Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Welcome

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: back, folks. This is House of Corrections and Institutions Committee. Is Thursday, March 26, and we're going over our second draft, draft 2.1 of our proposed capital bill. John Gray's with us. Thank you, John, for working on this on such short notice.

[Speaker 0]: You can walk us through it.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Let's do it. John Gray, Office of Letter State Council. If you guys are comfortable with it, just because Scott is out of the room and he'll be bringing you an updated spreadsheet, I might propose starting with the policy sections at the back of the bill when we come back to the numbers after. So with that, I am gonna screen share from draft 2.1, but I am going to be pretty far in the draft, page 13, exactly. So a lot of this is just gonna be confirmation that things remain unchanged from what you saw earlier today. The first of these are the DEC pieces. Section 10, this remains as we had it this morning as the section 11. So we talked about these loan agreements. I still have on page 16 the solicitation piece for division for historic preservation. I don't know if you guys wanna discuss what to do about this.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Why don't we skip over there?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, sure.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Come back to that.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. There is, there's Yep. Section 13 is the same as you saw before. I think we talked about Section 14, the Southern State Correctional Facility Transfer. So that is in a good place. This reflects the standalone language we walked through this morning outside of the scope of the capital bill, but now it's included. As you can see, the repeal section is updated to capture repeal of that 2024 capital bill authorization that initially spoke to the 10 acres. So this is replacing that 10 acre provision.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: There's two

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. So the way that Okay. Exactly. So under section 15, sub A repeals the 2024 capital bill provision that authorized the transfer of this property for a different purpose in a different amount of acreage. So this is replacing that transfer authority. And then under subsection B, this is repeal of Section 14, so the new authority, the transfer authority, if it hasn't been used, so repealed on 07/01/2030. So if it hasn't transferred at that point, would you no longer have any transfer authority for this particular parcel. But what you have as a result of this bill would be you replace the twenty twenty four authority with this new authority, which is for economic development of roughly 22, 23 acre parcel, and then it has to be transferred under particular contingencies. There's a check-in at the end of the process that hasn't been developed for economic development purposes. That's with BGS. And then if it hasn't been transferred at all, the transfer authority itself would expire 07/01/2030, so there would no longer be that ability effectively. If you wanted to transfer in the future, you would need to again pass legislation to do so. That is the practical consequence of distraction.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the language of little b, because it says, it's not begun developing, transfer properties for purposes of the economic development. So they have to begin develop prior to March 2030.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Basically, the March 2030 piece is saying, you're stating here that this is for economic development purposes. The expectation is that you're gonna be doing that along those lines. But if you haven't begun developing in those ways by the March 2030, reach out to BGS to discuss what else could be done. I do want to note that's just separate from transfer authority. That presupposes that it has been transferred, right, if the town has not begun developing the transfer property. And then the section 15 b repeal is the repeal to transfer authority, meaning the transfer is contingent upon a number of conditions. If they hadn't been met, that transfer authority would go away in July. So two separate kinda check ins. One is how's the development itself going, and the second is did the transfer happen? If not, then the transfer authority will go away.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It says the conditions haven't been met and transferred didn't happen. So if the transfer happens, the development if the transfer happens, but the development isn't completed yet, or the start of it yet, then it gets approved, and then possibly repeal on July 1.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, you could think of it as not It doesn't really repeal of the section doesn't matter at the point that it repeals if you have transferred the property because what you're repealing is the transfer authority and the check-in under sub b, which is the check-in with BGS to confirm economic development, that's still gonna have already happened because that precedes the 07/01/2022.

[Speaker 0]: So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: they transfer, they develop, Does the authority to the transfer get repealed on 07/01/2020?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, but it doesn't matter because it's been transferred. The authority that you extended is for the transfer. It has now been transferred. No longer need the authority to transfer. It's been transferred. Bottom of that page, these are the provisions you were talking about just before we went live. This is pulled from the budget. This is the Green Mountain Youth campus. Really

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: good at this. Is really for folks. As I said last Friday, this is out of our bailiwick, but I we're in the did sign off on this language after reading. He advised it a little. It is in the big bill. So it needs members to really read this so you're aware of what

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Could I just ask one question before we do that? What does high end mean?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, and the only reason I say that is I think a lot

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: of times people will associate it with a very costly project or something. So I just, I didn't know if there was another possible term.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So this is what was-

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Service or

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: This is what was developed in human services

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: what is in the budget. So I probably would have just said Green Mountain Youth Campus, but this was the initial

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They're also looking at other beds beyond just what we're building, is what they're doing.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: It's not gonna be an ambiguous written analysis. And that it's unambiguous.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: That's important. I will say, if you do Control F in a lot of the budgets, you will see

