 Good afternoon folks. This is a joint meeting of the House Corrections and Institutions Committee and the Senate Institutions Committee. We are going to be going over a real high-level view of the governor's proposed capital budget for the next two fiscal years. As you well know we do do a two-year budget. We are the only budget that we work on a two-year budget. All the other budgets that we address in the legislature are for one fiscal year. So keep that in mind when you hear some numbers. It may be for both years it may not be for just FY 22. And we have with us today folks from the administration from the secretary's office of the administration as well as the Department of Buildings and General Services. So for folks when they begin to testify if you could just introduce yourselves for the record and I will now turn it over to Kristen Clouser who I believe is Deputy Secretary of the Agency of Administration and she's the one who did a lot of the work to put together the capital budget. So it's all yours. Thank you Madam Chair. For the record that my name is Kristen Clouser. I'm the Deputy Secretary of the Administration and I'm very happy to be presenting to all of you the governor's recommended capital bill for FY 22 and 23. I'll start with some highlights within the capital bill and then I will ask Phil to bring up the capital bill spreadsheet and we'll go through at a fairly high level the spreadsheet and then we'll open up for questions. I'm joined today by Commissioner Fitch of the BGS and also Eric Philcorn from BGS. So they'll be jumping in if there's questions as well. With respect to some highlights you'll see a lot of the themes that the governor just spoke about in his speech sprinkled throughout the capital bill. There's investments in maintaining infrastructure especially natural resources and parks. There is a 10 million dollar investment in major maintenance for forests and parks that's over the biennium. There's also a million dollar investment in ADA accessible cabins. You'll also see a maintaining the commitment to the most vulnerable. There's funding within this capital bill for a 16 bed secure residential facility, secure residential psychiatric facility. There's also investments in the correctional facilities that are sprinkled throughout. There are some significant investments to help rebuild and strengthen our economy. I think we all heard the governor talk about an additional 1.4 million dollars which is in this capital bill to add to the 2.8 million dollars that is typically invested in the building communities grants. The governor highlighted what some of those grants did today in his speech but those are 8 unique grants and they have seen dramatic increase in requests for funding over the last couple of years and so we've added money in this capital bill to increase the total funding for those grants. Also, I just can I just interrupt you for a moment. I don't know Alice if you have yours on the screen, but I don't have anything on the screen. No, we don't. Okay. We try to at least put that up. Why don't we put that up so I can explain what the columns are. I was waiting for Deputy Secretary to tell me to put it up. Is it okay to put it up now? Sure. Why don't we put it up right now and then I can and I'm happy to go through kind of the layout of the spreadsheet to just familiarize folks. That would be helpful because it's really only one column that that is the governor's recommended budget. So I don't want people to get too consumed with some of the other columns. Can everyone see my screen? Yes. Yes. Is it the right size or would you like it larger? If you can make it larger it would be most helpful. So for folks, I can see you all because I'm going to decrease the size because I haven't printed out. So if you have any questions as we go along possibly just raise your hand in the in your video because I can't see the participants list. Okay, Kristen, if I can kick in again, it's very helpful for the benefit of new members and also for that matter for the public that may be watching this that a real high level understanding of what these columns are all about would be most helpful. Sure. So I'll talk about the spreadsheet just a little bit. The left hand columns, they are titled capital budget departmental requests. Those represent the total department requests that we received for capital funding this year. It's a little over 254 million and that's for the entire biennium. The right hand columns represent the governor's recommended funding for this capital budget. And that is in accordance with the CDAC recommended death issuance of 123 million $180. On the very last, sorry, I feel that we're jumping around, but on page six of this spreadsheet, you'll see the total spending. The total spending is about $3 million over the CDAC recommended debt issuance of 123 180. And that's because there's about $3 million of reversions within the capital bill. So total spending is $126,291,329. So Kristen, the term that we used for reversions is reallocations. So I want to get the committees too confused with the appropriations world because the appropriations world uses reversions. We use reallocations. So for reallocations is about this 3.1 million. That's right. Okay. So do people have questions on the columns? Because if you understand the columns, you'll be okay. Okay. Turn it back over to Kristen. Sure. So since it's up, we'll just start going through by, you'll see each section is attributed to the requesting agency or department. So as an example, section one is buildings and the Department of Buildings and General Services, which is within the agency of the administration. The total request for that department is a little over 44 million. That is on page two. Within the BGS requests, you'll see line items. Some are line items that you've seen in the past, things like major maintenance, security enhancements, engineering, those first four or five rows. Below that, you'll see line items for particular projects that BGS is proposing to fund this year. Those include things like parking garage repairs, roof repairs, security enhancements to the Springfield Correctional Facility. There's some HVAC renovations for the State House, some carpet and drapes, replacements and repairs for the State House. Other infrastructure, major maintenance, project lines within BGS. And together, they make up that total ask of just over 44 million. Section two on page two is the Agency of Human Services. Here's where you'll find the Secure Residential Facility. There's funding request for $11.6 million per biennium and that will complete the construction of the middle sex facility. There was some funding in the capital bill last biennium which began this program and it should be completed in FY22. There's also some money in AHS for statewide correctional facility major maintenance and then a larger line item, $1.5 million, which is budgeted for the Women's Correctional Facility and AHS Multi-Purpose Campus Facility. As many folks know on these both of these committees, there is a feasibility study currently scheduled to be completed this legislative session, hopefully early spring, making recommendations about essentially the future of the correctional facilities. This $1.5 million is intended to be enough to start design and potentially construction of a women's facility but also have some money in place for design work depending on which path and direction we all choose to go in, whether that's just a women's correctional facility, whether that's a women's correctional facility in a campus style facility or as part of a campus style facility. So that's where that $1.5 million comes into play. What you won't see in the Agency of Human Services line is the IT project for the Integrated Eligibility and Enrollment. In the department requests column, you'll see that there was a $9.5 million request for that project. This project has been funded in the capital bill in the past two bienniums. This project was funded through the capital bill. This year, this project was moved into the one of the 12 projects that's included in the $53 million IT fund that the governor talked about in his speech. So the goal is to fund the Integrated Eligibility project through one-time general fund surplus money and the IT fund as opposed to using capital dollars to fund the IT project. Kristen, can I ask you a question? Sure. What I don't see here is any discussion of the replacement for Woodside. What is now becoming known as the covered bridge project in Newbury? Is there anything in the governor's recommendation with respect to that potential facility? There is not. Can I give some where we are on the House side with budget adjustment on that? Yep. There is money in the Department of Children and Family Services for that project renovation. In their budget, they already have $1.2 million, and then in budget adjustment, they've asked for another $3.2 million. So it's $3.2 million for renovations within the Beckett building. Okay. Thank you. And we've recommended some language be added to that to ensure that BGS signs off on the documents and that there is a warranty bond with the project. Thanks. That's in the budget adjustment appropriations budget adjustment. Yep. I have one question, please. Senator Moss. Okay. Just has it been definitely decided whether