Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Katie is tied up.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: We are live.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Welcome, folks. This is House of Directions and Institutions Committee. It is Thursday, May 14. We have with us Eric Fitzpatrick from legislative council to help us with some wordsmithing. We looked for Katie. Katie's tied up this morning. Great. So we need some help.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: In section one on legislative intent.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We have in lines 14 through 17, we're very clear that the department would not operate or staff the forensic facility, with the exception that if the facility is on a correctional campus grounds, that the outside of the perimeter of the forensic facility, DOC would provide security.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We also want to allow DOC to provide front of we're calling it front of the house. I don't know it would be security, but operations. In terms of folks from the public coming in, like, if you go into a correctional facility now, there's staff, correctional staff at the front there. It's not your living units. It doesn't get into the correctional facility at all. They screen folks coming in. You put your personal items in a locker. They have you go through a metal metal detector. They screen you before you actually get into the guts of the facility. So for a forensic facility that's housed on a correctional campus, that DOC would also provide those types of services at the front end of that building. Right. They would not be in the living units, they would not be in the program units, they would not be in the cafeteria or infirmary in that unit.

[Unidentified committee member]: Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So that's what we'd like some language to also indicate that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is it just, would it be accurate to say that, because I see right now what you were referring to on line 16, it says outside perimeter.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right, which if the facility is on the grounds of a correctional facility, you're gonna have the security outside to begin with from corrections. But within that building, there's gonna be people from the public coming and going.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So would it be accurate to say to cover what you're intending to cover may provide security services for the facility, say right there before the word around. Could you say something like at the entrance to and around the outside perimeter of? Does that the entrance to cover what you're trying to get at? At

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the entrance to the forensic facility? Right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: At the entrance to and around the outside perimeter of. But you know much better than I how these facilities tend to be laid out. So whether that covers kind of what you're wanting it to cover.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Is it just ingress, egress, or am I missing?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's ingress, egress. Right.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's into instead of to.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. Into. It's not in. I mean, it's not to. It's into entrance. Admittance into the facility.

[Unidentified committee member]: Like that?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's kind of a lobby area.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then when you get past that, you go into a sally You go in kind of to a sally door. It's a locked area you go into. You walk through a locked door, the door locks behind you. You wait for the door in front of you to open to get into the next part of the guts of the building, but you don't want DOC. You want DOC there to monitor the security of folks coming in.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. Yep, yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's not the patients, or the folks, the residents coming and going.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They might leave. At the admitting area of?

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

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So at the same place. So you could say, may provide security services for the facility at the admitting area of and around the outside perimeter. So we're looking at something to add, a clause to add before the work around.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. At the admitting area of the facility, that's what we mean.

[Unidentified committee member]: Right.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And this is although They control who goes in and out.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, they control who goes in and out. DOC, not necessarily residents because they come in a different they would come in. Yeah. They would come in I mean, folks who are booked in a correctional facility do not come in that entrance.

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay. Correction.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They come in at booking, which is behind the fence.

[Unidentified committee member]: But who brings them in? Police.

[Unidentified committee member]: Alright. So that's not DOC. Police.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You know, the county sheriffs or something. It's around the facility. I mean, that's what happens with DOC. When they bring in a person to be booked, they're not bringing them in the main entrance. We go in. We go in the back within the fence. That's not necessarily within the fence. So there is other places in

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the Yeah, was looking at page 28, for example.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think it was wrong before that. Let me see. I've indicated it.

[Unidentified committee member]: That is one of the places.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. 23. There's another flag prior to that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that was in the definitions area, if I remember right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think it is 28. 28 is where it has the same language there that has to be correct. Okay?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So then we have another piece to this. And that is on page 21.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, just hang on. Just making sure Yeah, before I jump to double check, too. Page

[Unidentified committee member]: 28, we just talked about. That's page 20 twice on 28. No? Just Hold on. Hold on. Well,

[Unidentified committee member]: on 21. Page one.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I was looking at 21 all of it.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's 21 or 11.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: 21 is something a little different. 21 is something a little different. I'm looking at the language that is the same as the legislative intent language. And that's on page 28, lines 12 through 15. That has to be corrected.

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, it's on page 10 it's on line 10, too, Page 28.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Ten and eleven.

[Unidentified committee member]: And then, again, fourteen, fifteen.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, this is well, this is where it gets me to so there, this is the feasibility plan, the fiscal and staff security plan within and around the perimeter of the facility.

[Unidentified committee member]: Within covers, if they Yeah, that's right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Including therapeutic design. And then where it's highlighted in yellow, we pick up the language that we're putting in the pledge intent in the first page.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Where it says We'll be adding the words at the admitting area. Yes. Two different places. Yes. At the admitting area and, sorry, the Mary A. And, Well, off. I'll get that part out.

[Unidentified committee member]: Mary A. Okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So then the other piece that we've got, Eric, is on page 21. And it's also on page 27.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: This

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: is lines 10 through 12 on page 21.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: What we would like is, and this is all coming from, again, is coming from the House Judiciary, as well as the changes we just made. The Department of Corrections shall not play a role in the forensic facilities operation, the provision of services. Then the next thing is we don't want DOC in those living units and therapy program areas, cafeteria, infirmary. So they're gonna be at the front end of the building. So where it says or internal security

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Does that also encompass the front of the building that we just talked about? Because we don't want them in the living units where folks are actually housed. There's gonna be program space, therapeutic space. There's gotta be a dining hall. I mean, those are under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health, Dale, Department of Health. We just want the security to be provided by DOC around the perimeter and at the front end of the building for ingress, egress.

[Unidentified committee member]: So I think we should say that there. Be more specific. I would say, like, the forensics facilities operation, I wouldn't I would just say only on the outside and only letting people in and out and in.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Well, that's Right? Language on the street. You gotta put

[Unidentified committee member]: Right. No. But I'm saying you can go back to, like, the French or just leave it at operation. Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In other words, you're trying to make sure that the firm internal security isn't necessarily inconsistent with what you just said about

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We want to make sure that they're not in leaving spaces or programming spaces. I'm not sure if where it says, for internal security, we're providing security internally at the front end of the building.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: And here again, I return to the notion of facility access, parentheses, gross e gross.

