Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We're live. All right. Welcome back, everybody, to House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. Sorry that we're running late. Today is Tuesday, February 17, and we have a little bit of time before our 03:00 to talk about the FY twenty seven budget and the letter that we need to turn into a probes by Friday. So, we're going to get some hard copies so that I can take notes. But just to remind folks of our task here, our job as policy committee is to review the areas of the budget that are relevant to our committee, to take testimony so we understand the implications, and to write a letter of recommendation to house approves. So we have and I'm just pulling this out. We have four budget areas that are under our purview, which basically boils down to the Agency of Digital Services, the Department of Public Service, the Vermont Community Broadband Board, and the Public Utility Commission. So that's sections B105, B233, B233.1 and B234 of the budget. And at this point we've taken testimony from the PUC on their budget, from the Community Broadband Board, from DPS, and then on the Agency of Digital Services we've heard from ADS twice and then from the Department of Finance and Management and also from JFO. So in addition to writing about those budget areas we have two areas of budget language which is E233 related to the Public Service Department and I briefly checked that out. And E233.1 which is related to the Community Broadband Board. So, are the things that our letter needs to cover. And I spent time over the weekend working on a draft. And I did email it to committee members, but I didn't post it on our website yet because it is truly not finished. In fact, I marked where I simply ran out of time. But I can walk you guys through it. We're getting our hard hard copies here. So I did finish a pretty solid draft of the ADS section. Yes, it's quite long, but that's where we're at. And what I've done with this section is I gave it an edit myself and cleaned up some things. And I also sent it to JFO to make sure that it's accurate. So, JFO wrote back wrote back. They made a few kind of changes just for accuracy sake, but this has been vetted by our folks at JFO to make sure I was kind of boiling down the testimony properly. So, we're going to start going through that a minute as soon as everybody hard copies. Then, I started writing the Department of Public Service. That section is going to be a lot shorter. The main thing that we're going to need to talk about there is that one of the requests that the Department of Public Service made of us, which was to change the cadence of the ten year telecom plan three years to five years. We learned in our testimony that that savings, those savings have basically already been booked in the governor's recommended budget, and the language to do that is included in the governor's recommended budget. That is E233. So we'll talk about that when we get there, but you can see where my letter ran out of steam where I said at the very bottom, add language in the f one twenty seven budget changes the pages. And then we were babysitting our granddaughters and I completely ran out of time before I got to the broadband board and the PUC, which I think will also be really short sections. So I checked around with quite a few other committee chairs. And what most committees do, and I think it'd probably be a great approach for us, is we don't have to take a formal committee vote on the letter, but they take straw polls on each section and we just include the results of that straw poll. So as we go through and talk about this, you can see where I thought we had like a proposal and then a committee recommendation or a committee response and those will be the areas where we will talk about it and take a straw poll. I hope that's a good overview. So, if we could just start at the top, like I said, I'll be taking notes and I can try to get this revised and finished for our next committee discussion on the budget, which is I don't know when that is later this week. So Okay. So Can I

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: ask for orientation, Cindy? Is this a new process? Did we not do this last year?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: We did this last year, and last year, lot of our test we took a lot of testimony on some tech requests from the Department of Corrections.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: don't remember. I could look at our budget letter last year, but we did the same process. We took testimony from our departments, but there I don't think there was as much contested stuff. We certainly didn't have anything approaching near approaching the the changes we're seeing in the EDS budget. I just remember the DOC conversation. And think what we did last year was that the we've we maybe voted on the whole bill, and then we had differing opinions on the DOC things. We took a took a separate straw poll on that.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That I remember. Thank you.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. And then, also, everything's a little bit different this year because approves is asking for, you know, more from us, basically. So okay. ADSO, I used for all of this the testimony from ADS, the testimony from Commissioner Gresham, and the testimony from Lisa Gobin, and the testimony from JFO. So in case you're wondering where I'm getting stuff, I was drawing from all the testimony we've taken. So at the top, I tried to give three bullet points showing, you know, bottom line. These are the key changes. So we have a $9,000,000 increase in the general fund appropriation. We have a $10,800,000 increase in ADS allocation charges. And then we have a $5,800,000 decrease in ADS service level agreement charges. And I talk a little bit later in the letter about how those latter two things and net out to a $5,000,000 increase. Yeah.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So their ask is $9,000,000 increase in funding. Correct? Through the general?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Through the general fund. Yes.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So the 10,800,000.0 increase in allocations is not added above and beyond that 9,000,000. Correct?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Not in the general fund.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So it's internal? Yes. So maybe I'm just being thick headed with understanding this, but do we even have to go into the increase in allocation and then so on? Because the only ask from us is the $9,000,000 increase in their budget.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Well, I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: felt it was important because it's also a $5,000,000 increase in bill back spending authority that's gonna appear in the different agency budgets. And I had seen somewhere in our testimony and then a probes that come and said, overall, they're asking for $14,000,000 more. So I felt like we should talk about it.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: But they're not.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, they're asking for 9,000,000 more in general fund, and they're also asking to be allowed to grab 5,000,000 more from the other departments, much of which is general fund money flowing to them, which will then flow to ADS. So Okay. I'm just

