Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Hi.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Wednesday, March 18. And we're back working on the capital bill, working on the spreadsheet. And we're going to start with the vets home. So there's a lot of moving pieces here on the vets home. And I think we've it's could put up their document, could they submit it to us? So on the first page, if we flip to the first page, the dark screen. Can you flip is it working or not?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It's working.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So these are what the current projects are that are listed up there on the screen. And what I had for notes and I don't have the full amount that we have put in. Looking between different spreadsheets, which I'm finding really difficult. I'm trying to find out what I had here for resident furnishings. I don't know if other people took notes on their documents. For resident furnishings, which is ongoing, they have a balance of 133,000 from that.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Money they didn't use.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's what I'm kind of You want at the time.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you

[Speaker 0]: want repo tests money or not?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is there reallocations from that?

[Speaker 0]: No, but they wanted that for wardrobes. They were going to purchase wardrobes. They

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: spent $96,000 out of the $230 They spent $96,000 in their ordering wardrobes. So out of the $2.30, they've already spent 96,000. They have a balance of 133. So that 133 was gonna go to wardrobes.

[Speaker 0]: My understanding.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And the air handlers, that would be 65% complete. They had 710,000. I think they've expended 446,000. Then I don't have anything else with the boiler, elevator, washer, dryer, new laundry room, and hay wing. I don't have any notes on that.

[Speaker 0]: Got that they were waiting for funding for federal matches, waiting on a grant with the VA, of funding here with PORSA redesign. They submitted a grant application last year that was denied. They're in the process of resubmitting that request. So some of this, if they get that grant, will be federally managed. I don't know the ratio. When was that from, sir?

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I think it was on the first day of January. I

[Speaker 0]: wonder if any of that stuff is more clear

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: at this point. I wonder if we should do a check-in with them, because there's a lot of moving pieces here. And I know working on the laundry facility, are working really hard. And then the design and construction of A Wing, which is important. We put in 1,500,000.0 of cash in FY twenty six. I think it'd just be important to do a check-in.

[Speaker 0]: I do have that we they were anticipating more info by the February.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: More info. Yeah. So it would be really good to do a check-in for them. Then their new project is the sewer pipe replacement.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: For the muffin man. The muffin man, the muffin eater, the muffin eater?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Don't know. Were they gonna put in a muffin eater?

[Speaker 0]: The muffin eater. They were looking at costs. They realized that an entire facility unit would cost about the same as just, I think it was the A unit. I don't remember. Hold on. Let me get my repo notes up.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They've prioritized this as their biggest units most at risk. They can apply for federal dollars and they wanna do this project through in the summer or in October. It's under BNC wing and it's an emergency request. They estimated the cost of $7.50. And there's half 1,000,000 that was put in.

[Speaker 0]: I'm sorry. I was looking at I I was mistaken. That's the. Right? This

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: screen.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: The only comment I've got is that there was a seed pipe problem that was causing

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. They have to replace difficult. Maybe cut out a large

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: section of it because the solution is there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. They have to do the whole It's replacing the sewer pipe, and it's approximately 7,850. They

[Speaker 0]: ask for $7.50. Yeah. 500. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, the governor put in half 1,000,000 in. Your estimated cost of $7.50. Let

[Speaker 0]: me just update a little more from repo. So they've got 4.5 out of 23 for an emergency generator.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 4,500,000.0

[Speaker 0]: f y f y 24 allocated in '23. Emergency generators currently pending a decision to switch to a whole house generator at a similar cost. And they've got elevator upgrades, 1,000,000 from '23. Elevator upgrades did not receive bids, we'll go back to the RFP process shortly. And then there were the the oh, the furnishings, did you have it at $1.33? Yeah. Yeah. That's that's what they were hoping to spend on wardrobes. We didn't claw back anything from repotting.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And I'm not saying they shouldn't have all this work, but there was a lot of money open.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yes.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: So where are we? Well, you're talking about those

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: money. Go ahead.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: If they ask for $7.50 and the governor's only given 500, I say we give them everything that's on here. I wouldn't find anything back at this point, especially if you got things like sewage system problems. It's the most basic problem that's taken care of in vet's home.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oops. I agree with Kev. Yep. So keep it cash and go up to $7.50?

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Well, I don't know what you're

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: what number where that you where you're looking at that. It's cash. It's FY 27 cashable.

[Speaker 0]: 57, Shawn. 7. Yellow is.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Oh, okay. Got you. Got you. Got you. I see it.

[Speaker 0]: I see it.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Alright. I was

[Speaker 0]: I was looking over here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. Wake up. You gotta work on the gray one. Okay. Gray one. I was in red. Yeah. Yeah. I'd still agree with Kev.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Now why the governor said only 500 instead of $7.50? I don't know. That'd be good information. That's what we would do. Money spread.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well Suppose that

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Maybe it's a 100.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I'm good. I think it would still be good to get an update from them at some point, you know, roughly.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: You

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: wanna do $2.50, folks? Cash? $7.50 total?

[Speaker 0]: If they think they can get it done.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So let's pencil that in. And then what we want to assist an update on the a wing, where they are, and an update on the 133,000 for the wardrobes, where they are with the laundry room and the elevator project.

