 So this is a continuation of the House appropriation committee's morning meeting. And we're starting right off at 10 o'clock with the Department of Corrections and we have Commissioner Baker here with his team, which he will introduce. But we also are having a joint, a joint here, a joint meeting with the House Institutions and Corrections Committee with chair representative Emmons and the members of her committee so welcome. What we discovered yesterday or what we understand from yesterday is what you will be showing us, Commissioner Baker, are the changes made from the January proposal of your budget. And so we will be seeing the deltas we will be seeing you'll be talking about any language changes and any pressures and anything that was different from the January proposal. If possible, after you go through those changes if there's initiatives that were status quo from January and are still on the table. If you could just do a reminder of some of those issues and I know that this is Mary's budget and she'll be going back in and looking at all of the things that we had discussed right before we left in March. But I want to make sure that we don't miss any of the pieces that are still on the table from January and our initiatives that are going forward. And other than that, we will find natural stopping places with within your testimony and you have a presentation that Teresa will put up. And then I would ask committee members from appropriations and from institutions just to use your virtual blue hand. And we will, we will ask questions as we as we walk through the testimony. Thank you. Welcome representative Emmons before we move on is there anything you would like to say to open up. No, I think you summed it up very well. I think it's really important for members to realize the starting point here is really the governor's proposed budget that was presented to us back in January. And what we're seeing today is any changes to that particular proposed budget. And it does not include any changes that our House Appropriations Committee was working on and ready to present to the full house at the end of March. So there's sort of three different budgets that we sort of have to look at. I just want every member of my committee to be aware of that. And we will work our way through those budgets and and work together carefully to make sure that we're not missing anything. We'll pass this budget out. I do want to say I'm going to have to jump off for about five to seven minutes and so when my screen goes blank representative Hooper you'll take over the committee and I should be right back. But let's get going we have until 11 o'clock, a little bit further if we need to, but Commissioner Baker welcome and if you'd like to introduce your team who you brought with you and then we'll start right in with your changes. Thank you representative good morning. Who I brought with me was Matt D'Agostino, who was going to do the overview of the money piece, and we'll get to that in a minute, but I'd be more than happy afterwards to talk about initiatives that are ongoing. What I do want to say is, echoing what representative Edmund said about the budget. Our team worked very hard, a conjunction with Sarah Clark, and the financial team at AHS put in front of the governor, a budget that we, we know we can live with for the remainder fiscal year 21. These are challenging times. COVID mitigation work that is ongoing is very challenging for us. And so we believe that what Matt's going to present for numbers right now are are healthy for us for this fiscal year, and I'll certainly entertain any questions after Matt goes through the spreadsheet of the ups and downs here. So I'm going to let Matt take it representative and we'll get moving and then come back to answering questions. Thank you Matt. Thank you Commissioner thank you. Matt D'Agostino financial director for corrections. There are three appropriations that the restated budget has changes in so if you want to move quickly through them I can see on the first page that's on the screen. Toward the bottom of it we have a base reduction in the parole board related to travel expenses. So about a $22,000 reduction. There's been over the past two fiscal years a significant reduction in just travel costs related to the parole board with the pandemic. That's increased that even more so. We're confident that this reduction in the budget will will get their operating expenses for the parole board to where they should be so there's there's not a there's not a significant challenge here in this particular line item, reducing this. I'm muted. I don't see any questions so we can move beyond this one reduction to the parole board travel expenses. Sure so there's nothing there's no changes in the restated budget to correctional education either the next changes will be I believe on the next page to correctional services. So at the top of the page we have a technical adjustment this is related to the it's a net neutral general fund. This is a technical adjustment here it's related to the addition of the 30 new correctional officer positions that were in the FY 20 budget. Prior to the original FY 21 Governors recommend position numbers weren't created so we didn't have the ability to include those positions. The technical adjustments doing is adding the cost of those salaries and benefits for the 30 positions and reducing by the same for the. This was a this was a net neutral addition anyway but this is this is just making the technical adjustment to add the positions but also back out the savings to vacancy over time and temporary staff costs that would balance these positions and make them be able to be done within the existing appropriation. Let's stop with those positions because we we've we've had a lot of conversation about the positions of correctional officers. I see from representative Lanford and then we'll see other people that have questions on that. Yeah I just I want to go back the net the previous slide on the correctional education fees just it's on 27 of 30 of those. So we're going to see here this that there's no change here which is you know