 Good morning. This is April. I'm scared. I'm going to always say August. I look up at the calendar and I see a, and I go to August instead of April. So it's April 29th, Thursday morning. This is house corrections and institutions committee. This morning we're going to be talking with. Jesse Beck from Freeman French Freeman. That did, it's a report on options for space. Renovations addressing space needs within the state house. The goal is to have the legislature come back into the building. Come next January. We don't know what's going to happen with COVID. We don't know what any of the situations are going to be. We had fully intended this past session. Up until about the middle of December, we had fully intended on coming back to the state house in some form. And we were on that course to do that. Until the cases of COVID really started to peak. And then decided to do things virtually. So that's what we're going to do. There are options out there and we'll go through this report. I just want to remind folks, this is a report. This is not a final document that these are things we're going to do. These are options that will be. Available on the table. For further discussions. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Catherine. Hi, sure. I am Catherine. I'm with the joint fiscal office. And earlier this spring. I went to the joint legislative management committee with a proposal. To, to. For assistance for you all to think about how to come back. In this new environment that is ever changing. And one of the things we talked about at joint legislative management. Is that Freeman French Freeman did a study pre-COVID that came out in a belief in January or February of 2020. And then the legislature hired them again to do. Try to come up after COVID and started trying to figure out how you all could come back this past January. And they, so Freeman friends with Freeman has seen the legislature work in the old way. And they've also helped think about ways to move forward in COVID. So we did a contract with them. Joint legislative management committee approved it. And we did a contract with them to do both two things. One is to look at the medium term. Sort of how do you come back relatively soon, but also think about the long-term. How do you, how do you want to think about the legislative process working and being physically for the next, you know, three to 10 years. And so Freeman French Freeman had a relatively short turnaround time. I'll let Jesse walk through it, but I'm happy to be here. And I just want to thank the commissioners for their support. For having the support to provide some options and recommendations for somebody to think about. How best to use the space and allow you all to do the work that you do. With that, Jesse, I will turn it over. And Jesse Beck is here from Freeman French Freeman. And I would just say Jen and Melody, Sergeant and arms actually was on who has the contract with Jesse as well. So she's been heavily involved. As well. So this is really about the third study. We had a lot of space. We had, as Catherine mentioned, we've been struggling anyway with some space needs within the building pre COVID. So we had Freeman French and Freeman do a study and Catherine alluded to this, just trying to figure out, this is pre COVID, trying to figure out how we could best. Change and use some of the space we currently have. And then COVID came in. So. We're trying to meld those two worlds, I believe, at this time. So Jesse, it's all yours. If you could just introduce yourself for the record. Sure. I'm Jesse Beck architect with Freeman French Freeman and Burlington Vermont. Jane Piquel worked very closely with me on this study and couldn't make today. She's actually doing another BGS. BGS projects. So she had a lot of input in is our interior designer and worked with me on the previous two studies as well. So this third study really builds upon the previous two. And the charge was the, what to do in the medium term and how we define that is what can we accomplish to get people back in the state house for next January legislative session. The second piece of the study was that to do any, any real change, physical changes. It's going to take time. And so any, any really major work would take a longer term. And be a long-term investment. In about three to 10 years to accomplish. So what you'll see in the second part of the study is a recommended master plan for both adding onto the building, changing mechanical systems and backfilling inside the building. Cause once you build an addition and you move certain functions into that new space, you open up space within the historic structure for other functions. So that's a term called backfill renovations. So we have the medium term. And we have the long-term. So what we did to really build a foundation, because COVID really did change people's sensitivities, their approaches, their attitudes. And so we interviewed about over 30, 30 people that work, have activities in the state house. And in our report in the executive summary, you'll find issue areas. And subjects that everyone talked about. And we organized those so that you could see what some of those comments and issue areas are. From that, we started to think about. How we could get people back to work in the state house. In full or in parts. And that goes to our recommendations. For the medium term recommendations, meaning what can we accomplish in eight months to get people back in January? And what would that look like? Our recommendation is to return. The legislators and staffs only into the building. And provide public access through AV technology. All the elements that you're doing now. From various locations in the state. More from people's homes. Option B to that medium term. Is to broaden that by bringing public to the capital complex. But having hearings. And committee, even committee rooms. In other buildings in the state house, say 133 state street. We have the basement in the top floor. And possibly 109. So. Large gatherings would take place in larger spaces for the public. The long-term recommendation really is a series of components, component choices. That can be done over time. We were targeting the growth. Of the process, the building. Over three to 10 year period. These components. Are illustrated in the reports. And includes elements like. Overbuilding the cafeteria. The building was structured to go up a level. Seems rather logical, but it's complex to over build the cafeteria. So that's one of the components. Another component we felt would be very valuable is to have a three story. Addition. To the west of the building, which were nicknaming the public house. This would be a way to create public space on the ground floor. In all three levels so that people could enter. In a controlled area. There'd be space for people to collect. Bathrooms. Ad accessible areas. There'd be a new loading dock, which is problematic right now. And then as you go up, there'd be committee rooms. Hearing rooms, public spaces. In large, the cafeteria seating lounges. And on the top floor, additional large committee rooms. So that's, that's another component. So you can see these components in the report. Each of the options for the medium term has a cost. Estimate to it. As well as a timeline. So on the medium term timeline, like I said, there's about eight components to do the elements that we're suggesting for alterations. And then there's also a cost estimate. For the long-term master plan. And the estimate is done by components. And so there's eight components. To the master plan cost. And you can do one, you can do two, you can do all of them. Some of them are contingent on pieces of another one. So, you know, we can help you further refine. A direction. Once you get further into the analysis and the recommendations. In the appendix. Something that's very interesting is we, we laid out what the ideal committee rooms. Should look like. And there are various sizes depending on the size of the committee. The staff and people supporting that committee. And the new technology that, that needs to go into these rooms. And they range in size. The also the, the study directives. Is in here. The interview questions. So if you're curious as to what we asked. We're going to talk about a couple of things. We're going to talk about three people. They are listed in the appendix three. In page 47. One of the. Short-term recommendations that there, there's actually two. One is to do. Hiring a code specialist. Which we work with on our large-scale projects. To do a code review of the building. By area. The amount of people that can fit in the building. According to codes that egress pass the widths, the sizes. To make sure that we understand the capacities of the structure. Second. Short-term recommendation is to move forward with the HVAC assessments. And study. And look at the aging equipment in all the various components. Because there is a series of. Of. Systems that operate this building. And as we know from the past, they have been overstressed. By the occupancy levels that we've been seeing in the last five years. So that's. Pretty much the contents. And some of the recommendations. And so I'm glad that I'm here. I'm glad that I'm here. And I'd be happy to. Go to any section of the report or answer any questions that you might have. Trying to. Trying to think. We should look at some of the diagrams before we go into questions so people can understand some of the moving pieces. And I'm concerned because I know for half the committee, they're not aware of all the. Layout of the capital. Of the building. And I agree. I think there are some new members who were just elected and have not worked in the building. So it's hard to have a concept of. Moving things. When you don't even know the current layout. A lot of the building. So. We do have a question. So let's start with Scott, but I'd also like to get into the diagrams. Jesse. I can wait. If you. Now go ahead. Okay. So thanks for being here, Jesse. I read the study last night and it's very thorough and really appreciate it. You mentioned two things that you would do, you would suggest doing write off the code review and HVAC analysis. One of the things that I've been curious about and I haven't had a chance to get in the building to get a sort of walkthrough from anybody from BGS. But I should tell you, my background is in building and building design and weatherization and energy efficiency stuff. We're not going to get into the windows. No, I'm going to talk about moisture. You talked about that with the windows. Well, yeah, moisture is always an issue. But anyway, in terms of HVAC, in terms of HVAC, not windows, one of the questions in my mind is how much of the moisture is moisture load coming from the foundation from underneath the building, which is probably right on ledge. And so I'm just wondering about whether there's exposed ledge underneath in the basement. Again, I haven't seen whether you've had a chance to see that. What your thoughts are on that? Sure. I mean, most of the moisture really is because there's no humidity control in the building. And it is a living museum with a lot of artifacts, which really does require humidity control. Now, where that moisture is coming from could be from the back areas. Or really the ones that we've read previous reports from the past that have moisture coming in through the annex, the back of the annex. And there was mold studies and some mold that has been remediated and measured and controlled. So there has been steps to control that. I really don't know that the structure back there, myself, we've just done some visual walkthroughs and mainly looking at space. We haven't done an in-depth engineering study on any of this building. Okay. So, Jesse, can you explain what the annex is? So folks understand. So the annex is the, the. That we're drafting operations is, if those of you who are familiar with that. Yeah. Legal drafting. It's a long, thin addition in the back. So there's a courtyard that separates the historical structure. The prime historical structure. There's a courtyard and then you get to the annex. So it's where are some of our legal staff. And some of our men. Strait of staff. It's like where Mike for ramp is, and then further back. In there. And what we are proposing and recommending is that that lower level, which. Is, is not the greatest environment for, for people, although there are windows. That we use that for other functions. One side we're labeling. For, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, of, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for, for Thehanded. Yes. Yeah. So I suppose the moisture there is, is, is coming off the hill with really a cliff right behind the building. Right. So it's just, it's just an intense amount of bulk water moving there. Controlling that would seem to be one of the prime issues as far as controlling the moisture load in the building generally. But anyway, we'll hear more about it later. I'm sure. Thanks. I apologize that I was late. I was coming from an appointment, but I was listening on YouTube. So I think I have the context. I don't think this is a duplicate question. Just trying to understand the context that we're listening this to because in looking at the report I saw the proposed timeline states that looking for this to be into the capital bill. Is that what we're looking? Is that the context that we're looking at this? Are we just looking at it just to see what potentially is going on? Are we looking at funding this project and figuring out how it's going to go forward? We don't know what we're looking at at this point. We're trying to figure out how we move forward to get us back in the building in January. So, and what does that encompass? And if we need language, we better work and figure out with other folks what that language says. We