Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Good morning.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome folks to South Emergency and Institutions Committee. It's Wednesday April 29. It's our 03:00 meeting. We are working again on this '1 hundred eighty three. We've got new language that is a reflection of what we talked about yesterday in terms of the feasibility plan for the agency coming services back to us for the feasibility plan on how to do with the transit facility. Before we go there, we have Conor, then some questions.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: So I guess up in human services listening to the testimony today, and something occurred to me just in the original draft of the bill. This is essentially a public safety bill, right? Like, I know we wanna treat people, we wanna get them confident to stand trial, but it's a public safety bill. It's targeting folks we think are the highest risk based on their charge. But if there's one thing I've learned in this committee, and I thought I was listening upstairs and hearing something similar, is what you're charged of or even sentenced in in some cases, doesn't dictate how dangerous you are going to be in a facility. In fact, the example you always give is kind of crass, but you murder your husband, you know, you got rid of your problem and you might not be the most dangerous person then. So if we're doing a public safety bill, why are we basing someone's propensity to cause violence in the public on their charge and not their clinical diagnosis of whether a doctor thinks they're at risk of being violent in public? Is it really a public safety bill? Or is it just we're doing the easiest thing we can and it passes a straight face test and we can tell the public we're looking out for public safety? Because it's not the best thing you can do for public safety. Some of these charges are not the most dangerous people. Some of the other folks who are waiting for their competency evaluations are far more dangerous, right? So why are we basing it on that? And I thought that's where this committee might touch it a little bit, because we always go to that example of how dangerous they are. So, I just wanted to bring that up to the larger conversation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Maybe you want to bring back a poster.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: I feel like I was asking too many questions to begin with.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: If I may, it's Floral. I agree with everything you said, but there's also the punitive part. We don't like to think about that. But until the law is changed and it's no longer a life sentence, that sentence needs to be carried out unless it's changed. And so if they have a life sentence that's pending, maybe maybe we should change the law so that they're not detained. But you you hear what I'm saying? I mean

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah. I'm not necessarily saying, like, release the people who have been charged. Right? Like,

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: saying That's you're saying is

[Conor Casey (Member)]: what is a real That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is this facility is not accounting for people who might be more dangerous than the A people we're talking

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: 100%.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: And to clarify, these are people who have been charged

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: They're not guilty yet.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: That if convicted, and it's that point, would face a sentence. But we don't get

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: to a conviction until they've

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: had a trial. Don't get

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: to a trial until the competent stand trial.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: But we're holding others in a similar fashion.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: But they have competency. They understand why they're waiting for a sentence.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's a real difference. You and I are being in there So Katie, welcome. Thank you. Good afternoon.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Katie McVenn, Office of Legislative Counsel. What you have up on the screen is language reflecting sort of the conversation that you've had the past few days about wanting to put a feasibility plan together. So this is a stand alone language at this point, And the concept being that if and when you get S one ninety three from house judiciary, that there would be an amendment. There would have to be changes to the underlying language currently in that draft, but this is a section that would be added. So this requires that by January this coming year, the Secretary of Human Services is to submit a feasibility plan for the development and operation of a forensic facility, and this would go to seven different committees. The plan shall address the following: the proposed location of a forensic facility, which shall be independent from a correctional facility and, if on the same grounds of a correctional facility, shall be separated by sight and sound. Second, it shall address the proposed design plans for a forensic facility that allows for the ability to separate residents by sex or gender in clinical need. Third, the number of beds within a forensic facility. Fourth, the entity or entities responsible for operating and providing services in a forensic facility, which shall not be the Department of Corrections. Fourth, the timeline for constructing a standalone forensic facility or fitting up an existing standalone facility to operate as a forensic facility. Fifth, the estimated cost of constructing or fitting up a forensic facility. Six, the proposed staffing and clinical services available at a forensic facility, including competency restoration services. Seven, whether any opportunities exist for out of state placement of the forensic facility population and clinically appropriate programming while development of a forensic facility in Vermont is pending, and any recommendations for legislative action to effectuate the development of a therapeutic trauma informed forensic facility. So this hopefully reflects your conversation. It borrows some of the language that came over from the house. Sorry, I'm a fraud. Came over from the house. I sort of alerted you to where the Senate Health and Welfare and Senate Institutions amendment was. So some of that language is built into this. But this is where it is right now.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This 84 from yesterday. It's in the language of Birmingham s one ninety three. I need to mail this. This is the plan. The agency needs to come back with next year.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There was a conversation about having an interim status update going to joint justice oversight. And that would be August '26 in October. Question would be, how do those status updates fit with the written interim report that's currently in the bill? Do you want both? I mean, that's a policy choice, but just thinking about the interplay between those two pieces.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, the interim report Which one? That's the one Is that the one for January 15?

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No. There is an October 1 report. Where is that? Section seven. So October 1 from multiple departments.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's talking about drafts, draft rules.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's one thing, but it also asks for the status and anticipated timeline for the adoption of rules, forensic facility planning, including the specific proposed location, space considerations, design elements, initial staffing considerations, including required qualifications, anticipated timelines for development. Where is all of that? That's in section seven of the bill.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: And that's the age?