women's correctional facility will stay where they are and be modernized or change and go over to the Essex facility? Has that been determined yet? Is that still a reconsideration? It has not been determined yet. It hasn't been determined whether where it's going to be located. If it's a new facility or updating that one. That's right. Someone has said something about building one at the Essex facility with side. So nothing has been definite yet. That's right. So the middle sex with the former middle sex, the secure residential facility psychiatric facility is set to be built on the Woodside property. Oh, that's where that's going. Okay. That's right. Okay. Okay. So that's where that's going. And but the women's correctional hasn't been decided. Right. Okay. Thank you. Other questions? I don't see any. Okay. So the next section, section three is judiciary, judiciary section. You'll see that there isn't money included, recommended funding included in this biennium for the judiciary. They're, they've requested funding for an HVAC system, several HVAC systems in the county courthouses. We're working with the judiciary and looking at ways to potentially fund this through CRF funds as it would certainly qualify for that or additional federal money. And they're continuing to pursue what the final amount would be for those improvements. The Barry courthouse security renovation and Sallyport addition. A infrastructure project with respect to the Barry courthouse was also located in BGS's 10 year predictions for their funding. And so what we've done is we've tried to coordinate those two projects. There are some savings if the judiciary's project is done at the same time that BGS's infrastructure is done. And so we've tried to coordinate that project and it's scheduled to begin in FY 24, planning and design. So while there's no money in this biennium, the Barry courthouse is set for hopefully start to start construction in bienniums to come. Section four is the ACCD section. These you'll see, you know, their major maintenance section, which is fully funded, as well as underwater preserves, roadside historic markers and the 63 million, the $63,000 sorry, in the unmarked burial fund is to replenish that fund. They use $63,000 last year after some unanticipated expenses used to provide burial sites for some I think revolutionary war discoveries. So the $63,000 is to replenish that fund can move on to section five. Thank you, Phil, which is on page three. Here's where you'll see the building communities grants. As I mentioned, there are eight different grants. And we have had a pretty significant increase. Last year we had 225 applications between these eight grants and funding was requested at over $3 million just for one year. So there's definitely a lot of need out there. And the proposal is to increase funding to these building grants by $1.4 million over the biennium. Section six is Agency of Education. This is providing funds at the same amount that was provided last biennium for their emergency aid for school construction. Section seven is the University of Vermont. This again, is their is their major maintenance line. And we are proposing funding that is equivalent to the funding Governors recommend in last biennium. Section eight is Vermont State Colleges and and Madam Chair, you'll have to flag me if there are questions because I can only see I haven't seen any. Why don't we stop after the state colleges and then just see if there's anything to that point? Sure. So Section eight is Vermont State Colleges. Vermont State Colleges put in a pretty significant request this year, as you'll see from the left hand columns, almost $40 million. Much of this capital request was part of what the Vermont State Colleges perceive to be or expect to be significant capital costs that will be associated with their transition. They're just estimated costs. What the governor's recommendation for funding level is to fund their major maintenance line, similar, in fact, exactly the same as it was funded last biennium, and not to book capital funds for additional projects associated with their transformation. As we all heard, and I'm sure many of us know from working with the state colleges, their the recommendation on what that transition actually looks like isn't formed yet. And so it seemed premature to book capital construction. In addition, as we just heard the governor talk about, there's 20 million an additional $20 million proposed in the budget to go towards the Vermont State Colleges for bridge funding. Let's just see if there's any questions on these sections up to this point. Chris, did I have one, Joe Benning? Is there CRF dollars available to the state colleges for things like major maintenance? So that's a good question. It depends on what the major maintenance provision is, as to whether or not it would be eligible for CRF. I know in the BAA, there was a recommendation to take some of the CRF fund that was reverted to the CRF account that they couldn't spend in time and provide that back to state colleges for their use. And we're trying to avoid using that money for new programs, but this would seem to be an ideal area to be spending that money on. Just my two cents. What would it need to be eligible? What are some of the major maintenance within the state college system that could be eligible for the CRF dollars? So I don't want to put you on the spot. No, that's okay. It's a good question. And it's a terrible answer that I'm about to give. But the real answer is it depends. So as an example, changes to HVAC, right? If you needed to make improvements or enhancements to HVAC in order to improve the air circulation and quality so that a certain amount of people could be indoors in a space because of COVID, that would be something that's that you could use CRF dollars for, but would also be something that would likely be included in your major maintenance line. So that's one example. There could be lots of others, but it really depends on what the major maintenance, what the maintenance request is and how that could fit into the CRF eligibility requirements and the COVID response. So if the HVAC systems needed to be replaced in my eyes, that issue is going to be gone hopefully in a year. If vaccines are distributed and the COVID situation is relieved, if you have the ability to spend the money instead on something that we've been putting off for a long time like fixing a dormitory, is that money able to be gleaned from CRF dollars? Most of your normal regular capital expenses are not eligible for CRF. I hate to generalize like that, but your traditional capital expenses are not eligible for CRF unless you can show that there's a beneficial use during the eligibility period related to your COVID response. So you can sometimes build it. You can sometimes utilize it for capital construction, but you have to meet all of the CRF criteria, which would mean it would have to be constructed in time to show a beneficial use and related to COVID response. Any other questions? Scott, Representative Campbell. Thank you, Madam Chair. Deputy Secretary Clouser, I hate to go back to the first page, but I must have missed it. Those items at the bottom half of the page were all requested, but not included in the governor's recommended budget. Are those are just those sort of long standing items that are being postponed or could you talk about them just a little bit? Sure. So those items line 23 through 39. That's exactly right. They were requested. They're not funded in this biennium. If we looked out at the 10 year projections, many of these projects would be listed in those 10 year projections. Okay. I guess I must have missed that. Thank you. Anything else? So Alice, this is not sure. So in other words, any deferred maintenance in a college doesn't come under the CRF funds? It would depend what the deferred it would depend on what the deferred maintenance is and how whether or not doing that maintenance now could fit into the criteria of beneficial use and COVID response. And I'm generalizing that criteria. And of course, that's for the old CRF money, right? There may be new. There may be new requirements and criteria for any new federal package that comes down. All right, thank you. Alice, this is probably a good time to send your red flag warning that Senate agriculture needs to have a new room. And I got to put that plug in here and let you know. Yeah, how many times are we going to talk about this? Yeah, we got to fix that problem. And I noticed there's nothing in the recommend from the governor for any of that kind of work at the moment. So Alice, I'm on that committee now, Joe. Okay, we got to get that room changed. Would it qualify for CRF dollars? They're all over 65 years old in there, right? Sorry, we'll be creative. I'm 30. We'll take it out of Springfield. Bring it down to Springfield, right? Anything else before we move on to the Agency of Natural Resources? It's all yours, Kristen. All right. So on page four, Agency of Natural Resources, section nine, you do have a question now. I heard something. It's Michelle. Oh, okay. Sorry, Michelle. So I have it. It's actually a question for an earlier section as well. And I was just kind of pondering when I think it was Senator Benning asked about middle sex and woodside. And I think your answer was we had an earlier bill or