Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, good afternoon, committee members, on this beautiful spring day. This afternoon, as we heard on the floor this morning, today is Youth Homelessness Awareness Day. And we have testimony from several folks involved with youth homelessness and some people with lived experience. And I am glad to be able to welcome them to the committee this afternoon. So I have Representative Logan here as listed as first. Are you going to drop, Kate? Yes. Okay, welcome. Thank you.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: I have a handout for everyone.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is really appropriate as H-nine 38 is continuing to be taken up in the Senate downstairs.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is there anyone at the stumps? No.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: No? There's the I'll give you.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Too close if you don't need some.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: You're familiar with it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Welcome. Thank you. Just because we have lots of

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: folks in the room who

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: haven't been in the room before, I know you know us all, but we're gonna go around the room and just do introductions. Great. So I'm representative Theresa Wood. I live in Waterbury and I also serve Bolton, Gillscore and Huntington. Hi. Good afternoon. I'm Daniel Noyes. I represent Wilkite, High Park, Johnson, and Belvidere.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Hi. Good afternoon. Eric Maguire. I represent Rutland City.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Brenda Steady, East Milton, Westford.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Hi. I'm Doug Bishop. I'm one of Colchester's representatives. Hi. My name

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: is Zon Eastes. I live in Guilford, and I also represent Vernon.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Hello there. That's Nicole. I represent Hartford. Hi. I'm Jubilee McGill, and I

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: represent Newport Middlebury in Cambridge.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Hi. I'm Rey Garofano. I live in Essex, and I also represent Park Of Essex Junction.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Right around

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the outside. The Ingrid.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Across the Attributes, after Youth

[Rep. Esme Cole]: and Family Services. Brown, expect from Youth and Family Services.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Faye Morales, Elevate Youth Services.

[Riley Campo]: Hunter Zolomie with Channel five. I'm Riley from a boat with garden.

[Heather Gedeon (NCSS)]: Started by a few of

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: her taste good evening services.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Welcome everybody. The floor is yours, representative Logan. Great. And I'm representative Kate Logan. I represent the Chittenden 16 District. That's most of the Old North End and all of Downtown Burlington. I'm also here in my capacity as the director of the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs. And I appreciate getting to come back again to your committee this session. So Madam Chair and members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. So the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs is also known as BCrip. We're housed at Elevate Youth Services in Washington County, but we're a statewide program. I also co chair the Vermont Committee to End Youth Homelessness, along with Favor Ellis, who's one of our co chairs, and Russell Bradbury Carlin from Interxion in Brattleboro, who is on vacation this week and couldn't join us. So that committee is a committee of the Balance of State Continuum of Care supported by the Housing and Homelessness Alliance of Vermont. And it brings together state agencies, service providers, and young people with lived experience to coordinate our statewide youth homelessness response. So some of the members of our coalition, the Vermont Coalition of Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs, who are directly funded through our work are here today. But we also have youth service providers who are not funded by BCrip, who are part of that committee to end youth homelessness, who are also present today. So we have a broad range of youth service providers here today. And I'm here today to do three things, briefly introduce our work, share what youth homelessness looks like in Vermont, and and outline where the state, legislature's partnership is most needed right now, in my opinion. So first, vCrip, we're a statewide coalition of community based organizations serving youth and young adults experiencing homelessness across Vermont's balance of state continuum of care. So we don't work at all in the Chittenden County Homelessness Alliance spectrum, handles that ably. Our network spans and you've gotten to know a little bit about the continuum of care in this committee, that there are federally funded continuum of care, the Chittenden County continuum, and then the balance of state continuum, and you're advocating that we combine. But so you can understand that because we're located in the balance of state COC, we can't send youth into Chittenden County from other parts of the state because of the difference in the continuum of care. Our network spans rural regions and small towns, and our providers are often the only youth specific services providers in their communities. The VCRIP network was founded in 1981 and only receives, federal funding. At one point, through VCRIP, every county's youth, had access to a teen drop in center, emergency shelter, transitional housing, comprehensive supportive services, and ongoing case management after exiting a program. But federal funding has remained level for decades for these programs, for age, youth specifically for youth ages 12 to 17. So our coalition has scaled back. So now we only provide services for unaccompanied homeless youth aged 12 to 17 in the NEK, Washington, and Windham Counties. In the past several years, we've also received new HUD funding, the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program, that has allowed us to provide housing and supportive services for youth eighteen to twenty four counties in that were already providing services to unaccompanied homeless youth, as well as Franklin And Rowan Counties. The broader network of youth services providers who serve homeless youth across the state cover almost every county, though. There's some homeless youth centered programming in every county except for Lemoyle County. You'll hear about Actually, I think the education committee is going to hear about that a little bit. I'd be happy to talk more about that if you have any questions. So all of these service providers through federal, state, or private funding across Vermont support a continuum of care that includes street outreach, emergency shelter, transitional housing, rapid rehousing, and long term stabilization. It's a patchwork, though, of funding. And you could ask any of these providers here today how that all fits together at their specific agency, because it looks different in every local housing coalition, which I think you're becoming familiar with that terminology as well. For the VCRIPP network of agencies, we also our small administrative team, which includes myself and Representative McGill and Liz Keck, who is somewhere in the building today supporting everybody who's here, We also provide the connective tissue between these agencies through technical assistance, data coordination, performance monitoring, and system design to ensure that the services function as a coherent statewide response rather than as a patchwork. So even though there is this patchwork of funding, we have maintained vCrip and then built this committee to end youth homelessness to bring youth service youth homelessness service providers together and try to maintain as much continuity as possible across the state, despite the patchwork of funding. So alongside this work, the Committee to End Youth Homelessness serves as a coordinating body for the COCs guiding strategy, aligning policy, and centering youth voice. And then in addition, we have a youth action board. Young people who have experienced homelessness themselves, they're not advisors in name only. They actively shape program design, policy priorities, and system improvements. And if we're gonna change policy for the youth homelessness demonstration program or for our unaccompanied homeless youth basic center program, they have to sign off on those changes. So second, what youth homelessness looks like in Vermont. It's often hidden here. It doesn't look like what people expect. I think stereotypical visions of, like, what youth homelessness looks like in large urban areas, it's not like that. We don't have any shelters, for example, for anyone under the age of 18. All emergency shelter that is available in Vermont to unaccompanied homeless youth is provided in people's homes, called post homes. So many young people and 18 24, you know, technically, folks those that age can go into adult shelters. But I personally don't think that's a great place for transition age youth. And more and more agencies are developing shelter opportunities for this age group, a lot of them funded by HOP. So you could hear about that today, too. So most young people are couch surfing, staying in unsafe or unstable situations, or moving frequently between temporary arrangements. Others are exiting systems like foster care, the juvenile justice system, or mental health care, and without stable housing to return to. So this is not just a housing issue, although housing is a big problem for youth in Vermont. The ability to get an apartment at the age of 18 on your own is really challenging, especially if you don't come from a family that has a bunch of resources to provide to you to, aid in transition. And many of the youth who enroll in, the coordinated entry system and receive services from agencies around the state became homeless because they couldn't find housing or they got evicted. Or they were in a housing situation but were in an abusive relationship or something like that and then couldn't find new housing. But beyond just housing supply, it's deeply interconnected with our education systems, workforce instability, behavioral health needs, and family conflict. So a young person who loses housing is far more likely to disengage from school. They're more likely to experience exploitation, involvement with justice system, long term economic instability. And in a state like Vermont, where rental vacancy rates are low and transportation options are limited, the path back to stability is really difficult. But youth homelessness is solvable, and we know what works. When young people have access to stable housing paired with really good supportive services that are youth centered, trauma informed, and flexible, they achieve stability at high rates. They return to school. They find employment. They reconnect with supportive adults. And they build a foundation for long term independence. So I know that we've talked a lot in the legislature this session and last session about how to align services across the whole state. And one of the reasons that we organized this Youth Homelessness Awareness Day was in recognition that there hasn't been enough conversation about the service alignment that's needed for this age group and how important it is, especially if you want to put it in the most in the barest policy terms, return on investment and intervention at this age group disrupting, interrupting, and resolving housing instability for the first time in a young person's adult life, when their brains haven't even fully formed yet, is a powerful intervention. And it's actually pretty affordable. I'd say, on average, our services can be provided to a youth, like rent twelve months of housing plus wraparound services for about $25,000 per youth. Roxanne, I just wanted to make sure that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we have time for all the other witnesses. If you could wrap it up, that'd be great.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: So my final couple sentences. So Vermont has already built much of the foundation need to solve the problem. And so with continued partnership from the legislature, especially while we're experiencing instability at the federal level, we can ensure that every young person in our state has a safe place to live and a real path forward. So thanks. I'm happy to answer questions, but I know we need to move on as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. Yeah. I'm going to actually ask people to hold all the questions to the end to make sure they have an opportunity to hear from everybody because we have a full slate of witnesses all afternoon. Thank you, Representative Logan. If you could submit your comments to inquiry, that would be wonderful. Thank you. Next, we're going hear from Riley. We're going to actually Or have

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Riley, let's have actually Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Riley. Right here, Riley. Thank you for being here this afternoon, Riley. Hello, my name is Riley. Can you turn around here and just sit down Yeah, in the the camera will get you, no

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: worries. That's the camera too, Riley.

[Riley Campo]: Alright. Hello, my name is Riley Campo. I used to be homeless and was without stable housing for several years on and off. During this time, I moved in and out of temporary housing, lived in my car through both cold winters and hot summers and relied on hotel vouchers, which were truly life saving, especially during winter months. Now, thanks to Star Barden and housing navigation with Enkeys, I am housed and have my own apartment men and finally able to focus on my next steps and building a stable future. I believe it is extremely important that the state continues for boarding hotel programs, shelter programs, and increasing funding for low income housing. There's genuinely not enough how affordable housing for everyone and far too many people are still homeless or without safe, stable homes. These programs make a real difference and can be the bridge between the homelessness and stability just as they were for me. And that's all I have.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's good. Thank you very much, Riley. Thank very much, Riley. So do you have Favor

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is gonna jump in real quick.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Favor is not on the list. I sent the, yes. Jubilee instructed me to be quick. Was gonna say, I didn't know if we're, are you going to be reading the testimony from a couple of the other folks? Okay. All right. We have some written testimony from people with lived experience who weren't able to be here today. I want to make sure that we at least get to take a look at those.

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: So go ahead. And I can be very quick. Representative Logan already said a lot of what I brought here to share with you. So what I will quickly share is the services that Elevate is providing in Washington County and statewide, and then talk about what is still needed. At Elevate, we function under what we're calling a community of care. All of our programs are interconnected, serving a young person from when they first need someone to talk to, to when they maybe start using substances, to when they maybe become homeless or are thinking about running away, and beyond into housing and stability. We have quite a few programs specifically for folks who are 18 to 24, but far fewer for young people who are 18. And that's what I want to address right now. The services that we provide for young people 18 are the teen center, the basement teen center here in Montpelier. We're hoping to open up a teen center in Barrie as well. So fingers crossed that you all vote that through. And we provide counseling through our Country Roads Counseling Program. And that's the short term post home shelter program that representative Logan mentioned. And we also provide some substance treatment, substance use treatment for folks who are 18. And that's it. So what she mentioned earlier is what I'm going, that's not it at all.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We also have return house,

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: Jesse is going to talk about that later return house, which is housing for young people who are in DCF custody, aging out of DCF custody, and that's in Barrie. We don't have housing programs beyond the return house and beyond our shelter program. So that means that people who are 16, who are not involved in DCF have no place to go after they stay in our host homes. And that's a real failing in our community. And it's a gap that we need to fill because the young people that we're seeing are increasingly in need of housing support.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no questions right now, please. I'm wanting to make sure that we hit all the witnesses. Sounds good.