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's my question. If you adopt this language with the feasibility plan, and one of the asks was that there be a joint justice update in August and October. Do you also want this section seven written report? Is that duplicative? Or do you want to have this coming in later? Do you want this coming in January? Well, in January, you're getting your feasibility plan.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Well, this south, a new thing that was written up, thank you, seems a lot better than this thing over here. Right? So don't we get rid of section seven? Section seven. I mean,

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: it seems like we go with this.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, if we had this, and I want to keep their feet to the fire to do this. And one way of doing that is have the report how far along the planning process and what direction you're looking at based on this line of junior, have them copy for a joint justice committee at their August and maybe November meeting. August, November. August meeting is October. Okay.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: You're saying

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Then you get the plan in January.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: That's what I was gonna say. But why did we ask for October 1 on this one?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It came from the bill. That's the bill. That's not. Right. Fine. Yeah. Was changing those. So if

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm just asking, do you want both?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't think we need both.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So you're okay. So we're Okay. Striking that

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What are the other?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm just wondering if we need a merge though. I'm just trying

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: to get it in front of

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: me and I don't have

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Section seven, it depends what Brad threw out for the section four fifteen?

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, but this language hasn't been amended since it's come from the House.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I think any version you look at is probably safe.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what the interim report that came over from the S 193 from the Senate is the status and anticipated timeline for the adoption of rules. That's out. That's our rule making. Present facility planning, including the specific proposed location, space consideration, design elements necessary to support provision of therapeutic services, security at the proposed location and timeline for any necessary fit. They also have to take initial staffing consideration, anticipated staffing levels, required qualifications and potential contracting needs. Not in there,

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: which need

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to be in there. And the anticipated timeline for the development of a forensic facility, including preliminary process and

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: that's not

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: initial option.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the only thing we need is number three.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You also don't have any security plan.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: That's true too. Because we're divesting from DOC right now, so that sort of

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Well, we have to cover that, Troy, because there is, in our number one first ask, is that, and if on the same grounds of correctional facilities, shall we separate the site and sound? Aren't we assuming that they get the perimeter? Then what who's are you talking about the security inside the actual building? Yes. Inside the property. Alright. Thank you.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: So does that look like a psych security position or a CEO position? I'm leaning more towards the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's psych security or staff security.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Well, you want like You don't want DOC in there.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I do not.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I don't either. I don't think any

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: of us do. We still need it to be a secure facility. So defining who's providing that security is important, especially since we've removed DOC out of this. We still have to define security.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That would be in the plan, the fiscal ruling plan, to define the security. Think Inside that the facility and outside the facility. Yes. Okay.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think that would maybe be its own subdivision.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It be a thorn? Is that

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: what you said? No, would be its own.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, would be its own subdivision. Sorry. It sounded like a

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: thorn. Katie's side.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay, so are folks comfortable with this, with the changes that are proposed and that we eliminate Section seven. So while we're there, we are also looking at, while we're talking about the interim report, Section five. Just the rulemaking. Are we saying it's a committee to take the deep end section?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I would think it's premature.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: There's also a proposal to delete section 4A. So this is an annual report on what's happening at the forensic facility. It might be something you want at some point, but without knowing exactly what the forensic facility is going to look at, you might want to wait on that piece also.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Great. So today, what could be very helpful, Katie, is if you could put together what what we have right now, which is this and changes, and the decisions we made on those sections to delete. Yeah. And we've got some outstanding decisions that we need to make. One is, I don't know if you want to get into it today, I don't know what happened to John. He

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: can come back

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: before four? Anytime before four. So I'd like to have him come back fairly soon, and I know you may need to be freed up. We have to make the decision when folks are released because they will be, because house judiciary is working on that piece, folks will be released. The way the bill is drafted now, it's DOC with bondage of them in the community. We have not really vetted. So I want to keep that in the bill so that we don't lose that. We can spend some time really working on that. We'll have to get DOC to talk about that piece, having vision. So I think we need to know that before we say no to them. The other piece is what the Senate alliance piece that put in was the definition of the forensic facility and how this works with our feasibility.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I was thinking I might just go in and work on that bring

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: back some language. And also our definition

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of Yeah, which depends on everybody else's decisions. The monitoring piece, House judiciary's latest draft had the secretary being responsible for that, just so you know. I am happy to make changes to the feasibility plan that you discussed. I know you wanna see the whole package together. Well, not their stuff. Some of the decisions that they're making will influence what you are seeing. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: maybe premature.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I'm thinking. For example, the forensic facility definition, we can't finalize until we know what other decisions are being made. And then section four, I can start working in subsection B and start making those changes. But it looks like house judiciary is still working on a few small changes. So I'm a little hesitant to

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But you can do

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I could maybe just pull in

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Section what you're 4B. I could. Yep. Okay.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I ask one more question?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then, Kevin?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: One thing I really like about the Section X that you just gave us is under item one. It's very explicit, which shall be independent from a correctional facility. I'm glad that that's in there. As we substitute secretary for AHS into everywhere that corrections DOC was in the original bill.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sorry,

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm not doing One of the things that has been concerning for me is that if we give it to the secretary, what's preventing her from just handing it off to DOC? Do we want language at those moments in the bill that mirrors shall be independent from a fractional shall be separate from DOC or shall not include the DOC? You know what I meant?

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I hear what you're saying.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's talking to the mayor.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Utilizing. Yeah.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I am wondering if that subsection b can be used in that way. The problem is that's permanent statute. You're asking for a plan back. Can I think about it?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Did you talk to the Eric?

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Really where I think it probably belongs is either in the definition, it feels like a little bit of a strange thing to say in the definition. This shall be operated by the secretary, but the secretary can't hand it off. Maybe there could just be a line with one standalone subdivision somewhere that just-

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do an intent section, but it doesn't get instantiated, but will you do an intent? Yes, you could do

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: an intent section. Entry into the bill.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah, we take the- Is there an intent?

