 Welcome folks. This is Thursday, January 6th and this is our nine o'clock meeting. We're a little wait, I think, which is part of the course. We just had a little bit of a Zoom time with our former member of the committee, Representative Wynn Batchelor. She has moved down out of Vermont. She's down in Florida and we had a time with her just to check in and for her to check in with us. So we spent a little bit of time with Lynn and it was great to see her. This morning we are going to be working on a recommendation from the advisory committee. There was the advisory committee on the Statehouse work throughout the summer and fall. The first part of our work was geared trying what we were going to put in place for in-person legislative session beginning in January. So that took up the first couple months, three months of the work of the committee and then in September the committee started working on looking at possible expansion of the Statehouse and what that would entail. We looked at all different options. We looked at plans that were developed back around 2002. The architectural firm that did that was named Fine Gold. We then also looked at what Freeman French and Freeman did, their couple studies that they did over the last couple of years. And our recommendation in the end was looking at doing the first step of looking at the putting a floor above the cafeteria. When the cafeteria and that whole expansion was put in in the mid to late 80s, we're all under the understanding that the cafeteria was built as a weight bearing floor that could hold the floor above it. And that was done back in the 80s with the intent of possible future expansion down the road. So they built in the capacity for that floor above the cafeteria. So we have said let's go forward with looking at that option, that possibility. And the thinking is that the cafeteria seating area in the kitchen would move up to the top floor, up to that floor. And where the cafeteria and kitchen are now would be converted into about five committee rooms. If we are to use ARPA money, the 113 million that we talked about last year at the end of the session that might be able to be used for capital projects, eligible capital projects. Those dollars have to be out the door by by 2026. So in order to expedite this proposal, the advisory committee made a recommendation that in the general fund budget adjustment, the general fund budget adjustment that's upstairs put in 1.5 million to start allowing the planning and programming to start occurring so that we can really find out if that floor above the cafeteria is a viable option. The administration does not support that. I want to be very, very clear that's why it is not in the budget adjustment. And we when we talk with BGS about the options, BGS is part of the administration. So the administration has not been supportive of this to this point. So we have to be sensitive to that. But once if the 1.5 million does get appropriated, we need to make the decision is it appropriated to BGS or is it appropriated somewhere else to start doing the planning and programming work. So that's what we're going to be talking today with our Sergeant Orange Janet Miller and Trisha Harper who is now working for the legislative branch in terms of our on site engineer and architect per se for that. So we do have a question. Marsha? Yeah, I just want to know did the administration give you any solid reasons as to why they didn't want to go along with it? Well, not really. I mean at the point, I can't answer for the administration. I think what was happening, there were all these different options that were being talked about. And there was some grand schemes of adding on a wing in the back of the state house on both sides of the state house that extend beyond the footprint of the state house. There's some members of the advisory committee that really wanted to go down that road. It's and that's a big project. I think that this is I can't speak for the administration, but they have not been supportive of an expansion to date of the state house. If that may change as we move forward, that may not change. I don't know. Okay, thanks. I can't speak for the administration, but I know in the work of the advisory committee, they were very clear when we took votes because the commissioner of BGS is part of the advisory committee that they had to vote no. So Joe Asia is here from BGS as is Eric Filcorn. So we have to keep that in mind if there are some delicate questions that occur that we really need definite answers from BGS, they may not be able to give it because they're not at liberty to do that at this point. Is that fair to say Eric? I want to thank you for understanding and acknowledging our position in the conversation. It was it was a few years ago that you you referred to me as a peon in committee and today is a day that I'm very happy to be such. You're not a peon too much. Okay, so with that, Janet, should we start with you? Is that what you were thinking or do we start with Trisha? You're muted. Sorry guys, got to get used to this. I'm not zoomers like you people are. We've been building for the last few months too. I know it. I think we should start with Trisha Madam Chair because she really has the timeline and the expertise to talk about this more than I would. Okay. So Trisha, I'll turn it over to you. So if you could identify yourself for the record. Yes, hi. My name is Trisha Harper. I'm an architect and I am with my architectural restoration consulting PLLC and I have been hired by the legislature or Janet to assist in these matters of expansion or other projects within the building, such as what has just been completed, which is the coat room and the restrooms almost completed. I'm not going to explain about the restroom, Trisha, because members probably have not been following this in detail like we have. Okay. All right. Well, a single-use restroom was not available within the building, except there was that was not handicap accessible, except for the one that was on the legislative council mezzanine floor, which was not accessible to the general public as easily. So first floor restroom was installed in the infirmary. The decision was made for the infirmary to be closed down or not to have to be relocated and the restroom took its place. So there'll be a lactation and restroom area. The lactation room is still the same pretty much as it was. It's got a new sink in it, but so they are just finishing that up now. The coat room itself has the office that Mike Ferrant sits in, which was a conference room, was expanded so that both he and Peggy could sit in there with him. And also there was an office made for IT help desk, et cetera, and the mailboxes are in that room too, and the files, which is closed off now. We are waiting for the doors to come in. Again, availability of material is been tough, and we've those doors were changed to have card readers, so it makes them even more difficult to obtain the frames is what it is. So they should be in here pretty soon. We'll have doors eventually hung in those openings to finish off that project. But again, COVID is making things difficult to complete in a timely manner, but they did very well. I was very happy with my contractors, EF Wall and Milbrook Construction, for their work to date in both to Braykin and at the State House. So can I just clarify one thing for the committee that when you speak about mailboxes, it isn't members mailboxes, it is for Ledge Council mailboxes. So the member mailboxes have gone away, and we'll have a new procedure for giving you your mail, which will probably be a job more suited for our pages again. So reminder to some of the committee members. That was the discussion that we were doing during the session of 2020 before we were sent home. That could could we have more space in the State House and not have those mailboxes in the courtroom, and have the pages maybe deliver our mail. And those were conversations we in the committee initiated with Janet Sargent-Arms in February of 2020. So this is not new thinking. It's just a continuation of what