 She's got the goods. So. Welcome folks. This is house corrections and institutions committee. We're running a little late this morning because we're waiting for folks. They got tied up and. And couldn't get on them. We had some technical issues with some of the folks that needed to testify there. Internet was unstable. So we're trying to work through that. So we are taking time this morning to review the process. Okay. If you go to our webpage, we have the first thing that we went through is the language. It was actually passed and put in place by the legislature. Back in the fall of 2019. Which was directing BGS to go out for a contract to court and to coordinate with DOC. And we do have a discussion about the use of. Human issuance of an RFP for the purpose of contracting with an individual or an entity. That has expertise in designing correctional facilities. But to also look in terms of the needs of our population and the different. Sectors of our population that are incarcerated be that. Of women, be that of the inmates who are currently housed out of state in Mississippi to bring those back. the addiction treatment needs, as well as the geriatric population. And to come back and give us some proposals on how best to go forward to best accommodate these specific populations in any facilities that we choose to go forward with to replace particularly the Chittenden Women's Facility, but that's also impacting the whole correctional system as a whole. So if you decide to replace one facility, it's like dominoes that kind of triggers what's happening in all the other facilities. So let's do it right. And this is an RFP that went out and we will be hearing a report back from them, hopefully in maybe the end of March or April, but I wanted to have a little check-in to give some more background about this RFP, this feasibility study and also to bring us up to speed in terms of where the contractor is. So we have with us this morning some BGS folks and also some DOC folks. So I'm gonna turn it over to you and Sherylyn Laughley, who's an engineer with BGS, I'm told, is a lead person. So we'll start with you. And if you could just identify yourself for the record and then we'll go. And whoever speaks again first, please identify yourself for the record. Sure, my name is Sherylyn Laughley. I am the project manager for the design or with the design and construction division for buildings and general services. I really just wanted to give you guys kind of a little update on where we're at. You guys got the notes of the RFP that was sent a couple of weeks ago. Okay, got those. So HOK Architects, they are going to be providing us with a report here in the next few weeks. And that report will include the existing conditions of all of the facilities here in the state of Vermont. It will include on the bed needs from the Department of Corrections, concepts and summary program for a new campus style facility, concepts and summary program for a new facility plus expansions of all of our existing facilities, concepts and summary program for a new women's facility and expansions of all the other facilities, basis of design and prototypes. And they're just precedents of other projects that are similar in size. So was this submitted to us when you're just reading now? Nope, this is an update I got from our architect yesterday. Could that be sent to us at some point? Would that be possible? Sure, it's just gonna be in the report that you guys get in a couple of weeks for your crossover. I know, but it will be helpful, I think for some members to get it in advance of that. Oh, yeah, that's fine. That would be great to get that. That would be very helpful. Thank you. You're welcome. And right now, we're just plugging along and going along. So, did I interrupt your testimony? I'm sorry. No, no, that's it. I just wanted to give you guys kind of a little update on what you'll be seeing in the next couple of weeks. So could you go over that again, because some of us were taking notes and it's really important to hear what they've already accomplished this? Well, they're in process of some of it, but in the next couple of weeks, they should have something. Okay, so we'll go over that list again would be helpful. Madam Chair, right now it's a roll of pins. In a few weeks, it'll be a wedding dress. Okay. So what you guys will probably see in the report will be a report of all of the existing conditions of all of our facilities. And the bed needs and the projections of the bed needs for the Department of Corrections, concepts and a summary program for a single campus style facility, concepts and summary program for a new facility plus expansions of all of the existing facilities, concepts and summary program for a new women's facility and expansion of the existing facilities, a basis of design and prototypes and precedents of similar facilities, which are just projects they've done in the past. I'm sorry, I had to scoot out. So I missed that again. It's okay. Somebody at the back door. Questions, anyone in the committee having questions here? You're pretty quiet. Okay. I would ask questions, but I missed it again. Do you want me to repeat that? Not for the other members. No. Okay. Scott and then Kurt. It only took a second so we could go over the list again, but I'm just looking at the project schedule. Yes. And so it says conceptual design update February 26th, conceptual design draft report March 22nd. Is that what you're referring to? Yeah. So we'll have a couple of reports. We'll have our feasibility study report to give you and then the conceptual design report will have bits and pieces. They're still working on some cost estimates and operating costs and stuff like that. So there'll be like bits and pieces, but they'll have like a design, with their recommendations. So will that feasibility report, will something be available for us on the 26th of February or not? I was planning on getting it to you for crossover. Was that the original plan last time? We need it before then. Crossover isn't until March. March 12th, right? We don't know yet. Oh, okay. That's what we're assuming we don't know. Okay. I'm getting a draft on the 22nd. Is that for public, is that for public view or not? But sometimes the drafts are not for public review. Yeah, the study's not complete yet. So. So we have to make sure that what we get for public view. Eric, do you have, do you want to weigh in on that at all? I'm just, Eric, Philcorn, BGS. I think our original intent was to get it to you around town meeting day. And so crossover more in a sense of when your bill is going to crossover as opposed to general crossover. Right. Different times. The draft that Sherilyn is going to get, we would then review for technical corrections and then go back to the vendor and then they would prepare what's really a final draft to then share with the committee. Okay. And then our plan was to share with you and the Senate at the same time so that you would be up to speed together and then you could collaborate on any language you might want to include in the capital bill to keep the process moving forward. I think that was sort of the plan. Okay, great. Thank you. Did that help, Scott, in your question? Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Kurt? Yeah, is there anything that HOK is doing with regard to, is it all just within the current facilities population or are they also looking into the population that is now in community supports which have kind of been proving to be inadequate so far? Are they looking outside prison population for those that might be in any new facilities? New state-run facilities, are you thinking? Or community-run facilities? State-run facilities. I'm not following your question because throughout the community they're gonna be working with our community partners. If they're in a community facility, they're still incarcerated but in a reentry program. The whole background, okay. My proposal involves finding people that are in current community supports that are not adequate and should be in a higher, more highly supervised situation. So my hope is that somebody is looking into who in the current community really shouldn't be there but should be within a DOC-managed facility. Not necessarily a prison, but a transitional facility. But if it's DOC-managed, they're still incarcerated but they would be in a kind of state-run, DOC-run transition facility that would help them then later transition to the larger community. Exactly. So somebody needs to look at the current people who are in the community supports that are not adequate and say we need to bring those people into a more supervised facility but not necessarily a prison. So I think the proposal, I think that's kind of backwards Kurt. I think what it is, you've gotta do that piece first. I think it's gonna be difficult for those folks who are currently out in the community and this is maybe more a DOC question. Can you pull them back in into a new reentry facility if that was existing? I'm thinking going forward, you include that interim step of that transition reentry facility before they get out in the community and then they wouldn't be as high risk. Exactly. But there are now currently, we've been told repeatedly that the community supports are not adequate. That this is causing a turn. They keep coming back in. The idea is let's find out how many of those there are and have them in a transitional facility. That's run by DOC. That's run by DOC. So I'm gonna kind of throw this to Alcormier which I don't wanna put you on the spot but this is a DOC question because you've got folks who are out on a furlough status and what Kurt is suggesting you bring them back in and incarcerate them in a transition program. If I'm understanding that correct, Kurt. Yes, or at least you get the account of how many there are that are being released who really shouldn't be released because they keep recycling back in. They should be better prepared for the community. So I wanna throw this one to you. Sure. Alcormier, Chief of Operations with the Department of Corrections. So to answer the first part of your question, Representative Taylor, the HOK study does not include the reentry programs as you're speaking. There is a reentry component to the HOK study regarding the physical structure of a reentry building as part of a campus style facility. So that is incorporated but the programming component will be the responsibility of DOC to build once a decision is made on what we're looking at for a facility. It's kind of, we don't really wanna put the cart before the horse. We can't say what the program is gonna be without knowing we've got a building for programming. So it is incorporated as a structure piece but as the program piece, we'll have to work on that as we move forward. Our vision for reentry does not include bringing people back to jail. Again, I understand the churn and the returns. Somebody that has returned for violation behavior, new charges, whatever it might be, we would then look at them for eligibility to a reentry program that would be run by us and then incorporating supports with our designated agencies in the community. We understand that there is a breakdown there. That is part of our justice reinvestment that we're working on right now. But justice reinvestment is really taking a look at reentry, how we handle that, how we partner with our designated agencies. I know that Commissioner Baker's had recent conversations with Commissioner Squirrel around how we can better enhance reentry and support in the community. So it's separate from this right now, but I think if, as we move forward with the HOK study and we look at what does a campus style look like or what recommendations come from HOK and is there a separate reentry building outside of the Secure Perimeter, then we would look at building the programs to support that reentry. I hope that helps, I don't. No, that makes sense. And I'm not necessarily talking about bringing people back from the community. We can wait till they recidivate, but what I'm trying to figure out is how do you determine the size of the reentry if there is to be a reentry facility? How do you determine the size of it without knowing a count of those people who currently are in the community who really shouldn't be there because they should be more highly supervised in a reentry facility? So I think where we stand right now is anybody that's in the community is eligible to be in the community. Because we can't base our release on a reentry program because we don't have it. So we would really have to take a look at our classification system, our release criteria. Again, it's kind of building the airplane in the sky as we move forward with this because we don't know what those resources are gonna be without having that building, but HOK is taking into account current population, projected population, recidivism rates all across the state. So they will incorporate that into their recommendations as we do move forward with this. So they might look into the current programming and or the kind of programming that inmates currently need and may not be getting in the community and say, yes, those could go into a transitional facility. Yes. Okay. Yeah, I really wish that they were looking into those that are actually failing outside the current facilities to find out why they're failing and why they are likely to recidivate and therefore build an accurate number for the size of the building if there is to be one. But that's okay, I understand. So I think Al mentioned and I think this is the parallel path that's also occurring here. We have justice reinvestment, the council state governments and what Kurt's bringing up is exactly what they are looking at is the community system. And if you go back to their reports, it shows where that churn is coming from. And it's coming from those folks who are in furlough and what those violations of conditions are released are all about. That's where you get that data and they have those numbers. So that's a parallel track. So when we figure how we're gonna go forward with our buildings, we've got this current RFP feasibility that's looking at all the population segments that are currently incarcerated. They're looking at the conditions of our facility. They're looking at the economics of doing a standalone versus a campus style or combination thereof. So that we have that piece in front of us when we figure out how to go forward with replacing a correctional facility. What's also information that's gonna feed into us in this discussion and decision is the data coming in from the council state governments in terms of the churn that's occurring and in terms of what is lacking out in the community with our partners. And those partners could be our designated agencies, they could be our community justice centers, they could be our turning point recovery centers, they could be our pathways program, our dismiss program, all the other transitional housing pieces that has their own programming. And how can they come up to the plate to provide services for DOC folks who are re-entering? There is money in the governor's budget for increasing those mental health services and substance abuse services and for transitional housing. So there is a parallel path here going. And that's maybe hard to get our hands around and it's very fluid. We've got another, you know, more data that will be coming in as time goes by but people are focused on this now and they're getting the