Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay, we are back in Senate institutions. It's Wednesday, 02/18/2026. And now we are discussing H50, five-zero, and acts relating to identifying underutilized state buildings and land. And we have our Legion Council here, John Gray, and we're going to talk about the committee of conference process. And we're also going to talk about the items, the contest. Perfect. So,

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I guess, We can proceed however you want if you want to talk about committee of conference, just generally what it is first. You can do that or if you would like for me to talk about the bill, I'm happy to start with that. Why don't

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: you talk about Community Conference and then we'll go to your question.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. John Ray, Office of Legislative Counsel. We're talking about H50 for which a Committee of Conference has been requested, so there will be conferees from each side that will meet. It's quite different from the typical bill development process, as you'll see, much more active negotiations as to different pieces, but I think it's gonna be helpful to see what is in dispute here to know how to approach it, and one general rule that is followed in its place is that if they're the bills, if the difference between the proposals from the House, that you're limited to the differences between proposals between the House and the Senate, so points of agreement would remain as they are in the bill. I say that committee of Congress can try to pass on something that differs from the points of agreement between the bodies, but someone could raise an objection on that basis. We're talking about H50, and I'm gonna screen share something that I think is going to be helpful, and then I could send to you Ken afterward. You can say side by side. Yes, Relatively limited differences, but given the different backgrounds that you guys have, let me just orient before I jump into the text itself. H 50, as it first originated, was a very short bill that did not even touch section one sixty five of title 29, which is what we're talking about here in the first sections. That section is the general inventorying process that VGS does to efficiently allocate the spaces that the state owns. In its initial form, as introduced, it was a very short bill that just created a sectional provision to say, Let's identify underutilized, and it didn't have defined terms, right? Just said, Let's identify vacant underutilized state lands that could be converted into affordable housing. And that was the initial idea of the bill during last session on the House side, and then it quickly turned into this update to VGS' inventory piece, and that is where it ended last session as well. The senate sent some provisions back to the house, and if you look on the right side, that's what you're gonna see is the senate proposal amendments from the end of last session. Again, section one sixty five is your BGS inventory section. It creates a flow of information from agencies up to VGS, who then compiles the information on properties that they receive from those agencies. So what you see on the right, the senate has I'm sorry for that. I forgot all those later pages. The commissioner shall maintain an inventory of all state owned or state leased something with the you guys had added on this side, or state leased buildings as planned, and shall bi annually compile and update the information received under subsection G, which we'll come to, which shall be considered once available, making spacing allocations and designated uses under subsection C. So this is, again, this is about allocating how to use state owned spaces. You can see on the left side that the House, in its latest proposal, does not include state lease, right? Reasoning from the House side is that because it's about the efficient use of state spaces, you're only getting to the point of leasing spaces once you've efficiently used up those state owned spaces, so the inventory is so much available, the state leased spaces. You could want to have that information on state leased properties, but whether or not it belongs in this section would be, I suppose, another question. The House just wanted the inventory to be on state owned buildings and land, which is the, that's a point of agreement between the House and Senate, right? State owned buildings and lands, and they changed the timeline to annually compile to update that information. I will just note that the difference between annually and bi annually, practically, I don't know how meaningful this is. Obviously, just linguistically, there's a huge difference, right? But if you're receiving this Facebook from BGS with its inventory of properties on a yearly basis anyway, this would be more something that's bringing in line the statute with actual practice. Meaning, if you have the biannual requirement, they also comply with it by providing it annually. So the House proposal is just deciding if it's annual, let's give it annual leave. So that's your first piece. The Commissioner is maintaining that inventory of all state owned buildings and land, and the disputes between the two at this point, the Senate is proposing to include state leased buildings and land additionally, and has stuck with the existing statutory language to the binding of the compilation. That's Subsection G. Subsection G is kind of more the part of the inventory itself. This is the information that the agencies themselves send to BGS. The differences are shown in highlight writing. The head of each agency is preparing and forwarding to BGS annually an inventory that collects all of these different pieces of information, square footage, end use that's available for use, cost per square foot for rent, cost for operation and maintenance, etcetera. The dispute between the house and center on this piece is what's to do with the last line, and you can think of this as the compromise that was landed at during last session after the initial concept of seeking vacant land for conversion into affordable housing arrived at. This tacked onto the existing inventory process, this requirement that we see in the final line, and I'm gonna start with you guys on the right side. The head of each agency shall additionally indicate in its inventory in the format prescribed by the commissioner whether any building is vacant and whether any land is unnecessary for the statutory purpose of the agency. That was the sentence proposal amendment to H50. We tied identification of unnecessary assets for these vacant buildings and lands to the statutory purpose of the agency. On the House side of the proposal is to identify whether any building is vacant, whether any land is unnecessary for state purposes. So the differences between these two, the House's proposal state purposes is broader, The head of each agency would need to identify whether any land is necessary for any sort of state purposes. It's a broader determination that they're making, and what I recall from the discussions last year was that there was some concern as to whether the head of an agency would be equipped to make that determination, whether that's a fair ask of them, and so that's how the senate had arrived at its proposal for statutory purpose of the agency. Sorry, agency