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm not

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: understanding. We need a definition of forensic?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Facility. It's in Bill. It's S-one 193. There's a definition of forensic facility.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So we don't like the definition that's in there?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We're gonna build on them a little bit. We gotta coordinate a little bit with this. And we already have a previous definition of forensic facility that we looked at yesterday that we're using as a template that will be included in the definition that came up right in the bill.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It's interesting that we would come up with a definition of that, but that's okay. I wait to see how that happens.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, we already have a definition in the bill.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I guess that's why I'm confused. If we have the definition, but we don't write the definition. We're modify it a little bit.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The conversation in the committee was that there's a definition in a prior bill, twenty twenty five bill, that the committee seems to like better, a forensic facility. So we're gonna pull in the next draft, pull that definition, but it has to be modified to fit the circumstances that you're currently talking about with this iteration of the proposal.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yes, sorry for the agitation, but isn't there a definition of forensic at the federal level? If there's money involved with this, isn't it already defined

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Not forensic at some facility in the state of Vermont.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so we're gonna make up our own forensic in Vermont, that may be different than Iowa, may be different than Maine.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because we're gonna talk about so

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: it's Okay, the general concept of what it is, and we're gonna be more specific for our purposes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else before we set Katie free? It will be easier once we get the bill and can really see what they've And it might be good at some point for us to even see today's Wednesday. I don't know if Eric would have some time to come in and just quickly walk us through some

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of their drafts or it's too early? I am sensing that it was too early. There was a comment made that there were some outstanding questions that House Judiciary was still going to need work on. So think you might hear from Eric and then things might shift.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We want to keep that. See, because we don't know when we physically get the bill up. Have

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: some of the sections hopefully at least close to finalized. We could do the legislative intent. We can do this feasibility. I can see what I can do with that subsection B. And then we will wait on the forensic facility definition until we know what other committees are deciding.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. It's not a good to have

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: at the end of the session a

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: if committees working. A non more conservative conference. More concerned office. That's why some of this we really wanna keep intact. It's gonna be important. So maybe we can avoid a conference. And maybe it's going to take some conversations pretty soon with two chairs over there that might help lay the groundwork to talk to Mark about that.

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: You'll start in

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: the conversation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: He would be chair of judiciary and chair of human services. Those were the two. A lot of the definition of forensic facility came from center lines

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Well,

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: and center

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: they didn't actually work on the definition of forensic facility from Senate judiciary.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But I thought they did some of the

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: work on 4B. They did the work on 4B. Those clinical parameters and the interim reports and the rulemaking. But the definition itself came from the judiciary committee. 4B is what I was saying. Okay, yep. And that's right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If we keep that pretty intact, it might be easier.

[Katie McVenn (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'll try to retain as much of that as I can and also try to I don't know. Yeah, meld it with your concept that you have.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else for Katie before we get John in here? Just a big thank you for him.

[Unidentified committee member (not John Gray)]: Yeah. Thank you so

[Conor Casey (Member)]: much, Katie. You captured it really well. Yeah. Nice.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's only gonna it gets muddy, and then it clears up, and that'll get muddy again. That'll clear up. First thing you know, it'll all come together. We're gonna do that thing. It will come together. Enjoy your afternoon. Right? Better us than you. Right? Thank you, Katie. Yeah. Bye bye. Okay. We're gonna shift gears. Have. Benning warmed up that seat for you, John.

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Books are open. All yours, Conor, introduce yourself to the record. Pick up where you left off.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm still John Gray with the office of legislative council.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Greg Stills Ask us directions. I'm glad

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: to hear that. I've been slightly disturbed at this room and something else.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just be.

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

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: That's true. Uh-huh.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anyway.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Okay.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's all yours.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I will

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: MaryA4. That

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is correct. 42405

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I got it up on the screen.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We're on page four. We are jumping into the fourth instance of amendment, the grant programs. You've already talked about this with Scott, but you can see pretty easily the updates there. Typically, these are evenly distributed across the grant programs. Right? And now you have an increase of 100 k for each of the Historic Preservation Grant Program and the Historic Preservation Grant Program. The fifth instance of amendment, this is a section that was not touched by you guys. The natural resources section had remained untouched. I have a few things to say about this one.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Please do.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So section nine is 100 ks appropriation FY '27 to ANR for technical support to municipalities to design and implement stormwater utilities. Few things to flag here. As you're gonna see in the policy sections, there's some stormwater utilities language, policy language, which I will attempt to explain, although I'm not the director of those seconds, but I think it's

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Did director.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Michael Brady. But I think it's not especially hard to explain. But just for the full picture, you're going want to talk to him.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So firstly, this 100,000 is by the doctor.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's exactly where I was going to head. So I perhaps mistakenly understood there to be a known commitment to this as a capital expenditure, meaning that whatever was proposed was a capital expenditure to help municipalities. Based on conversations I've had since this left their committee, I am less clear

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: that this would

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be a capital expenditure, in which case you have bonded dollars for a non capital expenditure, which is not something that we do. Support. Yep. So just something to note, if this was sometimes design docs and things are a kind of capital expenditure right. But if it truly is outside the scope of design, construction, classic capital expenditures, there's a question as to what to do with this. So just wanted to flag that. And obviously, is part of some it's tied to that policy language. It's not explicitly directed at what that policy language allows, but you can just tell that there was appetite from the Senate Institutions Committee to include measures related to stormwater utilities. And we're seeing that across both the line item here and the policy sections.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So are you aware of any testimony that they've taken stormwater utilities to implement a municipal stormwater utility?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I was not part of that just because these were

