Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Goodbye.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It's Thursday, March 26. We're continuing work on our markup of the capital bill. We're going to work on some language here a little bit. There was a question we were talking about the property transfer for the Southern State Correctional Facility. And there was a question from our legislative council about the transfer and that the state and town negotiate updates to the 1999 agreement to explore the maintenance and upkeep of the access room, water and sewer lines. And there was a question, what do you really mean by that? Is there going to be, is this kind of decided yet? Are conversations continuing? They just want to describe it, but just wasn't sure what all that meant.

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Good morning. Emily Kisicke, Deputy Commissioner of Buildings and General Services for the record. So I'll just start by saying BGS is supportive of this language. Commissioner Manoli has worked closely with the previous and current town manager of Springfield. She's reviewed this latest language and is comfortable with it. I have my phone here in case she texts me any updates that I can share in real time. But I do know that that's the case. And with respect to the road and water and sewer line maintenance, I do know that that's been an ongoing conversation throughout the years in terms of who has responsibility for that. Members might be aware that it's a steep kind of curvy road.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that a quarter of a mile up there?

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: At At least, yeah. And so depending on various uses of the land that Springfield has been considering, that has been an issue for access, depending on what they want to do with the site, what vehicles are going up the road, what winter conditions look like, etcetera. I do know I'm aware that that's been an ongoing topic of conversation, probably going back to the original agreement. So my understanding is that Springfield and Commissioner Nulley have just said they will continue conversations around that topic as this transfer is being implemented and that the goal is to come to an agreement on really where ultimate responsibility will lie for those maintenance functions.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Questions? So it provides some flexibility for your folks as you still negotiate with So the the transfer would allow 22.93 acres to be transferred to the town for municipal property including food economic development within that parcel. But these conditions need to be met one, two, three. Questions? And my understanding is I connected with our town manager, town manager in Springfield. And my understanding, town manager in Springfield also talked to our town attorney town, and they are on board with this language. It's what I heard. So the next question we have, I know the commissioner has asked for the ability to move money around for both projects, both kids with BGS, but our money goes in rightional facilities and public safety. It's possibly the BET's home. Can speak to yes might be involved a little bit with the BET's home. AG, agency of AG, the big of biggie and also the AG in the A and R lab. I think we need more clarity in terms of what is she specifically looking for.

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: So first, we appreciate just the willingness to even consider this ask. We've been listening to testimony and understand the committee's sort of thinking or hesitation around the request. Really, the goal was to increase flexibility for BGS to move money where needed when projects are in motion. As you know, we have several like large sort of lengthy projects that are in the works, some that have money sitting there, some that have been sitting for a while and we're hopeful suddenly we'll be able to move forward rapidly. And so the goal was just to allow flexibility. So currently under statute, the commissioner has the ability to transfer project balances between projects within the same section of Capital Construction Act And then between different capital construction acts with approval of the Secretary of Administration or the Emergency Board, depending on the threshold. So really, the goal was to have ability to move project balances between authorized projects of different sections. So, for example, Section three money is allocated to BGS, for example, for a DOC project that perhaps is stalled right during the summer or something like we don't think we're going to be able to move as quickly as we can. But in a project in Section two is moving quickly and we could use the funding there to be able to move it to that. That was really the goal to have that flexibility.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So if like let's use human services, because there's a lot of projects there. There is the ability within section three of blue money right now between those. Within the same section? Within the same section. BGS would have the authority to do that or DOC? So the money is going to DOC.

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: So I think it's if the money is to BGS, then the way that I read it and legislative council might feel differently. We can talk about it. But the way that I'm reading it, just under title 29, the commissioner of BGS has the authority to transfer unexpended project balances between projects authorized within the same section of the Capital Construction Act. So I would read that to mean projects that are allocated to BGS in a section. So the way that the language in our bill on page three refers

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: section three. Following sums are appropriated to BGS or the agency of human service. So BGS is in control of the dollar and VGS would have the authority right now to move money between those projects in section three. That's what you're saying. That's what I want to check with the Legis Council. I

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: mean, that's how I read it. The language in statute isn't so limited to say, like within Section two, right, as within a section of the Capital Construction Act. So.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: will say that in practice, BGS has really focused on Section two for any of that, just again, for a number of reasons.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So for the judiciary, for the Newport Courthouse, the money is appropriated to BGS for the judiciary. This is amending last year's law, so So, want clarity from our lodge council. The money is appropriated to BGS for the agency of new services projects or for public safety or the ag and A and R lab or Big E that because the money is going to BGS regardless of what section of the bill it's in, BGS has the authority to move that BGS money within that particular section. So I wanna clarify with what council that because that's BGS's interpretation, correct?

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: I'll just say that's the way that I read. So when we've been having these conversations, again, the goal is just flexibility to keep projects moving. Then looking at potential suggested language, when I read it, I, oh, it seems to me like it says commissioner can move between the same section of a biennial capital bill, not specifically limited to Section two. So again, in practice, BGS has really focused on using that authority within Section two for a number of reasons.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it sounds following along on this. Yes. So then the question that you really want to open up is moving money from say there's a project, say the biggie isn't going as quickly as you thought it would go. That's in the agency that the money went to be choose. So say the biggie isn't open as fast as it's gone, but maybe there's a real project in a correctional facility that's ahead of schedule. You wanna be able to move that money that was allocated to the Big E to that correctional facility. I'll just say again, we understand the committee's perspective like we've been hearing the conversation and the idea was just to

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: get some flexibility, we're not pushing too hard on this. We're just sharing some of our goals to keep things moving. But we understand. That's what you're saying.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We could move money from the biggie to a person. If the biggie wasn't for some reason. Yeah. Okay. I just want the concept out there on the table for people to understand. Did folks follow that?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. It's a matter of yesterday.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: And can I get a more specific response from your reaction to from the advice we got from our legal counsel yesterday on the impact that that would have on essentially diluting the capital bill?

