundred or

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: No. The my understanding is that currently, trailer coaches, regardless are sort of at that max cap.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Regardless of weight. So they're just like add the trailer, you get the max cap.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. That is my understanding.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Regardless of that. Yes. And

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: now this would sort of add them in the same as how motor homes are taxed, which I don't believe are subject to the max cap.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: They're not now, but it would be the way this was. I don't believe No, no.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: So motor homes aren't changing and I don't believe have that max cap on motor homes. Trailer coaches would essentially be added in. On line 13, it has motorhomes as defined of this type or trailer coaches as defined. Those are all in the sections that would get the full 6%, if I'm understanding the language correctly.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Full 6% up to 13,500 or total? The full 6% of the value of the vehicle. And is that what they're doing at?

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: But that's not what they're Yes. I was told that that is how they are currently being handled at their

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: current Trailer coaches are paying the full 6% regardless of what you

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Trailer coaches are paying the max tax currently. This would make it so they're paying full tax.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: How long have they been paying the next tax?

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: That I don't know.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And this would change in sort of long stays, which you could yeah. I don't know if there's a policy argument that's been generated, and we haven't talked about it.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I it's my understanding that particularly around the trucks, there has been some change in the rules that might have gone in place in January, which I personally was not aware of, and that there's some interpretation of the rules that's different since January.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Go ahead. And do we know what others how other states treat trailer coaches versus trailers? Because I assume the original intent was the trailer, like that Valvans trailer that we have there was meant to be as a commercial vehicle that was an axe bag. And then the trailer coaches as a living quarters or camping recreational vehicle was not meant to be, but it was a trailer, so it got fit into the discussion.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: This language that was in your bill, it wouldn't essentially have that breakdown. It trailers are subject to the max tax? Trailer coaches would not It's

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a big difference for the purchasers. Potentially,

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

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Go ahead. Thank you. So there could be a reason for them to pay more, but we need to be deliberate about that and understand it and have a conversation about it. So I don't, so that, I just wanna say that, I don't know, I don't remember we looked at the total amount of revenue that we get from commercial vehicles generally. I know that's a different topic, but I Okay.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Totally I I I think I'm I'm I'm just gonna say this with the numbers with, and I would say not through no fault of Logan, his numbers are squishy because he can't get some information that's needed. And I would say yesterday when I found this out, I asked Damian to draft a bill to take those purchasing use sections out. And I think we have the opportunity both either in the TBill or if the house works on this and it comes back over with something in that, because I think this needs to be sorted out. I'm not feeling comfortable, you know, if people ask us what this is doing to be able to tell them specifically what estimates, what we've got, that we have good estimates.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: I agree. We we need to

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: know the impact of what we're doing. Yep. Can you and did you why don't you and Damian switch and play him in if you would. There are two things also. We also heard back about natural resources about the cars. They particularly we put 20 cars in. They said the California law is 12. Okay. And they would rather track what California did. And they offered some, I think, clean up language to that. So I I told Damian to include that in a package of what he's bringing back, and he will explain how he strapped it. And and those so the two issues that would are at the end what he's drafted, deal with taking those purchase and use sections out and deal with the feedback that we got from the natural resources agency on the car.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Morning. For the record, I'm Damian Leonard from the office of legislative council. Before I get into the language, I just wanna explain that trailer coach is a broad term that encompasses fifth wheel trailers. These are trailers that are towed by a truck bed hitch. They're often taller and can be more luxurious than your typical travel trailer, which is towed by a hitch behind the vehicle. And then the other type of trailer that's captured by this is what's known as a living quarters trailer. This is something like if you're bringing your horses to an event or snowmobiles, bikes, whatever. It's got prioritizes space for the animals or the other equipment you're towing, but then has a small living quarters in there. So that would also be captured. So these are three different types of trailers that are captured under that umbrella term because trailer coach is any trailer that has living quarters inside of it. So it would capture all of those.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: The

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: so in the substitute amendment draft, what you'll notice is that section sixteen and seventeen, which were the purchase and use tax.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Break all the whole bill.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just yeah. It's a substitute for the committee's amendment. It's the

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

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I just wanna be sure.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Let me go ahead and

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: It's too much 38 pages.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It does. Yeah. This is the whole thing.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: And I thought there would be fewer pages to

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There may be some facing issues on here where we have a return that didn't get. It it it's a So

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

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So what's the section then?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section sixteen and seventeen are gone. So you'll see now section 16 is diesel fuel tax. Mhmm. Previously, that was purchased in used tax. And then we go straight on to operation of snowmobiles at seventeen or maybe seventeen and eighteen. Either way, it's it's right in there that diesel fuel tax operation of snowmobiles is where the purchase and use tax used to be. The other changes here are further down on limited use specialty vehicle.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Which