probably comforting just to us. Thank you for watching at your presentation from February 5 in those walksheets this is the section that has the big change of moving the community high school of Vermont funding from the general fund to the education fund. I just wanted to highlight that that was a that was a an an unresolved decision that was made that was not made yet before we, we ended up leaving in March. So but for people that's where you would find or go back to, to find it from January or February when he was here. Thank you Diane and so it's not reflected down sheet because this is just the change over the governors in January. So we would see that education in education fund increase on the January and the down in the January GF is that correct commissioner or Matt is that correct. Okay, but this is where it becomes confusing and we need to have the the 2020 of the January side by side, other than that I don't believe there were any other 20 January initiatives that would have reflected on the sheet. Yeah, the only other one would have been the annualization of salaries and benefits for the staff and corrections education if it's helpful for the committee I could talk through the, what the logic of the change in the original recommended budget Governors recommend was or now we can move to correctional services. You mean as far as moving the educational services to the education at the services to the education fund. Yes. That that was a fully discussed topic that I think that we all remember very clearly and we've heard from ways and means and we'll hear from house education. So I don't think we need to do that at this point. Let's just continue with these changes but Diane, thank you for highlighting that that's where we would have seen it. So the next item if there's no more questions on the technical adjustment the next. I'm sorry, Mary did you have a question. Yes. And, and maybe this is something that corrections and institutions can take up with do see when they go into this more deeply. I'm just curious of not withstanding which fund pays for correctional education. Have you seen a change in the charges to that fund, given that I'm assuming you've had restrictions on people coming in and out to provide correctional education, etc. So I would have assumed you'd see some change to the costs there that we're not seeing reflected. And that may be too much detail for now but we ought to kind of go into it a wee bit deeper deeper. So there haven't there haven't been any specific savings or changes that we've seen to date. And then the large reason for that is that the overwhelming majority of the correctional education budget is for salary for the correctional educators and the staff. There's their operating costs within that nearly three and a half million dollars are about 200,000 or less per year so in terms of their. I would say for sure whether there's been specific savings in the last several months related to operating but most of those are fixed costs like cost of internet and other other things and supplies. So there has been likely some because people are not actually working in facilities or in the same way that they were seven eight months ago, but the majority of the cost is to salaries there haven't been changes there specifically. And they have not been tasked to other duties and have their those expenses charged to those other duties that's what I'm after. And the answer is no I see the commissioner shake up the answers the answers no representative. Okay, thank you. Thank you. I do want to go back to the positions and wanting to know that when you've been in for you've talked about the difficulty of firing finding individuals to hire. Is that still a challenge or are you finding that you have a large enough pool to choose from and that you don't have vacancies and key positions that you really need to fill. We were talking about corrections officers now represent the correction officers. Yes, I moved back to the next budget. I'm sorry. No, no, that's fine. That's fine. So, you know, as we sit here right now we have 48 corrections officers vacancies. We have a class of 14 and we have run two classes during the COVID crisis, small classes, hybrid classes. We have a full of all protocols on social distancing and masking and cleansing and stuff that we need to do to keep it safe. So we have 14 and 48 vacancies still. I just had a meeting just before I get on this meeting with staff around the state will have another class in October. And this is just another after eight months of being the commissioner and taking a look at processes. We are in the process. And I talked about this before the largest legislature left the building and went virtual. We are in the process now changing our hiring process. My observation is is that the process is chaotic. It's decentralized that needs to be centralized. We need to be more focused on the type of candidate we're looking for. We find just this morning staff reported that there's plenty of candidates applying the answer is is that the right candidates applying. So what we're focused on right now is the is the turnover. And so we're taking a dive into that. And I expect before the class happens in October, that we'll have a new hiring process in place. What does budget process for us to do is take a look at where we're spending overtime. And I think in the long run, we're going to have to take a look at what's going on. We're going to have a new hiring process in place. What does budget process for us to do is take a look at where we're spending overtime. And I think in the long run, the hiring process is going to help us retain folks that can cut into this overtime amount that we spend every year. So I know that's a long answer to your question, but it's not not finding folks it's retaining them and taking the case out of the hiring process. And as you develop new hiring practices and reduce your overtime. You should see employees staying in longer, not the turnover. Right. Thank you. I'll be, I'll be looking. Thank you. So, Matt, if you'd like to continue, I think we were in correctional, had we, but we were in