an earlier budget that had some dollars related to metal sex. But on this on this budget, we were looking at, there's a number up there, like 11 and a half million, I think, for two years for renovation. I'm trying to understand isn't the old metal sex is becoming what used to be woodside. So how we're sort of we're approving 11 and a half million dollars, two years in a row to rebuild middle sex at woodside. Am I misunderstanding that or is that is that what we're doing? No, so in the last biennium for $4.5 million was appropriated to rebuild to replace the middle sex facility with a new facility, a new 16 bed secure residential psychiatric facility. This $11.6 million requested in this biennium would add to the foot to the money appropriated last biennium and complete the construction of that new facility that is located on the property where the old woods where Woodside is currently located. So the money that was designated for Woodside is basically just to tear down Woodside, because we're not using Woodside anymore. No, I'm just I'm not understanding the two pieces and how they fit together just that the property is the same, but the projects are totally different. The the property is the same for the new psychiatric residential facility and the former Woodside build the the building that house the Woodside program is going to be torn down. That's right. We're using the property that had the Woodside building. We're using that property to build our new secure residential 16 bed mental health facility that will replace the trailers that are in woods that are in middle sex. So we've already appropriated 4.5 million towards the replacement of those trailers. Last year, a year ago today, a year ago now we didn't know where we were going to go. We were thinking of purchasing land to build the new 16 bed secure residential. Then we discussed possibly using the Woodside land because the proposal that worked through last spring and fall was that we close the Woodside program. And that building is closed. So the administration proposed and the legislature agreed in the fall that we would close down Woodside the building totally and demolish it. And we would use the property for building the new secure residential mental health facility. So a 16 bed mental health facility cost about a million dollars of bed to build without land without having to purchase land. So that's what this remaining 11 plus million is for is to finish the design documents, go out to bed and build the facility. Alice, Senator McCormick has a question. OK. Dick, you're going to have to unmute. And first, I just apologize for asking for this because I should know it. But just give me a review. What are we doing to replace the Woodside program? Where is that going? Where's that serve? Where are those services going? Right. Your committee is going to have that discussion next week. But basically part of that answer is a place that's going to be set up in Newbury. It's called Covered Bridge. And we are going on some discussions with Beckett right now about that. Thank you. So, Michelle, did did that clarify your question? Yeah, I guess I'm just surprised how big the number is. I don't remember seeing numbers that big associated with the new product, but this is this stuff is new to me. So, yes, I understand. I'm just a little alarmed by how expensive it is. But there's a lot involved in building a psychiatric care facility, and it usually comes in at about million dollars a bed. And it's for 16 beds. So right now we have about seven beds at the middle sex facility for that. Any other questions before we move to Agency of Natural Resources? Sarah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Deputy Secretary. It's great to have you here. My question focuses on the replacement of the women's correctional facility. As you as I know, you're aware that we've been looking at this for a number of years. And I see that the the request from the Department of Corrections was a little bit more significantly than what the governor's recommending. So do you mind just explaining a little bit more your thinking behind this and where we hope this 1.5 million will get us in comparison to perhaps what the department where they wanted to get us. We're just we're here. We know that that facility is really in dire need of replacement, the building's failing. And, you know, it seems like this is a slower pass or pace slower pace path than than what the department was requesting. So if you have any insights, I'd be interested in hearing that. Or so the. The department requests here requested 11 million dollars for this biennium. And where that request request stems from is a estimate of design costs based on a two year potentially three year old estimate of a eight hundred and fifty bedcampus facility. So that 11 million dollar number was not indicative of the cost of a women's facility necessarily. It was just that an estimated design cost for a larger campus style facility, which was an estimated cost of a larger campus style facility. So what we there's a feasibility study that, as I mentioned, should hopefully come back early spring. And that will give us much better insight into what the costs are to maintain the facilities we have currently, what the operational costs would be of a women's facility compared to a campus style facility, provide some recommendations supported with data. For which direction and path moving forward. The one point five is meant to provide enough funding for design, potential site acquisition for a women's facility. But also potentially start if the recommendation is to move to a campus style facility and if the women's facility is the first part of that larger campus style facility. The one point five would would allow for additional feasibility study, potentially site acquisition. So it's meant to be a placeholder while determining which path to go down. The reason it's but it's a significant placeholder because to your question about urgency, there's a need for a women's facility and we know that. And so this is enough to at least start that design and planning and potentially can, you know, even starting down site acquisition or construction while not committing an 11 million dollar sum to a larger project that we're still pursuing. That's very helpful and that confirms my concern was whether there was a commitment or a lack of commitment from the administration. And it sounds like there's a real commitment to move this forward. And so that teasing it apart in the way you did was very helpful for to understand. Thank you. Right. Any other questions? OK, let's go to natural resources for the third time. So section nine, agency of natural resources has has some exciting features as we as the governor mentioned in his speech and I talked about in some of the highlights. There is a. Recommendation to fully fund the major maintenance line for Forest Parks and Recreation at the departmental request of ten million dollars. There's also an additional million dollars included in this biennium for the construction of additional cabins. In the state parks, you'll notice that there is one point five million dollars proposed for the Waterbury Dam spillway project. That's a larger project that includes some significant federal match. But this is the state match required to fund phase two of that design and construction project, which is a two year phase. Section 10 is clean water. FY 22 is funding recommended at 12 million, which is the clean water boards recommendation. And then there's an 11 million dollar placeholder for FY 23 while waiting for the clean water boards recommendation for funding in that fiscal year. So I want to back up a little bit to the agency of natural resources. Of course, I see that you have the three acre stormwater rule compliance and we did not fund those last year. So you have it here for Forest and Parks. And I'm looking last year, we had some with BGS. It's also in the BGS line. OK, that's where I was trying to find the line 18 stormwater. That's right. So that's your three acre there. Yes. So this part that line 18 and BGS would start the design and plan work for three of the eight projects that would be required in BGS. The reason why we're starting with three is because of the permitting process and the required statutory requirements, three need to be done within the next 18 months. So those would be those would fund those three projects and planning and design for the additional projects. The three acre stormwater compliance on rule on line 103 in A&R section. That's planning and design money for their stormwater compliance. Alice, I have a question. OK, Marcia, where this these hatchery improvements, where's the hatchery that's going to be improved? So there are fish and wildlife would be better at specifically breaking these down. But this is a lump sum improvement to all of the hatcheries. OK, we'll get them in. We always get them in and they go through all the projects for that. And then the clean water section, what is reflected here in FY 22? The 11 million is the recommend recommendations from the Clean Water Board. 12 million in FY 22 and 11. It's an 11 million placeholder for FY 23. But the 12 million is I'm sorry, 11 million. Yeah, I was going to say I don't see. No, you're right. Sorry, I'm looking at the wrong column. 