Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let's go live. We are live. This is House Corrections and Institutions Committee. It is Friday, March 20. We are working on our bill two ninety four, which Conor reported in his lightning rod.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I'll probably get it again today. That's a great news. The tanning grill, man. It's yeah. The inquisition.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This pertains to us putting together language on having a report back in terms of providing telecommunication services to folks who are incarcerated and looking at different options. Because right now the person who's incarcerated does have to pay to stay connected to an approved call list. I can't willy nilly just go up and ask you an approved call list. So there was concern on the floor for the report for who DOC needs to reach out to, to get some feedback on. Was brought up about, have we included folks who are incarcerated or formerly incarcerated? So the members from Burlington, representative Gina and the member from Northfield, representative Donahue, have an amendment to present to us. So, Brian, I'm trying to get over to you. If you could introduce yourself for the record. We do have the language and if people seen the language at all? No,

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: we won't have it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sorry about that. So Brian, if you could introduce yourself for the record.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: I'm representative Brian Chinat from Burlington. And the amendment would add to the language about the work I think it's a working group, it's called. Is that what it's called?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. It's the policy. It must

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: consult. The stakeholder list. Yeah, thank you.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: The the this amendment would add to the stakeholder list. Incarcerated Vermonters, comma, formerly incarcerated Vermonters, comma, and organizations representing incarcerated or formerly incarcerated individuals. And it's because it would help better understand the impact of the choices made by this it would better impact the results of the study conducted by DOC if stakeholders included those most directly impacted by the policy, which are those who are incarcerated. So having the perspective of incarcerated, formerly incarcerated, or organizations who represent those viewpoints would strengthen the results of the study.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I have a couple of questions. So for folks who are incarcerated, so it'd be current folks, or formerly incarcerated throughout the community, who would determine who's gonna be reached out to? How that how would that work?

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: I guess whoever's reaching out to the other stakeholders.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it's DOC would be consulting with a list of folks, and it's a PUC, joint physical office, any one or more nonprofit provider for Civic, because they operate down Mississippi, representatives of families of incarcerated Vermont, or organizations representing families, community based reentry service providers, and justice reform organizations, or any other stakeholders or subject matters. And that leads to my question. We didn't clarify how representatives of families incarcerated from ours. So I'm just wondering, would an incarcerated person voice, how could they be part of being consulted? And how could someone who's on furlough or parole, where they maxed out their sentence, know that they could participate? And then what organizations do represent incarcerated or formerly incarcerated folks? What are some of those organizations? Well,

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: can answer this from my perspective, being a member of the stakeholder group for the women's replacement facility, because over a year ago, the committee asked that I be included with Free Her Vermont, and then members of the committee have participated.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: know if any of you come, but Eric McGuire was coming for a while. I feel like there's someone else who's been showing up. Ray Garofalo, like different members of the general assembly. I don't know how people are getting it. Maybe it's because they're human services, have been invited. But what I've observed with the stakeholder group is they did bring in incarcerated individuals once from CCR.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The facility.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: Yes, yeah, Chittenden facility. So one time they had two women who were at a level of progression in their sentence saying that they were able to safely be brought there and present. In terms of, but that's the only time I've seen them bring incarcerated individuals in the time that I've gone to those meetings. It's only once. However, Free Her Vermont comes and now the ISHTAAR Collective has been coming to the meetings.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I don't

