Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay, we are here in Senate institutions and it is Thursday, 04/23/2026. And we are reviewing and hoping to vote out H952, which is capital bill. And we have our staff with us. It does say Juan and Minola is going to be here. Hopefully she will be here. But we'll start with the language and then we'll go to the spreadsheets and John Gray, legislative counsel, is here to

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: August through. Perfect. Good afternoon, everyone. Happy April 23. I will in just a second could I get screen sharing privileges, Lindsay? In just a second, I will screen share with you draft 3.1 with just a few tweaks from what you saw yesterday. Some of the changes are not visible because they're a deletion. I will call that out when we get there, and the thing to know is that at this point, all changes you've seen previously are in yellow highlight. They indicate changes against the house, and the new additions are in blue, which for today matches Scott's spreadsheet edition, so some nice synchronicity. Sorry, Lindsay, would you mind granting screen sharing privileges? Thank you. Here to we go. It's draft 3.1. There's gonna be no updates to section two. So this has your major maintenance figure from yesterday. Has the 25 ks increase, for the 2nd Floor of fire escape design? I think we've left it at that language, but let me know if you needed something different in that space.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: I'm good. Everybody else?

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: I know that there was specific discussion on this point.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yes.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Okay, the second instance does have a hidden change, it also has these visible changes. So on page three, what you see in blue, new additions, $4.30 ks in bonding for the Newport Northern State Correctional Facility boiler replacement. That is in addition to the 1,000,000 in cash, So that's 1,430,000 total. And then a new concept here, testimony that you heard yesterday, 220,000 to Recovery House Inc. Residential Treatment Center renovations. So in total, I'm gonna try to do some of the same tracking I provided yesterday, that is an addition of six fifty ks couponing, so you need to find that somewhere. One of the places it's found is that yesterday you had three fifty ks's for the EV charging stations, and that is now removed, So if you take that from that six fifty, you have 300,000 that you need to find in the remainder of the sessions to net out.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So let me just clarify or add to that. So the funding for the EVs is taken out entirely? So

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: those are your updates to section three, which is funds that flow through BGS for AHS and the lease specific projects. Grant programs, there are some changes here. You'll recall that yesterday, the change you saw for the historic preservation grant and the historic farm preservation grant was to increase from 300 to 550,000, and you see that reduced today. You have an increase of 100 k from what came over, 400 k for each of those grant programs, but against yesterday's proposal, that is a savings of 300 k, right, it's 150 reduced for each grant program, totaling 300 k, which evens out with the 300 that you were looking for. So at this point, you are even against the proposal from yesterday, and the reason I formulated that way is that we talked yesterday about how yesterday's proposal worked out mathematically, but we just compare against yesterday's, we should confirm this type. So 400 ks for each of those,

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: okay, not

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: sacred aggregate figures. The fourth instance of amendment, this has remained the same throughout the graphs that you've seen, this is at 100 ks to ANR, technical support, municipalities to design and implement stormwater utilities. There's policy language speaking to stormwater utilities as well. The fifth instance of amendment, I think this is the same as yesterday, this is your cash section. That looks fine. I'm not a liar. Yeah. Same figures as you've seen throughout the drafts. 1,000,000 for that statewide grid in a partial stormwater compliance. Nothing new there. 2,700,000 for door control upgrades, same as yesterday. 500,000 for the Newport Harbor District Correctional Facility sprinkler system upgrades, same as yesterday. I'll just call out again the boiler replacement there for a $1,000,000 figure, which is added to that four thirty ks the bonding section. Then same as yesterday, you'll recall that the language for the shift in the Regional Correctional Facility Maintenance and Renovations, Doctor. K. So, one of the biggest reductions to call in this section, again, with yesterday, they do not change this, but just to remind you, the House had proposed 3,000,000 for this installation of Wi Fi systems. That is now your proposal, reduction of 2,750,000 down to $2.50 ks. New policy language on page nine. You will recall that the bill sets out, authority for ANR to enter into a long term lease use of the structure at the Little River State Park, and that language specifically said that in FY '27, the commissioner is, or I'm sorry, Commissioner Forest Park's rep is authorized to enter into a lease, and certain conditions were specified. If you're interested, I'm happy to flip back to the original language so you can see it, but it's just a one word or two word change when you think about it here. Instead of saying that the commissioner is authorized to enter into a lease, it's authorized to negotiate a lease. I will call out what I think the intention here is to do is I think there's a desire to see the lease before anything happens, so didn't want to outright grant authority to enter into it before the legislature could put eyes on it to negotiate. I would call out that even if you didn't have any section authorizing this, folks are of course already able to talk to folks and try to figure out what to do with this, and they could bring you a proposal for a lease even if you didn't grant them the specific ability, but just calling out what I think the intended effect is of this change.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah, and let me, especially because I was gonna No, speak to that, but

