Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Speaker 0]: Welcome back, folks. This is House Corrections and Institutions. It's Friday, February 27. We are back to work with our legal counsel. We do have a new draft on the telecom. It is H294, and we have a new draft 2.1 for that. So John, it's all yours, so walk us through.

[John Gray]: Happy Friday. John Gray, Office of Water Service Council. Here we go. Pretty simple stuff you're gonna see here. I think not verbatim what was said yesterday, but quite close to capturing the set of intent conditions that you guys have discussed. So briefly, the updates you're gonna see here are new intent language, considerations for cost analysis that take account of the fact that Wi Fi may or may not be present present within the facilities, cutting the cost mitigation piece that anticipated a further along process, and then adding a date for updates to justice oversight. So the first piece I'm going talk about is the intent section here. Because we're in a session law provision in the first instance, you may be used to seeing intent sections as standalone sections. That would be the case if you had a broader bill with lots of statutory amendments and the like, you'd wanna separate that out. Because you're just dealing with a section law provision here, we can include it as a subsection. And so that's what you see. This new sub A, it is the intent of the general assembly to, one, create conditions of incarceration that encourage the development and maintenance of the personal supports necessary for rehabilitation. That consideration was combining two separate points made yesterday for cultivating a rehabilitative environment and then supporting personal supports. I kind of thought of those as in a way grouped together. The second condition, is separate from a rehabilitative environment, mitigating disruptions to family and community connections caused by incarceration by reducing communication barriers. So this was the increasing contacts with family, children and the like. Three, this was representative Headrick's proposal to divest the state from the for profit prison industry. And four, this is representative Winter's suggestion, inform state correctional policy decision making with data, fiscal analysis, and agency expertise. So four kinds of conditions here. One is rehabilitation related. One is about ensuring family and community continuity. Three is divestment. And four, it's just data informing policy decision making. The piece I would note about sub four at least is I think that that intent is implicit in B. But that doesn't mean that you shouldn't include it here. I just mean to say that even if you don't express that, a report that's gathering information suggests that that is what you're trying to do. So

[Speaker 0]: let's have a conversation about the intent language. Question? I

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: think you did a good job capturing that discussion yesterday.

[John Gray]: Had started out in, maybe not interesting to you guys, but when I was putting this together, I ended up with differently sized subdivisions, some were running four lines and the like. And I was worried that it might suggest a priority level for the different conditions, just because some are devoted to more text basically. But I tried to make them look like equal priorities, essentially, within the Intent section.

[Speaker 0]: Are we comfortable with this language, folks? Looks good.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I am. Yeah. Mhmm.

[John Gray]: Nice. Success. Okay. Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: That's rare.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Changing it.

[John Gray]: This thing is looking looking pretty good. So subsection b is your report itself. The new language that we have at the bottom, page one on line 20, and I'm just going read the lead in for this, DOC to provide a written report evaluating options for providing no cost telecommunication services to inmates in state correctional facilities that analyzes the cost to the state of each alternative, including startup and transition costs, both with and without Wi Fi. So you would get basically a double You'd get two scenarios for that analysis of transition costs. I'm going to jump to page two. This was one I wasn't certain if the committee had fully coalesced around, but I had written down in subdivision F on line four, as part of this cost analysis, we talked about quantitative and qualitative measures. Sub F conceivably captures both in a way that not necessarily the other subdivisions do. And when we spoke yesterday, we had talked about this any anticipated benefits or savings, including reasonably ascertainable societal, and I'm going skip the highlighted language to just talk about what we had yesterday, including reasonably ascertainable societal or public safety impacts. While that's just including language, meaning it doesn't exhaust the sets of savings that are there, sometimes folks read the including language to be suggestive of what kinds of savings you're trying to capture. And I think it was me actually who expressed the worry that you just say societal or public safety impacts that may be read to the exclusion of impacts within the correctional facility where you might have anticipated benefits or savings to the benefit of the inmates. So I think there was some appetite for this, but it wasn't fully settled. So I proposed here, instead of adding in correctional impacts, just to make clear that any anticipated benefits or savings isn't just outside the walls of a correctional facility.

[Speaker 0]: And I was addressing in terms of it's a tool sometimes that helps tone down the anxiety within the facility.

[Troy Headrick]: Guess, Haley, if you're comfortable, I'd just like your thoughts on is F clear enough that we're really trying to get an understanding of how this is a little more amorphous. This is a little more undefinable, that if our correctional population, our incarcerated population has more access to their circles of support and connection, does that impact overall well-being in a way that is I don't know. It's Friday, and I'm in a good jumble. But one, I guess, is that what we're trying to do here? And is that clear enough?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I think it is clear as it is written.

[Unidentified participant (possibly 'Haley', DOC/analyst)]: But the language is somewhat vague. I could probably think of some potential terms that might

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: get what you're hoping to

[Unidentified participant (possibly 'Haley', DOC/analyst)]: cover, Troy. I would just need to think on

[John Gray]: that.

[Speaker 0]: You got a wink.

[John Gray]: I would offer that if you want to be more It's intentionally vague at this point. If you want to be specific, I'm also happy to think about If you want that specific call out, that's about the welfare of inmates within the correctional facility, that can be specifically designated. My concern was to not narrow the full. If you're trying to say, we really do wanna know any kinds of benefits or savings that haven't been captured in any of I mean, the other way to do it would be to say, although this is giving a lot of discretion to the department, you have these callouts in three A through E, and F could be a catch all. That's like, and any other measures that the department feels important or meaningful not captured in A through E. Which grants a lot of discretion but allows the department to say these are the sorts of benefits we think accrue and just aren't captured through these other quantitative measures.

[Speaker 0]: I would be concerned,

[Unidentified participant (possibly 'Haley', DOC/analyst)]: and I don't say this often, I would be concerned that that's almost too much discretion. It's just off the top of my mind, things that kind of come to mind for me are things like isolation in the facility, violence against others and staff, relationships between staff and incarcerated people, behavioral kind of impacts, those types of things really stand out to me. I don't know that they need to be overly prescriptive, but I believe that those would likely be the best measures.

[John Gray]: Yes, okay. That was well done.

[Speaker 0]: It's and security. Because you got security of the facility in terms of if people are not as anxious and more calm, the security risk in your facilities has decreased quite a bit.

[Unidentified participant (possibly 'Haley', DOC/analyst)]: And violence.