11 million is the Clean Water Board recommendation. OK, questions, other questions? Scott, back up the page at. Let's see, line 100. State share of this federal super fund and state led hazardous waste is requested at 10.4 million and we're not funding it at all. So I just wondered about that. And I'd have to defer to A&R on that on that particular line item as well. Maybe those are anticipated costs down the road. I think that's so. Yeah, I'm sorry, I don't have my 10 year plan in front of me, but that's that's correct because what you're looking at the 10 percent super fund site, that's the total project cost line that you're looking at. They've actually requested nothing for this biennium. Oh, I see. OK, right, right, right, right. And I'm sorry, I don't have my 10 year project. We don't have the 10 year projections out. But when you when you see the 10 year projections, which is a different tab in an alternate spreadsheet, you'll see those funds broken out. Yeah, OK, I'm still learning how to look at this. Sorry, thank you. Me too. It's OK. Other questions from folks. OK, let's go to page five. OK, so Section 11. Is military section we have. We're recommending funding their major maintenance line. Equivalent to the governor's recommended funding last biennium. At one point, eight million dollars. The section 12 is Department of Public Safety. Something to highlight in this section is the Williston Public Safety Field Station. This is a project that received funding last biennium. And this additional five point six million dollars is to complete construction on that project. Which will be completed in FY 22. Section 13 is AAFM. You'll see in that line, the recommendation is to fully fund the department's request for major maintenance on the Big E building. Section 14. Is the Vermont Rural Fire Protection. This is a pass through grant for public safety. We recommend it and for the dry hydrant program. And we have recommended funding at the department request of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. So Christian, this may be out of your bailing work, but one thing we always make sure with the dry hydrant program, they have a staff person to implement it. And it's paid for through the general fund. So we always make sure that it's there in the general fund. So I don't know if you can check on that. I certainly can. But you can't have the program without the person. Maybe I'm a charter anyway, right? It's a very small amount, but it really means a tremendous amount to volunteer fire departments and municipal fire departments. This is a very important program. I'm happy to check on that and get back to you. Okay. Thank you. Karen, Representative Doan. Yes. Thank you, Madam chair. And I have a question regarding the agency of AG. And maybe just not familiar with it, the triple E building. I'm also looking at last year to kind of see where the trends are. And it looks like in this current year, there's a significant amount of money that's going into that building. And so also this year. So if you can help explain to, is it two different projects? Is it continuing it? What's going on there? So it's one project. It's one project. And it, it is, it is in significant need of repair. And maintenance and upkeep. It has been some time since there's been some major maintenance to the building. So that's, that's why the, there has been additional asks last biennium and this biennium. It's just, it reflects the amount of repair that's required for the building. We'll, we'll be getting in the agency of agriculture. And they have a whole presentation on this. So we'll be getting that in. Thank you. Anything else? Okay. Why don't we go to the next slide. Okay. Anything else? Okay. Why don't we go to VHCB? Oh, wait a minute. Sorry. Department of labor. Oh, Department of labor. So there's, there is $1.5 million recommended for department of labor. And this is to perform some. Much speaking of buildings. The building that is currently housed in a Malpelier. Is I think original to the 1960s. And so this is the beginning of some major. Required renovations. And, and this would be. For the major systems, the, you know, heater, chiller, cooler. Major systems within that building. That haven't have not been replaced since the 60s. And so this is the beginning of some major systems. And so this is the beginning of some major systems. Section 16. VHCB. We, the governor's requests. Recommending funding at the same level. As recommended last biennium. The. And in part. Based on the additional $20 million that the. In the budget. For VHCB. So we will also get VHCB and because there is a carve out with a VHCB in the clean water. Arena. Back in section 10. And then they have a separate appropriation here, which usually goes more to the housing side of VHCB, but it also goes to the conservation side. For that as well. So we will be getting into that. A lot deeper. Kristen, this is Joe betting again. If. At the beginning of COVID, the department of labor was suffering significant. IT problems. Has that been corrected or they have an additional ask in some other place. There is an additional ask in the general fund. Budget. It's part of the IT minorization. $53 million IT fund. Commissioner Gresham will kill me if I start quoting the general fund budget now, but I believe there's at least $3 million recommended for that modernization project. And I think there's. There's a lot of potential federal funds or CRF. Funding. To help with that project as well. Okay. Thanks. Any other questions. And that's a good segue into the agency of digital services. So section 17 ADS. There is some. Funding at the requested level for. Funding for that project. And then you will also see a significant request from DMV for a core systems replacement IT project. And again, that funding for that project. Request for that project have been moved to the general fund surplus. Information technologies fund. And then you will see a significant request for that project. And then you will see a significant request for that project. And then you will see a significant request for IT projects in the capital bill. At all this biennium. I hope it stays that way. We do too. Okay. And then. Then we get into the reallocations, correct? That's right. Now for folks, new folks here. I just want to make sure that all of the funding voices have been paid. And there may be a balance in that fund. Or, and, or there could be some projects that. Decided not to go forward for a variety of reasons. So I'll hand it back over to Kristen. Thanks. So that's exactly right. Like for example, line 178 and 179. That project is completed. And I'm going to show you a little bit. And these are extra funds that are being reallocated. The. Other grants that you see the equipment grant pilot and the school safety and security grant. The school safety and security grant. Those are leftover fundings after. The original grant process was run. For $4 million, which was the original granting round. And one 75 is left over. From the 1.5. Million dollar original granting round. And you said again, 173. My 173 is there's 840,000. It's left over from what was the original. Four million. Four million. And then. The 34,000 was left over. 1.5 from 1.5. Okay. Usually the balance that's left over is divided between a dean of the house and the dean of the Senate. There you go. Work covered. I get the bigger portion because I got longer to live. You get 1.6. So. You can keep going on some of them. Sure. So. The VTA wireless. Network. Line 175. There were several RFPs and DPS has just indicated that there's no. No one was interested. There was no response. So that money has been reallocated. That money has been reallocated as well. There's no equipment grants that are on line 176 and 177. Those went through several funding rounds and there. Didn't seem to be much interest. In those programs or grant applications. And so that money has been reallocated as well. That was $1,000. That was money that was previously appropriated. To for fit up and. Renovation costs for fish and wildlife and. For some parks to move into. The Windsor facility, which was formally. The, the prison campus there. And so that was the property for some storage for fish and wildlife. And potentially public safety as well. After. Valent attempt by fish and wildlife and FPR to make it work. They just don't feel like that. Facility will work for their office needs. And that's, you know, That's the way we're going to go. And in part driven by, we're not sure what the. Office make up will be post COVID. So there's a request to reallocate. That $700,000. Is that representative Campbell. Thank you, Madam chair. I'd like to ask a little bit more about a line one 75, So what does that include again? So VTA owns the fiber optic network that loops around the northern part of the Northeast Kingdom. That, as I recall, is that correct? There you are. I'm sorry. This would definitely be, I would have to defer to the Department of Public Service on this particular project. OK. The authority no longer exists. Right. This is capital dollars that we had appropriated to the authority for grant dollars to go out to extend broadband. So the authority no longer exists. These are capital dollars that have not been used in the past two years. So instead of just sitting there, they get reallocated. OK. Alice, just