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: is?

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All sorts all sorts of spaces, so it's not just BTS. All agents. Exactly, so BTS is collecting this, they're compiling information from the agencies themselves, who are sending up this information on how they currently are using the spaces. You can think of VGS almost serving as a clearing house. They receive all the information on how the agencies are using their spaces, and then on that basis, they can make determinations as to how to efficiently use the space.

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: So if I was to do the real world, and we talk a

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: lot about Windsor Prison, it's not being used right now,

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: pretty much,

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: and so with that, and that's not, you

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know what, I don't know if that seems to true. It would depend on who would run, right, if it's DOC or, like BGS obviously will be maintaining right, like they're already aware of their own.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Right, and in that case, Fish and Wildlife has that ring around it, so their statutory purpose is different than DOC's

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: statutory Right, but it's not all of that, you know, so, is it 900 acres?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah, well I'm pretty sure it's on the list, so I wanted to talk about that.

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: See that's what I'm trying to figure out, this an inventory to go to BGS or BGS to make a determination whether or not the property or building or facility is suitable for housing, or is this to say that this could be then, here's a piece of property that a developer may be interested in, obtaining from the state to develop housing? I'm trying to figure out what we're trying to accomplish in the big picture. Yes. And just for background, John, I spent almost fifty years as a civil engineer. I reviewed, developed, at hundreds of properties, and quite frankly, what's on that board right there wouldn't give me a clue of whether this property was suitable to actually develop into housing. That's what I'm trying to figure out, what is the end goal?

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What do we set Ryan to accomplish? So I have maybe two answers. One is that it will be easier to see some of the differences in approach when we get to section two of the House's proposal, because you'll see that section one is just speaking to the existing BGS inventory process. Yeah. I don't, I can't, this is my second part of the answer, I can't really help you to know whether this information is gonna be useful or not for BGS. That's why I said the language called compromise that I said before. It's kind of interesting that it took the path that it did to go from being about converting vacant lands into affordable housing into an update to the BGS inventory process. So I think that the policy question as to whether or not you find the language in GE, the final sentence, if you find it especially useful, I think that But I think you're gonna see more clearly when I get section two in the House how you can distinguish between the inventorying process and the What is done to identify properties suitable for conversion into housing process. Because I don't know that this piece is going to help you with housing. This is just limited to the head of an HDMA's determination, whether they have vacant land, whether it's unnecessary for a statutory purpose. And the piece that I was gonna hit here, was saying that the House language is broader, right? The determination is called state purposes. The Senate proposal, statutory purpose of the agency is narrower, but part of why that happened, just to get the background of why the House didn't accept this language, because obviously they saw this, you guys sent this to the House, and then they went back to their initial formulation state purposes. Part of it, you guys may recall from last session, I don't know definitively whether each agency has a statutory purpose, so if an agency didn't have a statutory purpose, how do you deal with that? Then secondarily, it may be that the statutory purpose of an agency doesn't at all what the head of an agency actually thinks the meaningful things they should think about are. You could have that question about this final clause of that sentence, but yeah, I think it's worth asking the question, what's the utility of this identification of vacant land?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah, just want to comment on, it's coming back to me. So the rent and this isn't relative at all to finding properties or it doesn't, this language would exist even if we weren't looking for properties that were appropriate for housing. But I remember what we said, we had the statutory purpose of the agency because this item refers to a decision made the assessment from the head of the agency.