information to help us make a decision on how we move forward. And even if we make a decision on how we move forward we're not gonna put a shovel in the ground this summer or next summer because BGS then has to go out and find some sites and they have to do some work there to figure out what's needed at the site for what size facility and what type of facilities you're building. So this is a long process. It's not gonna happen in six months. So I hope that helps the committee in trying to piece these individual pieceability studies and the council state government's work how that's gonna all come together down the road. Does that make sense to the members a little bit? So we've got some more questions here. Sarah, Scott and show. Thank you. I have a question. I think it might be for Cheryl Lynn. I have three questions. So one is I would like to hear how many responses you got to the RFP. Second is why you selected HOK. And then I have a follow up question about process and input up with it of HOK. So if you wouldn't mind answering the first two first then I have a question. I have to look how many responses we've got. Let me do that real quick. I wanna say we received three or four, we received five proposals for the project. And then there was a selection committee put together. So there was a group of BGS staff and a group of DOC staff who reviewed each proposal. And it's, oh, Joe, what kind of number system is it? In the end, we each, Joe Aja, Director of Design and Construction for BGS. And a lot of our design and our construction management projects, we do it, we have a selection process. And we have requirements in the RFP that have a waiting to it. And then you go through and do a scoring. And at the very end, so you can't skew, we do it in an ordinal process. That ordinal process assigns all and everybody who scored the highest firm gets a one. And then you go down to two and everything else. So you really cannot take the time to select a firm that you want by giving all the other firms zero and then one firm 10. So that's how that process is. And there are questions along their experience. So provide your experience in doing these types of projects. So in this case, it was DOC studies and the likes of that. And it's also the team. So who do you bring in your firm and even consultants to the table? What projects have you worked on? Provide that. And then with what we have asked for in the RFP, give us an idea of cost schedule, the likes of that or what we're looking for from you for the future. It's not resolving the issue. It's just how they're answering some of these questions. And then you go through and score. And at the very end, you come up with, well, here is the recommendation that I make to the commissioner of BGS and say, based on what I see in the scores and in the proposals, we recommend this firm. And so that's how HOK got selected. So cost is also part of that. Sure. So it wasn't meant as a trick question or a question of your process. It was more about just to hear why HOK floated to the top. So it sounds like it's both based on experience, the capacity of the team, the quality of their work, and how they came in on the bit. Yes. So my follow-up question is, I think there are some folks who are on this committee and outside of this committee who are concerned about how we get at designs and decisions around that. And I know from working on institutional projects with architects and designers that one of the ways that they process that they meet with key stakeholders. And I think that one of the questions is, at this stage is HOK meeting with the various stakeholders? Obviously, DOC, but I know from hearing through testimony that DOC is also working with UVM on a project that's funded through the Urban Institute around programs in our correctional facilities. And I'm just curious, who is informing HOK's work? Because we just want to make sure that we have an opportunity here to really do something important and productive. And I just want to make sure that we're getting the input at the time that it's appropriate to get input. So maybe Hal, you might be able to speak to that. Or Sherilyn, I'm not sure who would best answer that question. I can answer that. At this point, we really haven't worked with any of those outside agencies because it's really conceptual. And it's just the feasibility of whether this should happen or not. When we get to the design phase, that's when we would really start talking with our outside advocates, PRO, bring them to the table, ECLU, disability rights from our, we would certainly be working with all of those entities as we looked at design and implementation. But right now, we have not because it's too early, I think, at this point. So are they working with any of the data and the research that has been coming out of the justice reinvestment in the Council on State Governments? Yeah, they have all that data. We're providing them data on a regular basis out of our shop. So yeah, they have all the current data from DOC, current programming options and availabilities within the system. So they are taking all that into account. OK, I guess my concern is a little bit that we're getting the timing of when we get this report in our committee. And I know it's a pandemic. And things have been delayed for real reasons. And I really appreciate all the work that DOC and BGS are doing. So I just want to make sure that when we come down to talking and making decisions about this, that we feel confident about the process. And it sounds as if you are all doing that. I just want to make sure that if there's an opportunity to the concepts that are going to be presented have been informed by some of this important work that's with justice reinvestment in particular and how we're thinking about how to best support folks re-entering. And specifically, I think we're talking about replacement of the women's facility. And if we can be imaginative and think outside the box, I just want to make sure that that thinking is getting into the process. So I'll stop here because other committee members have questions, but that's where I'm coming from. We're certainly opened outside the box, that's for sure. So we have some more questions. Scott, Michelle, and then Karen. All right, thank you. My question goes back to the conversation with Representative Taylor about what he was getting at as far as DOC managed transitional housing. Maybe it's a question for Kurt and then also how are you thinking in terms of some sort of another step between incarceration and community managed transitional housing, something like a DOC managed transitional housing, a DOC managed re-entry facility, something like that? Is that something that doesn't exist now? And is that something that you're thinking in terms of? Kurt, you want to answer that because I think you're thinking of the main model, correct? Yes, for the most part. And the answer to your question, Representative Campbell, is yes. I am thinking along those lines of a DOC managed facility. But that's way down the road from what I'm thinking for the immediate time. What I'm thinking about immediately is just trying to pull those two parallel paths that the chair is talking about together by some small group to pull those together and come up with a dead count, actually, is all I'm trying to get and some understanding of what kind of high level design that would be. And to keep the process moving through the summer, because we're not going to get this report until April or maybe March, maybe April, which will be too late for any kind of changes in legislation, probably. So that's my concern. But the vision that I have, which may not be accurate, because I don't have all this information together. It's the job of somebody