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: know if everyone knows who ISHTAAR Collective is.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Free Her, yes, ISHTAAR Collective.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: ISHTAAR Collective is a group representing sex workers. The reason I think it's good they've been coming, sex work is illegal, and also it's a way of survival for a lot of women, fortunately, who are in those positions that end up incarcerated. So that's a great group to have to represent that perspective. In addition to Free Herd, there may be more out there, but I know that DOC has those groups currently coming. I would also say that Mercy Connections, because it provides mentorship to women that are formerly incarcerated, also brings the perspective in of women who have been incarcerated to that group. And I also think that, actually, I would say a lot of those service providers are bringing that perspective, even if they are not directly coming. And so if DOC wanted to bring in formerly incarcerated people, they could just ask those existing service providers to put the call out for action. And for incarcerated folks, internally, they could put a call out for action. I would trust them to figure out how to manage that safely.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Would the community based reentry service providers be a tool to bring in formally persuaded folks? Because we already include the community based reentry service providers. They would be one of the tools that would recommend a formerly incarcerated person, because they work with folks who are reentering the community.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I think they could.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: I think without explicitly naming that we want that stakeholder present though, we risk them being excluded based on what I've seen with the stakeholder group, because they only brought incarcerated people in directly twice. And I do honestly feel like Free Her has to fight to be heard in that group. So I think adding them to the list, at least make sure that people are thinking to include them. Questions?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I mean, we get to just leave it at DOC. Right? Because oftentimes, we get to talking about stuff like this, it seems that we can think of a number of organizations representing the women who are or have been incarcerated and sometimes harder to reach or think about or consider the men. And so I'm hopeful that someone at DOC knows better than we do. But you're not talking about the fraught nature of the relationship between DOC and those who are formerly incarcerated. I have the logistics. That's kind of on them, right?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I don't know how to do this for those who were incarcerated and learned not any longer, but I welcome this. This is how you find out from people who've experienced it. This would have helped if I had, or we had a little bit of this, and this is the result. Actually probably more important than anything. Can't imagine any of these people saying this isn't a good idea, as long as you wanna spend the money. So I'm all for adding these people, if we can get them incorporated in the discussion. I don't know how to do that. I think

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: for formerly incarcerated, another option is through probation. As someone who's, there's many ways DOC could think about formally. I think the biggest challenge is gonna be how do you include the voice of those incarcerated? Because the way the system is designed is, from my perspective, it's very complicated to include people who are in a secure facility in the current landscape, because it's not like we have facilities on-site for remote participation yet. Hopefully that comes out of this. Hopefully there's rooms in every facility where people could do video conferencing with their therapists and their families and courts and stuff someday.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Before we go, John, what is your schedule between now and 09:00?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I need I think I'm okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Because I'm thinking if I can get out of a meeting at nine, if when we finish with this, we could go to the language

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, you mean you and I?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. With the committee.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, sure.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Let's go. Troy and A. Fine. Whatever your name is, Conor.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Very quickly, I just want to state that I'm in full and unconditional agreement with representative Walter.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh my gosh. This

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: is

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Like the high school figure. Not

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: to break the kumbaya, but I think I've got to state the obvious. I can't imagine anyone who would be receiving benefits saying, I don't want them. So the real question is, is the cost associated with this, is it gonna result in results that make sense here? Because we can put money lots of places. Is this the right place to put it, is the question.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Yeah. It's a different question. We're just talking about stakeholder.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: Yeah. Your input's gonna impact where the money goes. Think that's what he's saying, right? Yeah, that's right. Because right now, think about how much money is wasted on the current system by people. I've put money in people's account to call me that they don't even use because the system's so messed up. Then you can only put in like a chunk of money at a time. And then even if they do use it, then to refill it, you have to put in that chunk again. It just there's

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: What's that?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It accumulates. Accumulates.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: Yeah, yeah, it's a mess. So to have people who are actually struggling with that explain why they're not using money when someone puts it in for them to even call them, and like what's all glitches, it'll make it work better. And then in the end, that ultimately serves the taxpayer better because money's being spent more efficiently.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we have more questions here. Conor? I got You're gonna defend whatever I'm

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: referring Another question, and I don't want to change the language at this point, but maybe we could imply it heavily. There's like different experiences between incarcerated individuals depending on where you're housed, right? And I just want to make sure, like, the voices of those in Mississippi would be heard as well, because that's gonna be people who are, you know, a thousand miles away from their family as opposed to somebody who might get visitation regularly. And I could see this being even more important to them. Right? So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm just dealing with this week of writing.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And Conor, are you proposing a way for that to be included? Like CoreCivic and also somebody down south,

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: you know? Mean, like CoreCivic

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: didn't talk to, so I think maybe we could lean on corrections. Just, I don't know if you need a

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: language change. That was the question, yeah. Certainly tell them our intent is that it's all just the ones who are here.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: Representative Donahue, did you want to say anything? Because I keep jumping right in and answering the questions because I'm here, I'm mindful you're still in the room.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Northfield) (Guest/Witness)]: Just saying, I think the witness can invite another

