 You are live now. Okay, welcome back folks. We're continuing our work. This is house corrections and institutions committee. We're continuing our work this afternoon. And we have with us our joint fiscal committee. Most important person. You're going to be really important Dan as we work through the session. One thing we asked Dan to do is to look through the budget adjustment general fund. Just to put in context. Our pieces that we need to make a recommendation for it has been sent to our webpage. It is under our date. If your date is already open with some documents you need to close it, refresh it. And open this back up for this. So, Dan, I'm going to turn it over to you to explain your document and help us figure out what we need to make recommendations to approach on. But also just introduce yourself for the record. My name is Daniel Dickerson with the joint fiscal office. And I did prepare a document that has the, the various items in the governor's budget adjustment request that fall under your jurisdiction. Before I jump into the document, I don't want to assume that everybody on the committee knows all the various ways that that funding or spending authority moves in the appropriations bill. Would it be appropriate for me to give sort of a breakdown of that as far as appropriations and reversions and transfers, or are you all pretty familiar with how that works. I think that would be better when we start looking. I know one thing we want to really look at is the bigger picture of the DOC budget. Later on, after we get through this, that might be a good place to have those kinds of conversations. Does that make sense. Sure. Some of that will, I think, be in play while I walk through the sheet but if folks have questions feel free to ask me and I can clarify on some things but going right to line one. This is 4.9 million. That would be appropriated to the corrections correctional services appropriation unit. This would be ongoing funding. And this is for the bonuses and other things to sort of make those corrections jobs more enticing and increase retention. So this is where I want to stop you. Is this 4.9 million on top of what is currently budgeted for their salaries. Yes. So this 4.9 is on top of what is current, what would currently be budgeted for CO's salaries and shift differentials. Now, my understanding was through the memo that this increase would expire at the end of March of this year. And you just said it's ongoing so the document that I looked at portrayed it as ongoing but I can certainly look back and find clarifications and I apologize if I ultimately ended up miss portraying that. No, it's, this is what we're trying to grapple with here I'm trying to find because we do have it in our documents here. Would it be on Tuesday. Yes. State of Vermont via CA DOC recruitment. It is effective for payroll period beginning up August 29 2021 through payroll period March 12 22. Okay, I, I apologize that I misstated that I have the document open now. So yes, this, this should be portrayed as one time money instead of ongoing. So it's a 4.9 plus increase to the DOC budget that they pay for salaries but it's only in effect until March 30 of this year, and it's from August 29 to March 30. Yes. So then what happens afterwards. It's March 12. March 30. It's both. During the period beginning up to August 29 through March 30 individuals hired. Okay, so they may have broken down separately. Madam chair, number five might number five in that memo might go beyond March. Who made the discretion of management. Otherwise be paid straight time for hours worked over schedule shall be eligible to receive time and a half that's your differential. That is for your different shift differential, I think. So part of it was for recruitment part of it was retention and part of it was your shift differential. So we're going to schedule tomorrow we have the commissioner of DOC coming in, and we're going to go through this. And we've also will be scheduling via CA to come in after the testimony from DOC for this. I'll tell you one thing. I can find out where this Academy was. Where up in Londonville in the industrial park. I went up this summer. Good. Good. All the new new people that will get ready to be graduated. Were you impressed. I was I mean you wouldn't even know it was there. Yeah, they do it right up the road from London state. I've seen them up there when my daughter was in college up there training. So Dan, we're going to look a little deeper into this tomorrow with the commissioner of corrections, but I just want to be clear that the 4.934 is on top of what they currently are budgeted for for salaries and it might be good. If, if you could find out what the current budget is for their salaries, just so that we can see what that 4.9 really how much more that is. Okay. Okay. The next line here is, it's the same appropriation line from the budget the corrections correctional services. This is the 6.3 million reversion of prior year carry forward to the general fund. The reason that this large carry forward balance exists is that correctional services was able to offset general fund with coronavirus relief fund money. Last fiscal year, which allowed them to save that general fund and carry it forward. It'll be reverted to the total general fund, although, as you can see in the line above it 4.9 million will come back to be used for those retention incentives, or the one time intensity retention incentives and FY 22. That's a good question, Madam chair. Yeah, I'm just reading. Yeah, go ahead. Yeah, so this is for Dan. So if I'm understanding this correctly, this. There's money I understand the backfill from the CRF the 6,361. Is it fair to understand that backing cover some of these bonuses and some of these. I mean that's what's happening here right. Yes. Those those bonuses and incentives were able to be paid using those coronavirus relief fund monies, same as in the healthcare field and some of the other frontline fields. But the