also need to be realistic what can we accomplish between now and January, construction-wise in the building. So there's decisions that have to be made and some of those decisions are done with leadership and with other folks. So we're trying to figure out the process here within the next few weeks. Catherine? Yes, I just wanted to let everybody know that the Senate Appropriations Committee put in $2.5 million placeholder to have this discussion continue. So there, and it is, I've got to look it up, but I'm pretty sure it was CRF funds, which have to be spent by December, which would fit and it has to be COVID related. It fits all of those requirements. So I think that will be so the funds would right now be from CRF. They're in the big bill that the Senate is voting on for the next few days and that will be, there will be a committee of conference about that. And so there will be an ongoing discussion as well. Thanks. So there's a lot of moving pieces. So, Jesse, this may be a good time to go into some of the diagrams for the short term, long term. Do you, does somebody want to call it up on your side or do you want to do a screen share and can I share it? We need to do a screen share to move things along so you can. Or we can, if people have a copy. We have the copies. We have all the copies. So everybody has a copy. So maybe we should just do that. Yeah, let's do the copies. Well, Page 25, I think. Yes, this is a medium term option A. So this piece here is just for legislators and staff to come back. Correct. Option A is within the state house just to limit it to legislators and staff. And then provide public access through, you know, it AV. So the annex. We'll start from the back and you'll see actually two levels. There's a annex mezzanine. And then there's a ground level annex. So where you see the D and the E is what I was referencing. E is for the IT improvements and D is for the copy areas. But how these diagrams work is there's a color code off to the right. So each of the colored areas, you'll see a lot of green bright green. Those are committee rooms. And once we, we have a lot of people into a committee room, we're calling it a hearing room. So that's terminology. When there's a lot of interested people. And it needs a larger space. We're using a committee slash hearing room. So I just want clarity on that one. Because our terminology is a little different. So when you say. Committee room. It's slash hearing room. Is it always used as a committee room? Or is it vacant to be used when there's large committee meetings or hearings? In this situation, we want to turn. Those rooms in the committee rooms. Use by committees. Yes. Very basis. So you're taking room 10. Room 11. Room in the lounge. Making those all permanent committee rooms. Correct. And does that mean they'd be for Senate because that's where the Senate committees meet is on the first floor. They beat our house committee. We have not assigned committees. No kidding. That's the bottom floor. Is for the Senate usually. So personally, I would have concerns mixing. Committee rooms was house. House committee rooms down there along the Senate committee rooms. But that's just me. And the other issue here, you're taking two big rooms away. That are caucus rooms or hearing rooms and the lounge. So that's the bottom floor. That's the bottom floor. For those, for this, you see that as permanent changes or just temporary in order to get us back to the building. This is for the medium term to get you back into the building. So they would be temporary. The changes. So that's important to know. Yes. So that's the bottom floor. That's the bottom floor. The part of the master plan so that you can return these back to a different use. We have a question here. A couple of questions. Well, first one for you, Madam chair. What's the concern about. Having house committees on the floor on the first floor. Is there a reason for that? I think it's more psychological. You know, the Senate, the Senate is more confined. And they operate down there. You know, senators are moving a lot down there. In the hallways and between committee rooms. It's really. They're the way they function, just like we function in our hallways and the hallway upstairs. So there tends to be a separation there. Between the two bodies for their, their work. They come together in the cafeteria. We come together when we have joint meetings in room 1011. They have their own separate chamber. We have our own separate chamber. So it's, it's the mechanics and the functioning of the two bodies. So it could be that the legislative. Lounge could be house. Cause that's kind of separated from the other three that might be, but. Yeah. Yeah. So this is a way to get us back into the building. This is not permanent. That's why I asked that question. Okay. My other question. For Mr. Beck is. The where with the coat room in the. Back there, I believe. Relocated where would the public primarily be coming in? Would they be coming in the front and side doors as usual? Or would they be coming in over there where there's a K. Yeah, I think, I think we're, we're designating the K areas where the public would enter the building. And, but this is also the option A. So really the public wouldn't be coming in too much or as option. Yeah, you're right. Yeah. Okay. You're right. Public wouldn't be coming in, but that's where your, your health station is right now, your temperature check. Secure entrance that we've been using. And that's pretty much where, you know, we need to control and do health checks, even though it might be a post COVID world. So that would be the entrance. Okay. Good. Thank you. I'm just trying to get the layout of this. So you come in through the loading dock. And then you take a right. So where it's be, is that, would it be the copy room. And the Capitol police room combined. Yes, that, that's the new coat room. So you take the wall down between the Capitol police room and the copy room. Yes. And then where. Senate ag is, which is across the hallway, where's that dark, where C is. You would move the Capitol police there. Yes. Does that have to be done for us to come back. To do that kind of renovation there. Madam chair. In my opinion, because now that we don't have room nine as a coat room. I, we have to have something happen on any. Anyway, we come back in January, my opinion. Yep. I would recommend that. So this is contingent. On moving out. Let's counsel. Folks, the Mike. Grant folks. This is contingent on moving them out somewhere. That would be moving Mike upstairs. Mike Ferrant and his group. So that would be payroll. And those folks would move upstairs. So that would be. That would be where Luke. Martin's offices are now. And what would you do with folks who are in those offices? I think in one of the. The scenarios is we do own the right now, the 1 33 fifth floor. So those attorneys would go there. The fifth floor. Right. One thing to look at is page 11. Page 11 really lays out. Each staff area or department. Where they currently are located. Where would they, they would go in the medium term. And where they would go in the long term. So there's, there's quite a list. Designating. Each of those groups. Right down to the pages and kitchen staff and. So that's a real important section is on page 11 and 12. Something to take a closer look at. So that would be just on the first floor. So there would need to be movement just so we can recap this. Where a legal staff is some of our legal, our lawyers on the mezzanine. And what is currently. Would be moved out of there just someplace on 1 33 state street. Is the thinking. And what is currently. The Mike for ant. And administrative staff and proof reading. On that very bottom floor. Would be moved up to the mezzanine. And then where the. The mezzanine. And where the council is right now on the bottom floor. You would have. Way in the back there would be the IT equipment. And where my current is now would be the popular. Correct. And I see a little G there on the mezzanine for pages. Is that for our legislative pages? Yes. A very well-plated. Copy. And the old coat. Kevin also has his hand up. Yeah, he's just when up. Okay. Scott. Hi. Yes. There are walls shown on this. On page 25. That, um, That aren't there. Does this include some proposal to build walls? So I'm looking at above the room 11. Are you on the second floor? Well, it's on the first floor. Maybe you're supposed to show walls from upstairs or something. Treat these as diagrams. They're not architectural documents per se. So they're just illustrating concepts, not details. Right, right. No, I understand. But anyway, I just wonder what the significance of these walls are. Which page are you on? This is page 25, right in the middle of the page. So the courtyard between room 11 and where the Capitol Police and Coffee Room are now. That's the machine room, I think, Jesse. There's a room in there that you don't even know about. Under the stairs. Yep, that's machine room right there. All mechanics. You don't even see it. I never knew about it. Yeah, there's a lot of places in the State House that are pretty well hidden, mechanics and that type of thing. I'd love to see them. The other sort of concern I have is about the turning these two large rooms, the lounge and room 11 into single committee rooms just seems like the committee is going to get lost in those rooms. It just seems like I don't know. I realize this is very difficult to find space for everybody to move around in. But anyway. Well, the question is, the question is, is what spacing do we need? Three feet from each other or six? That's the issue. Yeah. That's the issue. And when we looked at it last time with Freeman French and Freeman, you may think it's a six foot apart from each other, but when you encompass elbows and everything, you're really doing a circle of seven feet. Right. So if we do three feet apart, you're really more three and a half or four feet. We've got 11 folks on our committees. Right. So you've got to spread those folks out. Yep. That's the key. I understand. And I look back at the August study as well. So anyway, let's move on. The legislative lounge right now is set up, which is interesting. We went in and saw the setup. It doesn't feel like you're lost in there. It is a big room, but it's comfortable. Oh, no, it is for as it's set up now. Yes, absolutely. But I'm just thinking about committee rooms or rather committees sitting around a table. And then you get into that somewhere in the report also about whether sitting around the table is the best idea or more of a hearing kind of setup. I think in one of the appendix appendices. But sitting around a table seems like a really important feature of committees working together, you know, across the political spectrum, you might say. Yep. I agree with that. Hearings are a little different because now when we do have hearings in room 11 and room 10, you do sit, all the members sit up in a line at the head. Right. The audience is there. But in committee rooms, I agree with Scott. I mean, the beauty of our legislative body, we sit around a table, individual desk, but it's around a table where you work as a committee and as a unit. And that's really important. Yeah. Not be lined up because you have to see everybody. Right. A curtain, then we'll go to you, Kevin. Okay. First, a quick question, Mr. Beck, when you just said that there was a committee room that was set up, is that the lounge? Do you mean that set up as a kind of a mock committee room at this point? Yep. I can take that, Madam Chair, only because that was set up regarding the COVID situation that we were uncertain how we were even coming back this January, this session that we're in right now. So those third desks in there, all six feet apart, Kevin has done all the IT infrastructure to make that possible. So we could drop by if we wanted some time, perhaps, and see what the committee room would look like if that were designated as a committee room? Sure. Yes. It's temporary folks. Yeah. I thought this was all option A, it's temporary. Okay. Oh, my other question is what, for Mr. Beck, what assumptions did you make regarding distances and preventative measures that were the regard to the various rooms in the chambers in terms of distances and barriers and things like that for this option? We did not set a standard because it's left to be determined by Governor's orders. Our understanding is after post-July 4th, those restrictions are going to be adjusted or removed, and it's up to individuals and entities to decide what they're comfortable with. So those policies have to be established by, I guess, your governing bodies. Okay. Thanks. Kevin? Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, Kevin Moore, Director of IT. Just a couple points of clarification. I didn't want them to be lost in the depth of this discussion. Option D on the first floor would include more than just the copy room. It would include the IT help desk as well to allow for better service to be provided in that space. Wait a minute. You're in option B? No, excuse me. Letter D in option A where Mike Ferrant and his team are currently located. If the copy room was relocated to that space, it would also include the IT help desk in that location. So it's a very much a service-oriented location rather than a stowed away copy room as what we currently have. It's hard to find IT help desk locations such as the lounge and further back in that space. I just didn't want that to get lost in the shuffle. And then talking about the legislative lounge in its current state, not its former state, but its current state, it is very much set up in a very temporary hybrid mode from our previous discussions. It is not what I would suggest or recommend stay or remain in its current form if we were to return a committee to that space full-time. There are camera angle issues that are challenged there. There are sound quality issues there and we probably want to augment the equipment we currently have, expand it to make sure that we provide a high quality stream for public interaction. So for folks who were here last year, in the year before, maybe the little bit the year before, our sound system. And what we do with replacing our microphone and sound system in the well of the house may change now in terms of our backbone and what we decide to do because there's more IT and more electronic transmission with cameras that may be required. So then that ties into what do we do with our sound system because it's the backbone to the sound system that can carry some of these needs for IT. Am I off base on that one Kevin or is that all linked together? It's very much linked together in the long term, I would say not necessarily the medium term Madam Chair, but it would certainly be a good idea to revisit the K2 study that was presented to your committee a couple years back now. That was a substantial and comprehensive recommendation, set of recommendations. They are not construction documents, so we would still have some work to do there, but it's certainly worth reviewing. Scott. That leads to another question about the house being able to meet in the house chamber, which we haven't even talked about. That's next. We're only on the first floor here. I know, but I mean this whole document is really about how to fit committee rooms and we haven't talked about how the entire chamber is going to meet. So Becky, and look at Becky and Jesse working at this, first floor in the mezzanine. Was there any thinking about the current Senate rooms? You didn't look into any of those standards for required spacing of individuals, so you've just left those Senate committee rooms as is. But if we get into space requirements and distancing from each other will impact those Senate committee rooms. Then you have to fall back on our prior report. Which is using part of 133 State Street, using part of the connector between the Supreme Court and the Pavilion. Yes. And some of the Senate committee rooms might have to move into House committee rooms in some ways. Okay, lots of decisions that need to be made that are beyond our committee. This is where leadership really needs to figure out some of these moving pieces. Marsha? So with this, where the coat room is, where the Senate Ag get their room? Yes. They're going to get lost in that space. I don't think that's a total decision that's been made. I'll just put that out there. Okay, thanks. You know, I'm not in Senate Ag, that tiny room is very small for them. But I think it's going to be up to leadership and the other people to decide who goes where. I don't think that I certainly don't want to make that decision. You can put Senate Ag in the new coat room and keep room nine as the coat room. Because that would be bigger. I mean, there's a lot of moving pieces here. Right. So that's the first floor. And let's get up to the second floor. This is the well and the committee rooms. So here the idea is to remove a wall, whereas the letter B is and a remove two walls to try to make larger committee rooms. And with I don't think, you know, our previous study and the deficiencies were about spaces being too small for the number of occupants and the pressures that both public lobbyists and people moving through the building. We're putting on the building to stress them out. So this is a small area that's by removing a couple of walls. You can enlarge those spaces to be a better functioning committee space. Jesse, did you look to see if any of those walls are load bearing? We did not do a structural analysis, but you can easily take a wall down and still could be a structural wall. You just have to put a header across the opening to carry those loads. So we're pretty confident that this can be done. It's actually part of studies prior to us about 10 years ago. So it's nothing new. It's not a new concept. So for B, that would mean it's our committee room and it would be the wall between education and our committee that would be torn down. That would be one committee room. The Commerce Committee is room 35. Across the hall from us is where ag is in the middle. Ag would be gone and you'd extend house judiciary and house ways of means and ag would be gone. We would probably be gone unless we could move into room 35 because that's a bigger room than what we have now. And we don't have the people that Commerce Committee has. I think we should be in that new room by the cafeteria. There's nice windows there. Yes. So that C is the back of the cafeteria. Is that a movable wall or is that permanent there? So we did a study and a proposal via BGS. Was it BGS or you? Yeah, I think it was BGS to convert that raised area in the cafeteria to a committee room. And it's primarily with glass and it could be opened up when it needed to be used for the entire cafeteria or it could be closed for a committee room. So when we were thinking it was not a committee room per se where you'd have your daily committee meetings, it would be an extra hearing room because you can't take any more seating away from the cafeteria. So that's why it would not be a day-to-day committee room because you need seating in that cafeteria. The idea is that temporarily it could be relabeled a committee room. Hopefully there's less stress in the cafeteria because there's no public, no lobbyists, not a lot of extra people, public that needs to be in the building. Right, but we did allow for this to occur in last year's capital bill for flexible use of that. We allowed that. We put money in with the upper level there on the back of the cafeteria to be used for an extra hearing room but make sure it's available for cafeteria seating. That could also mean if you wanted a committee ad hoc committee or maybe a caucus to meet at lunchtime and bring your lunch, that section could also be used for that. So there'd be flexible use. And we did put in money to start doing that in last year's capital. And then the third floor would be about the same thing where B on the third floor is where health care committee is. So you tear down the wall between health care committee and transportation. You would keep room 48, which is go box. Across the hall, you would remove general housing and military. So you would extend the appropriations committee room that's on the right and human services committee room, which is on the left. So the thinking is those committees that we lose would move downstairs to the lounge room 10, room 9 and room 11 and the back of the cafeteria. Correct. Correct. Yeah, we've made sure that we had the appropriate count of total committee rooms as to who goes where is left to be decided. Would call Jesse. To mediate. If you tear down a wall, that's pretty permanent. Scott and then Sarah. So I was just going to observe that I think it's house natural resources has been meeting in the Ethan Allen room. So they're already in a different place. I like the idea of making three committee rooms into two. And I wonder about doing it on both the both sides of the hallway there, whether that wouldn't be a, I don't know, I'm sure, you know, it takes time to do that. But I, so irrespective of the time, I wonder if it wouldn't be a good idea, sort of long term, because it makes those rooms more, more like the size we want, we want to wind up with in the long term anyway. But the interim piece to that. Sorry. The interim piece to that. When we come back under normal circumstances, which could be in 2023, where are you going to put those four committee rooms? No, no, I understand. And it doesn't solve it. That doesn't help any with those problems. But it just makes, so there's those B committee rooms are rather on the large side compared to the sort of normal committee room of around, you know, 450 square feet or so. But the question is you're displacing in the interim for temporary COVID world where you don't have a lot of people in the building. You're able to displace those committees, four or five committees. So you're displacing. Right. No, no, I think it's. The following year you come back and you haven't done construction elsewhere, where are you going to put them? Right. No, I, yeah, and I, but I, it's really more a matter of whether there's time to do that construction. Or, or the will to do it and the money to do it. And where the construction will be. And what it will look like. Just making your observation about the long term, that's all. Sarah, did Mr. Becker want to. I was just going to bring your attention to page. Page 30 and 31 lists this option a the physical changes with the costs of the physical changes, as well as option B layers in those spaces outside of the state house with the costs. And then right across the page on 31. Shows you the timeline for decision making and documents bidding and implementation. Let's finish up a before we go to option B. Sarah. I'm just curious to, I know, I think this is so helpful to visualize and all these moving parts. I'm have a question about technology, since the public won't be, and I'm just trying to imagine that is, am I with these rooms is that might be a question for Kevin? Is it as simple as we're going to be outfitting the rooms with screen, you know, so, so witnesses and can zoom in and we can have them on the screen or what is that going to look like or require? Thank you for the question. So a lot still to be determined based off the decisions yet to be made, the size of the spaces, whether or not public can attend or not. The general concept would be to provide some sort of zoom type of technology. We're not settled where we want to be on that. Obviously, we're using zoom right now and works pretty well. But we want to make sure that if we are sitting around a table, for example, that we have a 360 degree camera or multiple 360 degree cameras, as opposed to a single point of view, which creates view issues, which creates sound issues. It's hard to see who's speaking actively speaking at any given point. There are a lot of challenges that we'd have to come up with solutions for. In addition, we'd want to put more than just a projector and a whiteboard in each space. We'd want some sort of video while maybe a mobile screen to supplement depending on how that room is configured at any given point. There are a lot of components that we have to take into consideration depending on what the layout in the space looks like. That's I can imagine because our schools have had to do things like this and some of them are work better than others. It's actually not ideal. So I've experienced that a little bit. And so was that factored into the cost here? In these scenarios, the tech is definitely in here. Yes. So it is certainly an estimate at this point, but we would be leveraging contractors and some AB professionals in order to really help us define the construction documents and the integration. It's a bit beyond the scope of our current capacity of our department to get that detailed and make sure that we're providing that high quality stream to folks. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. There's a lot of line item in the estimate on page 30 where you can see that. Kurt and then Scott, and then I want to move on to option B. Okay. Kevin, how does a 360-degree camera work? What do you see when you're looking at the projected 360-degree camera? So I'll use one particular camera as a discussion point right now. So if you look up Owl Labs on Google, just a quick Google search, Owl Labs 360-degree camera. It's a nice compact unit. It's about $1,500 per camera, and it's actually got some integrated technology in it to allow it to target people sitting around a table and shift depending on where the sound's coming from. So you don't usually see more than two or three people at a time just for screen real estate purposes, but it allows it to automatically and dynamically shift to whoever's speaking at that moment. There's a couple of good demonstrations, a couple of good videos on there on that website. Good. I can look it up. Thanks. Scott? Yeah, I was just wondering, Kevin, also about it seems like we need to be planning for this or starting to implement this really, kind of regardless of what happens, because the public is going to expect access to hearings online since we've been doing this. It seems like we're going to have to do this anyway. So I guess I'm just wondering, I realize that we're still in session and you all are still full-time working on that, but are you getting ready to make some decisions and get started come June? So if I'm understanding your question correctly, Representative Campbell, are you talking about just the short-term concept here? Are you talking to long-range big picture? Well, both. It seems like we're going to need, long-term, we're going to need a lot more IT, a lot more AV in committee rooms. And so I mean, I guess short-term, I would imagine whatever you got to do for running wires, tack to the wall or something, you might have to do that. But then long-term, what we would have the equipment, the screens and these cameras in order to be able to conduct committee meetings in person and online simultaneously. So stop me if you have a question at any point here and I'll try to do my best to kind of bring the big vision together. I'm not sure if anybody is familiar with the live stream capacity of the US House. If you go to, I think it's live or house.congress.gov or live.house.gov, I can circulate it to the committee shortly. They actually have a highly integrated system that is in use throughout many legislative bodies in the country. I'll refer to it commonly as what we call an e-government platform. It's more than just live streaming. It's bringing the agenda, it's bringing the navigation of the documentation in a live capacity and an archived capacity to the viewers, whether