[Speaker 0]: The generator?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And the generator. Because the heat pumps were meant

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: to be installed March 1.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Is that a good note? Not that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You touched that one in the bottom line.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yep.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: That's where they ran into a snag. The heat pumps weren't working right or something like that.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: They were going back to

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: the manufacturer and saying, Hey, what's going on? So if they hadn't solved that, summertime, that's gonna be air conditioned, right? Hopefully.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then also take the update on the sewer to see if they have a better estimate in terms of what's happening there. We've put a lot of money.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Over the Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And I'm just trying to think because for the elevator and the boiler plant replacement in FY 2425, we had 4,500,000.0. But we put in language in last year's capital bill, I think, that we moved some of that money around. Maybe, John, if you could help us take a look at that in the capital bill we put in last year.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: We're trying to find for the vet's home.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. It's the emergency generator boiler. We did some moving around because they also had money in cash. That's had design work for B and C wing for $11,500,000.0 in FY twenty five. I know last year's capital bill, we had language that we moved some of this money around. So that would be that would be helpful for us to know because we allowed them to move money between some of these projects. And I just would like to know, without having to dig through our language from last year.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Gray opposite of council. What I see in the bonding section from last year is, CEO of Beth's home is authorized to transfer unexpended project balances between replacement of air campers that was section K the expansion of laundry facilities, which was 340 fitted. And I can check the cash section as well.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Check well, check the language in the back. Or sometimes we add language, and it goes back to the we did something for the previous appropriations, I think. And that doesn't show up on a spreadsheet in the language of the bill.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Just for my education chair, if we're going from 500 to $7.50, which I support, why is the $2.50 in cash? Is it because the 5 is in cash? Because cash is more fungible? Because what?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's it's because the half million is in cash, which is easier to match up instead of having to Okay. For them to split the project between bonding and cash.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: So what we did in the cash section last year was $1,500,000 for design and construction of the American unit. Those are the discussions Yeah. I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But we had language and allowed them, I think, to go back.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: We

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: had language related to offsetting offsetting

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: federal federal funds. Funds.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: If the Commissioner of Finance and Management offsets any capital funds appropriated in the 2023 capital bill for the emergency generator and boilerplate placement, to reduce our future capital construction projects?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I thought we did something with that 4,500,000.0. We did something. Going back to the previous

[Speaker 0]: Is that what he just mentioned?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It was on February.

[Speaker 0]: Whether or not it was federally funded?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't listen to federal. Did something about the money.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: I I remember that there were discussions leading to the language for the American unit.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: There had been

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The money was targeted for something else, but because they hadn't spent anything for the emergency generator or the boiler plant out of that 4,500,000.0 in f y twenty four. And I thought he did some moving around there, some money. We want them to move that money over.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: You're talking

[Speaker 0]: '25 or '23, '24?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm talking what we did last year in '25, but it it went back. Went back a few years. Seems like I was not dreaming, but there was a lot of money. Are

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: you getting to you don't think it's all accounted for? No.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, of the amount appropriated in the cash fund for the vets home. In 'twenty four and 'twenty three, design of BNC. 1,500,000.0 is reallocated, but we did, is reallocated to defray expenditures authorized in section 19 of this act. I'm gonna go to last year's bill.

[Speaker 0]: Page 19.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Section 19. Which is the cash. Which is the cash. So we reallocated.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: If it's helpful for me to just have my markup notes from last year, which I think might be simpler than

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that. Can you explain that?

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so what I have is if it got correct,

[Speaker 0]: we had money for the

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: Brandon and Farming units B And C, so reallocated $1,500,000 from those wings to the American unit, extended flexibility to move between $4,500,000 for the emergency generator and boiler plant replacement, which was from the 2023 capital bill, and the American unit, and then ensure that that 4,500,000.0 and an additional 1,000,000 for elevator upgrades refers to capital bill upon the federal reimbursement, which is the last item.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we allowed them to move money around between all these projects. That was the language that we did. But did folks follow that?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yes. Probably did.

[Speaker 0]: And a lot of that money remains untouched.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. That's why we're like, I don't wanna pull money from them, but there's a lot of money being tied up here.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Are they thinking that money is gonna go to building the a wing?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes. That's why we there was 1,500,000.0 in previous capital bills that was targeted towards renovation of B And C. Mhmm. And a wing was really becoming a priority. So we freed up that money, took it from b and c wing to say they can use that 1,500,000.0 for design and construction, the a wing.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Is that the wing that we sell that's closed?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that would be a memory care wing for. And that's needed. The

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: closed wing we saw is getting towards Isn't

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that a? That was A, right?

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I don't know. I remember saying that. I think it was A. I think you're right. But that's one they're tearing down.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. They're redoing it for memory, at the point. But the $1,500,000 was for design and construction of that.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Right. So my notes from the sixteenth indicate that the 1.5 is all expended on design, and then it says parentheses next is construction documents. So the 1.5 is gone, it's construction documents hadn't happened as of mid January.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Some somehow, we came up with 1,300,000.0 per bed, and there's supposed to

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: be 30 beds. No.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: 1.6. 1.6? Okay. No. For construction? Correct.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's about right. That's about right. When you're dealing with an institution, it runs over 1,000,000 a bit.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: No, that's federal money. Yeah, no, I'm And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: when you do a correctional facility or you do a mental health facility, it comes in at over 1,000,000 a bit.