relief fund money, or the expiration date for using the relief fund money was December 31. And so we now have to switch to another source to continue that. That makes sense. So this 6.3 million was general fund that was replaced with the CRF dollars. Yes. And of that 6.3 of the CRF dollars 4.9 of those CRF dollars are being used to augment the salary. I wouldn't that I don't know the makeup of that 6.3 I guess. The reason I I made the linkage is just that you've got this 6.3 million that was not used in FY 21, it's going to be reverted or swept back into the general fund in FY 22, per the governor's budget adjustment request. And then, you know, it can, it can then be reallocated elsewhere. So if we were, if we were to say, or if we were to assume that, you know, the, the reverted money is then going back to corrections in FY 22, which is the way I sort of portrayed it, although it's not, that's not perfectly accurate, but but Yeah, essentially the money is going back into the general fund from FY 21 is now being redeployed to corrections and FY 22 to provide these one time incentives. Hopefully, clearly. So in essence, it's still general fund because a general fund got replaced and FY 21 was CRF. Yes. So this 6.3 was savings that we made in the general fund that they're now saying those general fund dollars can be used for the 4.9 million addition for the salaries. Yes. Okay. And that came out of correctional services so that is just regular correctional, the regular correctional budget. Correct. Yes. So this is something specific in terms of what happened in corrections, just their regular general fund appropriation. Yeah, and if, if you would like, I can, I can find the breakdown of how those federal dollars were used if I don't know if that would be helpful for the committee, the 6.3 million that in savings of the general fund that was deployed as CRF. I assume it's probably mostly, you know, retention pay salaries but if you'd like to break that I can get it for you. Let's hold off on that for now. I'm just concerned that what this is saying is the freed up general fund dollars was in corrections is going six 4.9 of the 6.3 is going to honor the contract that was agreed to between the administration and the union. Yes. Any questions on this. Okay, let's go to the next item. Items three and four are directly related. And this is going back to act 154 2020, which was the fiscal year 21 big bill language in that bill required that any carry forward from at the end of FY 21 in the out of state beds appropriation unit would be held. For FY 22 to be utilized for community based service programs within correctional services so so there was 417,000 in out of state beds. That will be pulled from that appropriation line item and be transferred over to the correctional services appropriation line item to be used specifically for the community based service programs. And we made that agreement. Don't think it was last session I think it was the session before that we made those agreements that whenever there's any savings in our out of state beds, we have out of state beds in Mississippi. And if we project, I'm saying this to remind everyone but also to help Larry come along. Every year in the budgeting process. There's a projection of how many beds, we would use out of state in Mississippi we pay an X amount per day per inmate to house them. If we project the administration projects, how many inmates we'd hold over the year and what that would cost so if you've got, say a $24 million line item in DOC for out of state beds, and you only expand 20 million that 4 million reverts back, and it adds back to DOC to provide correctional services and we the intent is really to go towards the justice for investment initiatives. Instead of just going to the bottom line. It is targeted. And that's what this 417,000 is. Kurt. Yes, my concern on this is that this is supposed to be additive over the years. So that if, if we make to 2 million savings one year that goes to justice reinvestment if the next year we make 4 million, there should still be there should therefore be 6 million, more than the base from two years ago. Do you see what I mean, but you're not carrying 2 million over your, you may. I don't know if it builds the base of their budget. But your savings are consistent year to year. In a way that in a way they are because if, if the, if at the beginning of justice reinvestment we had 100 out of state inmates. And the first year we dropped 10, then we have a savings. The second year we dropped another 10, we still have 20 that we're saving over that space of time. So we should be taking that and reinvesting it in the community services, the whole savings for every all of them over the years. That's the whole purpose of it. I don't know if it dollar wise if it works out quite like that. I don't know. I mean, that's how we perceive it, but I don't know if that's how it really works through. Yeah, well that should be the goal and that's what I'm trying to, that's why I would like to be able to trace that better and make sure that that is indeed what we're attempting to do. So we need to know what is being spent on the community services. Those grants and things to see whether that is actually increasing each year by the, at least by the amount that's coming back from the out of state inmates. My question was kind of kind of related and it might relate to Dan and when it's appropriate. I'll go for it. This is processing. Yeah, well, I think when I think back of what we were doing with justice reinvestment the idea was that we're going to invest the money that was saved from out of state beds into the services in the community. The way that I just heard Dan say this that this is going back to service based programs within DOC's budget, and that concerns me a little bit that it still is within DOC. I feel like we probably at some point could get some clarity on that and what our intent and purpose was for that money is it supposed to be for the