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: You all have met me before, but I haven't handed out my flyer.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right, very much. Thank you. Thank you so much, favor. Are we now having had this? Okay.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Thank

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you. I'm

[Heather Gedeon (NCSS)]: going to be reading a statement for Star, who has been working with Riley. I'll start with hers, and then I'll go on to a personal story of a young woman that we helped at NCSS. So good morning or good afternoon. And this is in Star's voice. So every day, I work with youth and young adults, ages 18 to 24 who are experiencing homelessness. These young people are trying to build their futures, finishing school, finding jobs, learning life skills needed to live independently. But one major barrier stands in their way, safe, stable housing. As a housing navigator, I guide them through the process of finding and maintaining housing. But the reality is there simply aren't enough affordable units. Many of the young people I work with are up against additional barriers: no rental history, no credit, and often no family to fall back on. And so they wait. They wait for an opening, for an opportunity, for someone to say yes. Programs like the Youth Homelessness Demonstration Program help bridge that gap. They provide critical support, resources, and real pathways out of homelessness. But the need continues to grow, and the resources are not keeping up. I've seen what happens when a young person finally gets the keys to their own place. It's not just housing, it's stability, it's dignity, it's the foundation they need to move forward with their lives. If we truly believe that every young person deserves a safe place to call home, then we must continue to invest in the programs and supports that make that possible. Thank you, Star Barden Northeast Kingdom Youth Services. And then I'm just going to briefly introduce myself and not read my viewpoint because I want to focus on the youth story. I'm Heather Gedeon, team leader of adolescent services at NCSS up in St. Albans, Vermont. I've been at the agency for fifteen years and been in my current position for ten, seen a lot of trends and worked with a lot of youth. We've just housed the youth on April 1, so I was very excited that she said I could share her story. So let me share the story of a young single mother who came to our program through a referral from our local coordinated entry team. She spent nearly three years without stable housing while raising two small children. She couchsurfed with family and friends, relied on the state motel voucher program, and most recently spent several months in a shelter. She was hanging on by a thread. Homelessness doesn't mean lacking shelter. It can block every path forward. During her three years unhoused, she was unable to focus on anything but survival. This meant she couldn't complete her education or pursue meaningful employment. When you're in survival mode, you cannot plan, you cannot grow, you can't parent the way that you want to. After she was referred to our housing navigation program, which is funded through VCRIP, a case manager helped her apply for a youth rapid rehousing subsidy, also funded through VCRIP. Shortly after being approved for the subsidy, her case manager went out on medical leave, and as the case manager's team leader, I stepped in to ensure continuity of care and worked with multiple community partners to identify available rental units and see the process through. She moved into a two bedroom apartment with her children on April 1. When I recently checked in with her, she told me that moving into her own apartment has been life changing, and those were her words. She said she can finally breathe again. She's no longer stuck in survival mode. She's now making plans to earn her high school diploma, find work, save for a car. She reports that her children are thriving. The difference in her voice from our first conversation to our most recent one was evident. She sounded happy and hopeful. Housing is not the finish line for her. It's the starting line. Without a stable place to sleep, nothing else is possible. With it, everything becomes possible. It truly took a village to house this family.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Appreciate that. I appreciate you sharing the story of people who aren't able to be here in person. Christina.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Good afternoon.

[Christina Brown (Spectrum Youth & Family Services)]: Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today and the time that you are all giving in recognition of the experiences of youth homelessness in our state. My name is Christina Brown. I'm the Chief Program Officer at Spectrum Youth and Family Services. At Spectrum, we serve over 1,300 youth each year between the ages of 12 and 30 years old, with services that focus on prevention and intervention, life skills and basic needs. We provide crisis stabilization, employment coaching, outpatient mental health and substance use counseling, mentoring, affinity spaces, food and material resources and supportive housing services, including up to 30 beds for youth experiencing homelessness in Chittenden County and an additional 10 in Franklin County. We provide services through the lens of positive youth development with an emphasis on trauma informed care, recognizing the unique strengths, challenges, social, emotional and cognitive milestones of teens and young adults, and catering our programs to match these needs. At Spectrum, we recognize the compounding impacts of trauma on the developing minds of the youth we serve. And we pride ourselves in providing responsive, supportive programming that meets the youth where they are at, keeping their dignity, autonomy, and voices at the center of our work. On any given day in the drop in center in St. Albans, we see 20 to 30 young people, many of them high school students, without a safe alternative to spend their time after classes let out. On a single night in our Burlington emergency shelters, 18 youth are sleeping safely, relieved to be indoors. The average week of a case manager at Spectrum will have them driving from one end of the county to the other, meeting youth at the shelters, in their schools, in their homes or even in the hospital, helping them find stability and work towards their goals. When I think of what youth homelessness awareness means in my daily work life, I think about the 22 year old single father self paying in a hotel to maintain partial custody of his child. I think about the 19 year old who exited state custody and entered our shelter without so much as an ID. I think about the 18 year old fleeing domestic violence, unable to stay in the local family shelters with their mother and siblings because they are now, by all legal definitions, an adult. I think about the many joyful moments, big and small. The young person who recently moved into an apartment after two years of living in spectrum housing, the other who just celebrated a birthday with ice cream cake at the shelter. We are there when they bring home an A on their math exam, and we are there when they lose the job that they've been counting on. We are there in moments of deep grief and despair, and we are there when they experience the elation of finding a caring community. Youth homelessness awareness is seeing these young people for the full, rich and complex lives they lead, often in the margins of our communities, overlooked and stigmatized for the intersections of their identities as adolescent and homeless. Today, I urge you to move beyond awareness and towards action. As a community, we need to recognize the unique and vitally important developmental stage of adolescence in shaping an individual's future. In the state of Vermont, we must prioritize solutions to end youth homelessness. Data from the National Network of Youth has shown us that half of all adults who are homeless had their first experience of homelessness before the age of 25. The time to invest in solutions to end youth homelessness is now. We must center the lived experiences of young people, listen to youth who have experienced homelessness, recognize their pivotal contributions and expertise and honor their autonomy. We must invest resources in the services that are developmentally aligned with the needs of this specific population. Youth homelessness and the solutions to address it must be catered to their stage of development. We need to uplift the work of youth service providers and build on their impacts by continuing to support programming that is youth centered and explore new ways of offering services that do the same. We must develop policies and pass legislation that helps to prevent youth from entering homelessness early. This means prioritizing permanence for youth in custody, focusing on kinship relationships, school based resources for children who are unstably housed, supporting the rights of transition aged youth to access needed care independently when necessary, safeguarding the financial benefits for youth in foster care, and especially protecting LGBTQ plus youth who are over 120% more likely to experience homelessness than their peers. An investment in ending youth homelessness is a long term investment in a data driven solution to curb the rise of homelessness across all age demographics. Awareness is the first step. Many service providers are leaps and bounds ahead of mere awareness. We are in community with these young people every day, and we need others to join us. Thank you for taking the time to hear this testimony and to bring greater visibility to a population that has too often gone unseen. Thank you. Thank you, Christina. Can you make sure to send your testimony into Laurie?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I will, yes. Thank you. Alexa?

[Alexa [last name not stated] (Spectrum case manager)]: Good afternoon. Just heard from Christina about all the wonderful work we're doing at Spectrum. And so I would like to take this chance to provide some of my perspective and experience and that of my clients as a direct service case manager. Our emergency shelter, The Landing has four double bedrooms for a total of eight clients in communal living, while our rapid rehousing project, the Pearl Street residents has eight single occupancy bedroom leases with a shared communal area. Previously, the Pearl Street Residence youth could obtain a Section eight voucher at the end of their one year lease. However, due to changes on the federal level, this is no longer the case. Though my role as case manager is primarily focused on navigating the complex housing systems, much of my time is spent working with these young people to teach them the independent living skills needed to ensure that any housing they do find is successful. We cover topics you may expect from budgeting to cooking or learning how to drive. Well, we cover many others that may surprise you, such as how to operate a washing machine, how to

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: call a doctor's office, how

[Alexa [last name not stated] (Spectrum case manager)]: to wash their hair, or how to appeal a Three Squares decision because homelessness is no longer a qualifier for benefits. Over the past two years, the average length of stay at the landing was eight months. Currently, half of the youth in the program have been involved in Spectrum Supported Housing for over a year, with many of them having spent months at our nightly emergency shelter prior to their bed and the landing becoming available. That is more than a year of living in a room with no door and a randomly assigned stranger in the bed next to theirs, where they are woken up and asked to leave from 9AM to 5PM every day. But even this is better than where they came from. 18 year olds freshly out of foster care, young people kicked out or run away from harmful families, fleeing domestic violence or out of couches to crash on. Without Spectrum, their options in Chittenden County would be an adult shelter with others, decades their senior or sometimes the street. When this is how you enter the homeless system, it is almost impossible to get a head start. Everyone deserves safe and stable housing. But for young people experiencing homelessness, the barriers are many and their age and experience put them at a unique disadvantage. The youth I work with are tasked with navigating education, employment, physical and mental health care, social development, and community resources, all without knowing if they will have a place to call home and before their brain is even fully developed. Many of these young people have spent their formative years trying to survive. They have little to no job history, some have no high school diploma or cannot work due to untreated physical and mental illness. This makes it nearly impossible to get the resources one needs, for example, for security deposit and first month's rent to sign a lease. This past year, I worked with two young people who were each able to sign leases for Stew View Apartments. Two thirty square feet at $998 a month, heat and electric not included, nor the price of internet they need to finish their online high school diplomas while working thirty hours a week and being active members in their faith communities. This equates to about half of their incomes, not including the cost of furniture, transportation, or food. Luckily, the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity was able to pay their security deposits, but that money is not always available. Even when the money is available, these young people I serve have no rental history, no credit history, and sometimes no time to build either before aging out of youth homeless services into adult services that assume they have the wherewithal to independently navigate housing systems so complex I am paid to know them. They must compete against college students with parents co signing. Well, they do not even have an emergency contact to alert when they are sitting in the ER for hours waiting for an evaluation because they cannot stop thinking that they want to die. Spectrum can help eight youth at a time build that rental history and our rapid rehousing project. And we can teach them the fundamentals of credit building or refer them to counseling. But we can never replace the support of an unpaid caring adult, someone who would have taught them how to set boundaries or encourage them to achieve their goals. My clients want to become marine biologists, paramedics, veterinarians, parents, and artists. But years of lost familial and social support breeds hopelessness. This is especially compounded as my clients see their childhood peers hit milestones, graduate, and thrive. Spectrum is doing all we can to support these young people as they search for housing and search for themselves with counseling programs, mentoring and case management. With our amazing community partnerships, none of this would be possible. But what these young people need is stability, safety and time that shelter sometimes cannot afford. On behalf of myself and the young people I serve, I thank you for your willingness and interest in hearing their experience. Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, Jesse.

[Jesse Warren (Director, Return House, Elevate Youth Services)]: Hi, everyone. I'm not very good at going as fast as everybody else, but I'm gonna do my best because I don't have a testimony to read. But my name is Jesse. Jesse Warren, hehim pronouns. I am the director of Return House, which is a program at Elevate Youth Services right here in this county. So I'm going to start off by asking you to go back to your 16 year old self for a minute, challenge by choice, but think about the person that you were at that time and what that was like for you. And I'm seeing a lot of faces. Maybe that wasn't a great time, maybe it was. Now I want you to think about the program that I run and the kids that we're working with who are in DCF custody. So for whatever reason, there's a myriad of reasons why kids come into custody, but I feel like what sticks out to me is that our services and our world isn't made to keep families together. So a lot of times, the kids that come into our program, it was no fault of their own. So they have this added layer to their life, this lack of normalcy where they can't live with their parents for whatever reason. So we don't have a lot of foster parents in the state of Vermont. If a foster family can't be identified for a kid, where do they go? What do you think? I think this is something that we often don't think enough about, displaced youth. But my program works with kids ages 16 to 18 years old. So, if they can't live with their parents during their formative years and there's no foster parent, they will go to usually two zero four Depot. Does anyone know this program? It's essentially a holding facility down in Southern Vermont, term. So if there's nowhere for a kid to go, if somebody comes into custody, this is an emergency, they can't live at home, they can't sleep at home tonight, That's where they go. Extremely restricted. They can't wear shoes, can't have shoelaces, no doors on the bedrooms, things like that. They have to ask to go to the bathroom, ask to do all of these things. Other things that I've seen are kids being staffed in hotel rooms. So DCF workers will take shifts where if it's a minor, they can't be alone, somebody 18. So they will fund a hotel room and DCF workers will essentially sit in there and babysit or sit with a kiddo until they identify placement. I've also seen kids be housed or staffed in the DCF offices, sleeping in the offices in a makeshift bed because there's nowhere for them to go. Another option that's more long term is Return House, the Return House program. It's fairly new. Similar programs are T House in Burlington. There's a couple other long term shelters. We have five beds that are available at any given time. And I would say it's a lower level of care. So oftentimes we house children coming from out of state programs. So Steadson, for example, which is in Massachusetts, or maybe the Park Street program in Rutland, which serves kids with sexualized behaviors. They complete a treatment program and for whatever reason they're too old to be adopted or they're too old to go to a foster home. So that's how they end up at Return House. They do need to be bought in a little bit, but the main component, the treatment component to the Return House program is independent living, as well as access to normalcy. So going to high school, a lot of our kids go to Spaulding or the C Alternative program. We happen to meet with case managers every week to help them get their driver's license, help them get a job. All of our kids right now are working part time, which is awesome. They have access to meet with their friends in the community or on our property, just as if someone were to A teenager would have a sleepover or have their friends over, something like that. We help them, similar to what you were saying about independent living skills, a lot of the kids don't know how to do laundry, cook, things like that. Because they're transition aged, as soon as they come into the program, we have to be planning for their exit, essentially. Where are they going to live? What natural supports do they have? Because when they exit DCF custody, they will no longer have a DCF worker. They will no longer have us or the housing that we provide. And so how can we help them bolster their circle of support with more natural supports? Maybe that means reconnecting with their family if they're safe people. That might mean doing a family find and identifying long lost cousins or family friends, anybody who can be a part of this child's life in order to plan for where they're going to live after they turn 18, which is, I think, how this program and how this testimony relates to what y'all are doing. Because oftentimes, even with all the support that we are providing at the program, it's really hard to get young people not to exit programs like this to homelessness. I think a big component of that is due to their lack of natural supports and lack of access to the housing in general, lack of rental history, funds, things like that. I was going to ask for questions, but I know we're not doing that. So I think I'll end there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We actually are at the point of asking questions.