[Speaker 0]: No, no, but

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: it comes out of that's federal money,

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: though, too, right? Isn't it? Are we getting that isn't, like, isn't there a big match

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: with But it's gotta match that. I mean, they've gotta get on the list. Right.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It doesn't

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: mean they're gonna get the money.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: No. Well, my my point is I don't think we wanna take it away from them at this point. No. Construction. No.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But do they need more money to get to construction documents, or are they ready to go to construction? Because they've done the design documents. Yeah.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I don't know.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There's just a lot of money making around. That's all that I'm really concerned about. I don't wanna pull money from, but I wanna make sure we know where the money's going. Anyway, so we'll do a check-in with them, Tate. But right now, we have put in in cash 750,000 for the sewer system. Okay. Let's move on UVM. Is pretty standard, 1.5 each year. I'm not sure.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. And and I'm fine with that. I wanna reserve the right to come back to this as we talk about that $1,000,000 request to the state colleges. If we're talking about impact

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: IBM right now.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, I know. If we're if we're gonna be talking soon about the impact on workforce housing caused by university enrollment, and we're going to resolve that with $1,000,000 to the state colleges that may have to come back to the University of Vermont.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yeah. We're already talking about the University of Vermont, though. I mean, it's called the University of Vermont, but it doesn't really serve Vermonters anymore. Fair?

[Speaker 0]: Absolutely fair. What's the percentage, Troy? It's under 20 at this point, isn't it? What do you think?

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Percentage? Say, 15% or 20%.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, it's less than Yeah, it's, I think, 16%. I might even go below 16%. That's right.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I'm not a huge fan of that even being the line item of capital. But I'm

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: going to push back on that, because Burlington would not be Burlington without you. Well, why don't we have

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: a line item for Middlebury College?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's not go there.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So

[Conor Casey (Member)]: we're good with zeroing out development? About the female one? Zero to 3,000,000, right?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Good on you, guys. I know everybody's getting confused.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Oh, I'm just on the line item. Just started in conversation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We haven't talked about the state colleges yet. We're looking for their design So 1,500,000.0, 1,500,000.0 for UVM. This this is what we always do so that they can expend those dollars for their major maintenance projects as they see fit. Okay with that?

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Yeah. I think if we're gonna disrupt what we always do, especially about the first year of the biennium when you set up the capital bill rather than the adjustment. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: let's go to state colleges. And we've got for state colleges. Statewide renovations, major maintenance, same thing as UVM, 1,500,000.0, 1,500,000.0. The heat plant is 5,000,000 total. So if we can go to their document for the heat plant, and that would be on well, that would be

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: That's Johnson's.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's It's this. Yeah. So they're working with Efficiency Vermont to develop a central heating plant replacement, and it's 5,000,000 total. And their expected delivery was by the February, they would be awarding a contract to start the design documents. And then by the end of this calendar year, they would have the final design documents. It's right up there, folks. Final construction documents. And then they would complete their bidding and next next year at this time in the spring, they'd go out for construction. So that brings it to FY '27 total. So I think it's important for us to if they've already got see if they have a contract they've signed yet so that we can see what they're seeing for bids, what they're thinking for dollar events. We could check-in with our folks, state biologists to see where they are in terms of their bids to go out to see a little bit on it and what the projected cost might be so they could start the schematic design. It's 5,000,000 in bonded dollars. Any questions on that one? I think we just need a little bit more information.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Where they are in the process. Okay. So let's do the next part, which is the housing state university housing. It asked for a million dollars. And it's this document here, Troy. A tape.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Sorry about that. TNT. Corey.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's gonna be for housing for student and families, also for the general population. It'll be an apartment complex built in two phases. And they want to do site work and planning, design and burning to get shovel ready. What they need is the money to develop the concept to go further into design work. So, there's a variety of things here. The three b's kinda set the precedent.

[Speaker 0]: Mhmm.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: That's one thing.

[Speaker 0]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The money from three b's at this point, we need to figure out how much has gone out, the 2,500,000.0. Some has. There's still some sitting there. We need to find out when that's anticipated to go out. So for the 1,000,000, we could say zero. We could say $2.50. We could say half 1,000,000. We could say 1,000,000. The question is, do we keep it in the capital bill and do it with bonded dollars? If we decide to put money in, do we keep it in the capital bill and do it in cash? Or do we do like we do with the three b's and say, we're recommending this amount of money out of cash, and this line item should be in the appropriations bill.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Joe. Well, the three B's weren't all the same. You know, one of which was a was an infrastructure project which kind of makes sense but when we start funding things and I don't care if it's bonded dollars or cash and we're we're basically taking public monies and giving it to a private entity, which is kinda what I think is going on here. This is

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a notice of with three b's.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I I've got a problem with that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We did that with three b's.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yep. I know that. I had a problem with that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why we kicked it out, the capital bill, so we don't open up the capital bill to that. That's why we did cash, not bonded dollars. And that's why we asked it to sit in the appropriations bill so that it doesn't open up the gap in the bill.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: And I thought

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: the concept was cool when it made sense that I could have the evolving profile of what a student would look like. But the part where it's going to be run by a private entity, I I still think it's right when you subsidize that with public

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: monies. And I'm not seeing a governor's recommend on that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That came in as a big question.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So I'm with you, Joe.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Yeah, you know, we did start to send the precedent, and I do worry about continuing this precedent, you know? Because like 50 other entities could come in here with a very worthy project, to put a million dollars on the study. And we can all agree it's a good project, but the floodgates open and where does it stop? And how long is that line in future capital bills, right? If it's something we believe in, I mean, I prefer finding the money and putting the appropriate stuff for it, right? But I think having all this in the capital bill is getting a little wild. I concur.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So other folks? Same, really. It's just opening. So what I'm hearing, not using the capital bill. So then the next question is, would we recommend some of the cash out of that 17,600,000.0, is it, that we have for cash in the cash fund? Would we recommend any of that money be spent on this project and it's housed in appropriations under their state colleges section.

