[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6323770,"mediaKeyId","2341100-1de6f3553176ece65438e9ee41f40170","parentId",2341100,"title","Committee presses Department of Corrections pilot funded in governor’s budget for clarity on staffing, cost comparison and oversight","audioSeconds",821,"startMs",2187000,"endMs",3008000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2341100-1de6f3553176ece65438e9ee41f40170&start=2187&end=3008","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2341100-1de6f3553176ece65438e9ee41f40170/thumbnail_2187000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6323770/Vermont/Committee-presses-Department-of-Corrections-pilot-funded-in-governors-budget-for-clarity-on-staffing-cost-comparison-and-oversight","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323770-a6dd0c1e0ccbf67efdcbd1ebb406be26/orig.mp4?Expires=1775037039&Signature=F6ecK9j97kPd~Brrd1hwUaixOUaQ3IMdFhUpX04UkPI0JEIVCaHQBZDaFgQDhcejTffGA-rci8CYciFey64o8x06t7RB0FVlP0Bi5s1~3Z-bCF9hbQrLT9qpKcFl9suV1GVsX2CdVtpypX0z3HajldQ7nSHzGGrmpTKRRIShXGxE3II-g1metaxg~VaGEAtp0gcfq9XG~fdgl-up9vBmZohjvYDGOqQzAp2OZiXalCDVIrmac8esN~ZQ052drKEfBWSMfhQlGHbBxS07Qi8e4Ucxu8RuE3og0XZWjAhZHsCccasZnVwDpAm3tJZIQvNjUCP0bIy38GrqX4kV6l0ciA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-02-19T09:40:13Z","article","The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on Feb. 18 discussed a $300,000 item in the governor’s recommended budget intended to support a Department of Corrections pilot program to provide residential treatment and medication‑assisted treatment services (MOUD) via a contracted provider.

Committee members raised repeated concerns about staffing, program coordination, measurable outcomes and costs. Several members said they would support the concept only if the appropriation included clear legislative language requiring: (1) a marginal‑cost comparison that isolates the incremental cost to DOC of providing the services inside the correctional setting versus buying equivalent capacity in the community; (2) coordination with DOC’s existing health‑care contractor(s) (transcript references “Wellpath”); (3) a checklist of staffing and capacity requirements before funds can be spent; (4) required elements for any RFP and contracted service model; and (5) a formal check‑back to the committee and, if appropriate, Joint Judiciary or other committees before full program launch or expansion.

Why it matters: committee members framed the discussion as balancing a rehabilitative goal—providing treatment for people in custody—with the realities of statewide staffing shortages, the need to avoid duplicative services and the legislative duty to ensure scarce state resources are used effectively.

Key points from the discussion
- Committee members confirmed the $300,000 is included in the governor’s recommended budget. Members asked whether that amount is intended as start‑up (one‑time) funding versus recurring program costs and sought a clearer breakdown of any expected ongoing expenses (the transcript indicates a later program could incur larger recurring costs, but no final amounts were provided).
- Members repeatedly emphasized staffing risk: existing vacancies and overtime pressures within DOC could limit program feasibility unless the appropriation language requires staffing plans and delineates who hires and supervises clinical and security staff.
- Several members requested a marginal‑cost comparison: the committee wants to know the incremental expense of providing a given bed or treatment slot inside a correctional facility compared with procuring an equivalent slot from community providers, so the legislature can compare cost‑effectiveness.
- Members asked that any RFP or contract specify coordination with DOC’s current health contractor(s) to avoid duplicative services, and that the appropriation include a requirement for a progress report or check‑in with the committee before further expenditures or expansion.
- The committee discussed drafting appropriation language with those five elements and identified members and staff who would help prepare draft language for the next meeting; one committee member volunteered to “take a stab” at drafting language that captures the committee’s stated conditions.

Next steps
No formal vote was recorded. Committee members asked staff and legislative counsel to draft proposed appropriation language that would (a) specify allowable uses of the $300,000, (b) require a marginal‑cost comparison and RFP elements, (c) require staffing and coordination details, and (d) require a check‑back report to the committee and, if appropriate, other legislative bodies. DOC was asked to be prepared to supply the staffing and program estimates referenced in the committee’s conversation.