we had discussed two years ago. So and that project at 2Akin is not completed. We only did the first head funding. We had the funding, but we didn't have the retainer contract process that is set up through that we've been trying to follow, which is the BGS process through purchasing. The contracts weren't were restrictive. The retainer, which allowed us to get the project done by now, or mostly done by now 95% because we were able to use those retainer contractors and not go through the typical bid process. They were already available to bid and the contract was set up if they were awarded the bid. So we did that, but it didn't allow us to do the third floor because it would extend beyond the allowance of the retainer contract. So we have to rebid that portion of third floor and that work will need to be done. If Janet wants to talk more about that at this time. So maybe I can interject here just to give some background again to the committee because we know all these moving pieces because we've been living it since June. Do the committee members know what we're talking about when we say 2Akin and 4Akin? Remember all that conversation last year at the very end of the session where we negotiated with the administration. It's where BGS used to be at the top of Akin Ave in a building behind that green house. So during the summer what occurred is BGS moved to 133 State Street on the top floor and they vacated their office building 2Akin and then 4Akin behind that. As we were working in the advisory committee it came to light that 2Akin had knob and tube wiring. So we were thinking at the time had been to move legislative council from the mezzanine in the State House and also there's some legislative council folks that in the Pink Lady on Baldwin Street with Joint Fiscal to move those legislative council folks and locate them all together at 2Akin. There was quite a bit of discussion that the legislative council is staffing is back during the summer and fall been pretty split on that move and that we realized also that we had to do some renovations inside of 2Akin in order to have anybody move in there particularly with the wiring had to be updated. There was concern about air conditioning and airflow within the building. So in terms of legislative council moving down there at this point that's still being discussed. In the interim what has occurred is our human resources person Eileen I can't remember her last name. She was in the Pink Lady and then and we had another person that we were hiring for the human resources office as well as Joint Fiscal Office was hiring some more folks. So we were really looking at not available not enough available space. So we made the decision that the human resources arena for the legislative branch would move down to 2Akin. In order to do that Janet went out to contract to have some construction work done at 2Akin particularly to upgrade the wiring. We could do the first and second floor. There's 3 floors there. We also in discussion when we were looking at space in the statehouse losing room 9 to a committee room. Room 9 is the old courtroom. We needed to find a spot for coats when we return. So we've been we were looking at all different scenarios and we ended up we're led to council with Mike Ferrant and Peggy Delaney and Mariah and I can't remember their names. And fitting four people into a small room was not going to work. So we ended up keeping Mike and Peggy in the building because they worked directly with legislators and the other two are more behind the scenes. So they have moved down to 2Akin. So that was all sort of decided and negotiated between August and November. So those are all the moving pieces here. So and I know for new members this is really really difficult because you haven't been in the building to understand how these old room 9 the courtroom room 10 the lounge room 11 how all those used to be used. So it's really hard. I'm sure to follow. But are there any questions at this point for that? When we get back in person I was thinking that maybe it would be good for us to take a little tour of 2Akin 4Akin and also where BGS has moved to the top floor on 133 State Street so that we can have a concept of what we're involved in here for that. So did I miss anything, Janet? No, I don't think so. We lived it, didn't we? Tricia? Sorry, we're still living it, Madam Chair. Yeah, we're still living it a different way. Okay. So that project, you know, that's just the summary on that. So this fall we did meet several times the committee with that representative of the MN's chairs, the Joint Legislative Management Committee, is that? No, it was the Advisory Committee. The Legislative Advisory Committee on the State House, sorry. And that is and part of that meeting was the discussion of coming to the conclusion for the funding recommendation for the State House expansion that we're reviewing now was based on, as Representative Emmons said on these drawings that we had done in the past in reviewing things. We also looked, I briefly looked at a, and I don't have this schedule with me to give to you online right now, but it could be shared. I think it's within that information on the Legislative Advisory Committee, but we reviewed a potential timeline, estimated timeline for producing these documents so that we could use the funding, the ARPA funding before 2026 was the game plan. Already two months has been taken out of that schedule because we have to end another two months waiting for the funding if it's appropriated, but it was a very aggressive schedule and even more aggressive now with the four months having to be taken out of it too because of this was written in November and by the time March rolls around. So, but the concept was that we could get, proceed and develop these concepts for expanding on top of the State House cafeteria and moving the cafeteria up to the third floor, expanding the committee rooms on renovating the committee rooms that are in the existing 30s and 40s so that there's basically only four committee rooms on each floor, along with a link over to the third addition to the cafeteria, then it would be a good start for this concept of developing and expanding the State House, which is needed in order for you to function in these House committee rooms, especially under these times that we're under. So that is where we're at right now. If a RFP for architectural services could go out for schematic design and design development for 1.5 million is what we were giving a rough estimate for that, not 1.5 million, sorry, but yeah 1.5 million for this funding for developing these drawings. We'd be ahead of the game and potentially being able to at least get through phase one of construction by 2026 and hopefully both phases of construction because during the legislative session we would have to pause construction in order for you to be able to meet within the building and then to start construction again. But that is the intent, is to provide a new cafeteria, a larger cafeteria, provide larger committee rooms for the House and I think that is the main scope of it. The big question is about ledge council and such like that and their location and the legislative staff. But the mezzanine would basically stay as it is in this plan and there would be a review of potential how we approach the building as we are doing now. We're entering on the loading dock side of the building and addressing that entry so that both we had it reviewed by the fire marshal that that stair and ledge council could actually come out that when you first come in to the building and it's just a stair that brings you up to the mezzanine ledge council area that stair is a repetitive stair and it doesn't need to be there it's not a fire stair per se we have two fire stairs out of the mezzanine and therefore we could actually bring a new security ADA entry and move up to the third floor of the cafeteria or within the building in that link area where the coat room is now which makes sense. So I'm not sure what else Alice would like me to add. I know we're going to have some questions