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: So, that's what's kind of the issue.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah, exactly. So, wouldn't want libraries commenting and saying, oh, extra property doesn't mean it's not useful for the state because they just know about libraries in theory, right? So, that's why we have the statutory purpose of the agency, but it is challenging to find a statutory purpose for every agency because some of them don't seem to have it. But that was the thought.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep, that was the thing is that it would be an easier determination for them to make with them the expertise that they

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And it's more appropriate for them to make it, to be narrowed rather than

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Okay. Subsection J, saying between the two proposals, on our report January 15 of each new legislative biennium, the commissioner shall submit to the House of Mayor of Corrections and Institutions and the Senate Committee on the institution put inventory maintained under Subsection E, so each biennium you would receive that inventory. I think you guys are already receiving something of this kind. The real difference is that the inter emergent section two, which you can see, let's flip to the next page, this is a session law provision that the House has proposed. And I think you'll see here some of the interaction between identifying property for housing and the inventorying process. So that inventorying process again is just a BGS practice. That's something that's already involved. Those updates in section one are just tweaking certain measures in that inventory. Section two is a session law provision of time limited duration for identifying property that is suitable for conversion to housing. Subsection A, as you can see here, is part of the inventory that a head of the agency conducts pursuant to that section I just went through, through calendar year 2030, the head of the agency shall identify and report to the Department of Housing and Community Development, DHC, each parcel under its ownership that meets all of the screening criteria developed by the department under this executive order. I can show you the executive order if it's helpful, but basically, the testimony that was heard from Yes, exactly. Under the second underlying heading and sub screening methodology or something like that. So this is not saying that this information would flow into the inventory itself, but it's saying that head of an agency, when you conduct that regular inventory that you already do for BGS, during that process, check your properties and see if any meet the screening criteria the Department of Housing and Community Development developed to respond to the executive order. I'll show you guys that in a second, but the executive order was a way of encapsulating kind of the initial idea for H-fifteen, which was let's identify This inventory. Exactly. Let's identify underutilized properties that would be suitable for conversion to housing, and DHC developed a set of screening criteria to identify for those agencies, and that's just screening, right? That's just gathering information. Subsection B speaks to the next piece, which I think is most responsive to your line of questioning. Okay, now we've got screening criteria, so maybe that narrows the pool of parcels, but I still don't know what is suitable, right? On So or before January 15 of each legislative session through calendar year 2031, serrating this for five legislative sessions, following five inventories, the Commissioner of Housing and Community Development shall provide to the committees of jurisdiction the inventory of properties identified pursuant to subsection A intersection, so that they would get it, all of the properties that met the screening criteria, plus, and these are the key parts, a list of those inventoried properties the commissioner determines may be suitable for housing development. So using discretion and the expertise that DECD has, the commissioner is identifying among those screened properties what might be suitable for housing development. Additionally, the legislature will be providing an explanation at the commissioner's determination. So the set of information that you guys receive is all those properties that meet the screening criteria, you'd receive this next five years, and you'd also receive additionally a determination from Commissioner Farrell as to what he believes may be suitable for housing development, unless you guys think that there are, I want to say questionable aspects, but maybe have a difference of opinion. Sure. You would see the full inventory to know what he selected from among those great properties. He'd also know those that were screened that weren't selected, and he would receive the commissioner's justification for why those pieces. Do we have a copy of the screening criteria? That's in there. I will

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: these. So basically two clear analysis, these things, Yes, these to yes, exactly.

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: I'm gonna screen share the Okay, so actually what the chair point Exactly.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But I can pull it up here as well. I won't really be able to speak much to this, but these are what they are. The DHC established these criteria in response to the executive order, parcels that are half an acre or larger, parcels without a conservation easement, parcels served by or potentially serviceable by municipal water or wastewater systems, or can source that can support on-site septic, parcels that are reasonably accessible by an existing with a dry highway within a quarter mile, which could be easily accessed by construction of a new river driveway. I will just call out one piece.

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: Couldn't drag the ball, that's okay.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Should I?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Do you want to add?

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: No, I'm still trying to, so we get this inventory, went through that screening process, then what happens to it? What's supposed to happen to this? Legislative process.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're gathering information is what's happening. You can think of the initial formulation of age 50 and then the section two that you see in the House proposal as just information gathering. The legislature, speaking broadly, this isn't anything anyone's indicated, but the legislature broadly has been interested in finding good avenues to develop housing. Initially had an idea, do we just have state land that might be suitable for this? And so you're gathering that information that utilizes the BGS inventory process, that's an ongoing piece, it latches onto that, and then it sends that information, it's filtered through DHCB, who has the expertise on housing, and then it comes to you guys, the decision makers, on what to do with the state plans.

