Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Turn a little.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Who knows?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome, folks. This is South Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Wednesday, Friday, March twentieth, and we are continuing our work on the capital bill. And I know that Conor has been a lot of trouble waiting on the floor.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It just comes from me.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You have been working on the whole issue of fish and wildlife dams and DEC dams. And we were trying to combine that possibly in the spreadsheet or combine even the work around those. So you've been doing some work. So what have you found? And then you said you might have some language.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, honestly, haven't been working on the numbers at all.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, but in terms of the government.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: But there was, yeah, there were conversations when they came in, fish and wildlife, especially. There was a lot of dams. And it just seems to me out of the like, this is my fourth year on the committee. If you get an issue with the dam, everybody's going to Ben Green anyway. They don't know how to take care. I just learned there's B TRANS has dams, right? They don't Yeah, so they're always going to Ben Green. So if that's a case, could we look at a more efficient model there where the state owns all of them anyways? A lot of the fish and wildlife ones originally had some recreational purposes that are no longer relevant. And would it make more sense and be more cohesive to keep it under one roof there? I'm just thinking government efficiency. And I'll be honest, I'm not married to If there's reasons for them to be separate, there's reasons for them to be separate. So I just took a stab, me and my robot friend Chad GPT on some language here, which I could share with some folks. But I called Ben Green. I just had a good talk with him. And I want to be clear, administration's not taking a position or anything, right? And I told Ben, I'm not asking for you to take the position right now, but let's talk about this concept. And he actually said there were like there have been some fits and starts with looking at a model like this over the years there. For whatever reason, they didn't get followed through. But I think it could be interesting. I wouldn't be looking for too heavy a lift over the summer, but a study committee where you could bring the different players to the table, which would be DEC, Forest and Parks, Fish and Wildlife and B TRANS. That's what you have for the administration. And then I also called them BNRC because they have a damned task force, which is it that's not defined in statues. They're more concerned with removal of dams. But some of the players at the table there seem like people who could be interesting, like the Army Corps of Engineers to bring them into the mix and maybe an NGO or two, just so you get a variety of opinions. So that's what I was thinking, do a little summer study with everybody at that table with a report back in January.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or would folks be interested in having Conor work through and present some language? If he's willing, if he's managing to, I'd greatly appreciate it.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Makes a lot of sense.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If he could do that,

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: Wow. You

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: could do that. Just some time. And then submit it to John. Yep. So at least he can get it and draft the bill so we can look at it the first time we go through the draft of the bill. So we're not going to go through the draft of the bill until Tuesday.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Okay, I'll send up what I got there just to mock something up and

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: hopefully we'll have support there. You for doing that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That terms of the language that DEC came in yesterday for the disadvantaged municipalities to help folks particularly.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Sorry, Sweeney. That's all right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, so now the resident called to manufacture the housing communities to change that for the drinking water involved in Molotovine, and then to kind of circumvent what's currently in rural in terms of sewer wastewater treatment. I had a conversation, as I said, with Mark Mahali, who doesn't seem to support the second piece. You didn't know about the first piece. The second piece about going around the rules, changing the rules by statute, not changing the rule itself. Then also the chair of environment committee and also ledge counsel Michael O'Grady. And there's some real issues with this. I was hoping to have time to sit down with all those folks with Michael O'Grady because we don't live in that world. They live in the house. They don't know what's going on. They live more in the environmental world. We'd sign these programs, but we don't look at the environmental world that they do. So in talking with Rob talking with representative, Sheldon, her name, after the floor today, I suggested that she and I and Mark and let the council get together on to go over. And I can get she looked at the language that I'm which I've been introduced in the government's budget, which they've changed. Yeah. So, Tate, if you could get an hour to do some of this to Michael Brady.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. But

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: more but the disadvantaged municipality piece as well.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So I

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: think we're we're all looking about the rules, the one I can, but I want the other part. And if anything, cc on that, John and also representative Holly and representative show. I circled back with representative Wood about the language that they're working on for the DCF beds. Said what we were working on to keep A as it was, which was a report to Justice Oversight. And B, to change that for Joint Fiscal Committee and chairs of those respective committees. She was fine with that. So John is doing that. I haven't seen a new copy.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: We haven't. Did it come through? This is

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: the new one, isn't it? On that page or not?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I'd be sorry for which page? Yeah. Who's that? Still on 1.1.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Got my wording from them. So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: usually, John sends the new. Is he sent out to me, John?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. I'm looking at one from yesterday. Sorry.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So that's I don't think I'm missing anything. So yesterday we've asked BGS, particularly with the HVAC systems. If you wanna look on the spreadsheet, you can see the services. I don't have an indicator. We didn't cut anything on this.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Technology is a lot there.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Line are we on? So, you're not coming up to that, because the real concern that we wanted to go through is where are all these projects in the pipeline? We know Springfield and Newport are the top ones. And then, where are we with the rest? Am I for the record?

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: Good morning, Emily Kisicki, Deputy Commissioner of Buildings and General Services. For the record, yesterday, the committee indicated that you wanted a more detailed breakout of costs for the statewide planning design for the HVAC system upgrades at the correctional facilities in terms of timing and where we were for both the temporary and permanent constructions. And so that is what this document outlines. Joe put this together, our director of design and construction. And I just wanted to walk through some important points on it. And to me, the most important point that we'd like to convey is that all contracts have been executed for this work and the funds are encumbered with the exception of the difference down at the bottom of approximately $1,200,000 All of the temporary work has been completed. And then the permanent work, we do not have a guaranteed maximum price for any of them yet. Are closest to that at Southern State. The design for that is complete. And so we are close to getting our guaranteed maximum price and expect to be able to move forward with construction and complete that this fall. And then again, in sequential order, based on DOC's priority of these projects, moving forward with the next. The difference of the approximately 1.2, that's really our contingency. So again, because we don't have a GMP yet, Director Asia was building in a best estimate contingency. However, we are concerned if that funding were to go away because costs are really unstable right now with ongoing war potential tariffs, etcetera. We are worried about cost increases that we can't fully anticipate. So all of that to say the work has been complete on the temporary side, is in progress for the permanent side. So for the Springfield facility, the temporary is done.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Construction has occurred, it's done. The temporary. So for the permanent, you're close to getting a guaranteed maximum price and all the design documents are done and ready to go to construction. And the goal is to complete that by the end of this calendar year. So in Newport, the temporary has been designed and constructed, and that's all done. And then are you in design documents? Have you

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: completed those designs for Newport? You've completed design documents, temporary and permanent for all.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For Newport? For all of the facilities. So even St. Jay facility and work camp. So the design has been completed there as well?