here but let me just read and I sent it to Phil to post on our webpage but let me read what the recommendation from the advisory committee is for the 1.5 because we would need to make this recommendation to the house appropriations committee to add this to the budget adjustment. So the legislative advisory committee on the state house recommends the joint management committee and joint rules which we did but they haven't acted on it yet that the FY 22 budget adjustment act include 1.5 million in funds to issue a request for proposal an RFP for programming and schematic design development for expansion of the state house. This shall include the infrastructure needs for any future phases of expansion so that would be the language that we would submit to house appropriations. Karen. Yes I think you just answered my question because I was taking a lead from our conversation yesterday about the whole planning and programming phase of it and I heard the schematic design and so wanted to ensure that we are incorporating that not skipping ahead but it sounds like what this 1.5 would be for is to include both of them and I guess I would be curious to hear a bit more maybe we don't know it but what would be in that planning phase because I feel like there are a lot of stakeholders one thing I know I've heard and I haven't been in the building really is about the cafeteria and how looking at a different cafeteria to serve you know increased number of folks could be so if you can share more of what the programming phase would look like that would be helpful. Okay so I thought where I should start is maybe some folks don't understand the like just the rudimentary architectural phases so I'll start there there's five all right so we have programming which you just mentioned which we would be reviewing the program with this 1.5 million and making sure the program is is appropriate still we've reviewed the we've had many programs that are very very very similar all of them and therefore we'll review these programs make sure we have the right intent and use for each space and that's what programming does and part of the programming would be for the owners and the legislators approval of the thick of the the programming and the estimate there would be an estimate at that time um and before we show Trisha can I just interrupt and for the programming phase it doesn't include like the stakeholders weighing in that's correct right okay that's correct all right and um so the the next phase of uh if a program when the if the program's approved by all the stakeholders just put it as one word there meaning the representative uh the the owner and the legislature and the uh the users we move to schematic design so that's phase number two in in a architectural development and that is basically you'll see sketches of the program and how it could be laid out and how the spaces could be laid out and then that those documents are reviewed by fire safety historic preservation capital complex and of course the users and the um of the uh the space and those that are involved in the development of the space um at that time I would like to I propose that um the an estimate is done again and when that is reviewed and all of those authorities that have jurisdiction over this project review everything and sign off so that can be very time consuming that's another problem is if if people are timely in their review process then obviously we move further and down the road the next phase if we have a schematic design that everybody says this is great you know we're we're moving forward everybody's basically on board with the plan and the development of how it moves forward then you go into design development it's called and the owner uh again in the legislature the users so all the uh review and have to approve that design development and another estimate at that time the dd estimate design development estimate and again the project will be reviewed by fire safety historic preservation capital complex environmental will will take place at that time um and we'll have to look into how that will affect us act 250 and any environmental codes of flood mitigation stormwater runoff such like that uh how it affects the city of Montpelier and such but this all goes through the capital complex that's who we report to and um on the development of the exterior of the project and we are we'd write an RFP at that point in design development for construction manager so construction manager i'm advising we go with versus a general contractor um because of the complexity of this project and moving around uh the schedule is very complex first of all and also building in the back of building where we are we're building into the side of a mountain or the side of the hill and uh if that is a feat in itself and i think that a a good construction manager would be advantageous on this project and help us move through um and one was used we used i used a construction manager when i did the dome uh the restoration of the that was um i'm sorry and that was a uh a successful project because of it being worked with a construction manager at that time um and at that point in design development too i would like to hire a commissioning agent to review the project and to oversee on the owner's behalf to make sure everything is um coordinated along with that we'll be having mechanical work happening at the same time i think too and making sure everything's coordinated and all the pieces are are reviewed by another separate engineer that would make sure that hopefully that we have things tagged is the the intent of that and that would bring us through the 1.5 million at that point we would have a design development drawings that been approved hopefully an estimate that's approved and then the additional funding would be requested to proceed on with construction documents construction documents would be the drawings that would be used for bidding the project which includes uh a full set of drawings specifications and approval review approval of uh and final submittal for permits to fire safety environmental and um talking to the construction manager about constructability and reviewing and making sure that is all working out and again the commissioning agent having them verified that the cds and the building systems are coordinated to meet owner's requirements and the final review of all the documents for bidding so um in the final phase is construction and the bidding process and then the actual construction so those are the five phases of architectural and i'll go through them again it's programming schematic design design development construction documents and then bid construction period so the 1.5 gets us through three stages and at each stage you refine a little bit more in terms of what the plan is and you refine those cost assessments for the project cost what we're looking at right now in ballpark figure we don't know but an expansion over the cafeteria and converting the cafeteria space to committee rooms and doing some other internal work in the current committee rooms would run anywhere from 20 to 24 morning for that but we you know those of ballpark it could be very very different and that's why we want to give a jump start on this because uh if we're going to use our phones we have to get those dollars out the door in the time specific manner uh janet thank you madam chair and with your memory and trish's memory when we were in the advisory committee i know that we talked about inflation costs originally and i can't recall was the 1.5 million at did we feel like that was a comfortable where we ended up with that number or did we want to go a little higher because of inflation and the time and time restrictions for everybody janet we went between 1 million and 2 million i know we were talking around 2 million as well but we felt the 1.5 was probably more acceptable okay so i just flagged that madam chair in case you know if you you know would have other discussions we wouldn't want it to inhibit us from going forward if we were a little bit short and i know we're talking big numbers