[Speaker 0]: I'd kind of like to get that request from Approach. I want to redirect these questions. And if state colleges, state university wants to go to Approach and ask for this money, and then approach wants to say, if we can find a way to reserve some of the cash that's currently going to the capital bill, and they wanna play around with that, let them do that. But, I'd like to redirect where these requests are coming from.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I agree with Troy's statement on that. Have two mentioned, is it's not that it's a bad project overall, but the idea that potentially it's run by a non state entity and we're giving money for that, that bothers me a lot. And that there is the precedent, which unfortunately is there. But having a probes be the one saying, hey, listen, we're interested in this and we have the cash versus us saying that. And I don't want to be in a way of a housing project, but it shouldn't be in our bill. I don't think that we should be the ones pushing it. That's just my opinion.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Well, yeah, I think that's the other thing. So if we say no, that doesn't compel us to act as your lobbyists with other committees. That's not our job. Agreed. The good

[Brian Minier (Member)]: part is I'm disappointed that it came the way it did. And I am a big fan of process. And so circumnavigating the process, I don't believe it just came up to somebody's mind and came in there. But there's no effect that happened. So it could have went through a process, the right process, and it didn't.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm trying to remember. Did we ask them if they went through the budget week post?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: They said they didn't.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They didn't.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: And so that part follows me in itself. As soon as you start opening things up, hoping people had a process, you have to do it for everybody or everybody's gonna expect it. And as you mentioned, Alice, many years ago, that's why you guys made that line for the grants, because it becomes a real big cluster.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I'm hearing I'm putting it in the capital bill.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm hearing no money.

[Speaker 0]: Yep.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Zero. Is

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that what I'm hearing?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I'm just

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: gonna I gotta say something.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Go ahead. You know,

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I kind of feel like, and I've been here a year and a half now. One of the reasons I came here was because of housing. Park State is dying on the vine because we don't have enough housing anywhere and everywhere. So I, I get everything you're all saying, and I agree with you. But I also feel that we have to get creative in helping support housing being built everywhere. So I I probably would I would give them the money, but but I get why you all are saying what you're saying, but I needed to say

[Conor Casey (Member)]: I'm okay. Gina? I'm okay with giving them the money, and I'm being dead serious when I say, I think we should take it

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: out of the UBM budget.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Sorry, Troy. UBM gets a huge appropriation out of the general fund, and this is just like extra graft for them coming out of the capital. Do they? How much is that?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Know, let me point. Me A $100,000,000? Yeah. Let me interject here because it's always been in the past, whenever we funded we funded construction projects within UVM, within State College, just forty years, fifty years. I mean, that's been ongoing for a long time. And the way that it used to operate was that they would alternate years. So one year would be UVM and the capital dollars would be targeted towards a specific construction project that they It would be renovations in one of their buildings or new buildings. So one year would be UVM and the next year would be state colleges. It could be a library, it could be a lecture hall or a building like Dewey Hall, or it could be a library. And then it got to a point where those particular construction projects that were targeted were so expensive that the capital bill just wasn't keeping up. So we made an agreement with what the administration and the legislative end made an agreement with UVM and state colleges that instead of targeting for specific construction project for a building, we would split it evenly between the two colleges for their major maintenance. Put it towards major maintenance. And they could and we do that evenly each year. And they could target that towards any deferred maintenance or they could target that to a specific construction project that they had. But we gave them the flexibility. And they all agreed to that. And that was done back in the late nineties, early two thousands. So if you're starting to pull money from UBM to go to state colleges, really

[Conor Casey (Member)]: invalid from the nineties, Alice.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know. But that's but to so I'm going back going back to what Conor said. If we change anything midstream, is that good policy to do that? Or do you wait till the beginning of a biennium to see that?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: What if, since I mean, it's not that any of us, I don't believe, disagree with housing. I think that depends on where it is too. So why don't, for example, Shawn, why don't you make contact, for example, with appropriations, say, hey, this is a project here. We don't think it's a capital build project.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I would be the one to make that talk to Approach, not Shawn.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Well, realized if it was a committee thing, but I'm saying if we're saying as a committee, we don't want to be the ones pushing it. You know what I'm saying? So if we're saying that we're the process, but we have a member who wants to go, that's all I'm saying. I mean, we can be if the committee decides that the committee wants to do it, of one of us go into them when the committee said we don't want to, would be counterintuitive. But regardless, there's ways to get it, but I just have a real problem with giving state money to non state entities that I'm not sure, and not that we don't, but I'm not sure that I've seen enough of what this is actually going to be. I haven't seen enough evidence of it going to be something productive. Don't oppose the idea. I'm going to be supportive, want more information about it and I think it should

[Speaker 0]: come out of

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: the appropriations bill.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Brian? So reference was made earlier in the conversation to the three b's. It's my memory, but correct me if I'm wrong. Wasn't our first sort of move gambit offer that we were going to zero those out, but

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: it was

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: pushed further by the administration. So

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I think our I don't know.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Where is the administration on this? And aren't we zeroing this out by the same logic? I want housing, too.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't think the administration's involved in this. The request came from the state colleges.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: Does the administration care? Do we know?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: I feel like the move is the same.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm hearing is don't put anything in the capital bill. And I'm also hearing that folks don't support this except for one person. Right. Wants to make sure we have some money for housing.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So is it fair to say we're not doing this? We're sealing it? Mhmm. So k. Let's move on. So the next piece to this year. Oops. Not sorry. It flipped. Oh god.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Oh,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: boy. A and R is the biggie.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: You broke. Oh,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the first line item is the drinking water revolving loan. And that is our state match, the federal dollars. It's a five for one match. Had some last year, we didn't put any in because they had basically, Okay, enough money in the bank. They're that they didn't need any match. They had enough in the bank to match their debts.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So right now, they are requesting we had 590,000 bonded dollars. The governor has put in an additional 2,498,000.000. And so this is way in the back.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Take two.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Water and drinking water SRF. The estimated match requested is based on an anticipated federal grant. On the next page it's on the next page.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Which witness is this? The Woodward? Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: It's towards the back of this

[Speaker 0]: Page 13. Page 13. I've also got that 1.2 of that is to backfill for federal fiscal 'twenty five. And the rest anticipates federal fiscal '26.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So 1.2 is part of that 2.4?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yes. That's what I've got.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's the backfill.

