Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Shawn Sweeney (Committee Clerk)]: You're live.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Tuesday, March 24 at 05:30. Are working with our legislative council and our joint fiscal office to go over any language changes that we need to put into And capital I know that John has sort of kept a list of some of the items. So if you could just kind of go through what you have, and then if you can add to that, we'll adjust it to further. So

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll address the policy pieces here. Section eight, which you may recall from DEC's testimony, is a set of language that is meant to address disadvantaged municipalities and to add nonprofit and resident owned manufactured housing communities to the list of eligible communities. We've had some back and forth with DEC on that language. As you know, they came in last week with updated language, so not what was initially contained in the governor's rec. I think we're in a decent place on that. We have some cleaner language that's going to look awfully close to what Patrick presented on, although there may be some cleanup involved with one of the technical callouts. It's an undefined term that we may be clearer on.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because if you don't have the institutional memory, then nobody knows, right?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, mean, if you just read the section, it doesn't make any It's not clear what a reverse thing. So that's not great. However, the flip side of it is if that section is being administered properly right now, you also don't always wanna touch a section that's being properly administered, even it's single cleared to us. So we'll have a new section eight starting tomorrow that addresses that piece. The more controversial policy piece, maybe that's the wrong term to use, but the bigger substantive issue was section nine, which addressed the priority system for eligible municipal water pollution abatement. And there had been language that would have not withstood the demonstration requirements of a set of department rules. And basically those rules are meant to get at scattered development, and this would create an exemption from that. It included service to new housing units. Feels like more of a housing environmental matter that's going out of the capital. So you're not going to see that second line the CDC report. Last policy piece that was included in the governor's rec is related to acceptance of gifts for historic sites in Vermont Archaeology Heritage Center. I haven't heard any objections to the governor recommended one, which said that you will see

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And now it's testimony to a federal government that it would allow State of the State State State the and also just to help with fundraising campaigns. So we're designated to designate to a specific project.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: That Anywhere else with that, if you don't?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that was being proposed, and she testified that that is something that they would like, so that it helps with Bennington. And that was in the other sort

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: hand and other projects in the future.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This would be broadly available. That is the extent of the policy sections that are here. I did put some other language requests beyond just updates to the figures. So something we talked about this morning, I had understood that VGS wanted some flexibility. As you know, multiple sections appropriate funds to VGS. And generally, you know that under existing law, there is authority to transfer amounts among projects within the same section. I think there's a request more broadly to allow BGS to transfer funds across multiple sections to which they're appropriated. So state buildings, public safety, AHS pieces. Hopefully, is ringing the bell for folks. And I'm saying lots of head nodding, so that's positive.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And with that, what we also learned was the ability in Section three, the Cultural Agencies and Human Services, for them to be able to move money between the DOC projects, not the DCF project, but the DOC projects. So the money for Section three, is that a is the money appropriate to the agency to the agency of human services? Or does is money appropriate to BGS?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe it goes through BGS.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Through the agency of human That's the issue. Agency of human services could move money around within that section, but those at BGS, so BGS wants the ability to move money around.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So BGS does have the ability to move money within the section.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Their section.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Within section three, the funds are appropriated to them.

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

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And they would have the ability to move funds among projects within that section. So if that's what you're trying to solve, I think you're already at.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what about public service? Because they're doing the

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Right now, they couldn't take money from three.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They could

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: work within three or within two.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: may want to work between those two sections, two and three.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that that does not exist. Yeah. That flexibility does not exist. In section yeah. In section 13, they could move money among the projects within intra. You can move intra section, but not inter section.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So in section 13, does the money go to BGS or public sea?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: BGS.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that for Rutland Field Station?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And for the search and rescue facility?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Shasbury, Rutland.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think, so Scott, they just want to wherever they have a project because it's about such a good say, wanna switch money between all the projects that are funded through BGS. Yeah, for the record,

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Scott Moore, Joint Principal Office, that's correct, Madam Chair. In talking with Commissioner Luneau, she had mentioned a desire that if it's the people doing the work, regardless of which section they're in, having that flexibility to move money. For instance, we have major maintenance between Section 3 and Section 2 or working on design for the Chasseberry Field Station, they have leftover money, could have moved out to design, up in sections, back out. So anything that's BGS related, even though they're doing the work on behalf of a different agency, if they're assigned the work and they're appropriated the money, having that flexibility between separate sections was the desired.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: May I offer a practical consideration that maybe you guys will not like? But just thinking about the effect of this sort of thing, it's obviously practically useful for BGS, but it also means that the work that you guys do to narrow down specifications of funds for projects becomes much less meaningful. Because if you can just move funds between sections, you could treat one section as basically having the aggregate of two sections and put no funds toward it. It's all