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

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: This is not the first institution. I have a similar connection. Would you guys like for me to read this out, or did you want to just read on your

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'll substitute it.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Alice, why are you and Senate institutions the only one? Oh, it's just in consultation with

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: JFC contains the relevant other members. Yeah, okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So, I've got a question on line three on page two. What is That's the appropriations bill from last year. So do you know what's in that section 300?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: It was a request. So the form and the reason that it says consistent with rather than under, the initial drafting of this section would have required a five year operating budget. So the genesis of this problem is you're not getting the information specifically that human services and other folks wanted outside of the context of this room where you're concerned about walls and build, they wanted operating budgets. The language in that budget section, E 300.1, spoke to a five year operating budget. And so the reason this says consistent with is if you look at what this asks for, and it's line one, unambiguous with an analysis of the estimated cost of an annual operating budget. And so the thinking was, you really just need to know annual cost. It doesn't have to be this exact five year term. So it's do this in the form of the report under this previous budget, but we only need you to have annual operating costs, presumably exactly what you would have if you were putting together a five year anyway. But yes, that is the reason for that call out. And if it's helpful, I can find that and pull it up on screen, but that's what's going on here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Whoever reports this section needs to know that. I'm not reporting. I've given overviews, but other people report sections of the bill.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: And you may be missing discussion of it on the floor right now, because this is in the budget.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the other thing I want let the committee know, the way that I operate as much as possible, I would say probably 95% of the time it happens, when there's a big issue like this in particular, where it says that, Jay, Joint Fiscal Committee will consult the chairs whether to approve the resumption of expenditures. When that's percolating out there, I always send something out to the committee members to wait. Done that in the past. I continue to do that. I send it out usually on your legislative email because it's legislative work. If you don't use your legislative email during the summer and fall,

[Speaker 0]: just

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: let me know. But there are times that things will pop up and I need the committee to weigh in through email. So that's what I do. I think you've gotten some last night.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then I put in a time certain to respond because it's really important to practice a quick turnaround. Because I don't want only my voice to be a yes or no to this. The reason we did this same language, it may not last throughout the remainder of the session, if DCF comes forward through the operating budget, both human services and appropriations committee, Then the language may go away. The other thing that I would like to do at some point, when things have settled down in the building and not everybody's working on getting bills reported on the floors, really had the Convention or BTS sit down and talk with some of our counterparts and ways and means of human services and probes to talk about the process of the construction and the funding flow because there's 300,000 plus a little bit that BTS has right now and part of the 700,000 that we've put in for FY '27 which is going to be frozen by this language BTS needs some of that 700,000 this year backfilled 300 so we can continue conversations. So that's what I'd like to do once things calm down. And people can start thinking, understand the construction world, because right now everyone's is focused in terms of the contract and who's gonna provide

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: services. And I did mention to a member of Appropriations Committee, yes, I know you're interested in the contract cost to operate provide services to DCS also gonna be paying the leasing. Yeah. And that impacts their budget. They were like, really? So

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: A requires AHS monthly reports during adjournment to joint fiscal and joint justice oversight. And then B is the actual prohibition on spending. And it says DCF and BGS not to expend funds for further development of the Green Mountain Youth campus in FY twenty seven until one of two conditions is met, either JFC off session, improvement consultation with the payers of these committees of jurisdiction upon reviewing one of those reports. So if you got the information you wanted, could approve the continued expenditure or some resumption of the legislature. Next year, the General Assembly could authorize resumption of spending by legislative enactment. So A is reporting off session. B is you can't spend until you either get off session approval or in session approval.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So on joint justice, you've got the chair of team services, and you have a member from the Appropriations Committee in the House side. You've got the chair of Welfare on the Senate side. And you have a member from the Senate Appropriations Committee. And you have the two chairs from institutions. So those committees are covered. So that can keep a thumb on it too. Yep. So you got two people from institutions over there. Could you have the chairs? Harrison. From approach would be central norms. And from squirrels? Squirrels are our strong approach. Talkers don't be repulsed. It's from health care. So that's what makes it up. So that will help along. So so the folks who are concerned.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm. And

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I think the very much works.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: It looks good. And I did have a good conversation since the chair knows and on behalf of the chair and the other two chairs with DCF, so we'll see if

[Speaker 0]: the information is forthcoming. They haven't been successful yet, right?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Not yet. The person I talked to, I believe, has good faith. But they're I don't think they believe

[Speaker 0]: they can give her information,

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: but we'll see if it comes true, we'll see. But we did make contact at the point.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So some people have to run it up a flight level, So