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: Oh, thank

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you for Sorry, I've got to deal with text with the speaker to clarify something. So who Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Representative Rodney, would you like to speak? Representative

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Northfield) (Guest/Witness)]: Van Donghue. People were speaking so well, I didn't feel the need, but it did occur to me things like outreach. Nothing says consult with means you need to have people meeting at a meeting somewhere. There's a lot of ways. Can do surveys, you can put up little posters in probation officers saying, If you'd like to weigh in, use this. There's just a lot of different ways that people can approach it. Troy.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: We have a print on here too, they're just outstanding at gathering information from our incarcerated books.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Northfield) (Guest/Witness)]: I think there's a prisoner's rights organizations in terms of organizations. There are other organizations.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: Did Trent do the Springfield survey?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They've done it. Oh, well, they did it.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: Southern state, I should call it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, they've done a lot of surveys over since 2020 to about '4, '5. Now they're reconstituting PRIN and they'll probably be doing another type of survey.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: That's good.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: That twenty twenty two one was very useful, I thought. Yeah,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and then they updated it at the end, which was like '4. And now is being reconstituted towards the '25 in a different form, and they'll be doing the different types of. So where are we? Anything else from the two reps?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: No good hands.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we need to take a straw vote. What is the feeling of the committee before we I need a motion. I move we take a straw vote. No. You gotta move that we I

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: find the amendment favorable.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We support the amendment or not support the amendment. What would it what? I move

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: that we support the amendment. Okay. So it's seconded. Second.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Any further discussion? If not, all those in favor, please raise your name. Joe?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I'm fine. Wow. Ten zero questions are.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: It's really

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: late. Santano.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: Thank you. I don't want take more of your time. Thank you.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Thank you both. Thank you, representatives. Thank you.

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: I can hang out for the next thing.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Well, if you gave me money, I'd call you.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Really? You gotta put some fancy

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, God. That's a good one. Why don't I keep that big one?

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Oh, he'll love it. I

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: mean, what if the chair doesn't spin?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. So you're good to go, Conor?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I'm good to go.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're no one that had anything. You are enlightening. I want to spend some time

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I have something say to

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and a language that is possibly going to be an appropriations committee. I know you had a conversation with Katie or not. She sent an email to her.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I did.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Have you changed anything?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The basic thing is it is typically a policy disagreement. I would expect them to not want the language I sent, in which case they think you guys just need to figure out.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So Pat, you have the language.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Can you share the tape and put it up on the screen, and you can get to the hot seat if you want, or you can stay where you are, whatever works for you. You're fine with me at 09:00 on a Friday. I will

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sell the tape and I'll come up in a screen share.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Whatever works for you. We'll give you more charcoal.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just have to put up

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: some share

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: for you. That's not okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're comfortable there, but it's nothing there.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm happy to

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: talk to them.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Need to feel important. That's why we're

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: all You to You got to our important junk.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: You to flip it up.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Between you, Scott, and Tate, we would not be able function. I'm gonna Tate in this chair.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I hope that he wants to be there.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think that's better than me, let me tell you.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I welcome him. Okay, John Gray, Office of Letter Center Counsel. Good morning.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Happy Friday. So while

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: John's getting settled, this is a language that is really being started by the Customer Services Committee the appropriations committee for the person who represents Luneau who works with the Department of Children and Family Services. A budget they have been working, trying to get from the department what the cost would be to provide services to juveniles who are in DCF custody and under beds that are under DCF this way. They're really having a hard time getting that budget number. So, they would like to propose some language that requires that budget amount to be shared with the legislature before we move ahead with putting up any bids. There's what the chair of House Human Services Committee said to me yesterday, John was there as well, there's about 41 to 44 beds out in the system. Some of those are residential beds. They're just out in the system. Maybe you can help a little bit because you were on human services. But of those, I wanna say 44 beds, 14 of those is the facility that we're looking to build. And the question is, if they contract out to an entity to staff that facility or those other beds, what is going to be the cost to do that? Is it gonna be too expensive to contract out? And then it would be better if we had state employees doing the work instead of contracting out. Appropriations committee and human services committee cannot get that information from DCI. So they want some language to apply some fresher. And what it is, is that nothing, no beds will be put online or could go forward until they get that information. And I understand that.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: The