else or some group to pull all this information together. But that's what I'm looking for is pulling information together, keeping it going and having a concrete or at least design idea throughout the summer to work towards that. And DOC managed, yes. Because I think there is a need for that level of supervision that's halfway or away between incarceration but not completely released to the community or even in the supports of the community. There's such a big difference between leaving incarcerated facility and being even in a community run living situation. So I guess the question then for Al is does that fit in with a long term view of DOC's view of how to help transition offenders back into the community? Or you just made yourself mute there, Al. But I'm mute. Sorry, my dogs are barking in the background. I didn't want to. I see them running. I think somebody's here. But anyway, could you repeat that? I'm sorry. So did you hear what Kurt had to say about the long term view of some sort of middle step between fully incarcerated and fully into a community managed yes, additional housing? Does that fit in with DOC's view, do you think, of a sort of a long view of how to help reduce recidivism and technical violations of furlough and things like that? It certainly does. And that's something we've been looking at. And Representative Emmons mentioned the main model. And I think we were very impressed with what we saw with Maine and how that system works. Theresa Messier, Superintendent of Chinden, currently is working with Maine on an ongoing basis and sharing information and data. So we're hoping to gather some information from that project with what our system could potentially look like moving forward. But yeah, I mean, we certainly welcome a transitional component, especially for the women that are re-entering the community. To represent a Taylor's point, I hadn't really thought about the concept of a halfway house for return because halfway re-entry is part of return. I think for us, what we would be looking at, just off the top of my head right now, is looking at a system where if somebody violated, somebody was in need of services and they were returned to a correctional facility, we would need to do an assessment of what's the behavior, what's got them back? Is it a technical violation? Is it a new charge? And then get back to the re-entry component. So it would be an assessment and classification for a piece of that before we could actually say, okay, now you're eligible to get back into the re-entry component of that. So. Okay, well, thank you. I'm just trying to get a view of what our roadmap is, you know, what we're trying to do. If I can add one more thing. I'm not interested at all in fighting with DOC. What I'm trying to do is work with DOC and just to keep the process going and to pull these things together. If DOC doesn't like the way that I'm going, I'm not going to push it. I think it's beneficial for everyone and I think that the cooperation with them is ultimately what I'm looking for. We're not looking for a fight either, Representative. Well, and I think we got a, you know, there's money in the governor's proposed capital budget of 1.5 million to start going forward with replacing the Chittenden facility, which opens up all of these questions. We're going to have all of this information and the next step in the process is DOC and BGS needs to work with figuring out where we're going to site it, whatever it may be. And that's out of our micromanaging. When legislators don't get involved in that, we don't micromanage projects. We give direction and then let the departments within state government carry through on those directions. But we as legislators, our role is not to micromanage. For that, so I'm just putting that out there. The problem is they need to know what to site. Are they siding? That's what we're working on. Yeah. That's part of the study. That's part of the study. And that's part of also the work with council state governments to figure out about the churn. Yep. All this sounds good. So Michelle and then Karen. Yeah, I have a couple of things I wanted to mention and maybe Mr. Cormier give a response related to the role of the community justice centers in reducing recidivism. So I worked until pretty recently as a reentry coordinator in Brattleboro. And my job was facilitating COSAs, Circles of Support and Accountability. And in that program, we have the last number I heard was 26% reduced rate of recidivism in people that participated in that program. And in the program that I actually was working on the individuals I worked with, the rate was more like 95% did not reoffend in the time they were with us. There was one violation and it was a technical violation. So it was extremely effective in offering support that help people make choices that did not lead to return. At this point, the Brattleboro Community Justice Center has a waiting list. They can't meet the need for all the people that want those services. So my first question is does, any of these studies that are going on, do they include looking at the role of an expanded service option for the CJCs to provide extra services that we know are working? And then the second question would be also related to the CJCs. Some of the CJCs offer residential transitional housing options for people when they first come out of prison. Some of them don't. In Brattleboro, we had no transitional support of housing affiliated with our facility. And I'm wondering, is that one of the things that's looked at? Because some communities have this option that it seems like a really good option and other communities don't. And if we're looking at what succeeds in keeping people from getting sent back to prison, knowing about the options of those supportive residential programs, the ones that are offered by DOC, the ones that are offered by other entities, that would be really valuable to know to prevent people ending up getting sent back for a variety of reasons. Okay, so none of the HOK study does not include the justice centers. It's on the surface with justice reinvestment in our CSG work, but internally we're talking more and more about how to further utilize the services of the justice centers. We were just having a conversation earlier this morning with a commissioner on that and really how to build that capacity and utilize that better because we know that those COSes and those wraparound services do assist in success. One of the pilot projects that we're looking at is and we've talked about is embedding clinicians inside of our probation and parole offices that can then work with the justice centers and designated agencies to again, bring in reentry services without a reentry facility at this point, but to really help push these individuals that are returning to the community to success. So it is internal work that is being looked at. There is a current RFP out right now for transitional housing and to your point, some of those justice centers do offer that, others don't. It's resource-based where they're located. So it's really dependent on location services for who's able to offer that service. But we are hoping to see some increased resources with our transitional housing opportunities as part of this RFP that's currently out there and then further utilization of the justice centers. Is that okay, Michelle? You done? Sure, yeah, thanks. Do you have another question? Yes. Oh, sorry, you have another question. Karen, I think Michelle has another question. Sorry, I'm having mute issues. No, I'm fine. Go ahead, Karen, go ahead. Okay, Karen? Yes. So trying to kind of put this all together. This seems like this is a frustrating point for us in the process because we're waiting for the report and it seems