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: And that's why I said we understand. So just giving a little bit more clarity on the conversation or what the thinking was behind it. But we've been hearing the conversation, the committee, we understand your perspective. So we're not coming in pushing the issue. Was weak. So again, we understand. And then with how I read the statute within different sections, that there's a bit more flexibility that we can talk to legislative counsel about as well to clarify that that would be helpful conversation.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'll be the school child that's asking the question. Is it true that within a section, BGS has the authority to move funds between the line items?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Within those sections, say section two is real clear, that's all BGS. They can move money within that section. Section three, because the language in the bill appropriates the money to BGS on behalf of the agency of human services, because the money's being appropriated to BGS. BGS has the authority to move money just within section three. Just within section three, correct? That's what he's interpreting the law as saying. What we need to do is clarify with John if that is correct. But

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: they do not have authority to move it from section three to section two. Correct. Unless we specifically put language in to that effect.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You do have some authority to do that if you go through the secretary. If you're moving more than 200,000, you can go to the secretary of administration for approval for that. Correct?

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Yeah, we can for unexpended project balances between projects that are authorized within different capital construction acts. So that's when So you can go to a previous one, full money, but

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you have to go through secretary of the administration. It's over 200,000.

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: And then And if it's over

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: half 1,000,000, then you have to go through the emergency court.

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Right. And that one doesn't specify section. That one is specifying different acts. Well, this is transferring unexpected, unexpended project balances between projects authorized within different capital construction acts. And then it has those dollar thresholds, but it doesn't specify different sections of different acts. It's just different acts, whereas the subsection preceding it is says commissioner of BGS has authority to transfer unexpended project balances between projects in the same section of the same act. So that's where they could move money. BGS will move money in section three within section three because the money is being appropriated to BGS. And that's, again, that's the way that I read it. Welcome conversations with Ledge Council about that. And I think, again, some of the conversations just about this authority and flexibility might come from, again, practicing BGS believing it was limited to section two and wanting some additional flexibility, even within the same section, would be helpful. And again, I read it and said, I think we have that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Heard that within the same section. It's a question of moving it from

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: section And to another

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: again, we understand the committee's perspective on that.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So by us putting specific language in there, it just makes it more explicit, even though you already have the authority to move it within the section is what I'm hearing.

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: I don't know that we need any language is what I'm

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Trying to

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: That's what I'm saying.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, it makes it more. What Yeah. That's

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: That's what what they they would would watch. Want.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Without going to the next step up.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They don't have the authority to even do it going. Oh, because that connects with previous We did something. I think think it was with the new Williston Police Bureau. We had to move money around off session. I think it went through the eagle, It went all through the eagle, she connected with the two chairs of the committee to weigh in because you had cost over something there with the Williston Barons, the new one that was cost over and you had to go pull money. When you pulled money from that for something else, it was taken a few years ago, right? We did some pulling out session. A few millions. And I don't know if we pulled it from a new Williston barracks because it wasn't going along as far for another project. We did something. It was probably about four years ago. Did something. But I had to go through the emergency board. So, let's get clarity on the understanding of the current law from John. It may take time for BGS and John to sit down privately and then come back and tell us what it says.

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: Thank you. And again, some of this may be driven by flexibility that already exists and we just didn't fully appreciate. So thank you again for the discussion and

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: considering. Anything else on this? Thank you, Emily. And then for the entryway project, the one thing that we're looking at is language to, for the design documents, we really need to start addressing parking and ADA parking as well as truck access in and out. So, gonna put some language to that because you really need to start doing that in your design documents. Is there anything else they want out there? I'm sure. Yeah. So the other question I just wanna I know you and I have spoken a little bit about this and BGS, we just don't know where BGS is gonna fall on this. If we work to put WiFi in our correctional facilities, We're not sure if BGS is going to get involved in any of this or not because it may need to be some conduit and some work within the buildings physically, that there may need to be some renovations or there may need to be something. Do you want to weigh in in terms of what you don't know about this? So

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: I don't know a whole lot about this. Be candid again. I understand just from recent conversation about the committee's priority for this and that this has been discussed for a while as generally an ABS jurisdiction around telecom and WiFi function. I believe that they are the primary point person or have been so far on this issue. BGS at this point, we don't fully know what would be involved in the work in terms of any renovations, any sort of physical changes that need to occur. So that would be where BGS would need an oversight or involve consulting role, some involvement in the process to the extent that it would impact the physical structure. But with respect to the specific plan for how this would be accomplished through ADS,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't have a lot of visibility on that. So it's something we have to keep in mind. This VGS gonna end up doing having to do some of this work at the facilities. Mhmm. Just don't know. I don't know what this could mean. Anything else for BGS Yeah. This Thank you, Emily. Thank you.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Thank Bennington.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Guys didn't have a chance to talk to Laura.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. Yeah. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Think we're kind of a standstill at this point. Do they have anything dangling outside of the $320,000

[Unidentified Committee Member]: if we had that $700,000 in

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the field base, Well, that's the one thing I want to clarify. 700,000 know. All seriousness fun. My understanding before we went to break and I talked to people, I thought we had agreed to one thing and Scott thought, well, memory was different than mine, so I wanted to clarify what we were doing because my goal was to put the 26,000 back into play for the field days. They haven't spent it in the way that the agency, the agency of Ag does their expenditures, it makes it a little easier for us to do that. But there was misinterpretation, I think,