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: maybe you may answer my question, so we'll go ahead.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So I had a concern, still do have a concern about the generous nature of the existing language which would allow the Forest Parks and Recreation folks to enter into a lease and the language that we have received just says it has to have fee, it has to have certain things, but it doesn't talk about parameters. There aren't any guidelines on the levels of those items that would typically be in the lease. And what I have found is I asked them for additional information and I'm happy to share it. It's a great project. They received a federal grant and a substantial federal grant and so they should have the funding to renovate the house, the historic house, but I've only had a day to look at it. So we don't have time to put any additional meaningful language in this bill other than this, which is to have them have to either, and this doesn't even say come to the legislature,

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: just allows them to negotiate. Another way to think about sort of within the trap of how the legislature operates the practical effect of doing this, is that it would preserve this section for discussion and conference committee. So if you did have the opportunity to investigate conditions you would like included in the list, and I'll just flip over to the one. This is the list of conditions on H-nine 52 right here. One, two, three, four, and eight. Perhaps that would preserve time to consider a condition that could be added to these requirements. So that's one functional effect of making this change, is to open up and just for Senator Benson's benefit, who may be less familiar with conference committees, the structure for conference committees is that you're intended to focus on only points of disagreement among the chambers as to the bill. I say intended to because you can do all sorts of things in Congress Committee. What's really raised is that if you don't stick within the parameters of disagreement between the chamber, someone on the floor could raise an objection on the basis that you hadn't stuck within the But grand jury even then, if someone makes that objection, the chamber can overrule the objection, and in fact, I saw that happen last year with the head bill. So it happens, just noting that that's what people mean when they say, Oh, we're just making a tweak here to preserve this for Confidence Committee, it's creating a disagreement in the chamber so that we can discuss how Confidence is.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Member)]: I just want to add that I don't think that Parks and Recreation is gonna do anything injurious to themselves as far as negotiate a lease moving forward. I don't think that they've been reckless in any way, shape or form, and and past projects that they've done. Know, they have the dollars to move forward on

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: a great

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Member)]: project. Sometimes we have to put these departments do what's right for themselves.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Thank you. I don't think they would do something injurious to themselves. I do have concerns about the value to the state and not getting what the state should get from

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Member)]: Yeah, I think sometimes you have to trust that these departments who have been around for a long time are going to do the right thing.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah, that's a conversation. But yes, I understand.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: So I guess my question is, I'm just trying to understand what the language that's here is listening to the testimony. They wanted really to move ahead this summer with the renovations because they're really concerned if they let the building sit another year, there might not be something to renovate. Whether that's true or not, I don't know. I'm just listening to what was said. So my question, John, is, is as this language sits here, if they are successful in negotiating what they feel to be, an appropriate lease agreement with meeting those who approves that or what's the process? Can they move forward this summer? They can't move summer. I'm trying

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: to understand what this does in terms of the project project schedule. In this case, and I'm just gonna jump back to the initial language. As received from the House, this grant in FY twenty seven, so starting July 1, the Commissioner of Forest Person and Recreation Authority to enter into a long term lease for use of that structure meeting these specific conditions. Once these conditions are met, which maybe they could already meet them, I'm just saying hypothetically, in advance of July 1, then on July 1 they would have the authority at that point to enter into the lease if that's what's required to make the change that you're discussing. The change that would happen here is they would no longer have the authority to enter into the lease. This is just authority to negotiate. Now, maybe someone would try to make the argument that they think negotiating encompasses entrance into or agreement across at least. I could see someone trying to make that argument, but the intended effect here would be potentially to delay a process if the conditions are met and basically allow the legislature an opportunity to see the lease next session before it even happened. That's my understanding of what is sought here.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And I also expect that if we do include this language that the committee conference will change it.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: I'm just trying to how