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: Well, I guess It's hosted.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I was going to say we have a couple of additional pieces of testimony from people with lived experience who weren't able to be here. So I really encourage members to read that. But we have a few minutes before Legion Council gets here on another bill. And so I just would like to open it up for questions cause we had a number of witnesses this afternoon. Representative Noyes.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Rick Logan brought up the fact that there's no services around like this in In Memorial County. And I was wondering if anyone might know why. I know she's not here, but that was my question for her.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Okay, please.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Is that gonna flip you forward? Here she is.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: You, Kate.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yes, what's up?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's a it's a question for you. Sorry.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: You had said that there was no services around rental youth in Memorial County, and I just wondered if you knew why.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: So for 12 17 year olds, when I spoke about the level federal funding that there was for services for twelve to seventeen year olds, which just includes up to twenty one days of emergency shelter, That funding has stayed leveled for decades. And so, ECRIP received that funding for the state and then distributed around the state, used to serve agencies in every part of the state to provide those services. And now we can provide funding to three agencies. We just covered the NEK, Washington County, and Windham County now. So that's a big gap in services. And then in terms of services specifically for transition age youth, young adults, 18 and 24 years old, We have gone through a cycle of having a couple of providers. So One Wild Family Center did that shelter provision. And we tried to bring them on when we got that new funding from HUD for eighteen to twenty four year old housing services. And they just didn't feel like it was a good fit. And then we struggled for multiple years to find a provider who could adequately provide services to homeless youth in Lemoyle County. And again, same story. We started receiving that HUD funding in 2019 and level funded for supportive services that the amount of funding that we get for rent goes up every year so that we can continue to pay landlords more money and they raise rents. But the supportive services budget line, if the federal funding does not increase. So we've had to restrict the number of agencies that we provide youth homelessness demonstration program funding, and now we're down to five out of an original nine.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Could I make an addition to that? Sure.

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: Elevate also runs the statewide youth in transition program, and we're contracted with Lamoille Restorative Center to provide case management services for youth in Lamoille County. That doesn't include housing, but it does include resource family nation.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So we do recognize that that's a big gap. Thank you. You.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Representative Steady. So, Representative Logan, you testified it costs about 25,000 per use for rent and other expenses. What services do you do to help the youth get a job? And if they do get a job, how do they contribute back to the state for their free housing?

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Every agency braids together a range of funding sources to provide a broad set of services. So every agency in this row might receive funding from us to provide housing case management. So we make sure that that person has a dedicated case manager who follows them through the housing navigation process and finding a home, learning all of the independent skills that they need in order to maintain their housing, providing ongoing case management throughout the duration of receiving rental assistance, and then ongoing case management after to ensure that youth can remain stably housed after they've exited the program when their time has run out. In addition to having that case manager, most agencies have, I mean, you could ask any agency here, the range of funding that they have, jobs, programs, I mean, you name it.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Once they get a job, like McDonald's, dollars 18 an hour, how do they contribute back towards the Well,

[Rep. Kate Logan]: have to pay

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They do.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: 100% of their income to rent.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Because you want to teach them dignity.

[Rep. Kate Logan]: Oh yeah, absolutely. If a youth has no income at the time that they enroll in the project, then we make sure that they have enough money to pay rent. But we're the goal is always to get youth to the Helping the data on their Provide for themselves. And federal policy requires that we cap that percentage at 30% of their adjusted income.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. I'm curious, and this actually is probably multiple witnesses need to address this, with the reduction in available rental vouchers creating and helping youth get access to stable housing, or they could contribute up to 30% of their income, is more and more difficult these days. And I'm just wondering if you've seen a change in the length of time or the accessibility of housing vouchers for youth with limited resources. Any of you direct service providers? Yeah,

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I can speak to that.

[Christina Brown (Spectrum Youth & Family Services)]: I think Alexa spoke to that in her testimony as well, that our, just as an example, our landing program, which Alexa is the case manager for the youth who live in that program, it's our emergency shelter that also has a life skills component to it. Moving folks into independent housing is the goal of that program. In 2019, the average length of stay was ninety days. In 2026, the average length of stay, eight months to a year. I

[Rep. Kate Logan]: can speak up in a couple of agencies who aren't here today, who weren't able to be here. So Addison County Parent Child Center, they self funded their own transitional living program for 18 to 24 year olds up to one year of transitional housing. And the housing authority there carried a voucher for each use. So if they successfully completed their one year transitional housing program, then they automatically received a voucher so that they could move out into their own apartment. That is still, they still have access to that, but it's going to go away eventually. That's the last I heard from Donna Bailey, who's the executive director there. And then similar situation, Bobby Joe Scalado is the executive director of the Mentor Connector in Rutland City. And they also self fund for transitional living program units. Same thing. They didn't have an agreement with the housing authority in the way that ACPCC did, but it was just part of the process, get was them enrolled in transitional housing and then get them enrolled in like get them on the wait list for HCV. And that's what I was saying for a lot of our agencies is that the exit strategy from our rental assistance program, often in HCV, and now that's not an option. The wait list is closed. And then the prioritization often means that you are at the bottom of the list.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I want to thank you all for being here today. You have other questions? Go ahead, Representative Bishop.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I do. I think that would be for you a favor. You referenced, I think, under the heading of counseling, the short term host home model. Can you tell us a little bit more about that? I'm curious. Who are the hosts? Did my son's high school classmate or my niece needs support in coming into my home? Or am I taking in? I've just raised the line and said I'll take anyone in, what's it look like?

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: Our host homes are vetted and trained for volunteers in various communities, so if you wanted to be a hostel, all you need to do is call it, we can get the short process started.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: What's the training and support look like for those channels?

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: Every young person who enters into the short term post home program has a counselor who also serves as a case manager for the young person and also support for the host home providers during that time. And we're able to house people for up to twenty one days, but more often we're at fourteen days.

[Riley Campo]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Ken, I could say a

[Rep. Kate Logan]: little bit more about that. This is a federal behavioral program, and so any healthstone provider who volunteers for the program has to receive training in positive youth development and trauma informed care. Background check. A background check before they can serve as a host home provider. And then they also receive a stipend, a small stipend to provide services. And I'm trying to think what else goes on. Oh yeah, and they have to comply with a full set of safety regulations for their home.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Thanks to everyone who testified this afternoon. We appreciate it. Appreciate really the work that you do. Particularly Riley, I want to say thank you for being here this afternoon, sharing your story, and wish you all the best with your apartment. And I hope everything goes well for you. Okay, committee. We're going to shift now to some work on another bill, S-one 198. So thank you all for being really appreciated. Todd, can you grab the door? Todd?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I just

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: want to print it off.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Jen, can you refresh my memory? Did Commerce Committee actually make changes? 01/1998? As passed by the Senate? Yes, they did. Yes. All So that's the version we want.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Yep. I posted them on Friday.

[Christina Brown (Spectrum Youth & Family Services)]: If I'm writing them now, I

[Rep. Esme Cole]: can post them for today, but it's going to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: take a minute. No, I can go to Friday.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Well, both of them posted as passed by Senate and then Here it is.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Passed by Senate. Yeah, for me, just care about the one that is currently working with. Yeah. Which is commerce, and that's on Friday. Okay. Thank you. So, committee members, I'm gonna direct your attention to the one that says House Committee on Commerce and Economic Development Committee report. Alright. That's the current version that is going through the house, and that's the version we're gonna mark up. Okay. Laurie, I don't know if anybody else wants a hard copy, but Yes, please.

[Christina Brown (Spectrum Youth & Family Services)]: Markup is easier with the hard copy.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's not perfect for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: me. Okay.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's the difference.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Folks, we've had bit of testimony on this bill. And should have a little bit of discussion. And also, we're going to just kind of go through this section by section and try to be organized about it. I know it's a unique thing here in the state house. Trying to be organized? Well, about markup, how we approach a bill, and all that kind of stuff. So we've had some requests from different entities, including the attorney general's office, some suggestions from advocates around language. And there was a request by House Commerce that they thought about something after the bill left their committee. I asked Jen to go ahead and put that in the version that we're going to actually, it's not in the version that we just pulled up. But Jen has included it in the version that she's working from.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I'm sorry, ma'am. I'm sorry, missed. What was that part that you said was Jenna's House

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: commerce. I thought about a provision, which I think I forwarded to everybody. And if I didn't, I will. Always makes me nervous when you look down and start looking for it. Okay. As Anne Bishop, that they thought about after the bill left their committee. And so they asked if we could include it here rather than it going back there for another amendment. So I said that we would certainly be willing to do that.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Hold on just a second. Laurie, I'm in the Zoom room when you get a chance. That's okay. Maybe maybe maybe I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: didn't.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Yeah. Kinda fixed up something.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, and I see, Jen, I didn't see this earlier that we have a new draft that incorporates that. So that's what I'm

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: looking forward to. No. We don't. Oh, no, we don't? No. We don't. Okay. No, we don't believe we do. I don't

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think I'm gonna it in anything. You sent me one this morning. I didn't send you anything. Oh, no. I'm sorry. That's last week. My apologies. I take a day off, and my brain goes squishy on me. Can I All tell right? Now I'm forwarding to the committee, which I did not do last night.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Laurie, did you print a couple of things?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They should,

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I think Rey's good.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Fantastic, thank you. We printed like four. Fantastic.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. I just forwarded to your email what the house commerce committee but the house commerce committee wants to wants to see in a new version. K. It's got Internet sales and compliance activity. Okay. So why don't we that's in Is that gonna be

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a new section? It'll go into an existing section. Okay. I will pull that one up too. We can look at it when we get to that part of the Okay. Bill, if that's helpful.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. So, yeah, why don't we go ahead and pull up the bill when you have a chance?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Great. Yes. I put the bill on the screen. And for the record, Jen Kirby from the Office of the Web site of Council.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we're gonna start off with definitions. Yes. So section one amends, or at least puts into the bill all of 7BSA Chapter 40. So the first section there under tobacco products is the definition section. And the first definition is an existing definition of tobacco substitute that takes on some additional provisions.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Are there any thoughts about this definition? So, Jen, can you refresh my memory? Do we not have any definition of tobacco substitute in statute? We do. This is just so you

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: can see the words tobacco substitute means are not underlined. They're existing law. So under existing law, tobacco substitute means products. And then including and then if you go to the top of page two where the underlining stops, electronic cigarettes or so that's our existing definition. So existing definition says, yes, it says

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm talking about all the stuff that's underlined on page one.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: All of that is new language that we added to the definition of tobacco substitute. Okay. So previously Oh, to some extent, it's expanding. To some extent, it is clarifying.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. All right. That's helpful. I got There's two

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: more copies here, folks.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: The extent that it's eight A two intended for human consumption, then it lists out a number of ways one may consume the product. And I assume we're doing that because it's outpaced what was previously in the legislation. Is there any thought to just saying product intended for human consumption?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think some of the illustrative ways of consuming are helpful because people may not I think it helps ground people in in what we're talking about and in some of the specifics, particularly around smoking or, you know, absorbing their new oils. People can rub on their skin to absorb through their skin. There's the tobacco pouches that suck on or absorb through gum tissue. So we have the catch all as well. But I think it could be very broad to say any product that is intended for human consumption, period, because that is much broader than.

[Riley Campo]: Yeah, I

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: was thinking of a way to stay ahead of the absolutely. If you will. Right.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, that's why we have the catch all, which is still pretty broad.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: So I have a just I don't know. Are there are there methods of injection?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, if they are, they'd be consumed in that manner. Mean, not that I'm aware of, but I

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I I'm not trying to make this longer. I just am wondering. I I agree with with Doug that it seems like it would be smart or, you know, we'll just always be behind this list probably.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it's all consuming in any other manner.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Exactly. That is our catch all. We will continue to be specific where we are aware of specifics, and we will continue to

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I see.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Keep the catch all

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Alright.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: To capturing. Okay. We're gonna move on. Not seeing any noes. Alright. Right, one page down, Jen. That's All right.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then the good news is once I don't know if I'm gonna look at the second half of the definition on page two, but once we get past that, the definitions are really just being carried over from existing definitions in the tobacco tax chapter title 32.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And, you know, part of my brain is remembering what we did in S-eighteen. And we we did a lot of this definition stuff in S-eighteen. And so I'm thinking like, oh, but didn't we already do this? And then I'm like, yes, we did. But then that bill didn't get it all the way through.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So Right in these seats and then it could not perform. Yes. Definitely remember you correctly.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is a deja vu. I know. This is why I keep calling back up. It's like, yes, we talked about pouches, liquids, all of that Yes. Kind of

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Alright. So then we have all these wholesaler definitions that other than just a couple of language updates or references to this chapter are the same as what's in title 32.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm just refreshing people's memory because it's been a few days. We're bringing that in from tax statute into this statute because we're transferring responsibility from tax department to liquor and law.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: That's why

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: it says

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: July 2027. Yes, because it's new to Title VII. And so since we're adding it to Title VII where it doesn't currently exist

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Okay. Thank you.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. That's why I keep reminding you it's not really new It's to the just law that's in a different part of the statutes because you can't tell that by looking

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: at it. And that doesn't mean that we can't adjust it. You're right. Doesn't mean you can't adjust. This is very true. This is the time when you bring up those things. If you have a sense of wanting to change or adjust or have discussion about something. And just so you know, I am taking silence as consent that we're moving, okay?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. Although hold on. If I remember, had a question at the point.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm gonna leave it up to you, Jen, to tell us when we're at the space where we've gotten feedback.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think the one thing that I had wanted to flag here and forgot because it was in my markup when I was in when I was staying upstairs and I forgot to bring up here is all of our definitions around wholesalers do not include tobacco substitutes. And I'm asking the regulator types if we should be including tobacco substitutes there. It sort of seems like we should, especially with the internet sales issue. So just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If they Well, I guess

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We don't tax them with stamps. That's why they haven't been in here. But I do think because of some of the limitations that are coming up later around wholesalers and retail dealers that we may need to include them.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think as a placeholder Or with the sides of the room. Yes, placeholder we should. And I think we should take out things like new smokeless tobacco. What it's called? Is it still called new smokeless tobacco?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Still called new, in our statutes it is.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's my point. Is it new? Right. Is there a product called new smokeless Not being any do not use tobacco in any form, so I don't know the answer.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is the tax definition? Is there a separate? Yes. I understand it's a tax definition. Thank you. I do think there there were sort of the smokeless tobacco and then new smokeless tobacco, and they are two discrete products. What? No. Aren't

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: they? No. It's not a real thing. It's just it's an adjective. Okay. I think it's an According to I

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: think it's maybe an adjective that's still continuing to be used in our enforcing our laws. So you may wanna maintain it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But we're changing the law to be more current. I I understand.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: We would need to go into several other I need to amend several other statutes if you can do that, and there may need to be some rule changes. Okay. So maybe we don't wanna do that.

