.42.53%E2%80%AFPM.png)
Good morning from Montpelier,
First, it was great to see so many of you at the Logger and Fleet Safety Training on Friday in Hartland, VT. The event was a success, and I’d like to thank Longview Forest for hosting us and all who attended. I am looking forward to seeing many of you again at our Annual Meeting in two weeks in Rockport, Maine.
This week was another busy one at the state house, with action centered on two of our priority bills, S. 60, An act relating to establishing the Farm Security Special fund to provide grants for farm losses due to weather conditions, and S. 46, An Act Relating to the Taxation of Vehicles Used for Forestry Operations.
I am pleased to report that the version of S.60 which was passed out of the House Agriculture Committee on a unanimous vote Thursday would provide replacement income to loggers as well as farmers impacted by future weather-related losses like those experienced by so many Vermont businesses in the last couple of years. Having loggers added to the bill - which originally targeted only farmers - was our primary goal for this legislation. I testified before the committee two weeks ago seeking that outcome, and the bill now includes forestry operations. We expect the name will also be changed to reflect that. We also were successful in securing two seats for loggers on the review board which will consider eligibility of applicants for the relief funding, so that is another win.
As the membership will recall, funding for lost income because of the flood events of the last two years has not been made available for logging companies at the state or federal level. The PLC does not want to ask for assistance for every weather issue that exists, but there are cases where exceptions should be made, and the authority provided in this bill is a critical step.
The bill has now moved to the House Appropriations Committee, and we are told there is $1 million in the Senate budget available to fund it. It sounds like this bill is going to pass, and we anticipate the Governor will support it, but we will continue to monitor it.
Meanwhile on S.46, State Representative and PLC Member, Jed Lipsky and I provided testimony in support of the bill to the House Transportation Committee for more than an hour on Thursday and were encouraged by the committee’s interest and willingness to devote time to the issue. PLC Board Member Sam Lincoln also provided written testimony to the committee.
As you know from my previous update, House Transportation Committee Chairman Matt Walker, while supportive of the bill, is not willing to move it forward this session due to its fiscal impact upon the highway fund. There is a $30 million deficit in the highway fund this session and that is an obstacle too large to overcome. However, Chairman Walker does not want to see the bill die and our purpose in testifying this week was to set the bill up for action in 2026.
We plan to work with the Governor’s office to include the bill in the state budget for 2026-27 and Chairman Walker is also willing to write a letter to the Governor asking to have funding included in the Governor’s FY ’27 budget, with the intent of bringing the bill back up in his committee in 2026.
On a related issue, Jed Lipsky and I met on Thursday with the Legislature’s Joint Fiscal Office concerning the estimated fiscal impact of the bill, which we believe came in higher than it should have ($1 million for the purchase and use tax alone) based on insufficient and or/flawed data. We expressed our willingness to work with the state’s Department of Motor Vehicles and other state agencies this summer and fall to improve their data and they seemed receptive to that, so stay tuned.
As a reminder, S. 46, as originally submitted would have exempted new and used heavy-duty trucks and parts used in forestry operations from sales, purchase and use taxes, lowering costs for loggers and forest truckers in the state and putting them on a more equal footing with those in neighboring states where such exemptions already exist.
The version of the bill that passed out of the Senate was significantly watered down in a deliberate attempt to smooth its passage with the hope of restoring the full exemptions in the final stages of the House process. It is still our intent to pursue the restoration of the original language when the bill comes up again in the next session.
While this is not the outcome we had hoped for at the start of the session, we are encouraged by the reception S. 46 has received and believe if it were not for funding, it would have been passed. At this point, we are hopeful that it will be successful in the next session.
Please reach out to me with any questions, concerns, or suggestions and have a great week.
Dana