that is the media, constituents, lobbyists, whoever. It's a significant investment in equipment. It's a significant investment in technology, both software and as I said hardware, but really kind of taking all the components we currently have with the legislative bill tracking system, making those live, making it integrated with the live streams of committee and providing that in a comprehensive manner to the public. It would be hosted somewhere other than YouTube. YouTube's not a forever platform. It would largely use a different streaming technology, not Zoom. Zoom is not a forever platform. In the short term, yes, we would likely be using paperclips and bubblegum just to make it happen, but the long-term vision would be a highly integrated, high-quality, high-definition system that has archived storage capabilities along with live streaming capabilities. Okay, great. I'm sure you're thinking along those terms, but I guess I'm just hoping that we're getting something together for next session in 2023. Depending on the decisions to be made long-term, we certainly would come with recommendations. Great, thanks. But I want to be clear to folks, IT doesn't make that final decision. It's going to be leadership and legislators that make that decision. IT is on hold waiting for our decisions. Kevin can't unilaterally just go out and do it. So let's go to option B, which builds on option A. Option B would have us coming back. We'd also be a lot, us and staff would come back, but it would also allow some limited public to come back. And lobbyists were just public. Yeah, well, depends how you define public. Yeah, we use it loosely, but yes, press lobbyist, public, any interested party. And primarily the pages 28 and 29 are showing the two buildings under study 133 states, which we've already have secured the basement and fifth floor. Again, some of those rooms have been set up. You can see a picture, a couple pictures of how they were temporarily set up to illustrate COVID spacing, which came out of our second report on how to return under COVID rules. So the picture there on the fifth floor committee room, is that already been set up? Because I'm heard my understanding was there was no fit up on the fifth floor. That is, there are tables there. That's an actual picture of it. Yeah. It's not as fine tuned as we would like because, you know, we kind of put it on hold till you folks just made a decision. So the basement of 133 would have three meeting rooms, which could be committee rooms. If we come back, correct? Correct. And then on the first floor of 133, so if you go in the side door of 133, you go down the stairs, that brings you to the basement. Correct. And if you go up one floor, that's your first floor. The folks who have been in that building. So the first floor, you see IT space to be converted to legislative use. Is there IT there right now in that light blue lavender? Yeah, that Kevin might do a better job explaining it, but there is a space currently being occupied by servers and then there's another open space that would be perfect for the Statehouse IT server space. So would there be IT staff there at all or is it just equipment? So as it's currently set up, Madam Chair, it's not appropriate for staff to be there. We'd have some OSHA violations pretty quickly due to sound and climate control. It is set up currently as a data center. It is primarily in use by the agency of digital services. So I don't want to speak on what they have there. I can't speak to what they have there. We do have a very small presence in that space that we acquired over the last year in order to facilitate the potential hybrid options during this past session. And then the fifth floor is where that large meeting room, committee room is that's pictured there. So you pick up three, four committee rooms there and then let's flip it and go to 109 State. This is the plan that we were under last year in October, November, December to get us back in January. 109 State is the connector between the Supreme Court and the Pavilion. So Becky, we would pick up a committee room there with Snelling Room. Not necessarily. Jesse, was the Snelling Room in your count of 26? I'd have to check that. I don't think it was. I don't think it was. Yeah, I think it's just an option that the public can go there. And then what about the auditorium? You're just highlighting that? Yeah, I think these are public spaces that people could come to to to monitor what's going on in other places in the State House. Overflow rooms or like if we had IT overflow, perhaps? Would we just, Alice, just an FYI for the new people when they see that auditorium? That's where the Governor gives his speeches from. I am assuming that we would not be having like school groups coming in or, you know, we always have different organizations or groups setting up in the cafeteria or Cedar Creek room. Those would not be occurring under option B. You know, that's something that needs to be determined. I just would kind of like to point out to the committee that the HVAC problems we've had in the State House are pre-COVID. So all those things still need to be addressed. And for best practices, as Jesse was talking about, a code analysis would give us a little bit, not a little bit, a lot of knowledge of what's acceptable in a space like this now. Questions? So Scott brought up the issue. And if we come back in the medium term, whether it's option A or option B, Scott brought up where do we meet in the well of the House? But you can't put 150 people with social distancing in the well. Well, right now it holds 70. But we don't know what executive orders or capacity limits or COVID pandemic issues what will be in January. I think that's kind of the kind of the question everybody's got to keep themselves flexible. Right now it holds 70 with, you know, the distancing. In the Senate chamber they have put acrylic panels that kind of rest on the gallery, little wall that's behind the last group of members where they sit, like say behind Representative McCoy, you know, that area. So that could keep a little bit of the, you know, the little bit of the airflow or whatever from people. But that's another thing that has to be decided. So Janet, when you say the current well will hold 70, is that 70 sitting at the seats? I mean, that's everywhere. That's the Senate seats, the gallery, the balcony. The gallery everywhere, the whole. So you've got another 70 plus that you've got to put someplace else. If we were still under the six, seven foot restriction. Yeah. And where would the Senate meet? Would they have to meet in the well? They can, that room can hold 27 now under present COVID requirements. Okay. In present COVID requirements, are you saying that's six feet or three? Six or as we did it is kind of seven from the core of your body to the core of the next person. Yeah. Sarah? Well, I'm just curious. I mean, schools have recently changed to three feet. And, and that's, you know, that's under the current guidelines. And I'm just thinking I have kids in school and in universities, and it's really changing. And the other piece that I'm wondering, and I don't think it's our committee's decision. But they're, you know, colleges are going to be in the fall are going to be requiring that everybody's back. And so that they can actually meet in classrooms together. And I'm just wondering in the, I know that's not our committee's decision. And I know it's a touchy issue, but I'm just wondering if that topic has come up in the legislative management committee about, about a vaccine, you know, vaccination. Requiring all members in the public to be vaccinated. Well, I'm just really, I want to be specific. I'm just looking at legislators and staff, not the public in this model is not, is limited coming into the building. So I just was curious if that's even been addressed. Not that I'm aware I've kind of kind of have kept track. And as far as I've seen, and maybe Catherine can weigh in, I haven't seen any discussion about that. Yeah, because I noticed in the, in the report, there are a couple policy decisions about that have to probably be made in, in concert with this plan with any plan that we that we make. And I just, I wonder if that's something because I know that schools, you know, colleges and universities, they're private. So they can make those decisions, which is different than our public schools for sure. So I just don't know where we would fall in that. But it's, it's allowing universities and colleges to think about having classes in person again, and not being six feet away from each other. So seems like that should factor in somehow. Do you want to weigh in on that at all, Catherine? No, I just, I know that the, the, the issue of vaccinations is certainly on people's minds. I don't think any discussion pattern decisions have been made at all. I think people are aware that there are people who strongly on both sides of it. So that's, and then there are people who for other, you know, medical reasons may not get vaccinations also. So it is not a simple conversation, because I'm sure you know. It's a delicate conversation. Michelle? Yeah, I have a question. I know when we were considering opening this year, there was a possibility of a hybrid model. Is that what we're talking about in terms of next year? So perhaps if we had individuals who weren't able to get the vaccine, or who were particularly susceptible, they could be online while those of us who were able to would be able to go in person, because I haven't heard that mentioned recently. And I'm just wondering if there's any new news on that topic. I think that's still part of the decision-making too, because rules may have to, and Madam Chair, you might weigh in on this rules would have to be changed of who could vote from where, you know, at post-pandemic. So I think those decisions are what that's one of those other things that need to be decided, but very good point though. One of those layers. Linda, then Michael? Thank you. I was going to say, you know, the comparison to schools is entirely not really relevant to what's going on in state house. Schools are under different guidelines, private employers, etc. They can do mandates for their employment requirements, which is an entirely different animal than what we are. And to mandate people to be vaccinated, you're going to run into a lot of constitutional issues. So the discussion is entirely not correlated here. So I think we have to focus on who we are, the elected Bobby in the people's house. Michael? I was just going to simply say it, I think we've touched on it a little bit, but if the governor lifts the emergency order, I think that completely changes the landscape for us. And me personally, if he did that, which signals to the public in Vermont that you can kind of go about doing businesses normal more or less, I think so should we. And we should look heavily at that, but that's my two cents. Thank you. So that's option B for the midterm. And that would be a way to get us back into the building. There's conversations happening, I'm sure, but and I don't know where the final decisions are going to lie. I don't know if it's within just leadership of both bodies. I don't know if the Joint Management Committee will get involved in this. Joint rules, joint rules is made up of House and Senate leadership and some members at large. So this was presented to the Joint Management Committee this past Tuesday morning. I was present at that meeting because I felt institutions committee in the House needed a presence in there. And then they dealt with other issues after this, and I left before those other issues. But Catherine, was there any or Janet, was there anything at the end of that meeting in terms of a follow up meeting on this? Because usually they meet the last Tuesday of the month? No, the meeting, they have tentatively schedule every weekday, every Tuesday at eight. I don't have an agenda yet for next week, but we all hold that time eight to nine on Tuesdays. Was the thinking they would talk about this particular issue? I didn't hear, I didn't stay for, Janet, did you hear? I left when you left, Madam Chair. I think it's just an ongoing discussion. They're going to come back to, I don't think they left it at any particular place. Anything else on option B, midterm? So let's quickly go, I know it's 1030 unless people want to take a break, do people want to take a quick break before we get into the long term? I'm not hearing anything. Marsha, if you need a break, take a personal break. I just have one question. Whatever we, I don't know who makes the decision or not, but if by the agenda, the schedule they got going, we can't be waiting too much longer for somebody to be making some decisions. That's the concern. I know, and I guess, flip, you know, from here to there, nothing's done done when we got to, somebody's got to decide when done stops and go goes. Well, we also need to involve BGS because BGS is the one that will be doing the construction. Yeah. Not the bid. So we will be talking with them at some point for that because. Because that first of May dates coming around pretty quick. Yep, it's. So let's move on. Long term recommends we have a master plan there. The best page probably to look at versus page 35. It's a color diagram showing some of the components. Would you like me to walk you through the components? Yes, please. So you see a color diagram illustrating the physical additions and changes to the site. I mentioned that component one is the over build of the cafeteria, which originally was structured to do this. But there is mechanical equipment on top of that roof that has to be relocated. So component one is the building on top of the annex in the cafeteria. Component two is the idea of a public house, three story building link back interconnected to the cafeteria. And it really opens up the