community services that are within our designated agencies. Is it because I think it's about not having people go into an incarcerated setting to begin with or so I don't know or maybe it is appropriate for that to go to the housing, you know, transitional housing but I, I've, I've was hoping that this session we could get some clarity on what specifically it is into Kurt's point like that it's not just getting absorbed into that budget line so that it's a flat line but that it builds greater capacity. So the commissioners coming in tomorrow. Yeah, we going through this so that's a question to ask to these dollars stay just within DOC or is it a pass through of DOC to DMH and to contracts for transitional housing and that sort of thing. And we may not be able to do a deep dive on this and the short period of time that we need to make a recommendation to approach. That's my concern. So that may end up being a deeper dive after we finish this. We start doing a deeper dive in the weeks ahead. Yeah, I mean that's what I said this session and understanding our time constraints on the budget adjustment. I'm glad that and Kurt also flag your question that you could ask the commissioner tomorrow. Yes, I'll be asking Trevor the same question and, and the commissioner when he comes in. Okay, great. So basically it's a 417,000 that we saved on out of state beds this year. And that's going to revert back to DOC in one form or another to be used for things in one form or another, and we can get more clarity on that with the commissioner tomorrow, what those community based service programs are. Okay, does that make sense. Okay. Dan number five. Number five is a transfer of 1,877,092 dollars from the general fund to the correctional industries internal service fund to address a deficit balance. So, the way the budget adjustment request portrayed it's a, it's just a one time transfer to address that deficit in FY 22. So this one is a bigger issue than just transferring money. And we have from our correctional industries that is supposed to be self sustaining where they produce items that they can sell and then those. The sale, the money coming in from the sales will go back into the program to pay for the program. And we've got to really start looking at this correctional industries program. It's really been weaned down quite a bit. I think COVID has really impacted it as well. So this is putting 1.8 million of general fund dollars to backfill a hole in this particular fund. Karen. Yes, I think I would echo those sentiments, especially after we just had the conversation with BGS and, you know, addressing their deficit and kind of weird like what are the things that are in place so this stops happening. I would be curious to have those same conversations with VCI in DOC to look at what are they doing, or is this going to be an every year, there's going to be a backlog that we're going to have to backfill. So, I guess, is that a question for the commissioner which should be able to address tomorrow. I think I think this one in particular is going to take legislative work. That's beyond budget adjustment, because I think we really need to get into the community high school of Vermont and correctional industries because they're becoming linked now. There were very, very separate one was really just education and the other one was learning some trades or working in producing case goods that they could then sell and those revenues from the sales came back into the fund to buy materials and keep it going. And now those two programs have kind of merged. So I think it's time for us as a committee dealing with DOC policy that we really start looking at community high school of Vermont and the correctional industries and and how we go forward in the new model, and they may not be able to be sustained financially with a revolving fund. Kurt. Yeah, do we know if this is over, is this over years that this has been the deficit is a, or is this a COVID things. Is it just the last couple of years that we've encountered this deficit or is it ongoing. I don't know. I have no idea. I can look into that and get you an answer to that question. That would be good to know. These are the items that we need to make a recommendation, our recommendation to approach by next Tuesday. Another empty checkbook huh. Well, I'm wondering right off the bat, if this one is I said with the correctional industry that that are recommended to put this off and allow us to take a deeper dive into community high school of Vermont and correctional industries to really find out what's going on before we make a recommendation to back use general fund money to backfill a hole when we don't know how we're going to go forward with that program. Karen. I feel like that makes sense from where I'm feeling as well and I think Madam chair you said that we might be a possibility for later on in the session for us to do a deeper dive and just the DOC budget in general I feel like all these pieces are speaking to even more of that there's a lot of moving parts and I feel like personally for me I would like to have a better sense of the DOC budget in general to see how all these things put together. So we'll do that after the governor's budget is proposed on the 18th and 19th or 20th of January. See if we can do that and get it presented to us in a way that is not appropriations jargon. The issue there with appropriations they have individual committee members that take individual parts of state government and then sit down one on one with those finance folks for the respective departments so they do the deeper dive so the documents that come forward are documents like what Dan has put forward here so you don't get the story behind the line item where an approach they work one on one with that department or agency and they do the deeper dive so it's really hard for us as a committee to read these documents and know the best story. I agree with her I want to know how long this is going on but I hate to