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that is going to be starting on the bottom of page 33, section 25. In the definition of the vehicle, the agency of natural resources, their air quality and climate division asks that the language be trued up so that the definition ties to the use requirements for limited use specialty vehicles and more closely reflects the requirements for exhibition vehicles, which are current antique cars. And so the list of activities, on lines eleven and twelve, including exhibitions, club activities, parades, and other functions of public interest, was changed from exhibitions, club activities, tours, parades, and other similar activities. So just a slight change to that language. I don't think it functionally changes the how that operates. And then the other thing that they ask for was on lines thirteen and fourteen. Previously, it said not used for daily transportation. Now to match up to what's in section 26 below, it says not used for daily transportation of passengers or properties on property on any highway, and that tracks with the, exhibition vehicles. I didn't think when I was drafting it that it would be necessary to call out passengers or property. They felt more comfortable with that. The final change is on line 18. The number 12 replaces the number 20. So they would reduce the number of vehicles that could be registered per year from 20 to 12.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: And they from what the way I read the email and and and you received the same email, they were not opposed to this.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. I I read the email as well. My understanding is that they were open to the language and okay with it with these with these changes. So that they they didn't oppose it as drafted. They just requested that these changes be made to bring it closer to what they would be happy with.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Do we know how many there are, how many they register in other leaders?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This this particular company Yeah.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: That we're looking at.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And so this would also allow leeway for additional companies potentially from out of state that make these vehicles selling them to a homeowner or or individuals building home built vehicles. And as you read in the report, there are some avenues for home built vehicles, but this would specifically call out a category. Right. But this limited use is not just in ratings. The split. Right? It's one. Right. No. This would this would capture the split. Right? As well as for

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: daily transportation of passengers. Right.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So if you're gonna register it under this category and get the exemption from the annual emissions inspections, you're agreeing that it's a sort of a limited use. It's not a daily driver. It's gonna be a car that you can bring out up to one time per week to, you know, drive on the weekends.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And so you the same vehicle could be registered either way just based on your usage.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Based on your usage, and they also will need to ensure that they're complying with all the federal and California requirements that we don't have control over. So with this language here, they'll still have to comply with those requirements for construction of the vehicle, but they won't be subject to the annual emissions inspections. And this

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: is just about registration, not about a VIN number.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sorry. Not about that. Number. So they should be able to get a VIN number already with the existing law. No. We don't. That that was the No. We did last. So the report that we got last year indicated that there should be an existing process for that number to be Okay. They should be able to get it under the existing process, but this will allow them to get the cars inspected, which is part of getting it registered to be on the road.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And then once you have a VIN number, you can get it titled. But not a title agent.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So this should the titling issue, the registration, the being able to get it titled, registered, etcetera, should be addressed with this language.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: This this really tracks almost exactly what fell.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It it tracks closely with what was in California's s B 100, which allowed for a limited number of vehicles each year to get registered, and to be exempt from the emissions inspections. California has a little bit more leeway because they can also waive some of the compliance requirements for the the vehicle components, but we can't do that.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: And they can do so they can make 325, but they can only kind of register 12 in Vermont.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Up to 12 in Vermont. But, yeah, they could sell to, for example, an individual in California and ship it out to California on an auto carrier and then have it registered there. So it's one of the tricky things with these vehicles is that the requirements depend by state, and so the buyer will have to figure out if they can get it registered in their state under their state's law. And, Brendan, when you said six, that's at that one company, but you could Yeah. Do six model that you're Yeah. Total amount of one manufacturer. This is just That's right. So you could this could you could have six split rays and six single Porsches.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Oh. But then once the then somebody wants to register their model t, they're like, sorry. We're capped at 12. We have to wait till next year.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: No. That's

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Model t or that would probably be under the you could register that under the exhibition. And then same thing if you had a street rob there, which is a pre 1949. I don't know if I read it. Yeah.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: You

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: could there's a way to register that. Okay. So there there are some avenues. Yeah. This this has been a fun one to work on.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: So those they have eCars don't use the limited use special

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. So this would be more for, this is more of your, either one of these, you know, small manufacturers that limit manufacturers a very small number of specialized cars. For beer tours or something. So a lot of those would actually probably be registered and built. And they're probably built off of an existing truck that then they cut off. Right. Or they they get it without the bed and the frame, then they build the other stuff onto the frame similar to the way your rural transport buses. So the buses will be built. Those are cutoffs where the back is left off, and they build a custom body with the seats and whatever needs they have there. This is the other piece that this captures is a homebuilder who is, for example, buying a kit that has body and suspension, and then they're fitting, you know, specialized Honda engine into it and so forth. And so this this would capture them. They still have to make sure that whatever they put in for the drivetrain complies with whatever, air quality requirements for the drivetrain. You can't just put in, like, a straight pipe unrestricted track drivetrain on a street car. You know? So if you're building a so I have a a friend who, races formula for His his car can't register that under this because it's not gonna have a a street legal exhaust. That's track only. But the for someone here who's, for example, buying a kit where you've got got the body and maybe you're either buying a pre manufactured engine that has already been certified.