possibilities to have all the public flow through one open space designated for gathering, collecting safety, security, public bathrooms, staircases. And in the back, there would be a loading dock. Because right now you have a situation where you have a parking lot that's used as a loading dock and the two don't go very well together. So component three is that loading dock, a roadway feeding that loading dock with an enhancement to the parking areas to the west of one Baldwin Street. Another component, which is labeled five, is a possible addition to the pink lady to connect and add a two story office space interconnected with the public house. And then component four is a three story component on the east side of the cafeteria building to close off the courtyard, have another controlled entry from the east because there's a lot of parking to the east with some outdoor deck and providing that entryway to the east formal entryway. Components that aren't shown but are listed in the narrative and also the cost estimate. There's a technology allowance component because all of this requires technology. And also component seven is a mechanical electrical plumbing allowance component to replace enhance the existing systems. And then of course we need to have a placeholder for hazardous materials abatement in old historic buildings in soils in Montpelier. You're bound to run into something. So that's really illustrated in the cost estimate section listing the components in their relative construction costs. So that's page 35 until we flip over to 30. So Jesse, we're going to call you Becky. I'm sorry. So Jesse, I have a question of clarification on component four. That closes in the courtyard, which is that little L there with the blue. And then you're building a floor on top of the speaker's office. No, the blue, the whole blue area, there's nothing built there right now. So that's from the ground up. Well, you're going to dig into the ledge or you're going to. Yeah, it'll be stepped into the ledge. Okay. And are you filling in that courtyard that's there? We're not. Well, it's probably saying closing the courtyard was the wrong term. You can't walk directly into the courtyard like you do now. Okay. So there'll be a lobby. There'll be a secure lobby there. So you have to go through a secure lobby and then you can walk into the open air courtyard. It's similar to what we did in the Waterbury State office complex. We had a new building and links to the historic core and left that open area in the middle so people could come outside, get a breath of fresh air and sunshine without having to leave a secure zone. Yes. Okay. Got it. So that gray, that grayed in box in the middle is that open courtyard that exists right now. Yes. How many floors is component four? Component four is three. So it'd be three stories high? Yes. Okay. Thank you. That's so that the the cafeteria level can expand out and this new overbuild and component one would be that third level. And then and you don't lose any parking because you're you're going to go up more up into the bank. On the east side, correct. You would not lose any parking. You have a little stream that comes down there. Yes. You do have a stream there. Okay. Next. So if you flip over to 3637 you can start to see how these spaces and components are being used in concept. So again, you have the color coding system on the lower right to go with the color boxes in the diagrams. You also can see on the lower left, there's a list of new construction square footages and what can go in there is labeled. So for instance, starting starting on the on the left of the diagram. Lady we're showing legislative council and let level one link back to the public house and secure entry of the public house with elevators and stairs leading directly vertically. And in the back, you'll see the the loading dock restroom blocks connected. And you'll see a dotted line meaning that yes, there's ledge there. And so we're stepping the building up and it'll get longer as you get above the ledge. So I don't think I'll walk you through every space. It's it's a lot lot to go through. And it also illustrates how the the backfill or that term backfill renovations when you decant the space, it opens it up for another use. And so that is illustrated here as well. Questions. So that's the level that we enter in from from the parking lots. Yes, the connector is where the loading dock exists. Yes. Yep, the current loading dock. Scott. I'm going to come back to controlling the water flow off of this hill. I'm just wondering about how to do that. You know, we're going to need to somehow catch the water and divert it away from the building. And so I mean, I guess I guess I'm imagining a lot of blasting to make a space behind the building where you can catch the water and and have a positive slope away from away from the building so that you're not, you know, so the water gets diverted away or something. I don't know. I'm just wondering what your thoughts were about that. Yeah, it's dealing with groundwater, which we deal with with deep basements a lot under larger structures. So it begins with a well-built foundation wall out of concrete. And then you have sealers on the outside. You have cells that capture the water in an air type space so that the water doesn't get to your concrete basement. It gets to these cell systems and collects and then gets diverted out and around the side of the the addition. When you say cells, is that a material or? Yeah, it's a plastic material. Yeah. Have you ever used the, what's that stuff called? It's a rock wool product that has oriented strands so that the water runs down through that through the rock wool. In other words, release the capillary or rather the hydrostatic pressure. Yes. Have you ever used that? Yep. Yeah. That's getting way into details. Well, but yes, it is. It is. It is. It's this long-term that but controlling that moisture is really kind of a key issue in this building. We're very confident that we have, you know, details and technologies that can deal with the layering of that to prevent what you have now. Great. Thank you. What, Kurt? Yes. What is the loading dock primarily used for? What are they? I mean, is it mostly food products or? Yeah. I'm trying to figure out how, what is primary use and how far it has to go once it's loaded. Yes. Heaviest use is the cafeteria, but you also have the copy room, paper products, materials coming and going. Janet probably knows better than I. The mail is picked up there, correct, Janet? Right. Any deliveries that we have, which I mean, they're minimal at times, but depending. Because we, in this diagram, I mean, you moved it farther away from all those things. And I'm trying to figure out how, if you're loading food products, what the path is going down through through, I guess you, do you end up going through all the public space through the connector and then? No. There's a set of elevators in the public house. So that sort of designates, you know, the bathrooms and the loading dock in the back away from the public space. There's currently an elevator there now. Well, this is a whole new building. Yeah. I know. But currently, when they deliver the food, they don't bring it up the steps to the cafeteria. Oh, yeah. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. You don't see it because it's kind of tough in there. And I believe it's probably an elevator in there. Is that correct? Yes. Yeah. So in our diagram, you'll see the existing elevator with an X in it right across from the existing stair. Okay. So I see on the second floor there, there would be a pretty straight shot down the connector once you get out of the elevator. Yes. Okay. Good. Okay. So let's go to the second floor. This is where you're talking well, the house, committee rooms in the cafeteria, the speaker's office and bathrooms. Is there any recon, I don't see any reconfiguration of the cafeteria in terms of this kitchen or serving area? Is that correct? It's correct. We interviewed the person operating the cafeteria, the serving area. And they thought that within the space that they have with some equipment enhancements, they could handle the traffic that we're talking about. So this is primarily creating seating areas in lounge spaces, which is overpopulated during the busy lunch period. Well, they were only there not to negate what they were saying. They were only there for maybe six to eight weeks because it was a new operation. Well, Madam Chair, I think it was still the original people that had it. It was just different staff. And that's not who was interviewed, I don't think. Just to be clear, there's some real functioning issues just in the delivery of the food to the public and the layout of how you walk through. Yes. If you build more space in the state house, you're going to have more people coming into the state house. And you're going to have more people wanting food through the service line. You expand the state house, you're going to expand the number of people who are coming into the state house. On an average day, we probably have, Jana, what do we have? Maybe three or 400 people in the state house, at least. At least, yeah. 500 maybe. You expand the state house, you're going to be bumping 600, 700 people a day easily in the building. They're going to need restrooms and they're going to need food just to put that out there. When we built the addition, which is where the cafeteria is now, and in the Speaker's office in the bathrooms, what occurred over a couple of years was doubling, at least doubling what came into the state house. So just to put that out there. They would like to rebuild the servery. They don't think the servery flows at all like they would like to see it. So yeah, those are all extremely good points. Once we move forward with the next level of design, there'd be a lot to that. I've got a thought, but I don't want to put it out or not. Martian, then Linda. Yeah, and when you get out of committee at noon and you have an hour before you're going to go on the floor and you're backed up to the card room to order to even get into the cafeteria, it's not fun. So I agree. The more room you have, the more people you're going to have, and it hurts the legislators more than anybody because we're on a time frame. I think there's space in the public house. We have another whole bathroom block stacked in the public house, as well as open areas where that servery in that kitchen could open up a grab and go station, alternate ways of providing food to everyone. So I think we can accommodate multiple food stations within this diagram. I don't disagree with maybe multiple food service areas. I would have concern that we have too many separate dining areas where legislators will then start branching off into their own comfort zone. And it's really important for us as we function as a legislative body to connect with our colleagues while we're eating lunch because we're talking to folks we don't normally talk to. We may hear what's happening in other committees. We have too many separate dining areas. People are going to branch off to their comfort zones and you start losing the integrity of our legislative body and our work. And I am really concerned about that. The more spread out we get, which I understand we've got a balance, but part of the way we do business is face-to-face discussions. Ideas are exchanged back and forth between us and creates better legislation. And when you stay with your own group that feels and thinks the same way, you don't branch out into understanding a deeper issue. Linda? I agree 100% with the division of the eating rooms. I think that is something that we should pay very close attention to in our decision-making. I think that it can force division amongst collaboration and how laws come out in our discussion policy. My question maybe Janet knows, when there was the influx of more people coming in, was it during the legislative session or was it more during tours or over summertime? When was that increase in the people? Do you mean within a year or just what year it started to happen? No, no, I'm sorry. For example, you said say another 200 people maybe came in. Did it happen while the legislative process was going on January, February, March or did we suggest more people in the summer? No, I think the main concern is the legislative time. That's when the most people were in the building and depending on what subjects are going on, depends on if there's something going on in law and they all want to come in and have their lunch or if there happens to be a rally, it varies. Yeah, great. Thank you because that's a grave concern and I think we need to pay attention to that. Thank you. You have a thing too and I don't say this in a mean way at all. The number of lobbyists have really increased over time as well. That's increased quite a bit and lobbyists are very important for us in that sometimes they're they're a great resource to legislators and they need access to us and we need access to them and a lot of that access happens in the hallways, happens in the cafeteria, happens throughout the building and the more separated we become the harder it's going to be for all of us to have access. Sarah? You kind of raised something that I was I really I'm concerned about not you know, splintering off into these smaller spaces and at the same time I really do I felt it that the last year we were in the building that when we would have our lunch breaks as legislators there wasn't even a place to sit most days like not and it was not legislators sitting in those seats and and it's hard because it is we're the people's house we want the people you know when we get after we move through what I hope is a transitional year you know we will have the public and it's important and the lobbyists and and and folks together but you know I I'm appreciating that there's giving