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: It's small bill.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Possibly.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's it's like we just said about another bill that we did with the health department. If the statutes need to

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: be updated with current language,

[Rep. Esme Cole]: we should

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: update them, but maybe we won't do that in the confines of this one bill. Maybe we should ask the Department of Liquor and Lottery to review and update the statutes to make them current learning codes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I have a quick

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: question though. Under wholesale dealer, we talk about what it means to be a wholesale dealer, but then at the end we write, but not by small quantity or partial consumers of these products. Are we saying that wholesale dealers can't sell consumer direct?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Well, yeah. I mean, for one thing, yes, I think you have to sell to those. I mean, if you wanna sell consumer direct, you're a retailer, not a wholesaler.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: It would be a retailer.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: They'd they'd be a retailer.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: So you

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have to read the whole definition. It's a person who imports or causes to be imported various items or sells them to a wholesaler. A person who basically who imports or causes to be imported into the state, any of these items, but not by small quantity or parcel to consumers of these products. So if you buy your if you cause them to be imported through the state because you drive over the state line with them, you are not a wholesale dealer.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Right. Do we

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But you can't sell them to other people.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Do we say wholesalers can't sell direct or does it automatically That's the scope of

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: their license. In order to sell direct to consumers, you need a retail license.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So just to circle back to Jen's original question is, should we be looking at tobacco substitutes as being added to this?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think so. I think the issue is that under the tax statutes, tobacco substitutes fall into the other tobacco products category. And so when I pulled the definitions over, we don't have other tobacco products that are a large group of items, so we need to add in all the things, I think, that are in the tobacco substitute or tobacco products other tobacco products category. Okay. So I will make a note to myself to do the cross checking on that, and I'll check-in with the state folks. I think that may be throughout this section. Alright, section 1,002 is the license required for retail, specifying retail sale. And we're going have wholesale dealers in this chapter as well. And the first change there is kind of how the statutes line up with existing law, which is that our existing practice, which is that tobacco licenses and tobacco substitutes are valid for one year from the date of issue. They don't all expire at midnight on April 30. And we have the changes that stop referring to incorporating tobacco licenses and tobacco substitute endorsements into liquor license forms and applications.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So just I want to make sure people understand the policy change that's happening here. If you had a tobacco, if you had a liquor license, which way did it go? Yes.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If you had a liquor license, you did not have to pay extra for the tobacco license.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Now they're just being separated as two separate things. Liquor is one license, tobacco is another license. Yeah. Because everybody knows I hate to see anyone, not that I have a

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: small guy, never tried to buy anything, but I hate to see increased taxes and fees right now during these difficult times. And I'm not endorsing tobacco. Thank you. It's just that I think of

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: So just to be clear, so if you had a liquor license currently, you were allowed to sell tobacco products, and now we're just gonna split those off and now you need them.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Didn't they have an

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: endorsement before? Yeah. The endorsement is for the tobacco substitutes. No. So currently, you can have a liquor dash tobacco license if you're selling. So no, that's not it. I'm gonna phone a friend on the side. Phone a friend.

[Department of Liquor and Lottery representative]: Hi. I'm Liquor Lottery. So there is no hyphen at this point. Hello. Hi. There's a little bit of pork in Channel seven. We don't actually have a hyphenated license. You can see here we're striking this liquor and tobacco license. There's a hyphen between those. We don't actually

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have that. There are various

[Department of Liquor and Lottery representative]: state licenses. If you want to sell liquor, you apply for Indar granted one of the numerous liquor licenses that you have in Title VII. If you want to sell tobacco, you must apply for a tobacco license. If you want to sell tobacco substitute products, you also apply, in addition to your tobacco license, for a tobacco substitute endorsement. Previously under current statute, Department of Liquor Lottery was not directed to assess a fee for the tobacco license application if the applicant had an inactive or pending liquor license application. Was for my time. But I believe the rationale was there isn't an additional administrative burden on the department. We are assessing your location to sell liquor, the tobacco assessment into that work. This would a little bit of a misnomer, but fully decouple those processes. They will now be assessed, continue to have a distinct license for sale of each of those regulated products, but also be assessed in all cases regardless of their liquor license status, the tobacco license fee.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so thank you for that. That's very important. There's always, or at least currently, there's two licenses. So it's not a new license. It is they will now be assessed a fee for the second license or the for both now and not just one fee if you have one. Go ahead, Will there

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: be two separate review processes if outlet wants to sell liquor and tobacco?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I can get back to you on that. I would refer to our agency team on the transaction process.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: What's the benefit of splitting it out?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: In terms of application fee or inspection fee?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Other than the fact that we're going to charge fees and garner more revenue for the state, is there another advantage or another rationale behind splitting them?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I would defer to the attorney general's office if that happens on that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They have they have they already are split. I'm just splitting out. The licenses are separate now. So that we're not making a change to that.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: But it sounds like they there was some rationale historically that the review process is taking place anyway.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: At the same time At

[Bill Ashe (former Director, WCMH DD; former Executive Director, Upper Valley Services)]: the same

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: time, and I'm curious whether that is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: still Still the practice.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Still the practice.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know if

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: the practice going forward. Can you get back

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to us on that from your enforcement folks?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want to hear from the attorney general and others?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If the Attorney General's Office has something to say, for sure.

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Thank you, Chair. Todd Daniels from the Attorney General's Office. Very quickly, Rob Bishop. I think from a public health standpoint and encouragement of tobacco cessation, The goal is to say, look, if retailers want to sell this product that's incredibly addictive and detrimental to youth, they can pay for that license. But the concept of jokingly having a buy one get one, which is

[Riley Campo]: not how the department

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: looks at it, challenging from a public health perspective. So that's the push is to say, we allow it, it's a legal substance use. We really want to push on retailers to do it conscientiously and under SOC there's much more proposed changes to how that regulation looks. That's the direction.

[Riley Campo]: Thank And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're going to still continue with this endorsement concept?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes. It does does stay in here separately unless I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just curious why it's just not called a tobacco and tobacco substitute license. What you mean why it isn't a combined one? I mean, because it's, I guess, looked at as a separate product. I guess there are people out there who only sell tobacco and they don't sell tobacco substitutes. I

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: would guess it would be the same reason the public health perspective, you kind of want to call it out as a separate thing, especially the way it's marketed to kids. Okay, thank you, Jen. Sure.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So further down on page four, this is striking out the references to liquor licenses in here and really just keeping the focus on the tobacco license. And it increases the fee amount for a tobacco license or renewal from a $110 to a $150 and for the tobacco substitute endorsement from $50 to $75, and it stops having the amounts paid to the municipality, which then turns around and sends it to the division of liquor control and instead just has it sent directly to the division of liquor control, which is, I think, in practice how it happens electronically now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And committee members, you might recall that I asked the commissioner about when was the last time the fees were increased, and she did respond back with the dates. It's been more than ten years, more like twelve years since think it

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was 2016. I think it

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: was I think session from Yeah. 2015 adjourned session. But So we have the information from the commissioner that I forwarded to folks. Yes.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And my understanding, again, I think she said this as well, of the amounts from the joint fiscal office is the kind of inflation adjustment of $110.50 from that time period. From that time period.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: And it will just make the prices go up. So maybe kids won't be able to afford it because of course the person is gonna put the money back into the product to get their money back. And it will hurt people in the hovered against that because that's usually the people that smoking. And I'm not stereotyping, but it will hurt people of poverty and it will discourage kids from buying it. So, because the owner will put the money back into the consumer.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Perhaps. That makes sense. Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know. It's $40 for every twenty five. Two years? Is it Every year. Every year. $40 a year. Okay. Yes. Representative Noyes. Just a

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: quick process question on this. There's obviously, you we're looking at these increased fees. We have possession of this bill. So I'll be reporting all of this and then It's gonna go next door. It's gonna end up going next door.

[Riley Campo]: Okay. But

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: we can talk I'm just trying to figure out, I'll be reporting the whole bill and then if they have any changes, they'll be reporting those additional Exactly. Making If

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: they make significant changes, you may not wanna go into big detail.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, that's why. Yes. Section will be amended. Yeah. They like all what they do. Process. Thank Okay, some more, again, cleaning up. So the application is still,

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The person still applies to the legislative body of the municipality, but the fees get paid directly to the division Okay, that's the part

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that I was wondering. It seemed like you're separating that out. And so why isn't the application just made to the Department of Liquor and Lottery? And then the Department of Liquor and Lottery notifies the municipality.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: So the municipality is the first clearinghouse for the application. We updated our licensing system, so the way that it works is the department applies to the department and that would be routed first to the municipality. But rather than the funds following the entire routing process of the application, they come and are held by the department. The municipality clears that application and is then forwarded to the department

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: for further action.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So they, in fact, do apply through the department? Through our licensing application. Through your portal? Yes. Okay. Well, that's helpful because the way I was reading this is that they are applying to the municipality. Through us too, though. Right.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think I mean, the language says they apply to the legislative body. I think from a it sounds like from a practical standpoint that application is provided to the municipality by the department.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's actually I don't know. Are you saying that it's on the department's website? So if somebody if somebody just say I wanna apply for a license. I go to DLL and fill out the information and then you send that to the municipality. Yeah. So I shouldn't say they apply to the municipality.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Think it depends how much you wanna get into the details of where the application goes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I guess I don't like passing a bill out of this committee that's got inaccurate information in it. So

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So we can talk about how to make it match the process more.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I think there's some local control.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's why I'm asking.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: That's also changed recently, yes.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: No, so the municipality still has to come to us.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I realize that they have a role in the process. Does it say maybe I can maybe we can dispense with this, if it says First

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: application shall first be reviewed by the legislative body and municipality?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm looking at like wait, folks, wait, folks. On page four, on lines nine and ten, it says they apply to the legislative body of the municipality. I guess, essentially, they are, but that's after they've already applied to the department that then sends the information to the I mean, why can't we just say that, if that's what the process is?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So could we just say shall apply to the legislative body of the municipality through the Department of Liquor and Lottery and or Division of Liquor Control and shall pay the following fees? Is that Or should we discuss? To

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: get

[Rep. Esme Cole]: a fraction of what we think, what language and follow-up. I think the current reading, the court's court reading statute is that our routing of the application maintains the local control element while also simplifying and standardizing a digital process.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, and maybe what we say is that DLL provides that online application process. There's got to be some language that clarifies that DLL is involved in that initial. Right, and we say yes, using the department or the division, whatever it

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is, application process or online process. I think

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: another thing that's confusing is if we are saying just a municipality, it's not a standard, it wouldn't appear that it's a standard statewide process, that each

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: municipality would have their own. Their own. And that is not a process. It's one application that's a statewide application that the municipality maybe reviews and approves, receives reviews and approves, but they're not actually creating and maintaining an application. So maybe we could say something like shall apply to the legislative body of the municipality on forms provided by the department or or process provided by the department.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. We'll ask the DLL to work with Jen on what language would be to sort of clarify and make that more representative of what actually happens. So both in line ten and twenty? Correct. Yeah. Well, line 20 probably then would be accurate at that point.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: They gotta work together. Right.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Exactly. See

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what happens when you provide too much information? Yeah. It's not too much. It's accurate. I guess I would like this to be I would like the statute to represent what is happening in reality. Okay. Okay, Jim. Okay. Page five.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yep. So top of page five. Again, this is striking through the mhmm. We just take both forwarding fees to the commissioner. These are just going directly to the department, and so these collected would still be deposited in the Liquor Control Enterprise Fund. And then we get to subsection e, which is a person who sells tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, or tobacco paraphernalia without obtaining tobacco license and a tobacco substitute endorsement as applicable in violation of this section. And then this takes it out of being a criminal offense and makes it a a subject to a civil penalty, and it raises the maximums on those from not more than 200 for a first offense to not more than $2,000 for the first offense and from not more than $500 for the first two for each subsequent to not more than $5,000 for each subsequent offense. Is tobacco paraphernalia defined in some place? I believe so, but I'd have to look. The

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Liver Control Enterprise Fund, know that history or why that is the most appropriate place now that we're separating out the two separate fees?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I think that's the major fund that DLL uses to enforce and regulate the products under their control, which is alcohol and tobacco.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Those self funded departments.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: That's not good. Okay. Yeah. So the title is only just slightly misleading because it only says liquor rather than beyond liquor. Guess, Department of Liquor and Lottery, unfortunately tobacco is not. Okay, that's true. That

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: would be a cleanup fan

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: if you're vegan.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: I don't know if

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you know this, but

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: when it's not more than who determines what the range is?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Who enforces this one, you or you? Alright, deal off. Yes. Alright. And then this adds some language around the existing prohibition on engaging in currently no person shall engage in the retail sale of these items unless they are a wholesale dealer or purchase them from a wholesale dealer. And so this would add not only engage in the retail sale, but also importation, distribution, wholesale, sale, or a combination of these, unless they are a retailer for I mean, a a wholesaler or purchase them from a wholesaler.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Dan, I'm sorry. I'm gonna back this up. It it actually applies to both sections. But when we're using the term person,

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: is this something that's expected to apply to the establishment? Yes. This is person in the Title I individual or entity definition. I have been trying to go through, at least in some places and-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In some places we say individual.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right, don't specify individual because you're not going to have a corporation under 16 years of age may excel if they have a license, but it's the individual. So I'm trying to do some cleanup of that as we go through to be more specific because sometimes it really matters if you're talking about the clerk or the establishment. Right. Right. And so I guess the question I have, and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: this is for liquor and lottery. Thank you for being here today. When when well, this is moving. I'm not sure how it's done now since it wasn't criminal. We're moving into civil. But do find the establishment?