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: at least on some parts. So I wanted to just clarify that issue before we run away as small potatoes compared to everything else. So I understand where you and Joe are coming from. I really appreciate that. The issue is that in our world of reallocations, those dollars are 22. So,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: in conversation with me, I see a bag that I wanted to be clear if we reallocated those $26,000 would that leave a hole in the ag fair grants program? And they said no. And I think it's a committee we were to reality at 26,000. Was just hanging out there. The Franklin County Field Days still have about 60,000. They just don't know where they're going yet. And that's for infrastructure. And 60,000 wasn't going to purchase land for them. And 90,000 wasn't going to purchase land for them either. So I think as a committee, we were wanting to reallocate that 26,000.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right. Well, I think that that's when we thought it was It's really not 22 money, though, because the other thing Ag said is that they spend the oldest dollars first.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it's still there calculated for Franklin County. It's 90,000. It's still there.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But it's in a pot of money that is not from 'twenty two. It's from 'twenty four, I think, but that could be

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: half. But it's still being calculated as $22 within our world. Still being calculated.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I don't personally have a problem with however ag wants to reserve that money as

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what's happening, they're pulling money away from other payers right now because they're still in the pot. There's three allocations there. So 26,000 right now is being pulled really from other payers in a way.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Excepting the year that Franklin County didn't operate.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They still have money. They have 60,000 and then that 26,000. They still have that. And the question is the 26,000 is separated from us in '22.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: To the general

[Emily Kisicke (Deputy Commissioner, Buildings & General Services)]: and then

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: they held that for

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Franklin County, which didn't spend it. So it doesn't mean it's being withheld from other people. Agreed. If it was held for them, they didn't spend it, so it's really their money.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it's coming out of the full 300,000.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I get

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it. But we can go

[Unidentified Committee Member]: in the background of why again, if anybody needs that information. Right.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: But I think we can tip this side of things.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We already know why.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just need to put it out there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So where are we as a committee? Are we still reallocating that 26,000 or not?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: What do you mean by reallocating? Because we have to, right? I know from a bookkeeping sense that it's 22 money and we have to put it somewhere. I don't mind putting it back to ag and letting them hold it for however they want to hold it. In this case, Franklin.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And that's what I'm advocating for. If they spend it differently, then they spend it differently. But I think if we reallocate it to their line for the ag fairs that makes them like, I understand the process.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then you have to be really careful because then you're gonna bump up their item by twice 6,000. And if you do that for the ag fairs, you're do it for all the other community. Grants, because we've kept those all 300,000. Once you start tinkering with one and not the others, we always make sure that it's the same amount through those sectioning.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I would say they're all 300. But this is really just procedural. It's not anything other than that. I think that's easily explained.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Did not withstand. We

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: did not withstand.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If you're at the look of a spreadsheet and you see 300 26,000 for antlers and then you see 300,000 for everything else, they're all up reaping from success. I

[Unidentified Committee Member]: would volunteer to present that section when we

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not it's a house called the roof of a building. The reality that goes to the bottom line of the bill. And then it allows I mean right now what the Ag Fare is starting out is $90,000 right now but they're not expended on other fares that they could right now.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Alternatively, just recognize it as $24 and just leave it there and egg, and it doesn't even appear.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: It's just I don't know.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's violating our laws of reallocation. But I don't I mean, that's what I'm grappling with here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I understand. I just And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I want to make sure if we reallocate it, it can be a can of a whole.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Madam Chair, if I could, just to speak to the record Scott Moore, Joint Appeal Office, my understanding is basically whenever we make these appropriations, all the money goes into a specific departmental ID, this DEBT ID you may have seen. So the one for 22, they have been giving them $300,000 they earmark, I use the word earmark, but for Franklin County, but since they didn't spend it, then they use the $300,000 on that DEBT ID and they spend everything. And so then the next year, three hundred thousand brand new DEBT ID, they're earmarking licenses for Franklin County, they didn't use it, so they spent everything. So those original debt IDs are empty. They've spent all those money. So now we get into the next $300,000 They're holding it aside, for Franklin, but the debt ID is where we have to think about where we pull money from. That makes sense.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But also, what's happening, because it's accumulating for Franklin County that's not used, you're pulling it from all the other payers because you're carving that out every year. From the 300,000, you're now carving out 90,000.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: After ten years, essentially like in 2029, the $300,000

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: would be just the pension.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: After ten years, get $30,000 a year kind of a loan.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It would be a

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: half hour ago.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We don't want to hurt Franklin County. We know that there's a lot of moving pieces there, but also we have to be cognizant of the other fairs as well with infrastructure needs. And if you're constantly carving, so every year they're putting aside that 26,000, then the next year they're putting aside 30,000, then the next year they could be putting aside another 30,000, so you're at $90,000 that you've already carved out for Franklin County or for one fair that's pulling money away from all the other fair. You don't have enough from the mine.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But Franklin has made use of a grant in series where you've received the testimony. They bought three trailers. They actually ran into senator Norris in the in the lounge. And and the board is cognizant that these monies that there needs to be a capital expense identified. If not, property acquisition is something that could be moved to a permanent location. So, I mean, they were kind of a mothballs because they didn't have a site, and they still don't have a permanent site. But they they will they're scheduled to operate this year and have made an expenditure. So so I don't think there would be any risk of there being a conversation again next year where there was no where there were no money spent.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What do folks wanna do? Reallocate the twenty sixth? We'll leave it as it is. And we'll start losing track. We'll start with some tracking.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We'll give them another year or two as they're starting up and then whoever is back here next year solidly look at it going forward.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's reasonable.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It might be good to, if we do that, to relay that to the board. Right. Because

[Unidentified Committee Member]: been shut down. This way it gives them one more chance to kind of get some kind of plan underneath their themselves and to move forward.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: You can support that, I think. Yeah. Me too. I like the way I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, we've got to work with John. I don't know, I don't want to put language like this in the Capitol. Would it be better to just send a letter to the board on behalf of this committee explaining what our thinking is?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I think so, because once you get into the capital bill, everything gets mechanically assigned to financing management and that's where it gets trickier, so generic letters saying, If you have money, spend the money. Because remember, we didn't appropriate money to be frank in account, we just appropriated $300,000 the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: To be fair enough. And

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: that's where it's, you know, they're purview of where we're spending the money because we just gave them the money for grants.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we want to give them some direction. We'll give you one more year to hang on to the twenty sixth and see what happens in the interim of the Franklin County buildings. Remind us after we get the bill done John has free time he's got two things he's got a draft he's got this and then he also has a letter of intent to the judiciary for the half million. It's in the BAA for them to allow them to continue with their contract to start developing the water system for their spray paint system.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: In that essence, correct?