some kind of um uh valve like valves you know to first spaces because I know that like school groups come in and they you know and it's wonderful when school groups come in but like we don't have a coat like that we don't have like really a space to really receive some of that the influxes of people so I think we're going to have to find um you know the way other some other institutions think about visiting groups they have spaces for those groups like coat rooms and and an area where a group can have lunch um but I think anyway so I think it's all really it's it's all important and I guess my other comment is is that we have an opportunity here right now we say we held on to some of the CRF funds and there's money and then this bigger this bigger plan um it could we could really be at a an important transformational moment for the state house so I really appreciate these plans they're really it's I think it's so much clearer to me than where we were I guess it was in August right where we saw the previous report August yeah so this is I feel like we're heading in the right direction and some of these decisions will be made by other folks but this is I think it's encouraging I want to digest here I want to go up to level three yes that's page 38 level three really is that overbuild of the cafeteria linked to the public house and connector providing additional elevators stairs bathrooms but pretty much this level is dedicated towards um creating new committee rooms and the the best illustration of those committee rooms and how they could be set up is in the appendix on page 44 and 45 so these room sizes reflect the concepts um in the appendix so there would be committee rooms in the space over the cafeteria yes so there was a plan back 2006 2007 2008 maybe 2009 to do that floor above the cafeteria with a cantilever for committee rooms yeah we're not illustrating the cantilever um we're using the people upset but there was a plan out there yeah 2002 yeah but we didn't start talking about it until 2005 2006 2007 I've listed prior studies by others on page 18 uh and then we listed the studies that we did on page 19 because it was pretty hotly debated in the institutions committees back then and I was chair and governor phil scott was chair in the senate and david sheets brought me up to speed and that would have been back in 2005 2006 2007 um scott and then kurt so I guess I'm wondering about the number of small meeting rooms that you're showing I I know that you did some interviews with with people but um I don't know I guess I'm I'm wondering I'm not seeing how that really fits in personally into the legislative process that I've been involved in which is not very long only in my second term but I'm and again it seems to run counter to the idea of of of trying to mix uh folks from different with different viewpoints together anyway I'm just wondering about the small meeting rooms a number of small meeting rooms shows it was a real common theme across the board that yes everyone likes to intermingle in the corridors and the nooks and crannies and people love the cafeteria but it's just too loud too small uh but they really did like uh those meetings in the corridor so that's why we have you know lounge seating and in the connector open areas for that intermingling but people did request that there are smaller rooms where one or two people could step out of the fray and just have a quiet conversation or there's a table for four people that could either be not scheduled or scheduled to have specific sessions and we found this extremely useful in today's interior environments uh and they're sort of best illustrated up at national life we redid uh the floors at eprimont national life and provided these team rooms and in quick touchdown rooms there some of them are just big enough to like a telephone booth to step into and have a quiet phone call so those are what you see in the purple sprinkled around this master plan yeah um I know they I did a lot of work at veic and I know that they seem to work very well there um our office at capstone community action also included a lot of small rooms they didn't seem to work so well there I don't know I guess I'm just an office environment is different from this legislative environment so I'm just asking the question Scott the issue is that quite often in our legislative work and maybe you didn't see a court so much being upstairs and when you were in energy and technology quite often there are situations where maybe a lobbyist wants to pull a committee member aside to explain something and you're trying to do that well you in a quiet space and there isn't one uh other situations committees may have like this committee we had uh Sarah and Kurt working with some of our other colleagues on water quality issues and they would be meeting in our committee room at noontime and then you've got other folks coming in and out uh sometimes you might need a conversation with maybe your staff real quick your legal staff and you need a quiet place that you could kind of look through the different documents and you go to the end of the hallway and the copy machine would be going and you got people coming in and out so that's been something that's really been requested where folks can go to have you know a very small five minute ten minute twenty minute conversation sometimes so that's what the intent is yeah so you had more just asking the question yeah you had more questions right no not anymore right now thanks okay Kurt yeah uh mr beck could you explain the what the lounge seating areas there's two of them there i'm just trying to get a picture of what are those chairs that are permanent or are there desks or what what's the concept there of the outside lounge seating area outside the room and in the connector we we see some soft chairs soft seating um you know in pairs or facing each other sort of a like a waiting room might be people just sit down maybe there's a little coffee table that they sit around so it's to be flexible it's a concept you know all these are sort of concept placeholders that have to be refined and discussed and sized appropriately but it really is trying to create that intermingling space you don't have to be on your feet you can sit down in the soft chair sort of like what's out in front of the cafeteria now there's the couch the couch there and some chairs and in front of the state house have their cabinet there that they open up sometimes at lunch but there's an area there right by the bathrooms the people sit and mingle so anything else jessie we've got the cost estimates out there in the back yeah i think uh on page 39 there's a quick illustration because um there are a lot of people worried about how you would add on to a historical structure what that impact might be and even though we're not quite there yet we wanted to have a you know a little illustration on how uh it could fit very nicely in between the pink lady in the state house and um not that this is it it's just a a way to start the conversation and to show um the size uh impact of what we're talking about because once we start adding on to the sides of the state house you kick in some other commissions yep not legislative right to the city a month failure capital complex commission the state shippo office there's a hole and we have a state advisory committee as well in front of the state house there's a lot of layers to this okay so then when you flip over to page 40 and 41 you can you compare into the details of each of the components a little description of the square footage involved some of that backfill once you decant some of the site work and so you'll get an idea of what each of the components project cost will be so you're saying just to build over the cafeteria would be about 7.4 million that's your estimate correct yes and you would need a little bit of component seven because component seven is reserved for all of the existing equipment and mechanical spaces that are sprinkled throughout and above that cafeteria there's an outside piece of equipment and then there's a room that we'd have to slightly modify um on the roof of the cafeteria that's five million yes i believe there is 2.5 of that already in a bill some in the capital construction cost is that the 2.5 that Catherine was talking about it's in the budget beginning us back next year no i think it's a different that's a different number we have another 2.5 out there somewhere um i'm sorry i missed which one jessie was just talking about 2.5 i mentioned was from the earlier page the estimate on the um on the cares when he cost it out on page 30 right to bring us back right anyway right so bet jessie just mentioned components seven on page 41 one for existing state has mechanical electrical plumbing upgrades five hundred five million he does mention there's 2.5 possibly somewhere for part of that did i misunderstand what or is it the same 2.5 that we're talking about not the same 2.5 is my understanding that bgs has already introduced this hvac um hvac system yes we have that that's that's 2.5 for next year that's what i'm referencing okay we've put in half a million already so that five million includes the new hvac system yes okay okay that makes sense and we don't know if that new system will be at 2.5 it could be more it could be less and then and then if we're going to add on even if we just put a third a floor above the cafeteria and nothing else that hvac system is going to have to be designed for extra capacity yeah my my 7.4 million has some hvac in it to do the space that we're building it doesn't have money to correct the existing systems but i'm just putting that out to the members that right now the hvac system that's being looked at to replace i'm assuming they're looking at some of our current capacity with maybe some extra but if we go down the road of deciding to put a floor above the cafeteria we have to make sure that that new hv system has that capacity as well the assessment study that that bgs is undertaking will let you know um the true cost of upgrading or replacing certain parts of that existing system and there is a placeholder 2.5 which i bumped up to five million we just did a study with engineers on the department of labor building um which you probably have seen in those mix those mechanical systems for that building were about 4.2 million for replacement and the associated work with replacing the systems and how much was that for labor again around 4.2 million 4.2 for their for their vhc for their um completely replacing those aging systems in the dol structure uh and there's a whole engineering report and architectural report laying out all the costs of that study that's separate so okay it just gives you a a benchmark or an idea that um the the mechanic electrical plumbing assessment should take place as we recommend this summer so that you can surely know what the price tag is going to be could be more than five million dollars questions this is a lot to process decisions that have to be made that um we're involved in on some level but a lot of this decision is going to be made within leadership as well particularly within the covid world um do you want to go on the long-term master plan schedule or not just to finish it up uh it it fairly well speaks for itself it is just really pointing out that uh to get any uh project of magnitude or size it takes a good year to two years to pass all of the leadership decisions the architectural decisions the permitting decisions um you know getting things ready for construction um there's pre-ordering of equipment and shop drawing so that schedule kind of lays out the pathway to achieve start achieving construction shoveling the ground and then uh just i selected if you were to do it in three phases not phases aren't components you can combine components uh but i just showed it in three phases uh meaning there's 18 months to achieve one or two components at a time of course if you did all the components at once you might be able to shorten this timeline because everybody's mobilizing at once but it's just a concept plan timeline to further illustrate uh what the approvals could look like and what the construction implementation plan might yield in three phases that gets you to your three to ten year full realization of that 30 or more year investment in this master plan questions for jesse people are wrapping up for this anything else you wanted to share the reports we do have a question here hang on uh sarah it's really quick i just want to make sure i understand that you know the historic um the input that uh have you how much input did you get about the historic preservation of our state house and i i see in the timeline that the ship oh i mean that's a uh an important piece of the puzzle and so is this i know it's only a general concept you know it's a broad strokes but is this something that um we're going to discover later that we can't do some parts of this or do you feel like it's pretty fully vetted uh we interview david sheets as we always do with all these reports and we worked very closely with him designing the water bridge state office complex uh so you know we've done this before and we're very conscious about historic buildings and what you can and can't do and and there are different approaches there's different philosophies different approaches but we did talk in generalities about the previous master plans and what went wrong and we think we have a really good valid approach um we have not talked with anybody since publishing this report on their feelings or their reactions to what we've laid out but we think it's a very solid and valid approach and it does um adjust some of the approaches of the past studies so i i think it works extremely well and it can be done in in components and i think the bottom line is you know way before covid this building was stressed out it