My Thursday's post on the Douglas Administration's decision to delay purchases of new Amtrak cars has stirred things up some. I started getting some calls returned Friday, and John Dillon of Vermont Public Radio began digging into the story. Dillon's story aired Friday afternoon.

Over the course of the day, my understanding of the story changed quite a bit. And there were quite a few calls among the highest levels of Vermont state government, as the various actors scrambled to get on the same page.

As I explained Thursday, VTrans Operations Director Sam Lewis told the Vermont Rail Advisory Council earlier in the week that the Douglas administration was waiting to move forward on purchasing new Amtrak trains until the Debt Affordability Committee reviewed the purchase in October. The cars will save the state money, burn less fuel, and allow two departures a day for the Vermonter run from White River Junction and southward.

When asked at the meeting who flagged the Amtrak car purchase for review by the Debt Affordability Committee, VTrans Operations Director Sam Lewis said it was the Secretary of Administration (Mike Smith) and the Secretary of Transportation (Neale Lunderville).

John Zicconi, spokesperson for the Agency of Transportation, called me Friday morning, returning a call I'd made before posting Thursday to Mike Smith. Zicconi's explanation was consistent with Lewis' comments. He explained that the Amtrak car purchase would require the $1.8 million in bonding that was in the 2010 budget. If the state decided after its 3-year trial period that it wanted to keep the cars, it would require additional bonding to pay for the $18+ million purchase. The Debt Affordability Committee reviews bonding decisions, he explained, and if there are more projects that require bonding than the state can afford to take on in debt, the Debt Affordability Committee makes an advisory statement about how to spend the money.

I asked him whether it would have been an option for the administration to just buy the new trains and present the Debt Affordability Committee with a fait accompli. He replied, "We think it's wise to let the Debt Affordability Committee weigh in."

Meanwhile, Zicconi explained, VTrans can proceed with preparations for the Amtrak train purchase. For example, they needed to perform a new cost-benefit analysis on the Amtrak purchase to present to the Debt Affordability Committee, so they could have the information in their deliberations. "We need to get our ducks in a row so we can answer their questions," he said.

Friday afternoon, quite a different story emerged.

State Treasurer Jeb Spaulding returned my call from the previous day, and he told me unequivocally, "There is no decision-making role for the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee" in the Amtrak train purchase. "I'm chair of the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee, and I've never heard of this before. We have a meeting in July, and this isn't on the agenda."

I asked to make sure that his Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee was the same as what VTrans people were calling the Debt Affordability Committee, and he said yes.

Spaulding said that the administration does have the option of proceeding with the purchase of the trains and presenting it to the Debt Affordability Committee as a done deal. Or not. "I don't have a problem with the Administration thinking about whether we can afford the debt for the trains. I don't appreciate them laying it on the Capital Debt Affordability Advisory Committee."

Spaulding said he'd tried to find Sam Lewis and incoming Transportation Secretary David Dill to get their take on it, and did get a call through to Neale Lunderville. Spaulding thought they were on the same page at that point.

Later in the afternoon, John Zicconi called back. He'd talked with Jeb Spaulding, and told me that there was a misapprehension that the Debt Affordability Committee weighed in on specific projects like the Amtrak purchase. He apologized for any role he'd played in spreading that misapprehension, and emphasized that he agreed with Spaulding on the committee's role. The committee, explained Zicconi, determined the state's overall debt limit, and then it is up to the Administration, working with the legislature, to decide how that money is spent.

Zicconi also said that there is no line item in the fiscal year 2009 budget (starting July 1) to purchase the Amtrak trains; the money would be spent in 2010. Or the budget adjustment process in January could decide to spend the money in 2009, if it seemed warranted. Staff time to prepare the cost-benefit analysis, negotiate the contract with the manufacturer, etc. does not need a line item, so that work can occur in FY 2009.

Finally, Zicconi took issue with my previous post's characterization of waiting for the Debt Affordability Committee's decision as a "new hurdle" for the purchase. "I don't know how you can call the normal due diligence the state has to do a hurdle, particularly a new hurdle."

Members of the Vermont Rail Advisory Council on Tuesday certainly understood it as a new hurdle. They included Sonny Audette, on the House Transportation Committee. As he told VPR's Dillon yesterday, "I understood that once we agreed to it, that it was going to proceed. Now I don't know why the hold-up, but that's what they want to do."

It's not clear to me at this point how much the wait for the October meeting of the Debt Affordability Committee slows the purchase. The state came very close to signing a deal with Colorado Railcar last year--how fast could they move to update that contract and get the work started? How much prep work for the purchase will they have done by October? When will Colorado Railcar actually have a contract so they can start manufacturing the cars? And how long is Amtrak willing to extend its offer to sweeten the pot?

I hope to find some answers to those questions next week.