correctional services. Yes, I think we're on page 28 of 30 now. Diane, the representative land fear. Thank you. Matt, I see on here at the bottom where it says in the grants adjustment to the medic, medic, Medicaid earnings. That amount 524,561 is the exact amount that in earlier in January, you had listed as a community rehabilitation care case management that you were moving from general fund to global commitment. So I hate to assume just because it's the same number that that is the same description that you needed to return it back to you. General fund. It is. It is unfortunately this is something where in exploring this further it's something that we're we start working on we anticipate that sometime near the end of FY 21 or potentially FY 22 will be possible but at the, at the moment it wasn't. There's there's no way of making this program Medicaid eligible in the short period of time so we didn't want to include that full general fund and Medicaid global commitment swap and in the FY 21 budget knowing that we it's unlikely that it will be implemented completely if started at all before FY 21 is through. I mean, would it also be assuming that the other, the other changes in January then occurred, or I'm not too sure how to give him the timeframe and where we are in August there was the transitional housing case management of 297,000 that was moving over to global commitment so would I be accurate in assuming that that has now occurred or you. Unfortunately, not occurring but not occurred the pandemic not to blame the pandemic for but it did get in the way of some of the progress we were making so we are still continuing to work on those efforts. Okay, so then that would be still there and then the final one was the $26,000 reduction to that which which was 100% reduction to the Cosa in Chittenden County that 26,000. Yes, I believe to the south Burlington Community Justice Center. It was that they're no longer providing close to services I believe and that was that reduction has happened. Yes. Okay. All right, thank you. Thank you. Diane and rep Hammons, your hand is up. Yes, I'm on the same sheet and I'm looking at the savings from health services contract of 1.7 million. I just want some real clarification on this. So, this is a decrease of 1.7 million based on the governor's proposed budget that was presented to us in January. And when the when the FY 21 budget was built prior to January the governor's recommended budget. We did not have the information related to this fiscal year's health services contract. There has been from the prior contract that ended June 30 to the one that vital core is now taken over effective July 1. So, this is a decrease in the P in the per inmate per month cost, and we're able to reduce the total allocation to health services by the 1.75 million related to that, as well as there's electronic health record system that's being updated but we're delaying the implementation only slightly to spread those costs over two fiscal years. And this doesn't have an impact to to the overall budget and our ability to still implement the EHR as well as deliver the health care services. So this 1.75 is reflective of our new contract with vital core. That's correct. Okay. So this is a little different than what was presented to us back in January. That's correct. And at that point we didn't we just didn't have the information related to the finance the financials of what what the year one of the contract would look like. Okay, great. I just wanted that clarification. Thank you. Sure. Before we move to other items on this list, I don't see any hands, but that's a significant change and I'm just want to pause and see if any other folks, you may go into it more in your committee. Rep Emmons when you have a chance. I do have a question I hadn't realized that you were implementing a an electronic health record systems, a new one. Matt, has there been a conversation about kind of interoperability between what you're doing and systems out in the rest of the world for the EHR. I don't want to jump over Commissioner Baker, if he has more knowledge, I do know that there's been previous conversations about systems that would work that would be interoperable with with outside systems I don't know the status I don't believe there's been but I may be incorrect in that statement. There really hasn't been pro deep conversations about it representative part of the process of being able to spread it over two years is that we're not ready to move on the new record system. And it comes with vital core. So the prior system was Centurion system, and we have access to it. But I don't think we've had a great deal of conversations about how this system will speak to other systems. I think that's what you're, you're asking. Yeah, I hadn't realized it was particular to the health care vendor. I'll take that offline. Other any other questions about the health care contract, not seen any. And then in this area under correctional services, other than travel reductions mad it looks like it's I see you Diane it looks like the rest are kind of the standard 5% reductions and fee for space and so forth. That's right all the internal service reductions correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for indulging me a second time. So I just just so I can mark it off on here I see that there was a $281,000 reduction for mothballing Windsor. I should know did that occur. That was in the So that that has occurred. Department of Corrections is no longer paying the costs related to the Windsor facility. Pardon. Sorry, my ignorance. I just want to make sure to check it off is not something that it's done. So just, I'll just check it off. I love, I love that you get it Diane. Thank you very much for tracking Alice that rep eminence. Yes, I just want to clarify. We have not. I know in DOC's world, they're no longer paying the fee for service for Windsor. But we have not mothballed winds. It's on our capital budget that we have already put in place in past for FY 21 That there's activities that's going to happen that the Windsor facility with Department of Forest and Parks and Department of Fish