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: trying to understand how that is that's coming from the other buckets. It's not ABS that's asking for

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: that. Right? Right.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I'm not being I I don't I'm just trying to understand it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, so am I.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: definitely erred on the side of being thorough because what I don't want is for probes to think that we didn't understand that there was also, you know, kind of $5,000,000 more in bill back authority.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Is there any way that we could clarify that language so it doesn't I mean, for somebody that's trying to simplify it so it doesn't appear like it's another increase into their budget?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. I I talk about it in proposal two, and and maybe I just didn't make it clear enough there.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Well, I read on the It is.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: The only page I have up.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It is an increase in their budget. There's an offsetting increase in other departments' budgets. Because they're send money to ABS instead of spending it themselves. Right?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I don't think so. No. Think new general fund dollars.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, the the 9,000,000 is new money. That is a new base appropriation.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: That's correct. That seems clear. But the the 10,800,000.0 is minus 5,800,000.0. That $5,000,000 increase in service level increase. That $5,000,000, ABS is saying, hey. Can we fill all the other departments an additional 5,000,000? Yes.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it actually is an increase.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So they're getting $5,000,000. It's completely out of the pockets of the other agencies.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So maybe that's what I was wishing.

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: And actually If they didn't have in their pockets without this increase.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. And maybe I could make that more clear.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: The spending authority reflects. It says Some

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: of their budgets increased by five now. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: down in in proposal two Mhmm. I mean, I I'm not gonna pretend this is easy to write. Okay. So areas that aren't clear, please. But this is a net increase in ADS bill back of about 5,000,000 spread across all state agencies. Maybe I could

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Pay to ADS. This is getting to the duplicate.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Authority that we were talking about.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. That's proposal three. Never mind. That's okay. Believe me. Why don't we start at the top and maybe there's some sections that aren't there. So I said who we took testimony from. I talked about how in the past, ADS has basically had no direct appropriations in the general fund except for and I took this out because I thought I was getting even more in the weeds. But ADS has had $230,000 in the general fund every year for the GIS office.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Super happy with the information services.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yep. And I had that in and I took it. So I I tried to just say they've been operating almost entirely with no direct allocation to ADS in the general fund. Instead, it's all been cost recovery. So I tried to establish just that fact. And then I I talked about how their main internal service fund because I think this is really relevant information. It was surprising to me as been moving into the red. So it's gone from a million dollars in the black to 28,500,000.0 deficit projected this year because well, one they're not entirely sure why. But one reason they do know why, because we heard this from commissioner Gresham, was that ADS is doing necessary work that they're not able to recover the cost for.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So Which I don't understand.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, we could learn more about that. Yes. But one of the examples we heard was

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: forget that part.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: What? Which Federal. Yes. Federal restrictions. And interestingly well, I put it in, but I I've lost over it a little bit. I mean, I did break cut this down from five pages.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So that's it. But one of the examples we heard was that AHS, you know, gets all this federal money that flows in and they're restricted like they can't pay back ADS for what they do across some portfolios.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: And

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: and then there's work that they're doing that they're not fully recovering. And if we want to, we could definitely get JFO back in. Talk more about that.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So what is to keep them from having more of a deficit every year that they're not able to regain those lives by going? What is it that's gonna keep that deficit from not growing continually if they can't charge and regain those funds from the other agencies?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I got the feeling that splitting up that big internal service fund into four service funds. I heard step one in that. Like, we don't even really we're not even a 100% sure what the problem is.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: If we have these four funds, maybe we're gonna be able better to identify and fix the problem. I didn't hear immediate solution. Yeah. I heard, like, this is what we're gonna do first.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: I I