[Speaker 0]: Violence. But I'm thinking coming from a correctional officer's perspective, because they're there really to provide security. Security for the folks who are incarcerated and security for the facility that the facility doesn't get taken over. I'm gonna be blunt on that one, but that's part of their role for that. So it's both behavioral and some security.

[John Gray]: So just so I'm understanding, do you want to maintain all of the aspects that already exist in f, excluding the either including or excluding the highlighted language, and then also be specific as to these additional enumerated factors? Or are you proposing to replace sub f with this more specific directive to consider factors within the facility. More of it such as, I think.

[Speaker 0]: More of defining the correctional piece.

[John Gray]: Okay. Well, just putting culture after correctional elucidate or just elongated?

[Speaker 0]: Correctional

[John Gray]: culture. Yeah, I don't think it clarified. Yeah, yeah, it was. Good

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: to

[Speaker 0]: do another draft.

[John Gray]: I mean, the other thing you could do is you could add in a new F that has these enumerated factors and then keep any anticipated benefits or savings, including reasonably ascertainable societal or public safety impacts. But there's different ways to do it. As I understand that you want the full capture of interest. Yes,

[Unidentified committee member]: Please.

[Unidentified participant (possibly 'Haley', DOC/analyst)]: I will say that a public safety impacts, feel so that wouldn't really have to be speculation. Because I'm thinking about what would happen when someone is released from their sentence, and I'm not aware of any sort of studies or research.

[Troy Headrick]: Would you be willing, is there like a lit review sort of best practices across other states, noticeable impact on no cause calls on those variables? That's what I'm wondering.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Yeah, the things that

[Unidentified participant (possibly 'Haley', DOC/analyst)]: I've seen out there are really related to incidents when a person is incarcerated as opposed to what happens once they're released.

[John Gray]: In which case, can you stretch safety to cover both within and without during and after? Yeah. I mean, that's definitely an avenue, I think, just cutting the well, clarifying that it's both, yeah, other than cutting public.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: You

[John Gray]: guys are trying to take me past two lines here.

[Wanda Minoli]: So, are you clear?

[John Gray]: Yeah, I can do something on this, for sure. It's super helpful. The next change in the draft is something that's not visible. Former Subdivision 4, which was options for mitigating the cost of each alternative, including limitations on usage. The committee had rejected that subdivision yesterday, so that has been struck. Yep. And then the last piece is bottom of page two, line 12, starting on line 12, adding date provisions to ensure earlier and timely updates. On or before 09/15/2026, DOC shall begin providing regular updates on the department's evaluation of telecommunication service models to the Joint Legislative Justice Service subcommittee for the committee's analysis and input. It's gonna have a dual effect. One is it ensures that this process is started earlier rather than later, and then also has the effect of providing those updates to Justice oversight. So it kind of builds in two two features.

[Speaker 0]: So as I'm thinking about this, I'm wondering, Because the final report is due December 1, right?

[John Gray]: Which I should also say is a date I arbitrarily took.

[Unidentified participant (possibly 'Haley', DOC/analyst)]: Right.

[Speaker 0]: I'm kind of wondering if I don't think I really like begin providing regular updates. And I'm wondering if they did the initial update on September 15 with a follow-up on November 15 that then gives I've been through this before. And sometimes the reports, oh, we haven't done it yet. And you get that on the seventeenth, and then it's due on the December 1, and you don't have another check-in. So So you could do if you did a check-in if you had a report from them to Justice Oversight on September 15, and have a subsequent one on the November 15.

[John Gray]: Yep. And this is replacing also the regular update as I understand. It's just being prescriptive. Essentially, provide a first draft September 15, and then provide a preview of what is gonna be the final submitted to the legislature on November 15. And

[Speaker 0]: take out, know, begin providing regular updates, because that doesn't work in the legislative oversight world, and those are little loopholes. Oh, we gave you an update, we're not doing it.

[John Gray]: Yeah, but the one thing I would note just pragmatically is that the effect of the current draft is on September 15, DOC doesn't have to have a first draft. They just need to begin providing those updates. They might be at this early stages. This would actually accelerate even further the timeline for DOC because they would need to be providing a relatively thought out thing in September.

[Speaker 0]: You know what you might wanna do for language? We did this with the victim notification task force, where they had to report to justice oversight by certain dates.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Okay. I don't know. I can't remember.

[John Gray]: I'll look.

[Speaker 0]: I thought it was worded.

[John Gray]: I mean, the concept you just described works. I'm just thinking about the practical limitations and burden on the department.

[Speaker 0]: And this goes into effect July 1, right?

[John Gray]: Yes, I think the broader bill is part

[Speaker 0]: of We could amend this. It takes effect upon this.

[John Gray]: So it depends on what the pool of the bill is, right? I say that. You could make this section without knowing when the bill will ultimately make it. The way that I think about it is we have instances in other spaces where a bill is going through the legislative process and the agencies are taking their cue from the legislative process knowing that they're going to have to do it. And they commence the work in advance of an act basically because they're like, we need to be ready.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I'm not sure what else from the original bill we're gonna pick up.

[John Gray]: Okay.

[Speaker 0]: But if we're just gonna limit it to the telecom piece, and then we're expecting them to give a a report of where they are on September 15.

[John Gray]: Passage work, yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah, July is too short a time. So we've got some changes on this. Troy?

[Troy Headrick]: Can I bring in some additional?

[Unidentified committee member]: Are we good?

[Speaker 0]: Yep. You got five minutes.

[Troy Headrick]: Yeah. Still would like to see some mandatory stakeholder consultation. I suggested a list. This is public service treasurer, JFO, nonprofits, families, Do we want to have DOC develop an implementation plan, or is that too many steps ahead?

[Speaker 0]: That's too many steps ahead, isn't it?

[John Gray]: No, no,

[Troy Headrick]: I included a section of a wage impact evaluation that I felt was missing in the December report. But I don't know if we want

[John Gray]: to muddy the law. So

[Speaker 0]: when you're talking mandatory stakeholder participation, is that

[Troy Headrick]: Consultation.

[Speaker 0]: Consultants. So they would need to consult as they're doing the evaluation?

[John Gray]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Where's the committee on that?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: All good. That was just

[Speaker 0]: a thumbs up. Other folks?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Good. Okay. They've got one, Troy.

[John Gray]: What's that?