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: problem is where we are in the 14 bed facility that we're looking at and where BGS is in terms they've already gone out with an RFP, they're in negotiations, we're in the crosshairs. We don't wanna stop the negotiations, but we don't know what's gonna happen come the end of the session. If DCF doesn't come forward with the budget, then we've put in some language in terms of what happens over the summer and fall to see if we could release those monies, but that has implications in our world in terms of how we move BTS most forward with putting in a new tooth melt facility. So that's what we're trying to thread the needle on.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Why isn't DCF giving us the numbers we need? Go ask them.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: It's definitely happening.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Or they won't.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't know, I'm not upstairs. So I don't know. And I'm not downstairs on corporations.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Well, I'm nobody, but I'm gonna ask them that question. That's the basic question. People ask.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The question is being asked. I also just wanna be clear. I don't know if it's DCF, John Gray, legislative council. I don't know if it's DCF or AHS that is not.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: For the

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: administration? Right. It's under the 5th Floor.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think the framing that the chair gave makes sense of the language proposal, which is basically to say, look, there's been spending authority authorized for this, but in FY27, there's not going to be any expenditure of funds unless you provide the information.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So let's put the language up a little bit, Troy.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: The spending authority, is that broad right now to include both the general fund and the capital bill? Or is it just

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a no expenditure? I'll show I'll show the language.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Expenditure in our flight 27 till they come forward with a budget.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Here we go. Happy to to read through. Just draft language hasn't been edited. This was just quickly typed up yesterday in response to discussions. So this is beginning on or before August 1 and ending December 2026. So you can pick up to the next legislative session. AHS in consultation with departments for children and families and BGS shall monthly report to legislative justice oversight committee on its plan to develop the Green Mountain Youth Campus, including its progress on a complete unambiguous written analysis to the estimated costs of an annual operating budget for full utilization of the post 41 bed high end system of care consistent with prior budget. So this is saying monthly report in the off session to joint legislative justice on your progress. And then you can see the kind of stronger language, complete unambiguous written analysis. The idea is bring us the budget proposal. So that's

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's there. I gotta be careful here, because we could also ask this, even if they do come forward with a budget while we're still in session, we could still require this even if they come forward with a budget by the end of the legislative session.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure, although my understanding is that if they did come forward with the point to apply political pressure and they gave the information because of the pressure, you wouldn't need this anymore. But yes, you would have the ability to not include or include as appropriate.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So for for A, that was or would not impact what is currently the RFP that BGS has out there, and they've got the BIDBAN. That language would not impact that.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Correct? So a would impact nothing. It's just a monthly report. It's b is the so a is just saying monthly report in the off session to an off session committee on your progress. And then B is the actual meaningful cudgel. In FY '27, departments for children and families and the buildings and development services shall not expend funds for further development of the Green Mountain Youth Campus, unless and until the chairs of house approach, press institutions, healthcare, human services, and Senate committees on approach, health and welfare and institutions approve the written analysis in subsection A. So this is what would have the effect. I can come back to this because I know there are gonna be questions, but this is where my colleague Katie McLennan raised some issues about whether or not this is even doable to have the chairs approved. We can talk about that, but I know people are gonna have questions about the basic mechanics of the

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Correct.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: We can still appropriate in the capital fund. We're at about 750,000 right now. We could they might not be able to expend what we appropriate. Accurate?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. This is predicated on there being existing spending authority. This is not an independent grant of spending authority that then says it's contingent on approval. It's saying, or otherwise existing spending authority can't happen until this condition is met. And does anything change? Right now, it's $772,557

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: in cash. Does anything change between cash and bond group?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Nope. And to answer the share's question earlier, any of the RFP process that is happening in FY twenty six, the current fiscal year that we're in is not affected by this language. This only affects expenditures in FY '27.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What would affect this current RFP is the negotiations in terms of going forward with BGS and the entity that bid on that RFP are entering into negotiations right now in terms of the lease payments, the cost of that, what the state would pay. And they're also doing some design documents, BGS, and working with a potential developer in terms of what the building or buildings need to, the size of them, what they're gonna incorporate, and that all ties into the negotiations and So those lease that's what's