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: think Did I misinterpret that?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Sounded to me like they were going to have more accurate billing, more granular billing, so that they wouldn't be billing an agency for a package of services that the agencies granted and couldn't reimburse more, couldn't pay more. That my understanding. I don't know if I projected that or if that Right. That's accurate,

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: if that makes sense. Like, the 9,000,000 allows them to well, not fill for a certain thing. That's right.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: That's right too. Right.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: So it presumably, that 9,000,000 will offset the 10,000,000 that they're losing every year. Right. To some degree, yeah, it's hard. Yes. And I think that's where Yeah.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: I think that's That's where I'm at. Complicating things further. Remember last year's BAA, they wanted $15,000,000. Oh. Catch up. I don't wanna get into that. That's gonna stop with that. Yeah. Two months. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: this comes back

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: to What was the key

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: word that's in here is it's important because that that was part of the Right. The the bills are deficit. Right. That's true.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, we're down to this nitty gritty proposal two thing. I'm gonna have to do some work on proposal two. So, we talk about proposal one, we're gonna have more, we're not gonna have one huge internal service fund. We're gonna have four. And that was the whole pool hot tub thing that commissioner Gresham was talking about. So

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: that that's proposal one. Yes. I just wanna ask about the word proposal. Could we call it step one? Because I don't want it

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: to seem like it makes when you say proposal, it sounds like we're gonna be

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: choosing the month three. I don't know. I see what you're saying.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I just wonder I was trying to choose a word that let's find a better word.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Ask.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I was trying Ask. Yeah. Request. Request one. Request. Yeah. I was trying to not make it sound like a done deal because, I mean, it's up to the legislature. I can We can change you know, we could not do this. So, what are we gonna call it? Ask request. Request one.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And in the in the case of number one, you'd even indicate that it's a structural request.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So, alright. So request one one, and we'll say structural. Mhmm. Okay. Okay. So here's the four buttons. And should I add, like this was I said this will allow us to see how each category is contributing. We can't really do that now. Should I add a sentence saying saying, like, to rep Southworth's point, you know, this is the first step to being able to stem these deficits or something?

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Yeah. But I'm sure they're gonna

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: be able to based on just what we've heard.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: This is a hope for first.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Well, you can say that. This will allow us to see how you how you feel about categories. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Then there's you know, the community supports has changed. I mean, I had to put something. So that's where we'll struggle. Okay? So that is struggle number one.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: One other question is symptoms of bearing the lead. Do they wanna put supports this supports the request right away? We could. I guess just so when your skin, they're gonna be reading so much stuff. Yeah. They could say, okay. I'm gonna

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: pay attention So move that because they support. Move these little things up. Okay. Name. Okay. So just so we don't just so that everybody has their cards on the table, we're not doing our straw poll now, but so I support this change.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Folks? Yeah. Support you.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: The first one you need? Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay, it sounds like we're gonna be pretty good there. Okay, proposal number two.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Ask.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm sorry, request number two. And this is well, this is new new money and new spending authority or increased spending authority or something like that. I'll make sure that this is the more money part. Okay. So, the direct appropriation, the $9,000,000 which is, you know, 800 and 8,000,000 whatever. I can't do the

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: 8,680,000.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: More than ADS has ever gotten before in the general fund. That is to help them cover the costs that they currently can't bill for. Or aren't fully recovering. That's 9,000,000 in new money added to the general fund, base appropriation for ADS, recurring, and I did try to talk about upsides and downsides of this. This is new money in the general fund that would expect to be happening every year.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: And this is the governor's recommend. This is the governor's recommend. And knowing the governor, I assume that this additional 9,000,000 in spending for ADS does not come with 9,000,000 in new tax revenue.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Correct. Which means Well, I don't know. But I One would assume. One would assume.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Which means it's coming out of somewhere else. And it'd be really nice to know where that somewhere else is so we can decide. Is this a is it better use of money to put it here, or is it better where it is? It's a little tricky. I support or not support.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I would seriously doubt that

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: It's gone.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: They were on one. Right. That they were sitting in a room and said, let's take this money from SNAP or let's take this money from right. There's not a one on it's