Ending
The committee asked staff and members to draft the appropriation language and reconvene with a written proposal; DOC representatives were expected to provide details about program design and expected marginal costs once language is available for review.
","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","HCI-2025-02-18-3:45 PM","oneSentenceSummary","The House Corrections and Institutions Committee on Feb. 18 discussed a $300,000 item in the governor’s recommended budget intended to support a Department of Corrections pilot program to provide residential treatment and medication‑assisted treatment services via a contracted provider.","taxTitle","Corrections & Institutions, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, Committees, Legislative , Vermont","taxId",30574,"location","Vermont","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6323775,"Committee reviews cash‑fund transfers to free federal IIJA matches, move capital appropriations into draft capital bill language",1087,110000,1197000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2341100-1de6f3553176ece65438e9ee41f40170&start=110&end=1197","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2341100-1de6f3553176ece65438e9ee41f40170/thumbnail_110000.jpg","/articles/6323775/Vermont/Committee-reviews-cashfund-transfers-to-free-federal-IIJA-matches-move-capital-appropriations-into-draft-capital-bill-language","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6323775-0b89fe1eecb93f7aed61a347336e6488/orig.mp4?Expires=1775037039&Signature=Nbo9vhI-qXukQFi9ox-pIxYfhw7K7RnNJ3V2ZYV2U~t0QU0NzcVc9fALn0DMl4xPeSzg~tQ0Wu387ySZ9vGOlRgt~Leg0zStDlkWTnbakl3AFt~64iso~5~rejcZjM1WghmA2B4rwOFz38pCzxLDjMl4Yvn3bQIzLZeD08slRzPmJ5Z6bbrdvjBU5QEHd2iZEfvqYYBzvwHtK5RW8cMVw5Brd3bqqs8o3uo-GkyTI-GQDVC~YVFC3gAgTxsJ2UZabKlQ9i9kPJqriFfr8xzQpdffHmWczzPj9SZwrfsJNL0pJ6PMrzLVQMMw~4eVw5O5X2PHigAQJrbrRJQKcF9DNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","House Corrections and Institutions Committee members on Feb. 18 heard Agency of Administration Chief Operating Officer Nick Kramer explain technical budget language that would move cash‑fund resources into the capital bill and free state match for federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) grants.

Kramer told the committee the provision labeled D101.A.1.b would apply the statute’s 4% calculation to the last completed fiscal year’s general‑fund total (FY24, $2.4 billion), producing about $96 million; after subtracting an FY26 debt‑service estimate of roughly $81 million, the net transfer shown in the draft language is about $14.8 million from the general fund to the capital infrastructure subaccount (cash fund A). He also described separate actions that unreserve and reallocate money from the other infrastructure, essential investments and reserve subaccount (cash fund B): $12.5 million proposed to move to the Transportation Fund for Agency of Transportation IIJA matching and $14.5 million to be unreserved/appropriated as match for the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR).

Why it matters: the transfers and ‘‘unreserving’’ free up state match dollars that the administration and legislature originally set aside to leverage federal IIJA dollars. Committee members were told the mechanics—moving some dollars through the Transportation Fund and directly appropriating others—reflect federal program and agency accounting preferences, not a policy change to how the funds will be used.

Most important facts
- The draft D101 language applies a 4% statutory calculation to FY24 general‑fund appropriations ($2.4 billion) to reach a notional $96 million figure, then subtracts an estimated $81 million in debt service to yield a roughly $14.8 million transfer into the capital infrastructure subaccount (cash fund A). Nick Kramer acknowledged a typographical error in the explanatory note that referenced FY25 instead of FY26.
- A separate set of provisions would unreserve $12.5 million from cash fund B and transfer it to the Transportation Fund so AOT can use it as state match for IIJA transportation grants; Kramer said moving those dollars through the Transportation Fund matches AOT’s grant administration processes.
- The draft language would also unreserve $14.5 million from cash fund B and appropriate it as match for ANR; because ANR’s federal programs do not require flow through the Transportation Fund, the administration proposes unreserving and directly appropriating that amount.
- Committee staff explained the draft capital bill (Section 19, titled “Cash Fund for Capital and Essential Investments”) contains the cash‑fund capital appropriations that the committee has reviewed; those capital appropriations will also be tracked in the appropriations bill as the process continues.
- Committee members were told the legislature originally established the second subaccount (cash fund B) to hold state match reserves during the multi‑year IIJA rollout and that the administration expects little further activity in that subaccount after the transfers discussed on Feb. 18. Kramer described one transfer of $1 million from cash fund B to cash fund A as part of winding down the second subaccount and reconciling prior reductions enacted during last year’s budget process.

Other details and committee questions
Committee members asked for clarification about why some dollars move through the Transportation Fund while others are directly appropriated; Kramer said that is an administrative preference tied to how specific agencies and federal programs administer grants. Members also asked about line‑item detail and were directed to the draft capital bill text (Section 19) in the committee packet for the full list of cash‑fund appropriations and the related spreadsheet.

The committee discussed the legislative history of the second subaccount: funds were reserved in prior years to provide state match as IIJA grants ramped up; in earlier years the state match rates were smaller and then rose in later years, requiring the reserves to be used. Kramer said some previously reserved dollars produced very high federal leverage in prior rounds (he cited instances of 12-to‑1 leverage in ANR programs).

Next steps and oversight
No formal committee vote was recorded in the transcript. Committee members and staff discussed tracking the transfers in the capital bill and the appropriations process; staff and the administration said the language will appear in the draft capital bill and in session law where appropriate so the unreserving and appropriations can be tracked. The committee also noted a typographical error in the packet (a fiscal‑year reference) and confirmed the administration will correct it in the bill language.

Ending
The committee moved on after the administration finished its walkthrough of D‑section transfers and the draft Section 19 capital language. Members were directed to the draft bill language and the committee’s capital spreadsheet for further line‑by‑line review as the appropriation and capital bill process continues.
","House Corrections and Institutions Committee members on Feb. 18 heard Agency of Administration Chief Operating Officer Nick Kramer explain technical budget language that would move cash‑fund resources into the capital bill and free state match for federal Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act grants.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee presses Department of Corrections pilot funded in governor’s budget for clarity on staffing, cost comparison and oversight

Committee reviews cash‑fund transfers to free federal IIJA matches, move capital appropriations into draft capital bill language