and Wildlife being relocated there from the state office building down in Springfield. So I don't want people to think that that that building and that facility is being mothballed to totally DOC has handed responsibility for Windsor over to BGS who is working with those other departments to utilize that space. So it's just not on DOC's budget now. Correct. I just want to make that clarification. Thank you. It's important. Die your hand is still up is that yeah, okay. Is there anything else you'd like to tell us about under correctional services. DOC folks. No unless anyone has any other questions about the adjustment for the Medicaid earnings I think that's that's it on correctional services. Yeah, I have a hand from rep coffee. Good morning, everyone. Good morning, Commissioner and Matt, I had a question about with this, the health services contract I know that I've heard that you're pretty excited about this new partnership. What kind of are they still hiring the same staff on the ground the folks who are working in the medical staff in our facilities and so is there a significant change there or how do they get those savings is what is part of what I'm getting at. So the savings, the savings that we're talking about has nothing to do with our staff. In fact, the CEO of vital core has changed a lot of the senior leadership on the ground here in Vermont, and has paid significant salaries, new leadership coming in. So that budget reduction isn't tied to staffing. If that's part of your question. Okay. And so the answer to the second part of your question is that I'm going to go over to the CEO by oh and Reagan's on the matter of fact, I had a schedule caller this morning to go over some things that were discovered, as they made the transition over that she wanted me to be aware of. And, and so, many of the staff that was in place on July 1, she picked up, but in the meantime, she's actually brought in had brought in the former assistant surgeon general of the United States to do clinical assessments of staff to assess their clinical skills. You know, I, I supported 100% and you can't come in and just dismiss, you know, almost 150 staff members and try to find. And again, these, these are Vermonters that work in these positions. They live in Vermont, the Vermonters, they're employed by in this case now vital core. 118 of the staff members were brought over from Centurion Centurion. Originally 11 were not brought over it since they were brought over July 4. 14 were terminated within the first week. Five have been terminated since July 10. So, you know, vacancies open that they continue to fill. So this is just some high level data that I get from them to understand the transition they're making from the former contractor here to her oversight. Commissioner I feel like you, you knew exactly the question that I was asking so thank you. Because, as you know representative and I've actually exchanged an email with you about a constituents concern about about their, their loved one and the medical care, and I am I am fully dialed in on the medical care piece. As a result of the turn turnover of the new contractor. I can follow up on this a little bit just to let folks know. Our committee corrections and institutions is going to be looking in depth in terms of the healthcare contract with Commissioner Baker, as well as talking with the CEO Viola Wiggins. Commissioner and I discussed having trying to get her to testify before us we're hoping sometime next week, possibly on Thursday is what we're looking at but we haven't confirmed that. So our committee will be going into depth on this. So I just want to give folks the heads up that's we're trying to put it in place. I think we're ready to move to the out of state bed contract. I did notice I apologize before we move because it's a fairly big one I was so focused on general fund I forgot to look a few columns over to the right but we have the the coven 19 the CRF request as well for nearly $5 million $4,950,000. The OCS had staff substantially dedicated to mitigation and response efforts to coven 19, both had significant PPE costs other operating expenses related to coven so these these funds are requested as as part of that. Matt, I have a question. I'm sorry Mary may jump in. Yes, please it's all yours. No, I don't need that but Matt I had a question is the is the request from this coming out of the remainder of the dollars of the CRF or is this request that's going to go before the joint fiscal committee. This is out of the remainder of those funds I believe this hasn't gone from the joint fiscal committee. At this point, the, the, just so that both committees know that the administration has put their request in, and the budget in as one bill and what and it's up in the air right now, whether we'll move a separate CRF bill will, whether we'll do some CRF spending before in July and August in, not July and August in June, within the, the quarter year budget whether we'll do it within the budget so those are numbers if you have these appropriations that we need to be paying attention to, to determine where they're going to travel, and if in if in where they're going to travel I should say. Thank you Matt. I can't raise my hand but on this topic. I'm now confused are is the 4.95 reflected in this budget funds that have already been allocated to do see through this process, or is this a new request, new. Oops, I shouldn't answer Matt you answer. Yes, it's a new request. I'm not showing the funds that you have already received for in CRF money anywhere here. Correct those those those funds previously received or not shown here. That's right. And you've gotten a fairly significant amount already. Correct. That's that's correct. Yes. Now I would like to understand all that you've received and what what you have received is displacing and where that money went. Did you follow what I meant. I believe so. So for what what what general effectively what general funds that the CRF displaced and where those funds. So I could answer that for FY 20, because we have not spent to date while there's been so far in FY 21 we don't have the full