Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Good morning, everyone. Good morning, everyone. Thank This time of year is crazy on schedule. So we were going to at 9AM to get a potential vote looking at the last latest draft of S-one 198. Pledge counsel is tied up in another committee. So we're not gonna do that right now, but watch our agenda because we want to do it today. So at this point in time, we're gonna move to our second agenda item, which is the high end services for youth. And I wanna provide a little background about a couple of reasons why we're doing this now. One of the reasons is, as you might recall, in the House passed budget and in the language that is in the Senate passed budget, there is language essentially saying that we need more information before you can continue with this process. That's kind of the long and short of it. As people know, and this is under the what would Anne do sign we have here. As people know, we've been asking and been getting updates. We haven't really had an update on the so called campus or facility and that development. I know that downstairs in corrections and institutions, they have been also working with the Department of Buildings and General Services who's Are you BGS? No, you're not BGS. Who's not here, but she was coming. And she's not online, right? No, okay. And department has expressed concern about that language because they feel like they don't want to slow up the process any further and they want to be able to continue. So our chief concern has been the ongoing Hi, I just was referencing you Wanda, come on in. Our chief concern with this is twofold. One, trying to understand what we are committing ourselves to in the way of operating costs for the future. And we all received a letter from the deputy secretary trying to provide us with, I think, what she thought was the information we needed. It was not. And the Corrections and Institutions Committee also has been trying to get this same information. So we want to know on an ongoing basis, and this particularly came up in light of the extreme cost of the program down in the Help me, Eric, I can't remember the name of it.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: West Haven.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: West River Haven, yeah. The extreme high cost of West River Haven took us back. And frankly, we can't afford a similarly costed program for more kids. And I realize the more kids you have, generally the cost comes down. But we really have yet to receive any kind of definitive information about what an estimated annual budget would be for a new facility. Just refresh your memories. We received information that's saying, well, we think that some of the costs will be offset by the kids that we won't have to place out of state. They'll be able to come back, but nothing definitive. The other thing is that you might recall back, I don't know how many presentations ago, but the department provided information on sort of where we were with licensed residential beds prior to COVID and where we are now. And there's a significant difference in, not in the licensed capacity, but in the staffing capacity for those beds. And so we wanted an update on what has been the department's efforts to increase the possibility of looking at those licensed beds that we already have and what kind of incentives that they or what kind of work have they done with providers to increase their ability to increase the capacity at those places. So that we can have a better understanding of what it is that we need as a system as a whole. And I don't need to repeat the testimony we received from the Ops Child Youth and Family Advocate who have expressed concern about building a new facility. So I just wanted to sort of set the ground for that. And that is the reason that corrections and institutions included language in the capital bill, and we included language in the budget. And we are now evaluating whether we can soften that language some and allow that process to continue and with check ins and with additional information. So I just wanted people, I just wanted us all to be on the same, have the same understanding of why we're here today. And with that, I'll invite, yes. We're

[Emily Hawes (Commissioner, Department of Mental Health)]: go first.

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: We're gonna

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: go first? Okay. Well, it's a good thing you arrived then. No, you were right. I apologize. It wasn't nine, we changed it to 09:15 and then Jen Carvey wasn't able to be here. And so we started at 09:10. So you're all good. My apologies. So you've had a chance to catch your breath a little bit. No elevators. Everybody's doing the stairs and getting their steps in. So welcome. Thank you. And I apologize, but at this time of year, there's multiple things from the House being acted on in the Senate in September. I need to testify down in Senate Health and Welfare at 10:15. So if I get up and leave and you're all still talking, it's not because of anything you said.

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: So good morning. I'm London Manoille. I'm the Commissioner of Buildings and General Services. It's an honor to be here. Madam Chair, I really appreciate the summary that you just provided to your members. I think that we I know that there are several questions that talk about high end system and policy that you're going to engage in with AHS, but BGS is here because we are a partner with specifically what is referenced to as the Green Mountain Youth Facility. I will tell you I'm having really bad allergy problems, so I apologize. I also would like to just take a moment and have my deputy introduce herself. Thank you. And I will say to Emily and I tag team, we both sometimes we focus on areas within a project in different areas. So, everyone, I will refer to her at points in times. I just want to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: make sure that if she

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: wants to consider that. She

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: can join me. Absolutely.

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: What it was. Did I Where'd she go? You think we'll both bid him?

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: That's the worst we were closely. So,

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: excuse me, I think it's really important for the committee to know in the summary, and and we understand why you were cons why you've considered this language. Buildings and general services, our committee of jurisdiction is house corrections and institutions and senate institutions. Representative Emmons had shared with us right at the end as they were finishing up the capital bill that they were going to mirror the language that you put into the big bill. And we had not had an opportunity to really discuss it with the committee, and I had we had some concerns, BGS. So the language that you talk about, and I just wanna refer to a couple of section. You talk about August through December 26, that there'll have to be reports to the joint fiscal committee and the oversight. And then it talks about the 41 bed system. And basically, with satisfaction, the Joint Fiscal Committee and the chairs of the House and the Senate committees, will get approval to resume expenditures on the Green Mountain Youth Campus review and design. So first of all, I don't know what the focus of those reports would be, and I think that's something that maybe clarity would be helpful, but this language came after a very long process, And that's what I'm here to talk about too, because this language and is really potentially putting a stop, a no further movement on on a project that we've been working on as a state for several years. And so I believe we are our third time working on designing a design, build, lease property for this facility. And I will tell you that, I think it was Newbury was the first location. I wasn't around for that. I came in at the end when we were looking at Virgin's property, the land that we own. And now we are working with a developer. I cannot disclose today where that property is, but I can give you a lot of as much information as possible because I have not signed a contract with them. And when we go through an RFP, everything is confidential until we get to the end. I am ready to sign a contract. We are ready to move forward, but that contract is an obligation. It's an obligation to a Vermont business. It's an obligation to a developer. And so when you sign it, there has to be a method in which you pay. Hence, comes back to the language where there's restrictions. But for the committee, I think it's important, I just want to summarize that we had the original agreement with Virgins. We ended that in September '25. We went back out to bid for a new build to lease property in October '25. We opened the bids in November. We did some evaluations. We looked. We asked clarity.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Bids did you receive? We received