deprive them of doing this you know work, but it's not substantiating itself at 1.8 million if we're losing. And we don't know what work they're doing now. No, so it'd be nice to I agree it'd be nice to know and check it out and you can't keep going digging the hole deeper you got to fill it in sometime. Because they used to have a really large woodworking shop up at the Newport facility where they built a lot of case goods that were sold to nonprofits and to schools and these goods were like bookcases storage units desk chairs. And then they were sold and the money from those sales came back into the program. We have we still have the license plates. We used to have printing. A lot of printing was done so a lot of the, you know, sales from the printing were done. They made stuff in Windsor. They made stuff in Windsor too. Right. So a lot of that has been squeezed and closed, and we're telling them they have to be self sufficient but there's nothing there that they can sell to bring in the money. So we've got to really take a look at this program. Okay Dan and then six and seven is what we just spoke about the 20 and 30 million. I mean 20 and 10 million. This number six and number seven. So this is very helpful. This is very helpful. I apologize that I didn't have answers to all your questions. I'm going to try to get caught up on these issues quickly so that I can be more useful than I am currently. When did we get into the capital bill. Now this is very helpful. I mean this puts it in context. But we are going to, and I wanted to get this done before the commissioner corrections came in. So we didn't, we knew what to ask and not go in there blind. So this is very, very helpful. And so tomorrow afternoon we have the commissioner of corrections and Dan, if you're available you might want to zoom in if you're available for that. Anything else before we shift. Well, I would. I was just curious as to whether the fact that the 20 and the 10 add up to 30 and there's a JFO note about 31 million in reversions. So, I was just wondering where those numbers match for some reason. 31 million every versions. That was on. It was a JFO note that came along with that email that you forwarded from approach. Yeah, I have no idea. I don't mind me speaking up. I think the new spending throughout state government reflects not only the 31 million in reversions of unspent money but it also reflects the, the July 2021 state revenue forecast which projected general fund to be much higher than it had been forecast to be back in January of 2021. And I can't I don't have the number off top my head of what the general fund grew to but it's the, the new spending is not just from reversions it's also from that new, the updated revenue forecast. So the update of revenue forecast you could end up with FY 22 with a surplus. So what the administration is doing is wanting to spend that surplus and FY 22, instead of having it roll over to FY 23. In simple terms. That makes sense. So it's possible that that 31 is related to the 20 and the 10, and they're just trying to keep it within the same budget year. Okay, well, not be that specific 30 it could be the forecast that they projected for revenues for the general fund budget are coming in higher than what they had anticipated so your budget's going to have a surplus at the end of 22 so they may be trying to spend that surplus so that it doesn't go into the FY 23 budget. This is the reversion is from 21 the 30 with the 30. But that may have already been accounted for in their budget adjustment proposal. That's what I'm saying it might be the 20 in the 10. That's what I'm saying it might be the 20 in the 10. No, what I'm saying is that 31 reversion may have already be accounted for in the governor's original budget proposal in the middle of December. Okay, I don't know. I have to jump off so I can go to Senate appropriations. Thank you for having me. Thank you Dan will see a lot more of you. Okay. I've been here for years and if, if Phil, if you could put up on the screen, the memo that came from the advisory committee as to what the recommendation is was for you, I will, I will admit Eric, Joe, he said, Joe said us that. I know I want to put it up on the screen so everybody can see it so people really clear what the memo says. So we can see the language if you have it on your iPad or whatever you can bring it up as well. But I think the language is really important for people to see. Oh, are they voting? What are they voting on Eric? They're just voting on whether or not to keep on talking or to take a break. Oh, really? How come there's three people in the committee room? Wait, what are you? I'm seeing the State House rule three. That's us Alice. Can you hear us? Yeah. I'll get you guys. Okay. We're sitting in room three. Okay. I heard Joe Benning talking about a vote. I was thinking it was his committee room. I'm going to turn him down. I'm in two committees at once. He's now. Speaking with Matt Valerio about courthouses and John Campbell and a cavalcade of interested parties in reopening courthouses. We're doing too much. So anyway, one, can you, Janet and Trish, it's really hard to see you in this little block, but you're there. I wanted to show the committee the language that the advisory committee voted on on a vote of 10, 0, 3, in support of. And this would be the language that we would use as a basis. And it's the advisory committee recommends to management and joint rules. That the FY 22 budget adjustment include 1.5 million. In general funds to issue, or it could be just in funds, they can figure out where the funds would come from. To issue a request for proposal for programming and schematic design development for expansion of the State House. And that this include the infrastructure needs for any future phases of expansion. And that would be sort of the scope. If we make this recommendation to approach that this look like. One thought that we had this morning is trying to figure out who would put out the RFP