On Jan. 13, the Senate Committee on Institutions received a policy overview of Act 33, the state’s biennial capital bill, presented by John Ray of the Office of West Coast Council. Committee Chair Wendy Harrison opened the session and said the committee would focus on policy provisions in the capital bill rather than the financial figures previously reviewed.

Ray told members the bill retains the familiar form of Act 33 but this year will be amended in place rather than assembled anew. He described the front-end sections (1–16) as appropriations, many backed by bonding, and said section 17 governs reallocations of unspent funds. "You may reallocate after, I guess, a 3 year period, and then you shall reallocate after a 5 year period," Ray said, explaining how authorizations return to the committee if projects do not proceed.

Ray said section 18 sets bonding authorizations and section 19 lists cash spending authorizations, noting the bonding figures are often lower than total appropriations because cash and reallocation sources fill the gap. On policy provisions, Ray said section 20 begins the policy changes and includes an amendment moving the unspent-funds reporting date to the third Tuesday of the annual session to align receipt of the capital budget. He described that change as timing only: "It's not a substantive amendment to anything about the content of those unexpected fund reports, but just aligning the dates," Ray said.

Section 21 would require the capital budget presentation to show amounts appropriated and expended for the current and preceding fiscal year and to include aggregate amounts for the five fiscal years before that, categorized by funding type and project phase. Ray said the goal is a concise, chart-like display so members can better see a project’s funding streams and phases over time.

The committee discussed the cash fund and related reporting. Ray described the cash fund’s two subaccounts and said a directive to the JFO would provide a historical report outlining sources and expenditures and clarifying distinctions between bond-backed and cash-backed appropriations. He explained the cash-fund clawback timing had been extended previously to three years and that the bill seeks to address timing challenges members found in practice.

Members pressed for clarity on language that uses the term "timely." On section 24, which adds a notice requirement, Ray said BGS and BTS would give Montpelier and the Montpelier Commission for Recovery and Resilience timely notification of any alterations to flood-recovery proposals that have a meaningful impact, rather than a fixed quarterly schedule. "It's if there have been alterations to proposals and plans, ensure that you reach out to the city and the commission to update them as to that fact," he said.

Other policy items Ray summarized included a conditional transfer of the Randall Meadow property from the town of Waterbury (subject to permits and stormwater controls), repeal of a prior feasibility-report requirement on reusing the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility site, a provision to keep federal offsets within the capital budgeting process, and a limited expansion of an earlier sergeant-at-arms authorization to allow certain statehouse security equipment purchases (including an x-ray machine for screening).

No formal motions or votes were taken during the meeting. Members asked follow-up questions about bond timing and fiscal-year conventions; Scott (fiscal staff) offered to share the cash-fund report from his website. The committee adjourned following the questions and comments.

The committee indicated it will receive updated capital-budget figures and related materials as the session continues, and members said they expect further informational briefings during the weeks ahead.