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: one. One. We received one bid. Sorry. Two. It was two. I'm sorry. I almost pooped. There weren't yes. There was we should probably confirm that since I said one, and I looked at her, but we know it was not more than two. And then I signed a letter of intent in January with the developer after the evaluation. What that letter of intent says, in good faith, the state is going to enter into a contract with you. We are going to work towards getting this building designed. So what's important is that this building has been designed for a very long time and what we needed to do, we provided it in the IRP, we had to say, how does it fit on the land? What are the conditions? What are the issues? What are the estimated costs? Can we reduce it? What is it going to look like? What is it going to feel like? So we've been engaged in that work in good faith since January with them. Then and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: if you something to say. Go for it.

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: Yeah. So I just add some context for members who might not have the full history. But some of why we're on our third attempt with this project is due to really zoning and location challenges. So that was the issue in Virginia and Newbury before it. And so again, like commissioner said, this has been an effort for years to find suitable location. So from our understanding of BGS, the path and the project wasn't in question. The need for it wasn't in question. It was really our ability to find a place that was suitable for it. And so again, that's why we tried again on this path this past fall. And just want to say, we are in really good shape where, like the commissioner said, working with a really strong developer. We're very optimistic that we have found a location that will work, that we'll be able to build on. And we are really all hands on deck working with our partners at DCF, AHS, and the developer team to really make sure that we're looking at a design that will work, that meets the goals of being a therapeutic setting, all of the above. And so I think it's just important to emphasize our optimism of where we are and then really underscore why

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: this language would pose a threat to our ability to keep moving forward in the timeline that we're hoping to move forward in. Sure, we appreciate that. And the language is not intended as any kind of statement about the work that BGS has been doing. And your customer is the Department for Children and Families, and you've been proceeding along the lines of your customers. So it really doesn't have anything to do with that. The question started, as I said earlier, started arising for us when we started to look at the cost of running these facilities and not only costs, but there are mixed opinions about the best therapeutic location. I don't mean location in terms of, are we in Central Vermont or Chittenden County or wherever, I mean the best therapeutic setting. And that coupled with the cost started to give us a little wet feet. We started to think about what are we committing ourselves to in the future by just automatically proceeding as though nothing has changed. I think that that is I just want to be clear that this really didn't have anything to do with the work that you were doing or satisfaction with that work or any of that. I know you've kind of for folks who have been at the department through both of those, Newberry and then Virgin's and then trying this third spot, wherever that might be. I think that is I just wanted to be clear about that for your staff. And I think questions that we have, for instance, that sort of halted us in those other two projects are, zoning, as you mentioned, commissioner, public opinion in terms of location. And those are questions that I guess we would have probably on the zoning side for you on the public work, what has been done, what is intended to be done. Because once we commit ourselves to something, I'm sure that there's ways to get out of a contract, but it's not easy and it costs money. And we've already invested a lot of money in two failed attempts. And so I hope you can understand us being cautious about how

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: we're moving forward. So Madam Chair, and I absolutely understand you know, why you're being cautious. Again, you know, coming in and reevaluating why did things not move forward. So I as commissioner, I came in and and on the list of to do, this has been a our impression, this has been a priority. And so, you know, we reevaluated what worked, what didn't work, what should we look at, and we were very conscious of that when we put the RFP together. And and I think and and so also, like, BGS holds the contract. We're moving forward in good faith, moving forward with this. We're responsible for the leases, etcetera. I don't need to get into all of that. But, you know, looking at one of the lessons learned was around the zoning and around the permitting. And and for some reason, we, BGS, attempted, we would be the lead on that. I'm using that as an example. So, we were very clear in the RFP. The developer, the property owner, are going to be the lead on this. The it's in their community. This land sits in their community. They're probably members in that community. They're gonna we'll be at the table with them, but they know what they need to do and what they need to get accomplished to get that land permitted for the building. And that's really paid off dividends. I just want to say

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is it an acceptable use of the land? Or is it I'm understanding it

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: is an acceptable use. Go

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: ahead. It's an obligation of the developer, and that was part of the RFP that the developer responsible during that it's an allowable use and for handling the permitting process. And the developer is confident that it is, and we don't have any red flags about that at this point. So again, we're very optimistic that we've found a site that will work.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We went through something similar in my community for a different project. But when you said that it's up to the developer, I guess my question is very specifically, does there have to be zoning changes? Or are you confident that there's no zoning changes required?