[Speaker 0]: And then the rest anticipates federal fiscal '26, which we might know in July.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What does the committee Let's

[Conor Casey (Member)]: say we gave a million out of 76.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What?

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Why '76. We're not there yet.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: '73.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: '70 they froze. '73, I don't think he can

[Conor Casey (Member)]: I don't think he can take anything? You can't tell me. I

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: think that we could, but that'd be terrible. Yeah. They would be bad. You're supporting match.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Look at what happens to the roads when

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: All this stuff out. You're

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: supporting federal match dollars. For some reason, whoever's here

[Brian Minier (Member)]: next year. If there's money ticking around, you

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: could talk about it then.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I also wanna throw out to folks. We have a year and a half over a year and a half, Mitchell's Golf.

[Speaker 0]: Eighteen months, yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, it's over that because also on the federal level, allows you, by fiscal years, a year and a half, have eighteen months to match that.

[Speaker 0]: Wants Fed to give us the money.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If they give you the money. So that would kick in for FY 'twenty seven. That kicks in in October for them, not July for us. So in essence, you have a two year period to match.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Well, good news. I just think it's a

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: fad habit to get into.

[Speaker 0]: I agree.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't know. Just wanna

[Conor Casey (Member)]: put out there. And then all of a sudden, we're gonna pull it from later.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: We gotta remember the prospects are getting better through capital bills the years go. I want to hold out anyway. Just that information

[Brian Minier (Member)]: is interesting. Mean, how many other people, I mean, probably a couple of you other than Alice, how many of you knew that you had eighteen months?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You just learned something. They were banking.

[Speaker 0]: You gave up three years to figure it out. Yeah. But my point is

[Brian Minier (Member)]: that you never know when you're going to learn something.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we learned because what was going on, they were banking the money, and they had millions that were not going out the door. And we figured that out, and that's when we started the reallocations. And we put a two year limit because they were banking the money and saying they needed it for the match. They had a year they had up to two years to keep the money and not use it. So that's why we started really looking at it. For a couple years, we didn't fund them because they had enough money in the bank.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I was three years old when I found that out. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we're okay with that. Dam safety. There's no changes there, half 1,000,000 and half 1,000,000. We did have the dams. This was the dam document February 5.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yeah. Just a question on that. Are we just going over the funding allocation amount, or are we actually getting into general detail?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's all tied in in terms of

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Whenever we give a damn testimony, it's just terrifying. What find relative to what the potential outcomes are for not getting more proactive.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: And you're right, Joe, because it's like one of the notes I took, it's like because the guy what's his name? The the guy who came in, Ben. Right? Yeah. He's like, yeah. Because we haven't done anything in ten or fifteen years, and so we're playing catch up. So I don't see how you can cut money on this.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm good with Still spending down FY '23. Yeah. We also see

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yeah. We

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: got a lot of new folks on board too, so the money is getting out the door quicker than it was in previous years. That's in Philly. Yeah.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It's early in the morning. Can you

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: give me some cookies? So we're comfortable with keeping that as is? Yes. And the bigger one, Waterbury Dam, 150 cash.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This is a big, big project. We're talking millions, dollars. It is Army Corps of Engineer. We do have a slight match to that. I forgot what the one because we already put some previous money aside.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: It says cost overruns.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: It already happened, didn't it?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. The draft caused longer time to get into the Penn stock. Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I remember that testimony. So James got a definition of what a penstock is.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: Totally. I

[Brian Minier (Member)]: was proud of myself.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Which was good because

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I didn't know about it.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I know it was. It's like, why are

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: we talking about cat?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The total project for this is over on. So we're okay with this?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Definitely.

[Speaker 0]: Okay.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: People have had problems with it at all.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: And have a lot of trust with Ben. It seems like he's doing a good job. Absolutely. He knows what he's got.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: He knows what he's doing. He's on top of it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Forest and Parks, they have command.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Right, that was Danny. Yeah,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that's probably something for now. Where are folks feeling on that one?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: On line seven Wow. Take a to think it, Galfetti. But we also

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: She's starving the period.

[Speaker 0]: Two years. Okay. You're pretty transparent.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: These people just, you know, extend the deadline, we push it out, and we can't meet all these deadlines.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I would have no idea what

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: 400 would

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Trying to find out what the 400 would be. Be for. They don't

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: They've got a bunch of different projects.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It would be for forest roads and park infrastructure is what they are projecting. So they said the 2,500,000 plus the 400,000 would be for clean water for the roads and for park infrastructure. That's what they were saying.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: And a lot of money for the clean for the three acre rule.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Was that in that one?