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: ideally this language disappears from both the budget and the capital.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's the whole on the other hand section.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: The next section is section 17. This I scrambled to throw together very quickly. So this is a report on Wi Fi installation in state correctional facilities, and I just called out the relevant heads. So secretary of human services, commissioner of corrections, and the chief information officer of digital services, child monthly report, public journal assembly is adjourned in calendar year '27. So similar concept to what we just talked about actually for the Green Mountain Youth People's monthly report during adjournment to the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee membership you just solved, consultation with the chairs of the House Committee on Corrections and Institutions. And I can pull that if you don't need that in consultation with.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You. Did you anything for the money in terms of what it would go to? Yes, sure.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, we'll get to that. But this is the piece on just the report back. So maybe I can pull the in consultation with if it's unnecessary. Monthly report during a German in calendar year 2027 on the installation of Wi Fi in state correctional facilities authorized pursuant to. And then it's the call out to the authorization. I could also add as amended by this act because I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: think that's more consultation.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We keep that language.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: The greater detail for the Wi Fi piece is in the authorization itself and not the report.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Authorized pursuant to 25 acts and results of our capital bill of this year?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: It's the first year of biennium. And the thing I would add to make this clear is as amended by this act. The way to think of it is when we do the second year of the biennium and we adjust the act, what we're doing is we're going into sections of the first year, And we're amending them. So when we say where the authority is, we say it's in the first year of the biennium as amended by this act. So while you've added it in this act, it lies in the underlying bill.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And the F 19 is what's on page ten and thirteen.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Would you guys like me to jump to the cash section? Because we are at the end of the policy section, so I could do that. Think I'm missing something out. There's calendar year '27. Oh, I'm sorry. That's my second. It should be calendar year '26. Yep. Okay. Was going to the rosy fiscal. Where are you? Line 20 page. You're totally right. Yep. Cool. I just listed in my paste the wrong year, which means you would have gotten a lot of monthly reports, which everyone loves. Nothing you like better.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that why I'm to accept? That's kind of valid.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: That's how I expect that is probably where it happened in my mind was FY '27. Go straight to box.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I have a phone call for my doctor.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we're gonna hold off on the language for the Wi Fi till you come back. I hope you're okay.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: It's good. You're really passing out. Would you like me to go to the start of the bill? Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I really want Troy here Okay. For the You wanna do the budget as well, and then we can track the numbers at the same time? Do folks wanna do that or just the language?

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I mean, just the language because we're going to have to do it with all the people who will go again anyway.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: And if Scott hears something where he's like, what is that? Me, that's what we do. Yes, please do. But no, it'll be an easy fix. Page one, legislative intent, section one. This is your aggregate total. I have it highlighted in green because this is the final confirmation. A beautiful chided gray. That's great. I love the color gray. If you're partial, if you're color blind person, I would appreciate it.

[Speaker 0]: So

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I will confirm that I wasn't able to plug things into my Excel spreadsheet before I ran

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: out just to make That's fine. So

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Bond funded project authorizations start with section two, And the first pieces you're going see are on page two. I have retained all of the highlighting that reflects committee decisions against the that the governors recommended. So don't think of these as all changes from what you saw earlier today, which is often typical that we have highlighting against what we saw last. So the three acre parcel, 1,100,000, that was something the committee had already settled on, so no change there. You do see an update in C, however. So on line seven, statewide major maintenance, previous draft, I had used this as the placeholder storage for any excess funds. This now reflects the balance left over after all of the remaining bond allocations, which I think should be, and Scott will tell me if I'm wrong, $9,013,413.18, which is $513,413 in the accessory.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Is that 3¢ to make it twelve months?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the 3¢ is part of this actually.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: That's how

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: we got here. Rutland. But I think of how wonderful it would have been had you not had that 3¢. It would have been 15, which sounds so much cleaner.

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

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Don't know about that report, Drew. Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Line

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: 9, take away three acre because it repealed the 1.1 from f y twenty seven. No change there. No change in the statehouse replacement. No change in the January. We do have updates from this morning on Line 17 Subdivision 12. This is the Statehouse entryway upgrades. This is design documents including comprehensive parking plan and truck access. Same dollar figure, but this is ensuring that those pieces are included.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Joe, does that work? Hello?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: I'm sorry, I was

[Speaker 0]: Well, you know that I was not

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: paying attention to that last piece. That sounds interesting. More than one can play that game.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know. So this is language that you wanted on the entryway here, so I wanna make sure it covers. It's behind you if you want.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I want

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to make sure that we're discussing including ADA parking, want to make sure as well. We are interpreting proper and as a planning to also include ADA. Yeah, but isn't

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: a comprehensive parking plan include ADA in it in context? That's not where it's.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't think you want yes on anything. He would put

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: it there. Okay. I don't wanna guess on anything. You know what?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because I move it sometimes. Unfortunately, sometimes you have

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: to put things in at nauseam.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: So they are highly