here but that maybe jfo could at some point weigh in with you yeah i mean we can make a request of approach for 2 million i mean it doesn't mean we're going to get any of it but the question was we could the thinking is that that we need we're in a very short time frame to get this project done if we can use our money so in order to jumpstart it if we went through the regular capital bill process within our capital bill the money would not be available until may to begin any of the programming or looking at any schematic designs or anything so right there your six months lost so that's why the thinking was for the general fund budget adjustment to get this started a few months in advance so that's the thinking so we have a couple questions a scott and then karen uh yeah i was just wondering who we have to hire specifically in order to kick off programming and pre whatever just pre finding a design so the question is we need to make a decision do we appropriate this money to bts to be our entity that works in going out with the rfp to do the hiring or do we fund the money through our sartan and arms for them to do the work because that's the big question okay um sure i guess i was a little different my focus is a little different in and that i'm wondering who we have to hire um in order to do this work is it just an architect you need an entity to go out and develop the rfp to go hire somebody so the money needs to go to that entity so the money either this is just where it goes to the sergeant at arms okay so it's just for the development of the rfp correct you've got to do the rfp first to go out to get a firm to actually go out and do the programming and schematic design okay um it seems like a lot of money to develop an rfp i guess i'm wondering what is entailed what's involved the rfp chris just went through it there'd be three things we would be looking for in the rfp when we go out to hire a firm they would be looking at the programming that would be needed they'd be developing the schematic design and then they would go into those design documents i don't know i that's what the that's what the rfp would be for but the 1.5 million is to it's to pay for going it's to pay for developing the rfp that was you just said that work the rfp you've got to develop the rfp first right before you go out and bid for an architectural firm to be able to do the programming schematic design and design development the 1.5 includes those three phases to pay for them right okay all right all right somehow i got the crossways uh karen and then marshal yes i have two questions now because another one came up as we were talking um so i guess one it would be um based on what you just said madam chair of figuring out do we go with the sergeant of arms or going out with um go with bgs i guess i would um appreciate a conversation of better understanding the pros and cons of it i don't feel like i really understand what is the difference and why one would be better over the other so that's one question um the other one i'm wondering in i believe trisha you shared this that the um kind of design development phase can um be you know go smoother or slower depending on the review process from the different stakeholders and um users uh do we feel like we have good buy-in from those people that they understand that they're going to have to be making decisions along the way that they have capacity that they're on board with this or do we like to inform us do we think it's going to go fast or slow the stakeholders are the legislative leadership legislative branch okay that is the stakeholders okay so it's different than other construction where you're dealing with other groups and advocates and all of that work but this would be a legislative focus in legislative decisions it would be made with institutions committees it would be made with leadership of the house and senate it would be made with joint management committee and joint rules that's the process so and i guess i can assume then that we're all on board with making sure it moves in the time that's needed to get the funds out the door right so and i guess my only question then is understanding sergeant of arms versus bgs if we can have that conversation at some point we talked about that in the advisory committee um and the question is you really need whoever oversees this whole rfp and project development needs to be very astute in construction i don't know tana if you want to weigh in well so obviously that is not me just so we're all clear about that i'm not going to be so when we had discussed it with hiring trisha for these jobs that we're doing now and i just want to give the committee a little bit of history from trisha for trisha that she has been here through um the thick and thin of the renovations of the state house since uh what was the year trisha uh 1994 1994 so trisha used to work for bgs and i think that in my um consideration of hiring trisha too was of her knowledge that she really has the most knowledge about this building of anyone including folks at bgs and you know joe's been there right there with her too as well and i mean joe has an entity of the whole state to take care of and we always uh appreciate joe i think one thing would be um if anything if the sergeant at arms did take it on with hiring someone as trisha then i think everything would kind of be in consultation with buildings and general services as well but madame chair do you recall what we did talk about that in the advisory committee and the advisory committee kind of felt to be a really heavy load for a sergeant in arms office to handle all of this because this is a big project this isn't just a tiny little project of converting a committee room right which in fact we would hire someone and it wouldn't be i think it would really be the person that we hired working for the legislature not just the sergeant at arms but you may have other feelings about that madame chair and uh the other folks may want to weigh in as to you know the amount of workload i mean they did not have the ability to help us with small projects right now i think this would be a huge project for buildings and general services too and they would probably have to hire it out to hire an architect as well or maybe joe could weigh in on that i'm not sure so the discussion we had in the advisory committee was that to carry this whole construction project the department or the entity that would really be overseeing all of this though they'd be hiring out for the construction and project manager it's it would be the legislative branch you really would be and do we want to be in the role of bgs to oversee all that construction that's really the issue so does that help heron does that help folks it does i and i think as we continue probably get clear thank you so we have more questions marcia linda and kurt um i just feel bad that mr peon eric can't speak up for bgs and let us know what their feelings are on this i mean we're hearing what janets are and we can't hear what bgs has to say and it kind of leaves us out there saying that looks looking like bgs wants nothing to do with it i mean that's just my own personal feeling and i just kind of would like to hear both sides of the story i don't know if you want to weigh in eric madam chair i think at this point you're you could almost have a generic conversation about which is the more efficient way to run a project and what is the capacity of the two entities to execute that project they're you know setting aside the question of whether or not the project will or will not be approved in the end i mean there are advantages to bgs running a project if if this project were to be approved and assigned to bgs it would be right there alongside the women's correctional facility and police barracks and all of our other projects it's no secret that across industry and government there are major capacity issues with staffing right now so if we if bgs were to execute this project we may well wind up contracting that work out and so it's it's in many ways a question of who do you want moving