and who gets the 1.5 million. Some folks, I think, I think the committee. Committee was split where some folks felt that should go to bgs other folks are feeling well we don't have enough information for that. Maybe we should do it internally but can we do it internally and then I think everyone was sort of thinking that there should be a partnership for this. We have in the past added projects in the capital budget that did not come through the governor's proposal. And this is where people right now hung up why isn't the governor supporting this. This is basic civics, we're a separate branch of government. The governor is a separate branch of government, the judiciary is a separate branch of government. And in the past have directed money towards projects, the bgs that were not in the governor's proposal. We have done that with DLC, we've done that with some projects within bgs. We've done that with some projects within forest and parks, we've done that with some projects within agency of natural resources. The governor does always support projects that we do. Sometimes they're silent on them. We get a proposal from the governor but the legislature change can change those proposals it's a legislative branch that appropriates the money. So, we talked about a possible partnership so if we did a partnership we could have the money go to bgs to do the RFP and be the lead agency. And this expansion but they would have to also consult during partnership with our sergeant arms and with tradition, that may be one option for that so I just put that on the table here. I'm going to raise some hands up so I'm going to go to Michael and then Kurt. Thank you madam chair. Based on that note I sent you when, how would we like to work test the money from the administration, so that we can, because I know you said this morning and several as express they'd like to hear what's going on with them speaking of the administration, how would you like to handle that. So we have to speed Michael reached out to the administration, during the break during lunch break to find out what the scoop was. Maybe you can share with us what the scoop is. What they, I talked to Kendall Smith, and she indicated that we, or that she would like to, she spoke with I believe, Secretary Clouser, Secretary, the administration would like to testify with us to let us know their position on the house expansion and let us know where I, you know, obviously what the governor's thoughts are on the monies that we're considering for this, what their perspective is so that we can hear, I guess the rest of the story. Okay. Sorry, I just, I just want to see how we would get them into our community to testify. I see like several people are interested. Or am I mistaken. Well, I'm not sure. I think we should know the whole story I mean there's got to be some reason why they don't want to do this and, like I said, we couldn't get a better opportunity or time to do it and there's got to be something out there or some reason why they're going against it. And I don't know what it is but. Well let's noodle that thought a little bit. Kurt. What's more confused this some this memo is a recommendation to joint legislative management committee and the committee on rules, not to us. What is the committee on joint management and rules. Are they going to make a recommendation to appropriations or something. The discussion in the advisory committee, the, the advisory committee needed to make their recommendations to joint management as well as joint rules they had to do that for figuring out how we were going to come back into the building in January. And then we did that. And that was done in August. And then in September we started working because the other part of the advisory committee's work was to figure out if we do an expansion, how we do it. Do we not doing expansion, but our requirement for the advisory committee was to make a report to management and joint rules. So that's how this memo is drafted. So what did and joint rules has been so consumed with number one getting us back into the building. When the session started. Number two, the advisory committee when we spoke about this said, we can go directly to members can go directly to appropriations committee for this. It's clear that with Senator Benning and myself on the advisory committee that we would relay that information in November December to the respective chairs that this is a recommendation that the advisory committee is making. We know the administration is not going to put this request in budget adjustment, we knew that back in November, but they didn't support this. I had conversations with the respective chairs. And this was back in November. When budget adjustment was proposed by the governor, middle of December. A week or so after that I had a conversation with representative Cooper and said, how should we proceed on this 1.5 million. And she said, talk about it with your committee and come in with a recommendation. And that's how it's played out. And part of it is because joint management and joint rules just didn't have the bandwidth to deal with it because they were struggling with getting us back into the building. Okay. Okay, thanks. Questions. So are we going to get them in here or not. Let me talk to the administration Michael and figure out. All right, I'll wait to hear from you. Thank you. Questions. So if we submit language. If we do this and submit language to budget appropriations. This could be the starting point for some of the language. So, questions, thoughts. Do people want to do an expansion of the state house. Well, I can, my thoughts are, I'm kind of going along with representative Morgan. I want to hear more information about it before I can make any kind of decision on this. I do think drive this. It's a legislature that's going to drive what our building is going to look like. Yes, but Absolutely. However, if we give a task to the administration, they are very capable of dragging their feet. If they're