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: You think a comprehensive parking plan isn't granular enough? Comprehensive parking plan to include ADA?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: The way I would do it is design documents including comprehensive parking plan that addresses ADA compliance.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's gotta be more than just ADA

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, in other federal.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it's gotta be. Okay. Right. It's gotta ADA

[Speaker 0]: is federal.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you just wanna say including comprehensive parking plan that addresses any federal requirements?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, because we also need to address legislative parking. We have to address visitor parking. We have to address ADA parking. So once you start

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, it's a comprehensive parking plan. And then you're saying, we think that it's implicit in comprehensive parking plan, all of these things. And then we're saying, well, we're concerned they aren't going to factor in X. So as I understand it, you guys are asking me to call out a particular X, this case ADA or federal laws. That's not to the exclusion of other things that would be included in a comprehensive

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: parking plan as well as ADA parking.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I can do whatever you guys want to me as well as suggest that it wouldn't necessarily then be part of a comprehensive parking plan, which I it tends to

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: know exactly what you're saying, and I agree, but I know what happens come July and August. I'll get a phone call and somebody will read this and say, what was the intent? Because I've been down that road many times. Yes. So the thing is, too,

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: as it include language, they

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: know exactly what That's I'm coming from. Because, you know, and then it's five months later and you kind of go on, what did we talk about?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Was that what he was like including but not limited to?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Including a comprehensive parking plan that addresses, among other things, ADA compliance.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think we have to call it out because it's really, I've been down this road that if, like Mary said, if we're not specific, it gets interpreted a little different than we had anticipated. Or they call you and say, what was the intent?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Does ADA compliance imply a certain number of spaces or a number of per people? I mean, you could be ADA compliant with one spot, right?

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

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I gotta think that there's

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a There is. A formula that we're not gonna meet it. For the amount of people in the building and the amount of rooms, there's no way you're gonna meet.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Well, I I think a reasonable framework would be that we not make it less compliant. Right? Just something guilty.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It will be less compliant.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: There's just

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: no way we can meet. Because we look at how many rooms because I'm in the The grass barns board. Goes the pink lady. You're doing that, it goes by how many visitors, it goes by how many rooms you have, and then you need certain ADA spots, parking spots

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: for that. Typically, the land use basis, if you're looking at a preexisting nonconforming use, you can work with the structure of the site to the extent that you don't make it more nonconforming.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it depends on the cost of the renovations that you're putting in and how much that counteracts to the current building. I'm on the access board and that's where you get the variances and there is a coordination there. So there's a trigger sometimes with the amount of renovations that's going on. I forgot what the percentages, but it's over a certain percent. And it triggers the client need a variance for ADA accommodations.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: But we still like the language and thinks that it does what we want.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or just leaving a comprehensive parking plan?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I was thinking about that. Yeah, sure.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, truck access is more for delivery of deliveries to the state. Could be mail delivery, it could be food delivery, could be furniture delivery, could be a variety of

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Mail's place today. Stuff.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Could be Delivery

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: truck access.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So what I could do is design documents, including a comprehensive parking plan that addresses any state and federal requirements, including ADA and delivery truck access. Or we can leave it exactly as it is, which I, of course, love. Which I understand.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Which you prefer. Yeah.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I don't have to take the calls. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Like the delivery truck access. We're not gonna be able to meet federal and state requirements for ADA parking.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and this is saying a comprehensive parking plan that addresses state requirements. Right?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That addresses

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: By way, you address it would be I'm not doing not

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

[Speaker 0]: very happy that it's there. It's like

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I know that it might be.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Or easy peasy. My my fear is they come with this, you know, really nice plan for the building with little or no parking plan. I don't want that to happen because then it'll just be like, oh, this a non starter.

[Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Hadn't even thought about it until I asked when I said, where is everyone going?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: If folks don't like addresses, aside from my ridiculous reading of that word, what about that considers comprehensive parking plan that takes into consideration any state and federal requirements, including ADA delivery truck access? Takes into consideration, doesn't say, doesn't dictate our people.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Nervous about state and federal because we're not gonna meet it. That's what has me concerned because the use of the building and what's out there and code

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Require we're never gonna meet it.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Okay. So if I'm get myself there, we're gonna run an escalator down down the.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Meet it. So I just

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: need to take part in the problem here. So then I think I just need to add delivery.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. That's where I'm coming.