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

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. You can then fit that into the car and it's got the body and the other things. So

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: And that wouldn't be a part of the 12. That's like a totally separate

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This would be part of the 12.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Well, but only if they were selling.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. So there's there's two types of vehicles that fall under this. It's either vehicle built by a manufacturer that makes less than 325 vehicles for sale in The US each year or an individual and not for resale. So that's like you're you're building your own KitKat. It's not for resale. It's for your your personal use.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: But okay. So this is where now I'm confused. Because I have a whole there's a whole cadre of people that I know who do, like, the repops of cars where it's like they're taking, an old car and they're updating it with a kit, maybe turning it into an EV, for example. But those cars have bins for the most part already. So they wouldn't be

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's that's different than what we're talking

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: about here. Because it's kinda it's difficult to there's a spectrum with your car. So we're really trying to capture the furthest end of that spectrum, not the folks who are kind of taking an already existing vehicle. Okay. I just don't wanna hurt that group of people because those are our most creative people entrepreneurs in a way.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: EV rebuilds. So, you know, I'm a Porsche fan for those of you who are not gonna catch on here. So when you take your Porsche nine fourteen and you use that trunk for your battery, and you put an electric motor in it, you no long you no longer have emissions. So you don't have to worry about the emissions issue here. Okay. And it's the those are more similar to where you have or in my real life case here where you have the Dodge Caravan and the engine gives out after a 150,000 miles, and you put a new engine into it or a rebuild engine into it. That's similar to what you're talking about. Car already has a van. It's already registered. You're putting a new engine that's emissions compliant into it, and you're going from there.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Great. I just would hate for us to have that 12 be a limitation on that group.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: So it sounds like it's problem, which is So, functionally, this is an amendment that would be offered by all of us. Yeah. Is that okay? Yes. I don't think we have to vote on this. Oh. Do we

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you just take a straw poll? So this is

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I think we just did. Yes. I'm can I see a show of hands? They wanna be included.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Okay. Everybody's comfortable with their name on the amendment. Yeah. So I drafted it as from all the committee members, but I'm happy to take your name off if you don't

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: want to. Will will there be if there's a bill that's introduced, we amended it, then we amended the amendment, or can we get rid of that amendment?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So you've got a committee report, which is already out there. Yeah. And so this, you would then offer as a substitute for the committee report.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Well, it's finance. It's in finance. It's in finance. Could we say, hey, finance. Could you include this in your amendment?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, you could you could ask finance to do that. I would rather talk to

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: I would rather the five of us put it in as our amendment, and we've taken care of our own.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: But we should tell them so they don't they're not gonna amend those sections.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Think so.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. We'll spend some time on this section.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And then the other thing I would just highlight is, it's worth just letting secretary Bloomer know. And then if he would prefer this coming in a different manner, I can redraft

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. The match up though. The question is, should I take this out to him today clean, or what how should we work that?

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would recommend that, and then if he would like it in a different format for purposes of what's gonna happen on the floor, can

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: read clean copy. What I'm going to do at this point is are the students on, and I'm going to need a copy. I'll take that up into the clerk's office, and I'm going to leave, and you're on. If you you have to leave I am to leave you. At at 10:10.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: I have a bill.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Then the lakes management piece will we can put off until we get back. Okay.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: What time do you have to leave?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: I believe at ten. Ten? Yeah. I'm just going to health and welfare.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I might sneak up. I got some more share acquired better than that.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: It sounds like we're gonna call it not at ten.

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Right.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: I think this

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: week is actually at class.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll be back by quarter.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm going to leave, and I'm sorry to, the students.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's a few in regard. A few.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: If you could give my apologies.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Of course. Hi. Welcome to Senate Transportation. We're it looks like we've got three folks on our agenda. I'm Senator Becca White, so I think I'm the one who technically requested some of this work. So thank you for being here. We have Dylan Unra as our first witness listed, but whoever you have in order to introduce yourselves, or if the professor, if you want to start, whatever, We've got you until 10AM, and we'd love to hear about.

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: I mean, I'm gonna be speaking first. My name is Finton Letzelter. I actually grew up in Glover, Vermont, so this is pretty exciting. And I'm a senior at Dartmouth College.

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: I'm Dylan. I'm also a sophomore at Dartmouth College. I'm originally from Westchester, Pennsylvania.

[Carter Hoskins (Dartmouth College student)]: And I'm Carter Carter Hoskins. I'm a sophomore as well from Dartmouth, and I'm from Long Island, New York.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Don't be shy. We got who's next? Who's introducing?