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: it will change it. Know what

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: this limits or allows or doesn't allow to happen And so I just heard you say it would not allow them potentially to move forward this summer because we still have to get legislative approval of January or would have ever for the actual lease Right. Yes.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: So I like the project. I understand the chair's concerns. So I'm supportive of this change mostly so that we can give ourselves more time to try to either alleviate concerns, whether it's in the bulletin 3.5 or something more that we could put in to have it feel more comfortable for us to go forward with the lease. So give that opportunity for the conference committee. So, although I like the project I think that we should do this so that we have that more time to make sure that

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Member)]: it gets all the boundaries. Yeah, I'm just trying

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: to make sure I understand what the language would be.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Even though this would, unless we had a very

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: clever attorney that could prevent them

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: from going forward. Wanted this became law, but I think in the end, we don't necessarily expect to have to become law. We're looking at better language, the client. Got it.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Did you have some

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Was there a time constraint that we're under at all? For moving the bill or for for, not only moving the bill, but getting Oh, I don't if it's helpful, but the specific language here is that the authority exists exclusively in that white chart of seven. So what's contemplated is that within the next year essentially, it's just with A and B.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Yeah, I'm sorry. No, no, go ahead. The grant that, I guess it's the Hudson Association, that has a pretty long deadline. The concern was making sure that it's brought forthward sooner than later regarding the state of the starting of the property. Right. Making sure that happens quite quickly and that's what the house's language had it even as later.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Right, and it's August 2031.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: The grant done that?

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Right. That didn't seem to be in benefit at all. Yeah. Additional ability. Right.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So they also said they were expected to have it completed this time next year, the agreement completed this time next year, not the follow-up.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Shall I keep going? All right, are we good

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: or okay with this?

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Remainder of the seconds you've already seen. Yellow highlight indicating differences against the House that you've seen previously. So, the instance of amendment is repealing that authority to sell 110 State Street as discussed both yesterday and the day before. And the eighth instance of that stormwater and utilities language, also previously discussed, effective on passage, and that is if you have the committee vote itself extending on the page 11, but you basically have a 10 pinched nine eleven.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And we didn't have to do a strike off.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Didn't have to do a strike off, yep. Which makes conference committee a bit clearer for showing what the differences between the chambers are, although I would also sort of understand if someone tried to make the argument that in a money bill in which it's all a limited pool of funds, so everything should be touched, like I would understand that argument, but I don't know how it would be responded.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Perfect. Any more questions for John? Okay? That Thank answers you. Do you all have anything? Okay. I mean, don't have to speak if you don't mind. Just We give you an

[Emily Kasicki, Deputy Commissioner, BGS]: didn't have anything specific. We were here in case there are any questions of us, full of information or wanted our resources. You.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: And for the record, it's BGS folks.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: You.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Moore, District Fiscal Office. John pretty much explained already the changes in the language, which are reflected in the spreadsheet, but just so we're very clear, changes from yesterday. You have yesterday's spreadsheet and today's spreadsheet or just the spreadsheet one way or the other. Line 41 a, which was these characters from yesterday, is no longer on today's spreadsheet. I removed that, so you won't see it on today's, which is draft six Forty a. Yeah. 41 a. Yes.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So you're telling us where something is that we can't see, which I appreciate.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: If you look at yesterday, you'll see it. But it's gone up to that, yeah. I understand. So that, as John has mentioned, freed us 350,000 in bonded dollars. On lines forty six and forty seven, you'll see both of those yesterday and today, we reduced what we had intended to increase. So now the total increase is only 100,000, but in doing so that freed up another 300,000. So a grand total of $650,000 has our freedom and the change we made this morning in discussions with our chair. And then I added one more line, that was line 32A, dollars 220,000 for the Recovery House Inc. That leaves the remainder of $430,000 which we added back to the boiler replacement line 29. So the boiler replacement now is 1,430,000 between bonded and catholic.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Member)]: So why didn't we take the $1,500,000 that was basically offered to us from BTS yesterday?