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: gonna happen

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: on the BGS world between now and July 1. So they already have about 300,000 and the 700,000 is to continue those negotiations and design work. So this is where it gets in the crosshairs because BGS is in the process of negotiating with a developer chart.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Where is this language going next?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't know if this language I mean, this would be pulled into the budget, is the idea of the final destination of this. I don't know the path of this language because based on some late evening conversations yesterday, there may be some objection to whether or not it's permissible essentially to delegate this kind of legislative decision making to the chairs. There had been discussions about this going to JFC, which might better address some of that concern.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The way we've structured that in the past to go to JFC, the strike fiscal committee, that's the only committee that can take any obsession. It could be upon recommendation from those respective chairs. We've done that.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, and another way you could do it, if you just want a clear objective contingency to meet, although this may not, I have the sense that this doesn't satisfy folks, but upon submission of the unambiguous written analysis, which presumes that you then have the information that you need, it wouldn't require approval, it would be a clear contingency that the executive branch could meet, just submit it and it's there. But I had the sense from discussions yesterday that folks might be so lifecally.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So I just wanna lay on the table. This is not being driven by us. It's being driven by human services. And the thinking is to be put in the appropriations committee bill, but also put in our bill because we're in the process. And if we don't have some language in our bill, and then it's only an appropriations bill, when it gets to the end of the session in conference committee, we have no sayings. We don't have any language. So it's kind of important we say something so that we can be part of that discussion come the end of the session. So Troy.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I'm a big fan of controlling what I can control and trying to control what I can't control. And I cannot control what human services and appropes wanna do with this. I don't like bringing it into the capital bill. I most certainly do not want to impede the development of a new permanent youth stabilization facility. I am incredibly uncomfortable with where justice involved youth are currently being housed. They're in FEMA trailers that are beyond their expiration date. We have heard reports of them being in the basement of a sheriff's office. And that does not serve our youth well in any way whatsoever. I'm incredibly opposed. I don't want to play the political game here. I know what they're doing. And I think it's really inappropriate that we don't have the information we need from the administration right now. I don't that's on them. If they want to withhold that information for whatever reason from the legislature, I I I think that's a bad look. This office or this committee decides where we're gonna spend capital dollars. And I think spending capital dollars on a use stabilization facility is a really good use of our money right now. So I don't want to impede that. And I know there are more players that might do that anyway. And I hear your point, Cher, that we need to stay at the table. And maybe that means bringing language and that keeps us at the table. I get that. I don't like this.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This is where policy committees see things in a certain view, a certain lens. You get into a money committee and you see where the rubber hits the road with money. And it's a whole different lens that they're looking at. And it's very hard sometimes to meld those two. I think that's what's happening. It's like, okay, just stop. You don't need to be doing what you're doing with the construction, just stop. Well, we've gone out, this is the third RFP we've had. And we've been looking at replacing the Woodside facility since '22. And we've heard a lot of pressure from different entities that we need a facility to replace Woodside. And we've been working on that. First, we were gonna build it. And then we said, we can't put that pressure on capital bill and then decided to do a design build. And we looked at state owned property first. And then the community had, there was issues there with the community. So we pulled out. And last year, we went out to see if there was any land available that we could purchase or work with a developer and BGS went out with an RFP, I think it was back in December. And they just got that back about three weeks ago and they've started negotiations. So, this language is not gonna stop that negotiation between now and the time a bill becomes law, either the budget or our bill with this amendment. It's gonna continue. But the question is, under what footing does our department negotiate with the developer? Because they could know that we're going to keep the 700,000 in our FY twenty seven budget. We're not going to zero that out. But if DCF doesn't come forward with budget numbers for the operating costs of that to provide services to the youth, that's gonna be on hold. And we're trying to have a release valve by having something in the summer, if DCF does not come forward with the numbers of the money committees and the policy committees are looking for, then we're trying to find a release valve during the off session to release that money to go full. And that's what the intent of the amendment is.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What's the committee thinking? Because they wanna put this in the budget so they need to know today. It's a decision today, because the budget is gonna be done today, and the final vote will be Monday on appropriations committee.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I'm always curious when we're discussing privatization or having it state run, obviously, and you were talking about that is sort of something they were wrestling with at the beginning. I didn't necessarily see anything in this language that sort of flushes out that more. It's all just the numbers, right?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We were talking construction costs on