[Troy Headrick]: What'd you say, Chittenden?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I said, you've got one.

[Unidentified committee member]: One for three.

[Speaker 0]: Now, the other one was any invasion?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Well, that's going.

[John Gray]: It's a back office.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: So we're unemployed. Troy, the

[Speaker 0]: other piece you mentioned was any language pertaining to the wage.

[Troy Headrick]: Right. There was a wage impact evaluation that I felt was missing from the December report that we got. I emailed the committee a while ago on that and thought maybe this was an avenue by which we could ask for it again.

[Speaker 0]: I'll just thank it.

[John Gray]: I

[Troy Headrick]: think the two together, that on top of telecom system right now that feels predatory, we also have a system that doesn't pay them wages to buy telecom minutes. So that's why I'm linking it to.

[Speaker 0]: Is there a way to link that with the think too complicated. I'll link that with the evaluation of the telecom that you're looking at the pressures pressures you're putting on the inmate itself.

[John Gray]: I think it's conceivable. I think it's simpler to just separately ask.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Folks

[Speaker 0]: wanna ask John to work with Troy to develop some language to evaluate the impact of wages in terms of how it impacts their telecom availability.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I'm good with it.

[Speaker 0]: Because that's your linkage. Right? Yeah. Folks? Where are folks on this? I see some yeses. Let's see.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Yeah. I mean, I'm I'm disinterested in the subject, but to the extent it's being studied, I'm indifferent.

[John Gray]: Impressively. Control yourself, Luneau.

[Speaker 0]: Impressively.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: You ask us how what we've

[Troy Headrick]: I appreciate it, though.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I'm appreciative. You're not surprised. What's the effect of giving them free commissary?

[John Gray]: To your point on commissary, which is a joke, I think, but underlying H. Two ninety four does include a report from DOC that's evaluating specific contracts. Which if this is just the common report bill, as I understand it.

[Speaker 0]: Good point. Oh,

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: no.

[John Gray]: Did that mean to my forgiveness?

[Speaker 0]: Why don't we why don't you work up some language about the connection with the wage and the access to telecoms, okay, for the next rash with the changes we have here.

[John Gray]: They have enough

[Troy Headrick]: in my

[John Gray]: recollection. And

[Speaker 0]: then why don't we have unresolved issues at the end of that in terms of the commissary?

[John Gray]: Yeah, like we'll talk about, yep.

[Speaker 0]: Because what I'm thinking, if we can have you back at the beginning of the week, we come back on Tuesday, we have another draft and then sign off on that and then see if we wanna go further into looking at the commissary.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: That makes sense? Yep.

[Troy Headrick]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: That works.

[John Gray]: Sounds good.

[Speaker 0]: That's good, John. Thank you. Then you're gonna really start spending some time in here when you do markup. I'm sure thrilled.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I can

[Speaker 0]: tell.

[John Gray]: I'm always it.

[Speaker 0]: We just operate a little different, this committee maybe, than some other committees, who knows?

[John Gray]: All committees are unique.

[Speaker 0]: Certainly are.

[John Gray]: I was going to say it.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: It seems like snowflakes. Kind of makes it all worth

[Speaker 0]: it, doesn't it? Did you say that? Markup's interesting process.

[John Gray]: Yes, and it will be different second year than it is.

[Speaker 0]: Sitting in and watching our discussions as we go through line by line, do we accept the money or not, is sometimes very laborious, but sometimes it really brings some issues up that you're like, well, we need more information on this. And that's why Marco takes a lot longer than you think because we will get into more testimony.

[John Gray]: That's why you get the snickers. I watched all of last year's testimony at two times speed over the weekend.

[Wanda Minoli]: Is that a hint? No, this

[John Gray]: is actually true. This is the way that I did. Right? That's just for fun. And think

[Speaker 0]: he used the word painful.

[John Gray]: I've never been known to express

[Speaker 0]: I don't know. That I'm in pain. The whole process sometimes is painful.

[John Gray]: The legislative process? Yeah. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: That's what I was referring. I agree. Very painful.

[John Gray]: Thank you, Conor. Thank you,

[Speaker 0]: We appreciate it.

[John Gray]: Have a great next week.

[Speaker 0]: You have a great weekend. Let's see next week off.

[John Gray]: I I will be off, but I may be around. So you can reach out.

[Speaker 0]: No, don't. The loss is a disaster.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: And there's a garbage can. You.

[John Gray]: That's the primary thing I look for. Go. Here

[Speaker 0]: Issue and some special facility for wanting a little bit more electrical upgrade in the break room for another refrigerator. Did they say it costs $1,400?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: No. For the refrigerator.

[Speaker 0]: No. For the upgrade on electricity. That's a huge debt. I told them you would be in the building today. Thank you. Yes. So so what the issue is in the break room, they have one refrigerator. They want to have another refrigerator for so it's not enough. But the electricals handle another.

[Wanda Minoli]: So if I can just say

[Unidentified participant (possibly 'Haley', DOC/analyst)]: the temperature, they may have reached out to our data center.

[Wanda Minoli]: So when we get back to the office, we'll find out because I don't know unless our master electrician has looked at it and made a determination there needs to be more electrical upgrade. I can't respond that we do or we don't.

[Speaker 0]: They indicated the cost was $14,400 And I said for what? Appraise the electric for the circuit to

[Wanda Minoli]: No, it's possible. So let's follow-up with our DFMs because if that's the case, then I can make the policy decision to do it and to make that investment. They're not empowered to make those decisions.

[Speaker 0]: They know that, but they were also asking me about where the money will come from. Who's the The SCA.

[Wanda Minoli]: So, I'm going to have to with police. If it's $1,400 I think that I have flexibility within my pay for space budget and my building reuse budget to accommodate that. Right? Yes.

[Speaker 0]: So I told them, I told VSEA, you have to go through the commissioner of BGS. And if it's a small enough project, there is money and major maintenance, but you have to work with BGS. So that's what VSEA, they knew you were in the building this afternoon, Commissioner.

[Wanda Minoli]: Yeah, and I do want just for the committee, it's really important sometimes that we need to make sure there's been conversation with our district facility managers so we know really what's going on because we have master electricians that would be making that evaluation.

[Speaker 0]: And to get to the price, I don't know how they got up to that price. So welcome.