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: At this time, the developer believes, and we don't have a question, that it is an allowable use in the current locations. So no zoning changes. So I

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: think what's really important for the members to understand, we're working again under the letter of intent, which is the step towards signing the contract. We have not publicly gone before the community, and they have not filed their formal the the formal documents because we've been focused on what does the bill can the building that was designed originally, how does it fit, what do we wanna change, are all of the programs and services there that DCF wants to be provided, what's the entrance, what are you know, Are there any roadblocks? Right now, knock on wood, we have not run into anything. It's been more about size, scope, making some decisions in those areas. We have a a question from representative Steady.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I guess I'm confused. Is this a project that the monies are already in the 2027 budget? Or I'm confused. Where is the money coming from for this project?

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: So this is a built to suit lease. So there is some funding through the capital bill to fund some of that design work. And that's that contract that the commissioner was talking about that we're really ready to sign that would fund the basically architecture and engineering services to get us between now and when we would be signing a lease. So the cost of the lease would really come out of operating budget. So there's not an existing appropriation aside again from that funding for the design contract in this interim period. There would be operating costs in addition to the lease that DCF can speak to, but the lease itself, again, would come out of operating budget.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So you already have the operating budget. You aren't looking for more money, right?

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: It would be future budget need.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Boy, that's scary. Okay. As a representative of the taxpayers, I'm very disappointed. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Representative Steady, that's why we're having this meeting so we can understand better what the future costs would be before we proceed. Okay, so continue. Thank you.

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: I think at this point, maybe are there more specific questions you have? Because I feel like we've highlighted, but you know, and I'll sit here again. This process is very fluid that we're going through. If everything were to line up, there's potential to have a facility in of two and a half years. Because, again, we're not building it. There's a developer who owns the land, who works with and and I know you're familiar with this just from your own community, representative Wood. It's we've got a very aggressive schedule. And and like I said, it is working very, very well. And I with the language so while we move forward with all of these actions and activities, all of a sudden to stop, we'll extend the time, we'll increase the cost, and we could lose the developer potentially. I mean, there's always that risk. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Other questions for DGS? Go ahead, representative.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Referring to something we have in our list of documents today, April 10 April 10 memo. So you have it there in front of you. So that seems to represent what the ongoing operating costs would be. Is that correct? And that includes the lease that you just referring to?

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: Yes. And our estimates. So that's the estimate of the combined operating cost and lease cost.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: The operating lease costs combined there. And is there a figure you could share anything that's regarding the current budgeted amount for the design phase of this?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: So there's money in the capital bill. There's and I think it's important the the money that's in the capital bill or the authority not to spend of the bulk of the cost of this will be rolled into the lease, but there's some prep work that's up front that it's 1,300,000 roughly to get it to the place of signing a contract, a design, a lease to build contract.

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: I can't even talk The architecture and engineering services. And it's right now in the current capital bill, there's 7 And 50

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: then there was a 300,000.

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: Yeah. In a prior Yeah.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: A final question. Looking at that line for the operating expense, which say include the lease payments, it's an estimate, but it's flat over the three fiscal years once it's up and running in '29. It's at 9,000,000 in '29, 9,000,000 in say fiscal year '30 9,000,000. We anticipate with respect to the lease side of things, you may not be in control of all the other operating expenses that it would be a flat cost for the lease in the first three years?

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: No, the lease will

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: have a

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: standard escalator annual based on CPI. So, and again, I think that that's, I'll let DCF speak to that estimate and how that might reflect other operating costs in addition to the lease. But I want to just emphasize that's, I think, a rough estimate at this point in time and that there would be more clarity in how that would escalate. But the lease itself, yes, would have an escalator. Which is normal. Yeah, it will have

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: a pause. Right. And nothing that

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: would be.

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: One of the things with the current lease so they've given us the everything in in this lease plan where, you know, snow plowing, shoveling, multiple things, we still haven't worked out who's doing what and who's responsible for what. Our goal right now is to ensure that there are enough beds that we've been asked to design, that there's future growth, that it's a sustainable building, that it's efficient, multiple things, and that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's common form design.

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: That's right. And that on the and on the design and on the operating, you know, that we really look at every one of those elements, who should do what, what is needed. So in the RFP, they gave us everything, and we've been just working back expanding, contracting, expanding, contracting, and who's really going to be doing what. And those will be the numbers that we finalize on the lease. Heat included. It's an all inclusive lease basically. And what do we want to buy? What do we want to provide? We have not gone through that exercise.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Thank you.

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: And I

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: do just want to offer correction. For the record, there was one bid in this most recent RFP process in the fall. Was getting confused from the multiple attempts, but this most recent it was one.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It was one. Thank you. Which I think probably is one of the things I I appreciate that you having a good working relationship with with the potential bidder here. I I one of the reasons that I think the cost is so high at at West River. South the right. Okay. West River Haven because we had one bidder. And so it's an interesting time we're living in. It's all reflected. Reps, don't know if you have a question.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I don't know about bidding and construction that much, obviously, but is it common to just have one

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: bidder? I mean, for a specialized project like this, right, there can be a limited universe of companies that can do this particular type of work and then also just timing, like schedules may be full, there might be other work going on. So like the commissioner just reflected right now, it's not that unusual. In previous attempts on this particular project, there were other bidders in the mix who didn't come back for this third attempt. That might also reflect if we had to try again, we might see

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We weren't offering property at this. Just going

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: to adjust to it. Had so I think what's unique about this is that we're asking them to use their property to design the building, to build what we want, and to lease back to us. And so a lot you know, there's not a lot of businesses in Vermont that do that. And then we have and it needs to be, you know, so many acres and, you know, all of these other restrictions. So getting one bidder and to your point, we the Virgins, we were using state land. So we had more developers come in and say, you know, and bid on that project. And so with this case, it's it's limited. But we are seeing you know, we are not seeing the just in general, in our world of buildings and general services, we are not, you know, I remember days when we would get 10 or 12 bids. We're not seeing that anymore.