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: The design is complete.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that the design work to go to construction? And do you have a guaranteed maximum price shift for Newport?

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: Not for any of them. We expect You're close to the one in Springfield.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They do as close to the one in Newport.

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: Again, we are treating these in order of priority.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So your priority is you would have Springfield's full HVAC system done by the November of this year. In Newport, you're anticipating total completion of the permanent HVAC system a year from this November. And then for the work camp and San Jay, that permanent comp, that temporary is done. Permanent is two years. That's the

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: estimate. Again, note that the contractor for St. Johnsbury is the same as who is working on the door control. So there's a potential we could find some efficiency, but this is our best estimate of the timeline at this point.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Any estimates on when that guaranteed maximum is going to land for Southern State?

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: I think it's imminent. Like

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: before we're done with Marco?

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: No, not that imminent.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Before we leave this session.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: don't know. This feels like a question that makes sense in my world, but probably doesn't than yours. I'm wondering about the notion of contingency and if there's a rule of thumb or best practice for the amount. But given considerations of time and the fact there are multiple how much should a person have set aside for a contingency or should a project? 10%.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Is that

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: a yes? Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm gonna did you have some? Or no?

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I guess. So you said that I think if I heard right, St. Jay is the same entity as Joel. Are the other two the same entity as doing each other the same, know, like Springfield, excuse me, Southern and Northern, are they the

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: same contractor or a different

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: The HVAC?

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: I believe so. I need to verify that with Joe, but that's my understanding. Okay.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Because you mentioned having the contract Yeah. Executed, so I didn't know if it's the same person same entity that signed it.

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: Yeah. I think so. I wanna double check that. I can follow-up.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, okay.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: The permanent phases for Northern and Northeast are both well into fiscal year twenty eight. So would that imply that, like, some of those funds would not be needed until fiscal year 'twenty eight?

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: Our recommendation, again, is to have the funding in place. The contracts are executed, and just I'd have to have the contracts in front of me for the flow of funds, but it's not necessarily all at the end. So, I need to follow-up for the exact timing of it. But again, in this, the completion is an estimate. So again, this is all in progress, all under contract. And just for the exact timing of the payments, I need to follow-up for that granular detail.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's also the time you wanna go out to bid, but you need the money when you go out to bid to do the construction. Yeah. So that's the time frame. Doctor. Kevin?

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: If I heard you right, you said all but 1,200,000.0 are encumbered. In other words, in my language, means you've committed that. You're not in a position unless you contractually back out to back away. The work won't be complete right away, but it's committed. We've entered contracts. Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes. For the projects. For the projects. But not the definite cost because you haven't figured out that cost yet.

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: You don't have a guaranteed maximum price. So you've entered into a contract. In system, we've encumbered the funds, meaning, like, that is what we are expecting. Right. It's not a

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: contract that this project is this x million dollars. That's

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: that's the box you're working in, but you don't have that definite price yet. Correct. But again, this is this is we are expecting that 19.2 based on everything that we have, that we know is a known cost. And then that 1.2 is the sort of contingency where we think it could go more and maybe we hope not. Right. But that's where there's a little bit of the couldn't we think is prudent.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. So, for the $19,200,000 is over two fiscal years. It's over FY27 and FY20. If you look at the completion dates. November 26 is f y twenty seven. K? November 27, you're in f y twenty eight. That begins 07/01/2027. And then March '28, you're still in f y twenty eight. That begins 07/01/2027. And none of these numbers, except maybe Springfield, that's the one you're the closest to. You're close to getting a guaranteed maximum price. You have haven't you're not close to that in Newport, or you hope to get that done in November '27. And you've completed the design as well for Newport and also for Saint Jay in the working. So those are more estimates for Newport and Northeast. That's over two fiscal years, really. Because Newport, they wait until January next year. It's cutting it a little close if you wanna get it done in November year. So you definitely need money this year. It's the Saint Jay in Caledonia that's out there a little bit. We don't wanna shortchange it because these are really important projects. We know the world is pretty unstable right now in terms of construction costs, because we just don't know what's going to happen with oil prices and tariffs. Think that's not going to impact our little state of Vermont. That's more on a bigger stage, but it comes right down to this committee room. Everything that happens on the federal side comes right down to this committee room. We've seen it in the past when we had some tariffs before. We saw it replacing the Williston Barracks and the cost went up $3,000,000 We saw it with the secure residential for mental health, that went up $3,000,000 that was a number of years ago. Now we're right back on the same boat.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: During COVID too.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm gonna I'm gonna throw you a curveball. And you may not be at the point or in the position to answer this at this point, and I respect that. And if they're not in that position, being aware it's coming in a few weeks. Are there costs to the correctional system in one of our facilities for renovations? Do you have any idea? You may not I'd tell you,

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: it's a curveball. You mean, do we have a cost estimate

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: for Well, what I'm hearing is that there might be a wing for folks or a forensic to be held in. Is there any renovations that have to occur for movements within our directional system for that? Because you're gonna have to have different staff.

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: I can say that I'm not in a position at this point because I don't know. I'm not directly involved in any or have any knowledge of any particulars around that. I think that if it would move forward, certainly BGS would be part of that conversation for any renovations or physical changes to the facilities.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I haven't been in

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: any direct conversations around any specifics on that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that something we're gonna have to look at here? Because there will be different staff monitor to supervise, oversee folks. So that's not a full pressure on. I don't think people are looking at that, but that's gonna be our our lens to look at this. And it may very well mean we get into having folks from another from a facility to another facility to open up a wing somewhere, and that may need some renovations because you're also holding mental health folks. I just don't know. So I just wanna put that on the table for everybody to start thinking about. So as I've said before, there's a lot of money tied up here. We don't wanna halt the b h b h c h v, whatever it is, certification system. HVAC. Just be aware. It goes over f y twenty seven and f y twenty eight. And, also, one thing we talked about yesterday was putting in language in section three for the ability to move money around between all those projects and DFC.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: So just to be really clear, help me out here, were we gonna take 2,000,000 out of this line? We weren't.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It was 2,000,000 out of drug patrols.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: So what this does is just clarifies where they're at with this.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You got 8. You got 8. You got on top of 1 point on top of a million dollars Yep. In bondage, you're adding 8,400,000.0.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then you're adding another million. You're adding 9 to 10,000,000 automatic

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: k.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For our capital bill for FY '27. So that's a big increase jump at one time. Usually, you may go up a couple of million, but you don't go up 10,000,000.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Got it. Dumb question. Do we do door control upgrades for any reason other than them not functioning properly?