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: I mean, I look at that, I'm sorry, don't mean to take us down this road, but it's just because I've done this so many times, that doesn't tell me that that piece of land is suitable for development. If I take Joe's piece of the Windsor Prison property, I know I got so many acres, I may have some halfway decent soils, but I don't know if it's sown properly for housing, don't know if, you know, there's gonna be essentially three lists from what I understand. Here's the lands. Yeah. There are the the lands that are screened, and then there's another one that's this is suitable for housing and property. Right, not that's where I'm trying to get it.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's going to

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: go through the clearing process

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: before those gets four criteria,

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: do not tell me I have a piece of property, even they go through that screening process, don't tell me I've got a piece that's suitable for housing development.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They're not intended to. So what they are, are a way of narrowing down the pool of parcels that the Commissioner of Housing and Community Development will look at then make it terminate. Winnowing down to get a pool That's

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: all we're trying to figure out, is what our end result here is trying to be because I don't see it this process getting us to identifying lands for these screening that are suitable.

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: But the the commissioner would would do that that second Right.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I was asking.

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: Who's Who's the end result? Who are you trying to do something for and at what level of screening?

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: Right, the commissioner will produce that for us. That's the second part of it.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And so I was concerned that this was the final step, but at the bottom of third page, it says that it's in the process of developing. No I know but sometimes So that

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: we are trying to do is get to a point where we have identified some properties that have a potential to move to the next level of screening, if that makes sense. Exactly. If we were looking at it as an ending result, this doesn't get us there. Yep,

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's fair. Is it helpful, I've kind of gone a little bit out of order, but is it helpful if I show you the executive order just so you can see what GFC was responding to and what the House was responding to? Here's your executive order, and the relevant piece is this 4.1, and that's what you're saying, I think, in front of you. By 12/01/2025, each state agency and department owning real property shops with BGS and GHCD, lead inventory of un- and underutilized properties suitable for multi family housing development, housing units built, mobile support and shelter construction rehabilitation as defined by the Secretary of Commerce and Community Development. That's on the screening criteria you got filled with. Assessment of multi family housing development feasibility and infrastructure capacity and recommendations for disposal of long term lease arrangements to support the region of the state's housing unit generation goals. So that was something that was produced, executive order, executive branch responded to that request, and then the results went exclusively to the executive branch, right, it's just sending those to BGS and THCD, and the House was saying, We want in on this. We want to receive the same kind of information, and we think that this would be useful to receive for the next five years. It's winnowed down even from this because the House did debate including something like an assessment of housing development feasibility structure capacity. It seemed maybe too demanding. The last stages of the House's process to arrive at their language involved bringing in the Commissioner of Housing and Community Development, and he spoke to what they could and couldn't do, and I will just say that the committee aspirations and institutions seemed excited by what the commissioner was able to bring that was responsive to the executive order to stand up. If we could just get this the next five years, that it'd be summoned.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So I have a question on 4.2 expedited disposal process, which I know that wasn't on our agenda to talk about, but this committee is involved and has a role in selling or donating state property. So does that expedited disposal process, Does it give some authority to the administration that would limit this committee's authority?

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I'm aware of. I will say that I don't know anything about this 4.2, but it shouldn't, the executive order should not conflict with existing law, that's what I would say. Now whether it does, I don't know.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Are you the right person to ask to figure that out?

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think we would want to hear from those folks what their streamlined procedures are to know if something is happening. Okay.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah. Because it's something may have already happened is my concern. But okay.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Yeah. I mean, those things typically come through. Yep.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Alright. So then back to the list.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Are there other things you guys would like to see? Would you like me to pull up the side by side again, or just focus on one of the, I know it can be sometimes hard to read this month's text, would you like me to pull up either the Senate or House proposal in larger formats? I mean, the

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: side by side, mean, that's pretty much it. The House version actually, if I'm not mistaken, if you could scroll down from the house, Yes, did the house version, right, no address, actually did the two pronged clearinghouse, what the Senate person did, which I think you should have the two pronged clearinghouse, my opinion.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, mean, this emerged from further development, idea that we put out, it's not something the Senate rejected or, this is just something that emerged in recent development in that committee. The Senate proposal would just touch the BGS inventory process, and so what you would have is just these updates on the I If the focus is truly on the housing piece, then you're going roll up to section two of the housing proposal. If it's just about the inventory process, these are the differences between the two there.