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: Especially for the larger projects and more specialized projects.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, thank you both for being here and I appreciate the work that you put into this and we will continue to work. So you can leave that there. I suspect there might be more than one person who might be coming up. I'm not sure, but if there is. Welcome, we'd love to hear from the department now with updates. I see we have a slide deck from Erica on our website. Welcome.

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: Good morning, everyone. Morning. For the record, I'm Erica Ratke, Deputy Commissioner of Family Service Division. And I'm Sandy Hoffman, Commissioner.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I see you have some information to share with us. Are you going to put it up on the screen or what's going to happen?

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: If I may, we submitted two sets of

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: data to support an opening statement. And again, we're prudent to

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: start there

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: and just be able to outline that and then answer some questions.

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: Okay. So what I wanted to do is just a brief opening statement to sort of give an update on the status of the high end system of care. And before I do that, I should also say with us today is Heather McLean, Director of Revenue Enhancement, Hannah Marble, who is our director of legislative affairs and communications. And on the screen is Tyler Allen, our director of PIANTS System of Care. And I know that she has some specific questions, so I'm going to breeze through this pretty quickly because I think that that's really where we should focus on. But one thing I did want to point out is when we're talking about the high end system of care, it's part of a broader sustained commitment to our kids in a continuum of need. So it goes from issues in terms of early intervention and family support up to the most complex case requiring really intensive services. And so when we talk about needing a facility like the Green Mountain Youth Facility, we're talking about then youth with the most highest acute needs, you know, behavior as well as mental health, and that they may and they tend to be justice involved or they are justice involved. So when we talk about the need of this facility, I want to point out that Vermont is the only state in the union that does not have a permanent facility for high end youth that are justice involved in having these types of concerns. And that was really the main point for us in talking about why we were concerned about the language in the bill, because that language really would prevent us from moving forward with the need that's it's critical for us to have this type of facility in our community. I wanna back up a bit and talk about we've been I know when I've been talking to legislators and they talk a lot about what about our commitment to prevention, because this is a lot of money. And what about, you know, making sure we're not focusing on the highest area of need? We have kids that have all types of needs. And I want to just really emphasize to the committee that we do have a focus on prevention as well. And what I want to talk about is the data. The data does indicate that we have fewer kids in custody now, significantly fewer than we had in like 2016. And I think that's because of our commitment to doing preventative services. So and also in terms of talking about kids in residential care, it's significantly less. I believe the numbers are we had in residential care 95. 95. 2025. So that's about a 40% reduction. So I don't want it to appear that it's sort of a prevention versus high end care. It's really a continuum for us. And when you're talking about numbers so low in custody, you're talking about those kids with the most acute needs that we may need these types of services for. So, but, and that's really basically our outline in terms of why we think it's important to have that language removed. I do wanna turn it over, though, to Heather because I know he asked a specific question about numbers and that there was a concern about the cost for particularly, like, West River Haven, and I'm hoping that she might be able to break down where the cost came.

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: Further after, Doctor. McClain, Director of the Lightning

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry, Heather, to interrupt, just before we move to the, I think it's an interesting title, revenue enhancement.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It seems out of place in DC. I don't know. Tax department or something, I don't know.

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're looking at 14 beds as a percentage of how many do you view. So when I look at the overall system, and as you pointed out, it is good to see fewer folks in residential care if we're meeting their needs in other ways, or if there are fewer people presenting as having those needs. So when we see 14 out of how many, so what are we looking at in terms of the total number of residential bed capacity that we need, and then many at each level. We've been focusing in on the high end in terms of crisis stabilization and treatment. But there are kids and youth in other levels. And so I'm just trying to get a more comprehensive picture of what the total system looks like and what proportion of that total system of residential care is being met by or is being proposed to be met by this facility. And I do also want to note that everybody is getting kudos for using facility and not campus. I know that you're doing that on purpose. So I appreciate that very much. Okay. So do you have that kind of information, Deputy Commissioner?

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: I'm going to start with generally ten percent of our kids overall tend to be in residential care and that's in state and out of state. But I'm going to turn to Tyler Allen to see whether he has the more granular detail.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And if there's something I can point us to on your website, I know in past years you've provided sort of a broader look at residential beds and where we were pre COVID and post COVID and where we are in terms of license capacity versus actual capacity and things like that. And that helps us to evaluate about future costs and where we need to go.

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: For the record, my name is Tyler Allen. I'm the High End System of Care Director with the Family Services Division. I do have an Excel spreadsheet that kind of speaks to exactly what you're referring to and what we've submitted before, pre pandemic versus post pandemic capacity, actual capacity versus licensed capacity. We did that exercise at the February. I'd be happy to prepare that and send that over to the committee so that you have a record of the whole residential system of care, but on that right now, what we have is an actual capacity of 115 beds across the state. Our pre pandemic numbers were 196. So at one point, it was questioned whether or not that was a useful comparison anymore because the landscape has changed somewhat since that time. We do have less youth in care. What I think we see is that those high acuity youth that need residential care is a more stable number than the number of youth that are in DCF's custody at large, because prevention services and those initiatives and efforts have been helpful to reduce custody cases, but those kids with intensive needs remains more stable. So I think the question starts becoming, is the system of care that we have available to us sufficient? And in some places, yes. And in other places, no, I would say. And so that's why we've had an emphasis on what we call the the crisis stabilization in ION system of care. So our our plan for the past few years has been to push forward, A, the West River Haven program, which expands our non secure crisis stabilization network, and then B, of course, the secure facilities stepping up from our temporary four bed solution into a 14 bed solution.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And so, it would be helpful if you wouldn't mind, you know, whatever form that you wanna send that information over to us in, that would be greatly appreciated.

