Institutions Committee pares NECC budget ask to $200,000 for consultant; drops $100,000 implementation allocation

Hess Christensen, chair of the Institutions Committee, said the panel would review its recommendations to the Appropriations Committee Friday, Feb. 20, as members debated language that would fund a study and potential early actions at the Northeast Correctional Complex.

Ben Novogratzky, outside legislative counsel, told the committee that the draft budget language on the table would reframe a $300,000 general‑fund allocation for fiscal 2026 as two parts: "$200,000 from the general fund to retain a consultant to develop an implementation plan for the Northeast Correctional Complex's transition to a treatment focused facility for incarcerated Vermonters," and a separate subdivision of $100,000 "for early phase implementation of the NECC transition to a treatment focused" facility.

The committee spent the next hour discussing which parts of the NECC campus the language would cover (the secure facility, the Caledonia County Work Camp, or both), what the $200,000 should buy, and whether the panel should recommend the additional $100,000 for initial upgrades. Committee members pressed for clearer drafting so the appropriation would unambiguously cover either the secure side, the work camp, or both. Members noted the work camp is a separate, metal‑framed, lower‑security building with bunk beds, while the secure side is a distinct structure with different security and renovation needs.

Committee debate focused on two practical questions: whether the $200,000 should be limited to retaining a consultant or should explicitly cover both hiring the consultant and producing a fully fleshed implementation plan, and whether the committee should recommend any initial construction or infrastructure dollars before the consultant produced findings. Novogratzky said the drafting he presented makes the 200,000 dollar amount cover retaining a consultant "to develop the plan." Committee member Connor argued against legislative involvement in procurement details, saying, "I'd be strongly in favor of scrapping number 2 completely," referring to language that would have the Legislature review RFPs for the consultant.

The committee's legal adviser flagged a constitutional concern with legislators directing or approving executive contracts; as an alternative Novogratzky proposed routing a consultant report to the Joint Legislative Justice Oversight Committee for review during the off session so members would have information without directly intervening in executive contracting.

After discussion the committee agreed to recommend $200,000 to retain a consultant and to remove the separate $100,000 early‑implementation allocation (subsection b) from the draft language. Members agreed the RFP and final implementation plan should include clear guardrails for the consultant's work (scope, expected outcomes, measures of success and impacts on existing medical contracts). The committee also discussed a proposed deadline for a report from the Department of Corrections (DOC) — Nov. 15 was proposed by counsel, with some members suggesting a possible shift to Dec. 1 to accommodate meeting schedules — but did not adopt a single, binding deadline during the meeting.

Committee members instructed staff to keep flexible language that would allow the consultant to evaluate either the secure facility, the work camp, or both; several members said clarifying that point in the bill text or in the committee's letter was important before sending recommendations to Appropriations.

In related recommendations that will be included in the committee's letter to Appropriations, members agreed to ask that the governor's budget package include six deputy‑sheriff positions to assist with court transports and docket backlog, and to support a conditional $3,000,000 general‑fund request to provide Wi‑Fi in correctional facilities so long as planning benchmarks are met. The committee also discussed supporting $1.6 million for recovery coaching and recovery centers sourced from opioid settlement funds; members flagged that the funding language in the referenced bill (H.218) was not explicit and said they would confirm whether that amount appears in current bill text.

Separately, the committee discussed victim‑notification system concerns and heard that representatives of the contractor for the notification service (referred to in the meeting as the vendor) had responded to committee requests and would follow up with a written update on planned changes. DOC staff said their victim‑services unit is prepared to provide opt‑in notifications to individuals who request them and emphasized the need to avoid repetitive automated notices for people who do not opt in.

The committee directed staff to incorporate the agreed changes — the $200,000 consultant allocation, deletion of the $100,000 implementation line, inclusion of the six sheriff positions, conditional support for Wi‑Fi funding, and language about recovery coaching pending bill review — into the draft letter to Appropriations and to circulate that draft to members for review on the committee's timetable.

Ending: The committee asked staff to provide final language and background materials by Tuesday for insertion into the Appropriations letter, noting Appropriations wants committee recommendations by Wednesday of next week. Several members said they would continue offline work over the weekend to finalize language and confirm details such as whether $1.6 million for recovery coaching appears in H.218 and whether DOC could meet the proposed report deadlines.