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: Yeah. I'm Sam Williams. I'm actually just a a postdoctoral resource research associate at Dartmouth, so I've been supporting the student team on this particular project. So they will be presenting. I'm just here to support and cheer on. So thanks for letting me be here.

[Kristen Smith (Director, Policy Research Shop, Dartmouth College)]: And good morning. I'm Professor Kristen Smith. I'm the director of the Policy Research Shop at Dartmouth College. And this team has worked really hard on their research. Thank you so much for being our client and allowing us to present our research to you today.

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

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: Alright. Shall I get started?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Go right ahead.

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: Alright. Let me share my screen.

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

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: Are the slides displaying properly?

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Yes. We see them.

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: Alright. Perfect. So, well, welcome to our presentation. We're gonna be talking about mileage based user fees for electric vehicles in Vermont. Thank you so much for taking the time to speak with us. It's it's an honor to to to do this. As I said, my name is Vincent. But yeah. So just to dive right in, we'll give you a little policy context about mileage based user fees. So for in recent decades, gas tax revenues have been falling, dwindling. And there's three main reasons for that. First is inflation. The federal gas tax has not been increased since the nineteen nineties, and so, you know, purchasing power from gas tax revenues has been declining because of that. Second, as technology improves, the fuel efficiency of vehicles means that consumers are using a little less gas. And finally, what we're focused on, electric vehicle adoption means that a bigger and bigger proportion of Vermont drivers are not using gas at all and and thus not paying the gas tax at all. If you look at this graph, this is, nominal and inflation adjusted revenues, you know, projected with, reduced gas consumption. And as you can see, there's this real revenue deficit that needs to be addressed. And so there's a need for a solution for this deficit. And so Vermont's current solution, and along with many other states, is an additional registration fee for electric vehicles. In Vermont, it's $89 so that's in addition to the $89 normal registration fee for all vehicles. This solution, it works to raise revenue, but it's problematic because it doesn't scale with road usage. And so a driver who's only driving 1,000 miles in a year is paying the same amount into roads as someone who's driving 20,000, 25,000 miles a year. And there's two alternatives to this. The first is a kilowatt hour tax at EV charging stations. This would work to scale with usage. But according to a study we read, over 80% of EV charging in The United States happens at home. And so this would just miss a ton of charging and cause a whole slew of other inequities. And so second, the solution that Vermont's actually planning to instate are mileage based user fees. And so a mileage based user fee is what it sounds like. Mileage is tracked in a given year, and then drivers are charged according to that amount of mileage. If you look at this map, most states are exploring mileage based user fees in some way. The green states in this map are the only ones with no involvement whatsoever. The yellow states have, conducted some sort of research. The light blue states have done a pilot program. The navy blue states, have have an active program for heavy vehicles, so, like, semi trucks and dump trucks and whatnot. And the darkest blue states, there's four of them, have an active program for passenger vehicles. Those are Oregon, Utah, Virginia, and Hawaii. And so we separated our analysis into three buckets. The first is implementation. The second is equity. And the third is revenue. And that led us to these three guiding research questions. First, how should an MBUF be implemented, and how should mileage be tracked? Second, will an MBUF distribute cost to drivers in an equitable and desirable way? And finally, can an MBUF be an effective alternative for revenue generation to the gas tax? And with that, we're going to move into a little more background about MBUFs and the real world evidence from it.

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: Sure. So Vermont's current mileage based user fee program has been delayed from 2025 to 2027, allowing for groups such as us to perform research. Currently, Vermont charges an additional registration fee of $89 annually for EVs and $44.50 annually for plug in hybrids. Vermont's current plan for, the mileage based user fee program is similar to Hawaii's in that the usage of odometer readings collected, the and that they will be using odometer readings collected at, annual inspections for mileage data. As we'll see on the next slide, there are four states currently working with MBUF programs. Those are Hawaii, Utah, Virginia, and Oregon. Each of these states offer different forms of mileage data collection. Hawaii implemented their EV program, High Ruck, on 07/01/2025 in which they collected they collect data via odometer readings as Vermont has planned. Utah implemented their road usage charge or RUC program on 01/01/2020. They offer an option between odometer readings and telematics software. Virginia's mileage choice program was implemented on 07/01/2022 and offers the option of telematics and physical mileage tracking devices, also known as OBD2 plug ins, which can have GPS capabilities. Oregon's Orgo program was implemented on 07/01/2015. Enrollees have the option of submitting odometer photos or using mileage tracking devices. Orgo also is a closed pilot program that has been used as a testing ground for proof of concept. Later in this presentation, we'll see smaller numbers of enrollees for Oregon, and and that's a major reason why. We will now explain why we analyze these states and our methodologies.