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: But overall we have 81 less beds in Vermont's residential system of care, and that is for both DMH and DCF programs in Vermont, and both DMH and DCF utilize out of state programming as well. DCF, it's been historically roughly half and half in state versus out of state, maybe a little bit more out of state than in state. So part of why we submitted our forecast forward that emphasizes a reduction in out of state expenses is our estimates on if we were to be able to serve youth in these levels of care, including PRTF and the Green Mountain Youth Facility, particularly the treatment portion of that program, those are direct costs that we could assume that we would recoup.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so I guess I'll ask deputy commissioner. The numbers you provide in those two charts in terms of the number of residential placements, it says Vermont at the top. Does that not include the out of state placements?

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: That does not include the correct file.

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: If you could say what those numbers are, I don't have the chart in front

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of me. 95. 95.

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: If they are DCF alone, that would be including out of state placement.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Thank you.

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: So it is both. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And how many youth do we have out of state?

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: I'll need a moment to pull that up.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Thanks for was that.

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: Yeah. He was saying it

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: was approximately 50. Right. I'm just wanting to be more precise. Any other questions on what we have in terms of current capacity? And I guess one question more that I have. Do you feel like at 115, not counting the, I guess, the high end that we're talking about, that you have sufficient residential capacity for the sort of trends that you're seeing in terms of youth in custody?

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: It's not only no, because it's not only just the number of beds. Some of the kids are presenting specific needs that we just don't have, we're not able to serve in Vermont. So it's not just the number, it's also the specialization. And that's where we find ourselves sometimes having to send kids out of state, even though we would prefer to send them in. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so I guess that's my real question, Deputy Commissioner, because I was hesitant in the deputy secretary's memo to really buy into that there'd be $21,000,000 quote unquote savings and out of state placements that would then be applied to the cost of this program. Because of exactly what you just said, even with the treatment and stabilization that would be offered in this program, it is likely not to be all inclusive of the specialty services that some of our youth may need and we may need to purchase from other states.

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: Some, but then there are other kids that we know could be served here, particularly in the types of programs that we're setting up with your general stabilization or your not particularized treatment, but treatment that we can tend to expect for behavioral issues that the majority of the kids serve. So yes, there'll be some outliers where we just don't have the scale to have that kind of treatment, but then there are others that we would anticipate being able to move back. That's sort of the way Director Allen mentioned bringing kids back, specifically those in the treatment side. So there are, I do expect us to be able to have some savings and also there would be additional savings, not necessarily bringing kids back, but the fact that we will be closing like red clover is another thing that will bring down some of the costs. And I do want to point out, when we talk about West River Haven, the cost is high, and there is that whole issue of if that was the only person willing to do the work for us. But one of the issues is it's a smaller scale program. They don't have this ease of ability to let, you know, kick kids out. Expect them to take the kids we want them to. With that comes higher staffing and also higher risk, which then turns into being a higher cost for us. I'm sure Tyler would be able to speak more to that as well.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: He's got his hand up. I'm gonna ask a question while I remember it. So if 21,000,000 is the expected savings by offsetting the returning or not utilizing out of state placements. What right now is the total spend on out of state placements? How much does that 21,000,000 represent? Is it half? Is it three quarters?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Can I ask that question a little differently? Would you be able to give us the details of how you got to that 21,000,000? How many kids will stay out of state because they will still continue to need the special? I mean, you've got to 21,000,000, you should have the details of what that means.

[Sandy Hoffman (Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: And it's really important to note that it's hard to predict who's going to have to go out of state. The specialized needs are so specific to the kids, and that one child, it may be a million dollars for the program. So it's really hard to predict. The goal would be to bring as many home as we could. We want the children to be in Vermont. So it's hard to predict. I don't know if Heather could answer the question about the cost for out of state versus Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I have no idea about how to measure. Is 21000070% or 50% of what you're spending to give us an estimate of how likely is it that you'd be able to actually achieve that?

[Sandy Hoffman (Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: I think you have to consider that some of the program is so specialized, you may or may not need that moving forward.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It was our best. Okay. No, I get that. Understand there's some highly sexualized youth and we might not have that specialization here. Combination There's between mental health and other issues that kids have. Understand that. I do understand that. It's very nuanced. Yeah, it is. And each child, each youth represents one particular case and one particular set of circumstances that the next person is not going to match. So yeah, we get that.

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: Can I just say one thing?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Excuse me, just a minute. I have to wait to be called on, please. We're just trying because we have three people who wanna talk right now. And I'm going to defer to representative Noyes first. Just real quick, 10% of the population is out

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: of state. Is that what you said? Yes. Okay, thank you.

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: Roughly. Yeah,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know it varies,

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: but I just, so that puts it in perspective. Thank

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: you. Sure. Sorry.

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: Actually, it's ten percent are in residential treatment. They may be in Vermont or they may be out

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: of state. Oh, okay. Of our total kids in custody. And that's the money that you're talking about here?