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Which month? The $1,500,000 that we We allocated dollars.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Oh, because that was for the women's facility. That was if it had been for general, I was excited about it, but it was just for the women's facility.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: A couple notes on that, one of which is, as of all these things, they are basically living documents and in inspections with the commissioner yesterday afternoon of that 1,500,000. We found every yesterday afternoon that half of 1,000,000 was already gone. They actually had a contract encumbered it and spent it, so that was And the other part of the $1,500,000 to $1,000,000 was already reduced as well just to the nature of actions that are taken in the contracts and the incumbents and everything else. It was about $1,500,000 to begin with, but I think the referring, Senator Ingalls, to the idea of we could, as Senator Benson was saying yesterday, we could take that $1,500,000 back, bring up the half million from the women's prisons to do other things. But as with all things, it might get a little bit more complicated. There was less money coming to find out accurately ran more reports after everyone left it. So it's part of the discussion as well. Do you know how much

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: actually is there available?

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: It's a better question for BGS only because I know we were talking yesterday, but from what I saw from mentioned it only was closer to like 700, $800,000, you know, like half of what it was. But where it stands right this minute because it could change while I'm talking but in general terms.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Because I thought we heard two kind of things in terms of meeting. One was still trying to I know I beat this one to death, but the the boiler, getting to full full allocation there, but also that, they needed additional funds to do the bathroom renovations at the crescents, so I would think whether it's 1,500,000 or 800,000, if we could claw back in that money and get it to those needs, that we would satisfy a couple of things because you need to fix the bathrooms in the women's prison.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Right and my understanding is that you do have funding for that.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Well, the 500 we put in there was to make the changes and be able to deal with the overpopulation.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: I thought it was for the restrooms also. Or maybe this a good time

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: for the question.

[Emily Kasicki, Deputy Commissioner, BGS]: Sure. Emily Kasicki, Deputy Commissioner of BGS for the record. So I think there are many maintenance needs at the existing with this facility. One, the most pressing one that we've identified is the bathroom, upgrading the bathrooms, of which we have a rough cost estimate of 600,000 for that work. Separately, as you heard, there's a desire to make some, possibly make some changes in the spaces due to the number of inmates in the facility. And so, as a result, we'd be looking at more than 500,000 just to do those renovations for the bathroom likely would be our biggest priority. And we don't have an existing funding source to cover that kind of work. It wouldn't be easily met within our future maintenance budget. So, part of what you heard from Commissioner Bennington was a flexibility to use some of those older previous appropriations to address some of those.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Whatever you left over from, as I mentioned, things consulates living document, whatever's left over statutorily will come back to the bottom line next year. But with that said, I'll only issues often that do they know

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: that their money's aging out. We'll spend it faster, stronger. I'm just looking at current need. If it's ability for us to draw that back early and be able to address what appears to be, I haven't seen it, I approved Senator Major's descriptions, which tells me it needs to get addressed, then that would make sense to me and also be able to maybe get a little more into the boiler to get that closer, that's just my thought.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Right and you'll know that we 430,000 into that, into the boiler so we're definitely in much better shape than we were at the house level. Yeah. And I also understand that it's a two year project And Joe was saying that he would, I mean the whole project with the ponds and the boiler.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Not to speak for Joe, of course, but my recollection is he said, whatever you don't appropriate this year, he's gonna have to report for next year. And that's 2,000,000 this year, 1,000,000 this year, it'll be 1,000,000 next year, 2,000,000 next year. Yep. Just depends how we'll

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: have him face the project.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: I don't wanna speak for it, of course.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Member)]: So I'm just point blank. I've been very honest right from the study about where I

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: would be on this bill.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Member)]: Then it was with the governor's letter, which I'm appreciative of where we got to. We are asking $2,000,000 for a project that we've put in off for three capital bills. We are getting closer to it, and I will still be a no on this, and I will compromise. If we can't get to 1,700,000 on that boiler, then I I I'll just be a no on the bill, and it's just the way I'm gonna be. That's my compromise. I appreciate all the other work that's gone on and done, but this is a capital bill. This is for capital improvements. These things have been recognized. There's other fluff in there that's been put in there that isn't capital as far as I'm concerned, and that's fine. But this is a project that needs to move forward. It happens to be in my district. That is neither here nor there. We've been working on this for a long time. Get to 1.7. I'll go, yes. I'll hold my nose on the other stuff, and that's the way it is for me.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So it's 250,000 Well is what you're looking for.