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: not

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: my sections, but I have heard things I cannot say since then that give me a different view as to what's happening. I'll just say that I mean, part of what is unfortunate about my walk through the sections is all the questions that I will raise or that you guys will raise are gonna be directed toward the senators and not really toward me. There's questions, why did you do this? Yep.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's what we have in conference Room.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. The sixth instance, this one's gonna be simple to understand. It looks big. It's your reallocations and reversions, but there's only one change here. I'm sure that Scott talked about this, and I also kind of hinted at it earlier. It is Subdivision 19 on page six, taking from the 2021 capital bill, 08/8850 from the women's correctional facilities replacement. I'll just remind you that earlier today when we went through the section two appropriations, or maybe the section three appropriations, we talked about how a portion of this was dedicated to the boiler replacement to bring that in addition to the cash up to 1,700,000. And then the balance leftover was dedicated to essentially an expanded line item of this form. So this is women's correctional facilities replacement and the 598,850 in Section 3 went to repairs, renovations, additions, replacement at the Chittenden Regional Center other facilities serving the incarcerated women's population, which was the discussion that was happening when I left the room. So that's where that $8.68 was dedicated. I normally don't like to talk in that way because all the dollars are fungible and they all go to the bottom line, but that's how those made it into in the last instance, the Senate Institutions Report.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Didn't you folks on repo look at this August? It's from

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: We didn't look at any of the money that has been gathering for the breakfast facility. None of it is at the point of mandatory. Correct.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But this would be next year.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Next year.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do commerce and community development gain this?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, you're looking below the line item. Was an appropriation. This went to BGS. If it is helpful, there was a robust discussion about how reallocations work in senate institutions, some discussions of the permissive and mandatory clawback measures. And there initially was a view that you shouldn't take any monies from projects that need to accumulate huge figures to be pursued, like 100,000,000. Of course, that's not the way it works. You're mandated to reinvestigate your projects at least every five years. You can rededicate them to the exact same project. That's how you would accumulate funds over time. So there was some discussion as to how to approach this. And I think the place that landed in part because of a political compromise was a recognition that you can basically, and I know that this committee does this, refresh the money in advance of the gov rec deciding where the reallocations themselves would go. So if you grab it a year early and it's unused funding, you can basically restart the clock for that money and claim it. And so it wouldn't be subject to fall back in the following year. So that's some of the thinking that went into this as well. This isn't happening anyway. Rededicate it to essentially the same purpose and then refresh the money. But if you expand the purpose, there's of course the question whether any of it will go to the original purpose, if all of it goes to maintenance repairs or it goes to other facilities.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, they did get an extra 1.3. So it's only 600,000 plus.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I mean, understanding was that they pulled everything that remained from this particular appropriation.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right, but they didn't touch what point we put

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: in elsewhere.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Didn't touch that. So what's accumulated for replacing the women's facility is about 600,000 more than what we started this session.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, the appetite was to keep sending money to this project, but a concern for how to deal with maintenance and repairs on a more urgent basis. That was the thinking.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They didn't pull the cash that we put in. They went to the oldest bonded money that would be up for reallocation next session.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. There was when I said robust discussion, there was a period in which no reallocation, they weren't going to reallocate anything because it was perceived to be somehow wrong to take money that is part of a long term project and rededicate it to that purpose. But that's just how the capital works. I don't know how else to describe that. I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: mean, in a way, it's convoluted, but it

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: makes sense. Yes, I mean, that's what I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Sell 600,000 to the people.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I tried to offer was that you may, I get from a high level perspective, really long term planning for projects where you can't even proceed on them until you have a huge sum of money, that you would like to have a bank that you can effectively store that in. But the reallocation process doesn't mandate that that banking process doesn't happen. It just ensures a regular check-in.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And we have to be careful with bonded money, how much time

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: we can keep it without expanding

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: to people.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. You're losing You have these authorized but unissued bonds and they're gonna go So,

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: with polling, the $8.68, they they there's still about 15,000,000.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 14 Right. There's the 2023 big appropriations, which are roughly 15. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I mean, there were even more because I mean, you've got 13,000,000 and 1.5, so that's four 14.5, but you're at 15.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. It's a big one.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Which is what we figured to

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: be done when we put the 1.3.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So that is the sole reallocation they did, and that is how in section one they have a larger number than left the House. The remainder of the reallocation section is exactly as left this committee, including the technical updates from reallocation to revert. So I think we jump next to the cash section. I'm not gonna hit too much here because I know you've gone over with Scott, but I will try to call it a couple of pieces. So page 11, they have the 1,000,000 for three acre parcels from our clients. Page 12, 2,700,000 for the door control upgrades. There's a change from the house position. The boiler replacement, have 1,000,000, which in addition to the seventh bouquet and bonded brings you to that 1.7 figure. Earlier, I talked about the struck language for the sprinkler system upgrades at the Northern State Correctional Facility. This is Subdivision 11 on page 12. They did not actually reduce the 500 k. They just converted that bonded dollars into cash. You can see the 500 k line item for the maintenance and renovations at the Chittenden Regional Correctional Facility. That's an update both to the dollar figure and the line item that had been right here replacement piece.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Can I just have quick question? How come this doesn't say or any other facility certifying its population?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is in part a sequencing thing. The way that it was traveling at the same time as the budget, cash was locked up before the bonded pieces were We were expected for the capital bill to be voted out in advance of or at the same time as the budget, and that did not happen. So this line item was fixed as the budget went to the floor. Conceivably, had they been working in tandem, it would have had a similar line item fall out. But the reason it's fixed at just CRCF is because of the sequencing of the budget.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: How does that impact potential spending if they want to spend it on a facility that's serving the women's population but is not CRCF? Yeah, they wouldn't be able to use