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Okay. Yes. The

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: reason that I'm asking is because It's civil policy. Should it be in the street?

[Rep. Esme Cole]: No.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is this the State Street AGO? The Georgia?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Without a license. Yeah. So it's without a license. Yeah. So it wouldn't be administrative. Yeah. So does this mean this is gonna have to go to judiciary?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It didn't in the Senate.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It didn't in the Senate.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, it does seem to be taking a traveling roadshow of commitment.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Traveling roadshow.

[Riley Campo]: Still have spots open on the roster.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know. If you don't do stream tenancies, don't have to because those are within the jurisdiction of the policy committees. Okay. Well, I'll leave it at that, and we'll see what Betsy Anne says when he gets pushed You'll be surprised if she sends it that way, but penalties usually do not. But I I was questioning the use of the word civil as opposed to administrative, but I understand the rationale because you can't do an administrative penalty if they don't have

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: a license. Right. They're right. They're in different Yeah. Okay. Venues. Okay. And then we get to page six and the wholesale dealers. And this is language largely taken from title 32 where the Department of Taxes currently licenses wholesale dealers, but with a couple of changes. So this is still requiring each wholesale dealer to get a license from the Division of Liquor Control before selling tobacco products or tobacco substitutes in the state and selling that. And they can sell them only to other Vermont licensed wholesale dealers or to retailers, licensed retailers. The application and issuance of the license, that there is no I think we talked about this, but there is no license fee currently under, the tax department's regulation of the wholesalers. There would be a license fee here for the DLL regulation of the wholesalers. License fee is in the same amount as their license fee for wholesale dealers of alcoholic beverages. K. That was my question. I was trying to figure out why it's $245. Yes. And this would be an annual fee for each outlet. Again, there is no charge under the current Department of Taxes framework, and the license is issued and does not expire as long as the person is still doing business in the same outlet, same location.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Wholesalers, there's no process for the municipality for wholesalers, only for I believe so. Any questions on that?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So licenses issued by the division upon application, and all of this starts in July 2027. So it gives some time for that transition over from tax to DLL. There are penalties for sale without a license. There are penalties under the existing law as well, but these have been increased to match the increased penalties for the retailers. So any wholesaler who sells, offers, or possesses with intent to sell without first getting a license would be subject to a civil penalty of not more than $2,000 for the first offense and not more than $5,000 for each subsequent offense. The term of the license, as I mentioned, is new here because there was no term. It never expires under the existing Department of Tax Administration. These would be valid for one year for the date of issue, like the retail licenses that we looked at. And they can't that's only for the place the premises. It was the location it was issued for and and the person business. And then it allows the division to revoke or suspend the license of any licensed wholesaler for failure to comply with any provision of this chapter or portion of the corporation law or the tobacco tax chapter or the master settlement agreement and enabling provisions there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, sounded. Okay.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: So I I wondered, with revocation here for wholesalers, we don't have a similar revocation for retail sellers. Might we pull up something like that?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Alright. Look to the there's I don't know if there's an administrative process other than there's a revocation coming up for somebody who repeatedly violates the sale of the minors ban, but I don't know if there's an administrative process now by which. Okay. So it may be just addressed elsewhere.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I see.

[Department of Liquor and Lottery representative]: I'm sorry, just the verbs. There is a revocation process. It's in seven, eight, eight, ten.

[Brian [last name unclear] (House Corrections & Institutions)]: I love it.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm sure it's such a must be point.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: You just gotta know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is your job. It does this every day.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Sense of how many wholesalers operate in the state of the law?

[Department of Liquor and Lottery representative]: That's a great question. Under current statute, it's their privileged tax information. JM voted some digging, they're probably the list of roughly 30. We would surmise that those are good at the wholesalers that have allowed their information to be published publicly.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we will know this information better in the future. One of the reasons for transferring it. Being able to Being able to actually enforce Yeah.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Do more enforcements. Yes. So go ahead.

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: I just

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: have a quick question on page seven, section c, the penalties for sales without a license. So that's specifically for someone who's wholesaling in Vermont, who's maybe online, someone's retail outlets buying product from a wholesaler that's not licensed in Vermont. And so this would allow penalties to be assessed to that individual? No. Okay. I would refer to the

[Rep. Esme Cole]: age you have just as an unlicensed entity, but I believe it's on the

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yes, it's seven line one. I'm just trying to understand, like, we have this penalties for wholesaling without a license. Would that be someone who's, like, selling wholesale to a retail establishment that doesn't have a wholesale license in Vermont? And then they could be fined for doing that.

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: So the yes. Essentially, where the easiest way to look at this is Internet.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: anybody's importing, so if you go back to the definition of importation for non personal use, that could be anybody sending in there's a section coming up on internet sales anyway, it does trust with this. So if you're not licensed, it doesn't matter whether you are a distributor in a different state and a Vermont retailer contacts you but you don't have a Vermont license, you can't sell it to Vermont.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: And if you do, this is what happens.

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: And just because of his mind germane a little bit, part of it is that the wholesalers are the ones who apply the taxes and ensure the taxes are paid on these products. It happens in a wholesale level, doesn't really have to agree to a loan. That's why we want only our licensed wholesalers to maintain.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Now we

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: get to where you do have some suggestions, more recent developments, suggestions for changes. This is Section 1,005, which is the current prohibition on what people often refer to as purchase use and possession, although really it's the language itself is possession, purchase, or attempting to purchase by anyone under than 21 years of age. Under this current law, a person under 21 years of age shall not possess, purchase, or attempt to purchase tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, or tobacco's paraphernalia unless either they are working for a retailer and they're holding them they have possessed them in the course of their employment or they are possessing them in connection with indigenous cultural tobacco practices. And the bill, as it came to you, would strike that that prohibition. It also strike out the prohibition on someone under 21 years of age, misrepresenting their age to purchase or attempt to purchase tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, or tobacco paraphernalia, and would strike out language saying that someone who a person who does possess those items in violation of the prohibition would be subject to having them immediately confiscated and be further subject to a civil penalty of $25 brought in the same manner as a traffic violation. And then the bill as it came to you would keep the provision or or the penalty for someone under 21 years of age who misrepresent their age misrepresents their age by using false identification, and they would be subject to a civil penalty of split the bill as can be would increase that from $50 to a $100 or provide up to ten hours of community service or both and specify that an action and that's current law and specify that an action under this section would be brought in the same manner as a traffic violation, which I believe it is currently, although it's not specified that way. So there have been some stakeholder efforts since this language to maybe make some modifications there. I think some of it came up in the context of an interest in being able to confiscate items from minors, but it's hard to confiscate something that is they're not prohibited from having. So there were some efforts to maybe reinstate the prohibition on possession but remove the penalty. That's further some others of the month.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can you pull up that proposed language, Chitt?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Right. I I have it, but do you want me to maybe not put your email out of the. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Don't worry. I won't

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: eat. What is this? I'm too fatigued. Okay.

[Riley Campo]: Alright.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is the suggested change and individuals bold because I had said when we were looking at another version of keeping some part of this, I'm this is one of the places I'm suggesting changing person to individual. So their proposal would be to reinstate some of this. So let's say an individual under 21 years of age shall not possess tobacco products, tobacco substitutes, or tobacco paraphernalia unless it would keep the two exceptions for, you know, somebody working for a retailer or involved with some indigenous cultural tobacco process practices would continue to strike out subsection. And feel free of just the purchase or attempt to purchase. And then I would think that a lot of some language in c so I guess we keep what there is and just make it c one. So still increasing the penalty, still specifying the traffic violation, but then adding language saying an individual found in violation of this subsection would be given the option to enroll in a nation a nationally recognized youth tobacco cessation program to be determined by the Department of Health as an alternative to civil penalties or community service, and then some version of adding this to the seizure and contraband section allowing the items to be these items possessed by an individual 21 to be subject to seizure. So I have a question.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So if we, on page eight, delete everything that says everything that's deleted here. Nope. Is there any place to say a law that says a person cannot purchase tobacco under the age of 21? No. They can't be

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: sold to, but they can purchase. I mean, it doesn't prohibit them from purchasing. It just shouldn't take. So that's a problem for me. I'm just gonna say that. Sorry, people.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Guess I'm okay with not assessing a fine or but it is illegal. And I guess I still want it to be illegal. Yeah.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's what C is about. It's not about purchasing, though. C is using fake ID. Basically, it's just about fake ID.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I know. Just it's about fake ID.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: 18 year olds who walks in and says, I like the carton of cigarettes. As long as they don't present it to fake ID, they've done nothing at Right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Which is inconsistent with current law. I mean, we're removing the only thing that makes it, again, I am okay with taking away the fines and all that and encouraging But the kind of guess I'm not okay with saying that it's okay for youth under the age of 21 to purchase tobacco. And I know that we're saying that there's a thing in here about using fake ID, but that's all that it says.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I guess I'm kind of thinking about understanding that the punitive aspect of it, get. But on the other side, should there be some consequence, right? Because if it's illegal and we're saying it's illegal and they go in and buy it, then what happens then? What is the consequence of that action? And if it's not a fine, then what is it?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm also looking at this, we're talking about public health perspective here. And if we're not putting in statute that we are discouraging purchase of tobacco by youth under the age of 21. We just talked about the millions of dollars we're spending on prevention, yet we're saying in the opposite thing, but it's not illegal for you to purchase it. That doesn't make sense to me, I'll just be honest.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: But we're also talking about possessing it. That's different. Right, but so if you purchase it, you're both purchasing and possessing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not necessarily.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: You'd have to have it on your person if you just bought it, they would hand it to you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, but you could possess it without purchasing it.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Correct, So then you would be, for instance, double.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm putting out my personal feelings about this. I'm just putting that out there as I wanna make sure that people understand what is being struck and what that means, what the suggestion is. And I am 100% about doing away with the punitive aspects of fines and penalties on youth. I don't have any problem with that. But I feel like we're talking out of both sides of our mouth when we're we're not putting forth something saying that it's illegal for them to be possessing and purchasing or attempting to purchase.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I'm just not thinking of it at the moment. I imagine it exists. Can something be illegal with absolutely no penalty of any kind? I mean, do we have other things in statute?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Are you setting the standard? The answer is yes. So

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: it's just illegal. Nope. Can

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: second part that's up there about the Keep going, Jen, the next part right there. You could still found a violation of that given the option to enroll nationally recognized youth tobacco But right now, this is just related to I mean, could be an option for the whole section that maybe includes it's illegal to purchase, possess, or attempt to purchase. Correct.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: As I'm saying, the penalty, if you could be that if you don't present a fake ID that you go in and purchase, you would have to enroll in a program. Now you're in possession, so you would have to.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: You don't have to, though, apparently.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. Yeah, it's voluntary. Yeah. I'm, Are you saying voluntary under two?

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes, right now. But that's an option as an alternative to civil penalties or community service. So you could create whatever provisions for We could do

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: oh, it's a moving surface. So let let's let's start. I'm gonna bring us back to sort of talking about we'll we'll get to this in a minute. But I I'm just trying to what are people's thoughts about I wanna make sure that you're looking at page eight and everything is being struck here. It's essentially saying it's not illegal for you to have

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Use up through age 20. Yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I think if the idea of not penalizing a 14 year old is that they're getting caught up in marketing that is heavily targeting them to buy this brightly colored thing, whatever, that is different than a 20 year old who goes in and tries to buy a pack of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: cigarettes. In both cases, we want to say that it is not legal. Yeah. And we're not.