[Sen. Russ Ingalls (Member)]: I'm looking for whatever it is to get it to 1,700,000. Yeah.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: So how do we get to know what that potential callback about this? And how do we get it in here?

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: So that helps me. Have to make

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Well, we certainly have more than $2,250,000 in those accounts.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Correct. I'm also trying to look at the bathroom situation. Right.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Which you have, we have $500,000 in that now. We're saying it's 600,000.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Just for that. Right. I asked you just mechanically how we would do it. Not mechanically, but statutorily. Yeah. Because we we just make a new reallocation in Section 17 that we have on our our spreadsheet. That's yeah. This is all bonding. Whatever that amount is within the reality of it, then we'd stick it. Stick them out to somewhere else. Yep. So how do we find out how much is actually theirs? I've mentioned a couple times whenever that money is appropriate and goes into a specific department ID, DEBT ID is what it's called, it'd have to really be a question for BGS to look and see which of those, I think there were four or five that kept IDPs, and where they stand today and present. I know the older ones were not Right. They were reduced, so it's really kind of, of the four or five or you know which ones could they?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Well we have the IDs from the commissioner that are for the women's prison which is where we have the most funding. So we could take it just from one of those and put some of that into the Newport boiler and the amount that we gave. Well, I don't So, the 500 that we have there in the coverage of prison currently, that was supposed to be for just general?

[Emily Kasicki, Deputy Commissioner, BGS]: Yeah, my understanding of the language is it would give us pretty broad flexibility for general renovations and maintenance.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So how much would we need in total? Because if we had 500,000 previously and the restrooms are 600,000, how much of an overlap do you think there is? Or would it have to be 1,100,000? So,

[Emily Kasicki, Deputy Commissioner, BGS]: I mean, and to be clear, like the commissioner wasn't asking for any new money. She would ask for, again, the flexibility for some of those previous appropriations for the new facility to be used by the existing facility. So, and I do have the act numbers and the balances, that I can go over if that's helpful. But again, so I don't I'm not aware of a specific dollar amount request from the commissioner, just sharing that that flexibility would be helpful. Our estimate with bathrooms, which is our identified top feed, is at least $600,000 and we are aware of other work potentially coming for renovations to address the crowding.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Yeah, but we're also looking for more, like $2.50.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: 270, if you're calling.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: 270 to get the Russ' numbers.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Can I do 50? No,

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: it's 430, he told me, 270.

[Emily Kasicki, Deputy Commissioner, BGS]: Oh, okay. Quite bad. Sorry to clarify. The commissioner had asked for 1,000,000 of flexibility within the spending.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: So, 1,000,000 total for the $506,100 essentially? Yes. So, before, yeah. Okay.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: So then we would be looking for 1.27. And we've been asked about what the number is that's still in the 2021 allocations. And it was mentioned that she has it, so. So,

[Emily Kasicki, Deputy Commissioner, BGS]: tax and resolves number 50 of twenty twenty one, section three b one, the appropriation was 1,000,000. There's currently a balance of $868,850. And there are also appropriations for 2023.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Right. Significantly higher. Yeah. But that older is what we would, like, want to extend with.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: And that's total from 2021?

[Emily Kasicki, Deputy Commissioner, BGS]: There was an additional appropriation from 2021 that's been more or less exhausted. There's like a very nominal value.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Would be $868.5

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: $800,000 $8,800

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: All right, and so we would need to take 400 plus the $2.70 from that. Is that right?