your paper almost is that helpful at all and joe will speak up if i'm going way off the rails but i think independent of the question of supporting or not supporting the project you can have a conversation about what the most efficient movement would be if it occurred though you would have the advantage on your side of potentially moving past some of the bureaucratic obstacles which exist in the executive branch by design um but you also would be on your own so you can go either way so eric when you said we'd be on our own it would be someone designated on the legislative arena to sign off and approve those construction documents that a firm would present to us right you you would own the project we would own the project we'd have to make sure that all the contracts are in place for um insured bonds or insured liability ensuring the project materials fire safety all the permitting is in place all the um code issues are in place we'd have to look at those construction documents and approve them right and you know in in practice you folks have done projects on your own in the past and even if we weren't formally involved we just it's our nature and if we are we are your neighbors and we are your partners in so many things that if we can't not get involved in some way but um you know formally you guys would be on the hook for the project is the state house considered one of the buildings that's under bts is one of those buildings that we talked about yesterday that there are 240 state-owned buildings the bts i have been trained to to say and believe that this is our most important building um there are certainly uh some uh things about the building that are unique in terms of how it's operated and and governed but it is a state building and it is our most important building that's why you see our people working so hard on the glass walls in the cafeteria every day sorry eric does that help marcia at all okay and then kerb um thank you can you tell me how much experience the sergeant of arms office has in initiating and monitoring these types and levels of projects do you like me to answer that madam chair yes go ahead so we've had just a few projects represent someone and it it and it became obvious that i could not manage that i'm not a construction person so that's why we did hire trisha and um in this you know i was involved with the dome stuff just going to meetings but it wasn't anything that you know i was just weighing in on our perspective for you know the work that was being done you know logistics for you know people coming in and out and all of that so you're correct and then i'm not qualified to do that nor is anyone else in the sergeant of arms office i think it's a matter of hiring uh the person as uh an architect of our own and we did go out and hire freeman french and freeman for advice on other projects as well i think the advantage i see in and you can call it the sergeant of arms or you could call it the legislature doing this on their own is by hiring their own architect that is for the beginning of all these stages that is the beginning of that's their thing that they're doing it's not we're not shared and have to as eric pointed out the bureaucratic business that bgs has to do and i'm not saying we don't follow good practices and that kind of thing we do but if we hire the right person to manage this for the legislature in conjunction with including bgs because they are our partners in a lot of things here for maintenance and uh institutional knowledge at the state house um i feel like the advantage is us for us to have our own um and i'm just one sergeant at arms that comes and goes you know and this is a long term project so everyone needs to you know you'd have to be comfortable with the person that we hired um thank you so bgs would not be participating at all in the in the RFP process it would be safe you retain Trisha's firm you would be reliant upon whole firm to be doing this is that correct some more of an independent contractor but i think so madam chair would that be your take Trisha is there to work for the legislative branch that's her position it's okay i do think it's part of a bigger conversation that we're having now so i'm not you know it's you all have been making good points about it too and this all came up in the advisory committee and we we didn't make a decision uh kurt and then march on and then i'm um i'm a little concerned about the timeline and i think uh representative dolan's question was a good one regarding who has to do the reviewing of these things and my understanding was that along the way it's not just the legislature and all those various committees but it's also the fire marshal and the capital complex and perhaps the cafeteria company that's using the cafeteria all those people are going to weigh in at the various stages of the project and it's a to me it's a good question how committed are they to getting this done by 2026 because uh our experiences that projects can take a long time so i'm a little concerned about that and not sure how that gets resolved um i would i also agree with marsh i'd like to hear more from the administration as to why they're not in favor of i understand eric's point of view and and i can see that giving them another project might be an overload and that's kind of another whole question but the administration has some is the reason that they're not interested in this a question of capacity or is it because they think it's a bad idea for some other reason and if it's for some other reason then i i'd like to know what that is um in order to see whether it's a good good idea to to progress i suspect that if we go down this road it will be the expansion to the capital there will be no more discussion of adding wings on the other sides because we'll say we've already expanded by putting it on the cafeteria we don't need to consider those anymore so we're kind of choosing a route for the future along those lines um the other thing that i was hearing was um madam chair you were saying we would have to approve the drawings and we would have to do and i'm not sure who we is in that case because i know i'm not qualified and i don't know well maybe this committee could collectively have the expertise to say yes these drawings look good but uh i get my understanding would be that it's the person we hire the construction manager who would make those decisions and say yes these um these fit these are according to all the regulations and things so i'm a little confused on who we is when you're the approval of the various stages we would be the legislative branch so that means what about three different committees that would be leadership leadership it would be working with the sergeant arms it'd be working with trisha it would be working with joint management committee it'd be working with joint rules committee it would be the legislative branch that would need to sign off on those documents not bgs construction right but would present those this is what they would recommend but somebody needs to look at those documents and make sure that they're caring for what is needed all the permits would be in place code review all of that it would be the legislative branch so when i say we i'm implying it's a legislative branch so all these committees are going to look at the the several committees are going to look at the drawings and say oh i think this needs to be moved over here does this fit the fire marshals uh requirements and i think this wall looks too thick or something like that it might be i'm not sure how detailed it would get into trisha for something like that but someone has to sign off those construction documents beyond the architectural firm somebody has to give the approval that yes we're going to go ahead with this and it is a step by step process for the review of the documents and i understand what you're saying i think it's a good point there does need to be some kind of a group committee a forum to represent those different groups so that they can sign off on it i would think would be the best way to approach that madam chair