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Full circle Oh, with that you're taking notes, right? Just back me up in August? Yep. I'll go right to you, Cole, whatever mean.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Okay. And I'll make sure the aggregate figures are correct at the yeah. Page three, I think no changes. Human services sticking with the gov rec. Section four, very similar. Vets home, I don't have any updates from this morning. I think this is where we the committee had landed. And we also discussed including with BGS the existing statutory authority for flexibility and they think with the understanding of statute. Clean water remains the same. As you'll recall, this is where I had to make an update. I have the wrong figure listed, but that's been addressed. If you'll recall in the first draft, I had mistakenly listed 2,000,000 for the municipal control grants, which that was truly just my type of. Page six, judiciary is untouched from this morning. And then we jump to the reallocations where I do have an update. Not gonna be visible because it's an affiliation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Scroll up.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Scroll up?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Scroll down, move it because we're at the State House entry.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, I'm sorry. I have it paused. I'm so sorry. I was scrolling on my screen, but I had it paused. So here we are at reallocations. And we can jump all the way down to pages eight. We have our reallocation, same as this morning, 500 k from the elevator upgrade in Vermont Veterans Home. We also had that update to the the bonded section. On page eight, we have the 63 ks from the Enhanced nine eleven Compliance Grants program same as this morning. We got the $03

[Speaker 0]: And I replaced the $03

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then I got what's with me. 15¢, 18¢.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Sitting in your forest and recreational access. What you're not cents.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: you will not see here is a formally highlighted subsection q, which was 26,000 from the Agricultural Affairs. As I understood it, you guys weren't that pulled with potentially a letter to basically ask that that 26 k be spent by Franklin County. That reallocation has been removed, which resulted in a reduction in the balance that would be applied to major maintenance, which is correctly reflected as we talked about in the first section.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you took that out.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, exactly. So I'm describing something you cannot see. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: in Q is following sounds appropriate into capital infrastructure sub account cash fund. These are reallocations from the cash fund back to our bottom line.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. These are consistent with the gov rec and the way that it's structured is those appropriate from the cash fund in the budget. Right? You see the section b 11 o five a, but then the descriptors, the line items for the callouts because we're trying to ensure trackability through the capital bill rather than searching through the budget, each of the individual reallocations describes the authorization that's actually capital bill, which I think is easier to read but reflects the underlying complexity of the situation. This is consistent with what we had this morning, so no update to that piece.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So then r is a separate part of the reallocation?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Just a second. The way that it works is Q is talking about sums appropriated from a cash fund to VGS and authorized in a particular budget. R is speaking to a different statutory authority. So if you look at Q, it's those appropriated in 2023 action results number 78. And R is talking about 2024 action results with a couple of different amendments. So in nature, they are the same kind of concern to the committee. They are simply in different subsegments because we're calling out different statutory authorities. Do not reflect any difference in what they do. There's no functional difference. It's just I need to call out different statutory authorities. And again, consistent with prior draft and the gut rep. Should I pause here?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. Okay. I just had the speaker line is not how long we were gonna be here, so we should be done by four.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. And we're close to being done with all of the language, and then recently, you guys are gonna discuss next decisions. So section nine, this is actually the last piece for us to review because we've already done the policy sections. These are your cash funded authorizations.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Section 19.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. And I should be careful to say I'm referencing section nine of this bill, which amends section 19 of the underlying bill. Oh, alright. But you're right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's at the bottom of page.

[Speaker 0]: It's to

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: where I Oh, right, which is awful.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Also, it's never been described as that. I said it may be a first.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So going on to page 10, I do wanna again flag what I said this morning about the relationship to the budget, which hasn't set out the appropriations that are here, and this is sticking currently with authorization language. So just to note, you are still in a situation where technically no appropriations were made for these projects, and if you want to appropriate them, you can do that here. I just need to change the language to say appropriate.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They don't find appropriates. They transferred.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, and as Scott noted, the difference is that they will transfer and appropriate funds that are otherwise authorized. In this case, they exclusively transferred without appropriating anything, so one could make an argument that no spending authority has been extended. And so until something is duplicated elsewhere, this isn't authorized, isn't appropriate.

[Speaker 0]: I have been advised by finance management that would be the case if we don't have authorization here. They don't have the ability

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: to sign up as such.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: It'll be in the cash fund, but unused.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So capstone minority. Because we were like this last year. We kept our field to the top.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: There was some last minute, like, let's make sure these are in both. Make sure they're duplicated. Exactly. Depending on the timeline there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, they'll get the bill, they'll get this bill end of next week. And that budget bill gets over there Friday or Tuesday next week. So they're gonna have both bills at the same time.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So I would just make sure that there's an understanding if this is what you're gonna stick with, because otherwise it is a genuine large problem. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that's a conversation with our We wanna have all of this done to add to the Approach Bill 12, would we?

[Speaker 0]: Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Not sure.

