 Committee we're going to shift again. We're going to talk a little bit about a bill we were talking about last time around. Becky Wasserman has joined us. Geez, Becky, we don't see you much these days. Are you over with that other body? It's huge. Okay. I'm sorry. I don't know. Has institutions I think of ops a lot this year so far. And I don't know how's energy. Another one. You can stay away from our chair. We can't sell. Sorry. See the humor. It's still as bad as it always was. You haven't missed the thing. Yeah. Brought up S245 to talk again. Committee. You may recall. This is the bill to do something about. What was Woodside. What do we do with something by way of plan B, but specifically this bill was brought to us by Senator Hooker. Calling for a retrofit of the Windsor facility. I don't know if we're going to deal with this bill or we're going to officially kill it. So I'm open to conversation about that subject. I think. Senator McCormick and I could. I don't know about the rest. We could, we can leave it on a wall, but that's not the center for me. More conversation. I'll comment. Wow. No, Senator Mazza says it all. I can't seriously all kidding aside, I can't even imagine us going down that road. It makes no sense. It's why, why would you want to spend $3 million on something temporary? The town is insistent. They've had their share of 50 years of prisons or a hundred years of prisons and they want to get away from it. And I mean, they've done their part over the years, I think of sharing the state prison. So to me personally, it's a, it's a no brainer. We shouldn't even proceed, but that, I mean, I'm just speaking for myself. It's just something that. It's got no legs on it. I think the town, like I said, they're very, very good about it. Look what they've done for us all these years of the state prison. In fact, you mentioned Windsor. People, the minute they say it, Windsor was state prison, state prison. I mean, that's what they've had that tagged with them for all these years. They got some nice open land there. And I think they deserve a break, but that's a, and to even think about putting a temporary facility there for $3 million, where you know, nothing is going to be temporary number one. And if it is, you're going to spend $3 million for something that's going to last a year or two years or three years. We have to have a facility somewhere located where. The community is responsive to it. And there are many communities, something that's going to be there for a long time. If it's possibly has to expand, it can expand. It can expand. I just don't agree with people that, that don't want to fight it terribly and justifiably. So in many cases. That's something we should. Pursue, but that's just my nickel. Okay. I'll say. You just heard that from the Dean of the Vermont Senate. Not from the Senator from Windsor, who has an obvious axe to grind. And I thank Senator Mazza. And I think he's absolutely right. I would just also remind the committee of the testimony we've heard. And the range of attitudes and backgrounds of the people from whom we heard. And the fact is that probably if you look hard enough, you'll find someone somewhere in Windsor who likes this, but they are a decided minority. And I don't think that's going to happen. I don't think the town of Windsor really doesn't want this. Now, I know we can put it there if we want to, because we're the state, but because we can doesn't mean we should. And I. That has been the, the view of this committee in the past. That we would. Not force an unwanted facility on. On a town. Now I don't know what we're going to do about. We'll talk, we'll talk about that in a second. I just want to get past this first conversation. Corey. You guys want to weigh in on the. No, go ahead, Corey. I was going to say. You know, normally I would maybe be okay placing something, but I think. I think they've had a prison for so long. And you know, they've done their part for the state of Vermont. I think, you know, they're very clear. I'd support Mazza and Senator McCormick. Here and say, let's, let's not do this to them. And I'd say that Winsor's out of the prison business as well. And they obviously. Really don't want it there. And I know that there's a community somewhere. That would want it there. I would love. To think that we could. Repurpose a. A building. Elsewhere that, you know, somewhere where it's just sitting. Some place where we could put it into use again, but with being respectful of the state's money, that is always the way that things work. And it's not always cheaper, but somewhere, somewhere along the way, somebody wants this facility in their community and be, would be proud to have it. And it certainly isn't in Windsor. And I'm sorry to jump ahead of you, chair. And I don't mean to be disrespectful, but neither is it in Newberry. I might add, Mr. Chair, also, you know, when we talk about Windsor, it's a bad location for. Transporting kids and being in an area where they could have better services provided. It's, it's way down. And the corner of the state, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's way down in the corner of the state. And I just, like I said, if you had to pick a spot, if it wasn't there, you'd never even be talking about this issue to locate there. But there are those who think the facility can be used, but not a good location. So we've got consensus Windsor is not the place. I'd like to talk about Newberry and Becky. This is why I actually invited you along in case we need to do something. I know that the administration is appealing. The decision in. Newberry. And I guess I want to make sure I'm not coming off. Miss remembering something. But I personally was under the impression when. Commissioner Brown came to us initially. Along with the Beckett folks that when they made that pitch, it was pretty clear. But if the town did not want it, they were not going