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: Security. Yeah, for security and functionality. Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. You don't want people walking to Sally Port and not be able to get out. Right. I mean But we're doing that.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Right. So that's, I guess my point. If we need the 2,000,000 in there because the doors aren't working properly, we need 2,000,000 in there.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The We doors get decided to cut that by 2,000,000 because there's door controls in St. Jay, store controls in Rutland. And the testimony we received for the 3,600,000.0 for St. Jay, there'll be money left over for that to go to Rutland. And by 700,000 addition for Rutland, you need it. And then to do the next facilities, John even in design that. If Rutland is goes over the, say 1,200,000.0, and we've allowed them the flexibility to move money between projects. That's where we've given you the flexibility in case a project goes up higher. Shawn?

[Rep. Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So then my next question

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: is, does this mean their budget goes up by 10,000,000 and and it stays up 10,000,000 for the next twenty years? No. Just for this for

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the HVAC system.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Just for I just look at version. Clarity.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For these. Five to Correct.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Alright.

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: Swap. I will just share. We are going to do the same analysis for the door controls, understanding the committee may have made your decision on that. But we do have some concern around around the funding for the door controls as well for some that are already in preconstruction. So we'll we'll share that for your awareness and just on it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just remember folks, we are putting in language, you can move money between these projects. So one pops up higher, one isn't, and another project isn't going as quickly as possible, they can pull them up. That gives you some protection there. It Mhmm. By cutting the door controls, which we did by 2,000,000. That's when we said we can move money around, make sure we can move money around in Good. For you folks. We appreciate that. Thank you. We'll be back here by the time we finish this. We'll be back six months. It's not like it's on forever.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Next session in January the government made proposal. They're different. Don't tell them that now. We're just getting ready to get rid of us. So where are we with the HV

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: based costs? I

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: would say keep it in essence. Yeah. Leave it alone.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I mean, barely got enough contingency in the number.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Remember, you're also putting money in there for FY '28.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Right.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah. The only reason I would advocate doing anything other than leaving it alone is if we get to the end of this process and there's some high priority thing and we're scratching. But otherwise, I would just leave it as is.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I have a question of BGS with if we put find some money to put WiFi into our correctional facilities. Would BGS be involved in any of that or does DOC go out for their own contract with their own contractor to do this? Would there be anything with BGS involved?

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: I think it depends on what infrastructure is required. Like, are there any sort of physical changes that need to happen to like cabling? And I don't know enough to be able to answer that clearly. And oftentimes the contract might flow through our office purchasing contracting, but we wouldn't necessarily direct what they do with it. Right. But that's where it might intersect with us. So I think it depends.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do you think it's possible? Maybe. You just don't know.

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: I don't know. And I don't want to guess.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because the committee is pretty supportive of trying to fund some money for Wi Fi. We don't know what that price tag would be. Like, it was around 3,000,000. We're trying to clarify what's the price tag, what's involved, what's the time frame, and it would be, you know,

[Emily Kisicki (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings and General Services)]: who would actually be doing the work. And if it's like physical changes to the structure, they need to And I honestly just don't know enough about telecom to answer this intelligently. But if they're having to modify the wall or cable or to install something, that's where we would have an involvement. But if it's really just a technology process, it's not us. That was the other reason of giving you flexibility of moving money around this section between projects. Because if we do do Wi Fi here, it

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: will give flexibility. There's a hitch in the Wi Fi that you need to do move a wall or you need minor renovations for that. You don't wanna plug into your major maintenance. Right. Does DOC give them a sunny condo? Working off. They're working with ATS for example. Yeah. They'll have information to us by Tuesday. So the committee's okay. We've gotta shift gears here right now. So the committee's okay with leaving HVAC for this for this. Yeah. Yes, ma'am. Yes. You can get off the Hudson for the time being. Thanks, Emily. And then we're gonna go to safety. So it's coming in on Zoom. We are Section 15. Lines one fourteen. No. What are we doing? Am I doing something on Section 11 by my finger? Oh, we got force of rocks. Sadly. Were we? Such unloving is not like you.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: The military. We just never took.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm 101.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh yeah, the military. Right. I'm sorry. I was confusing that there's something else.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: With a hemophile, couldn't see.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know. That makes me look We wanted an update in terms of where we are. I know we didn't, we haven't had your folks in to really testify on your capital request in-depth this year. And we wanted an update on the Northwest Regional Readiness Center, the new National Guard Center. This was reached with $1300000.0.04 443,000 in FY twenty six. And we're putting together our new budget adjustment for this two year budget. We just wanna know where you are in the planning and design phase and how much of that 1,300,000.0 has been used. So, is that pretty clear? Yes.

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: So, no, I'd be happy to give you an update on that. And just for the record, Colonel Jacob Roy speaking here for the Vermont Army National Guard on behalf of Major General Harter. Also online is the military department team back in Colchester. So to answer your question, so the military department has acquired the property as we identified. We were in the process of acquiring property for that project when we started seeking out the funds. Real estate has been acquired up in Swanton for the project. We're currently initiating the beginning processes of the environmental clearances for that project to kick off the design work. None of the 1,300,000.0 has been currently obligated at this point. And to be completely upfront, the federal military construction budget has when we originally asked for this project and we anticipated to get the funding for this project has for lack of a better term been completely gutted for other, I guess, priorities in the federal government.

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

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: say that again, ma'am?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We have a war.

