Senate’s capital-bill changes shift cash-and-bond mix; housing projects, infrastructure funding highlighted

At a May 1 meeting of the House Corrections and Institutions Committee, Senator Wendy Harrison, chair of the Senate Institutions Committee, outlined the Senate’s proposed amendments to the House capital bill, saying the Senate shifted some projects from bond financing to cash and front‑loaded more bonding into fiscal year 2026 to stay within overall bonding capacity.

Harrison said the Senate proposes to fund three near‑ready housing infrastructure projects (the “3 B’s”) largely with cash in order to move them forward, while shifting about $700,000 in bonded dollars into FY26 to balance the two years. “We’ve asked for … a study evaluation to be done by JFO of the relative merits of using cash versus [bonding], and that’ll be finished in time for us to talk about it at the beginning of next year,” Harrison said, describing a request the Senate included to evaluate when cash is appropriate in capital budgeting.

Why it matters: the change affects how the state balances immediate project starts against long‑term debt costs and ties the capital bill’s funding decisions to negotiations in the larger “big bill” (the budget/appropriations bill). Harrison and committee members repeatedly noted the capital bill’s cash allocations are linked to what Senate Appropriations does in the general fund and that conference committee negotiations will reconcile the differences.

Most of the Senate’s adjustments, Harrison said, preserve the House’s project list but alter the funding vehicle. She said the three housing projects were vetted by the administration and by the Agency of Commerce and Community Development (ACCD) and will direct money to towns to pay for public infrastructure — roads, water and sewer — not direct payments to developers. “The money goes to the towns,” Harrison said. “The town uses the money for infrastructure. So it’ll be roads. It’ll be water.”

Harrison described specific shifts: the White River Junction courthouse project was reduced in cash and part shifted to bonding to free up cash to fund the three housing projects; the Senate added or restored smaller items such as building‑community grants (restoring $300,000 in FY27 after modest reductions in FY26), a $275,000 brush truck request, and a partial allocation to a dry‑hydrant grant program. She also described a $127,000 request for an incubator farm proposed to use 12 acres of land at the Vermont Veterans Home for a teaching/therapy farm for veterans; Harrison said that request came late and that the committee did not have full agency testimony on which state agency would administer the grant.

Committee members asked for clarifications on specific projects. On Bennington (the “Ben High” conversion), Harrison said the funding is intended for town infrastructure and that the property and developer relationships had been vetted; a committee member noted the project previously returned a TIF allocation and asked where owner/developer commitments fit into the plan. On the Pittsburgh Academy and Cherry Street items, Harrison said the projects are expected to be ready in FY26 and that the Senate worked with Commissioner Manoli on timing and readiness.

Harrison and others emphasized the time pressure from legislative scheduling: the Senate’s version of the bill was slated for the Senate floor the next day with a hoped‑for second and third reading, and the House committee must decide by the next Tuesday whether to concur with the Senate changes, refuse concurrence, or send the differences to a conference committee. “So by Tuesday, we will this committee will have to make a determination. Do we concur, not concur, set up a conference committee?” the committee chair said.

The Senate’s move to increase cash in FY27 (reported in committee materials as roughly an increase from $7.5 million to $10.2 million in cash) and to front‑load bonding into FY26 will be part of negotiations with Senate Appropriations and the “big bill” because the latter controls general‑fund decisions and the capital bill’s cash allocations can be affected by those appropriations decisions.

The committee did not take a formal vote during the May 1 discussion. Harrison said the Senate included language asking the Joint Fiscal Office to study cash versus bonding and expected the study to be available for the next session so both House and Senate committees could consider the policy and fiscal tradeoffs.

Harrison closed by asking committee members to reserve detailed “weeds”‑level questions for a conference committee or for later negotiations, while agreeing to provide further project details and agency coordination as requested by the committee.