to push it. Am I alone in that recollection? Or does anybody else have any recall on that? Don't all jump out at once. Well, I. I didn't hear. I only, I've only heard what other people have said. And I've only read what other people have provided, I suppose. I didn't hear the commissioner specifically say that they weren't going to push that. I mean, I've, I've heard testimony that that's what said I've, I've read some places. I don't know if it was official. Journalized comments that that's what was said. But it just seems to be. That is a consensus of everybody who has talked against this. I think that is what commissioner Brown had said, but I didn't hear commissioner Brown say that. That I remember, but I, it just seems to be that's what everybody thinks he said. Or, you know, may he may very well set it, but from what I, I just think it's that's what everybody seems to think. That's what commissioner Brown said. Okay. Anybody else have any recollection of that conversation? I don't know. I don't know what at this point we can do. I mean, it's. There again, probably never. Should have went that far and let the, let people offer their communities that want it. And now it's in litigation. I don't know what we have to say about it. Do we have any say in it at all? Or how does that work? I don't know. I don't know the answer to that directly. I don't know. I don't know exactly, Dick and Becky, maybe you can help out here. The, the decision of the town planning commission. Was to deny them a permit. They had appealed that. And I'm not exactly sure where that litigation is right now. But there's two things I'd like you to look into if you can. And it may be that Alex has to help you here. I would very much like to have. Some kind of a transcript or something from the conversation that was delivered to us initially. From both the commissioner and Beckett. As to what their intentions were in the event that the town objected. Because I don't want to go out saying anything without having a clear understanding of what that was. And I don't know, Becky, whether it's you or Alex and both of you that would need to team up to pull that back. But I really feel like that's an important part of the conversation before we as a committee decide to say anything if we're going to say something. But if there is grounds for us to say something. Are we running a foul of any litigation that's now pending. By doing so. Secondly, if we are going to say something. Eventually, once we get the transcript. What exactly should we say. I feel totally irresponsible for saying nothing. If there's something embedded in our records that made a clear statement. Because I feel like people got short changed in the conversation. And you're going to say something like that. And then what should we say. And then we'll move on to Russell. Well, chair, you run up a very good point. As far as when you start talking about litigation. And I mean, if it's under that point. I'm certainly not an attorney. But for, I, I don't know if we should even be commenting on it. Why it's in litigation, but you're an attorney. was an attorney and you know, I don't know by us commenting on it one way or the other really if it if we should be waiting into that but I don't I don't know that's my kind of my thought on that. That's exactly why I asked Becky to come here she's a better attorney than I am well we won't dispute that but you know I just want to make sure we are covering basis and yes I do feel somewhat parochial in the conversation but I've got a whole lot of people out there that are thinking we let them down. I just think I just think that there's a process that's going on right now that's ongoing and for us to and I apologize that I probably shouldn't have said anything earlier I should have just kept my mouth shut about it because I did wait in on it and I and I shouldn't have but I know the more that I think about it and talk about it is why there's a process going on between the state and the town and Beckett and the town that maybe that ought to play out before we make any decisions on it. Well there's another component if you eliminate the word newberry from the conversation for a moment and that is where do we locate a facility like this that makes sense and that's a different part of the conversation it could bypass the newberry litigation altogether but do we as a committee have some responsibility to say you know what we've got certain requirements for these kids and certain locations don't have those requirements and others do and if we're posing a particular location and we recognize that the services and the support systems are not there should we be taking a formal position? Well chair we really honestly in my belief shouldn't be taking a position on what the kids are and how they are no matter how we feel about it no matter how we believe about it we should be just talking about the building and because that's the committee that we are we're a building we're a committee that is responsible for brick and mortar and we're not responsible for where the kids go or even well for where the kids go we're really responsible for the building in itself and I can simply say that there's litigation going on or there's a conversation going on that the town doesn't want the building that we're our committee is responsible for and I think that that process ought to play out before we comment on it. Anybody else want to weigh in? Senator McCormick. I think in fairness the argument that I just made on my own and the argument that Senator Mazza made that I endorsed I would feel a little bit inconsistent if I didn't back you on on on saying the same thing about Newberry it's and as far as the brick and mortar issue and I do respect that that we don't deal with program we deal with brick and mortar but I think part of brick and mortar is do the brick and mortar belong there deciding is that the right place