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: Yeah. Well, anyway, so the issue that we have is the project is now re competing for the twenty eight to thirty two mil con cycle. I don't have a clear picture when pro when we will get design funds for this project. It it the reality is is it could be as early as '28, it could be as late as as you know federal fiscal year '30 in in four years. I wish I had fidelity on that. I I really don't. We are the it was going to be pushed by the congressional delegation in '26. It made it onto the NDAA but it never got funded in the in the appropriation. It ended up getting pulled out of of the '26 budget entirely. So we had it in, it was it looked promising and then it got and then the project was was pulled out. We, the military department and myself, the guard are actually supposed to be meeting with the congressional delegation this summer to discuss how to move this project forward either in the natural military construction cycle or through the congressional directed spending program. But that's going to be later this summer before we have an opportunity to sit down with the congressional delegation staffs to kind of iron some of that out. They currently are building the FY '28 budgets or excuse me, the '27 budget. And then looking at future the, you know, future year development plan for military construction. But again, I can't guarantee that this project will make it in for '27 or '28. I would like to, I mean it's and now again it's just to kind of bring, you know, kind of put things into a little bit of perspective over the next several years looking at the future year development plan from '26 out to '32, you know, that the overall army department, you know, military, program is looking at going from like a $2,500,000,000 Milkon program down to a 1,900,000,000.0. It it sounds a lot, but when you're talking total total enterprise for the army, it's really not a lot. And unfortunately on the guard's perspective for the Army National Guard as a whole, the 54 states and territories, of that total amount, the guard is only projected to get anywhere between, you know, 10, maybe 12% of that total program. So we're talking, you know, guard wide, you know, anywhere between $288,000,000 to, you know, on the high end down to like $266,000,000 on the low end. So the ripple effect to that is that it's it really significantly the cuts that we're seeing on the federal government side are pretty significant and the ripple effect down to states is absolutely detrimental. And you know, everything that everybody has planned to hunt over the years just went right out the window. So that, you know, all of that being said, I mean, that's the current situation that we're really kind of facing. And I don't have a good answer as to when we're going to see the federal funds to match up this, the 1,300,000.0 that was provided.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Know, Conor, I really appreciate your candor on this. What a tough position you're in and the guards in because we've been planning on this readiness center for quite a while. And when we're promised money from our federal government and then it's pulled out, it really has enabled Troy.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Just to clarify, for the 25% state match for design and construction I don't want ask this. We need the land, right? We have that. Let's say we know six months from now, a year from now, that the federal money is there. When do you need that 25% match to secure that funding?

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: So we would

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: To

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: answer Let me see. Timeline wise, as once we got the federal funding in line, in order to cut the cooperative agreement obligate the federal funds, We need it in hand at that time. So if we got, for example, say that the federal funding was actually approved for FY '28 federal fiscal year, so that's October year '27 is when the federal '28 year would start. So if it got approved to for the federal fiscal year '28 in the way that things have kind of been working, the actual federal funds start rolling in, you know, probably around first of the year in for that '28. So I would need the state match at that time to obligate the federal funds with the state funds in the master military cooperative agreement with the feds. So that that being said, so it's so as soon as the federal funds show up, that's when I would need the state funds. Timing of that though is, I mean, that's really kind of hard to decipher depending on especially way that the feds pushing money right now, it's really hard. I'll use this year as a prime example. The Congress actually approved the Milcon, the DoD Milcon VA budget before they approved the actual annual appropriations budget for all the departments except for Homeland Security. That's unprecedented in my time in working here. I've never seen that happen before. So and that actually happened in January of this past year, or excuse me, not January, but back in December. It really depends on when congress decides to actually pass the appropriations budgets for each for each fiscal year, coming in, and that'll actually tell us when when we would actually need the funds. I think that arguably when we see that this project actually comes out either in the National Defense Authorization Act or in the Milkon VA appropriations bill, we probably will have anywhere between three and six months to come up with the match and then work, then we can start working on the project. Typically with military construction funds are a little more flexible on timeline. They like to see those funds obligated within the year of their appropriation. But we do have a little bit of time because they're considered five year funds to get that. If we don't make the year of appropriation, we can ask for extension into that to buy us a little bit more time. But the rule of thumb is to obligate those funds by September 30 of the year that they are received. So we do have a little bit of time from actually know when the funds are coming in to when we actually have to get the match to obligate all those funds. Does that answer your question, sir?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: It does very much so. Thank you so much.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, Colonel, is it more assured, say that in quotes, because I know we're just leaving an untarted territory here in terms of budgeting on the federal level. Is it more assured if you have the state match already in hand for when it becomes the federal money becomes available to be approved? Is it better if you have that state match already in hand?

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: It does a bit because, when, and I'll kind of caveat that a little bit with with the fact that when, if an opportunity arises that and sometimes, you know, this it's rare, but it it has how I have seen it in the past where the National Guard Bureau will say, we have funding available to support this project. Can you execute it? That at that, you know, if that arises and we would have to have the funds in hand to be able to do that in that case. Yes. By and large though, I will say that the intent from the federal government is that if they provide funds that you're going to either have in hand or be able to get in short time the state funds to match. So it's not a requirement to have the state funds in hand as soon as we get the federal money, but the intent is that we get it in time enough to obligate both sets of funds within the federal parameters provided. So it's not really a clean answer to your question, but I don't know if that helps.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It helps a little. So, if you're going to be going into discussions with our congressional delegation for, I'm going to use the old term for earmarks, does having that state match in hand help with that negotiation? Is it hard to say?

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: It's really hard to say. I will, in my mind, it helps justify the state's need for the project. And that's how I would caveat it with the federal or with the state match already in hand because I can actually go and say, look, the state has a dire need for this facility. They've already ponied up the money for this facility anticipating that we were going to get, you know, funding for to start design already. I think it shows the state's eagerness to support this project and it definitely, I think it shows the importance of getting these types of projects off the ground and going. So having the money already dedicated in hand to support the project, I think definitely helps the narrative and helps support our justification for trying to get the feds to push this project to Vermont.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Questions?

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Really? Trying to get his point.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else? You can keep thinking. We do have another question here. Hang on.

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: Yes, sir. Go ahead.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: If this is an unfair question, just say it's an unfair question. Based on your experience, what's the soonest you think you might actually have? Get make the list.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I understand.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: My

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: minus any congressional delegation input, if we were to stay on the normal track of what we are, probably FY '29.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Thank you.