to give you a heads up, the VTA, there's discussion on the Senate side about possibly reconstituting that authority. So that means this money might not be there. It may not be available for us. Yeah. That's what Senator Benning is saying. And what's the point? You may have to find 800,000 projects. And the ownership of the network, the fiber optic line that loops around the Northeast Kingdom, that was owned by VTA too. Wasn't it, Senator Benning? You may be right, Scott, but it was 10 years ago that I was on the VTA board. I mean, I remember that being discussed with the Northeast Kingdom, NEK Broadband Communication Union District, acquiring at least use of that network in order to build up broadband. Yeah, something tells me that they may have had that transferred to them. Yeah. And I just I can't recall, but it's a good question. And it's probably part and parcel of what we'll all be dealing with in the future when we bring public service in to have a conversation. Yeah. OK, thanks. Anything else on the reallocations? Oops, I have one to throw in there, too, then. That fit up for the Windsor facility, has any work been done, or has it stopped completely? And there was no fit up done at all? No fit up done. OK, thank you. So these monies all came from previous capital bills that you see in the reallocation section. These are all previous appropriations from capital bills. So they're capital dollars. So they get what we call reallocated. They go to our bottom line of the capital budget to be spent on other capital projects. That's the mechanism here. So we have total $123 million in bonded capacity, and an additional $3.1 million in these reallocations for a total for two years of $126.2 plus million to be divided between FY 22 and FY 23. So if we say that the VTA, we're going to continue with the VTA proposal, there might be 800,000 that we would not have to reallocate, which means we're in the hole by 800,000 in the budget. That's what that means. It's almost 900,000. Right. So that means you've got to figure out where you're going to find 900,000 in all these proposed projects. That's the mechanism of our work. Anything else for Kristen? Anything else, Kristen, you want to share? No, that completes the spreadsheet. And you all have department descriptions of the individual projects within the book that you should be receiving, hopefully, by the end of the week, depending on how fast the mail service is working. Are there any language changes that you'd like to highlight at all? Sure. So just I don't know if we need to bring anything to it. Yeah, just broad, a real broad, because there's always some language at the back. Yeah, so I think there are some language requests and changes. There's some authority. And I guess the theme of the language this year would be space. So there's a request to tweak some language with respect to the first floor of 133, which is now said to go to ADS. And we'd like to cross ADS out and have some discussions about making that first floor legislative space. Would that be Bobby Starr's committee room? I'll leave that to Commissioner Fitch. Good job. Good job. You can tell him looking out for him. He wanted a bigger room. So there's also language requesting sale of, I think, three buildings on Baldwin Street. And there is a request to sunset language that appeared in the budget bill in FY21 with respect to exclusive use of space by the legislature within the capital complex. And why I say the theme of space is because most of the language changes and requests for authorities is part of what will be a larger conversation with this committee about space planning and what the space needs are of both the executive and the legislative branches, how we make that work within the capital complex, and what the workforce and workplace looks like post-COVID. So that's a broader conversation that folks from BGS mostly will be having with this committee. And the requests for language within the capital bill reflect the beginning of that broader conversation. Great job, Kristin. Great job. Yeah. Yeah, thank you. Very good job. Your first time, you did terrific. I guess so. You have a lot of knowledge of that bill. Wait till we start taking it apart. Well, that's when I send in the departments and agencies, right? If you have a problem, just come see the Senate. We'll take care of it. Exactly right. We'll put it back. Don't worry. And also message them, come see us. We'll take care of it. Oh, well, the fun begins, right? We miss seeing you, Dick, poppin. I know. I can't come into committee room or anything. It's not fun at all. Well, maybe Phil needs to send you some Zoom invites sometimes. I'm being known to us. None of my gun is not the same not going in your room. I know. I know. Next year. Yeah. Anything else for Kristin? No, but Senator Mazza, do you have a matching thing in your pocket for your tie? I can't see it. Yes, I do. OK, I want to be disappointed. All right, OK, all right, OK. Yeah. It wouldn't be it wouldn't be a normal day if he didn't have that. That's right. You got it. You got it. What you can't see is that he's got all of those ensembles attached to an electric cord that he plugs in at night. Joe, you go play a guitar for us in the background. I could. OK, but. Remember, you're on YouTube. You're live. OK, do we have a break now? Yeah, I think we're all did you want to say anything, Commissioner Fitch? Before we I think we're getting ready to finish up. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Jennifer Fitch. I am the BGS commissioner and I believe I'm scheduled to meet with your committee tomorrow at 10 and we will resume our conversation. That is true. So if we're wrapping up, I just want to give you a heads up on some language that may be coming your way. OK, and this is going to seem rather insignificant, but it may require some more discussion later on. My wife bought me a metal detector this past summer for Father's Day. That was a dangerous thing. It's it's become my COVID hobby. But the long story short is I ended up on a beach over on Lake Champlain and I'm not identifying where it was until I'm sure I've finished detecting that beach when I stumbled upon a 1733 British half pence that was buried about a foot and a half down. I've had a Zoom conference with historic preservation over the summer and we're going to try to set up some kind of a program where people can buy per purchase permits and work through the historic preservation in the Arctic state archaeologists because these artifacts are going to disappear one way or the other. Either they'll be stolen or they're going to disintegrate in the ground. And I think the capital bill is the only place I'm going to be able to bring in some kind of a language to make this happen. So pork, pork. Yeah, Joe, Joe wants the highest bidder on that piece. I know it's worth something. Well, this kind of goes with the underwater preserves and the whole piece with historic preservation. Maybe give it to our colon here. Give it to our colon, right? Put it in the museum. Yeah. Well, we will be paired. Anything else before we sign off of YouTube? If not, the House Corrections and Institutions Committee is going to be continuing our work tomorrow morning. And Michael has a question, Mike Morgan. Oh, I'm sorry, Michael. Yep. Thanks, Senator. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just want to double check to verify is that accurate? It is 10 o'clock, not nine o'clock tomorrow. Well, I it's 10 o'clock with Commissioner Fitch, but she has a commitment at nine. What I want to do is when I want us to talk as a committee in terms of. What do we want to any any questions that we have on this or thoughts of testimony for nine o'clock tomorrow morning? So what I'm thinking is we stay on as House Corrections and Institutions Committee, we stay on YouTube so we can have this conversation in the Senate Institutions Committee. Doesn't need to participate in that and they would be free to go. Because it was a last minute thing and we don't have anything to fill in. But I wanted time to talk with the committee and see if there's anything folks would like to weigh in on. Thanks for the running the show this afternoon, Allison. Yeah, you did a good job, like always. Senate, we're on at 1 30 tomorrow. We only need half a day to do what the House takes all day to do. So well, that's what it's a difference. We do all the work and they do all the talking. That's true and enjoyable working with you guys. And we'll see you soon. You thank you. We're signing off. Thanks. Good night. See you guys. Thank you. Bye. So we wanted to get Commissioner Fitch in tomorrow morning at nine o'clock. She has a commitment in Senate judiciary. So I'm just wondering. I hate to kind of start at 10 o'clock, but what I was thinking is maybe we could spend a little bit of time ahead of 10 o'clock and maybe just go over the spreadsheet a little bit more if people have questions or not. So are you thinking like 9 30? You mean the I want to put out what are people? Are you comfortable with the presentation that was done? Do you need more background in terms of in terms of previous capital bills and how that ties in? I'm thinking what Michelle brought up about the linkage there with the secure residential in that project. Not not at this point. I don't think it might be. I mean, in