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: the thoughts out of my head.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So just just something to think about. I imagine that they're asking in a reasonable way because it's helpful to their practices, but it does

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do you have a recommendation as to how it should be worded?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's really a choice of if you just want to allow that at all. I'm just pointing out that it makes the work in here less meaningful, basically.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: But I I I use it at support. Good. I do

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: not support that. Just do not

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: I mean, the work within section two is very different from the nature of the work within section three.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: And and and and I understand allowing flexibility, but that's that's too much to the extent that we're almost just just, you know, forfeiting our ability to direct funds into, you know, certain areas. I mean, section three is you got, what, Total bond and cash of $28,000,000 in three. You get and, obviously, some of that's been expended. $41,000,000 hanging out in section two. You know, section two is very different than than section three. Know, how would we feel if, I don't know, the roof for Northwest got redirected to repointing for the State House? Would that be right? Because that's what you would be allowing.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I concur. Scott? Just another thing that came to mind in having these discussions, I believe Commissioner M. Nulli told me that they do currently have a mechanism where they can go between sections. It's just they would have to go through the steps of going to agency administration, talking to Sarah Clark and getting that permission. So they already have a mechanism in place. This would just allow it to be one less step of bureaucracy.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They came over a certain amount of money.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 200 ks, I So would a step is required to do that, it's not automatic. You can imagine, just to set out the absurd hypothetical, if you had a capital bill in which you just had a bucket of projects, it was all one section and you said you could move funds between all of these, what would it mean to allocate funds to any particular project? That's the most extreme way to think about it, but maybe helpful to It's a practical question, but it's true that they can take a step. I don't know how regularly those approvals are granted. If they're quite liberal with the extension of those approvals, then the request makes more sense. It's just a practical concern. But if that is a reasonable administrative burden, then it's gonna be different. Yes. Sure. Pretty much just what John said is

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Being able to move it a little bit, little flexibility is good, too much flexibility is bad, which does when it takes us out of the picture. Because in theory you could move all the money into one thing and it kind of violates their whole principle of us being here and deciding that these are the projects we want you to do. So I'd be very cautious. And they do, know they have that process. I'm sure it's not that cumbersome when you're going to your own people to get it done. And I personally think you should go

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to a school or whatever.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There is an emergency board piece of that too, but it's another step.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right, but to me that should always be the step. There's gotta be checks and balances. If you just let people do whatever they want, it gets a little dicey.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Maybe I stepped out for a few minutes that day, but BGS is in here a lot. I don't remember that request being made during any testimony.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Anyone else?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They did. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: They did the repo.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: As well. That's their choice.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Okay.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I'm not very clear at all.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Know what triggers the emergency board? It's that if they wanna go between over 200,000, Secretary of the Administration, but there's also a trigger for the emergency board. Is it over a certain amount, or is it that that 50 piece?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I don't know the trigger for the emergency board.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can try to look.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It was 1% of the general fund, at least for that piece of it? Don't

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: know. There is a trigger, because we have used that. We have used it. I

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: mean, point is you have those systems in place that this stuff can happen, it's just gotta go through the right people to make sure we have a little bit of a check.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: We merge lines, we do

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: it with intention too. Right, we've done that

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: with the language there, DOC.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm looking at the general transfer appropriate general transfer of appropriations authority under title 32 with approval of governor or commissioner of finance can transfer balances of appropriations not to exceed under k made under any appropriation act. So there's broader authority outside of the context of just the capital bill.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We wanna keep it, though, within yeah. Okay. There is the e board gets involved too. We've done that for the bigger projects, but I don't remember what the trigger is there. That's