like we're all very eager to see action move forward. And so my understanding is we'll get the report and then it's gonna have recommendations in it. And then we as a committee are gonna want to take additional testimony here, talk about what's in that report to then make further decisions on those recommendations. And that's gonna take time. And so I think we're at this place of wanting to do an informed intentional process of taking that testimony and also wanting to get action because we know that the system needs help. And so I would be curious to hear from DOC's perspective, like what are your expectations? Are you hoping like we get something out sooner rather than later? Are you like, no, we actually are planning to start this? Or are you like, I'm flexible. We can do what happens. But I think understanding what people's expectations are would be helpful in that because it seems like we have some options we can take. So I'll leave off, I'd like to have a shovel right now and start breaking ground, but we're very flexible as to what the process looks like, understanding that it is gonna take some time. But I think the input of this committee is gonna be very important. As you know, in fact, their representative coffee, the community resources and those advocacy agencies, their input is gonna be important. So we're looking for your input. We're talking about what's gonna work best for us. Again, we're kind of ahead of our skis per se in what we want because we don't know what the recommendation is gonna be. We've seen a couple of short drafts from HOK right now. Some ideas, some of it fits with what we're looking at, some of it doesn't. So the anticipation for this final report is it's building because I'm anxious. I mean, I wanna see what's gonna come out of this. I'd love to see these, I've got ideas in my mind, but it could be completely different than what HOK is gonna come up with. You know, I visited enough facilities across the United States where I've seen things that work and things that don't. And it's like, I wanna take bits and pieces of everything. I'm hoping that's what we see out of this study. So it is, it's kind of a hurry up and wait game at this point, but you're right, it's gonna take time. It's gonna take a lot of time and a lot of discussion to really say, okay, what are we doing? What is the next step once we receive this report? And to build on that a little bit to help folks, the legislative process is slow. It's deliberative. And I wanna commend the administration for putting money in the capital budget to get this moving. If there was no money there, we would be doing the heavy lifting to find money, to get the process going. The process going needs to figure out where we're gonna put something. And that entails BGS being on the ground, looking for land, looking for property that has the proper infrastructure, which is not a septic system. It's a town water system, wastewater system, drinking water system, electrical systems. That's, those are the criteria that BGS is gonna be looking at. But we need to give them the authority to go forward to do this. They can't do anything until we give them the authority and some money to do this so that next year when we come back, they come back to us with either proposals to purchase land, proposals, maybe some rough design documents if we're doing something at a current site in terms of what it could look like, what maybe the project cost is, but it would be really rough estimates. So then next session, we take the next step and put in more money to keep the process going. All the while looking at what direction we're going in. But to take a step back, the governor has put in his capital budget, 1.5 million to begin this process and replacing the women's facility. So there is support on the administration side to get something done. That's the first time that's happened. In this, we've been talking about this for three years. This is the first time the administration has actually put money in their proposal, which indicates they support moving forward on replacing the Chittenden facility. We will have a certain set of information when we decide, when we go through markup in that 1.5 million, does it stay at 1.5 million? Does it get decreased? Does it get increased? Language we put in there in terms of what BGS needs to get done, because it's gonna be BGS that's doing this work first in consultation with DOC. But BGS is the nuts and bolts in trying to find where you're gonna place the facility. You can't do it unless you know where you're gonna place it. You need the land. So we will be making that decision with a set of information we have at that point in time, which is from now until about mid-March. Passes the house, it goes over to the Senate. The Senate will be looking at this and they have a whole different view. They have a whole different view and they have a whole different level of knowledge. And then there's gonna be more information coming out from the feasibility study and council state government. So that's gonna get melted and they're gonna come back with maybe a totally different proposal. So there's a lot of steps along the way here. So I hope that helps a little bit. Marcia? And I just wanna say to BGS that I appreciate what you do and what you get out there and you come back with some very good reports. And I think we should let you do your work and we can pound on you later when you come back with your reports and we see what you've got. Thank you. I didn't know if you were offering up Landon Waterford representative of myself. I don't think, I think my talent would throw me out. But we could put it right over by the board dam and they could go swimming every day. So and to build a facility, you know just a standalone facility of a hundred beds if it's a hundred beds, you're talking what, 30 million, 27 million, 30 million just to build. Eric, are you muted? It might be, it could be even more. I hate to say low numbers out loud in committee because now we're on YouTube. I mean, we've got to put some, I mean, I think it's important for people to see what dollars we're dealing with. We're not dealing with two or $3 million here. We're dealing with substantial millions, tens of millions and you're gonna be phasing it in. This is not cheap. Eric? I just wanted to say as a process matter what we'll also be dealing with multiple committees on the Senate side because the oversight is split between institutions and judiciary and that this is for the new kids one of the last bills to pass. It's always us or the big bill. And so as much as we're on a time crunch we do have more time than most bills to get this right before the session's over. Yeah, I think that's an important part that Eric brought up because we do the policy of DOC. So we see it connected to the facilities. Once it gets in the Senate institutions this looks at the facility piece. The policy piece of DOC by their structure is in Senate judiciary. So you got a whole complete different dynamic there. And then our bills also have to go through the appropriations committees. And usually on our side that's pretty straightforward. The Senate side that changes an appropriations committee. Now they can do a crazy Ivan on you. They did two years ago. On this particular issue. Because that got derailed there. So, you know, we've got to take that first step again. And this time we have the administration behind us. Two years ago we did not. Two years ago it was this committee here that bit the bullet and said we're replacing the Chittenden facility. And we put in $250,000 and FY20 to do that. To start BGS, allow BGS to go out there and start looking what's available. And do we do a standalone or do we do a campus time? Went over to the