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If folks want to look at that language through the Wi Fi on the screen that AES has recommended just so that we can maybe have a little bit more direct.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Why

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: don't we put up first the letter that we sent last year to the broadband world. Got a little bigger.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Yeah, check this. One second.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, remember folks we worked with the energy committee on this?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Yeah, yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay, so this is what we sent to the broadband board that we support the plan. Ultimately there was a plan to expand it. We listed our reasoning and then we go down to energy and digital also received testimony and And then it says ADS and DSD networking closely together, and they support ADS supports this IT expansion. So, maybe the funds that we appropriate would go to the ADSIT modernization fund. Be something we should talk about.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: When was this set?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: March last

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: nineteenth of last year. Nineteenth through twentieth, the board, I think, met, I don't know if they met during the summer, and they did not support the project.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: How did we verify that last sentence that the project was supported by governor DOC

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: reached out to the administration. Because the administration does support the money for this project going through the broadband to it. It's supporting that now. That's how they're supporting this project. They go see the board.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: I thought the commissioner made us aware of that, but I could be wrong.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Commissioner of I mean, there's a small group who's working with the energy. I know Brian was part of that. Who else was part of that? And who else?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, there were three. I remember

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Chris Morrow and it was me and Kevin. Help me out here, Kevin. We need both of old notations.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Actually, he sent a message about

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it at some point, didn't he? Who's on what?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Like a year ago. Such and such is doing this, so and so is doing this. I'm wondering if it's on there yet.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: So is it fair to say that we're essentially as a committee saying, here's some money. Prioritize this. Is that what this boils down to? Yeah. So that's the language that we need. I think John heard us. I'd to see what he brings in.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So let's switch over to what ADS sent to me. It's Riley Hughes. She sent this, well, to all of us, but it was sent to Tate. So this go back up so people can see this was sent yesterday. K. So let's read this quite a way.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: We you mean? That's essentially saying we're not gonna spend it if you put it in there. I'm saying figure out how to spend it. That's what I'm saying. Let's get this ball rolling. I don't I don't wanna be here next year not having to see any reason whatsoever on Wi Fi, again, in 2026 in our correctional facilities. Yeah. I don't disagree that there are complexities. They follow I don't know that there's risks, but figure it out.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What I like language

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: to put that

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: in there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Figure it out. It makes us because it says moving forward with funding before completing this planning work, well get on the stick and do the planning work. It's needed. We're not saying install it before you plan it, but at least get on the stick and start planning it and start addressing this.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I'll have some report backs along the way between now and January.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You want some what? We report back. Okay. Yeah. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's

[Unidentified Committee Member]: well in place almost like never

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: comes back.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that's what we're working for the committee now. If we involve the board the broadband board, hook up the membership, I only know one person, maybe two. Patty Richards is the chair, Dan Nelson is the vice chair, Brian Ogley, Laura Sebelius, and Sarah Hoffman. Sarah Hoffman was just appointed commissioner of was at DCF. DCF, I think.

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: wonder if that's Rob.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Who I was going to say. I wonder if it was Rob's wife.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that's the community broadband board, and then they also have a staff that goes with them too. So the 5th Floor is asked that it would be community broadband that we need to and they have money as well. And they said I had to go through the community broadband. That's what the administration asked of me yesterday. And I said, well, we did that last year. The board decided not to fund this project, and so the committee is pretty adamant we put some money in to get this done.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Say that again, who is?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Who is what?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Who wants to put money into this? Us, us.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We've been talking about this for a while.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: It may be a tangent, but didn't we How do I say this? Didn't we give directive or request to look at providing telephone access to the incarcerated and specifically had like three different options, not for profit, including Wi Fi, not including Wi Fi. I was I Don't me a reporter. Pardon me?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Don't go harm me as a reporter.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Yeah. Interrogate me some more on that. He

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: said, Yeah. Mary, you have another partner in crime.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Was trying to say it.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: It's your birthday in labor? I was trying not to say it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's Laura. Laura's birthday. Laura's She's gonna

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: be you guys. She's gonna be a beating.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Since the beginning of the session.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: We've been talking about last biennium.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes, we were.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay, anything else? You saw this, talked to John about this, John's gonna look at this. He's supposed to come back at eleven.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: One more thing. We assume we are way behind the curve that many other, maybe most other correctional facilities have WiFi. That should be something that should be easy to find out, shouldn't it? Mean, if we're the only state in the Continental United States that doesn't have WiFi, I think that's an important piece of information.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, Tay, would you be willing just to send an email to Haley and see if Haley knows about other franchise facilities that may not have WiFi capabilities in the country. It's fine, right to have them.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm assuming.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: If not, NCSL probably knows that, they probably have a spreadsheet or something.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The only thing dangling on the spreadsheet is 3,300,000. Right? So are we still at the 3.3 or do we want to just kind of cut that back a little bit?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, what you meant about having a little bit lower than that because