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: this 500 ks. They'd have to stick with the bonded dollars for that purpose.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If the bond is here.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it's not in the budget.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not. A thing They that meant up yesterday on the floor.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Not that I am aware of, though I'm not always told that for

[Conor Casey (Member)]: you. I

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can check. I would be surprised if it is, given the amount that I did receive updates on the budget, little things that were happening. So I think that someone would have told me, but the budget has moved in strange ways. There was a cleanup to the budget because the initial I think there was a technical amendment for the budget because the initial cache sections duplicated a line item. Obviously, it had been copied and pasted twice, so that was cleaned up.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: From today? Yeah, 1723 on the second calendar.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Give me just a second, and I will try to look as well.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It talks about cash.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, it could be this cleanup piece.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It does, it didn't clean it up.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So it's not the cleanup piece that you're describing, but

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, but the amendment that the folks is offering today, it's on the cash one.

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: just picked up the language that was in this capital bill. Because the amendment they had before

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, it was a little different because it didn't have the sprinkler system.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly, the thing that had happened there is they accidentally listed the boiler replacement twice in place of the sprinkler system.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that's what the simple That's the cleaner. Exactly. So it keeps the half million for the maintenance and renovations of the Chittenden facility. And that's it, Keeps the language as we see it there.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. And just for everyone else's benefit, that's subdivision O right here.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's the amendment on the floor today.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I didn't think they had changed this line item. I think they had just cleaned up the mistake in the prior draft.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: very sympathetic as to why the duplication happened. There's a lot going on. Lot of open pieces. Let's see. Other pieces to fit. Yeah. There's one big one I did wanna it's on will be obvious. I'm on page 13. Wi Fi. You guys had 3,000,000 doing a DOC to work with ADS and install WiFi in the state credential facilities. They've got a zero. They reduced that by 2,750,000, so you're down to two fifty k. And I would just encourage you to talk to them because I don't know how else to describe the way that this number was arrived at. I'll leave them to describe it.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I didn't say anything. Did

[Conor Casey (Member)]: we ask for an estimate this week?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Did ask for an estimate.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I think they're coming back this week or something.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All right, on page 14, we're now jumping to policy sections, the eighth instance of amendment. This one, okay, just to remind you of what section 13 is, This is the Little River State Park lease. If it is helpful, I can find you guys' report and call out what this does. But the first line of that section says, notwithstanding '20 nine BSA 16, in FY '27, the commissioner authorized to enter into a lease provided certain conditions are met and then list the conditions that have to be met. Before explaining what the word change is, although it's obvious from just reading it, the thing that led to this proposal was a fear from senate institutions that the conditions that were included and required to be met for that authority to exist were not sufficiently specific. And basically what they wanted was to see the lease before any authority to enter into it existed. So they did not want to extend authority to enter into a lease. I suggest that they just strike the section then, because that's what the section is for. I didn't like that. So you ended up with the commissioner is authorized to negotiate a lease, which I would just note, they can do that whether you extend them the authority or not. We have people talk to people all the time. That's how they bring you plans. So if you stick with what the Senate did, don't think you need this section at all. You just need to say, forest parks and recs come back next year with a plant, with a lease, with terms that you can achieve and then can grant the authority to do so. More sympathetically, because perhaps I'm being too harsh, the practical function that this has for the Senate Committee, who is at this point running out of time, is that it preserved the issue for conference committee. And the thinking was that perhaps they could think more about just additional conditions they would want included in the section if they felt dissatisfied with those that are there. I don't know what else you're gonna find to add to it. Perhaps there's something, at a certain point, it's not negotiation, if you dictated what the terms are.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We dictated what

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: the terms

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: are. And you gave lots of ambitious What

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: term was, walking some feet.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Which is not something So you would I know where they're coming from. I know where you guys are coming from. One resolution is just they come back next year and you can see what the plan is, and then you can extend the authority to enter into it. It will be a delayed process, though, unless you do it on a one off bill, which could be done.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Did they reach out to Michael McGrady at all? Do you know?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On this piece, I don't know that he ever made it in I to

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: recommend at the beginning of time to support support.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I certainly talked with Mike about this and let him know what was happening. So he is aware.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: practically what they did is they preserved this section for conference committees, the effect. Oh, boy. The ninth instance of amendment, this one's simple to understand. Again, I can pull up the underlying act if it's useful, but in the 2023 capital bill, you guys extended authority for BGS to sell 110 State Street just outside, And this removes that authority to sell that property. I do not know what the attachment is to this property, but I think you may have some

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: don't know property right now. Some negotiations with the

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Exactly.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I was hearing.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Capital Block. The whole Capital Complex.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Because what's happening right now in the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Capital Complex, everything is temporary. People think this is up and running. Yeah. All the electrical systems for our buildings in the Capital Complex is temporary. It's not private. Because I know they wanted to add some certain things.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was gonna say exactly that. There were discussions around EV charging stations. Commissioner Manoli came in and explained that they might have to be ripped out immediately, depending on what's happening in the floodplain. So that it didn't especially make sense to dedicate funds for those purposes. Also, presumably part of why you're getting a reallocation of funds from Phoebe Church Extension.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because everything is temporary. It's all temporary systems. All your mechanical systems, your electrical systems, all temporary for every one of those buildings. It's not just the ones who are unoccupied. It's the pavilion. It's 133 State Street. It's not so much one But 100 all these other buildings that are occupied now, they're all in temporary systems.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And that is my vague recollection of why repealing this may not even have any I mean, it has a subset effect, it removes the authority to do so. But my understanding is that it was tied up anyway. Well,