[Carter Hoskins (Dartmouth College student)]: Yes. Moving on to our research methodology. We divided our research into three key parts, background research to build foundational knowledge, a case study on three states that have already implemented MBUF programs. These states, again, Virginia, Utah, and Oregon, in which we sought to learn from their lessons and experience with the program. And finally, in-depth interviews with Vermont EV owners to understand the perspective of those who would actually be affected by this policy. So starting with our background research, we began with a thorough review of existing scholarship on MBUFS, including research reports detailing predicted equity and revenue concerns as well as public opinion trends. We also search for Vermont specific policy documents to better understand how the envelope might fit within the state's existing transportation framework. To complement this, we interviewed a state policy official as an identified expert on this envelope topic, and this interview provided valuable insight into the motivations driving this policy within the state, the challenges surrounding it, and the broader context of this funding change. And this was important to give us clarity to begin to look at other states. So for our case studies, we examined Virginia, Utah, and Oregon because these three states have active MBOB programs. And it's important we know we chose to exclude Hawaii from our examination because of its similarity to Vermont's plan in terms of implementation as well as, like, lack of similar characteristic between the states, specifically, like Hawaii being an island state. There's no concerns of out of state mileage and things of that sort. So I've summarized each state's program in similarity to Vermont. So as you see for Virginia, they have similar characteristics of out of state drivers that may we predicted that there'd be concern over the tracking of out of state mileage in that taxation. Utah is geographically rural and mountainous, much like Vermont, so we figured those similarities would be impactful. And finally, for Oregon, we found there to be, like, similar left leaning political identity to Vermont, which could another consideration for public opinion. We reviewed official reports and supporting documents published by state agencies to understand how each program operates, what revenues they generate, and what their future of the program looks like. Beyond these documents, we we reached out directly to policy officials within each state's, department of transportation or DMV for interviews. Within these conversations, we asked about their implementation strategies and methods, their profitability and equity considerations, and as well public reception to the program. And this gave us a well rounded picture of real world barriers and that these states have experienced. And finally, we conducted in-depth interviews with six EV owners residing in Vermont. These interviews were designed to provide ground level insight and understanding of how drivers may feel about this MBOB policy. So we leverage our local network and send out emails in order to reach out to these drivers, who specifically live in Vermont. We heard from a range of perspectives that helped us explore questions around equity, privacy, and best methods. Their input was very valuable for shaping our recommendations for what an ideal MF policy might

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: look like for Vermont.

[Carter Hoskins (Dartmouth College student)]: And with that, we will move into our findings.

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: Yeah. So just to refresh, we we have this three pronged framework for analysis. We have implementation, equity, and revenue, and that's how we separated our results. And so I'll take implementation here. Derived mostly from our interviews with EV drivers. Privacy is a dominant concern for drivers. It came up in every interview. It was emphasized by pretty much it was emphasized by everyone we interviewed. I thought one telling quote was, you know, this one driver we interviewed said, referred to all mileage tracking by the state as big brother watching us. Also, from our EV driver interviews, we found that out of state mileage concerns are are secondary for drivers. Even drivers who reported driving significant miles out of the state just did not report being, you know, overly worried about that. One driver said, I'm not losing any sleep over that. Drawing from our case studies, administrative burden is a significant concern for mileage based user fees. Burden seems to be highest for telematics and plug in devices. That's due mostly to cumbersome contracts with third parties, which end up being expensive. The burden is much lower for the odometer inspections and self reported apps, as there's just less infrastructure necessary to make that happen. Finally, drawn from our background research and supported by the case studies, fraud risk appears to be minimal across all the mileage tracking methods. It's virtually impossible for the GPS methods, the telematics and plug ins. If you were to institute, like, a honor system, self reporting, out of state miles driven, there's some level of ability for fraud in the self in the odometer pick the the apps and, odometer inspections as people could inflate the amount of drive the amount of miles they drive out of state. But as one Utah state official told us, it would be a whole lot of effort to save a couple dollars. And so that is not something that, the policy officials are super worried about. And so with that, we'll move into the equity findings.

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: So we found that both state officials and EV drivers considered MBUS to be an equitable fee. This is due to the MBUS ability to accurately scale with road usage while gas taxes can be skewed by fuel efficiency. This is especially important to the state officials as many of them were evaluating MBUS as a potential alternative to the gas tax to be in the long term, so not just for EVs, but also for gas vehicles as well. As we see on the left graphic, low efficiency vehicles pay more in tax for the same amount of miles driven as high efficiency and electric vehicles. The right graphic shows that with the MBUF, all vehicles pay an equal amount for miles driven. So this really means pay what you use. We also found that all states that offered the MBUF as an alternative to the additional registration fee implemented a fee cap to ensure that MBUF drivers could only ever save. This increases the equitability of the fee as vehicle owners who don't drive much aren't charged the same for heavy commuters. We saw contention over the taxation of out of state driving. As Vincent mentioned a bit, most of state officials seemed less concerned with the discounting of out of state miles over some EV drivers we interviewed who explicitly expressed they would want their out of state miles discounted. However, again, this wasn't a major contention to some sources of disagreement. Now moving into the results of our research into revenue.