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: I mean, it

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: comes from somewhere. It comes from the bottom line. There's a $9,000,000,000 budget with 85,000 ups and downs. Yeah. That's kind of

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: a church job, isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. This 9,000,000, they're already spending. Right? This 9,000,000, they're already spending every year, they're just not recovering not recovering it, so it comes to the right deficit to the bottom line, it's coming back from money that's not It's it's just putting a line item into the budget in a general fund. For general funds, they have to generally go to other

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: other line items. So I I kinda tried to I I think I'm gonna add something based on what you just said in this little problematic section. I said this puts a new recurring pressure on the general fund, but this pressure already exists. That's to your point. It's just not being captured by current build back practices, and I could add, it is contributing to the growing deficit.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Did ask. I did ask. Yes. I did. I asked DDS how do you fund your deficit spending? You're running a deficit by like, you your checks don't bounce. Right? Like, they keep cut cash. And did not get a perfectly clear answer except that I mean, it's sort of an imaginary deficit. It as as you said, there's $9,000,000,000. It shows up as a deficit for them, but there's actually there's still cash there that, like, the bills are getting paid. Pay payroll is clearing, all that all that stuff. So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Do you think it's just staff time? I mean, it sounds to me like an accounting Yeah. Deal. They're out there doing all this work and probably racking up their hours and saying we're working on this, this, this, and that, and not bringing in the money that they could show they should have earned. But

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: they're not borrowing the money from the bank. It's still coming out Right. State tax revenue. So I think it is probably just an accounting change. Really? Right?

[Bram Kleppner (Member)]: I I think As we talk through it, I I think it's they can't bill back for some general day to day, like they said, time sheets and the like. So they're not billing back or supporting those in the individual agencies, but the other agencies don't have those expenditures either. So the money's getting spent, but it's just not not accounted for. There's surpluses in the other agents.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Would you guys be okay with me getting JFO back in to talk about this section? Mhmm. So that we understand this bit better? Okay. We'll have Lisa and and James come in. Okay. So let's just let's move on because that's really it's quite confusing. I think. Okay. Request three. Alright. We will get

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: GFO ASAP.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Now here's the spending authority thing. So I tried to clarify that bespoke now customized services is something we all really care about because these are the big projects that get in the news and take mirrors and cost, you know, tens and hundreds of millions of dollars. So then we say what's changing, what stays with ADS, and what moves to the agencies. And then I added a little bit about here's where these projects can be tracked and why we care about the dashboard. And then I talked about our concerns. And we talked about we were worried that we, and it sounded like ADS was worried that they wouldn't be able to see expenditures directly. And that we were worried about whether that would impact ADS's ability to do its job. And that we were worried about the dashboard. And then we wondered about whether the shift in spending authority could mess up the vendor payments. And Lisa looked into that at our request and she posted them she sent a response to us. She testified, and then she sent a response, and that's in everybody's email and posted on our website. And so I just took her responses and pasted them into this letter. And

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So one of our concerns is not having visibility on total IG expenditures. Right?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. And then I talked about that in the next section.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Do do you wanna be you kind of say it, but you wanna be more explicit about saying this decrease in bespoke Okay. I guess, is a corresponding increase in the corresponding agencies. This should be a revenue Yeah. From a global perspective, should be a revenue neutral Large as yeah. Do you know how to say that with you?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yes. I do. Equals

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: cost neutral.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: To the state, I mean, it's decreased for ADX.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I was just asking. It's not revenue. It's it's like cost neutral. Yeah. Okay.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah. I almost think what Chris just stated is where I was trying to get with request number two.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Same sort of condition, and

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I think that's where I had with that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Yeah. But that one's not that's why I wanna talk to about it. Like, this one is taking it's gonna go like

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Right. I I know what he needed. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Won't get into my hand motions. Yeah. The the first one really is $5,000,000 more inability to charge. It it really is

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: It may work. Yeah. Only I won't go back to that one. Promise you.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So we can I mean, I I would love to have JFO because that was definitely the section where I was, you know, looking at a bunch of different notes and looking at everybody's memos again, and that section was the most painful to write? Okay. And then our remaining concerns, and maybe I just timely and comprehensive access to data. So, will ADS and the legislature still have timely access to financial expenditure data? And then I said that Commissioner Gresham acknowledged our concern. He pledged, you know, to work closely with the ADS. And then Lisa had suggested that we write a follow-up member to Commissioner Gresham. And she specifically suggested what we could push for. And I I thought that was a good idea. I think she was even gonna maybe help us