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you Well, I'm just thinking the conversation I had with the administration was they would prefer this to go through, not put in the 3,300,000.0 and have it be applied to have an application be submitted to the community board. And have them because I believe there's money there for this and I said we did that last year and was denied. And I said the committee is pretty adamant, we want to get wifi into our facilities and they want to put money in the capital bill to start this to do this. So that's where the conversation was led with the administration. So then I said to the committee, if we do anything that does go through the community broadband board, do we want to put in a full 3,300,000.0? Do we want them to have some skin in the game? Because if the Broadband Board knows we're putting money in here at 3,300,000.0, let's send them off the book. That's for us to figure out.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Right, if they could still say no. Right, if we put in the amount. It's kind of like, we're a little bit between a rock and a hard place because if we don't put the whole amount in, then we may not be able to do the project because of that reason, and they have a way of saying, well, they didn't put the money in, and we didn't have money to give to them.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, maybe the way to approach this is should we have any of this go through the community broadband mechanism? I don't think we can answer that really at this point because we really need James and Troy to talk to a member of the board to really calm down processes, find out how much money was.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Bloody Mary,

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: you're late.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. He was summoned.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And they took her candy.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I got candy with me even. The other committee, yes. I mean, cheating on us.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: what's before us, let them have that conversation. Let me just lay the table. So the question is for us, do we involve the Barbie? I mean, it's right at all. Depending upon what they find. If we don't, if we do involve the board, if we do, then what is the dollar amount that we look at getting it? Is it the full 3.3 versus something else? If we decide not to do anything with the board, are we at 3.3 and then the language that goes with that 3.3 we need to get done and the report that's what's before us to decide and now we don't wait for these student needs who represent us to be able come back to us about the work. But that's what we need to decide. Does that make sense? It

[Unidentified Committee Member]: sounds like Tate's getting in touch with Haley to find out about other facilities and what their setup is. It was indicated just over a year ago by the secretary of ADS that they were working hand in glove with DOC to solve this problem. If ADS is not testifying and their memo doesn't enlighten us, is it worth asking DOC what the nature of that collaboration was like and how

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: far it got? Or is that a fool's errand?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You can try. They may not be at liberty to say much. It's one entity, it's not.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'd be curious, they were working together on this more Why than a year

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you being shocked?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Just being part of World Focus and just a bigger perspective on this, I have a hard time and, you know, forgive me, Troy, but I have a hard time putting money into our facilities with broadband when a lot of Vermonters don't have broadband So I I just have a hard time with that, and I just wanted to share that. And I know that we're trying to fix some things in our in our facilities, but there are people in the Northeast Kingdom who don't have broadband yet, and I just personally will have a hard time getting behind this. So I just wanna make sure that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I mean, I dig that, but then the extension of that is there are some people in Burlington who are homeless, so why are we putting a roof over the heads of people who've incarcerated? I mean, can take that to absurdity real quick.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Well, thanks for pointing out it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The other thing too, this is impacting our workforce. It's really impacting our structural excellence and our staff. So it's just something else.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: And healthcare.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Health care and education for CCB wants to come in their kids physically going to the road. Meanwhile, they have physically closed out some campuses around the state because more people are doing it online.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Excuse me.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I get what you're saying. Yeah. But

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: no, that's I'm thanks for pointing that out.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: No. That's haven't reel me back in.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It's not that this is not a legitimate thing, by

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the They both can be true.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: We'll get answers I'm sure through the official channels, but this amazing thing called the internet tells me that 25 plus states have deployed prison safe wifi. So 25¢ roughly.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If only they have

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that device in our system. Where

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: are they cheaper, Adam? Just Google. Google.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: The internet? What's the internet? Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a pretty powerful tool. I think you're doing it. Well you have to,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that's the other part, You have to go through research and I don't know, the five degrees I have tells me I did a lot of research a little bit, but even if it was 12, it means it's not new, it's not a new process.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't want to waste jobs, but we did talk a little bit about just seeing if we could drag up some language with the memos that we received. In a letter that was sent last year on our behalf, it's on our webpage for today, and then it was sent yesterday from the DS to the three point three is also there. So if you could pull some things things out.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sure.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And also have a report back a couple of times during the year to the base. One thing, and I said to do this privately, but while you're here, John, we do have some time. I think we need some clarity in understanding current statute around BGS's authority to use money between their section, between if there's money appropriated like in human services, I'm not sure about public safety, how the language is, or the agency of ag, there are projects in there that BGS are doing the projects. And I know for the Agency of Human Services, the money is appropriated to BGS for the Agency of Human Services. So the first question is, according to statute, does BGS have the authority to move money around in the human services section of the capital?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I believe so. Is the specific Yeah,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I wanna Tell me where you are here. You're entitled 32?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm entitled 29. Not actually in the capital bill section. It's in the public property and supplies.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's in title 29?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Title 29, section one fifty two.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Get there first. Title 29. System is so slow. Reasonable for you to put it up there?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Let me see if I can get

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Check. Because I continue to learn so much to learn.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Infinite. Once

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you learn it, then it changes. How you can

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: find it blows my mind.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's why I refuse to learn anything. John Brady, opposite of the benefit of counsel. I am joining the Zoom now, and I will pull it up on screen.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Scott, could you just move that a little bit because

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. The shade part. On this side, I Yeah. It's glaring. Thank you. I'm sorry. This one can't help you.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Now the sun shines out, we don't want I mean