[Wanda Minoli]: So, I have to go first. Can do

[Speaker 0]: anything Okay. Like I'm sorry our schedule got a little mixed up. We ran late on the floor, which then bumped everything out. So, we're doing the best to accommodate folks. So we have with us here, the commissioner of BGS, and we also have the town manager from the town of Springfield. Hi, Scott. Welcome. I hope you're set. Hope you're settling into your new job. On the job for not even a month.

[John Gray]: Oh. Like to find

[Scott Pickup]: some salt. That would be nice. That seems to be the quest at the moment.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, we're one of the towns, Yeah.

[Scott Pickup]: We're having trouble. Everybody's having a tough time getting salt.

[Speaker 0]: Right. The state's not quite right. Think that

[Wanda Minoli]: there we could have a conversation a whole another day

[Speaker 0]: of salt. Today's probably not the day.

[Scott Pickup]: We had a manager's meeting yesterday, so a bunch of people had ideas. I think we should definitely have a little forum.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Let's let's see.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Well, we might want to reach out to A. T.

[John Gray]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: Some of that. Why don't you come on up front? I'm going to have the Commissioner of BGS introduce this for us, Scott. And the committee, the map, you're going to put up the map. Many members of the committee are new to this. So, some of us are going to have to take some time for some background information. I'll get over to the commissioner. And then after we finish with the commissioner, Scott will

[Wanda Minoli]: Scott, and then we'll have Joe, Madam Chair, to walk through the map. Okay. If you

[Speaker 0]: And just to let Scott realize, we are streaming this live on YouTube, just so you're aware of that. It's not just here in the room that folks can access this, but it's everywhere. So just to give you a heads up.

[Scott Pickup]: Sure.

[Speaker 0]: Commissioner, welcome. And if you could identify yourself for the record.

[Wanda Minoli]: So good afternoon, everyone. Wanda Manoli, Commissioner of Buildings and General Services. I hope all of you are feeling well and haven't been hit with all of the dreaded. He's behind. Today is my first day back in the office.

[Speaker 0]: Well, Shawn hasn't made it yet.

[Wanda Minoli]: I'm not contagious, but let me tell you what. Well, that's why I keep telling Joe I'm not contagious. You're not. I'm I'm I'm something else. So, Scott, it's a pleasure. Oh, senate senator representative Sweeney.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: It's big enough.

[Wanda Minoli]: And Scott, it's a pleasure to see you. We've talked on the phone, so we have not had an opportunity to actually connect. So, I just want to set the stage, and I know that there have been some discussions around this. Scott's predecessor came to me, I think it was last fall, everything seems to be a blur, and started discussing a change in some language that had occurred in 2024. So act one sixty two twenty twenty four. That's our previous capital bill. To previous. Right?

[Speaker 0]: It's not '24. It was in the previous. It's not this two year budget cycle. It was the previous. It was the previous two year budget cycle. So some of you folks, like Shawn and Joe and Kevin and Will and James and Brian, were not here for that at all. Well, Troy, you were.

[Unidentified participant (possibly 'Haley', DOC/analyst)]: Yes. You were.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So

[Wanda Minoli]: act number 162, twenty twenty four, section 23, there was language that was added. And what I want to just say And that language So, I'm going to take it back in history. We have a correctional facility memorandum of understanding with the town of Springfield. And this is something we do for correctional facilities, and it was when we built that facility. And that agreement was signed in 1999, just a little history. And in that agreement, it references transfer of some land. It talks about the road. And what the agreement did, it was very flexible. So when Springfield was ready for this to occur, we, BGS, would work with Springfield and we'd make things happen. What I understand is the intent maybe around what was in the memorandum of understanding was brought to this committee and they wanted to change it. And you created language in support of the request that we would transfer approximately 10 acres of land for a new town garage. And that is what act was. Meeting with the predecessor, and he came to me and having great conversations with Scott, they really that might have been at the time thinking about moving this, and I'll let the town answer to that. But what they said is, we really we don't want to put the town garage there. We have some different opportunities, some different options, and we really do want the land transferred, and we want the land to be transferred really in line with what the original intent of the MOU was, with some different caveats. BGS has a memorandum of understanding. The state of Vermont entered into good faith with the town of Springfield to build the correctional facility. It has always been the intent that the state of Vermont would transfer a portion of land to Springfield. I want to work with Springfield. I want to be able to transfer this land while I take into consideration everything that we need to do for the correctional facility. Right now, I feel that as a commissioner, I am locked in to that language from 2024, and I can only transfer in that scenario. So Scott and I chatted and I said, this is something you really need to bring to the committee of institutions. You need to have this conversation. They'll ask you their questions. What I, again, am saying to this committee is it was always the intent. There's some language around the road. There's a bunch of language around the transfer of some form of land. What we've done, based conversations is we've and Joe will walk you through this. We did a site map. We went beyond and basically said, what is the most land we can transfer? Instead of getting into the acres, is it 12 acres, is it 10 acres, is it five acres? How can we maximize what we can do in transferring land to support Springfield to do what they need to do? And so that's where I'm going to answer any questions. But then I'll let you decide, Madam Chair, if you'd like Scott to go first or if you would like Joe to walk through the map. I will tell you, we met with corrections. We identified the maxim We maximized the site on land that we could transfer while we protected security parameters, future security needs, potentially expansion on the wood chip or the heating system. And we reviewed all of that with the Department of Corrections team, with Al Cormier, with the Commissioner, and everyone nodded. And that's where we're at, and that's why we are here today.

[Speaker 0]: So questions of the Commissioner?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Conor? So like I know Springfield Correctional Facility was originally built with the idea of court expand, right? Yes. Does anything interfere?

[Wanda Minoli]: No. And thank you for just bringing that up. And I don't think we have the full site map. But actually, when we designed that facility, we have right now a map that shows where another unit could go. And what we did when we built that facility is we put in the infrastructure to support that platform or where it would be.

[Speaker 0]: But there is a certain amount of buffer that is needed when you have a correctional facility And from neighboring this buffer, before the amount of acreage to be transferred to the community, that buffer would incorporate a larger facility than what's there currently? Yeah. And actually, I think

[Wanda Minoli]: the proposed lands on the opposite side of where that where the future where we identified where the future expansion would go. But Joe, I think, can talk about the buffer with corrections, and I just want to and it's been a while, I'll tell you it was Al Cormier and others that we talked to. Security is a priority. And security is changing, as I understand it, as I'm looking over in the world of corrections. We still have fences, but we're also doing much more modern technology in different types of security systems. So we have done our best analysis to ensure and to protect that area. And I'm not

[Speaker 0]: asking you to respond, but

[Wanda Minoli]: I'm looking at you because

[Speaker 0]: I think you might have

[Wanda Minoli]: been in those meetings. Maybe maybe not. So but Joe can talk to those. Other questions? That's okay. So who would you

[Speaker 0]: Sort of Joe. Why don't we

[Wanda Minoli]: do the map?