[Unidentified committee member]: Was that in February? I

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: don't know. Ask Eric.

[Unidentified committee member]: I

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think that would cover it. The concept, you mean. It's an ingress, egress kind of thing that

[Unidentified committee member]: you're And therefore not the most particular facility. Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But by doing that, it doesn't you know our intent in terms of where to provide the security, right, Eric, From DOC.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then you look on page 21, that is up to the secretary of the agency to establish and operate the locked facility. And this is in the definition of the facility itself. And we wanna make sure the DOC does not play a role in providing those program services or any services shall not play a role in the forensic facilities operation, the provision of services, or internal security. So by the term internal security, does is that in conflict with what we wanna do up front with the building?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, to be sure that it isn't, You could say something like and is it security that we

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Should we implement internal security?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, that's one option. I was gonna say you could say internal security comment and accept to provide, and then reference what you just said. Accept to provide admission, how to rephrase it, except to provide security services at the admitting end. Either way, you could

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It just add that language after internal security.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Would Right. You also wanna say,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: or does it because I don't know about

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the word internal, but could include the full phrase, except to provide security services at the admitting area and around the outside perimeter. Well, they can also, and it wouldn't work. I was gonna say unless otherwise provided, but that's session law. So we can't really cross reference that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I like what you just said before you said something about session law.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Except to provide, just track the language that we were just looking at. To provide security service at the admitting area and around the outside perimeter.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, I like to, why don't you add that, see how, does that work for folks?

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Perfect.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And that also has to be added on page 27 because this is your feasibility plan. And lines That's seven, eight, and the same language as what we just had in the definition of the forensic facility. See what I'm saying?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I do. That becomes messy because it's already an exception the way that sentence is written.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: With the exception. Right. That one said shall not play a role. So with the exception, the department shall not play a role in its operation, the provision of services.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay. So it's accept, accept.

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

[Unidentified committee member]: that's. Well,

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I can figure out another way to phrase that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: For internal security, would it be Or would Hillary be able to help with those

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Other than.

[Unidentified committee member]: I can

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just say other than. Other than the provision of security, then go through to the phrase.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know this is hard to follow-up with some folks, but I will look okay when it gets to the end.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, better to see this step and address it now than wait until somebody either asks a question in the floor or comes up in a court case.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Hopefully, everybody gets a combo in the middle of the summer.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So we took care of page 28. So on page 29, this is where we need some wordsmithing. We worked with Katie on this late yesterday afternoon, a few of us, and it just didn't kind of come together because we're all tired and quick and had to run to other things. So we said, let's put something in and then think it through. So the thinking is that this is really difficult to figure this out. So this is all in the interim. What do we do now before we get a forensic facility up and running? We have four or five people languishing, I'm gonna say that word, in DOC. That competency has not been restored. There's no program in there to restore competency for them. But we wanna be able to, in the interim, have the respective departments, mental health and Dale, and maybe Department of Health, provide restoration competency services to them. We don't want DOC involved in that. And we don't want the healthcare contractor that they have, all paths involved in that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: In the interim restoration services?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Because if you start involving DOC, then that just says, hey, DOC will be doing this long term. This is the interim. There's a lot of concern in the committee that we have folks there now getting no services. And people have testified to that effect. And sometimes those folks could be there for a year, they could be there for two years, they could be there for three years. One thought that some members had that we call it a restoration program, competency restoration program, and that it sunsets in 2028?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I don't think you need the sunset, because you've already phrased it in line two as this is a wild development, that the facility is pending. So none of this would apply. And you might even I look at that phrase as that, aren't you really trying to say before the forensic facility is operational? That's what you're getting. Right? Or before the forensic facility is accepting placements, because that's really specific. Before anybody can go there, you want this to be an opportunity. Once the facility could accept people, then this will go away. There wouldn't be any legal authority for

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: it anymore. But without the sunset, couldn't the civic interpret that as being a one hundred year development of the facility?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, I suppose if it would, the ability to provide these services would last as long as the facility wasn't accepting people. That's the worry.

[Unidentified committee member]: That the feasibility plan now becomes not feasible because we've got this program in place that's working just fine.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, then, yeah, if you wanna be 100 clear that that wouldn't be possible, a sunset strikes me as the way to go.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So changing competency restoration services to competency restoration program. The other piece is providing an entity that is not under contract with DOC. I'm not sure how much the agency of human services is involved in that contract with DOC with WellPath. And we really don't want WellPath to be providing these services. We want the appropriate departments via DMH or Dale or Department of Health to be providing these services, this program.

[Unidentified committee member]: Shawn? And I'm not, I was just wondering, because I didn't hear her say it, but did chair would agree with that? With who? Is it that does that doesn't have anything to do with her?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: K.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: This is all coming here from the committee in terms of what are we doing with the folks who are currently there,

[Unidentified committee member]: and not And getting

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: we're saying to the administration, start providing services to them, but we won't want DOC to provide those services or WellPath. We want you to contract with WellPath. But your respective departments, you need to pony up here and start providing these services or this program. Because right now, there could be one or two folks who might qualify for act two forty eight. So they'd be working with Dale to get those folks out. But in the meantime, they're not getting any services. They're not getting any program.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I've got five more minutes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I know. Does that make sense to That's what we're trying to get at. I don't know if you need

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I didn't get the last point. No. I mean, I see what you're trying to get at, but nothing's occurring to me as far as language.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Supposed to be our savior.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, you gotta have a clear policy for me. So try and formulate it one more time.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Okay. So the clear policy is we've got folks there now that getting they're not getting any services. Restoration. That part, I get. Okay. So that's that's the issue. We want the respective departments in the Agency of Human Services, not DOC, to start providing those

[Unidentified committee member]: Right. Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That program. And we wanna make sure they don't go to well path to do that.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. So that's what you meant by this clause provided by any that is not under contract with DOC.

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

[Unidentified committee member]: Okay.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But could the agency of human services just go ahead and extend that contract with WAPAF?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The way it's written, I have no idea what happens in reality. Knows it's under contract with WellPath now? Have to see it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, we could leave it like that and hold their nose.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You want AHS to be able to contract with somebody else, for example, if they had someone else?