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: It depends on how you're trying to get to them.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Well, if we're trying to get them to a million on, line 32

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Then you would need half 1,000,000 more. I

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: thought it was I thought it was 600. I thought it's 500. It's

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: it's 500 now. And if you're trying to use a million at the risk of doing math in public, you get from 500 to a million, it means another 500.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Right. I got that one. That math I can do. But I thought we were at 600.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: Okay. Might be I I think we

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Why don't we take a break and do some math and come back? Do you think?

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Sounds like you need 700 something. You have 800 something available. Yeah. I was like, that works to me.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: Yeah. But if we go with Rob's slide, which is he proposed yesterday, it would say I hate to remember that. I remember that. I know. Even if you put more money into the women's prison, what it says, it gives them the flexibility to use that for renovation, and any that they don't use then moves to the new facility. Right? And that was what that was the old show. When it could seem to me it it cleaner to just move the whole piece, close that one out, put what we need in the boiler, and then put the rest in the women's prison, and then it gives the PTS the flexibility to deal with that, fix what they need to address the overcrowding and any that they don't need can go towards the new facility. But it

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: won't be much. Yeah. And and technically, that wouldn't take anything away from holding on this facility of the 500 that we have here as long as that Visage also Stays. Yeah. Whatever's left stays. Yeah. And that's what I

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, it takes away from the fund balance. That's that was my

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: concern. Well, wouldn't. But, The

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: 15,000,000 won't just stay. We would tap into that.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Right?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: No, no, I count everything that it's has been allocated as the fund balance. We don't we don't talk about the fund balance. Yep. But but that is what we

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: But so right now, there's $860,000 the fund balance from a bunch of So the idea is to take that 800,000 and some odd

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: $68,000 add

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: the 500 to it, and then have that be in the line that's for the one that's facility, or for renovation, or $2.70 of it is for the boiler. So if it's all used, then, yeah, the the fund balance would be reduced. But if it's not all used, then

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Yeah. Right. Then it would go

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: over. You know, you could potentially if none of it that's worth it. The one thing I would point out is the current $500,000 in spreadsheet of the bill isn't captured. Right. So we have So

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: we put on. Yeah.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Okay.

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: So you know, can, mathematically, if we take $8.60 some odd thousand, put it to the bottom line, put 500,000 of that to the women's correctional and then $2.70 to the boiler, then whatever remaining back for women's correction, technically we're taking money from the women's facility number to reallocate. Now it's all fungible, it's all cat, it's all bonded, it's all fungible. How we're taking out the funding, etcetera, etcetera. It's all on big part in some ways.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: All right, I'm fine with that.

[Sen. John Benson (Member)]: I think that works. Gets us $2.70 or or or 1.7. 1.7 on the board order. Just giving us money to address the person. And that's a good situation.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Can I just confirm my understanding? Because I think there's maybe one piece I'm missing. You're reallocating 868 from this '20 whatever the total figure is from the 2021. You're applying $2.70 of that to the boiler replacement to make whole that provision. Are you then applying the balance of the $8.78 after the removal of $2.70 entirely to the women's facility as if you're maintaining essentially fresh initial allocation, or are you just taking 500 of that balance and then applying roughly 100 ks to other various types?

[Scott Moore, Joint Fiscal Office analyst]: The

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: first. Okay. So it's applying the balance after reducing by $2.70.

[Emily Kasicki, Deputy Commissioner, BGS]: And with the expectation that if they don't spend it all, it will roll over

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: into the women's facility again. I mean, know that it's not, it can't necessarily be that way, but that's

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: I mean, the line item is for, we'll use the, I'll go back and watch the testimony from yesterday, but the language proposed for that line item, whatever the balance is, is relatively expansive as to facilities per women's population, as I would call it.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Right, right.

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Bidding pompous, etcetera, blah, blah. Okay. Do you guys want me to leave the room and go listen to that and figure out what I'm going do?

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Sure, why don't we, let's adjourn briefly and so we can update the spreadsheet and update the language and we'll get back, what, ten minutes, twenty minutes? Do wanna do twenty minutes?

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Can we do, we can shoot for twenty, I guess.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Oh, if that's well then half an hour, do you want half Half

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: an hour would be great.

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. So we'll

[John Gray, Legislative Counsel]: Sounds all needed

[Sen. Wendy Harrison (Chair)]: and then we'll be back at three at the forty.