my brain, I mean, new to it. But still, maybe it's premature till we hear more until we delve a little more. That's just my two cents. OK, Scott. Well, I'm curious about all those items on the first page that are being kicked down the road and I wouldn't worry about it. Yeah, well, I wouldn't worry. This this is every year. Well, I'm just curious. I know, and I said, Eric sent us a good point. Ten year project was in the back of the book when we get it. Yeah, there's a 10 year project in Scott. The process that happens and for everyone here, the process that happens to put together a capital budget. In starts about September, August to September of the year. The administration goes to all departments, agencies. What are your requests for capital funding? You're coming here. A lot of this is wish lists. A lot. It's like a grant application. Yeah, a lot of this is part of their 10 year plan, but they're just putting everything on the table. So this for a two year a two year budget with two hundred and fifty four million and departmental request is really not deviating from the norm from what we've seen for years and years. And that's why the administration and Kristen does a deep dive into some of these requests that come in from the departments to really see is this something immediate? Is it health and safety? Is it part of your 10 year plan? Are you going to get the shovel in the ground in the next year or two? Or is this something you'd like to see down the road? So the majority of these is part of the 10 year plan and seeing the project down the road. So it's not something that OK, our high priorities for a lot of these departments and those that are high priorities usually make it into the capital budget. So does that make sense, Eric? Would you work? Yeah. Yeah, we we come in with our with with everything. And, you know, some sometimes there are projects that are we we can wait four years, but the administration doesn't necessarily want to wait four years. So stuff moves up, stuff moves back, stuff moves out years. And then we also look at the out years and decide, well, you know, what's our burn rate on bonding authority? If we can't, you know, we try not to make it too bumpy. But again, if you if you go into the book and you look at at the spreadsheet in the back, which might have to rotate your screen to see if you're looking at it electronically, you can see how the out years play out and you'll see those unfunded projects from this biennium surface in out years. And having the the governor's recommended total be about half of the Department of Request overall is that's normal. Business as usual, absolutely. And the other thing, like if you look down line seven, one, eight chariots parking garage, a total project cost is almost 16 million. We've put in, I think, five or six million already on that. So this is a continuation of and you can only do so much construction in a certain time frame. So you're not going to bond or put more money out there and bank it without spending it. Right. Another thing to watch for is the naming conventions on the projects, because what happens, like, for instance, some of the confusion around middle sex, everything about middle sex was middle sex. Now the thing is going to get built in Essex. But previous appropriations are to a project with the name middle sex in it. And so we try and hold on to the legacy and transition. And there's another one in there for the Berlin Library, which is actually moving the middle sex state police barracks or outpost or whatever you call it, middle sex. So sometimes Berlin is middle sex and sometimes Essex is middle sex and sometimes statewide is something else. OK, there's mud. Thank you. And also for folks, this these projects do not go in the green books. This isn't changing statutes. This is session loss. So quite often with session law in our capital budget, if we want to go back four years on a particular project and Becky can weigh in on this at some point, sometimes it's really hard to track a project in capital bill to capital bill, specifically if we change the name of the project like what Eric is bringing up. We try to leave breadcrumbs. Yeah. So this budget is a continuation of last year's two year budget, which is a continuation of the previous year two year budget. So there's a continuum there that happens. Some of these projects may be new. Some of them last year, we had the three acre parcel. We had a big chunk of money in BGS and Forest and Parks and they weren't ready to go. There was still some question of the three acre parcel, the rule that was going to be enforced. So we zeroed out that funding. Last year, so it's come back this year. So when we take testimony, we'll do a deeper dive on the three acre parcel rule for that. And the Williston, we've been looking at replacing that state police barracks for six, seven years now. And and BGS came back to us. I think it was two years ago, Eric, wasn't it? With the design was a three years ago with the design documents for Williston, it was at twenty four million. And we said, you're going back to the drawing board. And we zeroed that out and we put in the state police barracks and metal sets to be replaced. Instead of the Williston one. So that's how we kind of work those out. So now now they've gone back to the drawing board for the Williston police barracks and they've come back with a different project amount, project cost. So the project has changed in those two years. Those designs have changed. And we'll get into that when we have the testimony for them. So do people want to meet earlier than ten o'clock tomorrow morning to go over anything? That's what I'm trying to figure out, Karen. Yes, thank you. So I don't feel the need to come back earlier. For me, this was a great overview of seeing all the different pieces of it. However, I would like to clarify, my understanding is then what we're going to do is get testimony on each of these sections and really have the opportunity to ask questions compared to other years, see where things are going. So I feel like that will be the time where I can really dig deep with it. For today, this was a great overview of where things are headed. What are some of the high level trends? So I I don't need to. But if the rest of the committee, I'm happy to. Scott. As we were going through it, I was trying to write down every time she said this this was moved to CRF money or one time general fund money or something like that. And but I'm sure I missed some. So I wonder if all of it is the I.T. Both of it is the I.T. Is the I.T. That's really the only thing in the past. In the past, we've done some I.T. projects. We did the case management system for the judiciary. We were funding the integrated eligibility. So the thinking now, because we've been trying to do this for 10, 12 years, is to get I.T. projects funded by a different funding source besides capital dollars. And there's been a lot of different proposals out there, but nothing is really taken hold. So the capital bills always use this a fallback. So what they're doing is they are moving some of the. One time dollars that they've got general fund dollars because they are moving that into an I.T. fund. So the goal is that there is a separate fund that will be set up that will fund these I.T. projects and take it away from the capital bill. OK. That makes sense. Yeah, those are the main things. I guess I'm scanning down my nose. I noticed the HVAC systems generally, if they can be funded by CRF, they're going to be moved to that. There was one under judiciary that was moved. That's what they're talking about right now. That decision has not been made. Right. Right. Well, I mean, that's. And we will have judiciary in. Because usually there's always a line item for some money for judiciary and we will have them in, even though they're. Not getting anything. They may have a different perspective. OK, well, I guess we're going to go through this with a much finer and much more. Every line item where there's money, we're going to take testimony on. OK, that's going to be the bulk of our work for the next few weeks. Eric. So, Matt, oh, Eric Philcorn, BGS principal assistant, I don't know if I ever actually said my name for the record. But tomorrow, the BGS commissioner will be coming in. And it's almost like the next peel of the onion shall take you a little deeper. And then after that, you'll get actual project managers and you can talk about what kind of siting you're using and how much insulation you're pumping into each wall. And they will really know that stuff backwards and forward. So we're just easing into the depths of construction world on BGS. And you'll do the same in all the other sections. That's our guess. So just don't don't cut too deep with each pass. We'll get there. You're going to have lots of passes. I thought Kristen wisely deferred on a couple of occasions where, you know, lesser witnesses would have tried to come up with an answer. Yeah, she did. She gets into some of it, but not the deep dive. Like we will particularly like the Agency of Natural Resources. So. We've got some holes in our committee for the afternoons tomorrow. And well, Thursday, we've got BAA on the floor Thursday. I don't think that's going to take too, too long. So maybe what we can do is after we sign off here and you two, do