spending authority for the funds, but for previous previous general fund that was, I guess you could say saved as a result of using the CARES Act funding was. It wasn't money that was carried forward by do say it was money that that was, I'm struggling for the right word here. So it was swept or went to the bottom line and the bigger but swept was what I was going to say it's not not really the but but yes effectively swept as the word. And how much was that. It was a substantial amount it was it was in the $5 million range. So about 5 million from FY 20 of general fund dollars that were enabled to go into the big pot. Thank you. Thank you Mary representative Taylor I'm sorry I missed your hand from before. That's no problem. And let me if this is something that we should cover when our committee meets with Department of Corrections. Next week then we can pass over it but there's two things have happened since January and one is the passage and signing of s 338 the justice reinvestment. And the other the pilot project that's being done in Rutland. And I'm wondering if the financing for those is progressing as proposed. Let me take the pilot project representative you're talking about it's what I briefed the committee on is the work with John Jay college on focus deterrence. Is that correct. Correct, yes. So we have identified funds to support that the process has been a little slow in coming to an arrangement with John Jay. We just got a proposal I think Matt the beginning of the week, you and I just haven't been able to just haven't been able to catch up on it. So that's moving forward. And it's really identified three sites so for the rest of the committee that may not be familiar with what we're talking about. We're looking at engaging the national safe community operation out of John Jay college, the focus on high risk, domestic violence violators who are supervised by us in the community to try to cut down on on the benefits of violence, but also wrapping services around them that cuts down on our reentry back into the jail system. So we have identified funds that were part of some of the COVID funds that can help us with that. As far as the other piece on 338. It was part of the conversation and Senate appropriations yesterday and I think we've got to go back and sort out. And I've caught off guard, not understanding where that original two million that was in there. We kind of lost track of that conversation, and Matt and I need to go back and figure that out. And I know Senator Sears is interested in us getting back to them on this conversation about particularly a $400,000 promise that is a statewide network for domestic violence, battery intervention program. So Matt anything to add to that. No, I think you've got. Representative Taylor, thank you for that question do you have a follow up. No, no. And so as you get back to Senate appropriations and Senator Sears with those questions will you please share what will you share that with our committee as well. Representative. Well, our committee and, and obviously the Corrections Committee is correct. Correct, we will. Okay, if I don't see any other questions, I think, Matt, let's move to the section. So for the out of state appropriation, this, this one actually does tie in both the, the governor's recommend the original recommend from January as well as the restated budget so the, the first five items you'll see under out the state you'll see reversal of the FY 21 proposal so these, these net out to approximately $220,000 of, of an increase so we, there's several initiatives that that back when the January budget was presented were unable to do at this time, the, the increase to the marshals but the US marshals beds as well as the increase per day are not things that, that at least during the pandemic can be looked at as in FY 21 it's unlikely that these would come to fruition. We also had a proposal to fill the Caledonia work camp by the 50 beds. So we had, we had coming into FY 21 a base appropriation of 225 beds. So that's probably what these, all of these line items do is it reduces that appropriation from a case load of 225 to 206. Right now we're at 219 beds out of state. So this is an additional 13 beds below what what we currently are at. Okay, are there questions on the out of state beds and the reversal of the proposal that was brought to us in January. I'm not seeing any questions on that. Well, I have. I didn't see your hand Alice. No, I'm thinking, I'm thinking. I have a feeling these are going to be moving dollars because due to COVID. We've had movement of folks up at the St. Johns very regional correctional facility as well as that has an impact on the work camp beds. And I just don't know how that would play in. And also on the out of state beds, because we've had some real conversations with course civic about COVID testing and really beefing up their operation there for isolation. When someone is positive, how that all impacts those dollars, if any, that's what's rattling through my brain. Yeah, representative I think I'll take this because it's more about operational than it is about the financial piece that Matt would speak to. You know, we're at 219 right now. I mean, I'll be more unhappy to get into for the committee. The covert piece in Mississippi that we've been dealing with for the last three weeks. But we did, we did return St. Johns very from that surgery as you know, is no longer there in St. Johns very because we worked out a different process internally amongst the system, the quarantine and medically isolated So we are in the process now of taking a serious look at readjustment of beds around the state to include in that conversation to work campus St. Johns very how we could balance out the system better to get more folks back from Mississippi. You know, I'm not there yet. Staff is not there yet, but that conversations going on now, and it's a matter of balancing those beds out. But as you know, representative, our challenges. You know, our population today is 410. We have 324 detained individuals in the system that includes the Marshall beds that I think are around 45 or 50. So the system