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: No, because that's only out of state kids. So I'm saying it's ten percent of our population in residential treatment could be in residential here or elsewhere.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A little bit higher than ten percent because you have ninety five according to this data, you had seven sixty eight in custody. So what percentage is out of state?

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: I can answer that question. We currently have ninety two youth in residential care, fifty three of them are out of state.

[Emily Hawes (Commissioner, Department of Mental Health)]: Thank you.

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: You're welcome.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, that then now we're gonna I'm sorry, I forgot your name. Heather, thank you. Heather.

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: I just wanted to note that the number Yes, and that number is higher. So just so we're this isn't only representative of the DCF side of the stadiums.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, that's helpful to understand. I'm looking at the number of 53 out of state right now and looking at a facility that will have 14 beds. And I'm just wondering how that $21,000,000 gets achieved. Go ahead, Tyler.

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: So the 21 so I thank you. Heather's point is a very good one that we've kind of grouped together all of the kids reflective of the 41 programs that we've described in the high end system of care in our analysis of savings there. But if we're looking really at this facility, the 14 beds that we're talking about, the last time we looked, and I think this is still accurate, of the ninety two kids, fifty three are out of state, of those fifty three, nine of them are placed in a PRTF level of care that serves individuals with intensive behavioral needs. And so that's the population that would be served by the treatment portion of the Green Mountain Youth Facility. And so if we're trying to get a sense of why we planted the numbers where we planted, it's not always nine out of state for those reasons, and some of those youth in a residential treatment program out of state might be better served still in an out of state residential, but we can fairly assume that we would populate all six beds in the treatment component of a Green Mountain youth facility. And then we, you know, when we came to that number of $9,000,000 annually as an expected cost, I think it was already shared that that's shared between the operator's cost, our estimation of what an operator's cost is, and our lease rate and all the facility costs, those things combined. The reason that number is so kind of neutral, set at 9,000,000 ongoing, is because those aren't pinned down things yet. The operator, the number of staff they'll have to hire is dependent to some degree on the facility design and how that can. So we're really working on trying to get the number of overall staff served in this program down to under 50. And if we can get that number in about 50 total operating staff combined with what we expect would be a proportional cost on the building and all those designs, $9,000,000 was an estimate of where we came to. That's how we came to that conclusion. It is a ballpark, but it is to really try to have the committee have a better sense of this is where it will be. And each iterative step of the process is we can get concrete numbers from an operator, and it is the same operator we're talking to now who's operating in Red Clover, as we can get more concrete numbers around what staffing would actually look about, that number can be more specified, but this is just to kind of get us in the arena.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so thank you for that information. Let's just say you were able to return seven of the nine who are in PRTF outside of the state right now. I'm trying to figure out so are you telling me that I don't know how many was estimated in this 21,000,000 as being returned. So I guess I'm trying to get a handle on it sounds like maybe what you're telling me is the cost is someplace between 2 and $3,000,000 per person.

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: What we did to determine the cost savings was to say, what is the average cost of youth in a PRTF level of care out of state? And then we took that same number, and we we fact and we averaged it and said that would be the savings if six of those kids at any given time for the course of the year were not going out of state because they were served in state by this program. This would be the number of savings from not sending those same kids out. So all those projections are based on averages of costs to out of state programs currently. Balanced again, the anticipated budget, which we factored in lease cost plus what we anticipate an operational cost might be.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yep. Go ahead, Doug.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: And follow along with the numbers, and to be honest, some of the acronyms as well, but I found PTRF, if I'm getting that right, is the psychiatric residential treatment facility. Yeah. Looking at deputy secretary McClure's April memo, and it has projected reductions in out of state placements. On that line, it's referring to 15. So that seems to differ from what we're talking about here this morning.

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: Correct, representative. The PRTF is psychiatric residential treatment facility, and it is a level of care that is somewhere between a hospital inpatient level of care and an intensive residential program. We currently do not have a PRTF program in Vermont, but that is one of the high end system of care programs that are being developed. It is interdepartmental. So that program is slated to have 15 beds available to it. And right now, the youth that we send out of state, both DCF and DMH send youth out of state, Department for Aging and Independent Living also sends youth out of state, that program could serve all three departments. And so our estimate of savings is for the PRTF program. Once it becomes open in Vermont, those are youth we won't have to send out as well. So it's the same methodology as what we're talking about for the secure facility, but it is a different program serving a different population.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: But, again, help me here. That's listed in that those three items add up to the 21,000,000 I think we're talking about. And so those 15 PRTF beds are those within this facility that were it's a different facility, I

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: see It's different facility. There's a PRTF proposal in Windham County. That facility is is going to be operational before the secure facility. So it's two separate programs that are part of the 41 beds that we were asked to report out on.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Thank you for that clarification.

[Tyler Allen (High-End System of Care Director, Family Services Division, DCF)]: Of course.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. What else do we need to know about revenue enhancement?