you have time filled for some scheduling work to occur just so we can fill in because the discussion that we had when we were scheduling last week, Thursday and Friday, we knew that we had some open spots and we were kind of waiting to see what the governor's capital budget was before we went further in setting some things up. So Kurt, you got something. Well, I always have suggestions for filling holes in the calendar if you're looking for some. Well, we've got what are your thoughts? Well, one is the Justice Reinvestment to funding. I'd like to get some details on that and what's happened to it and how it's going to progress. I would like to do the last session. We were talked about doing the skills test that DOC uses. If we could have somebody come in, not the skills, the risk test. So we understand that and there's always more than I'd like to hear from the actual transitional housing providers or the community support groups to find out how we measure whether they're succeeding or not, what kind of metrics they use to say that they're doing a good job. So I'd like to hear from any of those organizations. So I'm thinking a lot of this is going to take place after the first of March. Because our priority right now is getting out the capital budget. We've got good time. That's going to be coming over from the Senate in a couple of weeks. So we need to do some work on understanding good time because we have new members to the committee so that we can understand the proposal, whatever it may be that comes over from the Senate. Justice reinvestment to there is money in the FY 22 general fund budget for that, which we will be working on. I'm sure. And I know Kurt's really interested in the current funding for justice reinvestment. So those are conversations we would have with appropriations. We do that before. Can we do that before crossover? I can't commit because I don't know what's going to happen with our scheduling being on Zoom and getting out the capital bill. This is this is what we're kind of balancing here. We're not operating like we do in the state house. So we're not we're not time constrained by Zoom now from what I understand. We are not. But can people do does the committee want to be on Zoom from 8 30 in the morning until four o'clock at night? That's up to the committee. I mean, that that's the reality of the situation. And can we spend. As a committee, that amount of time, it's a very different venue than being in a committee room. So we've got to really balance what we're doing. And we have to do a capital budget. It has to get over to the Senate. By mark by the end of March. I was speaking. Speaking for myself, I don't mind going and putting in the regular hours. I mean, they were gruesome when we were in the committee room. They packed into the committee room and having to we could take breaks and things like that. But I'm I would like there's a bunch of things that are really pressing in corrections that I'd like to work. On as well as the capital bill. And I don't mind working on Zoom. I find it a good way to bring in people that we otherwise would have to have difficulty scheduling. We could have the superintendent from the main facility give us a discussion on on that, things like that. Well, that that would be a good context for what's in the capital bill in terms of how you would replace the women's facility. Yeah, that's where that could get kicked in. I mean, what are other committee members thinking? Well, Sarah, Alice, I I do hear where Kurt's coming from, because there are some interlocking parts, especially with the facility piece for the women's facility. So if we know that there are aspects of justice reinvestment that relate specific, you know, that are that's a component of the women within the larger context. So that could make sense. I like the idea, Kurt, of getting the main, you know, folks in from Maine, that's I like that idea a lot. So if we can work some of that in, you know, I I do share, you know, I've I've been interested in D.O.C.'s budget because I think that, you know, the reentry housing is a piece of D.O.C.'s budget. And I'm not sure what the best way to do that. And it might be it might be through our liaisons with appropriations. And maybe we can have some information come back that way. I'm not sure if we have committee committee time, but it does. And I'd like to hear about the about Maine. I know that the Council of State Governments recommended budget is in the governor's proposed general fund budget. Trying to find my notes for that, because I had that. I think it's four hundred thousand. I said four hundred thousand for mental health and substance abuse and three hundred thousand for transitional housing and two hundred thousand for domestic violence. That's the CR. That's the Justice Reinvestment to and that's in the governor's general fund budget. So our liaisons would be working with the appropriations liaison on that. Specifically, and then I know Kurt is really interested in the current Justice Reinvestment to monies that we put in an FY 21. So those are conversations that can happen with Appropriations Committee, because those are CRF dollars, some of them may be. So I'm going to put out to the committee, how much time do committee members want to spend on Zoom? In a day, Karen, I mean, you know, this is a decision that we have to make here because it helps in scheduling. Yeah, so it's hard. This is all I've known, so I don't have anything else to compare it to. But I was anticipating, you know, the full day of it. I do think breaks are key. So if we can do things like in one hour, one hour and a little bit chunks and then take a break like that is definitely needed. But I feel like we're here. We I agree that meeting by Zoom does help to get people to zoom into us. We can have easier access to folks. So I would be game for it. And at the same time, like I know it's a lot. So I'm flexible, but I'm ready to push us a little bit as well. Other folks, Michael and then Linda. Similar to what Karen saying, and I agree, we have, you know, theoretically, if we were in Kurt saying it as well, if we were there, we would be doing eight ish hours of business. The only thing with however, Zoom does bring in another component to it, I would agree. It is taxing in a different manner. I guess I would look at it as if we had like tomorrow morning, it appears we were going to schedule. We were scheduled, excuse me, to do one presentation. Presumably that's an hour, hour and a quarter ish, kind of like we had today. I would say there is room to do potentially two sessions still be done by noon. If we had somebody that was able to come on at nine o'clock, in other words, and still you could still squeeze in two and still have a 15 to 30 minute break. So if you had a whole morning or a whole afternoon, I could see a couple of sessions. And then if you have a floor session, then I think you're down to one. So I could see which we do every day, I get it. So, you know, we're probably looking at because of that, probably three sessions a day we could squeeze in as just my kind of just looking at it, chunking it out. I don't know. That's what we've been doing. Yeah, that's I guess, I guess that's exactly so I think because they want us to finish up our committee meetings at quarter of 12. Yes. There's other meetings going on and they want us to finish around four. Clock because there's other meetings going on. Yeah, I just don't I don't I don't see I don't see how to get around that. I mean, if we unless we can go longer and people are good with that, you know, in the day, I don't I don't know in the building, you started at 830. At 830. Yeah. OK. So Linda, and then Sarah, thank you have your hand up. No, thank you. I'm fine with working from 830 going forward. For me, it's better to hear directly from the sources rather than through liaisons interpreting for me. So the more we can get people in here to deal with directly or have conversations directly, even if it's just as a committee, it's more valuable to me. OK, anything else from other folks? Alice, Mary, I do agree with you. I do agree with the hours that I think we should be there. If that was what we were normally doing in Montpelier, we should probably stick fairly to that kind of schedule. Again, maybe with a couple of breaks in between just to, you know, to rest the eyes or stretch or do whatever. But I do think it's important to kind of keep that schedule. So if we do this, what how long do people want the breaks? 