not in favor of it. And it could very well take beyond 2025 or 20 whatever the deadline was for some of this, I think. So we want to, we want their enthusiasm, their backing for it in order to get it done on time. So it was a committee as a whole supportive of expansion of the state house. Ellis, could we just take the document down so we could see each other a little bit better. Is that possible. Yeah. So I've asked that question but I know that we've got three hands up. So Larry, Linda and Sarah, you're muted Larry. I think, like I asked before, I would like to hear from the administration what their reluctance is to go along with this recommendation that we're willing to make. And what is his alternative use of that 1.5 million that we do not know about. They may not be willing to come forward with that information in terms of what they want to use the 1.5 with, because they have not presented the FY 23 budget yet. Well, we'll just have to wait and see. Yeah, but that's the way, you know, the emit like with the capital budget when we did the update on projects. The EGS was limited in terms of what they could talk about, because there may be some changes in the FY 23 capital budget that comes through with the governor's proposed budget. So they may be in the same bind here with that 1.5. But they can't be fully open with it. At this point. Linda, and then Sarah, and then Karen. Thank you. So I think there's confusion at least. There was from my part, I'm not saying because I want to hear from the administration that they're driving it. Be getting information about cost estimates that they're concerned about why they don't want expansion. It's just information that it doesn't mean they're driving it. So getting the most information in the short period of time is going to help us make strong informative decisions. It has nothing to do with the legislature versus the administration. So I want the information so that I can make an educated informed decision. Okay. Sarah and then Karen. So I think, you know, I appreciate, you know, wanting to get more information. I think one of the things that hasn't come into the committee yet today is, you know, the concerns that we've been hearing from legislators about how to adapt our workspace. You know, schools and other space, you know, businesses, everybody's had to adapt work workspaces and frankly, I think the cafeteria is a place where we're going to be living in a new time of living with this virus or the next one. Our cafeteria is one of the areas where we're so crowded. And I think, you know, I want to be able to get more information to be able to have the possibility of addressing this. This doesn't mean that we're at this stage that we're approving every like to move forward. It's about moving a process forward in a way that can utilize some one time funding and work with a construction timeline that can make that happen. So I'm interested in hearing if there's time to get some more information. I'm totally open to that. But I, I think the, the, the legislative branch is responsible for, and this is our committee's jurisdiction, you know, the, the, the to make it, you know, to, to upgrade the, the, our facility. And this is, I see this in the context of, you know, we're upgrading HVAC, we're doing a number of things. And it seems to me that there's advancing, there's a real advantage to getting this works, the thinking, the planning piece started so that we do have a better, we've schematics and we have better, more detailed information so we can decide how to best move forward. Karen. Yes, I think representative coffee shared a lot of what I was going to reflect on is that this is a starting, a starting point for us. And I guess the other thing that I'm hearing is, I think you said the vote for this was 1003 which also, if maybe you could help remind us who those stakeholders were that voted for that so it's not coming out of nowhere there's a group that is saying that this is important for us to pursue and at least consider here in committee and the piece again that it's not not saying that we are but we're getting the design getting more information. So, I guess I would be leaning towards following what this committee was asking us to do. And I think if we can get additional input from the administration before then I think that would be great to hear the full story of it. And it sounds like the committee that gave us this recommendation also did a lot of work to and came to that 1003 vote. So, I'm the jogging my memory here Karen. So the committee was made up of four members from the house for members from the Senate and some outside folks. The outside folks were the sergeant and arms and Janet helped me here because I'm memory arts council, the sergeant and arms. The friends of the State House. The arts council. And bgs commissioner bgs. And then there were eight from the legislature so that was 11 folks. I'm missing some people. Pardon. Perkins for the Perkins with the historical society. We had 11 members. So I have them here, you represent a man so represented Bartholomew, Senator Benning, Senator Clarkson, john dumbbell from the friends, Jennifer Fitch depart. And the commissioner, Senator Ruth Hardy, Karen middleman, and Steve Perkins, Anthony Polina, and representative show. So the three that were absent were Karen middleman with the arts council. Senator Hardy. And the commissioner bgs was not available that day she had conflicts. Eric was sitting in her place but he did not have the authority to vote. There were previous votes that were taken on different items. And in the commissioner bgs was present and the commissioner voted no and was the only one to vote no and I can't remember what those items were we can pull that up but I can't remember was I back in October. As we were working towards this. So it was a unanimous vote in favor. No one opposed and three absent. The arts council was absent bgs was absent and Senator Hardy. So I don't know if that helps and some