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I was gonna ask if you knew why they weren't building it, but it's tied up.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think she likes the building and wants to use it for some. But your it's just what your use is gonna be is

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: To FEMA. Right. Because FEMA, we're repairing everything. The capital Complex is over 200. Don't know what the state chair that's going to be. And there will be a construction zone for two years. This is all gonna be under construction for at least a year to two years. Once once we settle with FEMA, which you're thinking that will happen sometime in the summer. So this whole area, this whole capital complex where it flooded is going be out tomorrow night.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So simple to understand what the legal mechanic does, but questions as to policy, which would be, again, for the senators. Okay. I previewed this temp instance earlier. I said that you had that 100 k for technical support municipalities to implement stormwater design. These are the sections that Michael Brady drafted, but I think that I can give you a simple kind of lay person's explanation of what these do. I'm just gonna read the non underlying language so you can see what's there, And then I'll read the underlying afterwards. So in title 24, any municipality may adopt bylaws to implement stormwater management and control consistent with the program developed by the Secretary of Natural Resources. So in title 10, municipality shall not charge an impervious surface fee or other storm water fee under this subdivision or under other provisions of this title on property regulated under the required agricultural practices for discharges of ag waste or ag non point source pollution. The fear that I believe that this language is meant to address is there are these concepts of regional stormwater utilities. And I think that this language is being added to address kind of a future fear that the regional stormwater utilities would operate to the exclusion of these municipalities ability to control stormwater management. So currently municipalities can adopt bylaws to implement that stormwater management and control. That's what you see in existing law, non underlying language. And the new language is the creation of a regional stormwater utility under statute or rules of ANR should not prevent AMUNI from regulating stormwater under this subdivision, including adoption by the municipality of a bylaw establishing a municipal stormwater utility. So this is preserving the ability for municipalities to establish municipal stormwater utilities even if a regional stormwater utility is created under statute or rules of ANR. I can't say much more than that. I wanna talk to Mike O'Grady. But these are addressing, I take it to be, a fear that future regional stormwater utilities could somehow come at the expense of the ability for municipalities to regulate. Section 19 says the exact same thing. Creation of a regional stormwater utility under statutory rules so they shall not prevent any immunity from regulating stormwater under this chapter, except presumably it's a separate check. So it says the same thing, but pulls in a chapter, including adoption by the municipality of a bylaw authorizing the operation of a municipal settlement of utility that establishes an assessment or equivalent of residential unit or impervious service.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So establishes an assessment on A? Facility.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: they can establish a fee on residential units, be at home, be a business, commercial business, or pervious surface. Well, how do you put a fee on a parking lot?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I'm guessing. Again, this is outside of my bailiwick. I just think the orientation that's useful to know today is I think this is addressing a fear that regional utilities would come to the at the expense of the ability for municipalities to regulate. So it's trying to preserve that ability.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So regulate storm water discharge. It's within the Clean Water Act.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: And I would wonder if they get any money right now from the Clean Water Fund. That's it. Same effective date, so that is unchanged.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This storm water, we have a lot of conversation. We'll have to reach out to our policy committees, maybe on this. I think there's a lot of layers to this. It's in some preliminary conversations that have occurred.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It's a what?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The conversations how that have occurred. You know, I've let the chair of natural resources know we're gonna have to reach out to A and R. Reached out to I'll take

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: it Mike. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Michael Green, talk to A and R, talk to the lead. So it's another simple issue.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, it's just because obviously I have limited experience of the capital bill. My understanding is that typically it's dollars, discussions about movements. And obviously, there are those discussions to be had. But here, have some relatively significant policy changes as well. So it will be a different kind of conference committee. Maybe not.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: In the old days, we used have a lot of policy. We did one capital built every day with x two fifty.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm glad that no one asked me to do

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 2003, 2004 session. Only that. Liberally?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: It was it was meant to?

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

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: How long was that bill?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It just had a repeal. I guess

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you could repeal

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the chapter. On transcription.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Guess Bob Wood, mister chair. That's why they sent me

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: over here. Got a little crazy.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I'm into shape.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: It got

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: a little crazy in 'three, 'four. I only got a little I mean, was a lot of policy

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: in that committee on that

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: bill, awful lot. But that was one, forget that. That's on the wall that saw some. Wow. That's

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It's a fish out in the hallway.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. That's a great. I

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: don't have a

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: problem with Troy. A little butter. Salt. Think we're

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: off to the butterfly. Gotcha.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that's fine.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't sound too shame. Do you guys need anything more from me for now? No, John. Thank you so much. More to come. And I'll also say, more things I can't reveal, but who is to say whether what I just walked through will be the final form?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's still unapproved. I think the plan is approved to vote it out tomorrow.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think that's right. I think that's right.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why we'll be on notice Friday and be up for action on the floor next week. I did mention to one of the members of certain institutions, Can you suspend rules and do a second, third reading in one day to get it over here? And sessions winding down. They understand that. And also

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Don't worry. Session will continue to exist if I have anything to do with it. Yes, sir.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Warm weather. Doors are open. Windows are open.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: You enjoy pain. I sure do.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Had to learn that skill.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thank you, John. Spending a lot of time with you in the conference.