[Speaker 0]: And this fourth reading come out of thing?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: We need to talk to crazy. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: I bet they do.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: We just have to get the Google suspended.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: No. No? They're they're great. They're in Boston.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Oh, they're in Brownsville.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'd rather see if we could do that.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Because it's related. What, one sentence? No, you've

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to list all the projects.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: No, but in their approves bill, you just have to get the appropriation in

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: their own. You've got to list the projects for those 17.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Oh, yeah, yeah, I got you.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I just need to pull them in. But I think it's,

[Speaker 0]: we'll talk about Brady, I think. We have the underlying

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: new cash appropriations listed here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And it's what we're gonna vote out. We're not gonna change them.

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: can do that, right?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's a happier solution from an outcome perspective.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can talk to Appropriations Committee, because then they're gonna want us to come before the committee, but we can do that. Rather do it that way than it's with the appropriations. It's

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Less issues when it arrives in this thing. Bottom of page 10, you've already seen this language, so the highlight doesn't reflect something new, but adding that sprinkler system On installation call page 11, same as you saw this morning and consistent with the GovRec. Bottom of that page, have 700 ks for the door control upgrades, sent us this morning. Page 12, 1,000,000 for the boiler. Sent us this morning. The new piece that you do have is on page 13. Two new pieces. So first is Subdivision 9. This is a change to what we did see this morning, which this morning it was 3,300,000.0 to VGS for the agency of human services to work with DOC to install a Wi Fi system in state correctional facilities. It's now to VGS or HS for DOC to work with the agency of digital services, so call out ADS. Which is all a Wi Fi system in state correctional facilities that was appropriately designed to address the safety, security, and confidentiality risks appropriate to a correctional environment. So this is trying to merge two concerns. One is you guys wanna make sure it's a clear directive that this is a capital expenditure. It's a demand to install the Wi Fi. It is not just a task to think about planning, install Wi Fi. And then addressing some of the responses in the ADS letter, which were about safety, security risks, sort of a tenant to correctional facility. So it's stall Wi Fi, appropriately designed to address safety, security, confidentiality risks appropriate to correctional environment, and an update to the figure down from 3.3 to 3,000,000.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the money's gonna be appropriated gonna go to BGS? Mhmm. Why would the money go to BGS? And

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: You wanna go to go to AHS? Through AHS?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Or directly to DLC? Why would I go to BGS?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I will just say that I've included in this way, following some of the conventions in the bill. But if they are project specific, then perhaps that does.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because BGS doesn't know It's negotiations between DOC and digital services. BGS isn't faulted at all unless they say

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Received it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Unless at the end of the day. Yeah, I mean, the negotiations right now is with DOC, an agency of digital services. So I don't think the money should go to BGS. The question is, does it go to the head of the agency or does it go directly to DOC? I don't want the buyer to go hard way to get to the source.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: No. Know, just condense it to DOC.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: To DOC to work with the HSC digital services.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: The next update, new subdivision 20.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So before we go there, does the blinds nine and ten capture what we want?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I'm just fast forwarding to, how do I wanna say this correctly? The moment of collusion between the agencies and

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: the parties saying, we're not

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You've got to report back.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I know. I know.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You've to report back. And who does that report back go to? So to say?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, that's correct. That's what we want.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Here it is, to see how it's going be interpreted.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So if we have the report back we have to take out the Secretary of Human Services.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good call.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You'd be the Commissioner of Corrections and Chief Information Officer. That's

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: good. Thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So does that help you at all, Troy? Would that be perfect?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I think so, yeah.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, my skepticism is in the way right now.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it's gonna, I guarantee, change once we'll have more time to And get a little bit then section 20.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Section 20, you guys may want more specificity again. This is one I just kind of scrambled to throw in, and you may want a different call it as well, but I have it going through BGS.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Have we had that going through BGS for previous

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I can check prior

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: so. It doesn't make sense, but I would think the women's facility is not house section 3, is it?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Is it how the other money is worth? Or does it say

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We have to go to our previous capital.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Okay. I just wanted to make sure

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

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Yeah. I know. But like versus the women's replacement facilities. They're supposed

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: to talk about reentry and correction. Yeah. We do

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: have a terminology for women's partial reentry facilities.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: We've recently used reentry and correctional facilities. I wasn't sure.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. You gotta do that.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Feasible.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: So they couldn't be construed as maintenance for the existing facility.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, so there is previous What you should do is refer maybe to previous capital bills, where we put it maybe.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Which is we use women's reentry and correctional facilities, but I'm trying to find The ones I'm looking at are policy sections, and I'm trying to find a capital that has it as a line item.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Would be

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: in '24

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: innings cash.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: In the 24. Let me look at the cash section. There's also I have to number 69 in 2023 as a line item.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: That happens

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: FY twenty four-twenty five. Yeah. We did like half 1,000,000, then we did 1,500.0, then we did a big 14,000.