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: Right. At least the housing piece is the two pronged, and it's exactly what we want. I would defer

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, one of the points I raised to the House Committee was if all you're trying to get is this, you don't need to touch the PGS inventory process at all to do that. There's nothing about section two that's predicated on the updates in section one. From my perspective, you would ride the updates to section one because you were striking a compromise between the initial approach trying to find property that was invertible into housing was trying to restrict and comply with the jurisdiction that you guys fall within, and now you've got this odd structure where you do touch the BGS inventory process, but also create this, to me, is an outright outhousing thing, right? Yes. It just happens to say, do this as part of your BJS inventory. Right,

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: so this is time limited, basically? It is time limited, it's not a ongoing professional Will it go away after?

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You would receive these, the inventories would be conducted through calendar year 2030 and the final year in which you would receive this kind of information would be January 2031, would be your final report under this session.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And the section would still remain on the books?

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is a session law provision, but the updates to the inventory process are permanent. This is an update to the Great Books.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay, do the Senate proposals

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: in

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: the first two paragraphs conflict with language?

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. Okay. Frankly, there's not a lot of relationship between one and two. The hook is just that this section's inventory process is what's used to identify these pieces. Okay. If I could add one more thing, you may have noticed that I just called out in subsection A, each parcel under its ownership meets all the screening criteria developed by the department for the executive order. There are different ways to do this. The House could have set outright each of those screening criteria, but the reason this was done was just to make it clear, this is meant to be gathering the same exact information that was gathered for the executive order, so they didn't want to open the door necessarily to relitigating that piece. Right. Also, those screening criteria have already been provided to the agencies, that's how the department received the information that they did, there's already an understanding between the agencies and BGS, right, as to what kind of information is being sought. So, no reason to duplicate efforts here if, in fact, they just supply the information that they already know how to supply because they've just done it in the person's.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay, so question on that. So the whole process hasn't been done yet? Just

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just the screening. The thing that you're leveraging from the executive order is the screening. Right. Those four criteria.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And then the screening that the commissioner of housing and community development does, would that person be able to, I guess yes. What my question is, are the criteria for that person identified or can they not change? I think that can change over the years.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, and that's unrelated to the executive order, right? This is a request that for purposes of this section, the commissioner will make a determination whether any of those properties that have been screened would be suitable for housing development. That can change approach over the years, and the thing you would know is you get an explanation. That's the last piece of explanation of the commissioner's determination, so the commissioner will come in and explain to you why those were identified. There are no prescribing bases. This is said, you have the expertise as commissioner of housing, community, and design. You tell us. Right.

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: Basically, what this bill does is grades this list every year.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Something like that. I think it's different because that may be the full inventory and what you would get is an additional, the kind of more meaningful determination, what amount of that inventory is suitable for asset development.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: It would be a subset of the list.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly, exactly. It would be Farrell's discretionary, exactly.

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: I I said Farrell, but maybe.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. Does

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: that make sense? Yeah.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: It does. Any other questions or process questions? What we'll have to do is schedule a time.

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: I don't think there's a lot of differences now that I understand where we're getting to, which

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is not

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: an end product but a step. Information gathering, yep. Right.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Have y'all appointed?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yes. Yes, the three of us. Okay. So I don't know who goes first, I'll figure that out. I'll call

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's you guys. Because we were

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: the pair last time I thought, but.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I should know. Maybe it's Trying to remember if it's the origination or if it's who can test the last.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Oh, so we can test it. So we call for the

[Joseph "Joe" Major (Member)]: conference. I'm sure we can find the rules.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And I don't think there's a deadline of when we need to do it other than end of session. But I'd rather do it.

[Unidentified Senate Institutions Committee Member]: Yeah, it's a lot simpler than where I thought we were trying to get to.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you have anything else from me?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: No. I like that. I remember four point two.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Just the four point two.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I think you should call in BGS and was it transportation?

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah, yeah, BGS and transportation, but I just would like to know the authorities.

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

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yes. Okay, great. Cool. You don't want to talk about it now. You just want to.

[John Ray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I'll relay. Yeah, okay.

[Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. All right, so we are adjourned. Thank you.