was just overpopulated stressed out with a lot of issues and so the building hasn't changed and in fact i think what in my opinion is that uh technology is broadening the amount of input and the amount of interest by public both physically and just through technology and it's going to you know put more pressures on the building so there's a great opportunity to solve some of those issues both in the medium term and in the short term whether you do one component to or you know whatever you feel we can afford uh scott um yeah following up on sarah's question one thought that occurred to me and i and i don't know and i wonder if it's even possible is in room 10 this is i'm going back now to page 25 the option a would putting up some sort of temporary wall to divide room 10 into two committee rooms two temporary committee rooms um be at all possible you know in terms of historic preservation and and uh and and david sheets are you saying divide up room 10 into two committee rooms into two committee it's it's 700 square feet um three small committee rooms well bigger than we have now not by much the yeah the the short response to that is that um there's been about 10 years of work on the state house proper to restore those rooms back to their their state and so we really don't want to go backwards by right i'm thinking temporary something that could be removed uh but you know just that was just an idea that occurred to me in order in order to avoid having to take um maybe one of those two big rooms from 11 and the legislative lounge yeah we had an operation we had proposed that in room 24 i think in the original space study and that wasn't received very well room 24 is which lounge and then uh one could say well room 11 you could do that as well but there you know they've been this level of the building has been fairly well restored for the most part and you hate to go backwards i think we have to balance i think we have to balance what are we looking at temporarily versus the long term there's two separate pieces but if you're going to tear down walls between our current committee rooms on the second third floor that that feeds into a long term plan so do you really want to tear down those walls not knowing what your long term plan is well that is part of the long term plan right so if you're not going to do the long term plan then maybe you're not going to tear down those walls which then says okay maybe we need 133 state street and the 109 connector yeah well those rooms are a lot less historically significant right yes in that area so yep yeah i i think that that's to me sounds like a good idea but anyway i'm just one person so jesse anything else you want to share from your report i think we've done a good job covering all the different sections there's quite a bit in here and the interview findings i think is really good to to dwell on that a little bit the other piece that people have asked is where do we start what questions do we ask and so let me find that page in here it is in page 21 in the medium term recommendations on the top of page 21 we list eight questions that we sort of asked ourselves or or talked about in our inner groups so it's a good place to start for what what needs to be solved in that medium term anything else so jesse i want to thank you first off for coming in and giving us a real thorough walkthrough of the report and you're going before senate institutions committee tomorrow afternoon correct yeah and i also want to thank you for all the work you've done this is your third study a state house in a year and a half not for two years yes um and i also want to give kudos to freeman french and freeman when we went through losing the waterberry complex we worked with jesse and in the group on the options for how we go forward after we lost the waterberry complex to iran and that was so instrumental in helping us figure out our path forward so there's a lot of history here with jesse good history a lot of history here with freeman french freeman and i just want to extend on behalf of the committee thank you for always be willing to look at our space needs and come in with your suggestions thank you very much we really enjoy this work and we wish you luck because there's a lot of a lot ahead of you and i'm always here for any questions any discussion anything that you need let me know great thank you thank you so much thank you so yeah bye bye so for the committee um do you want to take a quick break and then reconvene a little bit and maybe process a little bit of this and um we do need to do some scheduling so maybe have a little bit of discussion in terms of what people would want to see for scheduling i'm gonna we're gonna start winding down our committee so we're not going to be putting in the long hours like we were because everything's going to start shifting to the floor here pretty soon marcia we're gonna do you play on recess and around noon yes then we might talk keep going it's only 45 minutes it's fine with me i'm open do you want opinions yeah i mean and i'd like to have janet and kevin kind of stay on too if they can yeah i'm open i mean my opinion is let's get it retrofitted so we can go back in january and spend in 50 million dollars to build all these new additions to me isn't the right thing to do that's my opinion are the folks my opinion is pretty much the same um it's such a gorgeous building and if for some reason we have no more emergency than we've done all of this other than the it which is definitely necessary in our communications so those systems definitely need help but i wouldn't go too far into the weeds i would just go ahead and and let us get back as soon as we can because we're not doing good legislation on zoom or i don't feel we are it's my opinion but anyhow that was it thanks alice and i can stay on that's fine other folks scott um i guess i'll say that i would be loath to lose both the lounge and room 11 to committee rooms it just seems like we need some large space to for us to meet in and those rooms just way too large scott so are you saying on a temporary basis yeah even i even on a temporary basis and i i don't know what you know i don't know what this other solution is but remember that temporary basis was legislators and staff would be in the building not the public so you're not so i'm i'm just want to lay it out for folks you're not going to have the scores of people in wood so there'd be more space in the building that you could spread out you could use a committee room like our room that isn't big enough as a lounge area or something on a temporary basis i think we've got to really be clear temporary versus well right and there's other issues that aren't really addressed here like uh all of the senate committee rooms and my old committee room room 41 which you know is right and and and the other committee rooms that aren't aren't changed the um i figure who's who's in that room third for our 43 but anyway there are a lot of committee rooms that are still not addressed in this in this in this plan so i don't know it's just i think i think we're we're um we're kind of planning on being able not to have to be six feet apart really i mean that that's the only way this is going to work um if if if we have to be apart if we if we are in the midst of another surge or um you know whatever variants that are that are more more uh contagious and we can't be in in close proximity to one another then we're going to have to do something we well well beyond what's laid out here in terms of being able to meet in person you know we're still dealing with the unknowns right so i mean i think there's a presumption that um some of these rooms are going to be usable for the functions that they're being used for now and and and and that presumption is is is based on the presumption that that uh that things settle out and we're able to to be in close proximity again sarah well i'd like to hear from a few more people before deciding on something but i um like bgs yeah we're not making the decision i just right but i i i just hope that we can be decisive because i last and be respectful of you know pay attention to the timeline that if we don't make decisions by a certain time uh then there are going to be consequences um because i think what i'm hearing is that people you know we want to be back in the state house i would this this um medium term plan um is what i hope we can concentrate on has um um we we saw a similar timeline um last uh summer and where we had to make decision points and we were not able to make they would those were not made um and it wasn't necessarily our committee not making those decisions but i hope i mean i think there's a wide expectation or hope that we can come back together but in order to do it we have to be decisive so that it i mean there's all sorts of complications with supply chain issues around technical technology and equipment um that i think i want to be respectful to the folks who have to implement our decisions uh karen yeah so it's hard for me to put out ideas because i feel like like you said we're not the decision makers in this and we're missing some of the kind of um vision of this but in here in hearing this i have to say there um is the piece of hearing that you know that collaboration and ability to connect with each other has been missing this year as a new legislate and this is all i've known so i am thinking that maybe it makes sense to go more towards the model that does allow more of the uh public to come in to the building i realize that will spread us as legislators out more but if we're saying that collaboration in more voices is what leads to better legislation then um maybe that's something to consider and i also feel like there is a piece of us that we have been extremely adaptive and flexible this year where everybody in our state in our country is and i'm kind of like we can do whatever is needed for another year um i appreciate getting this presentation in the context of what might be potential um capital projects in the future for the state house that we might want to consider like if we're making these changes how does it impact what we might do down the road so i guess those are some of my thoughts again i think we could land in all different ways and i feel like we could get through next year however like that's that's the world we're in right now it's gonna be tough doing next year on zoom it's gonna be tough um other thoughts we'll lose a lot of legislators too yeah you're gonna it's gonna destroy the legislative body i'm gonna be blunt it's gonna destroy us this is okay for one year but even that is pretty tenuous right now because there's a lot of things happening that are not good and that's may not all be obvious but people are tired they're worn out our staff at work in 24-7 legislators there's anticipation of us being on all the time and we don't know each other that's the biggest piece we don't know each other yeah that's huge it's not good so there's some real there's some real cultural issues that are occurring and people the way you learn a legislative process is working with your colleagues in the building and the legislative process is not um a lot of members don't know the legislative process and who's involved and who's sitting in what committees and who's who in the building and how what one legislator says may have dramatic impact on the whole body and you don't feel that when you're sitting home or one person's position really can change where other legislators go in their positions and that's not obvious to folks in zoom we're sitting back home it's obvious to us veterans but for folks who haven't been been there for very long and don't know the people it's a very different interpretation so and and I believe strongly in our general assembly and our legislative branch and I value the work that we do and I see it operating on a very different level that is not sustainable for who we are as Vermont legislators in our general assembly so that's my soapbox Michael yes I'm with you Alice I mean I'm I'm new to this process but I've been a select man in my town which is a smaller scale piece of politics for 11 years and I can tell you just from doing those in zoom and then doing this in zoom a lot of bad things happen I think we it's sad when you have to relegate your thoughts opinions and whatever of people relegated to a little square that you're looking at them because you miss tons of things including body language side discussions that you would have that you normally can't have here we're missing out hugely and I agree with you I think there's a lot of bad stuff going on and I can't put my finger on all of it I have thoughts and we all have thoughts on that you might say bad I don't mean horrific but I mean I just don't think it's it's optimal I hope the governor lifts everything like he's projecting on the 4th of July ish and we get back to normal operations you know the vaccine thing you know it that's a personal choice that somebody chooses not to or can't for health reasons that's understandable but that would be a personal choice and maybe we have to make some accommodations for folks like that but I personally chose to go get one I think that we are remiss to not go back to situation normal as soon as we possibly can and I would kind of piggyback on something what Karen said is that maybe you know and I hate to use words kick the can down the road but I think it might give us a little bit of room to have some flexibility with this because it's an awful lot of money too to do some of these things but do we need some modernization quite possibly but again my two cents thanks so Karen and then Marcia yes I just wanted to make sure because I know chair Emond you followed up with I am not saying I'm for staying on zoom forever that was not my attention okay it's a backup but so I want to make it clear that is not