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: our end.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We started out originally that we were gonna build the facility. And then we looked at the pressures on the capital bill and our bonding capacity. We were also gonna build a new women's facility.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So those were the two big pieces. And then it was decided to do a design build because then it doesn't take the capital bill to buy land, own the land, do the permitting zoning, and then build the building. So they decided to do the design build and then we pay it back in the lease payment. Now that lease payment, we do that, that lease payment comes out of DCF's culture. And I don't know if they're even looking at that. But that will come out DCF's payment, that lease payment. So the negotiations that BGS is doing right now with DCF at the table with the potential developer is talking about those lease payments and the costs, because it's gonna impact DCF's operating budget as well. I don't know if the policy committee approves is even looking at that piece. They're looking if you contract out the provider to provide the services.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Why would we have any confidence in the numbers they give us if they give it to us under duress because of legislation like this?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You should get a number. You're not getting anything now.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I've seen it for thirty five years. You press somebody who's in charge for an answer, otherwise you don't support it. They give you an answer and it's either worthless or So, I'm back to the question, why are we trying to push someone's arm rather than communicate with them and say, We can't support you if you don't give us what we need. Who has tried to do that?

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We have been trying to communicate, this is my experience, I hate saying this a lot, of all the entities that I've dealt with in the state, and I was in the human services for six years, I find that DCF specifically is always the most challenging and you get the least clear answers no matter who's the deputy commissioner in charge. I don't know why, it just seems to be something that happens. It's not because people aren't asking, I can guarantee you that. And the next division or department over can give you the answers all day long to whatever question you ask them about their thing, it's always DCF. That's just my experience. That makes doesn't and I think a lot of people will share that experience. Can't tell you why. Just what everybody seems to have for an experience. Okay. So then back to

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: my thirty five years of experience, if you can't get the answer out of this person, you

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: go to the person's over that person. You're gonna get the same answer because the person up there is telling that person.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So, why doesn't the governor wanna support moving forward with this activity? Let's get to the root cause of it rather than trying to leverage in a situation like this makes you feel good, but it doesn't accomplish it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm not so sure it's not supporting going forward. It's more not sharing what the operating costs know, separate branches of government, so we're putting pressure on the executive branch, who means that the legislative branch has. Problem is we get caught in the process that I think policy committees don't think about, like transportation committee or our committee or even appropriations committee when it gets into money piece and you know you're working towards something and where you are in that world is not where the policy committees are. So, we need to weigh in on this. I know the chair of human services was okay with the language, and that was before Katie McClain weighed in. Representative said in an email, she's waiting for the chair of human services and waiting for me as chair of comp corrections and institutions to give the okay, my language, and then they'll put it in the appropriations.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Is the expectation that we put it in our bill?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yes. I mean, would encourage that so that we're at the If we don't have any language in our bill, we're out of the discussion and we need to be in the discussion. I feel quite strongly about that. And I was the one that presented to the chair of human services, and she brought this up to me Tuesday morning. I said, Well, we can't just stop this. I said, We're in the middle of an RFP in designing this new building, new facility. And I said, we've gotta keep this going. And that's when I suggested at least you get check ins monthly for joint justice oversight. And then it developed into this other thing. And I think the way that you can deal with Katie's concern is, and we've done this in the past, the joint fiscal committee can release it, make the decision for the go ahead, but based on, I don't know if it's approval from the chairs of those respective committees or you'd have to look at previous language that we've done. So we've done it through those situations. That's what I would recommend we change it B. Change B. Sure.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can I can change to

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't I I understand the frustration? I also understand the political play. Understand that. That happens all the time. Doesn't matter who's who's in what power, what position where, who's in the 5th Floor, who's in the legislature. That happens when I was a freshman.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Also, you reduce bonded indebtedness and replace it with design builds, you're only kidding yourself.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You're still paying it. It's just