[Carter Hoskins (Dartmouth College student)]: Right. So looking at revenue, it was a clear theme was found, which is limited profitability. However, we also found that was almost intentional. States of state officials within our interviews were quick to emphasize that these are pilot programs, and maximizing revenue was not the primary goal at this stage of their program. The focus was more on figuring out the best methods to actually run this program without before worrying about scaling this up. With that said, a primary driver of the lack of revenue is low enrollment. So as you can see, many states have low enrollment numbers, like, specifically Oregon, and this is a obvious barrier to garni garnering revenue since there are less participants to pitch in. This low enrollment stems from the voluntary nature of the program where drivers must choose to enroll themselves. We found that when faced with the alternative of the flat fee, many drivers simply just opted to pay that fee. This could be due to multiple individual level reasons that our research did not get into. However, we also speculate that this could be a result from a lack of education and marketing from the program. We found in one case that there was an incentive for the states to not market the program because it was more advantageous to collect the flat fee revenue rather than move drivers into the EMBA program. And this explains low enrollment and moves us into my next point about administrative cost. So we found very high administrative cost for many of the states, especially for Virginia where they use physical mileage tracking devices, which is costly to distribute. Additionally, all three states rely on third party account managers, which can also carry steep expense expenses. A notable feature we found within these contracts with their third parties is a charge per driver admitted into the program on top of system fees just for maintaining the program that happen monthly. The good news is that many states are aware of this problem and are taking state steps to address it. Many states are phasing out physical devices and cheat in favor for less expensive alternatives to collecting mileage as well as renegotiating contracts with their third party account managers moving forward to fixed payments rather than profit sharing. And officials believe that once administrative costs are brought down and enrollment scales up, these programs will have the potential to be competitive with existing funding mechanisms.

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: So for the implementation of the MBUF program, we recommend prioritizing odometer inspections or self submission apps while avoiding GPS systems. This addresses many of the privacy concerns of constituents. Furthermore, while third party managers can add a layer of abstraction that increases privacy, their services also can be unnecessarily costly. The MBUF program is inherently in or inherently equitable due to its ability to scale with road usage. An important place of caution, however, is if the option of a flat fee or the MBUF is offered, to ensure that those enrolled in MBUFs don't exceed the flat fee. To maximize profit, we recommend minimizing third party contract expenses, and particularly following Utah's contract model if engaging with third parties, also avoiding the plug in trackers. This will allow the program to scale in profits with increases in enrollees. Now moving into our conclusion. In conclusion, while mBuffs are currently not a panacea to declining revenues for the Highway Trust Funds, they provide a potential scalable alternative for equitable revenue generation. By prioritizing low cost privacy and constituent support, a viable and healthy Embluff system is possible. Thank you.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Wow. Yeah. Well, yeah, yeah. So thank you so much. And if you wanna stop sharing your screen, I think we've got some questions.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Sure. Yeah. Thank you.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Yeah. So okay. So, hi. I'm Wendy Harrison. I, live in Brownboro and I'm, the Windham County, Senator, one of them. So thank you so much. And just a comment is you're coming to the same conclusions that we are because we also obviously look there's just four of them. We looked at them and equity is important to us. Obviously reducing the cost and privacy is really important to us. It's great to hear that from our constituents And so it's a really good project and you did it well procedurally, and it's just terrific that we ended up mostly in the same place. So I just I have a couple questions. Did you find any data particularly difficult to get? Was there anything that you wanted to know that that was hard to get?

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: On I mean, I I mostly handle the EV driver interviews. Those were, I I would say, very straightforward to get what we wanted. I I know Dylan

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: part

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: of governments have have

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: things that are not easy to find even though, technically, we work for the public. Right?

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: Sure. Would say the only thing that sometimes we had a little bit of difficulty finding with maybe revenue data, but we were usually able to access that or the state officials were usually pretty straightforward with that during their interviews. So if you weren't able to find it online, we were usually able to get numbers from them.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Okay. Cool. And then just one one place where I I see it a little bit differently is the chargers that are on the highways basically. Those are mostly for folks who are out of town or they're not residing. And Vermont doesn't have any sort of tolls, we don't have any tolls, so we get a lot of out of state visitors in cars, which really impacts our roads. And so to me, those are opportunity for equity because we know that people who live here and we're working hard to make it so that people who are in apartments, that's the hardest segment to have chargers that you pay for differently. But if we can have a tax on the chargers that are on the highways, to me that's a benefit because then we're getting revenue from out of state people who would not be part of the MBUF program. Just wanted to mention that. And then I have a question for the professors if they're willing and if that's okay. So we actually knew about this situation like twenty years ago. Revenue has been going down for a really long time. Have there been other studies like this done by students and did they come up with similar suggestions, if there were?