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: Separate from who's ever currently providing medical services to the DSA. We don't want that entity also making decisions about competency restoration, which would increase the population. And gut sunset, right? Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's really to make sure that WellPath isn't doing it.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I probably like how it reads, but the way it does read, does it limit it to the folks who would be eligible for the forensic facility otherwise? Or if you just say competency restoration services, does that include everybody who needs competency restoration? Do you know what I mean?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I mean, how many people are in there?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Maybe like 80 or something.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Know what you're talking about, because it's bringing in all the folks that may have dementia, but they're not in their court.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Well, I'm talking about somebody who had an out property crime, incompetent to stand trial. The way it's worded, they would be included Right, in that too,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: it's not just those folks for the bill itself.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Yep. Which, to be clear, I'm good with, but that's a very different

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You know, it just This is all gonna go to conference. There's gonna be much more conversations on this.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: And it's a plan, so if they think they can provide it for everybody, go for it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a feasibility plan.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: You could also, to address that maybe in the first line, opportunities and cost estimates for it, and it says the forensic facility population, well, in a way, there isn't a forensic facility population yet, right? But if you phrase it as for persons who would be eligible for placement at the forensic facility.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Sure. That narrows it. Yes.

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

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Because there isn't one yet, but you're trying to get those folks who would otherwise be there to have this opportunity, right?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You are narrowing that down.

[Unidentified committee member]: Did we decide, are we calling it 1b, 12b, are we calling it services or program?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think we're leaning towards program.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's what I thought too,

[Unidentified committee member]: but we that's what I did. Okay. You got it. Okay. Yep. So

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: do we wanna keep it as it is on line seven, provided by an entity that's not under contract with the DOC?

[Unidentified committee member]: I read that as sufficient myself.

[Unidentified committee member]: I I

[Unidentified committee member]: do too.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You read that as what?

[Unidentified committee member]: Sufficient. Sufficient. Yeah. I I agree.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And then you sunset it.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yes. In sunset. So,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Eric, it's all up to you now.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: What is the sunset? That's

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: '28. But when on twenty eight, July first? Because Yeah.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Was just gonna do the state the date that mirrored.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It would be January 1.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah. January

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: because that's the effective date

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: of it. May I be When does this committee decide whether we wanna one or two plans

[Unidentified committee member]: called for? I've made my decision. I made it yesterday.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I know you did. But I don't think the committee has decided whether we want to call for one or two plans, one excluding DOC and one allowing DOC's involvement further. I would wanna see two plans.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Other thoughts?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: I shared my opposition to that, I think. But, you know, all roads lead to a unit in Springfield and Well Path providing the services. If you give the choice between a DOC plan and a non DOC plan, I think it could skew the report so that favoritism is moved to the DOC plan at the expense of the other plan.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I understand that, Bruce. Yeah, but

[Unidentified committee member]: I concur with you, Kevin. And I think it's any secret that I'm not supportive of the proposal that's being hammered out right now. Would this be my possibly, yes.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So how much undue work, how much work is this going to create to the agency to do two separate plans?

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think it's about, So I got everything, I think, so far. So I'll do a new draft reflecting what the committee just decided. Then if there's anything but it's not gonna happen right now, because I gotta go somewhere else So if you reach any other decisions about, Hey, make such and such a change, feel free to shoot me an email or however it is you wanna And actually, when you do that, might as well send it to both Katie and I, Just because that way because we're both kinda working on it as time allows. So

[Unidentified committee member]: I thought we both

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: know what to do, and we'll figure out who does it. Okay. Perfect. Hey. Thank you.

[Unidentified committee member]: Eric, you might wanna get some of that on a drive before you hurt your bed.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I know. Exactly.

[Unidentified committee member]: I should get some dollars. I

[Unidentified committee member]: will just reiterate the point that I've already made a number of times. There is already a plan in place to do this through the Department of Corrections. That plan exists. It's already there. We are asking them to come up with a plan that doesn't, that separates us from DOC. That is all this bill of chance. That's all it's doing. And we just gave them permission. We just added it to the bill. We just gave them permission to start doing competency restoration within the correctional facilities. That is a huge conception for me, huge. I wanna know that the agency of human services can also consider a forensics facility that is separate from the DOC, which is best practices. That's what I want.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: And I wanna see both. We have it.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's right here. We just handed it to them.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Alice just said, do you know how much work it will take to put that plan together?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's what I'm going to

[Unidentified committee member]: And I'm not

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: worried about how much work it takes because this is a big enough issue. They need to go through the work to figure out what's the right answer. This is were right.

[Unidentified committee member]: This is a forensic. This is a competency restoration program in our correctional facilities. That is what this bill is right now, as we've written it. I also want to know, what does a forensic restoration program look like that is separate from the DOC? We are giving them

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: No, you're hamstringing them. You're telling them what they You're can and cannot even identifying who can provide the services for therapeutics. We have a strange and evident

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: You're moving

[Unidentified committee member]: the goalpost now, Kevin. Right now, this bill

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: This is a goalpost. This is one that I'm gonna die on the hill for because

[Unidentified committee member]: this Then vote is no.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Oh, I will.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's his no or mine no.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So what the bill does, it came over with DOC being in control and the medical provider being under DOC. The other committees have changed that to the agency of human services, because they did not support DOC being in the driver's seat. So that is a decision that's being made also from other committees. And where does Let's it do, then let's really figure out how we're gonna do a forensic facility. We wanna do what is right. We wanna provide services and programs to folks either to help them gain competency or not. And we are saying, come back with a plan that dovetail the changes that were made in the bill. So the changes went from DOC to the agency of human services. And our feasibility plan tracks that. So that's what's before

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Kevin, what you're talking about, what you're asking for, is it more of a logistics question? Is it more of a money question? Is it both? What's the

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: All of the above. If we make it too small, what the rock is they're looking for, they're gonna come back and say it's not feasible. If we have an opportunity to see something that's more feasible, then that's better than nothing. Because right now, we have nothing.