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, no.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: It is what I always feel foolish when I ask that.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Understand. Let's get it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you're entitled 29. What section?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: One fifty two.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: One fifty two. Do these with the commissioner? Oh, BGS.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But the IT is Slot. Today. But at least it's you know? Yesterday was rough. We wouldn't have been able to have done this yesterday.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yesterday, all of a sudden, it just crashed.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So we are this is the duties of the commissioner of buildings general services. This specific section you can think of as setting out the powers of the commissioner responsibilities, limitations. I'm gonna blind yourself because I'm scrolling fast. But gonna jump down to subdivision 19, and here's the pieces that we were speaking to yesterday, but without the statute in front of you. Transfer any unexpended project balances between projects that are authorized within the same section of a biennial Capital Construction Act. So if the question is just intra section, meaning you're in section three in the human services section, This seems to me to say that the commissioner may transfer unexpected project balances between projects within the same section.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the key is that the language in the capital bill needs to be specific section three, which is the agency of human services. It has to be specific that the dollars are appropriated to BGS for the agency of human services.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's the way that we set it up. That certainly makes me feel more comfortable that this authority exists. I think there's even a question if you didn't have that, whether it's

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's not the case.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, I don't know the true resolution to that question. I would say this statute seems to suggest that we would have the authority, but I am heartened by the fact that we do route things through BGS, which would suggest that it seems less controversial. Right?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm curious because I have the language in front of me from the agency of wound services, but I don't for the Department of Public Safety, and I don't for the agency. Do you know offhand that the last year's bill

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can pull that up.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If we directed the money to go to BGS? Sometimes it depends on the project, but generally public safety, yes, to BGS on behalf of. And generally, if it's a facility. Because you get the big E and you get the A and R letter. I'm looking at what's in here now. And then you've guessed, then on public safety, you've got the Clarendon, the Rowland Field Station, and you've got the search and rescue facility. And then judiciary, you've got probably the White River and the Newport Courthouse.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would you like to see them? Yeah. Okay. This is last year's capital bill. Act 33, section 12 is your ag. And as you can see in sub a and b, both fiscal years routed through BGS, including the big e. And then jump down to public safety, again routed through BGS, both fiscal years. Judiciary, these are going directly to the judiciary. However, I would note that in certain instances, we do allow BGS, as you can see here in B, and I know that in Yeah.

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

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The cash sections we do as well. So that's project specific, But that's last year, the extent to which last year speaks to.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that would be in place for last year and this year. So going forward, for those parts of the capital bill where we've indicated the money goes to BGS, they would have authority in those particular sections to move money within that section between projects under current language. Okay, Kevin.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Maybe it's implied, but what about when we say appropriated within biennium, what if it's older money than that or previous biennium?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's a different part of statute.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Way that So what you're pointing out is the way that it's worded, it's you can move interest section authorized within the same section of a biennial capital construction act. I do not take that to mean we're looking at an adjustment act that touches old acts. I don't think that it means you have the flexibility across the different acts. Those are governed under subdivision 20, which I can pull up.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So just within the two years.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly, just within a biennial A biennial, that's what I And so subdivision twenty is the authority, and we spoke about this yesterday, the secretary administration approval and then also the duplicate e board approval you need above a particular dollar figure. But 20 transfer any unexpended project balances between projects that are authorized within different capital construction apps. With the approval of the sector's when it doesn't exceed 200 ks or with the additional approval, so dual approval in e4 when such balance exceeds $200,000 distinguishing between ability, flexibility to move within a given biennial construction act and those that are in different

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: This actually makes sense.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I like that.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Just to me, probably nobody else, but to me, this makes sense.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what BTS asked for and where we ended up not going is to allow them to move money between all of their projects, between all the sections, not just within that particular section. So you could move public safety money to a courthouse or you could move a courthouse money that was targeted from BGS to 126th Street. That's what they would like, and that's what we kind of set out.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And I don't read the statute to support. It's specific that it's within the same section.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are we still there? Will we worry yesterday? Yeah. We're going round and round on the Wi Fi thing. So we don't know what dollar amount we're going to put in there. They're going to have a conversation in a few minutes. We're kind of on hold right now, but it'll give you time to do draft.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and depending on what the committee wants to do this afternoon, I mean, in some ways, think it makes sense for me to be drafting things, but still in a holding posture effectively of like trying to compile what you guys want, but until we have all of the decisions to put into a draft, I might just be compiling standalone language for the DOC piece, for the Wi Fi, And then at some point, I can roll out draft 2.1 that would contain all of the updates we've discussed. Just to get what I've heard thus far, Scott, me know, hopefully, to cut the $2.26 ks reallocation for the Paris Appeal Days piece.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Don't put that in.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have confirmed the southern state

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And part of that with the 26,000, we're not reallocating it. But after we get all this done, we'd like a letter sent to the Ag Bear Board that makes these decisions that for one year we're willing for you folks to hang on to the 26,000 to give another year for Franklin County to figure out what they're doing. So we want to send a letter.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I confirmed the Southern State Correctional Facility transfer language, so we should be good there with commissioner. I'll work on expanding the WiFi language, pulling in language from those letters and add a report back that may be in a separate session law provision, maybe in the policy sections, or I may try to build it into it's going to be weird if it appears in the cash section. So I'll just think about presentation, but it will be there. I will return the major maintenance figures to what the committee has moved to at this point because I got ahead of the committee. And then we're still pending discussion, I think, on the solicitation language, which, like I said, I can include the notwithstanding language. But I know that, again, the committee hasn't yet taken a position.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What are people quickly thinking about there? That's on page 16.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, just to call out, that's the authority for historic preservation officer to, in addition to receiving grants for specified purposes, get solicit and would require secretary administration approval for the solicitation. The solicitation would need to specify both what they're fundraising for, what is the project, and then what the fundraising goal is.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And our ethics code does not allow for state officials to go out and solicit.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: How close is this of an analogy to the trends of the state house, sort of, that solicits on behalf of the state house.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That they considered state officials?