Senate and it ended up totally different. And then at the end it ended up with the language asking BGS and DOC to go out for this feasibility study. So that's how we got to where we are now. Two years later on 250,000. So we haven't gotten any design documents or anything. That's the next step that we wanna do with this 1.5 million. And we may not know what type of facility we're gonna be designing for. We're gonna maybe put out a whole bunch of options. Have BGS come back to us and say, you know, maybe we do the St. Albans site. Maybe we don't, maybe we buy land in Chittenden County. Maybe we buy land someplace else. If we buy land, you're increasing the cost. So if you wanna equate this where we are with a secure residential for replacing Middlesex, we've been trying to replace Middlesex for six years now. And two years ago, when we were put in the two year capital budget together, in FY20 we put in $3 million. And we said to BGS and DMH go out and buy land. So at least we can get started on this construction of our state-owned facility. And there was land, there was possible in central Vermont, it was too close to our current state hospital. We wouldn't be able to get Medicaid funding. So then we said, well, go back out 30, 35 miles away from central Vermont and see what you can find. So they found a few parcels in Chittenden County near Burlington, near the airport. In the meantime, there were policy decisions being made on what do we do with our juveniles involved in the justice system, justice-involved juveniles. And it was decided we closed down Woodside. Well, we own that property and we own that building. So halfway through, the decision was well, we can move this, we can build on the Woodside site. If we just demolish the Woodside building and build for a residential facility, we can close the Middlesex Secure Residential. So we put in 1.5 million in last year's bill to continue this. And in this year's bill, there's a request to go forward with this, but it's been six years in the making. So it's just a long process. McCart? So there's what 500,000 in the first year of the capital bill. Was that for this? One million? It's 1.5 total. Let me look. Yes. It's half a million, the first year, then one million in FY23. So the half million at least gets BGS out there looking. That's, what does that mean? What are they going to be doing with the 500,000? Joe, could you answer that? Or Eric? It depends on what the study actually shows us. So let's say I think what everybody's sort of looking for is a replacement of a women's facility with a reentry. That's what the report comes back with. It's then going to be to justify exactly the numbers that may be in the report. Is that the correct size that corrections and others feels that need to be, and I'm saying size is bed size. And then hopefully they're going, the report is also going to narrow it down for us in location in the state. And so if it's a existing facility that has land, that's all well and good, BGS can then go out hire a designer to do programming to evaluate the site and everything else as Madam Chair said with these. When you talk about programming in your world, you're talking about the infrastructure, not the programming of DOC needs. That is correct. We would, we have to incorporate the needs of DOC, what they need for programs. So whatever that may be that they need, whether it's a reentry or a regular facility, what do they need, how many beds, all of that. And then that programming is included with the design so that we know how to put together a package. That package would be a suggestion that these are all of the needs and wants of DOC. This is what size, building and location that you would need it. And that's if we have an existing site, we can then move forward. If we don't have a site, we then, like we did with Secure Residential, go out and advertise for sites based on our needs. That would be the number of acres. We always wanted, because of Vermont is Vermont, it's difficult to plan when you're looking at a site. We're always, we always assume it's a nice flat site, the perfect site to be on and then work from there. But we do know that we want municipal water and sewer because of the issues behind trying to maintain our own water system and sewer system. Because both of those can take up a lot more land and also maintenance in the future. We also look for three-phase power. We would really want to be on a class two road. Class three gets kind of iffy, but it depends how far down a class three road is and it likes to that. So when you do look at our facilities, the old facility down in Windsor, that road actually wasn't that bad. We did have sewer over the years that was extended out there. We had our own water supply. Chittenden, sort of downtown South Burlington, if you will. So there's pluses and minuses, so your neighbors are everything else and what you need. But that would be the next step. We still don't get into a design of a facility until we know DOC's programming and BGS's programming of the size of the buildings and everybody's needs and then the piece of land. Then we know what to be asking for for design cost. I hope that sort of sums it up without getting into too many details. Yeah, so that's good. I'm just, I'm trying to figure out the time sequence of how these things are going to progress because I mean, the decision is not going to be made as to what the size of the facility or whether it's part of a campus or whether it's not until at least the end of the session when at least the end of the session, when we have a chance to take testimony, the Senate has a chance to take testimony, all this stuff has to work through and we finalize the capital bill that might on that. Then I even then suspect we won't know, we won't have made that decision. Is that not true chair or do you think that decision would be made by then? I think it's going to be a long process. I don't think, I think you've got to let BGS and DOC do the preliminary work that Joe just laid out and then come next session. There'd be more structure to it, but you've got to sort of put your feelers out there first before you really know where you're going to land. So that's the first year. And then the second year, you're going to know more in terms of where you could place it and what the facilities going to start looking like and then you give them the money to start doing the real designs. But I don't understand because they can't go out and do that until they have a decision as to whether it's standalone or campus. So that's the decision that has to be made first. So when do we make that decision? The report that we're getting should have, I've taken all the numbers and everything that DOC has provided and we assemble that and they're coming back with a recommendation. Now, to really go offline here to make the point, what if they say you really need a two-bed re-entry facility for women and 10 for men? Do we, you know, DOC's got to look at that. BGS has no say in that, but it's DOC and potentially others to have to evaluate that and go, no, based on, that may be our numbers now, but this is what we see in the future or would like to go to. So you're still gonna have that discussion. It would be real nice that if the report spits out exactly what everybody's hoping and is looking for. That rarely happens, but it could be close. And then it's going to be, you know, what if the consultant decides that it really ought to, you ought to put place this facility, you know, in the southeast corner of the state? Well, is that, you know, what we know is that really the best location for it? They have to substantiate why they picked out location, you know, because they know that's where they can get the staffing that it was