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yep. No.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's separate. That's a separate mine.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Well, it is. It's part

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: of it. It's

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: part of

[Conor Casey (Member)]: it. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We have 600 miles of road in best in areas that have a direct water quality impact. Where are we folks?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Can we get Danny in there to or sorry, Commissioner Fritzsko to come in here and talk about how much that three acre rural compliance is? Like, is it part of that one seventy seven? Because I think that would be really important to pull the and know the breakdown.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If you go to Park Infrastructure Three Acre Rule, the Three Acre Rule, this dot this here

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Keep going.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Keep going.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: It's It's Hawaiian shirt. There. Yes.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It is.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: FY '26 is 3,500,000.0. FY '27 is 2.5 plus the 400,000. So it would be four parks are complete, 15 parks still require work, one year class, and the planning estimates 5.8.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: We estimated 05/2008 through 2035, so it trimmed it a little bit. It's still staying on the trajectory.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that extra $400,000 is just going to augment everything. We can get Danny back in here to talk about the three acre rule if folks are interested.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I prefer not to if you need to.

[Speaker 0]: Thanks. I don't think we need to. I think we're clearly having a conversation about the three acre rule. I I think you're all itching for a floor fight on that one. But if if you got y'all wanna pick that fight, I'll stay quiet.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Well, there's still I mean, there's two and a half bonded for 27.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I think, like, shaving a little off of it could be helpful, you know, just for everything else that we're trying to save and then spend money on.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: You have to.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: But I would I would advocate for taking the 400 cash. That's just me. We're leaving the rest of it alone.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: It's not a bad idea, Joe. I can help.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can I

[Speaker 0]: ask how we're explaining that?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: We don't like Well,

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: the commissioner's slide speaks to the fact that, as the chair has already alluded to, there are 15 parts that still require some work. The planning estimate is a total of $5,800,000 needed through 2035, and we're funding it at a $2,500,000 level in FY twenty seven by the dollar. It seems as though we're well within that trajectory without the 400.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Well said.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's say take floor hungry. Take the floor?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yep. That's a great question, by Troy. You can't say just because?

[Speaker 0]: Right. I just want be us upfront about what we're doing here. Again, I would prefer not to have this section on the floor. Just notice, and that's no judgment, I just notice that when three acre comes up, we find ways to get rid of money. And that's gonna be the question that people may have on the floor. And I don't have an answer for it.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: And that's a fair question, and there needs to be some funding there.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So let's just be transparent about

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: the floor. But it's not like you're taking that 400,000 you're not getting it. You're

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: taking zero.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: And leaving $6,000,000 for the

[Brian Minier (Member)]: two year period. And my question, comes off of yours, is when they came to testify, I just don't remember, to be honest with you, that why did they want the extra 400? And if taking it is going to stop them from something they legitimately are doing this year, or is it in anticipation of future years, which a lot of stuff seems to be. So like, maybe in that way Will's question asked the commissioner to come is okay. But I don't see that that 400 is going to delay them this year. But again, my memory is not telling me that she said something specific about me.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm looking at this sheet here. Okay. So the top line beginning balance, they got 2,900,000.0. That includes a 400,000. Because they have 2.5 in bonded. This is how they're projected to spend that 2.9. So it'd be 1,000,000. First, small scale infrastructure. A septic system, 188,000. 400,000 for Saint Catherine Toilet Building. 40 and 40 for a duplex housing in Alberg and Grand Isle. 80,000 to supplement our mine cabin numbers that's out to bid now. 50,000 for new discovery field site hookups that's underutilized at this point. Waterbury day use, 200,000. Wastewater system emergency repair, 150. Planning and remediation, 50,000. And then Little River, three acres stormwater, three sixteen. Banbury, Branbury, 55. Three acre engineering and permitting, 50. One fifty. 50. Three acre engineering and permitting from the bottom about four. Oh,

[Speaker 0]: I'm looking at total.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Then Kettle Pond Water System, 23. Wastewater, ongoing. Architect and engineering 50,000, and then Silver Lake septic 187,000. So basically, what they would put on hold looking at this simply would be the Saint Catherine Toilet Building, or they would do that and take hits elsewhere. We've got the 400,000. Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: But I'm not here to tell them what to do in that regard.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I'm just putting this out. This is what gave us. I'd really be in favor

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: of keeping the 400. I think the parks are kind of stretched here and we're having this discussion like it's all three acre. But obviously, this is a pretty comprehensive appropriation here.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: And that's pretty good comprehensive list compared to what we get from some other entities. That's a pretty good list there.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Yeah. Commission has a rag together. Yes.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: This isn't a question to answer, but something to keep in your head, least I'm trying to keep it in my head when we're cutting. When you're cutting, what is your plan for the rest of the money? So if we're just cutting and trying to get to 10,000,000, let's just pretend fake numbers. What are we doing with that 10,000,000? We'll cut it. I'm not telling anybody not to be advocate for cutting because I advocate for stuff too, but just it's got to go somewhere. We

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: can Conceivably, in cash, we can go visit appropriations. And I

[Brian Minier (Member)]: don't wanna I'm just my personal guy. I don't wanna send all of our money down to to to corporations when we have tons of building pressures in the state of Toronto. I wanna I wanna pay. So that's just me.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So where are we on the 400,000 cash?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I'll keep it.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'd leave it in. Other

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: folks?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yep. I wouldn't, but I think I lost this argument.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, folks, do

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: you have any

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I mean

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: would expect to win, buddy.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I wanna get my nuance dependent rather than just yes or no

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: on on 400,000. Think want?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I I I wanna give my nuance dependent at this time. Mhmm. Keep the 400,000. But there's two line items in there that you could cover that 400,000 with and ship the.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If they wanted to, but we're not micromanaging. You're you're looking at this Yeah, I'm just looking at because some of them may already be out of contract. Always, even with repo, they're really right on the money. I would say maybe let's keep it before 100,000.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I am happy to see there's some projects at the top of Mount Filo, which is a super pretty place.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I find them to be one of the most organized when they come here, and that's correct.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Absolutely. Troy, do you recall what