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: Yeah. So and and with that, I mean, I I know that, and I'm gonna put the me, I guess the I in this one. I know that I am asking a lot, you know, for and I am completely grateful for everybody in that room and supporting, know, the National Guard and trying to get this project and pushing these funds to us when we asked and that does not go unrecognized. I am completely grateful for that and the support that all of you have shown for this. And I know I'm asking a lot to try to hold on to these in effort to, you know, in hopes that we can recover this and somehow. But I also know that and I recognize that there is a lot that you all have to make decisions on as well. So, but I do want to say that I do I really do appreciate the support and with everything that you've provided so far. And I, you know, it's tough and I do apologize for putting everybody into this kind of decision predicament, you know, kind of going forward.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it's not you. It's not your fault. There's other things at play that's way, way beyond you, for sure. We just experienced some ramifications of decisions that are made on the federal level. We are in markup. I don't know. I mean, this money was put in last year when we put the budget together, it's still there in FY '26. We're just going through markup and we just needed an update. And it doesn't mean we're gonna cut anything or increase anything. We just wanted an update. And I don't know if the committee wants to weigh in and what people are thinking while the folks are on

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Zoom? Well, mean, I'll ask Kevin's question in a different way. What is the percentage likelihood, zero, but that you are going to have action on the federal side before 07/01/2000, right? So like you're not doing anything this year.

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: That would be accurate. Yes, sir.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But you are gonna be speaking to our congressional delegation, hopefully this summer to see if we can get, I'm gonna use the old term, earmarks. And it would be in a better position for you to show that the state has put some money on the table for this. And we've got skin in the game. We've skin in the game.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I don't mean to imply that I'm for cutting it. I'm pretty sure I'm the only person in this room that spent eight years of their life in the St. Emmons armory and how tough that is. It's not a great facility and neither is Swan. So I certainly support this. But I just was asking just so I understand where the money is, what the process is or where you are in the process. And I, you know, we want this to happen yesterday, and I'm sure you do too. And I'm sure General Knight would have liked it had been done before he was gone. But now it's harder as a problem. So we're here for you.

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: I appreciate that. Thank you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, thank you. So where is the committee? You wanna keep the 1.3 plus million in? For this point, I would say yes. Keep it in for now.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I'd like to reserve, when we get to the bottom line here of how everything's looking, to revisit it. I completely understand the position of the colonels. Colonel, it's not your fault here if you're apologizing to us. It's how it goes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, when we get through markup, which won't be till next week, Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, probably Tuesday, more Tuesday, make sure that, Tate, our committee assistant, is so on top of things, that he'll reach out to you to let us let you know our decision for this. But right now we're keeping in the 1,300,000.0 at this for that.

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: I greatly appreciate that. Thank you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. And I really appreciate your candor in the situation you find yourself. And I appreciate all of you, you as well as the other folks in the military department that made time today on such short notice to come in. When we do markup, things come up at the last minute. So, we wanna really appreciate. Thank you

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: for service. Thank you your service. Thank

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Thanks so much, Conor.

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay, so let's shift gears here. This is not Okay,

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I'm going

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: to sign out. Thank you, everybody.

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: Have a great

[Colonel Jacob Roy (Vermont Army National Guard)]: rest of the day.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes, you too. We've got something that's not in the capital bill at this point. It's not in the spreadsheet at this point. We're hoping to do this in our land resolution that we always do for forest parks after we get out the capital bill because there's situations sometimes that occur that they need to change a boundary on some property that they all would do land swap. So we usually do that through a resolution, not a law, I mean, not a bill that you change statute. It just allows forests and parks to go forward. But it does need, those things need legislative action, We'll do it through a resolution. This is a little different. And we were hoping possibly we could do it with a resolution, talking to our elected council. It's like, it really should A resolution may not be the best avenue to go in, possibly. And it might be better just to do the session law language in the capital bill for that, because it needs to be session law according to what I've heard. So we have with us here folks from Forest and Parks. We have Michael Will Gregoire, he's from our legislative council, but extracted up some preliminary language for this. But I wanna start with Forest and Parks. I don't know, Commissioner, do you wanna start or do you wanna go right?

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko (Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation)]: I'm gonna pass it to my colleague, Kevin.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Rebecca, if you could introduce yourself for the record, give us the background of what's happening here.

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: Sure. Thank you. For the record, my name is Rebecca Washburn. I'm the Director of Lands Administration and Recreation for the Department of Forest, Parks and Recreation. I'm also the Chair of the Vermont Outdoor Recreation Economic Collaborative. Thank you. If it doesn't look like it outside, it is spring. Happy spring.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: As

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: chair Evan said, I come in from time to time to talk about projects where we may need to convey an interest in land because there is statute that requires our department in particular to get the approval of the general assembly. The project that we're talking about today is a really exciting one. And only recently did it emerge that a lease, which is conveying an interest in land, would be the right tool for us to use in this partnership that I'll tell you a little bit more about. So that's why we're here. Normally, we would bring a great idea to you at the beginning of the legislative session, provide testimony, give you a chance to hear from others if you wanted to before taking action on something where we're considering a conveyance of a public's interest. In this case, we have a historic building in Little River State Park. If any of you visited there and have walked the history hike, there is one remaining structure from pre-nineteen 27 flood era. And it's a beloved structure within the state park system that we've been trying to find a solution to reconstruct for many, many years. Along comes a wonderful partner of ours, Vermont Hudson Trails, an organization maybe you've heard of. Their mission is essentially to provide a hut to hut based experience, recreational experience across the state of Vermont. They've partnered with Green Mountain National Forest. They're seeking partnerships with us. The Goodell House represents the first opportunity for us to do this. They, in conversations with us, were able to secure a federal grant through HUD, Urban and Rural Development. I'm going to get that wrong. But they secured this funding. And since then, we've been working sort of working out what does this partnership look like? As chair Emmons knows, our ski leases are tremendous asset for us from the point of view of the durable elements of the ski lease that we could use to build on to think about how we might want to codify this partnership with VT Hudson Trails going into a project to reconstruct the cabin and make it available essentially for four season use for recreational use within the state park. So I can go very quickly into some of the terms that we expect to be in a lease once we are able to work through conversations with our partner to determine what that lease should look like. Many of them would be familiar to you based on the way our ski leases are structured. Obviously, we need term, that term in particular, because of the federal funding source needs to be twenty years at a minimum. So we're working from that timeframe as the scope of the agreement that we're contemplating, We need to figure out what that fee formula and fee structure is going to be. What does access look like from the point of view of managing it as VT Hutts would be managing the operations, guest access, how that access integrates with our use of the land from a management standpoint, but also how other users that we're promoting through the mission of FPR would interact with that space. What is the ownership of the structure and our approval rights look like? Termination clauses. How does the operation and maintenance work from the point of view of what would VT Hudson Hudson Trails be doing? What might we be doing as the owner of the structure and the surrounding land? And again, really wanting to be really thoughtful about how does this new use and this kind of interesting innovative concept integrate into existing park operations in the way that we manage the lands from a forest management standpoint, maintaining the road infrastructure, maintaining other public uses. So these are things that we're thinking about and having conversations with VT Hudson Trails about other sort of less exciting, but no less important terms would be insurance and indemnification, conflict resolution, the types of terms and provisions that you typically see in any sort of contractual agreement between two parties. So again, we have a lot to build on because we have these ski leases that while old have done a lot to contemplate and have sort of tested the way that our relationship with partners works. So we have conversations underway with explore more what that looks like and to settle on some terms. We meet again with them next week, as a matter of fact, to begin really hashing out what those sort of headers of categories within the lease would entail. And I think as early as the end of next week could have more detail if this committee would be interested in hearing more about what we work through with our partner. And then the idea would be to be able to execute a lease outside the legislative session within the next fiscal year, so within FY27. So you really need authority from the legislative body to continue