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What would be yield build, then they do.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Potentially 09:33 at yep, I will have lots of confidence when I present it. We believe in you. Thank you.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I have some colleagues who have never done

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a conference committee a month. It's different depending on what you work in. I mean, did one this year, but it's one ever.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a whole different.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. It is quite different.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Thank you. Thanks, gentlemen. Joan. Tomorrow we have what's going on tomorrow? We have a field trip to the historical society. It has to be there by 09:30. It's buried. We should meet downstairs around nine.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Happy to drive.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I'll go

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: and see you.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Thank you.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Mary's got

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: a favorite spot.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Rear John.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Driver's side.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yes. That's a job.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that's How do you

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: get there to Barrie?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You gotta get oh, shush. You can go anywhere you want to Barrie. It's in Downtown Fair. It used to be the school. Elementary.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Sit right up

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: there on the hill? I'm confused. Yeah. Just the granite capital of the world. I'll have you go.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: You're another god.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What do people wanna do tomorrow afternoon? And Friday.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Have

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That was for our you have a suggestion? Chicago

[Brian Minier (Member)]: beyond. Chicago

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, you're going to be that's after the floor.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: That'll be after the floor.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: How long will that take you? Like an hour? And it's about elections specifically? Oh, maybe you could have Steve, see if you could have Steve come in and talk about staff. Yes, he is booting amendment and that coming up? It's on the calendar. I don't think so. It's on notice. Bill's on notice.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I don't think so, but I can get back to

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That will take time.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: It will take preparations, right? Is that the help?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Didn't it?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think so. Think so. You said something about it to him today.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But it was unnoticed today. So did it go today?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. That's right.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't if he told me, but

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: let's do further. Let's do twenty three. Tomorrow. Wednesday, we'll see if we can reach out to be as. And we could also talk with them how they see the forensic facility, the correctional staff. And their field surf, their field folks were monitoring so we could get some testimony on that. We have a gut feeling about it, but we have a full discussion.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Maybe you can kind of talk from the psych tech perspective too, as well as the CEO. The what?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Psych techs.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: They represent the psych techs up at the state hospital. Yeah, so that's different perspective.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Could be more than just staffing. Could also be the staff, I mean the and their experience with the psych techs up at the state hospital.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Okay. For what it's worth, it looks like it's supposed to rain pretty much all day in a while.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's why we're not doing the dam. We wanna schedule that Waterbury Dam.

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's next Thursday. Is there any other field trip that's interesting? We want to do the Wrightsville Dam.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Mhmm. Wrightsville would be interesting. Yep.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: We keep Waterbury Dam in the morning on Thursday, the seventh? Yes. Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But we do the Wrightsville Dam, like, Wednesday sometime. Yeah. Or when yeah. Eight year, wonderful. Or maybe even Tuesday afternoon. Right? At least we don't have anything going on. Because Tuesday afternoon, you know, we know we're gonna be. Yes. It's. We provide the environment to her. I must have talked

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: about mom.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. I might be getting it. Don't think so.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: We gotta get dressed down and then get me dressed.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For the dam? For the house floor. For the dam, you mean?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I don't So you're gonna wear hip boots and bring a big shot. Yeah.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: We're get a little

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: scuba gear, like goggles, like clippers.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Going under for a go. We

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: should

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: find out. We're gonna be outside for most of that. Right? Yeah. So we should be clear in terms of what we will have to change. So

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I didn't hear what's happening Friday.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Friday we have got

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Chicago Beyond.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And it's a research group.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yeah, changing the culture and prisons

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: in general.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: And they had started to mark with the previous commissioner.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: What time was that?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I mean, before. I'd like to get a schedule. Brian, what happened upstairs? Anything interesting? Aren't you glad that I missed the minute? Let

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: me get my notes.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Yes. Yes, am, Chittenden. Thank you very much. A lot of time was spent talking about people with developmental and intellectual disabilities and the fact that they don't belong in a forensic facility. I think the committee upstairs, because it's their lane, is really worried about these folks being misplaced and getting lost and not getting the treatment that they should. And I think the answer is, we already have some of these folks in our correctional facilities. But when we're talking forensics, we're talking the intersection with crime and with needing to gather evidence. And so in my opinion, their fears are largely misplaced because we're not really going to be looking at that population much.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Are they aware that there are folks with DD that are incarcerated now? Must be. Okay.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I talked about it a very brief bit unofficially, but I don't get the impression that they have gone deep on that note.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I thought the four committees cheers were going to meet in conjunction with Wow. Okay. Because that needs to be brought up. I think we're all on different pages.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Well, that's fine in terms of, you can know the most about one thing and know the most about the other, but yes. Oh, and I guess at some point, Commissioner suggested in his testimony from this morning and maybe Conor has already said this, I don't know, that this forensic facility within a correctional facility would be in Springfield were it to happen. I I don't think that's a surprise.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: He said that in here.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Did he? He said Alpha Bravo specifically. And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: then when we asked about Oh, yeah. And then

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: when we

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: asked about the definition of forensic facility Yes. That was in S-one Hundred 3. I asked them, So what part of the facility would you seek to find as a forensic facility? He said, Well, it'd be the whole facility. Yes.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: I can get the sense that human services necessarily doesn't know we're not talking a new facility, you know? Or maybe they do, but it seemed a little unclear.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the document we got yesterday, this document here, at the time it didn't include the definition the rights of facility, but this is a document we got yesterday, Sorry of where we are positioned that we don't agree that you're being DOC. We recommend a facility operated by AHS or jointly by the departments. And we recommend the development of a in a community based setting or in a separate facility on the grounds of a correctional facility. And in the interim about out of state placement. And that we are recommending a feasibility plan by January, proposed location and size, responsibility for operating and providing services and the timeline estimate cost. I sent this to Representative Black, Representative Wood, Representative Long, and Representative Wood said she liked this.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: that's what I sent yesterday morning to let those other three know what food.