[Speaker 0]: date they presented their report? It was late. They were the last one. I we're doing I don't think we they kept everything. Like, three. We got $03 That's right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Traditionally, they've always been really troubled. It's a few years ago, we even had a subcommittee really working on it because we were looking for money. And they were the only ones that that was three years ago, two or three years. And they were really, really on top of it. I think I made the comment to them that I wished a number of our other agencies airs on top.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Give us something. Gonna explain it.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: It's as easy to, you

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: know, easy to wrap your head around.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So are we there to keep the 400,000 additional cash?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I'm hearing it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So let's move on. Forest and Parks, public lands, access infrastructure. And if we go to the next page, the page after that explains what those projects. And this is just kind of an in addition to what they try to do.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I thought that was pretty straightforward. It's

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We'll keep what we had from previous years.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Unfortunately, the vice chair isn't here to complain about fire towers. Something that sticks in its craw. But they're not fire towers anymore.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So while we're here with Forest and Parks, let's kick over to section. It would be line 91. This came from the 200,000 request. Is that what it is? Yeah. For f y I twenty seven came from the Clean Water Fund Board, and this is part of our Clean Water Initiative. Are we okay with a 100,000 if you go to this this keep going. Yeah.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: That seems like low hanging fruit in the sense of, like, it's inexpensive. It's not 6,000,000 of three acre, you know, whatever. It's 200,000, and they're fixing five or six projects there. And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: they get federal funds.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: And they get federal funds. So that seems like it would be

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's a no brainer.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yes. Leave it

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: alone. And they're active. Right.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: They're all in

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: the process. So projected. They're ongoing.

[Speaker 0]: I just have a badly written reminder to myself about policy language request on this. I don't know if it's on this line or if it's just section 10.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Make it fungible.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't have any language.

[Speaker 0]: 800 ks on it. This is earlier.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I'll look for it later.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: While you've got time It's a little lumpy right then

[Conor Casey (Member)]: and there. While you're at it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If you could look in appropriations, I know that they for clean water. I know that there is money, I believe, for the ag water quality grants here. Yeah. You could see how much money government proposed or the Clean Water Fund proposed for water quality grants and ag and the appropriations. Because I know there's I have that note somewhere. But I know that they put out

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Did you

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: note about the policy language request from the governor about the detached communities?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're a mumble down there, but I'm not going ask, but it is. You

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: don't want to know.

[Gina Galfetti (Member)]: That's the best joke you never heard.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, I don't have that. Yeah, Okay. I've got no context.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: About these arcs, carry comments.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's move on to forest and parks, fish and wildlife, I'm sorry. Major maintenance infrastructure projects. Now, I know that they sent to us what has been spent as in as spend it after they didn't go into what they were gonna expand in f y twenty seven, but they did send me I hope they sent you tapes. Well, this was a month ago. A list of what they're projected to spend in the f y twenty seven budget. Well, my Well, through water. Through the

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: '27?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. They sent the document to me. Hope I can hope I can retrieve it here because I'm who can picture my wife's cane in? I mean, here it is.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: It's all good.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. I got it. Tate, you also got it too. Andrea's short sleeve. Right. And I'm out to I didn't even really look at this. It's time to take and I find 27. And what I am hearing is that my lies were not included in this, but they should have been. Mhmm. So if if you found that email

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It's that one page document.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's like this.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I can

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: pop that up there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You can pop that up. Because I haven't even looked at it. Came in while we were in the throats of other things. Would your note, Troy, be pertaining to dams and trying to do language? Because it's also dams and fish and wildlife. Would that be connected language? Because it's DEC in this fish and wildlife, and they're all under ANR, but there's separate line items. Would it be connected with that?

[Speaker 0]: Possibly. I wish I had the context. I was just hoping that maybe somebody else had something else as well.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because I do remember there was a conversation Yeah, if anything, I do remember they're all under the agency of natural resources. Why would and Fish and Wildlife sometimes works with DEC in terms of their maintenance plans and design documents. I wonder if that was connected, what you were thinking. So what they projected for their f y twenty six, they have for fish and wildlife, major maintenance infrastructure $1,100,000,000 and they projected that they had a balance left of f y twenty five that got added to our f y twenty six for a total of 2,500,000.0.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: That was at the of January?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Is that right? They I've had that Balance. Which

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: jives with the okay. So that for the summary, isn't the very bottom of your

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. But

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: and then it matches the number on the the the column on the front left.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yep. So they've already expended. They've got that projected to be expended by the September this year. So then this what's up on the screen is what they are projecting to what where they're projected to spend the 1,000,000 plus. Mhmm. Now if we can look at this and the big piece would be the edweed because that's where the walleyes are. Bathrooms, walleye program needs. Fish division, walleye program needs 25 things. So it's in there. I heard that it wasn't in there. Mhmm. But it is in there.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then fish culture stations, Edweed, Salisbury. What's going on with Salisbury here? The $20? Well, Salisbury, they wanted to close a couple years ago. So I'm just wondering what they're investing next. We haven't made that decision yet. We extended it for a little bit. We've been working to see if they can get extension on their permit. I've heard about They've been it

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: out. They've they're it's the water's clear. And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Have we have we done that?