of the 10, some of the 10 wanted a broad expansion. We wanted to go out in wings on both sides of the state house. Others want to keep it more refined. Just do the four bow the cafeteria. And that took about a two months worth of discussion to get to this point in the administration was not supportive of any of that. During all of those conversations and votes. Curt and then March. I noticed this on the memo that the it's only the first paragraph that was voted on. And what you just said about the difference in the committee about the kind of expansion. Did there was their consensus among the committee at the end that it should be a cafeteria on the second floor and why didn't they include that in the motion. The motion was, we were focused on trying to jumpstart the process. So the motion reflects the paragraph beneath it. Did the, the 10 people agree that they wanted the library that they did. They changed their mind. I'm not the library that the cafeteria on the third floor or were some of them still wanting to expand sideways. They came to an agreement. The pair the second paragraph, we agreed to that and the way that gets carried out is the language in that first paragraph to jumpstart that particular process with appropriating 1.5 million to get the RFP out there for programming and schematic design to carry out the paragraph of moving the cafeteria to the top floor and converting cafeteria space to committees. That was voted on the first paragraph was voted on, but there was, there was a wide agreement that there should be a cafeteria on the third floor if there is expansion. Okay. The key was that the infrastructure needs for any future phases of expansion. That was the key. We're not there to do the broader expansion. Let's just do this first part. And when you do the first part, you build in some of the mechanics for the ability to expand down the road. And in order to get that going, we agreed to jumpstart this by asking BAA asking the appropriations committees for 1.5 million. And obviously this plan was put in place a long time ago when they built the cafeteria with the idea of building a second floor. So it's nothing new. Correct. It was that right now we're in a position where we really need it and we have the money to do it. And then we're carrying that same thought Marsha that they did back in the mid 80s. When they built that addition with the cafeteria future legislators may want to further addition so let's build the cafeteria as a weight bearing floor so they can put a floor above it. So, we're taking that same concept. And then we're saying if you build this floor above the cafeteria, and you do this construction, build in the infrastructure for possible future expansions. We don't know what those future expansions will look like but at least build in some of your mechanical infrastructure for that. And then the question is, and I think heard is later that well, we've got a limited timeframe in terms of we want to use those are for dollars which we talked about as a committee last year. And remember, in May, we talked about that 113 million that would be for infrastructure capital infrastructure, and we wanted to divide it equally, pretty much as we could between the administrative the executive branch, the judicial branch, and the legislative branch, because we knew that we were going to talk about an expansion. So we're just carrying that conversation to this. Correct. We have a limited amount of money, we have a limited amount of time by the federal requirements to get that out the door. And we want to make sure that BTS if they're the lead agency or department that they're going to do this as a priority. So that's where we are. So anything else on this, what I will do is I will reach out to the administration. To see if they're willing to come in and testify. And then I will see what when that would be available. And that to be on Tuesday. Unless there's time tomorrow but I don't know how much time we're going to be. I know we're on the floor tomorrow, but I know that they're anticipating having some training sessions after the floor until about noon time, and then we're scheduled. I think was, is it I don't have the agenda in front of me or we at one o'clock or 130 tomorrow. We are at one o'clock tomorrow. So let me have a conversation with the administration. See if they're willing to come in or who will come in. And see the timeframe for that. Does that make sense to the committee. So I think our work is done for the day. Time is at 330. Anything else. Actually, there is some. You're looking for topics. I'm going to follow along the line, and maybe not within the next two weeks, I'd like to get the full story on the, on the battery and the generator. And why, why the batteries been moved and things like that. And also, there was talk in that joint meeting of judiciary and the Senate over there when they were talking about the Beckett. There was, there were several remarks that, well, maybe we could put youths like that temporarily at Marble Valley. And I'm wondering if there's any feasibility to that because it would definitely I mean if this is really a crisis and people were talking crisis. I know the word crisis is used, maybe overused but if this is a crisis if we can make a change to Marble Valley that would take some kind of youth at least temporarily it would be better than having them in emergency rooms. I think I hate to put kids in their prison and of course there's a site and sound separation and all that sort of stuff that has to go on. But I also seem to remember hearing that it had been done before at Marble Valley so I think if this is a crisis we should look into that. So let's spend five minutes just seeing what other items folks would like to maybe start talking about next week. Anything raising to the top. I know we had some things doing a deeper dive on the budget but that won't really happen Karen until until we get the governor's proposed FY 23 budget, then we can really see