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 200,000

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: is, like, the trigger that goes to the secretary of the administration and then to the e board. Okay.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So generally, under title 28, can allocate the commissioner's discretion funds from projects appropriated to BGS by any capital protection act, manage and extend all appropriations, transfer any unexpended project balances between projects that are authorized within the same section of the biennial capital construction act. That's what we've been talking about. Transfer any unexpended project balances between projects that are authorized within different capital construction acts with the approval of the secretary of administration when the unexpended project balance does not exceed 200 k or with the additional approval of the e board when such balance exceeds 200 k. But even note the lead into that, transfer any unexpended project balances between projects that are authorized within different capital construction acts.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. We did that. So they could go back three years previous. And if there's unexpended dollars there, they could hold that.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But it's interesting to me because that is not a grant of moving between different sections of the same Capital Construction Act, which is what we're talking about. The previous language subdivision 19 is addressing that transfer within projects that are authorized within the same section. So I don't see type of situation we're envisioning.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So there's nothing in statute that would allow them to transfer money from section three to section two with the approval of the administration if it's open to a 100,000.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. The the piece that I just spoke to is what I have on that front. I'm also just looking at another subdivision that I have not read before, so just a sec before. I see this isn't gonna address it either, but with the approval of the secretary of administration transfer during any fiscal year to BGS for use only for major maintenance within the capital complex, any unexpected balances of funds appropriated in the Capital Construction Act.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We've done this so piecemeal in the past.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's provisions for emergency projects, but that's unexpended balances from prior capital construction acts. And that's obviously addressing emergency scenarios.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So they can move money within their own section two? Yes. Without authority, even if it's 400,000, they don't need the secretary of administration. Right? So the 200,000 in if they want to move money between capital bills?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. Yep. It's transfer any unexpended project balances between projects that are authorized within different capital construction acts. If it's if it doesn't exceed 200 k, that's secretary of administration approval. You need additional approval of the e board above 200 k. So in any case, you need secretary of administration approval for BGS to transfer balances between projects authorized in different capital bills. And if you go above 200 k, you'd then need additional eboard approval.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So for those projects, like right now in section three and the one for public safety, right now, there is no authority for them anywhere for BGS to move money between those projects and what's in section two?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I'm aware of. So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the question is before the committee, of the carte blanche, just do it. Do we wanna allow them some flexibility? To go through secretary of administration? That's the boss. The secretary of administration puts the capital bill together. I would stat on the same puts the capital bill together. So your chicken has grown in that henhouse. Well, I know we won't.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Is it just section two we're talking about, right? No, the question is,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: can BGS move money around between their section, section three, because the money is going to be GS, though it's a human services project.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's broader than that. I think it was any project.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It was GSG's control. But a lot of it is human services.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right now, is, yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: A lot of it is services. I don't know about the vet's home, how that poisoned, and probably the safety.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: this And then you've even got the agency a bag with the big E And the bag in here in our lab. It doesn't get better. Too much. That's

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It's too much. That's So

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I understood this to be a request that was specific to this capital bill. But just hearing the discussion, it sounds like this is a change to the powers of Which, you guys, probably feels like a big thing to add. I agree.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I don't support it. It's like, how far does it go? We've got

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: like $13,000,000 for the prison from previous capital bills. Can they move that all around? They

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: could. They have to, but they would have to get approval. Yeah. Mean, won't hold just 200. They've moved 500,000, I guess. But then you have to go through the e book for Yeah.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, and aside from the effects that has on you guys' decision making, this process is already quite difficult to track all the funding strength at this point.

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

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: wouldn't be fairly intense. So

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we make

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a motion to keep it the way it is. So can you help support that?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yep. Absolutely. Okay. Yes.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. Okay. That's simple then. Do you know them? Great.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. That makes it short. What's to do, John? Have another chance. Good job.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So another piece that I had heard is a request. We had talked about, but not landed on as as a request whether authority was required to purchase land for USAR. And in communications with commissioner Manoli, and I know they're gonna be in tomorrow talking, my understanding is they don't need language to purchase that land. So get another thing. Don't think you'd have to

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: do something. Do they need any adjustment to their rules and land?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I also asked if they still needed the authority to sell, and the response was that they have the authority to sell if they go that route in the future. So I understand they would like that authority maintained, preserved, so no reason to touch it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And they have the authority to purchase property if they have to?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The direct quote is we do not need language to purchase land.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Leave the masses.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Get them drunk. Why? We'd be dumb. So those are sets of general language pieces. I have a really not well organized set of my annotations of markup. Mine too. And I can go through them. The thing I will offer, and I don't want to put on the spot, my annotations do not track your spreadsheets. Oh, well that's even better. So that's what I was gonna say is if I describe mine, I describe them in the form of the capital bill, which is section two, we're changing this. I don't think that's the way you guys talk about it. So I would suggest that your consent is gonna be more helpful to the committee, But I don't