well look at it this way if we're signing off whose signature is it well that's the question we don't know because we don't have that structure in place if we don't know would it be the sergeant arms and the total sergeant arms responsibility after consulting with all the legislative committees like joint management joint rules and your speaker and your senate pro tem and all of that yeah well i can't i can't see going forward with a project and we don't know who's going to approve it that's what we're discussing right now would this be under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch or would we appropriate the money to bgs for them to be the driver that's what we're trying to figure out okay and and i'm saying that if we're saying it's the legislative branch i i need something more specific than just the legislative branch because i can't see somehow the unless we do it by resolution or something i don't see how the legislature can approve schematic drawings unless we unless we define an entity to do that and say okay here's a steering committee for this project and they are the ones that are responsible for putting their signatures on the drawings and saying this is correct okay that's what we're grappling with so the question about why bts is in the position they're in the administration voted no on this memo they did not support putting 1.5 million in the governor's proposed budget adjustment the governor proposes the funding the governor proposed the general fund budget adjustment in the middle of december to our house appropriations committee this was not in it it comes from the governor the proposal for baa comes from the governor bts is probably the executive branch they're part of the administration that makes sense now we are proposing a project which is the second floor of the cafeteria i would like to know what bgs and the administration think of that as an idea for future expansion of the capital do they think that's a good idea or about it i don't care well i do care but at this point i'm not asking how should it be funded i'm asking is it the way that we should expand the capital and if the administration is saying no we don't we think it's a bad idea because we have another plan for something else or there's we've found that what we want to do is put the wood fired boiler down in the certain place they may have all kinds of reasons for not supporting this aside from the financial one and if there are those then i want to know what they are because we might be making the wrong decision it's fine if they just say no we we think the project is okay but we don't want to pay for it this way that's entirely different matter so i don't know how eric or joe can respond to this i don't want to put you in a corner um i know you need to speak for the executive branch executive branch and the legislative branch of two separate branches of government and this is a building that the legislature operates out of and maybe the administration just doesn't feel in need to be a part of that preliminary discussion i don't know no madam this this is actually the moment where i say the thing that causes distress because it's often said in almost ingest but in this moment i have to say i support the governor's recommend i can certainly consult with my superiors to see a more granular explanation of the reasoning behind the governor's recommend could be offered but it was not in the governor's proposed budget and that's all the message i have available today i can i can check and see if i can offer more but i have nothing more today that's fine with me and if uh if eric could find out and say you know is there some reason aside from the fact that we didn't think of it to put it in the in the recommend or we don't like the financing of it then let us know for sure because it might be important many things are proposed in the in in the budget process by us by agencies by and uh those that appear in the governor's recommend are the ones that we support so that's where we're at um okay so we have a couple and then sarah scott you dropped out are you still in the queue okay marcia and then sarah this this could be funded by one time our money we don't have to go borrow money we don't have to use capital funds somebody should get off the top of the can here and go make a plunge and do this because it's our one and only chance i mean just think about it that money will go down the drain if we don't use it i mean and i think that yes bgs that's kind of their job and if that's their most important building i think that uh they should be in charge of it and find a way to fit it into their plans because this is a one-shot deal we have jenna do you have a response or do you want to be in the um madam chair i i think that uh represented martel it's like hitting the button there and i think she's right in the if the governor in all due respect has other plans for that money i think it's up to the legislature to advocate that this is a need that we have and um and like for hoover takes care of the project or two does the project you know doesn't matter to me i'm just invested in what's right for the the state capital i do know that uh in other projects bgs have not they've just haven't had the bandwidth to do it as i haven't and we haven't and that's why we do hire someone such as an architect and then that architect hires the other construction managers and all of that kind of piece and then i think the other question was about the stakeholders and who would be on board with that i mean i think that's all going to take a push for people because like the capital complex we met with them on lighting they only meet once every so often uh they agreed to update the lighting around the state house with reasonable uh accommodations to the neighbors so you know the city as well the all that as a stakeholder is into when we do construction work especially to this magnitude and then i'm just not sure about the other question about uh if we go above the cafeteria does this put the hold on any other expansion project if needed down the road and madam chair i think you had alluded to that whatever we did going up on any place would not restrict any other advancement of construction so just throw those things out there madam chair the memo said that this shall include the infrastructure needs for any future phases of expansion so down the road if 20 years from now the legislative branch wants to build a wing on to one side at least the infrastructure for caring for the electrical and for the heating and all of that is built within that expansion above the cafeteria to accommodate that because that's what they did back in the eighties sarah thank you madam chair um i i appreciate a representative martel's comment and i was going to speak to that a little bit um and i think we are asking the all the right questions this committee uh you know the the chain of command and decision the decision-making process but i so i had i think this since the three years that i've been on the committee it's my fourth year the state house and the the space constraints of the state house has been an issue and then covid hit and that's you know we've i've in my short time have already received and read several reports on how to address it and it seems like this is a moment and i uh to address some of our long-term needs um our immediate short-term needs and our long-term needs so one of the questions i had and i wanted to get some clarification from trisha about trisha your role your role and then also what you're proposing to me it sounded like one of the things that you were proposing is that in this process that we would you would recommend using a construction manager um as well as a commissioning agent and it's my understanding from what i heard you say that a commissioning agent is the um owner's representative but that doesn't mean that makes the decisions without all of the stakeholders but in this case the timeline is pretty complex not just because of the complexity of the construction project itself but in the decision-making process you laid that