[Speaker 0]: To answer your question, the funds have been appropriate for BGS?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They have been appropriate to BGS. I think we say for the replacement of the limits. We've had terminology in previous bills. Did.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Was Let's get to your previous point, it's consistent with that in previous Yeah.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Replacement women's reentry and correctional facilities. Yeah. That's easy enough.

[Speaker 0]: You hit the watch on?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. It's what it would have said had I not rushed to.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, that's fine. So what but it's sort of right now.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Sorry?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, it's sort of read now.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So it sounds like we are routing through BGS. So two BGS, and I can just confirm the line, but whether we need to include AHS as one of the calls to BGS from Department of Corrections for the replacement women's replacement women's reentry and correctional facilities.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So this is a song and a prayer and I'm holding my nose. I would really like to look on these allocations of the cash fund to the big bill tomorrow.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, okay. Okay?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. If we can do that, we'll have to make sure the language firm and the dollar amounts. So I'm gonna make sure that John, Scott, will have face view. You can talk to your folks. I'll talk to representative Chittenden, and I would be the one offering the floor amendment. I'm sure it's go down to the appropriations tomorrow. So,

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I think the only updates I have to these cash sections, and I'll confirm with Scott as well, in 'nineteen, I'll be cutting references to BGS and AHS, otherwise sticking with the language. And then in 'twenty, I'm gonna update, like we just talked about, I'll confirm whether to reference AHS and I'll replace for women's correctional facilities, replacement of women's reentry and correctional facilities. And that uses the 4,250,000.00, which is the balance of cash that we have available. I can send that to you, but I think we actually sort of understand I mean, I will, but I think we already have

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: information, This which is piece, you'll have to work it up in terms of the list as well.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. I mean, I will talk to Grady because I know they have their web if they want this. So so mainly, I'm probably just gonna be copying and pasting this cache section for them to see, but I'm happy to work with them and draft. No issue there.

[Speaker 0]: Send the note to grading. Them a heads up.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Because I think it's gonna be a lot

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm gonna stop screen sharing because I think we've gone through.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You know what's happening on the floor at all? Can you still be in the market?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: The latest I've heard is 67 will be up after the budget and likely five sixty seven after that, then caucus.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: 67 will be in consultation with the major party leaders, but I think it's an amendment given by the independent members. Students we have. And I can't remember the other one,

[Speaker 0]: but I

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: guess it's like what one option is. It's Yeah. Seven is government accountability.

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

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep, and five sixty seven is unclaimed property. That's the reading.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then after that, we process it.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Are

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we still doing approves?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I assume so, but I don't know the latest.

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

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: tell. It's really hard. It's not anyone that oh, Rob North.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Okay,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: let's go through Scott, do you want to go through this real quick and put out your old hair. So,

[Speaker 0]: me just pull up my notes here. A couple of things to notice at the very top, the draft three gets yellow. The first thing they have is red, then orange and yellow. People were doing the warranty bibs, so hopefully we get to the bottom. But then, going along with what we had talked about, I'm just going go through these here. On line one, we added $513,413.18 to FY27 bonded. The 18¢ happens to be rounded, It's there, I just didn't expand that, it is there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It doesn't show up here, but it is

[Speaker 0]: It's there, it's just

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You got $13 but it should be $18.00

[Speaker 0]: $18

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know, $13 here.

[Speaker 0]: It's the rounding up. Then we look at line four, we change the FY26 bond between 1,100,000.0 and the FY27 bond into zero. Both got up $1,500,000 Line nine, we removed the word historic. Line 11, took $1,000,000 from FY27 bonded, leaving 1,000,000 Line 12 added 1,300,000.0 in FY27 bonding per statehouse entryway.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we should add their design documents.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, we can do that.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Just On the line right there.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, design documents. I don't think I wanna get into construction documents for this.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: But they said that it would lead into design, it would lead into some construction documents because there's going be extra money for

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that. But that's going to put an expectation of our members who don't have construction. Right.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Oh, I see.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Fortunately. You're learning.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I see, so don't even say that. Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just say design documents.

[Speaker 0]: Copy If

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you say construction documents, they're going to think we're going to be constructed by next session. We're gonna be walking through the doors. So just, I would say just design talking.

[Speaker 0]: Please note that from this point onwards, since I've added the line, all of your row numbers are going to be different from the last spreadsheet. I do have the old and the new if you want to cross compare, but I

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: got it.

[Speaker 0]: The next line I have is line 20, is the moving $2,000,000 from FY27 cash leaving $700,000 Line 29, cutting $1,000,000 from FY27 cash. Line 31, I added the WiFi here with 3,000,000 FY27 cash. New line. Line 32, I just put women's facility we can

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you go over the previous spreadsheets and see how we did that?