what I'm promoting like I see that we are ahead of that and we're going in a different direction so just want to be on the record being clear with that I'm happy for us to come back I do get on my soapboxes I just have so much belief in the general assembly and the work that we do so go ahead Karen I interrupted you no I just wanted to make sure because I know this is this is one of the things of being on zoom right you missed some of the connection and it's like we have to raise our hand to like you know talk about how it is and so I just want to make it clear put it on record now that we're being taped on everything I am for being in person right but just waiting to you out we all get back on the floor and you have to report a bill you have to stand up and the rest of us have seated and the only way you get recognized to speak is if you stand up so you could have five people standing up at once and recognize this one so it's not raising your hand it's not raising a blue hand that's not staying seated so that will be a big shift it's just turning around and being able to speak to the person next to you I mean that's that's really what we really really miss everybody's ideas and putting them all together and coming up with a great solution and we can't do that on zoom my husband doesn't have any input thank you very much he's the only one I can turn around and talk to right and they don't understand what we're doing they say no he got so upset over the electric bicycle that I said I'm not talking to you about anything Marsha yeah and Karen and we're all staring at you when you stand up to address yeah that's true but Alice I just want to say uh make a little room on your soapbox because I'm with you absolutely you said everything just how we feel yeah I just don't want to see us lose and Janet what do you think I have in uh more more room so you have a couple three hundred four hundred extra people coming in every day well I'm off of mix because right now we do struggle like in the lobby itself when we have a large group coming in you know the kids come in and they're excited and you know then I have to go out and say please be quiet please be quiet and then senators will come out of their rooms and saying you've got to keep people quiet and there's really just I'm like my hands are tied I can't make everybody happy so some little parts of it I would like you know from this new report I know that the legislature also it's hard to give to themselves you know when so many people were struggling in the state and in the community and we're going to say hey let's make this easier on us as legislators you know another big component is staff and we increase our staff here working for you and you know we have to provide them with a good working space you know I'm not in charge of that totally but you know and from my perspective the the HVAC system is still an issue in regular times as you know right Scott you were in were you in uh ways I mean or what was your former committee mine I was in judiciary yeah and Scott you were I was an energy yeah so you know that that room is so small oh yeah yeah and we still do have problems I mean people uh they you know it's too hot it's too cold it's this person's uh the exhaust is coming in the building and so there are some repriations to be made but I don't think that we need to make the drastic ones in the in the add-on as I said before right I know that you're you as Sergeant at Arms you're in charge of a lot and it's just going to enhance your job hugely and I think you do a great job well thank you representative Sarah well I just I know I just wanted to say you know Janet it's so great to hear your perspective on all this because as a sergeant our sergeant at Arms you really I feel like you take care of our the people's house for all of us um and I so I I would you know we all want to come back as legislators and I think I think the public you know in the future we want to figure out how the public can come back and I think we have to do something to ease up the the pressures on our building because hearing you talk about how you have to quiet kids like so the senators can like have their meeting downstairs it's like you know it's that's the balance I think that we need to find you know like we talk about this the state house is being a museum um and you know the visitorship during and that we're a living museum you know doing our work while people are visiting and I think there are just a couple of things that we really are missing in that in that and I'm hoping that you know I don't want to be I want to be really responsible about the money we don't know about the money piece beyond the immediate needs and but if there is an opportunity um with some of the federal funds that are going to be coming into the state if some of them can be used to think about a 10-year plan I think we'd be making a mistake not to be open to that idea so I know we have the decision point Alice tell me like you know we can make a decision about the immediate you know about Jan returning in January but there are some pieces of the long-term plan that are part of of that correct like or you can tear down a couple walls and you lose some committee rooms and you do that temporarily yeah it's permanent that's not temporary yeah so we have to think about that that's what I'm so anyway it's just it's really I'm trying to be optimistic about it that we have an opportunity before us and to like that I think that this this um this report that um Freeman French and Freeman put before us is really helps us all visualize the spaces and the options before us so I know we'll be danger I'm eager to hear from bgs and to hear a little bit more about the historic preservation piece because I know with other projects if those are not considered up front you can run into some real problems and I would hate to see that and expense and I'd hate to see that happen I think Sarah said it well it's a balance that we need to look at for that and we will be getting in bgs for sure on this I'm pretty sure they probably were listening in on YouTube this morning I mean these aren't going to be easy decisions and they're not going to be made just in our committee the long-term piece will be more in our committee but for the interim may not be we you know we just don't know we just don't know so Scott um well I think it makes all kinds of sense to follow up with the original what apparently is original plan to put another floor on top of the cafeteria that would that would give us a lot more space and so keep keeping that and that at least that part of mind when we're thinking about the short or the medium term plan seems to make sense to me I don't know about the the other addition I certainly would not want to see a glass box attached to the state house personally but just just as on the side even to put a floor on top of the cafeteria is a heavy lift right right but it makes it's it's a it's a it's a sensible place to do it and but that's not an easy lift in building right that's a heavy lift just that alone maybe for that so we'll schedule in bgs on that anything else we're I'd like to do some scheduling um I think we've got a full time we don't have anything on the schedule for this afternoon um I may have somewhat of a hour and a half to two hour floor time so I would say let's not meet this afternoon let's be on hold for tomorrow to see what happens after the floor maybe we could get if we have time we could get bgs in tomorrow after the floor to talk about this if we have time we're still waiting for the capital bill to come back I know Kurt wants us to talk about his parole board bill so we can have a conversation about that next week any other things that folks might be interested I'm really looking at I don't think we need our full times on Wednesday and Thursday mornings I'm not sure um I'm not sure what the floor schedule is going to be next week sometimes as we get towards the end of the session we meet in the mornings on the floor so I don't know when we're going to start making that shift next week's the first week of May we got two to three more weeks left so committees are going to be winding down thoughts at all we'll get in bgs we should get in historic preservation on this and who knows where the decisions are going to be made at least on the temporary piece and then we'll have our capital bill next week back here so Kurt if possible I'd like to know a little bit more about the inspection process for the Adirondack with just to feel better the who what they would actually be looking for when they're doing in you know there were those people who are going to inspect it before it goes in that's a and r yeah it would be it would be good to get some testimony from them but it's not essential I don't think that that issue's probably not going to be a crucial decision by us right away I think it's kind of out of our hands at this point it's in the courts and I know that house naturals looking at the language about the rules in the bill they're going to be looking at that tomorrow afternoon you know I noticed nobody mentioned the marble palace and all this right now that we lost a senator who was adamant about keeping it so maybe people would be a little more open to adjusting that space we didn't get into the basement who was the senator I think Rogers really wanted to keep it Rogers yeah well the issue there it's not ADA accessible that's part of the problem yeah but I just wanted to use it for server space to expand the I think Kevin Kevin will chime in on that I think that gives him heart palpitations okay it's a it's a pretty small thing anyway what's the issue there in terms of moisture or is it in terms of flood I don't know Kevin there are so many problems with having IT equipment core IT equipment in the basement it's pest control it's moisture it's climate control from heating and cooling it's static issues believe it or not there there are so many different issues being in the current space that we're in it's an electric fence like Bob held it's there are a lot of challenges and we're desperately desperately in need of a proper facility for this equipment okay then I'll throw that idea out so this is one reason we didn't want to sell the Baldwin buildings because we just don't know what spaces are going to be needed and that's what contributed to us saying no we're not ready yet eventually we might be but right now there's too many things up in the air in terms of our space needs within COVID number one and our IT needs and regular building needs I went and asked Jesse about this but was there any analysis of using some of those buildings for for committee rooms you're not going to get committee rooms out of the state house on a permanent basis no no I don't mean permanent but I'm thinking I don't think you could do that because they're not ADA accessible and some members would need more accessibility just members right well even even just walking across the ice thing yeah that that is madam chair we didn't discuss that but we've got the different if option B has people all over the place one of our big concerns is getting people back and forth safely you know what will that take how will that work and I see represent bachelor crash I call her is comment is smiling and yelling about that so see this is what a lot of folks being on Zoom you know if I ran into the new members here that I didn't serve with previous I don't know if I'd recognize you on the street you probably won't recognize me you know I mean that's the level that we're at so we don't have the concept of how mobility impacts our whole body in terms of people we think are very mobile once you meet them you realize maybe they have some mobility issues you know they may have some breathing issues they may have circulation issues you know so I would recognize your voice anywhere oh geez you're busted huh I'll shut up I says you're busted yeah but that's the level that we're at we only know somebody from their shoulders up it's like going to the grocery store with everybody with masks on sometimes you don't even recognize who's there they don't even recognize me from the shoulders up now that's very truly not on screen and you don't know us some of us so let's call it a wrap for this morning for today we're gonna have a long time on the floor I'd like Mary Sarah and I to come together at some point can we take a quick 20 minute lunch and come in with Phil at noon for a few minutes it's not going to take long is that does that could it could could it be a couple of minutes after um like 10 after I've got someone who's coming to pick something up at the house just so that I'm not in the middle of that if that's possible so like five after 12 or 10 after 12 is that possible that's possible because I don't think we're going to have more than a few minutes to work with Phil okay we okay because because I know I have a commitment of 30 okay or do you want to do it right now we could do it right now why don't we do that now okay that would be perfect can I just say thank you Janet thank you very very much oh I appreciate it it's so nice to see all of you I do miss you we don't miss all the problems that you all bring to us we won't go there we won't decide now come on Janet we make your life interesting I know and I do I miss the pages donuts I know I know and I just wanted to say a representative Sullivan I did appreciate your comments about the public and the constitutional right of everyone that you know that's also a big concern and I know that's a totally concern of the legislature in general to allow the people's house to be the people's house so I just want to put that out there that that is a goal so thank you and thank you thank you guys thank you very much okay you guys we'll leave so you guys can party bye so let's let's zoom out for YouTube and then we'll do scheduling here