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: One thing that maybe just a couple of context is that West River Hazen program, the concept of that was actually born out of the crisis that we faced when Woodside closed. And so it was considered our fast track program to get something in place for high end mental health youth and was approved by Interim Commissioner Chen at the time. This has been a long time, like we've been trying to work towards this. And I think that just speaks to how long each of these things takes. I think that we've already spoken to why the cost of what it is, which includes the size of it, it's very small. And the fact that it's not officially a no eject, no reject program, but we do expect that they will take any youth that we send, that we refer to them. And the goal is really to be able to provide high end, high acuity services to youth that do not require a secure placement. So that is some of the context around West River.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Don't know if there are other

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: things there that you wanted me to mention about West River.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, can I just ask a question? Because in the deputy secretary's letter, she alluded to the fact that that was going to be reassessed. And I realize you have a five year contract. And I realize that we're still a ways off from this facility. So I guess we won't know for a while, I guess, in terms of whether or not that continues to be needed or not, given the establishment of PRTF in Vermont and this facility? Okay. Am going to have the Commissioner of Health here. And Commissioner Haas, you haven't had an opportunity to- Mental health, I'm sorry, is what I meant to say. Okay. So, sorry. That's okay. Just wondering if you had anything you wanted to add to the recognizing that this is a interdepartmental kind of all of these things really reflect interdepartmental work with mental health and Dale and DCF. So just wanted to give you an opportunity if you wanted to.

[Emily Hawes (Commissioner, Department of Mental Health)]: Yes, thank you. For the record, Emily Hobbs, Commissioner for the Department of Mental Health. I'll speak specifically to the PRTF, the psychiatric residential treatment facility, which is a federally regulated and defined level of care. And so that particular project has been in the works for two years now that currently will happen at the Brattleboro Retreat. And the hope is that that particular program is up and running this fall. There were some contract delays. We've worked through all of those negotiation questions. And so that particular PRTF, which is the fifteenth bed should be online here within the year, which I think is a benefit to this discussion. Then we can start working on getting kids, youth who need that level of care back to the city. So we also have individuals who may be in an inpatient setting who need a PRTF level of care And if they are waiting for placement out of state, they're in that hospital setting. So this would allow for us to then transition individuals who may be ready or nearing ready for discharge into the PRTF program in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a more timely manner. So that's good to hear. I'm good to hear that that's actually relatively short development time given, I mean, existing buildings and all that. So one of my questions is because in state government, we know how this works. So if if if there's significant savings achieved by the fact that we bring these kids home already, let's just say in f y twenty seven, how's that money gonna be captured four years down the road when this facility opens? Do you understand what I mean?

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: Yeah. West River Right.

[Emily Hawes (Commissioner, Department of Mental Health)]: Was trying to remember West River Haven's name. That's why you saw me.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Not West River Haven, but but whatever the name of this new facility, which is what they're what the deputy secretary is pointing to as savings to help finance this facility. I just know how government works, that savings go to the bottom line unless And

[Emily Hawes (Commissioner, Department of Mental Health)]: savings potentially across three different departments. Exactly. As well as the lease space within the BGS context. So I certainly understand that question for the Green Mountain project that should sit under the DCF lens. And so I'll let the DCF partner answer that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, the reality is that there'd be savings in three different departments budgets. And just to be blunt about it, I'm just putting out there that that can't go to the bottom line. In other words, you're gonna have to be able reserve that base funding for these new programs that are going be underway. Funding mix might be different depending upon Medicaid eligibility and all that kind of stuff. But I'm just a little concerned that savings that might get achieved in '27 and '28 then all of a sudden aren't available in f y thirty when we you know? I'm I'm just putting those dates out there, but they're not based in reality. But then when we're counting on some of those, quote unquote, savings to finance this Green Mountain Youth facility, because that's the way state government works.

[Emily Hawes (Commissioner, Department of Mental Health)]: And there may be savings in accessing all types of health care. When the health care system is working in a well designed way, you may see decreases of people needing crisis beds within the designated agency system. You may see less utilization of emergency departments like that. Cost savings could show up in a few different places. But I assume that through our budgeting process and budget presentations that cost savings or shifts or proposals wouldn't come up within the context of our typical budgets cycle.

[Sandy Hoffman (Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: And that is what I was going to say too. And because we're building the budgets as an agency, we would be talking about that and we would present it when we're presenting our budgets. So not only would we capture it within our individual when we're doing the budget building process, you would have the whole picture from the agency. Yes. No, I appreciate that. And I guess it's going

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to be incumbent on the people who are sitting in these seats over the next few years and next door in health care to really keep an eye on the fact that we need to essentially set aside those savings for future expenses. And they may be savings in that particular year, but they can't be removed from the base budget, if you know what I'm saying. Okay. Other questions for the witnesses this morning? I have to excuse myself because I need to get aggled downstairs to health and welfare on another department bill. I'm sorry, yes, Mr. Mayor.

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: Madam Chair, just really briefly, I appreciate the time that you've taken today to spend with us. And if you were looking at the language, and you've heard us requesting not being so restrictive and being able to continue moving forward with the design, I want to say to the committee what's really important the way our process works with the contracting that we moving forward with the contract both the entity we're entering to an agreement with and the state can always step out before we go to construction and a great example is maybe the permits don't come through, maybe the design doesn't work, maybe the cost is too high and we can't reduce it. So there's always that last step evaluation that happens before we actually go to construction and we would have to agree on ending the contract And so I think for the state, the risk is not as high as some people think about moving forward with this design. And I just want to turn that forward again to the committee and I really appreciate the time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. I think that's a good point. And so I'm going to turn this over to our vice chair and thank you all for being here. Appreciate it.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thanks, sir. Just clarifying what you just shared there, because going through the language and I just took a couple of notes. It it seems like so the either carve out the site identification and site control freeze or put some type of language in there that allows you conditional or contingent site control. Is that kind of where you're going with this? It's obvious that the language is just clarifying that there's restrictions in regards

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: to the facility. It's not the

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: programming. It's It seems that this language is tying your hands with moving this project upstream. Is that kind of where we're So