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: exploring this with Vermont Hudson Trails. Exactly. We own the property, we own that building. Yes. They've come to us, they've come to you, saying, hey, we would like to rehab this, bring this back up. And they would not, we would still own it. Yes. They would lease it from us. Exactly. And that's what you would need authority from the legislature to enter into that lease with Vermont Hudson Tricks. Precisely. Questions? Sure.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Just did a quick little article scan as you were talking, talking about moving the hut. So That hasn't happened yet.

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: It has not happened. We're They move it talking about moving it only a couple 100 feet down the history hike closer to the trailhead. What we learned when we did an environmental assessment of the location that actually is very close to some ecologically sensitive habitat. And if, as the historic preservation folks have told us, we would be rebuilding the structure anyway, why

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: not

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: move it to another location? The historic preservation folks we spoke to didn't think that that would diminish the historic integrity of the structure, so

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we proposed to move forward with that new location. And that would still be on state land? It is on state land. Question was just answered. Do you have been in contact with history of union? Yes. Thank you.

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: Because of the funding source, we're required to go through NEPA. It's a federal funding source. And one of the stages of historic preservation review. So we've been working in consultation with VT HOTS and their contractor to go through that historic preservation review.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thank you. Yeah. Great questions. Morrison Parks while they're here before we transition to our legislative council with some proposed language.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I guess it's curiosity more than anything else. You need to move or sounds like you need to take it apart, move it, reassemble it. Any idea how much that's gonna cost?

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: We haven't come up with estimates yet. We were in the phase of considering the NEPA process. So looking at the environmental conditions and historic preservation review, there isn't a final design that would inform a cost estimate. We hadn't gotten to that stage yet before we learned that a lease really was the right mechanism for us to codify our relationship and give the federal funder and our partner the confidence that they could move forward with some investment. I can't recall off the top of my head what the VT HUD's grant from HUD is, it's in the several million dollar area.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: John? Thank you. You said it's for year on use. Yeah. So what kind of a fireplace would they have?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, this is something we had long debate about.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I'm curious, no.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm gonna hold

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: my breath and say for now it is propane. Felt like while a wood source makes more sense and is more integrated with our mission, a propane source is more practical from the point of view of the user's experience and their qualifications and skills. So we didn't box ourselves in in the amendment to the long range management plan that allowed for this. We said, should another heating source become practical in the future, we would contemplate that. But for now it's propane.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: So you're safer too. Right? Is that the kind of what you're leaning into? Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Alright. Thanks. So the organization will be responsible to pay for moving the building, moving the structure, dismantling it structure wise. The grant that came from a from HUD, would it go towards moving of the facility? Yes. Would any of the costs of that be negotiated in the lease? The costs are completely being incurred by our our partner. We are not anticipating expending any direct rent any direct expense from from our budget on this. So the lease would be the ability for them to they wouldn't own the building. We would own the building. Mhmm. State property. It would be the ability for them to operate within that building for their system or whatever they wanna produce within their own arena. And that's what the lease was shaped. Yes. In fact,

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: in working with our general counsel, our thought was that a contract, a no cost contract with VT Hudson Trails to determine basically the terms and conditions of that moving and reconstruction phase would be the best way for us to handle what that relationship looks like in our respective roles and responsibilities. Then once that's complete, the lease then governs the operation and fee structure of that ongoing relationship similar to the way our ski leases run.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what activities would be occurring within this building? What type of visitation would happen? What Would there be programming that they put forward for the public to attend? Or is it just folks coming into the park to begin with and using the facility? What would the building be used for?

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: Sure, that's a great question. The anticipated capacity is about 10 to 12 people that'd be able to stay there overnight. VT Hudson Trails currently has a couple of other huts that they manage a reservation system for. So anyone that's interested in staying overnight at the Goodell House would be able to reserve overnight accommodations in the same way that they can reserve other cabins and huts that run through VT Hut's system. So we're moving both the operations and maintenance of that structure onto VT Hut's, but also the interface with the public and the public's interest in using that location. That too would be the responsibility of VT Hutts. We would be looking at how to structure the relationship between our interests in making sure that this exclusive use is balanced well with the other public access and unrestricted uses of the surrounding lands, while also making sure that VT Hubs can effectively run the nonprofit business that they're operating.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So currently, in the current position, place where this Fidel house is, is it being used by No. Not.