[Unidentified committee member]: We have fixed that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We fixed that in a we've fixed that in the definition of forensic facility. We have fixed that in terms of the judiciary committee has worked really hard to figure out when someone is in the forensic facility, what their rights are, what the process is, what the state's rights are. They've worked with the courts in terms of when a person should stay in the forensic facility or when they are released. They've worked with the process for a person to be released, monitoring. We've worked on the definition of the forensic facility. We've expanded that definition quite a bit based on previous legislation that was done. And we're saying to the agency of human services, come back with a plan because we wanna do this, but come back with a plan that's workable. And you have to include what the facility is gonna look like, who's gonna operate it, the cost of construction and operations of that. And we've also addressed what would happen in the interim before a facility is up and running. So our language tracks what the other committees have been working on.

[Unidentified committee member]: I have a concern that isn't even about who's right

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: or wrong.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's about logistics. You know, we all talk to people, we all try to find out stuff, sometimes we talk more than others. I have very good word that it won't make it out of judiciary with our amendment. Whether I like that or not, doesn't matter.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That it won't make it out of judiciary what?

[Unidentified committee member]: With ours or upstairs amendment because they're five five unless you pass the bill out with a tie. So that's a logistical reality. I have it on extremely good word that the governor won't support it with this language. So then we're stuck with nothing versus taking these two steps that I've advocated for and then saying, let's separate it, do the other part later, but say it in real strong words that it's going to happen. That doesn't mean I agree or disagree. That's solely just talking about logistics and what I'm being told. And I normally try to stay out of that stuff, but I'm worried because I want those two provisions. And I don't want something gone because of

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You don't those want not two provisions.

[Unidentified committee member]: Having it put in statute that we can help people that are incompetent, now we can, and that we have the restoration. Those are the most important part to me. But I also, as I've advocated for it, said, I want a longer term plan, not long term, longer term plan to have a facility, which we've done, but it's kind of the way that other people, doesn't matter how I view things. They don't view it as being two separate things, as being tied together. And I can't speak for other people. I only know what I'm being told by people who do have votes, and I'm concerned that, and at the end of the day, if it doesn't go anywhere, then obviously whoever wants to have a campaign about it can have a campaign about it. It won't be me, But I would like to see those things done. Those are important to me.

[Unidentified committee member]: Sorry James, can you

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: say what the deal breakers

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: are that you referred to?

[Unidentified committee member]: Is there a certain thing or things? My understanding, and I do not, I always hate speaking for other people, is that we're, first of all, the DOC not being involved is a problem for a lot of people.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: But we did address that. There were concerns in house judiciary about that. And we did address that. And according to the chair of house judiciary, that is very helpful. And those were the two areas was the monitoring and the front end of the building, the periphery and the front end of the building. That was what the chair of judiciary indicated.

[Unidentified committee member]: The conversation I just had is where I came from. And I'm not telling anybody how to vote. I never have and I never will. Just telling you what I hear and that I purposely went to ask because I don't want this to die. And that's, we still have to do is, Troy, you say it all the time, what are values? That's true. No matter where the chip or whatever it is. That's absolutely true. Just telling you what logistics seems to be out there, and I'm concerned about that. And I don't have any power to make anybody change my mind.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: So I heard level of DOC involvement. Was that the one thing or were there

[Unidentified committee member]: I think

[Unidentified committee member]: separating it right now rather than having some kind of plan for later. Think it's Separating what? The facility out of the DLC facility sooner than maybe they would fix that.

[Unidentified committee member]: Right now, as written with our amendments from yesterday and today, this bill would allow forensics competency restoration program to begin within our correctional facilities. It would. That's what we just handed them. The governor wants to veto that, that's on whom I do not like doing what if legislation. I do not. I try to get a bill out of here that does what we want it to do. Right now, if passed, this would allow competency restoration services to be provided to those who need it, those who are defined by this bill within our correction facilities. That that would happen upon signing. And it asks the agency to also contemplate a forensics facility that ultimately pulls it out of DOC. What would that look like? How feasible is that?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Conor?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Yeah, I would just say personally, I've made a concession both on the field piece with probation and parole, having some involvement at the front of house solely to alleviate some of the concerns of judiciary. So I think we are moving a little bit here. And I don't like those things, but I will vote for it as it is right now. Know, I can't go any further. I

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: mean, the feasibility plan will come back and say, this isn't going to work. They could say that. They could say that. And there's check ins with the Justice Oversight Committee in August and November. And again, those the folks that make up the Justice Oversight Committee or the policy committees, other policy committees are working on this. And the other policy committees have some pretty strong feelings too. And somehow this has got to come together. The other thing, regardless, this is going to go to conference committee, and it'll be negotiated in conference. That's gonna be the bottom line. That's gonna be the bottom line, and it will come out in a very different form. It's how the process works. It's how the process works. We're gonna have to figure some of this out, folks, because house judiciary is waiting for some language.

[Unidentified committee member]: We

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: don't provide any language. I don't think I wanna leave it to another committee to make those decisions on our behalf. Do we? That would be what? Irresponsible. It'd be very irresponsible.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I'm asking that the committee make a decision as a committee as to whether we ask for one or two plans. Not based on hearsay from anybody else. I want this committee to decide whether we have one or two plans.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We can take a straw vote and see where we are.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: There you go. I might be the only one that's fine.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Give her two plans. I'll vote as opposed to two plans and keep the language that we have.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I think we somewhat have one that's already there saying to go forward. I'm not sure, Kevin, and I'm not being funny here. I'm just not sure what else you're looking for. I mean, I'm not necessarily thrilled with what it says right now, but I think that is another plan.

[Unidentified committee member]: I

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: know. Because it has

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Yes. I'm asking for two plans. One that says, any way you wanna do it, solve the problem. And this that says, any way you wanna do it, but you can't do use DOC other than these narrow ways. Well, those are the two plans I'd like to see.