required for that and everything else. And then we would then, you know, if everybody agreed, we would then go search for land. But it is a process. And if you jump ahead of the process, we run into issues and too many questions of, you know, we didn't get the proper location. We didn't get the proper size land. Should we consider, let's assume it's a 20-bed reentry facility, should we plan for 30 or more beds if you're looking at a 20-plus year growth? Because, you know, that calls comes in the play, but it's the steps you have to take. And unfortunately, those steps and timing take time. But we're gonna get where you want. It's just that it is a, it's a process. Okay, I guess we're kind of stuck with we'll wait till we get the report and then see what happens. But again, so it seems impossible to lay out some idea of when decisions will be made. I mean, I would like to think that the report comes in, DOC does all this munching of the report and by January of next year, we know whether it's going to be standalone or campus and what part of the state. And then DOC can take their 500,000, go out and look for, or BGS can take their 500,000 and go out and look for property. But I guess I don't completely see the way this is gonna play out. And maybe it's impossible to tell until we know more. With my experience on this one, it's a little bit different than an office building where people can come and go. This one's really about the population and the type of population. For the re-entry facility, it shouldn't be built concrete walls, floors, ceilings, the likes of that because it's a re-entry facility. So that's one of those things where if we're gonna build it, we have to build it correctly. And that, it does take a little bit of time. So it's really about once that report comes in, all BGS and DOC will be at it. Going over it, working together to find out what exactly what we're looking for and then reaching out to everybody else too. Does the governor recommend or support what comes out of that report also? Is it the right size? So that's the hardship is waiting for the data to be massaged, getting that recommendation and what the next steps are, and it just takes time. And that's exactly the part of the process that I'm trying to insinuate, I suppose, some legislative oversight, where the process that you just spoke of, where DOC is trying to pull all this together and figure this out, that's where I would like to have some involvement by the legislature as well, or by some committee that has representation from the legislature. But by the way, I think the main facility cost about 10 million at the time, which is so it's probably, you know, with inflation gone up, but I believe it was 10 million. But they already had the land. Yeah. That's the biggest. And we may as well, so you never know. Eric, you had your hand up. You got to unmute. It's all right, two things. I think when you see the report, you're gonna see maybe up to a half a dozen different scenarios that are gonna show existing campus, existing sites, projected news sites, taking into account transport, interaction with judiciary, all of these different pieces and you're all gonna have to break out your moral calculators and figure out what you wanna do. And secondly, we're talking about legislative involvement. I have to imagine that we're just gonna be item number one on joint justice all summer and fall this year. I don't think you guys are gonna leave the room. That's all. Are you all done there, Kurt? We have another question, are you all set? No, I'm good for now, thanks. Okay, Scott? Thanks, I'm wondering how much the HOK contract is for and what we're anticipating for the rest of the money, the rest of the 1.5 as far as, is that buying architectural services or what are we thinking about that? We're scheduling time next week with BTS and DOC to go more in depth on the 1.5, I believe towards the end of the week. Oh, yes. Yes, is that towards the end of the week next week? I have it plugged in for Friday. I haven't reached out to Rachel Feldman and DOC to get witnesses yet, but I don't believe that that's gonna be a problem. So we're gonna do a deeper dive into that, Scott, but initially... Wanna wait until then? Well, initially, BTS needs some money to get going. They can't do anything without some money to get going from us. And the governor proposed half a million for FY22 to get that process going. Okay, out of the 250 from last year or last time. We put in, I believe it was 200,000, wasn't it, Eric? Originally you put authorization for us to spend 200,000 in planning money and I think you put another 200,000 into our planning line and then last year, Kurt, excuse me, Representative Taylor, I think was kind enough to push another 50 in or 25. From the 19. No, and yeah, and I think we're in for about a quarter of a million with HOK. Is that right? Sounds about right. I'm looking at Sherilyn and Joe. They just can't see me through the screen looking at them. Sherilyn? The cost was around 250,000. I wanna say it was 251 in change. So for the new members to the committee and you may not have the spreadsheet from the last two year budget, we put in in the line for planning use and contingency because this is all planning dollars in a way. We had two, there was 700,000 in FY20. 200 of that 700,000 was to go pay for this RFP. And then last year we were concerned that the cost may come in a little bit more. So we put in an extra almost 30,000 on that line, specifically for this RFP. Eric, I'd like to take credit for that, but I can't. Well, I've always given you credit for it in my heart, sir. And the scale of architectural costs for something like this, do we have any guests? That's on the project cost, right? Yeah, it all kind of depends on what you wanna see and how much work they've gotta do to provide that. Okay. I think I gotta scoot out one second. Can we go on hold for? Oh, I should go. So it's somewhere between 500,000 and 5 million. It could. It could be less than that. Okay. Caroline, since Alice has popped out, but can you describe how an architectural fee has arrived at? It's in relationship to the size of the project. Yeah, they usually are. Rough percentage. Yeah. It's just a rough percentage out there. There's some standards to get you there. Smaller the project, the higher the cost, the larger the project, a little bit less. So you're talking eight to 15% of your construction cost would be your design cost. Correctional facilities are on the higher end of that percentage because of the requirements of the details and the types that you're building, construction materials and methods. So it's a little, probably I would estimate it's gonna come in around 10%. Okay. That's good. Thank you. We don't even have the land yet. So, I'm representing my town. We do. Yeah. Alice, you back? I'm back. I want a crazy morning. That was for a dental appointment and they had a cancellation and I really had to deal with it. Sorry. You didn't do it for us. Yeah. God, did you get your answer? I'm so sorry. Um, Madam chair. Yeah, I just wanted to give a little history of why that money was put into planning and reuse. Would that help the committee in trying to figure out a little bit or is that gonna complicate you folks? Marcia, you're muted. It just complicates more things. Okay. It ended up there through politics. I'll put it that way. So where were we, Sarah? When I miss, I think we were just talking about the, how an architect's fee is arrived at because Scott was asking, it's in relationship to the scale and cost of the project. And I was just gonna ask if it, at some point soon it would, I think it would be helpful for myself to see, it's helpful to see a timeline. You know, just even, I know we don't have a fixed