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: Are you gonna share what Katie put together as a draft with them tomorrow?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. The thing is it's not gonna be a complete. But

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: it's it moves that along a little bit.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. So that they know. It's all coordinating and talking with each other at this point. It really is. I mean, we're all in our own lane and we gotta meld that together and we will. It will come together. Shawn?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So you you sent that to Martin too? Yes.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And to To to Lisa and to Alyssa.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: And to Alyssa. Did Martin and Alyssa get back to you on it? No. Okay. Based on the invocation this morning, I probably shouldn't ask another question, but if we had the perfect facility in place right now, we would identify the individuals that would be in it right now, right? We would. Yeah. We, if, if we had the perfect facility in place right now, could we identify the people that should be in that perfect facility right now, physically?

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Did it share?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Five, seven people?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Did it

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: carries work out?

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Oh, so we don't know who these five or seven people are current. We don't we don't have a list of five or seven people that would be in the facility. Which somebody knows? We don't. So, the point is, is that where, if we have that list, where are they? What service are, are they in

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: certain? Well,

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: three of them were in Springfield because that's what Marika, Marissa and Marissa. Yeah. I heard. Said to us. She said she had three people that need to.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They're not getting much service.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So right now they're not getting the service wherever they are. He doesn't know where to. So in my mind that we're just. She was in the

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: state of Greece.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, I don't think they're getting much out. Maybe they are, I don't know.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: I don't feature this changing that much. Anyway, I'll just say it again to sum up upstairs. They're concerned about this wrong population of intellectually and developmentally disabled being thrown into a forensic facility. Once they're assured that that isn't going to happen, it's like then you guys figure it out. And isn't WellPath doing this elsewhere?

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Human services looks at the whole agency of human services. Nobody sees DOC. That's why there was no legislative committee that was really looking in at DOC policy the mid to late 90s is when it started percolating. But there was no committee that that was part of their duty. There's a lot. So some folks started pushing. And then finally it ended up in institutions. That was in 2000. The Senate didn't get it to just a couple of years ago. Well, they had it with Vince. Vince took hold of it when he was chair of institutions. Right, but it wasn't called or that and it wasn't And as big of a then after Vince moved on to economic development chair, that's Senate judiciary to hold the vote with Senator Sears. And then when Senator Fleury was chair of institutions, it went to her. And then she moved on, then it went back to Senator Sears. And then this past year, last year, it went back to institutions. If Senator Sears was still with us, would be the seventh judiciary. It goes back and forth. Now in healthcare, that's the Department of Mental Health and Healthcare. Human Services really looks at Dale, DCF, I'm not sure, Department of Health, or is that

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Well, share some. They share that with us too. And

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: DOC, we're the only community.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Anecdotally, they seem to be satisfied that the different parts of AHS are talking to each other and they're singing from the same hymnal, if you will, as Conor indicated this morning.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'll blame you.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: And different from what we had heard perhaps previously in previous weeks.

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

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: if I that's

[Conor Casey (Member)]: mean, they were all in the same room. Right? All the commissioners were there. Jay Johnson was there. It seemed a little more cohesive then. It was more fragmented when they were coming in here individually. Right?

[Kevin Winter (Member)]: They're getting their story to get out of.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: And that coherent approach made

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: an impression on the committee.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: That coherent approach made its impression on the committee upstairs. I

[Conor Casey (Member)]: appreciate it that at least they were saying this is about money now. Because in here, all I heard was this is the best practice, and it is about money, and it's about placement.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So why were they saying that it was about money? Is it because they already are spending this and it's in a place or did they refer to Medicaid?

[Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, I'd say, oh, no, not the Medicaid place. I think at least a couple of commissioners talked about the fiduciary duty to Vermonters, not to build a big new facility And said, okay, if you wanna build a new one, get in line. We got another bunch of AHS facilities we need and to we gotta cite it. And good luck in the community, the people who's gonna wanna do it. So, to me that was different because I remember explicitly when they were here asking the question, is this about best practices or is this to save money? It was best practices, right?

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Happened here, Kevin. We

[Conor Casey (Member)]: took this testimony.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Of the people saying you spent money from the VA.

[John Gray (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They weren't.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: None of them brought us Medicaid.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: No, they didn't get into the IMD stuff or anything like that.

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. Don't know how much they would under Well, they should understand. They should. But the committee is so different from the time that we worked with a state hospital and a stepped out facility. Because Medicaid touches so much. I mean, you've got to have an understanding.

[Conor Casey (Member)]: I mean, it was quick this morning. You went through about like six witnesses in three hours, right? So that's a much more rapid fire pace than what we do. I

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: think we get into it a little deeper. And I think because we deal with actual construction and building of something. We understand the policy at a very different level, because it's more hands on if you're thinking of construction and trying to cite the facility. You understand the complexity of that, but then you understand how complex the policy is. You can't go forward and figure out what type of building or where until you understand the policy. They're so intertwined, or if you just look at the policy, you don't know where all that's being carried out. You're in a very different bubble.

[Brian Minier (Member)]: Yeah, much time was spent both by the witnesses and the committee members upstairs expressing horror at the idea that these folks with intellectual and developmental disabilities would be treated either in a forensic facility or in a correctional facility where one within the other. But the concern is about that population. I know this is the third time I'm saying it

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: now. Yes.

[James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: We can turn ourselves.

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

[Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. Let's go off. We'll be back here. We do have field trip tomorrow morning, so 09:00 down in my lobby to meet and figure out