[Unidentified committee member]: Well, concern is that Okay, so I think there's concurrence that providing therapeutic services within VOC is far from the best outcome. If money weren't an issue in the feasibility plan, if there weren't some more flexibility provided in what that may look like, it's almost certainly gonna come back saying that it's not feasible. And so we're gonna go to the default of what everybody knows is not particularly therapeutic. I didn't go on all the field trips with it, but we were in Northwest for how long? A couple hours? I had mental health problems then. Seriously, I felt claustrophobic. And so that's where I'm coming from, which is a big I don't know if it's similar to Kevin or not, but but if if we're if we're tailing a plan that we know is just not gonna have funding for it, frankly. But that's all it's gonna be is a plan, and it's never really going to be actualized.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We have to hear legislators next session. So I wanna finish this struggle. We have three in favor. All those opposed? The two plans.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: I'm still thinking.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: A

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: challenge. Yeah, I'm with you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I think this is

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: literally a plan kind of on the table right now with us continuing with DOC and adding the restoration. And you kind of shook your head when I said that. You said yes. The other plan would be the new plan that's being somewhat looked at or discussed here as to how we go forward with possibly not having DOC involved. So I'm struggling because I'm thinking there are technically two plans right now.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: We've developed a plan that sort of integrates DOC. I want those experts who are putting this plan together to have free will to do what they think is best and feasible. We've developed this plan ourselves amongst and we are not in a position to do that. We've hamstrung them for the interim and I'm happy with that because that's better than what we currently have. But for the future long term, I want them to have a blank piece of paper that says, do it any way you want.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They did that. It says 01/1993. As it was introduced in the Senate, and then the Senate worked on it in terms of Senate judiciary. And then there was real concerns about being under the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections. And And there were other legislators in the Senate that worked on this and really put more guardrails around it, and then the bill came over here. So the plan has already been presented that it would be with DOC. We're saying, let's look at another alternative before we go down that road.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Well, I guess for me, Kevin, a true question is, if we're saying do this in the interim until whatever date we said, 01/01/2028, does that not then provide by default the information that we seek? That will show us what logistics they would use because it is allowed to be in DOC. That would show us the cost because they will be running it for however long.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: No, because this is strictly going with incompetent and then saying with charges that are life sentences. I wanna see a plan that takes care of all the people who have this disability. And I think that needs to be in the plan, not just for the seven people that we have over here. That's

[Unidentified committee member]: But that larger scope, and I will push back, I'm not part, is not part of this bill. I get it. That's gonna make it, I think that someday we should do that. But that's another example of what I was talking about. Look, we're expanding a little much, and that's another example of expanding too far outside the parameters. I hear what you're saying.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Think that also expands beyond two plans, right? Because then we're almost talking about a third plan if you start talking about incorporating a different sized population.

[Unidentified committee member]: But my favorite question is, what was page 27, number 12? I don't have the bill in front of me right now. Is there any bill? Just to explore whether or not some kind of interstate compact situation where where

[Unidentified committee member]: feasible That's in there.

[Unidentified committee member]: Right? Folks can I I know I know that it's in there? That's what I'm saying. That's what I'm saying. And then

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I asked you

[Unidentified committee member]: That's part that's another plan that's

[Unidentified committee member]: in there.

[Unidentified committee member]: Right. I I was cognizant of that. That language. Let's see. Now now it's page 29. 29, number 12, nonetheless. Anyway, we're speaking well of that that piece. So I think that that would if were that possible, that that's probably the best possible outcome that I could see through all these conversations. Is this your copy? Or else?

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Whatever comes out, I'd like to hear that too.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So where are we, folks? Because we've got Eric doing new language. Gonna work with Katie to figure it out. I'll bring you up to speed. And then we've gotta make a decision, and we've gotta say what our decision is to house judiciary. So where are we, folks?

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Taking support today is written.

[Unidentified committee member]: I

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: think it did this stuff. Oh, jeez. A lot of fun.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I've lost plenty of votes. One more won't won't hurt my feelings, but I wanna vote. I've got two people who haven't voted yet.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Committee, we're gonna disagree. So I wanna put on the table.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Well, I wish all of our members were here. This haven't

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: heard a lot of the conversation either.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: I understand, but that is a problem. It's a problem. It has been a problem all year.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: And timing's a problem too. A lot of problems, but we've got people here, and I believe we need to vote on this.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: My vote is I'll support it coming out either way. I support it coming out either way, with the second study or with the first study. You put one of those motions on the table.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Well, I don't know what to do, folks, but we're gonna have to get off the dime.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Or something. When

[Unidentified committee member]: are we gonna have the final With Eric? Yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Wait. Sometime this afternoon. Okay. I will just

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Now are there other changes? Because I said that yesterday, this has nothing to do with this. I wanna know what the other changes are.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Right now. Talk to Martin.

[Unidentified committee member]: Because I

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: may not be able to support it.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's my other question. Are we When we do our straw poll here, are we voting on just the language we

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just our version. But the other parts were all done by other committees. It's just our version. Mary wants to see how it's

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: impacted. You

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: can have something said by one of the other committees that includes what we've done. I need to see it hand in hand going across whatever we do. And I think that's what I'm struggling with.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Let me have a conversation with Martin and Theresa where they are on their differences because they have some differences there with ITD folks. Mhmm. Talk with them and let Eric do the new language.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Is there a way we can get our committee members in this room and sit here to listen to what's going on so we can make hopefully an informed decision?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They've lost so much time on testimony. I'm fine.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: A question too. Let's assume this ends up in a committee of conference, which seems to be So the our committee will have representation on that committee of conference.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: We hope. I don't know. Yeah.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Well, I would hope it would.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I would hope it would.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: And I would assume that representative of this committee represent this conversation and its fullness. Yes?

[Unidentified committee member]: Great.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That's the process, yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: I wouldn't say that's a process. I think sometimes people in life represent themselves instead of remembering that they represent

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No, you represent the committee. Represent the committee and you represent the House position.

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

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Just as the Senate would represent their committee and the Senate position, then you negotiate. So we've got some folks here on another topic. Welcome to House Institute Corrections and Institutions Committee. You may operate the same as your committees, or may operate or leave it. We're going to shift gears for folks. We have a resolution that was sent to us. It's being treated as a bill. I know this is new for some folks.