timeline, but if I think there is, it might be helpful to the entire committee to see both a construction kind of timeline and process and also late next to a decision-making timeline. Cause I don't know if this committee understands that we're, how we got here. Also the, besides the Senate, the Joint Justice Legislative Oversight Committee played a big role in how we, where we landed with the dollars and the approach on the RFP. And so did Joint Fiscal Committee. They made the final decision. Yeah. So we can set the direction. I mean, we can, our committee can do its work, but there are these, there's a process with this. And also when we're out of session, standing committees have no authority to act on behalf of the legislature. The only committee that can act when we're off session, that can take any legislative action is the Joint Fiscal Committee. And the Joint Fiscal Committee is made up of the chairs of your appropriations committees on the House and Senate side and your Ways and Means Committee on the House side and Finance Committee on the Senate side and a member at large from each body. So they are the only ones that have the authority that can make any decision, legislative decision when we are off session. So once we adjourn, we have no role in making a standing decision for the legislature. We can have check-ins as a committee, but we have no authority to act. So that's why the Joint Fiscal Committee approved the language. And once Joint Fiscal Committee approved it, then BGS could start working on going out with the RFP. The money was not released until the Joint Fiscal Committee agreed. So one more thing, Eric, to pick up on what Sarah was just saying, I think it would be helpful for next week when you folks come in, if you can possibly, I know this is gonna be a rough rough, but for that proposed 1.5 million that the governor put in for the next, for the two years, if you could do just a timeline flow in terms of what that would get us, for the next two years. You can do that. That would be helpful. Eric, hand your hand up. Madam Chair, I was just gonna pile on to your statement about Joint Fiscal. As a committee, you also have the opportunity during the session to kind of preset triggers for action that Joint Fiscal can act upon. So for instance, if there's a report coming or something that it was a decision point for your committee that you want to try and execute in the off-session, you can put language in to your bill that will trigger the potential for an action by Joint Fiscal off-session. Sometimes if we wanna get a jump on a project and we think everything's okay and you say, well, if it's okay with them, then you can start work in October instead of waiting until we come back. It's well-intentioned and sometimes it'll work and sometimes we go to the trouble of setting all that stuff up and conditions change and we wind up not being able to do that, but that option is there. So it's not always over when you guys go home, right? That's right. I mean, it's okay. We get in the second. Sometimes what we've done on some projects and again, I'm gonna use a secure residential piece as an example, because when we put in the money to go purchase land, we put in $3 million to go purchase land. We were concerned that maybe the costs will come in a little higher or maybe they'd end up being problems in trying to find the land. So we put in a little check in there that BTS and DMH had to check back with the chairs of the institutions committees to check in before they could move forward with actually putting down an option. So everyone knew, oh, this land's gonna come in for more than $3 million. So don't be surprised come next session that there's a request for additional money to purchase. So it's like those little check-ins that can be put in. Does that make sense to folks? I hear I see some nods and then I see some no nods. Kurt, thank you, Mary. Kurt. I'm just wondering if we could get a copy of the RFP for the transitional housing that you were talking about that was spoken about. There's a new RFP out for transitional housing. Yeah, I believe Derek Medovnik, did he not forward that to you? That's the most recent one representative Taylor. Not that I didn't know the copy. I'd appreciate it's very well, it's very possible it's lost in my emails. Okay. Yeah, we get a lot of emails, so. Thank you. Yes. Other questions, I think we're starting to wrap up here for this. So has this been helpful to the committee? Not seeing much acknowledgement, but I think people are wiped out. I think everyone's wiped out. So next week, week from now, we're gonna get into a little deeper dive into this 1.5 over the two years. And I think it would be very helpful with BGS and maybe also with DOC to just figure what would be expected with that 1.5 in the timeframe? What could get accomplished for that? Anything else from you folks before we start wrapping up? Anything else from the committee? Okay, so we're gonna finish up this section here. So you folks, I think from BGS can go. I'm not sure, DOC, Al, before you go, we're gonna be working this afternoon on getting the rough draft of hopefully a committee bill that your commissioner has asked us to put together. Are you planning on being with us this afternoon? I'm for, no, because I have a meeting with HLK on the bed count design. Is any, well, I'm assuming, I hope somebody from DOC. Yeah, so the commissioner Baker, Heather Simons and Bill Sol are joining this afternoon. I know the commissioner has asked for me to be involved, but every time there's, I'll get something else going, but yeah, so those three will be there today. Okay, great, because we did get the rough draft for that just sent us, Phil just sent it to us for that. Okay, so your folks can zoom off and then we're gonna finish up here on the committee. So thank you. Thank you, have a wonderful weekend. Yeah, sure. Of course we do, thank you all. And be sure, Sherilyn, to send that, what you were testifying on, just to send those votes to Phil. I'll send it to Eric and, or someone will forward it on. We'll send it to Eric and we'll send it on. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Madam Chair. Yes. Did you say that we've got that draft? Yeah, I suppose. I think Phil already sent it out, didn't you, Phil? Yeah, Phil sent it. I've got it. Email or posted. Email? Email. Okay. Why are we getting an echo? Is other people getting an echo? No. I heard it. Yeah, I keep hearing it. So this is a very, very, very, very rough draft for that. So, okay, I'm sorry, this morning ended up being a little activity here at home that kind of makes your attention away. So I'm pretty much done until two o'clock this afternoon. Where are you folks? So you folks have any questions? What time should we come back out? It's like quarter, like quarter or two. To settle us in? Okay. It's at two o'clock for that. And the energy group, the group who was at Scott and Karen, when are you meeting to talk about putting language on the parameters of what that program should look like if we decide to go ahead with it or not? Yeah, we're meeting at 3.30 today. Okay, and you're meeting with Catherine, Becky, Dan, and then Eric just asked to join. So Eric will be there as well. Eric's gonna be there. Okay. And your judiciary folks, the ones who are working, Mike and Marcia and Lynn. I'm actually shooting a note to Merrick Grutchfield, who is Pat Giebel's assistant because I've heard crickets from them. So I'm sending him one right now to go, what's up? Okay. So let's go off of YouTube. We're done for this morning and we'll be back at two o'clock to go through the rough draft of Department of Corrections. We'd like us to do a committee bill on some initiatives. So we're gonna get a rough draft.