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: yes, representative and madam vice chair, if I could just address the language. I think that when we read the language, you're asking for a joint report, updates on campus, but then you incorporate this language on estimated cost of annual operating of the 41 beds. So that's really a little confusing and when I go to the language I think what's most important is you say that DCF and BGS can't spend any money. We have to spend money to do a sign. We have to spend money to make those investments, to do those analysis, to file the permits. So I think the intent is the way I read the language, we weren't here, part of it, but what I understand is this language is, we really don't want you to move forward until we understand the overall budgeting on the 41 beds. But I think as you heard today, that they coincide, right? In order to gather those savings and to address some of the information that was in that memo, we have to advance this. So what I'm saying to you, sir, is that allowing us to move forward is critical I think to the overall services that you are trying to provide as legislators. What our contract does on the Green Mountain Youth facility is it allows us to continue forward having those public norms, doing those outreaches, both for the developer and for the state at any point we can end that agreement. So I think that's just really important. That's for the protection of all and that's what I was just trying to emphasize that the risk in us moving forward is not at this point 100% this is what we're going to do because we have to go through the evaluation. What

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: think we're also saying too is the indications are really good on how things are moving forward and I sort of jumped around what you were saying but Can

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: I touch something? Just make sure we're looking at the same language, means you're referencing site control and that's not something that rang a bell for me. You're looking

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: at it. No, go ahead, Anja.

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: I'm sorry, but the house passed version, the language from the capital bill which I think is replicated in the budget bill as well and so the language really that's problematic for us is section 60 subdivision B and again we're looking at capital also might not be what you're looking at but it says, Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, TCF and BGS shall not expend funds for further development of Green Mountain View campus in fiscal year twenty twenty seven, again, until approved by these committees. And that's the language that for us really ties our hands to our

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: ability to move forward under

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: this contract to keep the design done totally.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah, because all of that, Raj, I use the word, really what you got is a fiscal control freeze.

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: Yes.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: That fiscal control freeze is also limiting your abilities to be able to get some level of site control or into that MOU that you're reflecting. That's where it's So it's a clarification in regards that the restrictions at this time are facility based, and you're limited and your hands are tied in regards to the funding freeze and the site freeze, which means some level of either conditional or a contingent language needs to be addressed that unties your hands is what

[London Manoille (Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: I'm And gonna just to add to that, that I listened to to the conversation today and we want to understand the budget stuff. We have to develop this in order to give you those numbers as you continue to work with AHS, We can't do analysis and answer all of those questions without making the investment in some of that preliminary design in what we're doing. And I think that's really critical too. I think, know, as an observer with some of the questions that you've asked around the budget and I'm looking at the commissioner to see if she wants to add any add to that.

[Sandy Hoffman (Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: Think I'm trying to ascertain what it is that we need to move forward. What else would you need to change the language to remove those restrictions so we can continue to move forward? So I'll just

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Unless if folks have any other questions, right? So we've heard your testimony and your challenges with the current language. And this is an opportunity for members to ask questions about that so we can consider how we, as policymakers, will move forward. So if folks have any more questions from the folks from the administration, now is your chance, and then we can have a discussion later about how we will proceed as far as making recommendations about changing the language or not.

[Sandy Hoffman (Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: I maybe wasn't clear. What I want to know is what we can tell you that would alleviate whatever the fear was that the language was put in there. Did we answer everything that was in question? You've answered my question. I don't want to

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: speak for the other members. And I think as a committee, we need to have a discussion about how we want to proceed. So I don't think we're at a place where we can tell you that we feel good about removing the language. I think we need to have that discussion as a committee, which obviously, as the day is going today, we'll see if we'll have time to do that today. But at this moment, you've answered my questions. I think it was really helpful to understand how you're projecting the savings. I think it was really helpful for me to understand the number of children that are out of state and how they will be served in state. It was helpful for the chair to reiterate how are we capturing the savings and how are we earmarking those savings to be for this purpose in future years. So those were the things I was curious about. Beth Steady, I see

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: your hand.

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Hi. Can you hear me?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I'm having, people I posted this on my Facebook while we were talking. Somebody wants to know what is the parent's responsibility financially and not just taxpayer burden? So what do parents actually contribute to their own child's well-being? So I so I can answer my constituent.

[Sandy Hoffman (Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: The children that are being

[Heather McLean (Director of Revenue Enhancement, DCF)]: served are

[Sandy Hoffman (Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: in DCF custody.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay. So the parents have no responsibility financially? I just need to answer my constituent.

[Sandy Hoffman (Commissioner, Department for Children and Families)]: That's a loaded question. Maybe

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: that's something you can take up with the commissioner offline because I think there's a lot of complexities to that question that I don't think we have time to address at this moment right now. So I encourage you to check-in with Commissioner Hoffman.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay. And then I'll get to my constituent. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Great. Thank

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: you. Do folks have any other questions? We really appreciate you all being here and answering our questions. I know this involves a lot of different entities within state government, there's a lot of overlaps, and it's a complex issue we've been trying to get at for many years, as you've demonstrated. So really appreciate your availability and the information you've brought. And we'll go off live now. Do you

[Emily (Deputy Commissioner, Department of Buildings & General Services)]: have any I just want

[Erica Ratke (Deputy Commissioner, Family Services Division, DCF)]: to say thank you so much for your time. I know Tyler's going to supply that spreadsheet that has additional information and as you're having your discussions we are open if you do have questions we really do want to provide the information you need.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Thank you so much Laura. Thank you.