what's at stake. I know some folks wanted to track the joint the justice reinvestment to investments I think again that's going to be more with the FY 23 budget, I would think. And then the overview of federal dollars for capital items that might be something that Dan and Becky could work. I'm thinking is having Becky come in next week. We talked about this with Phil, just sort of going over the language in the capital bill that we passed, particularly these types of policy language that we put in, just as a refresher for that. And do that next week. So that would cover a little bit of that we're going to have a lot of conversation about federal dollars being used for capital, we're going to have a lot of conversations for that. And some of that will also be in the governor's recommended capital budget adjustment. I'm asking about how, how, how the capital budget adjustment works. So the governor's budget presentation and a couple of weeks will cover both annual appropriations and the capital. He will have his FY 23 general fund budget he will have his FY 23 transportation budget and he will have his FY 22 FY 23 capital bill budget adjustment. Okay. And pay attention to how this worked last two years ago. Karen. Yeah, so these aren't any immediate need I'm just thinking for the session in general of when do we or do we get updates on the bills or initiatives that we passed last session. Just hear where those are at. I think that would be, I don't remember the numbers or things but you know things with doc and all that just to hear where, where they're at that would be great. Yeah, we talked about that Sarah Mary and I talked about that we did. We had the big corrections bill that was setting up the monitoring commission and looking at that and then we also worked with Human Services Committee on the forensic unit. And then we also did some work on the probation earn time for earned. I forgot what the term was but for probation that there would be some initiative there for people on probation and maybe if they be apply and conform to all the conditions of probation would be completed for them and that's sooner. Midpoint review I think. Yeah, midpoint review. So we've got those we talked about that. And I'd be interested in hearing about the HVAC status of the HVAC work. We're scheduling that Eric, we talked about that at noon and Phil's going to reach out to Judy about the HVAC just to give us an update on the work that's been done this year. So we talked about that so we hope to do that next week. Can't get into the FY 23 appropriation just give us an update on what's occurred over this past year. Great. Can French Freeman be part of that Eric or is that, can that be done with Joe and Tay maybe. Probably, I think Joe and Tay can probably get you where you need to go. So we've got that scheduled. Anything else members trying to figure out next week. At this stage it might be fine with just Joe. Yeah, we'll do a deeper dive into it for sure. Yeah, we realized after the fact that we missed that in the go around to the spreadsheet. And the batteries and seems like there was one other project that was of note but not necessarily. We'll come around to it I'm sure. Anything else. And don't forget Windsor you have a report in place where we've scheduled that we're scheduling that the wins the report on the Windsor correctional facility the task force. And I recommended to fill that he reached out to you Eric. I think that should be Tom Kennedy. Yeah. Connect with Tom on that. I'm going to play in some other conversations that are going to occur during the session. That's what one big place that sitting there losing money every day. Have you seen the bill. What bill. There's a bill. I've only read through it once but I think it would compel us to fit it up as a temporary youth facility. Within 30 days of adjournment. Senate bill. I think it was toppers. Topper McFawn. Okay because we'll be introduced tomorrow. Yeah. You'll have to be fit up and open 30 days after we adjourn the bit ambitious. Anything else. No wonder Eric you don't have time to work with that addition on the state house. I just do as I'm told. By many people. Including us. Hey Eric. I have a question for you. Do you know a Justin Steyler. Justin Steyler. He works for you. Yeah. He's my neighbor. He's my neighbor. Oh, okay. I'm sure. Oh, he's in operations, right? Yes, he is. Yeah. No, no, no. This one's, this one's my neighbor. Yeah, he's actually been working on the, on the workplace integrated management system deployment. He's, I've been on a lot of conference calls with him. It's past year. I used to babysit his dad when he was young. That brings up another question I had. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. He was working on a software for project management. That was a number of years ago, right? We have. We have a couple of big software deployments going on right now. One of them. The project management one is in collaboration with V trans. They have an existing system that they are. They're, I believe, going to be migrating to a web based version, which is going to make it possible for us to have access to it. So we've been working with them on that. And then we have the workplace integrated management system, which is sort of a. A whole organization backbone that starts with work orders and ends with capital planning. And we're going to be unleashing the, the operations and maintenance module. Hopefully in February. So that's the one I'm thinking of. Yeah. Yeah. And then the next one after that is lease management and all of our CAD drawings and everything is slowly moving into this system over the course of a couple of years. Okay. We gave approval for that and the money what three years ago. Two, three years ago. It wasn't less sessions. The sessions are running into each other when you've. Been zooming her. Three times here. So anything else before we finish up. So thank you folks on YouTube and we will see you tomorrow. Tomorrow at one o'clock.