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: Skunks, raccoons. Squirrels. It's been closed. Pretty much since we acquired Little River State Park following the nineteen twenty seven flood, this has been an unoccupied structure leftover from it is it was built in the 1800s. It's part of the original settlement settlement up at Little River State Park,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: which is why we have to take it apart. Yes, exactly. We haven't used it. Foursome Parks hasn't used it at all. And it's still standing? Still standing. At the end of every winter season, we

[Rebecca Washburn (Director of Lands Administration and Recreation, FPR)]: kind of hold our breath, walk up and check, and it's still there.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Johnny, she So tell me a little more about that house. There's a great article out here that Troy already referred to from August. Alright.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think if any of us are still here, we should do a trip when it gets done. I said it was eleven or twelve, you could stay. That's awesome.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: We'll never work together. We'll stay overnight. No, god.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Let's just stay

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: overnight with you guys. Now I take ten or eleven. Got ten or eleven. Right? To take tea.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Survive. We can't sleep outside.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They set up to twelve for with us. Whether you like it or not, you're stuck with us.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: See now, kumbaya and s'mores.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else before we shift to our legal counsel with prose language that may work or may need to be true? Thank you. Thank you.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You very much.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're going to get into a capital bill, folks. Come on up, Michael.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I would love to see a picture next time.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Just had it up.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: You send it to us? Oh, my goodness. Come on. It's still so lovely. Very nice. It's unbibed from August.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I haven't seen you at the end of the table for a long time.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: That's been a while.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: How are

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: is Michael Grady with Budget City Council. I think, as you know, the Department of Forest and Parks has the ability to buy, sell, transfer, lease state lands, but it's with the approval of the General Assembly. It says with the approval of the General Assembly, which may include a resolution, it doesn't require a resolution. So you can make that approval through other legislative means, which includes session law. Or if you wanted to write it into statute, you could. And you have done that before. For example, the authority to license maple production on state lands is written in the statute. If you wanted to, but this seems more of a one time fiscal year 2027, they're going to enter the lease. The question is, how much detail do you want to provide and what that lease needs to address? So I gave you just basically, as the chair noted earlier, preliminary language, says fiscal year twenty twenty seven, the commissioner, is authorized to enter a lease. And since I heard today that's gonna be twenty years, I would say a long term lease, with Vermont Hudson Trails for the use of a structure at Little River State Park provided that. And then what provided that do you want? Provided that the lease sets the terms of use, sets the term of years, specifies the boundaries that are subject to the lease, specifies the fee formula, specifies what access the public has, who has responsibility for maintenance, whether or not that lease can be terminated, and what conditions are required for termination. Is it at will? Do you need ninety days? Must there default? What insurance needs to be carried, and what liability or lack thereof the state will have for use of the land, Any conflict resolution? Who's gonna pay for the movement? I heard that there's gonna be a no use contract with the organization for the movement. I assume that's gonna be an addendum to the lease. I would recommend that. And that it provides that they will pay for all the costs of movement, costs for maintenance, etcetera. So I've talked to Katherine Gassing, who's the general counsel for the agency. She said that she's in discussions with partner and could have potential language for you next week. And that's that's what I have to report.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I I think we should put some conditions around there. Mhmm. We really do. And I don't wanna be prescriptive, but I think if you could work with our lit council folks to really we wouldn't I think liability is a big issue if we've got other folks who are accessing it to and they're working through from Hudson Trail to access it, but it's on state property and something happens, who's gonna be live for the because of the organization? I think my abilities to make Maintenance, operations. Troy and then Mary?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Our quaint little fireside SMARS can't dodge, but they became

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: That's fun.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: On the list of Do you have anything similar already in place that we could maybe look at?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, the department referenced that they have the leases for the ski areas, which are longer than twenty years, and have all of those types of terms incorporated into them. And some of them are a little older than others because the terms are so long. But you could probably look at them for the type of lease agreement that they will be used.

[Commissioner Danielle Fitzko (Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation)]: Yeah, I'll chair Commissioner Daniel Pinsville for Parks and Recreation. We have looked at all the leases and do have a pretty comprehensive list of terms to include everything that Becca mentioned from insurance, term maintenance, all like probably 20 different areas where we would look to want to work with our partners and we're doing that now meeting within Tuesday so that they can agree to that. We're going to flush these out together and then bring it to you, that long list that we have.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, but do we wanna put all of that long list in such a long?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, that's up to you. I will offer that. I assume that the department's gonna attach the standard terms and conditions grants for and contracts to the lease. That has about 28 provisions in it and is pretty comprehensive. The state will not indemnify. The contractor needs to carry sufficient insurance. It's long list of requirements. You could just say the specific terms you wanna include and the we shall include the standards, terms, and conditions for contracts. And I think that would address many of the

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Should start that draft it up, and then you continue your always your Yeah. Discussion and get back to us on Tuesday. Sure. That work for folks?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Mhmm. Yep. Okay. Got it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, Michael, I also am having Tate sent to you what we spoke about yesterday.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the priority list is, I don't wanna get into it too much, but Tate's gonna send to you, I think you already have the language, but they also are looking at the drinking water revolving loan fund.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: They

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: also have proposed language that would also help them receive money from the drinking water revolving loan fund for manufactured housing communities. So Tate's gonna send you what A and R and D and C expect proposing to us to include.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Is that section eight of the specific

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. But it's different than what it's in.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So I I have talked to to, Patrick Monks at A and R about what they're proposing for the clean water SRF. And it's effectively not changing it's not specifically changing the priority list, but it's allowing a municipality that's applying for funds for an extension of a sewer line that will be used for housing to not have to show the need because of a pollution issue, a public health issue, or when outside of a designated density downtown, that it is necessary, and if it is necessary, that it's designed to avoid sprawl. So they won't have to make those findings in order to award for that municipal extension for development of housing. I would also note it doesn't say what housing. Low or moderate, full time residents, density to the Home Act. It doesn't provide any of those criteria. So if you were going to do that, I think you would wanna put some parameters around what type of housing you would be effectively subsidizing private development with.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that's really beyond our purview. So I spoke to representative Sheldon this morning. And what I recommended to her was that she and I, representative Paul Haley, and you and myself sit down on Tuesday and work through this and see where those two committees are in terms of where they come down on both section eight and then section nine and Tate will This is the new proposal, not what came in the governor's letter.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: I also say that their language doesn't work under section nine to to the point that they want it to because they waive one requirement for the findings but not the other.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: In the rule.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: In the rule.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Some conflict.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you've they won't have to make that finding under section 300, but they still have to make the finding under section 200. So it it doesn't work. And and, Patrick

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm sorry?

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Acknowledged.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we'll set up a time on Tuesday. Probably, I I would prefer sometime Tuesday morning. That's fine. Like, maybe when are going.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's great.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Something like that because we have to get this bill out I know you're tied up at the end of Yeah. Actually It's fly somewhere.