[Riley Campo]: Correct. Yeah.

[Christina Brown (Spectrum Youth & Family Services)]: If we stick with

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: this If that's what you're like.

[Heather Gedeon (NCSS)]: Yeah, that's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what I would about it.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I think we should be explicit about this is illegal. Then the next step is what are the consequences of if someone is found in violation of this law, then what is the consequence of that? That would be

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the next step. But I think we're now looking for the committees, do

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: you agree that this should be actually illegal? We should be explicit about it is illegal.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: That's the way it is now. But we're So we should leave it the way it is now.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Add The current law, not on the bill. Bill is per person's right. Way it is now is the minimum.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: This is for sale, for purchasing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, this isn't right now we're talking about purchasing and possessing.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yeah, I

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: have feelings about possession simply because of my own personal experience as a kid. Was asked to carry my parents.

[Riley Campo]: Why should I have to go through training

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: program, which should be my parents should

[Riley Campo]: have to do that. So

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: I can see where, I mean, I can see where possession is an issue for sure, but I can also see there will be opportunities for somebody, there's judgment involved.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Does law supersede a bill? Like, if it's in law, when that This is what you're creating law. We're creating law.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This bill is I thought maybe there was a statute or something. I know it is.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: But this'll get rid of that? Right. You're looking

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: at whether to change the existing statute. So the existing statute has everything Yeah, that is not

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: it's neat. Yeah. I agree with you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You agree that it should still be illegal.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Still be illegal because we're gonna teach kids responsibility and if we don't help them, they're never gonna learn.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We got fancy people over here on the side, I know. Go ahead. Sorry.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: One of the strongest life longing facts I can think of is this what sticks with you on your record, of course, and especially starting at a younger age. So wanting to see how that plays into this. And I almost wish I could hear from people, and I know it's not possible right now, but just with, or maybe attorneys in the room, like what does stay on your record versus what doesn't if you comply with certain consequences involved. And two, in terms of thinking of our incentives, of course, what we would prefer is for them to really engage in some kind of addiction centered treatment versus actually having something on the record, that's not really the end goal for us that we want to achieve. So figuring out how those interplay, and I don't know what There's nothing to, I mean, I would like

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to hear from an attorney. Yeah, me too. Because

[Rep. Esme Cole]: there's nothing to prosecute here. Yeah, mean, we were to get rid of it.

[Favor Ellis (Elevate Youth Services)]: I'm not sure there's a record.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, you mean if we I wanna know.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Of course. If you're saying if we were to get rid of, like, everything on page eight.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. I'm saying even if we kept it, but there's no penalty and there's no prosecution. Yeah. Is there what what is the record is my question. So you're bringing up a question, does it have a record then? Yeah. Right. And that's what

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I'm asking. Recurrent statute, yeah.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If we take out the penalty, that's what I'm asking.

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Getting back to the status quo under current law, and I'm going to look to Hannah to jump in as necessary, these are basically my traffic tickets.

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: This is

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: not a criminal prosecution. And as a general matter, your permanent record just takes me back to 80s All Rock. Thank you. I would say there's no permanent record on any of this stuff. The internet changes all of that as far as law enforcement. These really are much more like the speeding tickets. That said, and I would defer to the chair on when we want to engage some of the campaign for tobacco free kids. We have pretty compelling data around what happens when there are penalties associated with possession, purchase and use and the interaction of young people who are largely being preyed upon by a fairly, I don't think I need to oversell what Big Spectrum does in terms of the rapacious quality of its sales and marketing, especially towards youth. And so then we're looking at the kids who are responding to that being potentially within the crosshairs of some kind of enforcement action, whatever it may be, whether there's any kind of penalty associated with it, even if it's compelled community service, those are the kind of challenges that get kids caught up in a system that they are not necessarily responsible for being part of. That said, part of the reason the language I showed from my email was a lot of conversation with the advocates because I think where the AG's office sat was also discomfort around, so wait a 12 year old, my 13 year old kid could have a pack of smokes out here on State Street so where we got to a good conversation was to say, look, possession is the issue. As rep Noyes said, once you purchase, you have possession. And it's really not to allow that purchase to happen, not to allow to rev access this point like you shouldn't be furnishing your kid with tobacco, that's also a lead bond. So even if it's not a direct retail purchase, there's also it's unlawful. But if a kid has cigarettes or bakes or zits or whatever the product is, there should be some kind of requirement or permission for the adults in the room to take the product. And the policy, that's a policy question. The other policy question is, is there some kind of need for a penalty on this? And I think a lot of the research shows it's much harder to get kids into cessation and away from the product if there's a fear of them. Almost regardless of how high minded we think that penalty is, that's the challenge. So that's it. I want to wait for you to ask Jeremy so I'll over that.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: No, but I can't be optimistic.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: All right,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: one person at a time, Ray.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, so my question is, can something be illegal without a penalty?

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yes, it can be a lawful.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I guess that's a policy question for us because I would prefer for it to be illegal with no punitive penalty because then at least it kind of states our intent, then it doesn't make it seem like we're talking about both sides of our, because I think if we strike this out, a lot of people are going be like, so a 15 year old can have a carton of cigarettes and it's fine. But if we're saying it's illegal, but we don't want to further penalize these kids who are being marketed and prayed upon, then at least we're making the statement to that. So that's my preference, but I don't know what.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: trying to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: balance what I know the research shows in terms of the concept of penalties. I'm not even sure I go with the $100 civil penalty. Probably be more lenient than that. I have a hard time saying that it's not illegal for a 21 year old to possess, purchase or attempt to purchase tobacco or tobacco related products. Penalty is more directed at the ID. Right, we say that

[Christina Brown (Spectrum Youth & Family Services)]: can be very specific.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right? Yes.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: And I'm just wondering, what are other penalties for having a fake ID or trying to misrepresent yourself, your age?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let's ask the court lottery. They do the same thing in liquor.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Let me find that.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: And then the other thing is, because I understand- I've

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: been with PGH, it's a long time. I

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: understand we're trying to get away from a penalty for possession. Is there a way to use it so that those products could be taken away from the individual? It's a personal property at that And that's the other piece of what they're proposing. And that's kind

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of how we got- Confiscated. The first place is yes,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: subject to seizure. Subject to seizure. So

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yeah, take it away, but if they use the fake ID, then there's some sort of a penalty associated with a fake ID and misrepresenting who they are other than possession, which is not allowed, but separate. All right, so given the fact that it is not

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: there's no criminal record involved with this, I I'm hearing consensus around elimination in some cases and reducing penalty. And I think we should reduce what's been proposed here. And then But could I get a sense from people? I've heard some people state an opinion, and I haven't heard everybody state an opinion about what I would like to propose is that on page eight, lines five through 12 be unstruck. But there would be no penalty. There would be no fine for that. It says

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: I'll put that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then we would move to the discussion about this other proposal about fake ID.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Then Looking at page eight lines nine through 12?

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: No, I'm looking at page

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: eight lines five through 12.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Five through 12.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Substitution A1.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So think about that. Don't have to make a decision right now. Think about that, okay? Otherwise, we're just saying it's not illegal. Yeah, John, for

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: So in this same realm, but I just have circled the indigenous cultural tobacco practices. We're not looking at changing any of that, correct?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In this No, my proposal is putting that back in.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Okay, and that would just be exactly as it is now. Because that

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: was Except for sure we had-

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: We had a long time So on the floor on just making sure that someone asks, we're not changing anything than is in current practice for indigenous cultural tobacco practices.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In both cases, it will be okay. Yep, just making sure. I'm gonna have to answer that question. In both cases, yes. And it looks like Hannah might have a response.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: Procurement, obsession, and consumption penalties, a persecuting person who nominally violates any subdivisions in your age of the subsection commits a civil violation and shall be referred to the court diversion program for the purpose of enrollment in the use of substance awareness and safety program.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's a shall. And that's for alcohol. That's for alcohol. Versus. Yeah. So we're not being that script on this. We're saying- Even

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: the S. A. May.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Wonder if we use the same language.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's right. So what you're looking at is May as an alternative to the monetary or community service penalties is what you're looking at for the fake ID. Yeah. Okay, so we

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: didn't get as far as I'd hoped, but this was a good discussion. This is the meat of the bill for us, really, this whole section. I'm going to ask you to think about what I just said, reinstating lines five through 12, and then looking at what is being proposed. I forwarded it to you on April 22. That was the language that was met with the advocates and the attorney general's office. And as you heard me say already, I'm in favor of reducing that fine. Okay?

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: So, madam chair, is it either reinstating those lines five through 12 foregoing with the language including

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. No. They're separate things. Reinstating and. Mhmm.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Not

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: having a penalty for possession.

[Riley Campo]: Yep.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No penalties. Okay? Thank you, Jen. All right. Now I'm seeing a friendly face on the screen. Good afternoon.

[Riley Campo]: Thank you all.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Todd. Thank you, everyone. We're changing topics now. We're moving to forensic facilities in S-one Hundred 93. So we had two witnesses this afternoon from the perspective of people who provide services or have provided services. And with us this afternoon is Kelsey Steady. How do you say your name, Kelsey? I can't second do one. Oh, he left. Okay, now he'll come back. I know it's very warm in here. And then we have Bill Ashe, who is a former director both at Washington County and executive director at Upper Valley Services. So we're gonna have Kelsey will be back on here shortly. So, I've invited these two witnesses. As I said, these are folks who have provided this to individuals. Okay. You can just open it all the way up so it doesn't slam shut or anything. There, that's It's very warm here for people who are we're on the Okay, third so this people who have provided services to individuals who have been involved with law enforcement, who also have an intellectual or developmental disability. So Kelsey, are you with us? Kelsey? Okay. All right. You know what? We are going to start off with Bill Ash then to keep things moving. So Bill and Kelsey, hopefully you can hear us. We like to do introductions so you know who's in the room, particularly when you're appearing via Zoom. So you know it's hard to tell with those pictures who is actually here. So as you know, I'm Theresa Wood. I'm in Waterbury. I also serve Bolton, Buellscore and Huntington.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Hi, I'm Rey Garofano. I live in Essex and I also serve a portion of Essex Junction. Hi, Bill. Thanks for coming in.

[Rep. Esme Cole]: I'm Esme Cole representing Hartford.

[Rep. Zon Eastes]: Hello, I'm Zon Eastes. I live in Guildford and I also represent Vernon.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Hello, Doug Bishop. I'm one of Colchester's representatives.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Brenda Steady, East Milton, Westford.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Hi. Good afternoon. Eric Maguire, represent Maryland City.

[Amy Johnson (Vermont Care Partners)]: Amy. Amy Johnson, Vermont Care Partners.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Daniel Noyes Perry from the classroom group. Brian Meniere from Corrections and Institutions.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Welcome, Brian. And Brian, you're welcome to sit up to the table if you like. Nobody sits in that last seat.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Whatever's comfortable, sure. That's great. And Laurie. Kelsey,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: are you back with us?

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: Can you hear me now?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We can hear you.

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: Okay, good. I had to join. I don't for some reason, my computer audio isn't working, but so I joined on my phone, and I'm hoping I can pop up here. Okay. You got me on the phone, and now I'm on the video. I think I did it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So we started off by me saying, how do you pronounce your last name?

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: Stav Seth.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright. Thank you. I think you

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: get it most times. I know it looks a little hard, but it's I think you got it right. Stav Seth.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Well, thank you both for being here. As as you know, we have a bill s one ninety three that is seeking to establish a forensic facility for people, certain individuals who've been involved with the criminal justice system and seeking to do so within a correctional facility. And so we invited you here because you all have experience as either current or former designated agency folks who have served people under what we call Act two forty eight, which is a civil commitment procedure. So I'll leave it up to you. Whoever wants to go first is fine. Anybody have time commitments so that you have to be out of here a certain time?

[Bill Ashe (former Director, WCMH DD; former Executive Director, Upper Valley Services)]: No. No meeting.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, Eric. Why don't we start with Kelsey first then?

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: Okay. I've got a little slideshow to guide us here. So and I will send over the the PDF after. Let me just share my screen quickly.

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Thank you.

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: Everybody see that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We can. You might want to go to slideshow view, though. There we go.