out pretty clearly i thought so one of the i think the commissioning agent is something that we should pay attention to i think that's a very interesting recommendation um and it is something similar to what i think bgs would do and you having your you worked for bgs we're so lucky to have you and your depth of knowledge of the state house since 1994 i think we are very fortunate to have your you involved in the the advice the state house advisory committee had the foresight to do that is is terrific so my question is how long is this a permanent position that you're in are you could you be to answer some of the committee's questions like you could be in a way could we think of you as our version of a bgs or how we how we would on other projects would be looking towards bgs to oversee a project that's my understanding that you would play that role this isn't a temporary role this is your is that is that correct i have been hired on contract for a year yes so that you know i intend you know if it works out i'd like to continue and help you through all these projects for the next few years so um that was my intent uh i am you know because i've done bgs for many years the rfp process the the development of projects etc like that but i do think that the word partnership was key that someone used earlier because i do need help from bgs to provide the rfp documents necessary that is under their their realm of contracting so it would still need the assistance or the partnership with bgs in order to put this rfp out on the street i would also think it would be key if they were involved in this partnership in reviewing the rfp that i developed um if that was uh something that the commissioner and uh the governor would support and the commissioner did work with us for our like retainer contractors for two aiken and you know we had to do a little little wiggle room with them and meet with um jennifer and ask if we could use their contract and they agreed that we could so that was great and we really appreciated that okay so it sounds as if we have two decisions right madam chair that one is about the that we would i know a little bit more discussion but it's about the money in the baa and then drilling down on some of the details on how the mechanics of this work um reduce the money go yep where is it designated and i know scott has a question but i want to ask a question of trisha so if we did it on our own who's in the driver's seat in terms of working with that construction firm and applying the rfp is it the architectural firm the uh yeah the architectural firm uh does work with the cm and also the project which i'd be consider a project manager for you at that time would also work in coordination uh with all those individuals this the construction manager um the the owner the and the and uh any any of the coordination that has to be through but i would run everything through janet so it is a load on janet that she has to approve certain things and review the document and off on them too in a lot of cases and this is where and this i'm speaking personal this is my concern we are not janets not a construction person that's right push it is but janet isn't legislators or not right we're putting a lot of faith in an architectural firm an architectural firms can say oh you want this yeah we can do this to ching to ching to ching oh you want this yeah we can do this to ching to ching to ching so where's that check and balance and that's a lot of weight to put on trisha that has no staff and no backup that's my concern this is not a simple little project this is a major construction project this is like doing a secure residential facility this is like building a brand new state office building that you you know you need to know what you're doing and my concern is putting all of this onto folks that this is not their world that's my personal feeling madam chair i agree with you is there a way that this committee couldn't kind of noodle through something as a partnership because you know trisha was hired originally to have the best interest of the legislature at and we still need that i feel because buildings and general services they have a lot of different projects we're and i know this is a priority for them but we're not always uh and i'll do and i'll do respect they they don't have the the band but we're working through an h-fat project we're working through a 2-8 project because they did not they did not have the total time to help us with that so i definitely think that the person that we hire to is looking out for all of us here at the state house and i don't know how we can coordinate that with whoever takes the project on and maybe and that's still the question of what we're grappling with i think and i totally agree i you know it's a even these smaller projects were too much for me which in fact we had to hire trisha and she's been huge help like we couldn't have gotten this far but the magnitude of this other big huge project i i agree with you madam chair i mean this could be two five million dollar project right it's not chump change no it's not no it's not it's not a half million dollar project that janet's been involved in um you know we fronted maybe around five hundred thousand seven hundred thousand to janet to do some of the renovations for the coat room and to waken but when you're talking 20 25 million dollar project it's it's a major project um i want to i'm going to go to scott and i'm looking at the time i'd like to give about five minutes or so before we have to zoom in but it's scott okay well so i agree with kind of everything that's been said starting with marsha marsha's observation that we got to do something we have access to this money and we got it we got to do something um and it doesn't seem like this is the kind of project that ought to be managed um out of the sergeant arms price office this is exactly the kind of project the bgs ought to be handling um and so we're the legislature we appropriate the money and the executive does the project right that executes the what what what we've decided um so it seems to me that that's that's where the money ought to go we've we've hired trisha as i understand it now to represent the legislature's interests couldn't trisha be there for our liaison to the to bgs to uh you know to make sure that that to prod things along make sure that make sure that things keep going i guess that's my my observation so scott that's very helpful so let let me put this on the table here and see if we can at least move off the dime are the committee members in support of us making a recommendation to house appropriations to jumpstart this project for 1.5 million so i see linda's saying no i'm seeing how much use your hands yeah i see everyone larry i'm saying i'm saying no because at this point i want more information okay information in terms of who's going to be the lead where does the money go to because we got well that but i think we really need to have an understanding from the administration why for what reason i you know this if we're doing the project it needs to be laid out why we're doing it so that we're all on board to do it i i'm i don't like this kind of um well we don't we don't know if it's because of the money or they don't like the project they don't whatever this should be a pretty open discussion and so i'll need a lot more information i'll have to echo what mary said that's exactly how i feel i think we need more before we can just just plunge forward without hearing hearing more and linda what are your thoughts um so i would like to hear more from the administration on their they wanted to expand and if we did something like this would it inhibit the way they wanted to expand and so i think it's far too premature at this point in time to do a piecemeal expansion even though everybody wants a bigger cafeteria i don't think this is the time to go that route we don't have enough information i don't have the confidence yet in who would be retained to oversee regardless of the qualifications of our legislative advisor i need to see the whole project