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. And I am

[Wanda Minoli]: And we'll let Scott close on their meeting.

[Speaker 0]: I'd like to have my district mate here too. I just gave him a heads up. I forgot to let him know in advance that we're doing it today. So I'm gonna have Tate do a little walk around to see if he can find representative Morrissey. We're in committee because for your own. We're still in committee. So are they in the Ethan Allen Room? Yes. Ethan Allen Room, Tate.

[John Gray]: Yeah.

[Speaker 0]: So that was my bad. I have a lot of things going on. I did like Christy know about it a few weeks ago, not the specific time. Come back. You want to do that or Tate can go?

[John Gray]: I can't. I just need to wait a hold on the gate first.

[Speaker 0]: You should go present Tate.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Where's he at?

[Speaker 0]: Ethan Allen Room. Half 3rd. We're environment. Thank you. Okay, Joe. He's from there. I'll come back. I haven't seen you in a few weeks. Oh, we've been doing corrections, but haven't been doing capital bill. That's okay.

[Joe Laja]: For the record, Joe Laja, director of design and construction with building and general services. As Commissioner said, I can outline. We have a nice detailed map showing the whole site.

[Speaker 0]: So you gotta turn off your mic. Somebody.

[Joe Laja]: Oh. Go ahead.

[Speaker 0]: You haven't been here in a while.

[Joe Laja]: They're not resting. So you get the map up. So this map will show you the areas of the whole facility site plan, the fence lines, the buildings, and then some shaded colors. So what we have is there's a

[Speaker 0]: dark The

[Joe Laja]: dark line running around the facility you see with a bunch of numbers, although it is hard to see on this, that is the property lines. During our permitting process for the facility, which is in the multiple lines running around with the buildings on the inside of it, we encroach on some deer yard. So we're required through the permitting process to do an offset for the deer yard. And off to the left hand side of this photo, outside of the black line, you see a little bit more green. That's an additional 16 acres that we had to purchase to offset the deer yard.

[Speaker 0]: So that's when we built the facility?

[Joe Laja]: That is when we built the facility. That is correct. And so inside of the fence line, you'll see six buildings. In the top left corner, there's a dark building. See right here. That building is not there. That is the addition. So it is planned for that addition to be inside, already inside the fence. As the treasurer stated, the utilities are already there, ready to be connected. We would just have to construct the building.

[Wanda Minoli]: And I think that was permitted for $250

[John Gray]: Yeah, it's

[Joe Laja]: 150,000 So that nice little squiggly line is the access road that does come up from the facility. And then you see where I have a darker red line that's run around this here. And that area is the area that was originally planned for the industrial park. Way back in 1999 when this whole process started. Since then, there was a breakout two years ago with the 10 acres. That 10 acres is roughly this chunk right here. And of course, the rest of it is above it. I've now shown a blue area. That blue tint is the area that BDGS would like to retain for expansion of a chip heating system. Right now we're running off of propane. The reddish area through to the bottom left of that blue shaded area is a hazardous waste site. So we were required to mitigate that site, fence it off. And it's also marked here because the town of Springfield doesn't want to inherit that hazardous waste site. So the rest of that area inside of the red non shaded area is approximately 20 acres. From what I can get. 23 acres.

[Speaker 0]: But the 23 acres includes that 10 acres? You got the original 10 acres that you were looking at for the highway garage. Yes. Right? And then you've carved out that light pink that it keeps. So the remainder of what's in that dark red that goes all the way down is Spencer Hollow. Yes. That's how many acres total?

[Joe Laja]: The math that I've done through the records that I found was approximately 22.93 acres.

[Speaker 0]: Minus and that takes out that pink.

[Joe Laja]: Yes, that's correct. That would be the available land.

[Speaker 0]: Okay. Joe?

[Joe Laja]: So this is in about 15 acres more or less beyond the original agreement. It's being funded.

[Wanda Minoli]: Commissioner? So the original agreement, the 1999 agreement, probably would have ended up to what we have here. Had we stayed with that flexible language, my understanding is that there was a desire to specify it be used for a crap town garage. And this is, I wasn't here. So if you go to the original agreement, we had the authority, BGS, to work with Springfield to identify the transfer of future land with some conditions on

[Speaker 0]: the road.

[Wanda Minoli]: And we could talk about that or Scott can talk about it.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Why was Ted Eager's brought up then earlier?

[Wanda Minoli]: I wasn't here. So we went from the MOU and maybe members, maybe someone else can answer that. I'm not sure why was codified, why it was put into session law. I don't know if it was necessarily the acres as much as it was about what was going to be put on there. Is that a fair statement? The

[Speaker 0]: the whole original conversation between the town and the state when this site was being proposed for the facility, the town negotiated with the state that the property that is not going to be used for the facility. We knew it was gonna be all the property that wasn't gonna be used because a lot of it is steep and not buildable. But that that was buildable could be transferred to the town from industrial park. It wasn't really about acreage And at that what had been the sticking point for a number of years, a number of years was part of that agreement that was negotiated. When the land transferred to the town, the town would then take ownership of the long driveway going up. And that was a point of contention for years and years when Obi was commissioner, we tried to work through this. And then it kind of went by the wayside. And then the conversation started back up a few years ago of using the 10 acres for the town highway garage. And then the ownership of the road was not gonna be a problem for the town because our trucks are already gonna be up there. So that was the plan. And and the BGS worked with the town at that point for how many acres would be needed for the town highways to ranch. And that was the language that was put in the capital bill back in '24. In the interim, there's been some changes here in the town in terms of, well, maybe we don't move the highway garage up there. Maybe there's another function that could go there, but we're gonna need possibly more acreage. So that's why we have our town manager here and Representative Morris is also chair of the select board. So those conversations in terms of changing what would go on this property has been happening at the town level. So they may be able to bring because I don't know what the changes were of what the town conversation was. This is came to me new because I have not been in the loop on this. So I know that there was talk of a different use, different entity going there, but I don't know anything about it. And then there may need to be more acreage.