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: That's what I'm saying. It's a workaround. We have a friend in the state house for a reason so that we avoid what we're doing here. And I do worry about this deliberate step onto what could be a very slippery slope. That's what I worry about. And I can come up with a good number of examples of state officials I would not want to set the precedent for on solicitation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, years ago, when we looked at the State House expansion, were above the cantilever. Beyond that, what was being proposed, they go out and solicit funds. They have built it. That was in 2007, 2008 to help us pay for that. That's before probably put in the assets.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I think Friends of the State House is a good example of how we find a way to solicit funds that are not directly attached to state officials asking for their money. You

[Unidentified Committee Member]: go back before, even when the catalyst got here,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: the State House is here because somebody donated the land.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I wasn't here.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I knew that it's a couple of my headings before I was.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Same age. So what do folks want to do this? The goal is to really our historic preservation and our state of historic to really help maintaining our historic sites because we are not maintaining those as we should. That's really to help them do that. That's the goal. That's what Lord Richmond has to do on staff and children. The goal.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm sorry, go ahead.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If folks just wanna know the fallout to the statute, like if you wanna look at the ethics code, it's Title III, Section twelve oh three gs.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You read it real quick?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure, yeah, mean, I can just read the, I can pull it up even. Well, I will, title three, section twelve oh three gs. The g is part of the actual section. It's not a subsection of the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: because the system's so slow. Don't wanna open it back up.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So we just it's first line of this. Subsection a, gift limitations and exceptions. A public servant shall not solicit or accept a gift unless permitted under this section. We're in the ethics code section, so the point here is just to avoid an ethical violation. Right? I'm not gonna go through all of these unless you guys really want me to, but if you look at the remainder of this, you'll see that none of the sections describe solicitation, actually, and so they wouldn't

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What cover about two? Public servant may accept gifts to the state, except goods and services are provided for use on state agency property or for use by the public.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The key is the distinction between solicit and accept. The state historic preservation officer already has the ability to accept. This is really just about whether they can solicit. Exactly. And all of these really speak to accepting goods of different kinds. And like I said, I do just want to flag that this was something I wanted you guys to be aware of. It doesn't mean that you can't do this, and to ensure that there isn't an ethical violation, would just not withstand this section. And I did want to flag, this would not be the first instance of a public servant being granted disability, but I just thought you should know so that it doesn't seem like a There's no question as to what to do here. There are questions as to.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So this was asked by Laura Trichman so that they would have some flexibility in funding to address needs within our start sites as well as what's happening.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And so under this proposal, let's say that Laura has solicited and received a million dollar donation for a specific site project. What happens then? Laura then reports to who that If it's a gift? Yes, that that gift was received.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't have to report anything, do you?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, the million dollars needs to go somewhere, and then somebody, aside from her needs to be cognizant that

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, there was a gift to Forest and Parks from former Senator Edgar May for his whole property the forest and parks to become a state park.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Okay, I'm just

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And they got it, they said, Why don't we do it? We don't have any money to convert this.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The secretary of administration would be notified of acceptance of a gift, or at least Does that is

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: DFC have to accept any of those gifts? Does they have to accept grants? Do they have to accept gifts?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's for different purposes. This is exclusively through this officer, right? They do have processes for accepting gifts, but I think that's separate from this matter.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what Joe put out, if somebody gave a gift of a million dollars, the secretary of administration would be not required to accept?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Their approval is required for state acceptance. So it's not even just a notice. It's an approval from the state of the of

[Unidentified Committee Member]: potentially solicit and accept contingent on approval from the Secretary of Administration.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What's envisioned here is that you would have to submit a request for approval to solicit. You would reach out to the Secretary of Administration to say, Hey, I'm gonna do a fundraising campaign for this particular project, with this goal. And then you would get it. Once you had approval, you could go out and do it on those bases. So there are guardrails in place that are meant to guide the process.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Because I understand what the concerns Troy raised as well.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: In the case of property, you can't accept it unless the title is transferred. I know it's getting nitty gritty, but you can be offered anything until you physically accept it. That's a gift.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, sure. Like somebody wants to gift you a former benzene type or it's probably not something we're gonna accept.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I don't know.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's I'm

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: that went over my head like many things.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Brian, why do sit and

[Unidentified Committee Member]: do Honestly, it's only fair. He got Brian,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Brian,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it's going to be the muffin man from now on.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I thought I understood John Greer to say that there have

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: been examples of this before. Right? What was that? Vermont examples? Vermont examples. What kind of can you share? I need to talk to Tucker and Ken, but I ran this by our DevOps, my DevOps colleagues, and they said, Tucker, let me know that there are at least nine or 10 examples of folks doing this. I could dig into that.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm curious, I share your concern, so I'm curious about that.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Because this is a form of solicitation I would actually be in support of. Those nine or 10, I'm now wondering how many of those would really annoy me.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hope we all go down the path. That's the

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: getting old. I know. We need to write the balance. That's what I'm wondering. But I don't like that. I don't like that slippery slope at all.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sounds like subcommittee work.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What do we do with this? It's right there.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: It's answering.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm a

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: no answer.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Well, she's trying to, isn't she trying to

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Trying to get money to For

[Unidentified Committee Member]: any place.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, if she's soliciting, she has to be specific in terms of what site she's soliciting for. But the issue, the bigger issue as well is we're just not keeping up with the maintenance

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: and the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: storage sites. We own those sites.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm okay with this specific scenario. Yeah.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And Yeah. We're all

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: okay with this specific scenario. Think that happens to play out a little bit the picture. We allow this and then it's all

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I I think it's situational.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It is a discrete system.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But I say it's okay. Well, there must be some system in place, sort of like when you run for elect if you're trying to be elected and you're soliciting money, we have to give we have to show some system what we received, what we spent. There must be something in place like that for donations. Well, is for donations And of