itself, the justice system hasn't really opened up yet. So we're really, we can't predict the future on the justice system opening up what that means to our population. What the impacts of how soon can we see impacts from 338. Much of that doesn't go into effect until the fall and January into the summer. So how we do that. It's all kind of a, you know, it's, it's, it's a little bit of hope. But we are trying to figure out a way to get that number down as soon as we can in Mississippi by moving beds around, but not compromising our quarantine system that we have in place that has kept our facilities clean. And the situation in Rotland speaks to that, you know, six inmates come back and the quarantining system we had in place save that facility from going on. Alice, do you have a follow up? No, this is helpful. Thank you. And I'm sure that my committee will be looking into this more in depth. But I want to just put this out on the table for the members of appropriations committee that these dollars will really change as my hunch. Thank you, Alice. Representative Hooper. Thank you. In your calculation of dead needs. Have you considered the anticipated reopening of the courts and the pressure that that might create on the system. Yes, I mean, that's what I was just, I mean, I was referring to that. The system, the system hasn't opened up right. The system itself hasn't opened up and what that impact may be on us. It's been kind of interesting. Looking historically, because one of the things I look at daily is the detained population, not the sentence population. And that that number is really, you know, when you look at history here over the last year and a half two years. We're averaging about 100 below what we normally would have in a detained population on a daily basis, 80 to 100. So now is that because the system isn't opened up. There are arrests still occurring as a result of serious crime where people get launched. So it's hard to predict right now. And I think that's our challenge to identify balancing out beds, but keeping in mind two things. When the core system opens up and not compromising our ability in the long run to manage the cold crisis, because I just don't see this going away for a while. So we've got to have those quarantine beds to be able to keep our facilities clean. Mary, Mary, did we lose you. No, I had already muted myself. I was trying to say I'm good. Okay, thank you. Just so that I'm clear with the ups and downs, the decrease, even though you're increasing the numbers, it's against, you know, it's not the policy that we want, we want to bring the inmates back to Vermont and house them in here in our own facilities. It's a decrease because of the costs of out of state versus in state. Is that correct. The decrease that shows up here, you mean. Yeah, it's about reducing the beds. And I think part of the reason why we've been when I came in January, we were up around 255 in Mississippi. So, you know, we've demonstrated we can reduce these numbers. Slowly, but you got to figure in the other factors. Right. I was reading it wrong. I apologize. No, I see I finally figured it out. Thank you. Great. Yeah, thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions on correctional services out of state placement. If not, let's go to the next budget. Or did you have anything else you wanted to. I think that was all the pieces in that one. Okay. That's everything for out of state. Correct. And that's, that's actually for the, the restated budget. That's, that's all of the changes that we have for do say. Thank you. So, from the January initiatives that were that were put forth when the budget was brought to us. Can you think of any, any, any large initiatives that that you would like to remind us of I know Mary will be on top of it and the committee of jurisdiction will as well. The one initiative that that was there was the movement of the community school of Vermont for the payment to come out of the education fund. Are you aware of that one. Are there any other ones that you would like to remind us of, or does this reflect most of the changes from from January and August. I think representative it represents when it tied to finances. It represents the big operational pieces as it's tied to finance. There's a lot of other work that's not not related to cost or budget items, but I don't want to take the committee's time up on that. It language policy that was in place in January we'll hear about on Monday, and, and any other policy changes Alice do you have any thoughts on that. Not at this point. No, I don't. I don't know if other committee members do or not, but I voiced what I was concerned about previously. I have a question from representative Jess up. Yeah. Thank you. This may be a question that chair and ends as committee has covered more, but when commissioner would we start to see costs associated with the overhaul of the women's facility start to show up on our spreadsheets. I think there's been some planning costs but I don't know what else has been involved in again apologies. If this has been covered elsewhere. You're talking about the potential for a new facility correct the planning process. That's right. Yeah. I'm not completely up to speed to debt to today, but there was money that was allocated, and a selection of a contractor has been made to start the planning process. You know, which is going to be fairly comprehensive, because it isn't just about what's the building going to look like. It's really about programming and, you know, senses in the future and really looking at having the space to do quality programming for the type of offender that's in the women's population so I'm not current up to speed and representative Evans may even know more than I do right now, but it's been, it's been awarded. It's been between us and bgs that are working on it. And we're moving forward on that planning process as part of that money that was allocated for the plan. So if I can, yeah, weigh in because we've been looking at this and I know that representative Taylor has been following this issue it was a contract that went out. It was a bgs to really