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, well, we'll see.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We'll see. So thank you, and we'll circle back on the Gadell House, circle back on let's see. So I know it's good. Thank you, Mike. Know it's

[Michael O’Grady (Legislative Counsel)]: getting Good weekend.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Interesting out there, and some of us have ways to go. But I do want to at least get the spreadsheet out, Scott. Oh,

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: sorry. Was falling asleep. I'm

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: sure. Oh, I know. Just okay. I I I wanna don't get excited on what you see on the bottom line. And at least we can take a look at the spreadsheet and we still have a ways to go. Don't be too excited. We still have a ways to go here. It's all the ways to go. You've to learn from looking for that page first.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: We still have to get excited. It's all bottom line. Don't worry if I'm on the of balance. It's the bottom line.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: For the record, Scott Moore, legislative finance manager for the Joint Fiscal Office. And I present to you draft two version of the spreadsheet we've been working on. Just to walk you through a couple of things that I have done in terms of coloration. On the very first column we have there, actually across the whole thing, anytime the governor recommended something different from the bill previously, in the previous spreadsheet that was a bright yellow, I've muted that to be more of this like lighter tan. So you can still see that there were some changes. And then anything that is bright yellow in the section that's the red, those are the changes that we made. And the same for the first column there. If we made a change to something, I put it in bright yellow, and if it was a governor recommended, it's still in that tan kind of lighter color. We didn't make very many changes so far. Walking through, we can start with line four. We had changed the FY '26 bonded to be 1,100,000.0 and we zeroed out FY '27 bonding. So we cut a total of 1,500,000.0. We just did 400,000 in FY '26 and 1 point 1,000,000 in FY '27. Line nine in the descriptor, we remove the word historic, which is really more of a language thing, but I highlighted that there in yellow so you can see. Line 11, we took $1,000,000 from the FY '27 bonded, leaving $1,000,000 Jumping to line 27, I added Department of Finance to the description, but it didn't change any of the dollars. I just wanted to let you know I did change that so we were clear there. And then we did remove $2,000,000 from the cash, my apologies, and left $700,000

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I said, yeah, we did move some.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Good chunk.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: After all blurs, my own child.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Was my work. Glad to help you earlier.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Line 28, we cut $1,000,000 from FY27 cash. Then jumping to line 56. I do apologize in that I did miss a couple of trainings yesterday because I had to go to Ways and Means and Appropriations, but talking to my manager yesterday, we talked a little bit about this. And I think the committee had a discussion about adding line for the Sprinklr system. So taking money from the migration of the A wing and adding money to the Sprinklr system. An easier way to do that is to just change the language for Line 36 to say, Hey, this money could be used for A wing and the Sprinklr system. I know there was some question about was it $7.40 they had left over, $7.50, seven sixty? Easiest thing to do is have John change the language to say, in addition to A Wing also do Sprinklr installation.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Gotcha.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that with the A wing that we did that or the elevator? We

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: did stuff with the elevator as well.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Elevator. The elevator was the sewer, not the straight line, it's the line right below it.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Line 57, this is where things get a little more fun.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: So

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: we zeroed the $500,000 in cash at FY '27 and I added $1,250,000 in bonding for FY '27. Half 1,000,000 of that would be coming from the reallocation of elevator money from FY '24. I added a line item, line 170, which we'll see when we get down there. Half 1,000,000 comes from reallocation of elevator money. We added another The half million from the cash, essentially from cash to bonding. On top of that, another quarter million dollars for a total of 1,250,000. Jumping to line one twenty three, I removed $750,000 from cash, and then we jump to lines one seventy in the back page. Here is that $500,000 that we added from the elevator upgrade from FY24. And then I took the liberty of mines 171 and 172 to add in monies from the repo committee's work. Total of 53,413 in bonding.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's precise. I gotta get that thing off the books because it keeps coming up.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: The repo committee did have another line item which was regarding phosphorus equipment, but the gov rec already had it. The gov rec number is 114000, I think it was 415. We had a different number that we came up with, but if the governor's gonna recommend a higher number, we went with the governor's number instead of ours. And that is all I have done. So if you look at the very, very bottom, we ended up adding a total of 6,063,000. And of that 6,000,001.8 is in bonding and 4 and a quarter is in cash. We got 6,000,000 Sorry.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We got some work to do. Got some work to do. We had a Wi Fi stangling out the rear. We heard last year. It's not incorporated here. We haven't really talked about the entryway. That's a million. Mhmm. So there's 4,000,000 right there. And then we haven't talked about the recovery house. I think those were the three that were dangling out there. We haven't talked about we're out getting the 26,000 from FY '22 the bill days, which has bumped up against that time where it does get reallocated back to the capital. So I think that's where we should leave it for the weekend. It's what I'm feeling because of the weather and most people want to keep working on it. I think, again, let it settle a little bit.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: You guys all live far away. I'll take care of it myself. So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: right now, if we fund both dangling, particularly the entry, which we haven't discussed, and we said no to the state colleges, that was a million. And, we don't know what the Wi Fi will come in. That could come in at higher than 3,000,000. We don't know. So, don't get all excited about 6,000,000 without a lot of focus. We're under what we bond for. We have the bonding, the capital funding, bonding capacity that we have is 122,000,600 and something. And we're about 10,800,000.0 less than that so well no we don't want to leave that at the bottom line.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Gotcha. You

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: leave anything on the bottom line it's going to get sucked up in the center.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You don't wanna leave anything on the bottom line. It will get sucked up. Let's give it go.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Let's try to finish last.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We wanna allocate everything we can. Come in with zero to two nine, have it all balanced out. And then cash, we have about 4,200,000.0 cash. Plenty of ways to work hard through this. Does that make sense to folks?

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

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It does.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We didn't get it out. We're in good shape. John is working on language. So Tuesday, really wanna spend a lot of time, be prepared for maybe a late night on Tuesday. Yep. Wednesday. Gotta coordinate this with appropriations because they're gonna vote bill appropriations bill will be on the floor next week on Thursday and Friday. When our bill gets voted out, it goes to appropriations. Yeah. The chair approves. We also have to work on that language, the human services, the juvenile facility. Mhmm. So we got a lot of little dangle pieces to work through. Is there anything that anyone wants to that's thinking that needs an answer?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I ran the damn language by sent some stuff to Bed Green, handed it to the commissioner there, the nurse, you so hopefully, we'll get some feedback.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So when you get some feedback, just go back to John. Because he's working. Drive careful, folks. Have a good weekend. We're back here on Tuesday. Plan on Tuesday or Wednesday, maybe during the It's time to get the fill out. K?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: You ready?