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: coming out of somebody choose.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. But that's not the issue. The issue is who's gonna provide the services to those kids, and and what's the cost of that. That's the issue.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: But that's that's not the issue with the jurisdiction in here.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we're in the crosshairs because we're in negotiations with a potential builder. So if they don't get that budget information in terms of who's gonna provide the services, then everything we're we're working on comes to a stop. That's how it plays out, Brian.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: I am not politically astute. I need it simpler. There is a need for this many beds, right?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 14 beds. And then once the 14 beds get up and running, the trailers in Middlesex go away. That's the painting.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: In theory.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: So we need these beds. And is the concern then that we're gonna build this facility, but there's not gonna be enough room to staff it to capacity?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, they don't know that information upfront.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Right. So is it a question of transparency or is it a question of we build it and nobody's gonna come because we can't put people in there to work?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Transparency. Well. The DCF needs to come forward with a budget.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, that game's going be played all day long. Okay, then I do get it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, and that's why they're proposing to fire and say, come on.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: And as we talked yesterday, different entities right now, the operating cost per bed is drastically different, nearly doubled

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: or halves. Where they've already contracted out.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Not that think that I anybody in government's necessarily gonna go like hell, we're gonna go with the most expensive one, but we want some answers as a team to say hey listen, this is what we're looking at. Because if one's 1,800 and one's 44 unappropriable to the x axis. 24, 44. Yeah, something like that. Those are drastically different, and maybe because of where it's located, maybe it can't be the more affordable one, or there's a reason. I don't know the reasons, but let's have a conversation. And yes, that level of detail is probably not our committee, if they're not getting it upstairs either, then that's troubles.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: What's it costing us currently to house the individuals that are in this program right now?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, they're spread out through hotel rooms, they're spread out through police cruisers, they're in emergency rooms. The beds that we are contracting for right now, there's four beds up the trailers and middle sets at Red Clover, DCF is contracting with a particular company there to provide services. And I believe it's around 2,200 or 2,400 per bed per day. And Wyndham County, they're just opening up three beds down there. DCF is contracting with a different provider and it's coming in at 4,400 per bed per day. And that's, what's really saying, woah, wait a minute. If it's gonna be that much for a 14 bed facility plus 30 other beds that may be out there elsewhere, we can't afford that. And we need to know those numbers before we move ahead, we're putting more beds online. That's what they're trying to get at. And if it's going to be 4,000 plus per bed per day, then the policy committee and appropriations committees needs to figure out, do we contract out for services or do we hire state employees to run the facility? That's what they're trying to make that decision in a policy case.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: I'm not doubting your numbers, but are those anecdotal or Those

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: are numbers. Those are numbers that have been said upstairs and downstairs. That's what the contracts are for and have been. The DCF has entered into and those four beds of the trailers, they've been there two years. It's been two years. At least. And then the Wyndham, those are just opening up and DCF has entered into a contract with a different provider. Those are the numbers that have been given to Appropriations Committee and Human Services Committee from DCF. And that's what's triggered this compensation going forward. What are we gonna be paying for these beds? Because we can't afford this.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Shawn?

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Just quick math too, because this helps me. At $2,400 a day, that's $850,000 a bed per year. If it goes up to 4,000, it's $1,400,000 per bed per year. 2,200,000.0.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: To keep that

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Seven beds. 2,200,000.0 for seven beds right now. Seven beds.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Just need to throw those

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we're at 14 beds. That's pretty substantial budget impact, and that's what they're trying to get. The DCF isn't coming forward with the information.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Just for comparison, it's about $320 per bed per day

[Rep. Brian Cina (Burlington) (Guest/Witness)]: for incarcerated adults.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that's what's before our policy. I get it. They're saying, wait a minute, before we go forward anywhere, we need this information administration. I get that. I think we all get it. The issue is we don't we're in the middle of negotiations, the beginning of negotiations with a potential developer. And what does this do to BGS? But it's not going to impact them now because they can go forward now, but for FY twenty seven with that 700,000, all of a sudden that could just stop if DCF is in the company, if the administration doesn't come forward.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And how is our position or how are our goals advantaged by being on this putative committee of conference? Should it come to that?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're at the table discussed.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If we don't