[Unidentified committee member]: I get a foot patter. Off your. And

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: this was introduced by the two members of this district, representative Noise and representative Bailey from Hyde Park and representative Noise from work up. This pertains to a house that Julian Scott grew up in. Julian Scott did the paintings of the Sea to Greek Rome. Agree. Yes. There's three is there three of them still? I know they're yeah. I hope we get that. I don't know if you both wanna come up, how you both wanna do this. We have a little fold out chair. We'll be back. So, Dan, why don't you pull up the

[Unidentified committee member]: next step of

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: the fold out chair?

[Unidentified committee member]: You're taking the lead. I'm fine. Have a seat.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If you'd both do it when you get settled. Fantastic. It's yourself. Alright.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: For the record, Dan Noyes from.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Lamoille-2, Hyde Park)]: For the record, Richard Bailey from Lemoyle II, Hyde Park.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Hi, welcome. So if you could hear Fantastic. What the resolution-

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Yeah, basically what I've never had to present on a resolution that is becoming a bill, because I think this is not very common. And the reason it happens is because we're asking the legislature to do something, which is saying, give the community some more time to figure out what we're gonna do with this building. So let me back up. This is the building that Julian Scott who painted the big painting on the Cedar Creek Room, Medal of Honor in the Civil War. And the house got flooded in '23. And it was my notes here. Sorry. Yeah. So the house was flooded and the town included it in the FEMA buyout. There's a number of houses in town that got bought out. There wasn't a lot of discussion that this was a historic significant house. It in fact was listed on the report under a different name, not Julian Scott's house, it was the owners of the house. The town continued through with the buyout because, quite honestly, if they didn't, then the individuals who actually own the house now would not have gotten any buyout money or anything. And that might not be good for them because they couldn't live there anymore because it's in the floodplain and keeps flooding. So as this progressed through the buyout process, and then it happened, the people that owned the house were paid. There was some outreach to local media. I don't know if anyone saw the report in seven, there was an article in seven days. And so the town has typically at once one of these buyouts happens, you have to destroy the house, get it out of the floodplain. And then nothing can be done on that property, kind of in perpetuity, just says this is floodplain, we can't be building housing there anymore, obviously. And so what we're saying in this resolution and what the town is saying is give us some time. Let's see if we can figure out, like, what it is we can do to either disassemble this house and use the pieces elsewhere, move it, who knows? But don't knock it down, put it in a dumpster. Because that's kind of what is gonna happen.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So the resolution, it's basically the resolve clause

[Unidentified committee member]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: That we need to go to. Pardon me? It's the resolve clause that we really need to go to that indicates that the legislature would support the town of Johnson

[Unidentified committee member]: Yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: In the effort to preserve this building and to have the division of historic preservation work with the town. Has the town reached out to the Division of Historic Preservation?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Yes, they have. And the emergency management is going to meet with the select board next Monday.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So is there any indication where the division of historic preservation is on this?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I think we're gonna find out more on Monday. I mean, like, there's a there's one of those historic signs in the front yard of this place. You One of those green It's

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: right

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: in the

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: front yard.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: One of our green signs. Exhibit markers. Right there. How long has that sign been there?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: That's a good question. It looks like it's been there a while.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: When you

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: said emergency management, do you mean FEMA or your town Yeah. Is

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The state. The state or FEMA? FEMA did the buyout.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: FEMA did the buyout, but I think the state is going to the town on Monday night to the select board. Bennington, I have a question for you. FEMA has given some time.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: The state being Division of Historic Preservation?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I believe it's emergency man

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: That's my last question.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I think it's emergency management people that are going, but I will double

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: check Someone with

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: who works with Doug.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Oh, all right. So that's not emergency management. Sorry. That is specifically a part of the state administration that is working directly with FEMA to negotiate the buyouts and other like the capital complex. It's Doug Farnam and it's Eric Philpourne that are working right now on behalf of the state with FEMA. It's a direct connection.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: So my next question is more to you, Alice. I know, it's scary. So what is it or what do you think it means that we support the town of Johnson's efforts, etcetera? Like does this mean that we're, let's say they get division of historic preservation to put it on a list, does that mean that we're, and I don't have a problem with this, I just wanna know if it's the case, that we will through that entity help pay for and maintain this building in the future like we do with some other buildings or does it mean something completely different? I just don't know what it means as far as our obligations. I'm not necessarily opposed to that, by the way, because it's an important figure. I just don't know what it means for what we have to do.

[Unidentified committee member]: I'll tell you what I say, Ben.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Go for it.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I think that's why this resolution turned into a bill, so that you could have some discussion around what that means. I know we had a resolution in our committee recently, and we made some changes on it. And it was a bill that's been on the floor around helping people with communication. So, what does support mean? Back to your question, I think maybe perhaps give the community some time to figure out what we're gonna do with this, what we can do with it. Does it mean give us money? I don't think that's really gonna happen. But could it mean, hey, partner with us on some grants, help us figure out what we need to do in order to preserve, or what the community needs to do to preserve this?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: If you just look at the language direct, I'll be right there, Eric. It directs the division of historic Prescottstown. Yeah. And then also for the governor to declare public endorsement of the So it's really not clear. Work with the town, but it doesn't mean historic preservation takes over that building.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Correct.

[Unidentified committee member]: Troy.

[Unidentified committee member]: Just want to make sure I'm clear on a few things. The previous owners, family, they're paid. That's not at risk. They're

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: done. Okay. Town owns the building. And

[Unidentified committee member]: does FEMA require the destruction of the house? Correct. And if we don't destruct the house, destroy the house, according to the FEMA requirements, do we lose that FEMA money? Is that at risk here? And I'm fine if it is, because I miss maybe we're at $500 or so. It's somewhere in that ballpark.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: It might be. I don't know what that looks like.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's think that's what we're trying to gonna land on the state. It's not gonna land on

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: the family.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: It will land on the town. The town. Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: And perhaps, okay. But it won't land on the family. No. We know that. No, they've been paid.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Well, townhome section.

[Unidentified committee member]: Yeah, but being paid and saying, Now you owe us a pack, that could potentially happen. But okay. But we don't, okay.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Oh, so I'm good, I'm good. I have another question too, but Kevin?