[Wanda Minoli]: So Madam Chair, if I can to the committee, think it's really important I go back to the state and the 1999 agreement because that is where we all came to the table and we agreed. For me, transferring the property was always the intent. What's important for me is that VGS protects the integrity, the safety, the security, and stays responsible for elements that are already there, the deer yard, because that's the permitting. We have this one contaminated site, if you so agree that we work together to get back to where we are, I'd ask that you don't restrict us on acreage, that you let us work through this, but we're giving you this parameter. We know it's not going to exceed 22.93, and that we're able to work through that because we still need to resolve with the transfer of the land of members of the committee, that's the access vote, the responsibility of that.

[Speaker 0]: I've got three members who have a committee.

[John Gray]: Go up

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: to me. I've got the city manager of the building too. Gotta go around for it.

[Speaker 0]: So I have a forum, Caroline. Bring your city manager up.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I will introduce you. You'll be working with me.

[Wanda Minoli]: Enjoy the spring day. Thank

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: you. Feel better.

[Speaker 0]: It's been a crazy sorry. It's just been a crazy day. We got delayed on the floor. It's been crazy.

[Wanda Minoli]: Well, Keith represents me. He's still in line.

[Speaker 0]: Oh, I do. What about Shawn? Shawn?

[Wanda Minoli]: Just to close, I would like, if you so agree, I would like the opportunity to work with Springfield, bringing in, because we still have to talk about the other elements of that MOU, talks about when we transfer their land, there are some commitments. Unless you decide, and if the committee decides that you want to be very clear and specific in the language, I think we need to look at all of the pieces in there to make sure we're touching everything.

[Speaker 0]: So when you say there were other commitments there in the MOU, I know there was a commitment of the town taking over the road going When the land transferred, and that's really the one. And what does that look?

[Wanda Minoli]: Well, there may be The

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: road is water and sewer? How does

[Unidentified committee member]: that work?

[Speaker 0]: The water and sewer that's coming down the road to the main road? Correct.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: It was originally sized for the industrial park. So it's just the maintenance of it because it is parts of

[John Gray]: it is under the road.

[Wanda Minoli]: So that was the other investments. There's water and sewer there for whatever Springfield's gonna do. So there are we don't have and and Scott and I have not talked about these details to the committee. What we said is let's pursue with this, but we have the modification in '24, we have the original agreement, and we need to talk about the road and the sewer because that intent in '99 was really negotiated. And I'm sure we all remember 1999.

[Speaker 0]: Remember this.

[Wanda Minoli]: Thought I came to BTS.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: That. Even your member from Bennington doesn't, but are the contestants.

[Speaker 0]: I do wanna miss him. See if I'm born. So of that 22.9 acres, how much of that is buildable?

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I really don't know. I have not wandered through those woods.

[Speaker 0]: I know everything to the left towards Spencer Hollow is pretty steep. We're gonna

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: see this again before anything eventually occurs? Any transfer occurs?

[Wanda Minoli]: I don't have the authority, sir, because of the changes before to transfer.

[Speaker 0]: Because the language right now, the MOU that was agreed to between the state and the town of Springfield when the facility was being proposed, outweighs the parameters around land that could be transferred to Springfield. That's what's in the MOU. But in terms of actually the language to do the actual acreage or proximity of the acreage to the town, we put in language in the capital bill in '24 for that transfer, and the transfer would be 10 acres, and it would be used for a highway garage, town highway garage. Well, now the plans have changed on the Springfield end, so we have to change that language in our previous capital bill to allow this process to go forward. So that's what's before us.

[Wanda Minoli]: James.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I mean, is probably self evident, but I mean, I don't care how much acreage goes, but, and I'm sure we're gonna find this out, some of you already know, is everything there like, does everything meet the state's requirements for this to happen? Does that even make sense was the question. Are we talking permanent laws? I don't what any wise, Jacob, is is there any objection on the state side to just happen? No, I think that's what the commissioner is saying that, you know, to have flexible language to sort of get a little scrolling on the warnings here, but it was originally laid out in this area that you see the dividing road? Right now, road ends right here. So there's all this extension that would still have to be constructed or not. If we're gonna retain the eight plus or minus acres in the shaded blue area, we'd be accessing that from our side. So it really could become part of what the town needs also. For example, obviously, I was out of the room for a few minutes, but the conversation had mentioned that one, this is this earlier, about something about the deer, the deer yard need an additional deer yard. Is that lane going to the town with the with the staying with the Anything

[Wanda Minoli]: that's in our permit requirements or managing, that will stay with the state. So the deer yard was originally a part of the purchase and the site. As Joe said, going back at the history, the answer to that, had to purchase some additional land to make compliance with the DRDO.

[John Gray]: That is correct.

[Wanda Minoli]: And so that will stay with the state. Anything that's about permitting, about that existing construction in that agreement, we will maintain that. We are not transferring that to

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: the town of Springfield. So my other question is who's taking care? Is it still gonna be Springfield taking care of the rest of

[Speaker 0]: the road?

[Wanda Minoli]: We need to, this is why Or

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: we haven't got that far.

[Wanda Minoli]: Right now, we need to realign again. Need to, and I'll let your attorneys figure this out. How do we modify that existing language so we can move forward and work in good faith with the town of Springfield and what their need is. So, don't know if you just delete it and go back to the original or if there's going to be discussion where you want to codify some other elements. I'm sure Scott probably has some thoughts.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: This is my last question, I promise. I

[Wanda Minoli]: doubt it.

[John Gray]: Well, Alice.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: It really will be. That's gonna pry. I'm so sorry, representative. You don't have to be sorry. I mean, that's why I gave you a nice note to say hello to this. Alice will know this for sure. So the original language was vague that it could be any

[Speaker 0]: Well, it's in the MOU. It's in the MOU that was agreed to between the town and state.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: But then you restricted it and now they're asking you to go back basically to the original or not?