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: with the draft of the med. And

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: then I finally wrap my head around R. Sibilia's concern, which took me a a little minute to understand, Which is that if we're thinking about these big ticket projects and we look at our dashboard, we can see the total implementation cost at the outset and the total implementation cost now. But that's like a multi year appropriation. So it could be, you know, $80,000,000 that this project is gonna take from 2023 to 2028 or whatever. But what are we what what's in the budget for it this year? It took me a long time to wrap my head around what you were talking about.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Mhmm. And

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: I didn't know what to do with that except for flagging as a concern. You know, to say that if we wanna look, you'd have to look up. If we wanna know what we're spending this year I thought I gave an example.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: Second paragraph.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Oh, I to give just one example. Thank you. Right. ERP. So we know that it was supposed to cost 45,000,000. Now it's supposed to cost 28,000,000. It's a multiyear project. But what are we spending this year? And so for us to do that kind of work, I'm sure I know I'm sure the number's out there, but project by project, we'd have to go to everything, every agency's budget.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: So when I was asking about this, it sounded to me like they allocate the total amount in the year that the project is That's correct. Is authorized. That's correct. Like a like a transportation

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's in the they propose in the budget?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: When a project is approved, it is funded.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Where does the money go?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Is it proposed in the budget?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Well, it comes out in five years, but I would imagine. Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So, like

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: It's fully funded when it's approved to go on the RFP and goes out. That money is there for that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So the 45,000,000 to use to go back to this example. So the enterprise resource planning project, that 45,000,000 we should see in the 2023 budget.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Correct.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So how do we know how much they're spending this year? They could

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: tell us but the other thing is as the project increases in cost so it 48,000,000 in your example that extra 3,000,000 would have to show up in the subsequent years budget. Yeah

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: it's a change order of the contract.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it's appropriated fully in here that it's approved.

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: Okay. That was my

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I I I think we have to make sure that that exact language is correct. Yeah. Is that

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: a j let's let's be talking to

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Jay about this too. Fully in the year that it is I mean, that means something to me. That make appropriated fully means all the money's there. But was all the money proposed in the budget that year? Or did it you know, was it proposed over time?

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: So in order for it to be put out to bid, that project has to be fully funded.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Ah, okay. I think But

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: we, like, heard from the Seaways people, like, they got $7,000,000 last year with a match. So they have $15,000,000, and they're still on the RFP phase. Yeah.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It wouldn't surprise me if

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And they show up as, like, blank on the up mode.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Because it's not because it hasn't been made.

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: It doesn't got a if you got a 45,000,000 project, probably wouldn't surprise me at all if for the r when the r proved the treasurer has to stick $45,000,000 aside somewhere, but it gets budgeted year by year. So the cash is sitting there. Yeah. I don't know about it.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: That We

[Michael "Mike" Southworth (Member)]: should we should have

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: We should have someone who knows instead

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: of So

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: we need JFO help on request two and what are we spending this year sections Yeah. For sure. Okay. Then I merrily moved on to the Department of Public Service. So we have not even talked about this. And then I found the language already in the budget.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Well, there's four proposals they have, right? So that all are all four in the budget?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Well, for starters, I literally had to go babysit right when I was about to look up the language. There was a

[R. Scott Campbell (Vice Chair)]: You have to see

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: an emergency? There was a there was a ball crisis. Well, let's look. I saw the cadence.

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: Where did we get the four proposals from? I'm not remembering that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: They came in

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: west of that.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: When when they testified yeah. But the only one related to the budget was the was the cadence of the ten year plan. They wanted there was a With TCAM. Conversion to a limited service thing.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And the changing the cadence were the only ones that were were related to the budget. The other things they wanted us to do were disband the TCAV. TCAV. Change the cadence of their

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: No. The IRT ones. The IRT is

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: the IRT. Yeah. Okay. So those aren't I didn't drag those in here because they're not budget related. But the budget language, e what is it? E two three three? Yes. We can look at our language sections right this very minute.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. I because that was where I

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: ran it. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: What are our numbers? Sorry. 2233. Almost there.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: 233 is okay. So I I did these are our only language pieces, and they both have to do with DPS. E two three three is converting one limited service classified financial director four position to a permanent classified financial direct director four position. So this was the request they made to take a vacant and I just put a sentence about this in there. This did not seem like

