Corrections & Institutions committee reviews capital funding, bond authority and capital‑book reporting

John Grama, Legislative Council, walked the Corrections and Institutions Committee through the funding provisions of the draft capital bill on Tuesday, March 18, noting bond and cash authorizations and proposed reporting changes.

Grama said the bill’s section 18 would authorize the state treasurer to issue general obligation bonds totaling $100,000,000 “for the purpose of funding the appropriations made in sections 2 through 16,” and explained technical drafting changes carried over from last year’s capital bills. “We are, again, in this instance, we are now in the funding sections,” Grama said as he opened the discussion.

The discussion moved quickly from bond form to cash authorizations. Committee staff identified two of the largest cash items in the draft: $8,000,000 from the capital infrastructure subaccount to the Department of Buildings and General Services (BGS) for statewide major maintenance, and $8,000,000 for the Windsor County courthouse. Committee members also noted a $1,500,000 reallocation earmarked for design of the Vermont Veterans Home “A” unit; Grama explained that language moves that amount into a cash “pot” in section 19 so it can be expended from the capital cash fund.

A separate subaccount (subaccount B) would make $14,500,000 available in fiscal year 2026 to the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR), Department of Environmental Conservation, for state matching needs tied to municipal pollution, drinking‑water revolving loan, and clean‑water revolving loan funds. Committee members discussed prior set‑asides—Act 78 funds, IIJA match dollars, and some ARPA money—that have been used as state matches over recent years and asked administration staff for updated accounting of how much of those prior set‑asides remain unspent.

Committee members asked about a proposed administration amendment that would set the annual transfer into the capital infrastructure subaccount at a firm 4 percent of the last completed fiscal year general fund appropriations (less debt service). That “may/shall” change drew immediate pushback from a majority of committee members, who said they had previously rejected a mandatory transfer. Representative Harrison spoke for the committee’s prior position and recommended retaining the status quo reallocation process to preserve flexibility in a volatile budget environment.

The committee also reviewed proposed timing and format changes for capital reporting. Administration language would require the commissioner of finance and management to consolidate agencies’ reports on projects with two or more years of spending authority and submit that consolidated report “not later than the third Tuesday of each year,” intentionally aligning the capital report timing with the governor’s presentation of the budget. Will Anderson, Department of Finance and Management staff, confirmed the intent: “The idea is to present it at the same time that the budget is presented.” Committee members asked the administration to instead mirror existing statute language that ties the report deadline explicitly to the governor’s budget submission date.

Members pressed for more detailed capital‑book charts that track projects over time (approved through year, amounts appropriated and expended, whether funds are cash or bonded, and project status such as planning, design or construction). Several members said they had previously received such charts when BGS prepared the capital bill and urged restoring that level of detail; staff committed to providing examples and to drafting chart language for consideration.

Other brief items discussed under capital funding included a provision that would ensure federal reimbursements replacing earlier state capital appropriations (for example, at the Vermont Veterans Home) are re‑used for future capital projects through the capital bill process; and a short note that the committee will consider the form and presentation of a 10‑year capital plan that is forward looking but also gives some backward‑looking context.

No formal committee vote was recorded during the session; staff said additional drafts and updated spreadsheets will be circulated and some provisions—especially the 4 percent transfer amendment—are expected to remain contested when the bill advances.

Ending: Committee staff and administration representatives agreed to supply more detail on prior set‑asides (IIJA, ARPA, Act 78) and to produce sample capital‑book charts before the next meeting, when members expect to continue line‑by‑line review of the capital language.