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: My quick read says we're voting on whether we give them a ninety day reprieve or not. That's what I'm seeing is the bottom line here.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Is that correct? Yeah, we're trying to get ninety days to do some, and this is a resolution. So we're saying, give us some time to So figure

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: when does that ninety days end if this is approved?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Depends on when this gets moved to the floor. Right.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Ninety days from that.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Ninety days. It's not based on FEMA's granted to delay to the Yeah. Following in

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I would say it would be when this is approved by the legislative body. But that's something we'd want to put on our list of things to ask if we get other witnesses, because that's one of the questions I had too, is like, what does this bias? Is is FEMA saying if we do this that they're like, hold up, wait. We agree that we're going to wait because the legislature did this. Or is it like we just went through a performative measure that made us feel good that we're trying to protect something, but FEMA's like, no, dude, scum. I have that very, that's my question. Absolutely. That's your question. If they could say that. Right.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Okay. Well,

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: yeah. Which will have other people come in to testify to that effect, whoever that may be. I'm sure that Alice will work with Dave to put that together. You know, Doug Farns people probably or or others that will come in and talk about that. Mary, did you have a question? Or

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Oh, I just said we do need to know when the night may be days.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: When the flood Yeah. So Brian? I think

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: it's just reiterating to make sure that I'm clear on it. But so there's no obligation, right? We're not it's showing support for the town's endeavors without any commitment beyond that.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: That was our original goal. Yes. Resolution. Yeah. Here we are. Great. John, you look like you wanna ask questions. Do we see that? Yeah.

[Unidentified committee member]: So is is there a could you possibly move? Oh, I'm sorry. I so could possibly move the building? Who

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: knows? We're just trying to get some buy some time here. Who knows?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Town. Town.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: I gotta ask the question again. I can't I find it difficult to believe that we requested a reprieve from FEMA and they gave it to us, but they didn't give us a particular time frame. They just have an open ended at

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: this time. So, do not know. I know that they did say we got some time before we have to knock it down. This is saying, give us more time.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: If can Give us ninety days on top of whatever you're gonna give us.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Right. The chair and I would just stop at the same. We'll have Laura and I don't know, maybe Doug Farting's up there, somebody come. Because Dan won't be able to answer that question.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: No, that's fine.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: And I have because we have the same think three or four of us at least have that same question. But

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: females granted the town are

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: many, May 1.

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

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: From May 1. So you have There it is. July and August. So by August, you really need to make a decision.

[Unidentified committee member]: Right.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: They've already granted that to you. So that was already worked through with our Vermont folks who are working with Yeah. Got that.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: So you're asking for additional time on top of that?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Oh, I think what we're asking for is just how do we not end up knocking this thing down? Like how do we all work together to try to save this? And what time that looks like, whatever we can get. Unfortunately, there's no money. So it would be up to the historic preservation in the town to come up with the money. And how long is that gonna take? Don't know.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So you'd have to pay FEMA back for the amount of money

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: That's what I believe. Buy

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Do you know how much it is for Does the the town of Johnson know?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Well, I'm sure I can find that out.

[Unidentified committee member]: It would be good

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: to actually have the town in.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, we can do that. I'm sorry I missed some of this. I'm dealing with something else.

[Unidentified committee member]: Shawn. So, you know, I I applaud you for giving it a shot. I think that to me, coming for the building trades, just in a realistic look at this, is that we sit here for the last two years and see historic preservation struggle to keep houses that are sitting in on land that they own and that that they can't pay to heat them. They can't pay to keep them up. Sure. We're struggling with that. I'm just trying to be realistic. I have nothing against Johnson. I would love nothing more than to put 2 or $3,000,000 towards this house and fix it. But to move it is going to cost, you know, a $100 or so for a moving company to lift it up and bring it to wherever it needs to go. Then it needs to be sat down on a concrete foundation on land that, let's say, if if even if it was given to someone said, bring it to my house and put it here. And that's going to be complicated too. It's just going to cost a lot of money.

[Unidentified committee member]: And then

[Unidentified committee member]: you got to run power to it and maybe heat it and to keep it up. So it's just there's a lot of challenges that we as a community, you know, are up against. So I just all I say is just, you know, if if the town does come or it'd be great to see some numbers

[Unidentified committee member]: Sure.

[Unidentified committee member]: Because that would be really helpful. But I but asking historic preservation at this point to do that is gonna be it's a big ask. And and I and I just wanna wrap it up by saying this gentleman who was a was a wonderful artist has a piece of artwork in the state capital that is super important to the state. I just don't know how important the the house is. Right. And the more important thing is that we preserve that painting. Sure. And I'm just not sure because this is a slippery slope with a lot of these FEMA houses that we're looking at. I just needed to share that.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I totally hear what you're saying. So our library in Johnson was in the flood plain. It flooded every time. We actually picked it up and moved it across town all the way over to the elementary school through grants and donations. I mean, it was unbelievable. They had to lift this thing up in the air quite a ways to get it over the bridge because of the sides of the bridge stuck up. It was and it's just brick building. Right. So this guy moved. Yeah. Absolutely. They moved it at night. It started at like 07:00 at night and they moved it until 10:00 in the morning.

[Unidentified committee member]: Went flat up at Make it housing.

[Unidentified committee member]: Put it

[Unidentified committee member]: up at the campus, yeah.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: So I think it's just around trying to figure out how we deal with the fact that it's slated to be ripped down. I mean, could FEMA even say, okay, don't rip it down, but A, no one could live there. You can't do anything with it there. And if it floods again, it floods again, but it gives the community time to figure out like the to be able to move it someplace. So I think generally we're not, I don't think realistically, you're gonna see state dollars historic preservation. This is gonna be something that drops in the town's purview to be able to say, hey, this is something that we wanna do. And there's also groups around Medal of Honor groups that have resources to try to figure out if this is something that they wanna get involved in and partner with the town in historic preservation. Your concern is why I asked my question originally because I'm we don't have a lot of offices. That's why No. What that meant. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So I was sort of

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Lamoille-2, Hyde Park)]: looking at the, thing that if you looked at the Chester area, they're half homestead, which is not open year round. Doesn't have heat in it. And I'm not even sure who oversees it, but the other volunteer group.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: No. Well, it's it's state owned property.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Lamoille-2, Hyde Park)]: Right. That opens it. So I'm thinking we don't necessarily need to go gold plated. We could go silver, bronze, or whatever. Copper, we like copper. Richard, I thought we were friends, but you

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: missed the catch Fairfield man.