[Speaker 0]: We have a placeholder for this moment. We can see women's financial facilities. Add $1,250,000 in cash. At this point, all the cash we had from before is used up.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Alice, I want to alert, especially reporters of the bill, to the fact that this is going to draw attention on the floor, replacement facility. We are going to get questions about that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Favor or opposed?

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Opposed. Yes. I mean, it's been quiet this semester because Essex got shut down.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So where would the opposition come from?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I believe you heard from the states.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Their allies. Will that be left?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just have to go.

[Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I just want us to be prepared for that.

[Speaker 0]: Line 59, I just added three buttons to the. Line 60 has a couple of things happening. I zeroed the $500,000 in FY27 cash. I added $1,250,000 in FY27 bonding. After the millage of that, 1.25 does come from reallocation down below, which we'll get to. Line 126, I removed the $750,000 in cash. By 173, I added $500,001.26, that number $1.73, which

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you went to line 60, where'd you go after that? 126. Three applications. So the real 126.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: 32. That I Mhmm. In the probably on the last page. Yes. Yep. Right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Problems don't your lines don't ever fully write. The numbers on the very 125 is 126.

[Speaker 0]: So on the right my numbers on the right?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, but you added but you didn't add it right. I was like, what can the acronyms do?

[Speaker 0]: Typically, Jay as well will put an easter egg in every stretcher. I'll make sure I fix that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We my made sure we had the line numbers on the right as well because it's

[Speaker 0]: hard to track.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's gonna say some noise at zero.

[Speaker 0]: And we did jump to 173. The allocation, that's that $500,000 from last afternoon?

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

[Speaker 0]: For the elevator, yep.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They're gonna add a Yeah. Know we didn't. I don't I've gotta do I gotta think it through while I'm quiet and really focus. Elevator upgrade.

[Speaker 0]: Mine's six feet over behind that front.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Know. But there was not somebody left over, and then we had it. So I know I

[Speaker 0]: On line 174 we added 63,413. That was the repo from U911 I believe. On 175, we added 3¢.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: Don't worry.

[Speaker 0]: It should be all 0.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's $2.00 5 on the right hand side that needs to be $2.00

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: 6. Yep. I've never done a clear plan.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: It's not here. That

[Speaker 0]: work? That's

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Now tomorrow, what I would like tomorrow Mhmm. I'm talk to the rest of next day, she can focus. Okay. And tomorrow, I would like a copy of the bill for us to do a work. So that should be edited, just in case. John?

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, and just FYI, two things. Aside from the latest kind of revisions I have, it has actually been a couple. We are short staffed right now, but the draft has been edited fairly comprehensively, and we'll just have to point out the update. So it should be feasible.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I really want folks to read the line, too, in terms of statement.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Got it.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. I'm

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: more concerned about the amendment. So I think we're in good shape with this coming out tomorrow, so we can put it on the agenda. Possible both. Possible both.

[Speaker 0]: James. Sit

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: in the chair. I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: usually have my weekly check-in with the speaker at 09:00. I can see. I don't know if John's gonna be ready at 08:30. I may have to go to her pills. I'll know that tonight before we leave. Be prepared for flexibility but we'll work this out. We'll be here in the afternoon one way or the other. Because if we get all of the floor work done in the morning, we're gonna have to come in the afternoon and do some work. Or maybe four will go in the afternoon and we'll have to come off at home. Depends what happens today. Depends what happens tomorrow. If we could get a copy that would be ready to go and be submitted, it's our final version.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: So I've done all the things you guys just asked me to do, so it's actually good aside from me and Scott just getting together to make sure all the numbers line up. I'll update my spreadsheet to make sure everything adds up, and we can just confirm. At that point, I will send to editing and tell them the intent is to vote it early. I mean, I can ask for the feedback as early tomorrow as we can get it. Potentially, you'd be in a position to vote tomorrow morning.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just stop talking.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: The

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: because I'm sure I'll have to go to our probes.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I am tied up tomorrow from nine to 09:30, but I'm otherwise free for the morning.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I may have to go to the probes.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I just I I I gotta talk to Brian. I'm not talking to her right now, but I'll talk to her. She's about to be on the floor.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: How will we give you an employee a I'll

[Speaker 0]: call my dad.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: No dinner with him?

[Speaker 0]: No.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: I haven't been able to go

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau (Member)]: to dinner in the last couple of weeks.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: That's That's true.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we're gonna Sorry. Accept whatever happens.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, say it, Kim.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, I would say it's don't know. I don't know. Know. Just an idiot.

[Speaker 0]: Did you just get here?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. You like it. We're done until tomorrow, which is not sure what time tomorrow. Just stay in touch.

[John Gray (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. All good. Thank you so much. Care.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Evening. Thank you. Yeah. You

[Speaker 0]: all. Thank you, Steph.