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this does require approval. The other things I would note about how this is cabined is it's only for particular purposes. Now these might be the entirety of the purposes you would envision for the state historic preservation officer, but it's on behalf of the division or used by the division in establishing and maintaining displays and exhibits of any historic site at the Vermont Heritage Center or restoring any historic site maintained and developed under section seven twenty three of this chapter. I'm not familiar with title 22, what's in section seven twenty three, but it's just to say that approval is required. It's for specific kinds of projects. And you have to describe in the approval process what the project is and what the goal is. So it is a discrete decision as to what to do. I get the broader fear about solicitation, you can just treat this as a decision about this.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: We're gonna have the TD Bank Bennington Battle Memorial. If it was a new elevator and unit, I'm good for it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I can't leave a cafeteria

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: for Alice's name on the bottom. No thanks. That's a Gretchel. That's a Gretchel. That's Alice's Boys Club. I'm fine. So where are we folks for this? Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: I'm gonna know.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're gonna have a split vote on this one.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm sorry. I can have your best life.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Living in democracy could be split votes.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could you use this to checkpoint from the angle?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I don't think you would.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: doing my exterior work on it.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Just do it like fixing up the yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They're fixing up this State House, you mean? Yeah. Sure. It's a historic piece.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, so yeah. I would need to pull up 723. What was that about? You

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: have to go there, right?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Come on. It's right there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're now the big lady. Right?

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Maybe. Know,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you tear down a pig lady, gotta build something. That's where it's like this one.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Toured? Oh, you're

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: walking. Well, John, I don't know how much help we are to you.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I mean, it's not about helping me, but I just need to know you guys' decisions. Effectively, my role on this bill is to report your decision. It is not so much to

[Unidentified Committee Member (possibly Troy Headrick, Ranking Member)]: Keep

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the language in at this point. We'll revisit it, but we're a little bit more

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: focused. I have my set of

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

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I have my directives. I'm not gonna come back with the 2.1 yet. I'm just gonna come back when you guys are able to get off the floor. Yeah,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we're have the conversation following this conversation that they're having on the branch. Scott, what are you gonna?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Just one other thing, John, I'm not sure. I don't think we talked about it with you in the room, but the way we've done the entryway, making sure that that was tidied up.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did you guys have thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It is parking, that they need to incorporate a design, the parking issue, as well as ADA parking.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Comprehensive parking.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Comprehensive parking plan and truck access.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: For deliveries.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: For

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: deliveries. That has to be incorporated in the design documents. They're not really incorporating some of that right now. Okay.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So they were alluding to that they

[Unidentified Committee Member]: were going to, but anyway, it's good

[Unidentified Committee Member]: that we Well, that wasn't included in the presentation.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, exactly. It wasn't.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And we've talked regularly, but it's not being looked at. It's more the internal part of it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Guess in the whole year, months.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm happy

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to include it. Are you concerned that those things would not be addressed if you did not include it?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yes. Yes, absolutely.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because I know that sometimes we're being specific just because we've heard what they've Because

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: they're in design documents right now. They're beyond the schematic, and that was not addressed in

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the schematic.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Wanna make sure it's addressed in the design documents because then you get into the construction documents. And the 1.3 gets some of the beginning of the construction documents. And we don't wanna be at that point saying, what are we doing? Truck access for deliveries. We brought those questions up, but it's important. Part of the project costs. It's gotta be part of the project.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: And those concerns were raised explicitly, that

[Unidentified Committee Member]: it's not

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a big surprise. I raised them because I said there are people now that have a difficult time getting into the building.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But we want that specific.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Anything

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: else? And you're working on a spreadsheet, really the only thing left is figuring out what we do with the WiFi.

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: Right now, the spreadsheet in front of you, is about $6,000,000 in the bottom line. We've put 1,300,000.0 into the entryway, half 1,000,000 for major maintenance, that leaves about $13,000 give or take for bonded. Depending upon what we do with the WiFi, that's $3,300,000 We have $4,250,000 so if we do $3,000,000 that's still a million and a quarter, so that's still money we haven't done anything with. So there's still a little bit of depending upon what we do with WiFi, they might do bigger or smaller bits of wavelength and the cache.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And I have a thought for that. How to help process over the Senate?

[Scott Moore (Joint Fiscal Office)]: But I can easily update what we have, get you another version for the three things that know for sure. And I can put a line item for WiFi, we can change dollars easily, so this afternoon I can bring back another sheet if you'd like, we can just wait until we're all done.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What I'm sort of thinking for, because I've heard this a number of times from the chair of institutions in the Senate, you really want to start banking money for the correctional facility, the Lemons facility. And I'm thinking if we had a cash balance to just put it in there, and that will help the chair of institutions move there knowing that we've done this.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Sound. It's clearly identified a need that's mostly not funded.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Sorry, I didn't understand what you said.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The balance that we have of cash available, we put that towards the women's reentry facility. So we already have money there to add to it because it's gonna be a 100 plus million dollar project.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Whatever you can put there is better than what place in where we were.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That may be what we end up doing. Yes. So that's where we are. If we can figure out the Wi Fi, then we're good to go to start solidifying us, get another draft, really go through the line, butch, and get the next draft. Okay, let's call it a wrap for the morning. Let's free up John so he has time for work.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did sleep last night? I did. I slept a pool all night. Was pretty but then I had to wake up, and here we are.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I asked at home, what are you doing tomorrow? So, same Go on the floor, go back in committee, and then I go home.

[John Brady (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll be with you guys on the floor a little bit today. And I got to be yesterday. Very fun.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Was fun. So let's go off with you too. We'll be back here at some point this afternoon. We're just not sure at this point what the speaker did assure me that we will be able to come off the floor, that we will figure out what happens off the floor with us.