[Speaker 0]: Well, sort of, yeah, because what we did in 'twenty four, were more specific in terms So of what the town was looking we put in languages to assure that the transfer would actually occur. It was for 10 acres, and it was for use as a town highway garage. So we put that in place. Everyone agreed to it because that's where the town and the state, that's where they were at that point. Changed between that time and now, and the town wants to do another use up there besides the highway garage. But in order to do that, whatever they're thinking of putting up there, they wanted they talked to BGS about this. And BGS says, well, if you wanna do something different besides the town highway garage, we've gotta change the language. In the capital bill. So that's what they're asking

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: us to do. So my question is, so wanted to just mention repeal. So the 24 repeal 24 and just be the original language or do we

[Speaker 0]: have to No, you've got to you've got to readdress it in terms how much acreage is going to be transferred.

[Wanda Minoli]: And if I can share with the committee, if it's okay, Madam Chair, I can just quickly highlight the language in the original agreement. And so it's item number eight. It says the state agrees to cite the prison somewhere within the Hojo's Pit that's what it's called area so as to reasonably maximize the area of any remaining property available for future industrial development and to offer at no charge any land acquired by the state, which the state deems to be surplus to the correctional facility project in the town and an expanded industrial product providing the town with copies, any environmental, etcetera. So we took that original agreement, number eight, and came up with this map.

[Troy Headrick]: Got it. Thank

[John Gray]: you.

[Speaker 0]: Other questions? Anything else, Joe?

[John Gray]: I'm

[Speaker 0]: gonna go to our town manager, Scott Pickup. I don't know if folks still want to see this or because we can't see much of Scott at this point.

[Wanda Minoli]: Lisa, do you want us to take down the banner?

[Speaker 0]: I want you to take down.

[John Gray]: Does Scott need it for that?

[Speaker 0]: I don't know.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Yes, I

[Scott Pickup]: have a copy here, but thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Great. Thank you. So, Scott, welcome. We do have Chrissy Morrissey in the room with us now.

[Scott Pickup]: Fantastic.

[Speaker 0]: I'd go find him. That was my bad. I forgot to give him a heads up about it today. But if you could I if you could identify yourself for the record, Scott.

[Scott Pickup]: Sure. So good afternoon, everybody. My name is Scott Pickup. I'm the town manager for Springfield, Vermont. And I do appreciate the committee taking your time today to walk through this proposal and certainly appreciate the commissioner's time as well as we've been working on bringing this to you. It's been a productive partnership between obviously the state and the town and we have a twenty five year history of being good neighbors. And I think we're all looking forward to continuing that relationship. And I think this is another step in that you know, as we go forward. There were a couple of things I think that were raised in terms of just general discussion amongst the committee. So I just wanted to give the sense of where the town has been, we had done very preliminary, engineering work way back in 2016 about how this site might actually be, put together as a functioning industrial park. So there is some very, very rough engineering information that would obviously need to be updated. But at that point in time, they were looking at about 1,100 or between eleven hundred and fifteen hundred foot access road, a new road, that would continue on from the from, at least right now, the way it's proposed from the existing access road into this industrial park area, there were layouts for roughly about five separate lots that could be developed for various uses anywhere from four acres on up to about six acres per each of those locations. And those lots really were two things sort of were competing there. One is the elevation changes. So looking at where, you know, we could find the obviously the least amount of investment in terms of having to do major earthwork. And the also the other piece and something that the commission I will work on as well as access to three phase power. There is three phase power not too far from that location. The question would be, again, future needs of your facility, future needs if we move forward on how we would develop this facility. So there's lots of opportunities for us to work cooperatively here and benefit both of us as we go forward. So, our goal or hope is that the committee would be able to work on this revision of the 2024 language and give us some ability because we have to do a lot more preliminary engineering, working with the staff and then come back with a much more developed proposal that we could bring forward to give everybody a sense of how it actually might be put together.

[Speaker 0]: So, and this is more a question, Scott, I think of the commissioner. So, by keeping the current language that we have, where it's very prescriptive in terms of 10 acres and the town garage, that really ties your hands behind your back in terms of moving forward with this new new direction. That's correct, Commissioner?

[Wanda Minoli]: That that's correct. Well, think it ties Springfield in too. So those limits

[Speaker 0]: That's why I'm adding they

[Wanda Minoli]: can only build a town garage.

[Speaker 0]: So by amending the language to allow and we'd have to work with both Bewescott, the town as well as BGS in terms of we limiting it to 22 acres, 22.3 acres to be used for an industrial purpose or whatever. That frees you up to negotiate the finer points of the transfer and the finer points in terms of access to the land and the three phase power needs as well as the water and sewer that's going up and down the the road that goes up to the facility.

[John Gray]: Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Correct?

[Scott Pickup]: Yes.

[Wanda Minoli]: Okay. And and Madam Chair, I think that's a great summary. If the committee is going to support this, I think that we should probably have a smaller group just talk about the original MOU to make sure what was in it in 1999 and what that that if you're going to change language, we just reference it and make sure that those things happen and everyone's in agreement

[Speaker 0]: questions of the committee and the town manager.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: So, this is something that conceivable would be resolved in the capital bills.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. Would be language in the capital bills that we'd be putting in because we have to amend a previous cap.

[Troy Headrick]: I understand. I just want make sure.

[Speaker 0]: Yeah. So, we'd be doing when we do markup when we get back here to town meeting. Well, we do.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: I'm good.

[Speaker 0]: So, Wanda, when you were talking about a small group work, what do you mean? Is it legal counsel? Well,

[Wanda Minoli]: could be. I apologize that I'm just kind of putting this I'm sitting here rereading, I don't know how many

[Speaker 0]: times I've put this on, but

[Wanda Minoli]: I'm sitting here going through it again because I want everyone to have an understanding back to that agreement in good faith that how do we switch the water because we put that in and how do we work through that as a community? Let's make sure there's a clear understanding of what's expected on the road and turning that over. And maybe today, and I'm just saying this, but maybe today because so many things have changed and Springfield has changed, maybe there's some other pieces that we might want to tweak that's in this agreement that we should bring into it without renegotiating. And I think it's really when I get to the road, the water, the sewer, this language says that the state of Vermont, BGS pays for all of the land transfer and all of the documents. Do you know, that's an example. I guess just going through it and making sure we understand because while you give us, I think this is where the conflict came into, madam chair, where we gave specific language and received on the transfer of the land and the acreage, we were also operating under the MOU because we couldn't, one didn't replace everything in the MOU. So, I think what I'm saying is maybe we should look at the elements that were connected to the transfer of the land and make sure we're all

[Speaker 0]: in a good way. That's what you're referring to by having a small group of folks. Yes. So, who would be that would it be folks from the town folks from the legislature just you and

[Wanda Minoli]: the. Have. Madam Chair, I'm really happy to work with Scott first and outline where we think those are. And that's just a recommendation. I don't know how Scott feels about that. And then maybe we could you know, come back to the committee or we could talk with your permission to your attorney. We could brief the representatives. I mean, you know, we're pretty flexible.