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: I mean, I'm sure they were coming here

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: last year.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: We heard about it last year. Yeah. And it seemed as though they had

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, if they've extended that per because they had to extend the permit from any arm for the discharge and be a little

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Right. Right. But I thought that they were oh, that's right. Because we, Vermont, had made onerous clean water standards for that, and we were really just under it.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: That doesn't sound like us. Come on.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: And we were close to we were above federal guidelines, but not

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: in Not far

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: from state.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: State guidelines. Two years Two

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: years ago, not the last session. The session bef it wasn't last session, was it? It was the session before they closed session before they They proposed closing it. And it was a new job. Building.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what we ended up doing is asking Fish and Wildlife to do a study in terms of what the cost would be to rent a rehab or close it and move the operations elsewhere. And they gave us that study last year. And in the meantime, in appropriations, they extended the date to keep it running till the permit expires and hope that the permit could get renewed. So we're kind of still waiting. And that's for Salisbury.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I'll put a link. It looks like they pretty well figured where this money has been expended or is going to be for the major maintenance. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: are we Okay with that? And I want to make sure the walleyes were included in this. No,

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: no, no. I'm absolutely behind the 20.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I see there is no walleye money that the governor's recommend for this year.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We made the change last year.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: What's a year? What's a capital bill? We changed the process.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We changed the process last year in the conference committee. We said that instead of a line item for walleyes, it would be included in the fish and wildlife budget. And it would because fish and wildlife is really the ones who are working with the wildlife folks, the tanks are at the Ed Weed, and it's our staff, the maintainer, and take care of the within those tanks.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: That makes sense.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we made the agreement, conference committee, that it would not be a line item for wildlife. It would be incorporated in the fish and wildlife budget. And then I was hearing that it's not incorporated in the FY twenty second budget. That's what I wanted to make sure. And it looks like it is. Wildlife program needs, so that's broad in terms of what is needed.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: So then the intent would be for next

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That line item.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: That line item disappears?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For FY 'twenty seven, and I'm done.

[Speaker 0]: Are we taking it out of this one then? Are we striking it here?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. It's Yeah. Okay. Stays for f y twenty six, but f y twenty seven, it's incorporated in Yeah. Rich and wildlife's budget of 1,029,000.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Great. Okay. Sure.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. And then we've got the dams.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: So, like, recollection of the dams is that Fish and Wildlife doesn't have a comprehensive maintenance and safety plan. That's what this is for.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. And they have 76 dams. They need to comply with the dam safety rules.

[Speaker 0]: Mhmm.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Backlog of maintenance.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Trying to deal with the ones that have the high Yep. Rating.

[Speaker 0]: 100 k is just for a consultant for assistance. Right. To have been doing better.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Simply it. Yeah.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Can't really If if you look at how how they address some things, like, they're they're redoing a bathroom at Buck Lake for less than $5. Seemed to be very pragmatic with their expenditures.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I don't think we can touch that. I think we're

[Conor Casey (Member)]: all right.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Yeah. Can I say something on that? Think it's probably not for this capital bill adjustment, but I think it does make sense maybe in future years where it's some time to examine the ownership structure of the dams.

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: 100%.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I found whenever I asked each entity why you own dams instead of DEC, I felt like they didn't want to. I just got that sense.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I agree. And

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: it seems inefficient that

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: they didn't want to stay.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I don't know if they want to be maintaining those dams. That's a sense. Yeah, yeah,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: they don't. And I think that I'm wondering if that's the language that Troy is referring to because I remember them talking

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: to I

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: mean, there was a little I wouldn't mind a study over the summer or something just to look at, is there a more efficient I think we're spending more money than we need to by doing this. I think there's more bureaucracy with people talking to each other. And I don't think that they are sort of the purpose that they initially did when we created the structure. I agree.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So for the study, who would be doing it and what would be the goal?

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: It's probably the commissioners of A and R. Because the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Commissioner of DEC or the Secretary of Angel.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Oh, the three commissioners really, right? Don't know if Morrison Park says any damage. I thought they did, actually.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't know. Don't know.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: It'd be whoever owns dams.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it'd be within the Agency of Natural So you've got Department of Environmental Conservation, you've got Fish and Wildlife, you've got forests and parks. So just so three departments.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah, but

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I wondered if you need an outside voice on that, too, because this currently exists because of the ingrained bureaucracy of it, right? And if you just ask the executive branch to comment on the bureaucracy that exists underneath the administration, you might not get the fresh look at it that you want.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Would you be willing to kind of jump maybe to Bennington kind of get this running? Yeah. And

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I don't if it's

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: for fish and wildlife on the dams. Okay. Well, was that

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: it would be logical if it wasn't Frank. Right?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: No. That's what all the dams.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I think so. You.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Of

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: course, fish and wildlife has just changed leadership, so I'm not sure.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Oh, gotcha. Gotcha. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It was was Andrea so and so that

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yep. Else

[Brian Minier (Member)]: a short sleep?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I see if anyone else came with her.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. I wonder if you could reach out and talk to them. Yeah. Yes. I'd have to feel that.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Because I remember the quote from one of the fish and wildlife lads there that, like, we're a bunch of biologists managing biomes, which

[Conor Casey (Member)]: is not what we're I know.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: We're mainly biologists, not engineers. Mhmm. What are we doing?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Very true.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Did that make sure I helped their language?

[Speaker 0]: I don't think it was, but I appreciate you helping me scratch my head on that. Don't

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: know. I was just say,

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: over here it is a thought.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: It was the two people who he brought with over Eric, different signals, both

[John (Legislative Counsel)]: in the fish division.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Could you get that product to the the contact information?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah. Sure.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Do folks wanna take a break?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Sure.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Ten minute break. Come back, and we can start with the pain section. Mhmm. K. Let's go off with you two. But Brian

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: took a a a He took it

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: somewhere.

[William "Will" Greer (Member)]: Break so he doesn't have

[Speaker 0]: to