and what will go on and i really need input from the administration thank you and if we take all this time to do all of this that money's going down the drain every day so we may not get an answer from the administration and from my point of view if we don't it's not going to destroy anything okay over this particular year the x amount of months left in this particular session with a 1.5 million dollar investment i think we don't need to do anything at this point in time i don't think that you're going to lose a million five you might use use it for something more beneficial at this point well the the issue was getting the whole project done in time to to be within the part of time frame right and that's what 2026 so we gotta go you should lay down the time frame right and this is a legislative branch this is the building that we operate out of the executive branch does not operate out of this building this is the building that the legislative branch the third branch a separate branch of government operates under just keep that in mind that's where we work and who has jurisdiction and control of the workspace that we work do we do that was the a separate branch of government do that just putting that out on the table there uh larry and then lendo yeah my concerns um i guess i would like to see two a can explore it a little bit more so i need a little bit more information when bgs moved out to 133 state street that freed up as i understand it first and second floors and yet this is the third three-story building i understand the needs for the new wiring age vac reconfigurations and possibly security etc so my question is hr per is human resources located is in the capital building or is it off-site they moved they were in another building not in the state house they were in what we call the pink lady um which is right about the state house they moved down to to awaken to awaken is an old house and it's really chopped up and legislative branch in terms of legislators using that place for committee rooms or anything it is just not feasible for that because you've got small office space in there and it's a three-story old house so so my next question is is covid driving the need for more space you know that's a good point and i think we've got to we we've worked on balancing that we've been talking about needing more space in the state house prior to covid the decision we make in terms of how we expand should be driven in terms of our work as a legislative body and not covid because if covid was driving this we'd end up with a much bigger space so we've been the building and it's unfortunate many of you have not been in the building during a session and how the building can get really cramped and how committee rooms on the house side can get really cramped so we have to balance out how we can function and do our work not in the world of covid that's what we're balancing right now with an expansion it's not covid that is driving the expansion covid drove us to move our committee room into another committee room it drove room 9 10 11 in the lounge to be converted over to committee rooms on the temporary basis covid drove that but that's not permanent can you describe to me the function of our mezzanine and legal council up there the mezzanine is a floor in between our main lobby floor and the upper floor where the cafeteria and the well and the committee rooms the mezzanine is a space that's very limited in use because there are columns along that hallway that are weight bearing so it'd be very very difficult to convert that space into committee rooms our legal council our lawyers our lawyers legislative lawyers that staff our legislative committees that's where their offices are and then there's also like our our lawyer Becky Wasserman her office is in the pink lady so there's some what does some of our lawyers are separate from where the others are housed in the mezzanine we have some lawyers who are housed in the pink lady so the goal of getting to aching was to consolidate all of legislative council into one space so they're not so spread out so if they were moved and all consolidated offsite out of this building in a the magic space let's call it it may not be necessarily to aching um has an architectural and engineering study been commissioned to look at the mezzanine no that's what this 1.5 would be to you know figure out what that one point what where that how that mezzanine space could be used but before we even get there leadership on the house and senate side joint management committee needs to work with the leadership of the legislative council to come to some form of agreement if they're going to move or not to to aching and if that was put on the table for the administration do you think you could garner more support the administration is a separate branch of government and they will probably not weigh in on this this is where the legislative branch operates the legislatures in the driver's seat in terms of this money it is not the administration we can appropriate the money to bgs and then bgs will do the work that they're being asked but to keep looking to the governor and the administration for their approval it's not that's not the appropriate body it's a legislative body okay um this question is more for trisha um when i was involved in construction project at the hospital we always hired a clerk of the works to oversee everything what is the terminology you're using here contract manager no a clerk of the works is a um a representative owner's representative that is on site that makes sure the contractors are following the documents um according to the architectural the owner and um and making sure that the owner is uh has you know the proper permits in place or or uh if doors need to be opened or that contractor needs access you know they they oversee that make sure that they're there to watch that contractor are the eyes on site the clerk of the works says so yes that'd be advised that that during the construction process that in the bid just prior to bidding that the clerk of the works be hired as a separate consultant to the owner thank you so who would the clerk of the work answer to would it be to the architectural firm or to you trisha if we did it in house yeah so it would be um to the owner so the answer to uh janet and myself um as her representative and uh so and then they also you know that that's who they answer to yes and and they also look to make sure that the architects drawings are being um followed and if there was a difference then they would need to let up they would make the architect aware but typically they're just there for the owner representative as the eyes on the site and anything that needs to be done water turned on electric turned off fire sprinklers smoke detectors you know anything that needs to happen during that day of construction we handle that for me so for this last project we uh we had in the coat room i just did it and janet and her security staff uh because we didn't have enough time to hire them a clerk of the works unfortunately so but it worked out thank you um it's 1030 linda you had your hand up do you want to go and then we've got to really scoot to the southern zoom meeting and pick up the i'm fine larry covered what um some of the things that i was going to say actually so i'm good okay so we'll revisit this um we're not done we need to figure out something um and we'll work trying to schedule something later on today possibly um and then we'll go from there and sarah i spoke earlier mary you and i and phil need to get together at some point for scheduling so if we could do kind of connect after his zoom meeting i don't know around 12 maybe we could meet but i'm not but we got to get on joint meeting mary i said that's fine so you want us to come back after the joint hearing around noon time to do scheduling yeah why don't why don't we quickly plan on that if that works and we should use the zoom that we're on right now the committee zoom right yeah okay so let's scoot over to the other zoom meeting and thank you madam chair for youtube we are done