[Kristen Smith (Director, Policy Research Shop, Dartmouth College)]: I'll take that question and happy to answer any questions that I can. So, with the Policy Research Shop, we have had other EV related topics, but not on chargers and not on how to gain revenue for the state transportation coffers in that way. But we've looked at other EV related things. And that's a really great point about the highway chargers and getting revenue from out of state drivers as a way. I'd love to hear what the students have to say about that because that wasn't really something they covered. But maybe you mentioned some of these things in your report.

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: Yeah. So, obviously, the kilowatt hour, a little bit outside of our scope because we're focused on m bus, but we heard that exact sentiment from a couple EV drivers. Like, you know, when we were discussing the issue, they said exactly that that, you know, most remote drivers are charging at home. So a a kilowatt hour tax net charging stations would get all that, you know, out of state drivers who are going to Sugarbush. Sugarbush was the one that came up explicitly as they have these EV chargers. Why are those not getting taxed? They're all Massachusetts license plates, you know, lined up there, and they're not doing You

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: know a lot about us now.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Thanks. We had a question from as well.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. Hi. Thanks. I'm sorry I missed part of it, but on your on the research you did on GPS as it relates to privacy issues, how how did you do that? Polling? Or

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: We did we did six, like, in-depth interviews with EV drivers, Vermont EV drivers, and we just we asked them about how they felt about GPS versus odometer inspections. We got resounding resounding impression that privacy is very important to the drivers.

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: Also, in our interviews with state officials from Utah, Oregon, and Virginia, we also asked them about kind of the public perception of privacy and whatnot. And they did note that there was some concerns about the use of GPS systems, but also most states were avoiding using GPS systems just because of the cost of the OBD two plug ins anyways as well. Thanks.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: And I would just say we've certainly heard that anecdotally from we've had, I think, all of the states that you highlighted at some point come into the Senate Transportation Committee and provide a presentation for us. While it seemed like the internal device, even though it was very clearly not tracking where you're going or reporting that data to anyone specifically that could use it in other ways, that even the idea of having a government device tracking mileage in your vehicle was not very exciting or interesting to people. So we've definitely heard that from the folks that we've listened to. I had one question related to the cap or having a specific set fee rather than having a mileage based user fee that is tracking your exact miles. And you alluded to the fact that drivers seem to be preferring that the fixed amount versus potentially what could even be a lower amount if they were tracking their miles. So I'm wondering if you could speak a little bit more to that.

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: Sure. Most drivers, I think, kinda just anticipate that they will drive over that average amount. So a bit of I think a bit of it is just looking for convenience, and it is easier for them to just pay that full amount. They noted that most of the people who do opt for the mileage based user fee with the intention of saving typically have either very short commutes or are low drivers or just kind of within that subsect of people who will just look for a savings kind of in in any option. But, yeah, most people kind of opted for the convenience. And if you're in areas where there are large amounts of commuting, for example, like, especially, like, Virginia, where a lot of people will commute into, you know, the DC area, it didn't make a ton of sense for them to go through the process of trying to track miles when they were pretty confident that they'll already be over the cap anyways.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. It made me think a little bit of like, I know I donate more than the tax amount that when I file my income tax. Know that I most likely, if I tracked all my receipts and did all that, I'd probably go above the standard withholding or whatever the standard refund amount is. I'm not sure the right term. But I always opt because it feels easier and simpler and less like a manual task to get all my donations together. So, think that that's also a conversation for drivers is they feel like there might be more of like a mental load or administrative side to it that they themselves have to do. Okay, and then I have one other question, and then if anyone else does, then we can let you go. Noted either third party or supportive coordinators, like the contract that these states have had. We've had the group that at least one of the states had contracted would come and present to us. Did you get any information about Did you have any other folks We've only heard from one company that exists that seems to do this work. Did you find anything in your research related to the market of this work and if there's other companies that are doing it or if there is some kind of competitive marketplace because I do worry that whenever, if we were to contract with another company, we're a very small state, this is a very small population of people, and to have a paid third party contract could take away any of the revenue that we gain from this. So I was wondering if you could speak to that, if you found any. Is this a growing market and maybe we'll see some savings?

[Carter Hoskins (Dartmouth College student)]: Yeah. I think ours for our scope, we do not necessarily look at the market for these companies, but I know in our state interviews, it did come up. Like, Oregon is also looking to build a market for these contractors just to bring down the price. So it's definitely a concern for multiple states.