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: Okay. So first of all, my name is Kelsey Staffseth. I'm the executive director at Northeast Kingdom Human Services for the record and also co president of Vermont Care Partners, which is the designated Specialized Service Agency Network. And so first, thank you for having me in to testify as always. Appreciate this. And, you know, especially on this important topic of a forensic facility or intensive therapeutic secure facility to provide services for, people whose intensity and acuity, requires a higher level of care. And so as a designated agency, we do provide very intensive services, sometimes very individualized and sometimes in very intensive staff heavy, and, although community based, can, support a number of folks, on act two forty eight who have committed crimes but have been deemed to be incompetent to stand trial. So the designated agency system does do well, but and sometimes, in rare instances, there are situations that rise above our ability to care for folks, and so having another opportunity for acute care is something that we are advocating for. I think it's about how and where, and I've got a few slides to take us through that. So first of all, I wanna talk about that. We are in agreement that we need specialized secure treatment options. And, you know, especially for folks with a developmental disability, we don't have that highest level of care that says a secure facility when someone is really struggling. And for us, at NKHS, do have had instances in the last couple of years where I think we could have benefited from, a specialized, treatment facility, for acute care, when the situation rises to a level of intensity where we cannot keep, the person safe, the community, or our staff. We agree with competency restoration pathways, you know, oriented around clinically appropriate services. We definitely want to center the victims in the process, making sure that there's strong communication, that victims are informed and heard through this process is incredibly important. And then we want to continue to center any services around therapeutic trauma informed approaches. And it is really important that the clinical aspect of this is set up well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Before you move on, we can't see your face anymore. So that's why I'm just Anyways, so I guess I'm interested in your thoughts on a clinical perspective, and we'll hear from Doctor. Ashe as well, but I'm interested in your thoughts about competency restoration for people who have a cognitive disability that is lifelong and is not going to benefit from a competency restoration process. And I think it's really important, Kelsey, to make sure that we're understanding what processes seem appropriate for certain populations and may be less appropriate or may be even inappropriate for other populations. Because this bill as designed, it can cover people with dementia, can cover people with brain injuries, can cover people with substance use disorders, can cover essentially anyone who is adjudicated to be incompetent to stand trial or is found not guilty by reason of insanity. So incompetent to stand trial is a much broader net that is being cast here. And I think it's really important for my committee to understand when you're making statements, if you're making statements that apply to all of those populations or only specific populations within specific subcategories of folks within that broad group of people?

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: Yeah, no, I think it's a good question. The next slide kinda speaks to that. So clinically appropriate is a broad term, and I think it's that way because some of the concerns that we have is, like, how will this be implemented? What is the definition of incompetent to stand trial? Who determines that? Those are big questions. And I think, is it a mental health, condition? Is it dementia? Is it, an IDD diagnosis? Those would, in my opinion, impact, how the, clinical and therapeutic supports are applied and would need criteria to follow through. And so I think that's one thing we're we're advocating for and one thing that we're concerned about is that is not clear. And I would also defer to experts and, that might be, you know, Bill Ash, who's here, could speak perhaps more to those details. But I think what we're advocating for is saying, like, we wanna see more details around how this would be implemented and not move forward until that is clear. And so I do think there would be potentially different criteria applied to different people based on the circumstance, diagnosis, and situation. And I think that's a big part of this process and some of the concerns that we do have. I just moved on to that next slide, but

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: saying Go ahead. Go ahead.

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: That the you you mentioned this kind of the overly broad eligibility saying, you know, the expansive definition with unclear clinical thresholds. How how do you we wanna apply this where appropriate, but how do we avoid having people get caught up in this, and who's determining and deciding what it means to be incompetent, and how is that applied to each person in each situation. So that is unclear to me and and just one place we wanna highlight in saying that's a concern we have about moving forward. And so, you know, that's tied to the pathway to get in. So not only what's the clinical definition, but what happens during that process and then after and saying having the resources to reassess those found not confident and not restorable. And so would people get stuck in the process and potentially be confined in what is being proposed as jail, for, you know, in undefined amount of time. And, the other part here saying, you know, we do have concerns about this being housed in corrections, saying that when you're doing therapeutic and clinically appropriate supports, the environment is incredibly important. And having a correctional framework that can be based on compliance, makes it hard to, have a truly therapeutic environment. And so we would be concerned about the physical infrastructure and environment that would be applied to these situations. I know it's been done in other states, but it's something that we want to highlight as saying, again, how would this be implemented? The lack of independent oversight, I think that's incredibly anyway, something that needs to be addressed. So having the state oversee the state on these things and saying, like, how do we have independence in someone to come in? I would cite Woodside as a recent example of something we're saying, like, when we can find people, we need good independent oversight, so we don't repeat, mistakes of the past. The step down pathways, we do have, in some instances, IRRs in the community where we do support people. We do have intensive supports for individuals with developmental disabilities, including act two forty eight. We you know, NKHS, but other designated agencies do support folks in act two forty eight with good success. But, again, we need to make sure that, there are good settings and supports, for step down, if people are coming out of this more intensive facility. And then just making sure that we have the workforce with, appropriately trained, well trained staff, and we need to invest in that so that the continuum is strong. And so I think things pop up and we're saying, look, here's what we need. We need a higher level of care, but we also need to have the whole system function together. And without a good strong continuum of care that's thoughtfully implemented, it weakens each individual aspect of the system that we're trying to build. And so we just wanna make sure that the upstream supports are there and that if we are moving towards a more intensive, you know, therapeutic and secure facility, that we're also thinking about the rest of the system and how we support folks after their stay. Amy and I actually testified about this two years ago, I believe. And so this is specifically for developmental disabilities in saying there was an act, and so there was work to be done to look into how do we improve care in the least restrictive setting. And then how would what would a more intensive support look like for folks with developmental disabilities? We don't think that work has been fully realized and that moving in direction where we could be incarcerating folks with developmental disabilities for unknown amounts of time or with unknown criteria is something that's very concerning to us, specifically for the DD folks. And so this is what we would like to see, which is, like, we want it to be clinically led. Yes. We need secure and intensive supports, but don't feel like the correctional, facility is therapeutic or the best option. How do we ensure that there are check ins to saying as we're working towards restoration that this is intentionally transitional and that people aren't lost in the process. We do wanna say what happens when there are non restorable conditions. Some individuals do have lifeline conditions that can't be restored, and so what happens then? We do have some pathways. Again, I mentioned act two forty eight, but that needs to be clearly rolled out. Independent oversight is key. How do we have, you know, evaluations by independent clinicians and also, with people who have no vested interest in the program to be able to assess its efficacy, and how it's treating folks. You know, how do we define how long folks are there? We need step downs. Again, I mentioned some of those options. Are they well resourced? Do they work well with this new proposed resource? How do we make sure that we have the right staff? And then we really wanna be working in partnership and leverage the expertise from Dale DMH and VDH, but it's got they've got to be participating in this process. And so we know that there is a need for this, but we're thinking that there are steps that need to be taken to make this or to make sure we fall through on this in a way that is, with the intention of being a service that's needed, but it's gotta be therapeutic, clinically led, in an environment that supports folks who are moving through the system.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. So a couple of questions. Is Northeast Kingdom Human Services currently supporting anybody on Act two forty eight status?

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: Yes. Yep. We do and have been for a while. I think we do a really good job. We do have some really intensive specific programs, and that would fall into exceptions. We do have some models where we have two to one staff, where we have specialized housing, where we have, you know, modifications to houses to protect staff, to protect the client, and protect the community. And so we work closely with Dale on a number of those things, but Northeast Kingdom does have a number of folks who we support on act two forty eight, and I think with good success. I will say that, you know, recently having conversation with our, residential director and saying that, like, two years ago, still today, we're in support of a higher level of care, and there are some instances where the needs of supports exceed our ability to do that. And that usually involves us calling law enforcement. It usually involves people being brought to the hospital. And then, unfortunately, when we see someone who is struggling this, they're usually brought back to us. And so sometimes that means adding another staff. So we have had instances where we went three to one three staff to one person for safety. But there have been instances where we've advocated strongly saying, look, the person we're supporting right now has a different status and that we need help beyond what we can currently provide. So we have had instances and have advocated before saying we need help, and that just hasn't, existed so far.

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: And I will say

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: that these instances are very rare, but I do think necessary.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And, thank you for, I think, pointing out some of the things in the bill that, you know, as the bill currently stands, definitely need some attention for sure. One of the questions I wanted to ask you is around the community support system. So on the developmental disability side, which is something we're more familiar with in this committee and orders of non hospitalization aren't under our jurisdiction, but that's never stopped me from asking a question. I'm just wondering, do you, through the Department of Mental Health, have access to resources that would enable you to provide the same kind of community residential support that you do under Act two forty eight for, I'm not saying all people under an ONH, but maybe certain particular individuals who maybe pose a particular safety risk. Do you have access to resources? Are you able to submit a proposal to DMH that can be individually funded to provide that same kind of 20 fourseven community based secure program?

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: So what we do have, we do have folks on OHs and so we do have intensive residential recovery services, which, you know, I think the IRR programs are intended to provide short term twenty four seven residential mental health supports who need a higher level of care before returning to the community. You know, this is focused on recovery. I will say that in our area, it's Eagle Eye Farm. We don't run an IRR directly. I believe some designated agencies do. We do not. And so we do work closely with them. We do provide the case management and some therapeutic services for some folks, but who have been in services for a very long time. So we do have access, but we don't have, to the best of my ability, we haven't presented specific, like, proposal for individuals to do that. We haven't personally done that. So I'm not sure. I don't think we've ever presented a proposal to DMH saying, hey. We would support this person one on one from a mental health perspective the same way we do with Dale. So I can't speak to directly to that if DMH would be open to it or not, but we don't have the same mechanisms. And the other thing that's changed is that we've been moving to a habitat of service and saying formerly CRT, now TPL 63, I believe, changes how we support folks. And so there is opportunities to provide some enhanced services if they meet certain criteria. That's revisited every six months to see if more intensive community based services like case management are able to be provided. So there are mechanisms to try and provide more intensive services, but I would not say on the same level individually as Dale does through act two forty eight.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Which which I honestly think comes to the crux of the problem and why we have this bill and why it continues to come up. So we'll be hearing from DMH tomorrow and the whole entourage from the Agency of Human Services tomorrow, which is you know, one of the I guess what I would say is one of the key issues is that when somebody is committed to the custody and care of the commissioner of Dale, there's a very different process that happens to assure community safety at the same time trying to understand why and what are the reasons why these things happened. Often, as you know, people have trauma histories of themselves and have experienced abuse themselves. And lots of times things have gone unaddressed. And then there are other times when things happen and they shouldn't have happened and there's not really a good reason. I I this is the part that we're struggling with in this committee is sort of lumping all of this into this one proposal when there's parts of the system that seem to not be at the same level as other parts of the system. So if I were to look at the milieu right now of all of the potentially covered people in this bill, the only one that has twenty four seven on an ongoing basis potentially for the rest of their lives is the folks covered under act two forty eight. And that's still with judicial review that happens on a on an annual basis. And that doesn't exist in any of those other populations that potentially are covered under this bill. So I am still trying to grapple with that in terms of this one size fits all approach to a forensic facility. But you've been very helpful in describing what some of the elements are that would need to be enhanced in the bill and what your current experiences are. So I have monopolized this. Yes. Representatives Steady. There is a big cost to s one ninety three. There is? Yes. We don't know what it is, but I can tell you it won't be cheap. Okay.

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So It's all from Steady. I have popped up.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Questions from other members of the committee? And from our visitor from corrections and institutions, you're welcome to ask any questions that

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: you might have. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All set for right this moment? Okay. All right. We're gonna move on to Doctor. Ash. Thank you, Kelsey. Bill, it's nice to see your friendly face. I can't hear you. You gotta unmute. I know you're out of practice.

[Bill Ashe (former Director, WCMH DD; former Executive Director, Upper Valley Services)]: There, yep, that a little better?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, we're good.