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We talked about that Friday. Nothing changed since then. Let's

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You want me to switch? You want me to switch?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Don't you stick that? It doesn't matter. We'll stick anymore. Scott, why don't you do that?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Sure, so going back to the spreadsheet that I gave you on Friday, it's got the orange header at the top. So I have line four, we're changing FY26 bonded to be 1,100,000.0.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're doing the money, but how about any language?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Language? No. Was that a negative? Yeah. The except for 29, remove the word historic.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. It's yes. I have that when you get to the veteran.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And then when we get onto veterans, we want to talk about being able to align 56, adding the language to Avenue Springfield. And then also on line 57 talking about the avenue for us to the elevator. It

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: was the elevator to the sewer system. Right. It's language there, something Could

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: you put the left in either? Right. I believe

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do have if I can read my notes, I do have I was here for those discussions. Yep. And Scott also sent me an email afterwards to which I responded I was there. So I will yes.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: And mostly, John, like I said in my email to you, is adding the ability to have the elevator

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: get through the roof again, which sounds horrible. There is more language on B and C, the leftover, right. Yep. That's spring.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because there was money from the previous capital bill. There'll be another line item

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: for a reallocation of half 1,000,000.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Brian was the elevator. Brian and I went from that.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 50. I see

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: where we talked about the big the big five.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we had Just blanking out. What

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I will say is I have notes on this. Part of the issue is that I tore out some of the pages as I started drafting things, so some pages are separate on my desk. But it is not hard for me to go back to this exact testimony and capture it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What it was for A, Wayne, last year, we had language that's pulled.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: From B and C?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: B and C to A, and we had 1,500,000.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not gonna

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: use all of that 1,500,000.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think they used to just have

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

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: want to say seven sixty, but

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I've got $7.60. Then the remaining is going to go towards the springboard installation.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I have keep 1,000,000 bond for elevator, cut 500 k cash, responding by 250 k in FY 2730 to move the FY '24 bonded with the FY '27 bonded to create a bigger pool of funds basically, and to Oh gosh, my handwriting. Sprinklers, use the balance Of anyone. On the sprinklers.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's for Amy.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And then I have a bunch of question marks.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We want the ability for them and their suction to move money around with all their Yes. We already gave them the authority to move money around because of everything, a laundry facility, and they're using part of that money to do the laundry facility in part of A Wing. So, think we've already gave authority with lines fifty four and fifty five, but now we want to spend it tomorrow. So you're figuring something else in your hands free.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I think that covers the discussion that we had from the

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For the Vets.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For the Vets one. Yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You can out anything else out here. So they were going to do something, though, in there.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so that was going to be

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the laundry. So the move in to the gateway where they were going to have the theater. The laundry is going go there.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think they need the language.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't think so.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's how they saved the money.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's what

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it was.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what else do you have?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just a second to confirm. I think aside from the historic cutting the word historic, which Scott noted, I do not have language updates for the first And we have the youth stabilization facility.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That language to put in.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: groups. We want the same language in here.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. You want to have that language? Yep. Yep. Yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's got a mansion. Oh, jeez. So I dropped that language, but we gotta do it. Ben, did you get the Springfield language for the swap? The land transferred from Springfield's frictional facility to Springfield we issued a mend. I gave somebody a piece of paper that came from Wanda. Gave it to somebody on Friday.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I don't have this. I do know that Michael Brady had language. Just a second that I can check. She might be responsive.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I gave it to him on Friday. BGS has been working with the town. It's 22 acres. We put in the capital bill in '24. '24 capital bill that they put

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. This is ringing a bell.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The tenant

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: needs to

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: go to Springfield for their municipal services. That needs to be amended to 22 acres. Did you get that?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. We're good. We're good.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's so wild. Did I say that? I didn't raise that. It's to allow them for economic development. Okay.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That will be in there. Did we talk Little River?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: There.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They're coming in tomorrow, but

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Michael Brady has language for that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: He's gonna put that in there so we can

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: do I can include that with the full track so we can put it together.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then the eustabilization. I don't think there's anything else. I think that's it. You're not doing the damns. Stop.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Line 27, it's about think it adds department of corrections, make sure on the spreadsheet it didn't include department of corrections. For door controls? Correct. Because it looks like somebody says We

