The House of Corrections and Institutions on March 21 reviewed Draft 3.1 of the biennial capital bill for corrections projects, with committee members parsing language that sets bonded totals, identifies which agency controls appropriations, and clarifies conditions for releasing funds tied to federal grants.

Committee members emphasized reading the bill line by line to confirm that the amounts listed are bonded dollars and to track whether amounts are off-limits to subsequent budget adjustments. The drafter opened the meeting by noting the bill's first section is legislative intent and not statutory language in the “green books.”

The nut graf: The committee’s discussion centered on three recurring issues that will affect implementation — (1) whether specific appropriations are controlled by Buildings and General Services (BGS) or the Department of Corrections (DOC), (2) language that would allow transfers of unexpended balances within enumerated subdivisions, and (3) a “notwithstanding” clause that may permit release of funds without verification that federal matching or federal grant requests were approved.

Members noted the bill lists a bonded amount for the first year of the biennium that the chair read as 61,000,600, and emphasized that the bill text should be read alongside the project spreadsheet so the language tracks the line‑item purpose. The committee asked BGS to flag any discrepancies between the bill text and the spreadsheet.

On routing and control of appropriations, the chair and staff stressed the importance of where funds are appropriated. Several passages in Draft 3.1 appropriate DOC projects to BGS for administration; committee members and BGS staff flagged that some routine maintenance and replacements have historically been appropriated directly to DOC. Wanda Manoli, commissioner of Buildings and General Services, said staff would confirm which project lines should be appropriated directly to DOC. "Some of the projects that I believe DOC wants to do...would typically go right to the department so they can be efficient and repair what they need to," Manoli said.

Committee members discussed specific project line items called out in the draft: a $4,000,000 statewide appropriation for planning, design and construction of HVAC system upgrades at correctional facilities; safety and security upgrades listed statewide with individual facility line items (including door or system-control work); door replacements scheduled in FY26 at "St. Jay" and in FY27 at Rutland (as listed in the draft); and other system-control and security work at facilities such as Newport. The committee asked staff to ensure the spreadsheet explicitly reads "statewide" for the HVAC line and that the section text tracks the spreadsheet listing.

The bill includes transfer language allowing unexpended project balances between enumerated subdivisions to be moved within that section. Committee members read that language as permitting the commissioner to transfer unexpended balances among the listed projects in subdivision A5, and they discussed whether that would allow moving previously appropriated amounts from FY2023 items (for example, booking-expansion planning and design at St. Albans) into other items without additional verification.

A focal point of the discussion was a notwithstanding clause tied to projects that had been expected to use federal funds. Committee members read the text as giving the commissioner authority to release appropriated amounts ‘‘notwithstanding’’ the prior requirement to wait for verification that a federal funding request had been submitted or approved. That raised questions about whether the projects could proceed if federal matches or reimbursements did not materialize. Will (staff in Nick Kramer's office) was asked to confirm the federal‑funding status; committee members requested follow-up so the committee understands whether federal requests were submitted and whether the clause removes a prior verification step.

Members also reiterated the difference between "boilerplate" legislative‑intent language — repeated introductory language that does not amend state statute — and section law that amends or creates statutory provisions. The chair reminded members that language without a title or VSA citation is section law (not an amendment to existing statutory text in the green books).

Ending: Committee staff were tasked with reconciling the bill text and spreadsheet wording, confirming which project appropriations should be routed to DOC versus BGS, verifying the federal‑funding status for affected projects, and returning with an updated draft. The committee then moved to Section 4 (commerce and community development).