[Speaker 0]: So the timeframe, let me just put out the time.

[John Gray]: That's great. Yes.

[Speaker 0]: Let me put out the timeframe for this. We're gone next week. We're not in session. Next week's town meeting week. We come back on the March 10. And then, the capital bill, we will be getting the capital bill out by around the March 20. So, we would need language towards the end of the week of March 10, or the beginning of the following week, definitely the beginning of the following week, March 17. Given the end of the first week. Yeah. So that we have enough time during the week for markup. So that's the timeframe that we're working in to get the language in the film.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Basically got two weeks, two and a half.

[Speaker 0]: For that. For that. So we have Representative Morrissey here, who's also the chair of the select board. Do you want to weigh in at all, Christy, on this at all? I know it's probably got you short,

[John Gray]: just briefly.

[Unidentified committee member]: So we have Scott online. So for the record, Representative Christy Morrissey, Springfield, also select board chair. I think that's a good plan hearing from the commissioner, meeting with Scott for smaller groups, perhaps for the town attorney. Scott, just for your information, Steve has been involved with these previous discussions and negotiations. So he's well versed on the previous MOUs and agreements.

[Representative Kristi Morris]: I suspect you'll want to at least touch base with him.

[John Gray]: Yes.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: And I don't have a

[Representative Kristi Morris]: problem being first ever. Keep it small, keep it simple. It makes sense to me. But I do know there has been some sticky wickets in the past about those negotiations and the land size. I think we're more focused now

[Speaker 0]: with the

[Representative Kristi Morris]: intent and it's just a matter of crossing the Ts and dot counts. And

[Wanda Minoli]: I just want to make sure, I've been working and I think and to the committee members and Scott, I think us sitting down at first, making sure we're all on the same page of what our understanding is. It's not to be controversial. It's not to negotiate. But 1999 was a long time ago.

[Speaker 0]: For

[Wanda Minoli]: some. For some. And there were a lot of moving pieces within Springfield and some positive as this MOU laid out. So, it's okay that no one's trying to change the intent of it. I know that I'm not, I don't like working with Scott that he's not. We just want to align it and it's kind of like really putting the bow. This is really the final piece. So, I would appreciate having that opportunity and then coming back.

[Speaker 0]: So what I would ask, this to me is a conversation between BGS and their legal folks. Mhmm. Our town manager in Springfield with our attorney, Springfield town attorney. I would really ask the parties to at least CC us, Representative Morrissey, myself, while this is going on and the steps that you've made to keep us in the loop. It's really important. It's really important on this end for me to be in the loop because it's in our bailiwick here and in this committee with a capital bill. So we need to, particularly my end, I have to be in the loop from the get go to understand what's going on here so we can work through the language.

[Wanda Minoli]: Madam Chair, a representative of Springfield and Land Springfield Committee, I don't think this, I think our conversation is not a four day conversation. I think it's really, we all have the same goal in mind. I think we all agree to that. Here are the factors that play into it. Do we all understand them the same? Does the state have a concern? Does Springfield have a concern? I think if there's anything that we don't have full agreement on, we're not going to negotiate. I think that's when we bring it to the committee and to you all to have discussion. Because think all of us, because if we end up starting to negotiate and go down that intent and what opinions are, I think it gets delayed. And I'd like to be able to at least present that to them.

[John Gray]: Thank you.

[Speaker 0]: Anything else, Scott, that you wanna weigh in on?

[Scott Pickup]: No, I appreciate the timing. It's tight, but we'll make it work. And I appreciate Commissioner Manoli making her staff and other folks available. And we'll do the same so that we can get this back to you and make sure you have time to take it into consideration. So we appreciate it.

[Speaker 0]: Yes. And I know you're going to be busy next week with town meeting, but just a little

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: We'll send an analyst back to you.

[Speaker 0]: You may not want it.

[Wanda Minoli]: I'll have my assistant reach out to Scott to get some time on it.

[Speaker 0]: Okay, great. Thank you. Any other questions for the committee? Folks, anything else? Thank you, Scott, for your flexibility. I'm really sorry last week we had to cancel, but some of us live in the southern part of the state and wanted to get home before the storm.

[Scott Pickup]: It was a smart choice. Yes. So

[Speaker 0]: we'll be in touch and thank you. Really appreciate this time.

[John Gray]: Have a great weekend.

[Speaker 0]: So for the committee, we finished up for the week. Thank you, Christie. I'm really sorry. I just

[Unidentified committee member]: I did check my call. We had some testimony going on.

[John Gray]: You guys

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: had a full run.

[Speaker 0]: Well, I saw that it was not red, and I was getting nervous. That's why I sensed it.

[Unidentified committee member]: I appreciate that. And we were just wrapping up.

[Speaker 0]: Our schedule got thrown out of schedule because we're not so late on the

[Unidentified committee member]: And that kind of week.

[Wanda Minoli]: So

[Speaker 0]: for the committee, thank you for the week. We're done. We're back here on March 10. We got some bills out. We got two more bills to get out. We have to deal with this MOU.

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: Did you

[Speaker 0]: check with Ben at all?

[John Gray]: So let's

[Speaker 0]: say it's in the afternoon on Monday that Troy and I can talk to her so people confirm that. I would say one of We'll do that after we finish. I want everyone to really take time for yourself this next week. When we come back, that first week back, it's gonna be a busy week. There's gonna be a lot of things going on. And we are on the floor, our regular time Tuesday morning. We're on the floor at 03:30 on Wednesday and 03:30 on Thursday. Mhmm. And then our regular Friday. The following week, we kick over to Wednesday and Thursday at one. Yep. So next week the week we come back is gonna be crazy in the building. Everybody's gonna be pushing to get their bills out. There's gonna be a lot of action on the floor at the same time, so we're gonna have to balance everything. So have a good week off. Enjoy town meeting. Spend some time resting up because it's gonna be a different pace when we come back. Thank

[Joseph "Joe" Luneau]: you.

[Speaker 0]: So let's go off of YouTube. You can see his smiles on all