[Bill Ashe (former Director, WCMH DD; former Executive Director, Upper Valley Services)]: Thank you for giving me an opportunity to talk to you today. I do have some prepared thoughts that gonna provide you and then hopefully there'll be some questions that you folks would have. As prelude, I've not been able to benefit from any of the previous discussions that have happened across the state of Vermont with respect to this bill. So, I am reacting based upon reading the bill and reflecting against my own experiences in the state of Vermont. So I do thank you for the opportunity to be here. My name is Bill Ash and I am currently retired. I began my career in 1970, that dates me probably, working in an institution that served about 1,600 people all in one place. And that's roughly a third of the number of people that are served across the entire state of Vermont with developmental disabilities. So my my career started with 1,600 in one spot. So I have a whole lot of experience with with people with disabilities, living in close proximity to each other. I worked at this institution in a direct care capacity for a number of years before I was put into a position of the director of developmental disability services for the Springfield Massachusetts region, where I was involved in developing community based services for people with disabilities. I came back to Vermont in 1980 and was the program director for developmental disabilities for Washington County Mental Health. And I was in that position for twelve years through 1992, at which point I became the executive director of Upper Valley Services where I served for twenty nine years. So altogether in Vermont providing services, I provided services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including people with really significant challenges for a whole lot of reasons for a combined total of forty one years. So I'm kind of ancient in that regard, but I've seen an awful lot of changes that have happened. And back in 1980, in the 1980s, it was became clear that Vermont had a gap, a system gap, and that allowed for the civil commitment of people with developmental disabilities, but only if the person was found to be a danger to him or herself. So someone who was a danger to somebody else and was found not competent to stand trial was, there was really very few mechanisms in that individual would be released because there wasn't any other kind of a commitment process until Act two forty eight was put into place in 1987. So the act defined a process where a court could commit an individual who had engaged in criminal activity and was found not competent to stand trial to the care and custody of the Commissioner of Mental Health. And this created the mechanism that would receive appropriately designed supervision and treatment for the interest in public safety so that people, even if they did not want to participate, were now able to be compelled to be in a program that would provide them with appropriate kinds of supports. Having been in a position in Vermont to provide services to individuals both prior and subsequent to Act two forty eight, I can attest to its effectiveness in serving this particular population. In my view, Act two forty eight should make the reliance on a forensic facility for people with intellectual developmental disabilities extremely remote, if at all. The main our main intent of this bill is to focus on restoring someone to competency, thus enabling them to stand trial for the criminal charges being brought against them. For individuals with an intellectual or developmental disability, such a goal in most instances in my judgment is not viable. This is due to the characteristics of the disability itself. Someone with an intellectual or developmental disability is likely to experience challenges with cognitive functioning that affect their reasoning and problem solving ability, challenges with both receptive and expressive communication, challenges with learning and performing social and adaptive skills, challenges with decision making, challenges with generalizing skills learned across different environments and settings. These challenges for people with intellectual disabilities are lifelong. They are most often noticed in early childhood before the age of 18 and will continue throughout one's life. They will not be ameliorated over short timeframes such as are promoted in this bill. Such people, however, can be supported successfully and safely within properly structured and supervised community based programs. That has been the history in my judgment of Act two forty eight. The services and supports provided by designated and specialized agencies in Vermont under Act two forty eight are very sophisticated. These programs use a system of careful assessment of need, individually designed service structures, individually tailored supervision models and treatment components that are necessitated by the individual needs. These programs are closely monitored by the state of development, by States of Vermont Development Disabilities Program, as well as by an annual judicial review process to ensure that the need for ongoing custody and care and habilitation continues. This is, I say, a very sophisticated approach. And when I contemplate the idea of a forensic facility that is going to deal with a lot of different people, it's hard for me to get my head wrapped around how a facility is going to be able to take and individualize its services and supports, no matter how gifted the providers of those services are, to be able to take an individualized within a facility that's gonna be effective with those populations. And maybe particularly most of all, with individuals with intellectual developmental disabilities and by extension, other manifestations, which may look the same such as dementia, for example. Risk is continually assessed and reassessed in these program models. Service models will vary a lot in the amount and degree of supervision needed by the individual and his or her treatment and proper management of community risk is also done on an individual by individual basis. This may range from eyes on supervision to more intensive models that may include alarms on windows and doors, restrictions on types of environments and movements, or resorting to technology such as GPS bracelets if warranted in order to track individuals locations at all times. It has been shown to be an appropriate method of providing providing supervision that's safe within Vermont. So in summary, my opinion, the supervision and support models that have been relied upon for nearly forty years in Vermont through Act two forty eight should be the foundational model that is put in place for providing services to individuals who are in need of this type of support, irrespective of their diagnosis, because they're all individual people, they're all gonna, and grouping them together in my experience has not been productive, at least in my experience, it hasn't been productive at all. And I also am concerned that it should someone, and I think Kelsey spoke to this, IBD be placed in a forensic facility such as described, I fear it would become a lifelong place for them. Getting individuals back out of a facility like this would I think be extremely difficult. It's my opinion that the targeted population as described in the bill, which is described in the first part of it is in someone who has been charged with a crime punishable by a life sentence for people with IDD would be extremely rare, at least within the population of persons with developmental disabilities. And in my forty one years of providing services in Vermont, I was only asked on a single occasion to support someone who's met that criteria, where they had been charged with a crime that would have left them eligible for a life sentence had they been competent to stand trial. And I can tell you that that individual has been served successfully and safely in the state of Vermont for over twenty five years. So, don't have a lot of experience with the mental health populations. My experience is really primarily to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, including individuals who've had significant behavioral challenges. But I believe Vermont has a model that has been well established, that has good structure and has a lot of experience and should be the framework for anything future contemplated by the state to serve other people in my judgment. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Bill. Appreciate that. Let's talk a little bit just about the situation that you alluded to just moments ago around an individual who, full disclosure, I remember the circumstances very well. Yes. I remember you did not want to serve that person. That's true. But the purpose of a designated agency system is that is you don't get to say no. That's right. And so my recollection, at least, is at that time is that the state worked with your organization, worked to put in place the exact things that you were talking about in terms of security, as well as trying to understand the individual. I I think maybe you could speak a little bit more to the that concept of individualization, particularly around folks with developmental disabilities.

[Bill Ashe (former Director, WCMH DD; former Executive Director, Upper Valley Services)]: Sure. So within the framework for developing services for people with developmental disabilities has evolved from an individualized model irrespective of what the individual's needs are. So, this particular instance, Act two forty eight was put into effect in 1987. This request, Rod Copeland was the commissioner at the time, and he and I arm wrestled for a bit and he won. And the, so I was asked and was reinforced the idea that as a director of a designated agency, I was required to do this. So, the way this began was like in any other instance, we had to get to know this individual and understand what he was alleged to have done, understand allegedly what the triggers were for him, what kind of environment would be able to be put together that would be safe for him and for the community. What kind of considerations needed to be taken in consideration for locating that that that setting. What kind of supervision requirements would be there in order to anticipate the kind of things that he might be able to do that went to the number of staff that we needed to have in place and the kind of training that those individuals needed to have in order to be able to be successful with this individual. We needed to locate a place which we were able to do. We were able to take and put in some levels of security around doors and windows so that, it could be not only staff secure, but could be aided by some technology. It was not an inexpensive venture And but it was it but it was a successful one. I I was personally involved in that because when this individual came into service, there was no one to be with him. And we were in a situation where he needed to be supported immediately. So I actually was the one that was the first person working with him when when when that call came. So I I was able to be involved and shepherding the whole thing by getting to know the individual and putting together the supports that he was gonna need that were necessary to protect him and the community.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And what are your thoughts? Kelsey alluded to this as well that, it's kind of a We're gonna hear from the agency human services tomorrow, but they've testified in other committees that they would expect maybe three to five individuals per year might qualify. But then of course, some of those folks will stay on an ongoing basis. And so that sort of has this cumulative effect of making a larger, I can't call the program, a larger facility. And I guess, what are your thoughts around What is the likelihood of an individual who's been determined not competent to stand trial, you know, maybe pose a moderate risk to the community or public safety. And what's the likelihood of, and Kelsey, this is for you too, so you can come back on there, What's going to be the impetus for a designated or specialized service agency to act to set up a community based program if a person is essentially locked away someplace and you don't have that responsibility and knowing that it's not easy to do these community programs.

[Bill Ashe (former Director, WCMH DD; former Executive Director, Upper Valley Services)]: Well, can tell you another program that I was responsible for was the Vermont Crisis Intervention Network, which served a lot of individuals across the state. And most of those individuals didn't rise to the to the level of offense that is reflected in this statute. But it was at times difficult to get people out of the VCI and program back to another back to their home organization. It wasn't always difficult, but it was but it was more difficult than I would like to think it would have been for the amount of times that that happened. And so I think that there needs to be, and Kelsey spoke to this, he talked about there needs to be a system so that this program does not, if it's created, however it's created, it doesn't free stand someplace that it's part of a larger whole that is connected to the larger system. Because if you don't do that, I do fear that individuals will go in there and they won't have a way to get out. And, you know, I was always told that nature abhors a vacuum. And so if the bed spaces are there and there isn't a good system in place that moves people through them, then I think you're gonna get logjammed pretty quickly in a program if you're not really careful.

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: And I would add, we have had situations where people are in jail because they've committed the crime. And Dale is persistent and persuasive, and we do talk about the pain points of not being able to say no. You know, I think there's pros and cons that we won't need to get into, but having a system that isn't able to say no and saying you must and we will work with you, is important actually to the community based system, in my opinion. And having the resources to be able to do that, you know, I think we're starting to touch on the new model of payment reform and conflict of interest. But prior to that, we did have, processes where we work closely with Dale, and they did develop exception processes and worked with us specifically to develop individualized programs. So I do think that is something that we wanna continue to work with Dale, that we want the least restrictive placement possible, which is always the community if we can do it. And that if we're going to do that well, what we always press stay on is saying we need the resources to provide those services safely and adequately in a community based setting, which in some instances means paying salaries to specially trained staff well above what normal compensation looks like. So there are resources that can be dedicated and have, and I think we have examples of those, But that needs to continue to be part of the continuum of care and philosophy and commitment from Dale is to work with designated agencies who have no reject built into the services to be able to build what is necessary for some of these rare cases in the community because we don't wanna see people get lost in the system either.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Questions from other committee members or visiting committee members? Alright. I think I think you've answered a lot of folks' questions around this particular group of folks and potential impact of this bill and or this proposed bill. And I appreciate you both being here this afternoon and appreciate your willingness to talk about the challenges, but also about the possibilities and about the long term success of supporting people with challenging reputations and behaviors that have caused problems for other people, both in terms of safety for themselves and for the community and the success that has happened in the system to date around that. And so we continually sort of come up with this when we're considering legislation, what is the problem that we are trying to solve? And I think that that answer is maybe different depending upon who we ask. And I think that is important and we're going to have to deal with those differences of perception. But I think we can do that in a way that doesn't negate the positive things that have happened over the last forty years for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities who have been involved in the criminal justice system. So thank you both so much for being here this afternoon. And I feel it's pretty warm here in Vermont today, but probably not as warm as it is in Florida.

[Bill Ashe (former Director, WCMH DD; former Executive Director, Upper Valley Services)]: No, it's about 85 here today. Oh yeah,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you can you can keep that.

[Bill Ashe (former Director, WCMH DD; former Executive Director, Upper Valley Services)]: Someone has to do it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I know. Right? Alrighty. Thank you both for being here this afternoon.

[Kelsey Stavseth (Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Human Services)]: Yeah. Thank Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Bye bye. Alrighty.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Bye bye. Okay. So committee members, that is our testimony for this afternoon. We are going to continue to take up this bill. We'll be hearing from the agency of human services, all of the commissioners involved with this process for a good chunk of the morning, pretty much all the morning tomorrow. So just an adjustment to the agenda, we're starting at 09:15 tomorrow. Oh, thank you. Okay? We needed I needed to make an adjustment. So 09:15 tomorrow. And people will be in and out between here and judiciary because they're taking testimony at the same time we are on the same bill. So so we'll we'll have folks in here. So it's it's important to think about I'm just encouraging you to think about civil rights protections involved with this. There's constitutionality involved with this. There's resource allocation involved with this. And if we're going to invest resources, where are we going to invest those resources? We had a previous act, Kelsey pointed out. We have not received a proposal under that act yet. And that was two years ago. So we were expected to receive it back last year and not received that as far as I can recollect or we can find. So there's lots of questions to ask about this and to consider. You saw just want to make sure that you read your email. You saw the corrections and institutions' initial thoughts about where they're going with this in terms of feedback to the judiciary committee. And we will hopefully, by the end of this week, have something similar, or I don't know if it'd be what they said, but it'll be along that lines. We'll be having recommendations to the judiciary committee for language on the bill. And so anybody have any questions about that? Tomorrow, we're gonna hear from all the AHS folks, and we are also going to hear from legal aid. And we are going to hear from the co chair of the State Program Standing Committee, which is the statewide advisory committee appointed by the governor for developmental disability services. So the co chair is going be coming here. They have already forwarded to us their official position, but I wanted her to appear here to answer any questions. So I forwarded that to you all a couple of weeks ago. And then we are going to have committee discussion and potential language development after floor tomorrow. Okay?

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Yeah. Will we have the fiscal note?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, there's not gonna be a fiscal there's Fiscal notes are only developed after a bill is passed. So but this is something that doesn't exist. It would

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: be a whole building like red clover like that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. And those are questions, we we should ask the agency tomorrow. Yeah, that's what I wanted.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: Why do we ask that? Because red clover costs 8,000,000 or whatever for four kids. Tomorrow. Thanks. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we can ask them that very thing. Okay. Anybody have any questions about where we're gonna do this? Yeah. Go ahead,

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Brian.

[Brian [last name unclear] (House Corrections & Institutions)]: One just to say, think you probably know this if you've spoken with the other chairs that either Connor, Casey, or I will probably be up here hanging out tomorrow or taking turns. The other one was a question whether you've had the new ish commissioner of corrections in and if you've spoken specifically about this.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: He's coming tomorrow.

[Todd Daniels (Vermont Attorney General’s Office)]: Yep.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's all I know. Okay. I don't know exactly what he's gonna say, but up and then I understand he said, yeah, we can do this downstairs in your committee. That's the impression that I had at least.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: He said he could do it.

[Brian [last name unclear] (House Corrections & Institutions)]: He says that by providing therapy that makes it therapeutic, he said it could be Genpas. He said it could be a wing. It could be whatever he wants.

[Rep. Brenda Steady]: He pays for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: well. Somebody's

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: banned Yeah, by that

[Jen Carbee (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: but not the rule, right here. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Gen pop is short language for general population.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Very, yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Included in the general population, which is

[Brian [last name unclear] (House Corrections & Institutions)]: You might do whatever you like.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They're very accommodating.

[Brian [last name unclear] (House Corrections & Institutions)]: We'll see if that has evolved.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, we'll see if that's evolved. Yeah. And on the flip side, I can't tell you how many times I have sat and joined justice oversight and heard about the staffing problems in correctional facilities.

[Rep. Eric Maguire]: Yes. Is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: there? Yeah, there it is. Somewhere I heard it today. And one might say, if you have room in correctional facilities, why aren't you bringing the people from out of state? Oh, I don't know.

[Rep. Doug Bishop]: Those are great customers. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So we're gonna hear from all the commissioners tomorrow, and we're gonna hear at least she's been invited. I don't know if she has confirmed. Yes. Jay Johnson, which is the governor's attorney.