to put it I think is is a is I think our domain touches on that I don't think it overlaps but I think it touches it and the question is is this an inappropriate place for our brick and mortar and I think it I think it is and I would I would also hate to see us getting into a hot potato a thing of well you take the problem no you take the problem I think we've got to find a place that is less problematic and that easier said than done I think we have these two places are not good I'm sorry Senator McCormick I think that that time will come once it's decided once wants to litigation stops or or settles out I mean as of right now there's not a chance for anybody to raise their hand and say that we'll take that because there's not an option for that it hasn't been proposed other than one other one other place and I think things need to the air needs to clear before anybody steps forward well just making an observation all of your arguments on why it shouldn't go to Windsor are not brick and mortar they are all of the other connecting components like support systems people who want it people who don't want it and to me we are an institutions committee and I agree that we don't have full control over the operations decisions but it seems to me where you put that brick and mortar has to be made by somebody and I can't think of another committee other than institutions that would be in charge of that well I don't have a problem of saying it's about brick and mortar I have a problem of combining of what what the use of it's for and then making that emotional argument about it that that's kind of where I'm at with it you know that go ahead senator moza no are we discussing this because we have a bill that says they want three million dollars to put in a temporary facility is that correct yeah that's true we've already we've already decided we're not going to go forward with the bill we had a bill to work there is a proposal that we had jurisdiction because it did state three million dollars out of our money right for a temporary facility that's that's a big difference right there because we are we're addressing a bill we wouldn't be talking about Windsor I don't think uh unless there's a bill uh and that's and the other one would very wherever it is uh someone's going to make a decision of where they are in the litigation whether we have any ax to grind or not once we find out where this stands and I don't know how long that's going to take it one year five years or you know more about this litigation sorry yeah I couldn't tell you what the court system the way it is right now but Becky this particular project in Newbury didn't they come and get money through the capital bill to begin the whole process there was money I think it ended up being in the the budget bill actually um Eric's giving us the Nazi salute hi here help hello uh mostly I try and stay out of this but uh I saw an opportunity to be helpful yes it's general fund it's not involved the capital bill is not involved in this yeah I think it's that three million amount that is uh reference in s245 um so in that bill they were essentially reallocating what was in the general fund for that purpose um to fit up Windsor right um for this facility so why would they have come to institutions with that bill because the three million sorry with with the proposal the three million is that coming out of the capital bill no that's coming out of the the budget is general funds so why do you think they referred this particular bill to our committee s245 um because it's it would be um fitting up facility and because it is creating a plan for a long-term facility the the funding for the fit up this sort of temporary fit up was just reallocating those general funds but long term if you're going to come up with a plan for a permanent facility that would likely be capital dollars well time that you talk to the chair of appropriations uh mr benning you think well someone has to decide sooner or later where we're we're going I mean it's we can you know that's yeah no I hear you I do I mean I I need to look into this appeal process a little bit more but it is definitely possible that the appeal would go on longer than the legislative session oh I bet they can drag that forever yeah well back if you could look into that I'd like to just get some lay of the land so to speak to understand what's out there but when now pausing to think of wonder why they assigned this bill to us because technically we have nothing to do with whether three million comes out of the budget to invest in this particular refit I'll wrestle with that with the approach I I do think any fit up and an eric in Wayne here but any fit up that's actually done you know no matter where the dollars are coming from but it would it would be bgs doing that work um so bgs would be fitting up a state-owned facility so that does seem to fall under the jurisdiction of your committee well the wacky part of it is if we decide we're not going forward on this bill there's nothing that I would imagine stopping appropriations from deciding they want to go forward on the bill if they want it well I think that they do have to address this three million dollars somehow that was appropriate if it's not being used for that purpose then they probably have to address it somehow and you know make some sort of policy decision associated with that money yeah but I'm sure if they talk about it it's gonna if it comes out the money part they can discuss it but it's going to come back over to institutions I think for the money for it would be a state-owned building so I unless they got some secret views but even if they were to say yes I'll bet you would come back over to us for money yeah okay so back you got some work cut out for in I'm sure Alex can pull up the transcript if you need to iron that part out anybody else want to weigh in on anything I think that does it for the afternoon