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: grab 2,000,000. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And we have 2,000,000, but we want the ability the money within section three for the DOC projects, not the DCF, but just for those DOC projects to be able to move money between those projects.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're buying '23, '24, and Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right, '22.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think so, yeah. And then merge with 27 with statewide.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: we didn't merge them because of the cash you've bonded. Oh, that's right.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. The cash. We're gonna on '27, we wanna make sure we're compliant with state of Department of Corrections, statewide, not just

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: State whiteboard. In it's in. So do we wanna allow the money that we're appropriating in section three lines 20 to 28. Do we want them to allow them to move money between all of those? Or do we just wanna limit the the lines 23, 24, and 27? We just leave it for Saint Jude.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Yes. Please. Flexibility. Yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just for those three items for the

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: controls. Yeah, I think we had talked about that. That's a lot.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And I and then we've got Ag Fairs. Mhmm. It's got 26,000 FY '22. We're gonna work with Scott on this one, but we wanna reallocate it. It will it will not create a hole in the act there. But that's for building community grants, etcetera. But that money is basically sitting.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And there's a statute that requires a clawback on the earliest allocation.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So there's 26,000 that will come back to the bottom line.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Line '49.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it doesn't come back to

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the bottom

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: line.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: FY '22 was '26, '23 and '24 and '26.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. No. It's not. '25,

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but it's a '22.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Scott can do some work to track that and do the.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Can you just imagine not to look at that next year and say, well, can realize that's a little deeper, right? Because

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: we allocated to the grant, the grant allocates it somewhere else, we have to go another layer.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is there anything else like that?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: All of these grants.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All of the grants probably have a similar 12 acting for That takes five years. The only ones that might be different

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: is starch preservation from the barn grains.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can tell

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: you how those work.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That might be a little better for clawback.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: No, but Caitlin does it herself, really, because she'll repo the money itself on it. So we give out the whatever. We have 300 for $8.50. And usually, there will be $3.18 or something because there'll be a project that comes in under or whatever. And then we'll but she's much more aggressive than we are. She doesn't and she could speak to it more eloquently than me, but she doesn't leave money out in projects.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right. And they may be a little different than the others, like the grant, the grant, the egg grant because preservation, historic preservation grants and farm grants were existing long before we did the building community grants. So we didn't didn't tinker with their structure as much. We lumped it all together with the building community grants. They may be a little different.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There is general fallback language for all of the building communities grants chapter, which is the three year. So Three year. Yep. If they remain unexpended and not subject to a grant agreement, entity may reallocate unexpended funds within its grants program within the three years of the original award. Any unexpended funds remaining after the three year period that are not subject to a grant agreement shall be reallocated in future action related to the.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: But then, you know, beyond that, for the Barnes and the HP grants, we usually when we award award them, we have a couple of next in lines, if you will. Because sometimes somebody will have a project and they cancel it, and then you go to the next one down, there's a there are contingents. It's already a little like HP waterfall, if you will. There isn't much there. Like, we're talking $12 or $20.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It'll go toward piece of water cap. I already took care of that.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: I have no idea.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We took care of that. It's already and that's where we need the letter of intent. It's okay.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: working for tomorrow. Anything else, John, that you're gonna need from us so that you can get the draft going?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did we wanna do any shell language for

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, the WiFi. DOC WiFi. Do find that letter at all that we sent last year? That would take more time. Let's see. We did a letter last year. We didn't involve in this at all. We did a letter with the energy committee last year that we sent to broadband. It was banned to That do we asked the broadband board to support the DOC request of 3,300,000.0 for WiFi in DOC facilities. And right now, we're trying to get a number from DOC and ADS in terms of what the project cost would be. So the numbers that ADS gave us are, like, three years old. They didn't come in at quite 3,000,000, and we tried to get them in to testify today and tomorrow, and they're not willing to come in. They said, well, what did they say exactly that the numbers

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: They're not ready.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They're not ready.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. They said it's too early in the process to get testimony

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We have to. They have lunch. Otherwise, we

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: don't want

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And DOC spent working with them. So we want some light. We're gonna put in a line item for WiFi and DOC facilities. I don't know what number we're gonna look at. I don't know if it's 2,000,000, 3,000,000, what we're gonna look at.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This is going in the capital you want, like, within section three, you want a line item for Wi Fi. Do you

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: want me to We can plug another. Yeah,

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just thinking about the dollar amount and how it affects the other like, if this is meant to be a to generate information for you, Kat. I don't know what's that suggested information.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're to require