look at a cohesive plan and either in replacing the women's correctional facility but also within the context of the whole correctional system. And there was 200,000 that was put in in the FY 20 capital budget for this particular contract. So that's where the money is. Representative Taylor can weigh in a little bit more because he's looked into this a little bit more in depth, but the hope is that we will have the information from this contract that as Commissioner Baker mentioned we're they're working it through right now and we should have the information by the time we reconvene in January. So in terms of how we go forward with. We hope a new correctional facility for the women, but it will also be a discussion on how we also move forward with all of our correctional facilities in a cohesive manner, because that's what really needs to happen. So if you do one you've got to look at the whole system. And just because we're here today one quick question. Have we had any coven concerns at the women's facility to date. We've had concerns at all the facilities. I don't, I don't believe, and I have to double check this representative. I do not believe that we've had any female inmates positive. I'd have to double check that. We've had folks present with symptoms and we've had to test them and so on. But remember we test, we're testing every facility on a cycle, and we will continue to do that from the guidance from the governor on test to suppress. And I think we've demonstrated that this testing to suppress as control the virus in our facilities. I don't think we've had any women positive, but I will double check that and make sure we get back to you. Okay. Thank you. I just got a text from my principal assistant, which this is why commissioners have principal system, because they make commissioners look very, very good. Okay, we had one entry into the system of a female who came into the system went into quarantine and we caught her positive on the way into the system. As a result of being positive. So does that help representative. Yes, thank you very much. That was quick. Thank you. Oh, that's that's that's why you have a personal system to make you look good representative. Are there any other questions representative Hooper. The policy has been fabulous, like star of the country in terms of COVID suppression and we really need to appreciate how hard that is my question is something that's hidden or not hidden deeply in the budget. In January, we heard from the Department of Public Safety that they had an agreement with DOC to get a little bit of money to provide for a mental health specialist slash technician. They asked the Department of Public Safety, which is doing a great job of trying to expand the mental health clinicians and the barracks notion or that service out in the community. You're still counting on that money from you and way back when that was news to you and Matt, and I am curious if that budget, if that is now reflected in your budget because they're counting on it. The last conversation I had with Commissioner Shirley was that we would be committed to that. Once we saw what we ended up with the remainder of the fiscal year 21 budget. So it isn't it as I understand the conversation prior to me getting here. It wasn't meant to be a line item that showed up. It was meant to be for us to find those funds in an existing budget. So that is the way I left it with Commissioner Shirley and I a month ago month and a half ago, shortly after the skinny budget went into place. I asked them just to hold off on the conversation until I had a chance to see where our budget ended up for the rescue. So are you continuing to plan to try to provide those that serviced it. We're continuing to have the conversation hopeful that we can find the money to support that. Once we know what our final budget is. So it depends on us. I'm not saying I represent. I'm simply saying, you know, checking, like, like all state agencies were all pressured right in this environment so I can't. For example, I can't shortchange security in a jail to support that but if we can support it, we're going to support it because it's a commitment that Commissioner to shut me. And I want to thank you. Thank you Mary representative Townsend. Yes. Thank you. And to continue on that topic. Do you have the, the approximation of what that amount was, was it $65,000 $75,000 something in that range. I don't remember off the top of my head. I do not remember that number. We can get back to you with that representative. I don't remember it off the top of my head. Clinicians that DPS is budgeting for they're saying they're 75,000 all in per person, just FYI. And the only reason that I had mentioned 65,000 was that that was the amount in their budget for one mental clinician in the original 21 budget. Right. It's going up to 75,000 now. We'll sort that out to see which number is, which is the accurate number and my understanding of the agreement is, is that we're not providing all the funding for the positions. It's a shared funding arrangement between us and other folks to support public safety's plan to put those crisis workers out in the field at the barriers. Correct. That's that was my, and again, I will go back and verify that and I will get the information to the committee. Great. Thank you. Thank you. The tailor. Yes, just a quick clarification when you're referring to the group which is looking into the women's facility and the construction or possible construction of a new one. The name is the corrections feasibility study. Or is it a separate one. No, it's it's it's that group that BGS is running as a result of. I don't know if that's the title of a representative or not. But it's the group that's working on the allocation that was given for the feasibility of the of the facility. That that that's actually for the whole of the correction system, not just for the women's facility specifically correct. Well, I think going back to representative at this point, as I understand it before my time, the money was allocated for the purposes of the female facility. But as part of that conversation, you can't have a conversation about the female facility without taking in the rest of the system to understand the impact on the rest of the system. All right. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. We are closing in on the 11 o'clock hour. And so Mary as your additional questions from our committee, we will go through you and Alice. I'm hoping that if you have any more if you have additional testimony that that our member, Mary could join your committee to hear that testimony. So that we're just all staying together to move to expedite this budget as quickly as possible. The large issue I see here from January is the fund issue and a decision was made back in January or February, we heard from the two committees of jurisdiction on on the funding issue which would be the Education Committee and Ways and Means and and neither of those committees supported that move. We did see some additional reductions with the parole board with travel expenses and the net neutral movement between the 30 correctional officer positions and I think all questions have been answered there. There's additional information that will come back regarding the passage of 338 s 338 the justice reinvestment that you will provide commissioner. Thank you. And then we'll continue seeing the roll out the updates as you roll out the pilot program and the three communities regarding offenders, serious offenders and and reducing recidivism and providing services to see how those pilot projects move. The Mary is going to work on the balancing pieces where the about the numbers are with Matt to understand the CRF and how GF money was replaced where appropriate and where those dollars fell as far as the 40 the 4.9 million. The CRF issue so our committee will handle that outside our regular budget discussions that will be within the remainder of the CRF budgeting and other than that. And then we'll look forward to the the piece with the mental health clinician that was being paid for out of DOC for DPS so we'll we'll see where that lands as well. But I think those are the highlights from Alice you're shaking your head yes did I miss anything I know you have a piece on the health care contract that you're going to take additional testimony on. Correct. But is the budget moving the one piece that we would have to find when we solve the bigger budget is if the the Ed fund. The High School of Vermont returns to the general fund picking up I think it's almost $4 million. Is there anything else from anybody on either of the set of Miss Mary. I guess they are not granted the use of the CR the of the additional CRF funds. That's a $5 million problem. So we have a total of an $8 million problem. And if we don't grant that there, we have to find it in the budget. Correct. Okay, and that that that CRF just be Steve joined jumped on was not part of the fiscal committee but out of the remainder of the remainder was not spent of the 1.25 billion I think there's about 130 million. Is that the correct number Steve that's left to appropriate. I just switched topics and we can catch up on that number later. Actually there's there's more than that. It's the and we're just sort of trying to sort of summarize this in a sheet. The total amount left to appropriate is about 198 million of unallocated money, of which the administration has put 133 million in economic development. 100,000, you know, 100,000 of PSD AOE guide have 500,000 and then there's the waterfall appropriations, which are actually in the money. So 44 million of the Vermont State College is so it's a funny type of waterfall concept. They were included in the amount that in the whole amount available so that's the state colleges ADS SOS and AOE away. I'm not quite sure why they call them waterfall they're like pure two money, and the total amount after all the appropriation in the restatement request is about $1.8 million left. So that's the piece we're just sort of discovering in the last 12 hours. And just so far committees. I really want to separate CRF funding from budget funding by here as Mary pointed out the CRF dollars if we don't if they're not made available and I'm not suggesting they are they are not. If they're not made available then we do have to pick up that 5 million in the budget. If I may representative toll, I think it's a it's a little more complex than that and I think Matt and I can circle around with representative Hooper about that. Okay. It's not gf it's just not a swap of gf funding. It's not the way it's presented here and there's some reasons for that that we can discuss. Okay, thank you. Any final questions. So, Diane is that a hand. Yeah, it's a little hand. So, I'm trying to keep track of what's being asked for with the Joint Fiscal Committee and, and what's being asked in budget only on the, I know that Steve will be he's one that's going to be on top of this, but I have in front of me here the JFC request of from from Susan young on August 19 has a million. I was I went back to that thinking maybe the corrections pieces a part of that that 4.9 it is, it is not. And, but I'm sure. No. So I'm going to hand write that on the side that I'm sure we'll get more on it, but there's 47 million that they're asking for in, in, in that process. 37 million 20 of it is the unemployment comp money 12 million is for childcare. And I don't have the other elements in front of me but I, we can go through those. Our committee will have a CRF discussion I don't want to hold do see here for a for a overall of the CRF. I am for the question and we'll schedule Steve on Monday, Steve. On the CRF when Maria comes in. But if not commissioner. I know it's a challenging time and both you and the job and the challenges will continue, but that you're getting them sorted out. Thank you for your support and your time. We appreciate it. I'd like to thank the committee of jurisdiction for supporting us. It's for supporting us and joining us in this meeting and supporting us with your information so that we can move this budget quickly. I appreciate that. Thank you. And I find sometimes it's harder to multitask at home than it is in the state house. Certainly is. Thank you.