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: a big deal to me.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Converting a vacant limited service position to a new and slightly more costly role. So that is e two three three. But E233 one, that language in the budget changes the cadence of the telecom plan from every three years to five years. So, we definitely need to weigh in on this as a committee because it's happening.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: I think it's fine.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Unless we, you know, we, well, it may just be happening anyway, but our committee should decide whether we oppose it or how

[Christopher Morrow (Member)]: we should

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: go about it. Yeah. Yep. So I I think this whole section of statute needs to be rewritten. It has to be rewritten for some years. And so think it's fine to change the cadence of it and not spend another half $1,000,000 on a project that meets the statute, but not our current policy.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Couple things they said in their testimony when when, Commissioner Johnson and Deputy Commissioner, Wilson came in. They did lay out, if people wanna go back and look at it, they laid out the reasons why they think it's okay to go to every five years. And I I'm not opposed.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: It's not it's not an importation.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Right. Yeah. And that's important. Can you explain that? Because I think that's really important for people to understand. Mhmm.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And it is misunderstood. Yeah. So it is really helping developers understand the situation on the ground, what people have, where there's opportunity, what the state policies are. That's what it's that's basically what it's intended for. It's a high level guide. I equate it I equate it to, like I said, which we do in our region, a comprehensive economic development strategy, which is not necessarily an action plan. It's data. It says, you know, here are things that should happen, but somebody's job hits, you know, actions that are fundable and that have been developed using the public. So.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: The other thing they said, which definitely stuck out for me is that the next comprehensive energy plan is due in 2028. And that, you know, if if they have to do the telecom plan this year, They've already cut the money from they've already cut the money from the budget. Yeah.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Over you.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So I think they said that would come at the expense of outreach and staff time on

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: the comprehensive energy plan. So would there be any contradictions or change in the cadence to this plan with changes made with South Tower siting two forty eight a that went through the house?

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Say more.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: I'm just throwing that out there because if we You mean in terms of their workload? Well,

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: the the bill we passed out extends extends the sunset to 2030. Right.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: At this time. At this time.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Probably just to avoid a contradiction with Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: So it would be we'll see what happens with that with that bill in the end, but it would be comprehensive energy plan in '28. Right.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Telecom plan in '29.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Cell towers two forty eight, sunset in 2030, so it would go boom boom. Yeah.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah. I just wanted a voice sentence on it.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: That's actually good to think about. So Okay. Nothing would that none of those things at this point would be, like, the same period.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And February is at the PSA. Yes. Department. Indeed. Correct.

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Good. True. Yes.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Alright. So so like I said, we're not doing artificial straw poll yet, but it and sounds like I should add any supports this change. I

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: would also note that this was done in house, and there were a lot of complaints about timing. There was a particular citizen advocate who had a lot of problems with it, and, you know, they end up advocating it to go get contracted out. We have a lot of onetime funds, but it did used to be done. You know? Okay. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: And then I recall that there is nothing to say about the broadband not much to say about the broadband board in the PC, but I will I'll look at their testimony. I'll summarize whatever we learned in just a couple sentences. And

[Richard Bailey (Member)]: Yeah. Because the broadband didn't have any accent.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: No. And neither did the PC.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Which kind of Yeah.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. So next step, jack up. K. So, Alex, right right after we adjourn, let's find a time. I'm I'm feeling soonish. There's a

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: time on Thursday we could deal with them. Thursday. Yeah. I'm gonna try to look for a sooner time. Okay.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Just because that doesn't give me much time to Mhmm. Rewrite the letter and That's good. Yeah. Never make any final revisions. And I have to do a strut hole.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: And I I think actually once the afternoon before four there would be time to Great.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Can you see if they could come in? Mhmm. Okay. Thanks, everybody. That's good. Should we just keep going, or do people need a little break?

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Just a little.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Wedge Council's coming. Right? Ellen is

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: under the weather. She's in the waiting room right now on Zoom.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. Can you ask Ellen if it's okay with her if we start at 03:15? Mhmm.

[Laura Sibilia (Ranking Member)]: Okay. No. Just random noises.

[Kathleen James (Chair)]: Okay. I heard make note. Sure. Thanks, everybody, for that. Why don't we go off live and