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: ADS to do the work. So it's first, the shallow language. So, yeah, I'm just thinking how this affects the other determinations you've made on money. Right? Like, you have unlimited There's six of you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're we're fine. We're running money for it. It'll probably come out of cash.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We got

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 4,000,000 in cash, 4.2. So the question is, do we do 2,200,000.0, do we do 3.3? And that's last year we had that. Last year, think it was 3.3.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: It

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was above three. So you wanna just do the same as bottom, you might as well maintain the

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 3.3.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What's the reason to differ from

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just plug in that number, and I would do patch and then language that ADS and DOC shall work together to install Wi Fi in all of our DOC correctional facilities. A 27.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: I forgot.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Did I say that?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You're being you're being bad.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Gotta put language in to get people. Sometimes you will last.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I know.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They didn't give us information this year, so now we

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If I say state correctional facilities, is that a sufficiently type for fraud?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: As long as it's in the DOC section.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. This would be for ADS and DOC to work together to install Wi Fi in state correctional facilities.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a place for us to talk about a little bit more tomorrow, then we can find the letter.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I got a feeling they want to testify after they see that language. Late.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: I think you may be on to something.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mean, the other piece, we already talked about it, but you'll have the Little River piece language. Yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yep. Sorry. And then the language about the juvenile facility. Yes. Sure.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Correct.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's only for operations, Bill.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll confirm my dollar figures with Scott. I was not around when you guys talked about cash. So just for my orientation, I'm sure you made a few tweaks, but so much of the governors recommend this concentrated impact sections. I'm assuming that you are comfortable with much of what's there.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. We we made changes on the door controls for DOC. We made changes on the door for Newport facility. We that's the two changes

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: we did

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: for them. Then

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we made the changes in the cash for the bed stuff, evening, and the sewer system. Did you everything I want?

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: Yes. Do you need John?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Do you have enough to work with?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think so. I'll talk with Scott, and I likely will still do my somewhat insane practice of reupting a lot of testimony just to make sure that I was capturing.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Did not be up or Did

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I try to do it two times? No, I think we'll be fine. This is also much easier to digest than the testimony from last year, has so many, Right. Yeah. Had to stop and take notes constantly during that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Don't send it to editor.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I'm just gonna bring because we're gonna need to yeah. And I'm expecting you guys to have things to change. So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: yeah. We're here at 08:30, John. I don't know if John will be ready.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I I plan to you're gonna need to get me out of ways and means in the morning for a period because I'm there for I'm booked for two hours in the morning from nine to eleven, And I have to be there for at least a portion of that. So we'll have

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

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: 08:30 of h 09:37. Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We've got Kevin is visiting this. When do we have Boys And Parks?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Boys And

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Parks is at nine, so that's the only black color block that works for

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then when do we have a BGS with them coming in?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 09:30. It's basically possible.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We're out of four. Oh, okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 10:00 is no clock or the annexes in the hole.

[Unidentified Committee Member (House Corrections & Institutions)]: 08:30 here.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 08:30. Yes.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Which means, okay, which means we're either doing capital build late in the day

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or we'll pull pull off

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or if y'all get off the floor.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can we do the 08:30? It's not gonna be ready.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I I mean, I I can have something for 08:30, but I think the issue is my understanding is you have other things lined up.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the the bill that Kevin is amending is postponed another day. But that 08:30 frees up because that would give us an hour and a half.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're postponing thirty

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: hour. He gives us a half hour. We have something at nine

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: or something in the Yes. We got

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're postponing their greeting.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For a day or two because they got some other amendments. So

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can target at 08:30 if you guys wanna try to do that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The date if it's not posted on YouTube.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, this

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That would be great. We can do that. The sooner we let you go, the sooner you can get started.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: So on another now.

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

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 08:30 tomorrow. And then I don't know if y'all are free again at ten. Like, when does the floor start?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We have practice level

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: to get

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to retention at 10:30. And then we go to March.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are we voting for tomorrow? I mean, we're voting I'm sorry. We're voting on tomorrow. That's what I meant.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I shall get the number up.

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Right in slip.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we'll be on the floor. That valid or

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: what's going on?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Think so. Are you all set? Good to go, John?

[John (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, as much as I will be. So effectively, 08:30 will be the preview of the capital bill. There's any responses, I can input changes throughout the day, and then we reconvene sometime. Thank

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and John. Thanks, Eric. Thanks a lot.