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

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I was gonna ask I got you did mention the kilowatt hour charges in your in your introduction, and you had your for your very first end note in your report, it was helpful because it listed all the states and what they do charge per kilowatt hour. And I was surprised that you thought it was 12 and a half percent. I didn't remember that when we heard before. That was helpful to see because the need that means punitive for the Oregon Electric to have both the MBO and the 12 and a half percent if you're not charging it. I guess You said that wasn't your focus, which I understand. But I don't know if you if you knew it was only on public chargers. If you knew anything about those kilowatt hour charging. It's okay. They just didn't look into it. But I don't know if it's just like on all charges or is it just like public charger or, you know, specific partners?

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: I I I don't know the answer to that. I can I can look into it and and get back to you if that's of interest? But I'd Sure.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: If you if you want to.

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: Know.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: I'm assuming it's only on public chargers, but it'd be interesting if they are are trying for homeowners or businesses. The other question which is also not something you were asked to study, you can also just say no no, which is other options. What we hear sometimes from EV drivers is they feel like they're the ones that are either the ones we're experimenting on or we're trying to get the maximum revenue out of them but we're not doing that for gas drivers And one thing that's come up in including by senator White here is indexing the gas tax. I don't know if you've looked at something like that or just in your time in this space if you have a personal opinion on it. Yeah.

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: I mean, we the the big concern is that the gas tax hasn't kept up with inflation over the past forty years. Yeah. And one of the state officials that we talked to kind of just remarked that no one wants to be the person who changes the gas tax

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: or

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: the gas tax. So m buffs definitely have been seen as more of a potential alternative. The Oregon state officials and the Virginia state officials both mentioned that they were really happy with how much they've diversified their revenue streams, and that's kind of been their solution. Indexing the gas tax is definitely an option, at least on the state level. It may be a little bit easier on the federal level. Sure there are probably some more some more complications. But one of the other things that we noted was that m buffs are, as you mentioned, kind of being experimented on for EVs. And I think a main part of that is there currently really isn't an option besides just the flat fee right now that is, you know, super applicable or easily to apply. So EVs and plug in hybrids have kind of been the testing ground, but that is not to say at all that mBus can't be expanded to any type of car at all. There's no, like, special technology or anything about EVs. They just happen to not use gas.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Good point. Yeah. Yeah. We've spent a lot of time talking about how to not punish EV drivers and to continue adoption while also meeting our revenue.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: If you do the M Bus on the gas cars, which your point is well taken that it's just as easy to do, but they're paying a gas tax when they buy the fuel, so we either have to get rid of the gas tax and switch them in, but then if you do that, you're not getting your advantage. That's the reaction I get. People shake their heads because then you wouldn't be selecting any gas tax on out of state drivers. Rash.

[Dylan Unra (Dartmouth College student)]: Yes.

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: They lower rate. Yeah.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Can I just I just wanna tell you all something that I found pretty good? When we were looking at this couple of years ago, people who had EVs want many of them actually wanted to pay because they there was either a guilt that they had of not paying or people were picking on them for not paying the gas tax, but there was actually a fair amount of support by the folks who were going to pay the tax for the tax which that hardly ever happened. Honestly the only time I've seen it but But that's something interesting that happened here.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Well, thank you all so much for taking the time to do this research. It looks like most of us have a printed out copy of your full report as well. It sounded like we had maybe one follow-up from Ted or Perchlik, which you're welcome to

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: You're willing to do it.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. You're willing and able, which you're welcome to email to either who's our committee assistant or directly to Senate Transportation as a whole, whenever it's easier. And do we have your presentation?

[Sen. Richard Westman (Chair)]: Don't know. The report

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: is online, not the not Yeah. This

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: If you're able to send the slideshow, if you haven't already, that would be great. But thank you so much.

[Kristen Smith (Director, Policy Research Shop, Dartmouth College)]: Yeah. I just I just wanna say one thing. Team, do you know exactly what the question is that you are being asked to answer?

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: Yeah. It was the Utah Utah kilowatt hour tax, whether it's on public chargers or public and private.

[Sen. Andrew Perchlik (Member)]: Yeah. It would be interesting for Utah in particular because it's the the high 12 and a half percent. But I'd be interested to know those eight states that you that have a kilowatt hour charge. Are they doing it for everybody or just public?

[Finton Letzelter (Dartmouth College student)]: Got you. I will definitely look into that.

[Kristen Smith (Director, Policy Research Shop, Dartmouth College)]: Great. Thank you so much, Senator White, for all this great work, being a wonderful client and thank you to the whole committee for enabling our students to have this great opportunity to present to you today.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: Go, Doctor. Was really helpful. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Bye. You too.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: I think you go offline as well. We'll come back at eight. We will come back at ten. Actually, I don't think we are. I think we're done. Michael Greene, is coming. My I think On

[Logan (Joint Fiscal Office analyst)]: the one.

[Damian Leonard (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Cancel that.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Clerk)]: On the lake. Yeah.

[Sen. Rebecca "Becca" White (Vice Chair)]: The wake up.

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

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