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: have any language in our bill, it's up to

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: the public. What does being at the table get us?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's just a voice that we can share what will be the implications for BGS because they won't reach out to BGS unless we're at the table. Policy committees here have no clue what BGS is. They think that they take care of a building and they mow lawns. So over time, there's always been some issues on other committees that implicate BGS and they're not reached out to.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: And will not the other policy committees be arguing for transparency and desire to know the actual numbers without us, with or without us?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It'll be for operating class, but it's not the construction piece. It's not the construction. They won't be looking at a construction part and where they are in the process. They won't be looking at that. I went through that when we built the state hospital.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I went through that. I've been through that before with other items that was built. Good. PGS isn't on anybody's radar, period. I hate to say it bluntly, but it's true. And it's not people's world. So it wouldn't be your world if you weren't in here.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: True.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I mean, when you were human services, you never even thought of BTS. Brian, did you ever think of BGS in education?

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: You know the lines, man.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Did when we went for

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: a tour.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: It's nice to have. All lines, right? Yeah, if you don't

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have a reason to.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You don't have a reason to, it's really insolate.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: We all think about potholes, but every day we don't think but about we don't think about the logistics behind it until you're on transportation.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, people hit potholes. That's what they're thinking.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: That's I'm saying, if that's more open and you still don't think about the logistics of it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So a voice at the table will protect from us. A voice at the table will protect BGS's process.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If we're not at the table, they're not gonna reach out.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: should we pursue redefining B? Please do. Open our mouths and say we're okay with the language?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: okay with the language, but I understand why it needs to be there. Yes. Or I understand why it's being proposed.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We would need to have the language in the cabinet.

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Will hold my nose.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think we all will.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So not reported on the floor. Just for orientation, the Well,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the appropriations bill goes out first. So they're done.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You're free to include in the capital bill, but just to note that for today, this is not the committee's language. Just wanna make And this is really a talk that is happening outside.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what I would recommend to both representative Luneau as well as Ward is changing that B.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure, I don't think they would

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This will work with Katie McLean and North P.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I expect there'd be receptus.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because that will then need to be put in the big bill. So I'll have that conversation with representative Ward. We'll just update these section for a different process. Because we did talk about that when Theresa and I sat down. I suggested joint fiscal change. Joint fiscal is the chairs of approves, chairs of ways and means and finance. And is it five and five? No. It's

[Rep. Troy Headrick (Ranking Member)]: One second.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm trying to think. Is it

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: because

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think representative Wood is on there for the house.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So currently, it's representatives, Cornhiser, Cheyenne Wood, Seniors Beck, Cummings, Lyons,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you've got your chair and vice chair of voice meetings, your chair and vice chair of approach. One more. And then one more from each side. And who's the other one from? Yeah. Theresa's. Theresa something. So right now, for the folks that would be involved in this, the appropriations people, human services, which you've got Theresa there. And then, so they'd have to weigh in basically on Senator Lyons, but she's not on there.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: She's on.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: She's on. It would be Wendy and me that they really have to get approval from, because we're not on JFC. All the others are on JFC.

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: So,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we've been working for a while. It's my summer. For the first time.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Before I get the big bucks.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So why don't you kind of work with Katie on that? Circle back with us some of the language. We need to be on the floor. I don't know how long the floor will be, but when we are finished on the floor, depending on when that is. If we're done, do we, I don't, I mean, do have a long calendar, right?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So if we get out close to eleven or 11:30, take a half hour lunch and then come back.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. Yep. That's as far as.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Take a half hour lunch regardless. And the other thing too, folks, if the floor is gonna go beyond twelve or 12:30, and there's a bill coming up that you don't have an interest in, it's gonna take some time. Go have lunch.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Get

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: out get out of there and eat your lunch. Because, you know, you could we could be on the floor till one or 01:30, and then poof, everybody's in the cafeteria. Oh, we gotta eat.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I've saying this a while ago, so I've

[Shawn Sweeney (Clerk)]: been doing that for some time.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Prophylactic pleasure. And it helps the cafeteria because they don't get bombarded all at once too. We will launch more of Guapi