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 20 minutes. Because we'll have to we schedule around those breaks. So what are I mean, if you're going to start earlier, you would have time to go a little longer. You could maybe do a good 30 minute break and then that makes chunks and out, you know, where people could go. All right, that's palatable to glue your eyes back to the screen for another hour and a quarter, hour and a half, whatever it may entail. I don't know. Scott. I was just going to observe that starting at 8 30 interrupts morning the morning caucuses and that's, you know, there's a number of those that I try to attend. So I would sooner start at nine. I'm happy. I'm happy doing hour and a quarter, hour and a half and a short break, kind of 15 minutes. So, you know, if we were to start at nine and be done by 1145, that would give us two hour and a quarter times in the morning and then in the afternoon. I don't mind going a little bit longer in the afternoon. Oh, there's commitments on the other end in the afternoon sometimes. Yeah. Yeah. So there's those things, because there's some folks who may be on Zoom from seven in the morning until eight at night. Right. No, I know. And so that's happening to some folks. Yeah. Lynn, I have to agree with Scott. That sounds good. As long as we have enough break where I can get up and move and with a bad back and also get some time to rest my eyes so I don't end up with a horrible headache, which I do some days and it's I'm certainly willing to work right along with everybody else for any hours they want to do. But if you see me turn off my screen, you know that I had to get up and move. So let's do 15 minute breaks and let's start next week. Well, let's continue with the nine o'clock and see what happens there. Michael, I'm sorry to just belabor it. But for instance, I'm looking at this week. So I'm just I pulled up, you know, what Phil sent us. For instance, it appears there may be some holes where we could accomplish the things Kurt was alluding to like right now. It appears if I read this correctly, there's nothing Friday afternoon. And I know we tried a lot of times to wrap up early for Friday afternoon. But it maybe if we did something right at one o'clock till two 15 to 30 done, we're out early for the day and you're done. I just I'm just looking at this week as an example. So there my point being is there may be plenty of holes, if you would, in the schedule, those kind of things could be accomplished. Anyway, sticking with the the the left or right lanes of the hours we're doing now. So this week, as I mentioned earlier, there are a lot of holes because we're focusing in on the capital budget because we got it. And we weren't sure what projects were going to be involved. So that's why I want to spend some time with Phil, with Sarah and Mary to fill in these holes for the rest of the week. Tomorrow, we have a big hole from nine to 10. And I heard from folks that you'd be interested in starting at 10 and not nine. Is that changed at all? Who who said that, Alice? It's when I started the conversation, I asked what time folks would like to start tomorrow because at 10 o'clock we have Commissioner Fitch. She we were hoping to have her in at nine and we can't get her until 10. So I know I thought I thought you were referencing that earlier on we might have discussed doing like the 10 o'clock. And I've always felt, you know, a little bit earlier is better for a committee to kind of get up and going and, you know, work through the morning and, you know, with the appropriate breaks. But I misunderstood you, Alice. Sorry. So we have an opening tomorrow at nine o'clock. But what I'm what I heard earlier was folks are not interested. They want to start at 10. Oh, Sarah, Karen and Scott. What I heard was that people would be willing to tomorrow for tomorrow, that tomorrow people would be willing to meet earlier if we had testimony, but not they didn't need the more overview or committee discussion. That's what I heard. OK. And I think I think at this late date, it's a little bit tricky for Phil to maybe get somebody in at nine o'clock. I think is where you're coming from. If I'm right, Alice, I think now that we have the governor's recommended capital bill, now we can work with Phil to fill in some of those slots. And I'll just say for some of the newer members, we can it can be tricky to be bouncing between the capital bill and corrections policy. Of course, we can all do that. But I think we can my sense is that we can concentrate on the capital bill, the pieces of the capital bill that relate to corrections and corrections policy. That can make sense to bring some more of that testimony in is what I'm hearing from a number of people, including I'm hearing that people want to understand that the some of the appropriations piece around justice reinvestment is that did I hear that from folks? So that, you know, and I think it might be useful to have a lot of the deeper stuff that's additional corrections policy closer to the time that we're going to be really diving into it to have it sprinkled in too early can be a little counterproductive, I think. So OK, so now Karen and then Scott. Yes, I would echo what Sarah just said. Happy to meet earlier. Just was sharing the needed the time to dive into it before the 10 a.m. meeting and would be open to talking about any any topic. I want I'll just throw out there because I realize how this must be so hard to schedule with all of this. So I just want to give kudos to all of you who are involved in the scheduling. I know it's going to be this huge puzzle. I'm wondering if there is with the bills that have been introduced. Is that a way to have people come and speak about their bills? Even though we might not pick them up or work on them, but at least they could have them introduce. So just putting that idea out there. We do do that. We do do that, Scott. Well, I was just going to say that I'm happy to meet earlier. If there's things to talk about, that's all. I'm not averse to meeting earlier tomorrow morning. And I wouldn't mind meeting a little bit before Jennifer gets here anyway, just to sort of set the set the stage, you know, understanding what we're going to be talking about with her. So so if people want to meet if people can meet one of me at nine o'clock tomorrow morning and picking up on what Karen just said about bills in the committee, we got a bill today that Kurt has been working on about the women's facility. One thirty seven. Isn't that your bill, Kurt? Yep. Yes. I mean, we could hear about that one. That's an easy one just posted up on our schedule and meet at nine o'clock tomorrow morning. If you're ready to do that, Kurt. Of course. Would folks want to be that? That would that would be great. OK, so let's do that. So let's finish up. And then Sarah, Mary and I will work with Phil for the next 10 or 15 minutes and fill in the holes. We're not going to have a full Thursday afternoon because we've got BAA on the floor. So that's going to take probably until close to two o'clock. So that at the earliest, I don't think there's controversy with it. I haven't heard anything of people hurt anything. But by the time you get through the report and any discussion, you're at least two o'clock that you're still on the floor. And for that, so we'll fill in some holes. So we're done for today and tomorrow morning at nine o'clock, we'll take up each one thirty seven. OK, is there a is there a time limit that you want me to fit into or? Well, we Commissioner Fitch is coming in at ten, so it would be good to take a break, maybe between the two, like at least a minute break. So figure half an hour. All right, that sounds good. Alice, do we do we need to discuss anything about the BAA as a committee? They put in they did put in the language. I sent out the language to folks. They did put in the language in the budget adjustment. So the BGS will sign off on all the documents before they go out to bid. And then they will get a warranty bond and Linda sent an email asking why not a performance bond and BGS may be doing both there in negotiation with their lawyer. A warranty bond is Eric's head just went up. A warranty bond guarantees after the project is completed. And if there were problems with the materials or the project, there's a warranty there that the contractor needs to make it right at no cost to us. The performance bond is more in terms of the performance of the construction contract and meeting all meeting all the requirements and performing it in the time that it's laid out. So BGS is usually does both if they do one or the other. For that, DCF, the language was representative of Jessup, passed the language, passed Commissioner Brown on Sunday night, and he was OK with it and BGS has seen the language and they were fine. Yeah, everybody's fine. Yeah, everybody's fine. And I didn't hear anything back except just Linda's questions, so. And so it's in the draft, it's in the bill one thirty eight. Is the bill number my hands up? Yeah, I don't I don't have the participant list up. Sorry, Kurt, is there a standard cost for the warranty? Is there a percent of the project or something like that for the warranty bond? That would be with the contractor, Eric, there would be one thing. Is there a cost to the warranty bond? Who pays your unit? Ain't nothing in this world that's free. Yeah, I do not myself know what what the cost is, but I can't imagine that you would get insurance for free. And whom pays and how that's structured is, again, beyond my expertise will be accounted for by smarter people than me. So, Scott. Yes, typically a bond is, I think, a percentage of what's being bonded for. But and so there's a cost and, you know, that does wind up costing the contractor and the contractor charges the cost. It all comes back. Yeah. So do I want to be protected, too? That's right. That's right. It's a question of whether the insurance is worth it. I think we're all getting tired. It's been a long day, so let's finish up our work. And for you folks on YouTube, thank you for listening in. And we will be back here tomorrow morning at nine o'clock to get a quick walkthrough of H-137.