[Unidentified committee member]: I think ninety days is perfectly Awesome.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I'm looking at our schedule. We are gonna adjourn out of this

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Lamoille-2, Hyde Park)]: I know. Yep.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: In the next week is the goal. So historic president do you know who is Laura coming to your community Monday?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Say the name again. Laura George Headrick. Sorry.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I vote I think so.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I couldn't hear what that meant.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And your meeting and this is to determine what the next steps are?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I believe it is to work with the town to figure out, like, what does this ninety days give them and yeah.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So it would be good to schedule maybe next Tuesday. Sure. Town, if you could get some names of Johnson could come in and we can connect with Laura and just give us an update on what occurred on the Monday night meeting.

[Unidentified committee member]: But is it also you know, because Richard's here. Is it people from Hyde Park too that would be interested in this or just Johnson? Just it belongs to the town

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: of Johnson. I'm from Wilkins. It's from Hyde Park.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And so member district that represents a lot of towns, but the house is in Johnson. Would there be any opportunity to move the house up to campus? Up to I mean State College?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Is there There is property in town that the town owns,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: You could vote.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I have no idea. And I think the idea is to delay putting it in a dumpster so that you can take the time to think about, it. Is there a possibility of

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: And if you delay it, then the question is how much do you have to pay And back to

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: the poor house isn't very big. Like the main part's not, there's an addition off the back that was put on later, that could probably go. Just, you know

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: How was the house built? It just meant

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: It was built in the Can I read it?

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: Somewhere in here.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. If I read it.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: So he was born in 1846. You're probably pretty close to there if he was

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: living there.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: James? Well,

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I do want to hear from more, at the same time, my biggest concern is strictly whether or not this ties us to financial support. And if it doesn't, I don't have a problem with building a cap. You can always change it to say, this does not constitute financial support. I think it says it does. You could spell it right out in it. I mean, we make changes to the resolution we had. To me, when I read this, I mean, it just, it's offering support. It's a feel good measure. I have no problem with, I wrote it out right this second. Which is our intention when we put this in. And the policy of our body is to when you're asking us to take a position on something is to send it to a committee. So here we are.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah. I think we need to hear from Johnson. Think we also need to hear from historic preservation. Have you had any conversations with Doug Farnham yourself as

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I have not.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Legislative delegation? I wanna reach out to Jeff. Talk with them and find

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I out believe Senator Westman has talked to them a few times.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Maybe talk to Ritchie and find out what's going on then, just so you have a bigger picture. Mhmm.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Or they might be for that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything no. Go ahead.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I have a question for you. Let's just say yes. Good for you

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: again. Sorry

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: to put you on the spot so many times. But say we we hear from them Tuesday, and everything seems to be what we think it is. So we vote it out.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yep. It's a bill.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: The bill. Yes. It's a bill. So how quickly can it get to the floor in a case?

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: It's a bill. So it would be on notice. If we voted it out on Tuesday, it'd be on notice on Wednesday. Last week of the session, would we have rule suspension to bring it off notice Yes. To do second and third reading on the same day and then suspend rules to ship it over to the senate?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: That's my concern. It's especially if we, in theory, are gonna be out Friday, then we have to be done by Thursday here, right, in order for them to get up on Friday and be done. No doubt about it.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: I mean, you gotta suspend rules.

[Rep. James Gregoire (Vice Chair)]: That's what I'm

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: asking you, what the process is.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, you gotta suspend rules in order to move. Mhmm. You can do that. But then the question is, it's over in the senate. And what would they do? Right. Would they just do it as a regular resolution? You get gotta work with your senate colleagues. Mhmm. Yeah. Figure out what they will do. But if we could get Laura Trishman and some folks from Johnson again.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: We talked about how do we do this without it becoming a bill, and this was

[Unidentified committee member]: the only thing we

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: could do.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And it was created

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: as a bill, which kind of surprises me. I didn't even I go back. Doesn't work.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Lamoille-2, Hyde Park)]: A few months later, I would stick to you on that too.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So welcome to the world. Different world here

[Unidentified committee member]: than out

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: there. So we'll do our best. Sure. And, you know, we're gonna be on the floor next week at 10:00 in the morning to do work. We're gonna recess till 01:00 in the afternoon. It's gonna be a lot of rural suspensions to bring bills up.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And,

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you know, we'll do our best to get it through. Got it on the other side. Yep. Sure. Gets through there. Might squeak it through.

[Unidentified committee member]: Never know.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Might want to try another vehicle.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Missed love.

[Rep. Conor Casey (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Maybe another vehicle to put it on. Sure. All you need is resolve that first paragraph of the result loss.

[Unidentified committee member]: That's all

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: you need.

[Unidentified committee member]: That back in.

[Unidentified committee member]: Appropriate. Yeah. Think about that.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Yeah, think about that one.

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: Those that have already been assigned.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: Anything else?

[Rep. Dan Noyes (Lamoille County, Johnson area)]: I have a question, but I guess I'm really gonna hold everybody up for it. But I'm assuming you guys have been in close contact with Richie and he has a plan. Yes, we've talked to him. Were gonna put him on this, but they said it can't if it's gonna be a bid. Well we're a joint. All right. And that didn't work either. Thank you. Gotcha.

[Eric Fitzpatrick (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Kevin Winter (Member)]: Thank you. Thank you, gentlemen.

[Rep. Mary A. Morrissey (Member)]: Thank you. Welcome. You.

[Rep. Richard Bailey (Lamoille-2, Hyde Park)]: Good, thank you.

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: So for the committee, let's go to lunch. Let's go out with you. We are on the floor at 01:00 and see how long the floor is. And I haven't heard anything about if we got a attention to the traffic. I think it's 04:00 that things close down or not.

[Unidentified committee member]: It's gonna turn. It

[Rep. Alice M. Emmons (Chair)]: says five for the run. You've got to make sure you're out of here. Yeah, we do. You're not out of here by five.