Final Reading: Lawmakers consider whether to keep some intoxicated Vermonters out of prisons – VTDigger

House lawmakers spent much of this week mulling how the state should treat residents who are, as a matter of law, incapacitated.

Vermont statute describes incapacitated people as intoxicated or in withdrawal, and in need of medical care or posing a threat to themselves or others.

Under current statute, those individuals can be held up to 24 hours with the Department of Corrections, at a “lockup or community correctional facility,” even if they have been charged with no crime. 

Six years ago, however, Vermont tucked language into the annual midyear budget update intended to keep those people out of prisons. That language, which would prohibit incapacitated Vermonters not charged with crimes from being housed in correctional facilities, is set to go into effect in July. 

But now, Gov. Phil Scott’s administration is seeking to repeal that provision — a move that would allow correctional facilities to continue to temporarily hold incapacitated Vermonters indefinitely. 

“The problem is that there are no secure facilities outside of the Department of Corrections,” Vermont Department of Health Deputy Commissioner Kelly Dougherty told the House Human Services Committee earlier this month.

Some local mental health agencies, such as Washington County Mental Health and Northeast Kingdom Human Services, offer beds through the so-called public inebriation program, also known as PIP beds.Those beds are intended as temporary places where intoxicated people can stay and avoid correctional facilities. 

But many of those PIP beds across the state have shut down in recent years, leaving only eight still in operation. 

State health officials are planning to merge PIP beds and mental health crisis beds under one umbrella program to allow for more flexibility. Still, the shortage has left the state reliant on the Corrections Department to hold incapacitated Vermonters. Without the ability to bring them to prisons, Dougherty told lawmakers this month, the state could be forced to send people to hospitals.   

This week, health care workers and law enforcement officials came to the House Human Services Committee to ask its members to go ahead with repealing the provision.

“If the only option that you give police is to bring these individuals to the ED, you will be endangering our staff and other patients,” Alison Davis, the medical director of the emergency department at Rutland Regional Medical Center, told lawmakers Wednesday.

But lawmakers in the committee seemed undecided on whether to move ahead with the repeal. On Thursday, Rep. Theresa Wood, D-Waterbury, expressed uncertainty about the landscape of state services, given, on one hand, new state initiatives like the merger of PIP and mental health beds — and, on the other, potential federal funding cuts. 

“I’m just wondering if it’s a tad early to be thinking about repealing the statute,” she said.

— Peter D’Auria

In the know

Advocates for migrant workers in the state continue to push for H.169, a bill that seeks to expand access to housing for immigrants without legal status living in Vermont. But the debate is shadowed by the specter of federal immigration policy.

As the administration of President Donald Trump ramps up deportation and detention of immigrants, proponents of the bill argue the state should do more to protect immigrants living in Vermont and increase their housing options. But the legislation faces headwinds from landlords and lenders. 

The Vermont Landlord Association has objected to the addition of immigration status to the statute.  “To make a landlord have to take somebody – even if they’re not here legally – I think is a challenge and a big ask,” Angela Zaikowski, the association’s director, told legislators in late March. 

The association echoed these concerns in a “call to action” email last week, imploring its members to reach out to legislators and adding that the proposed change “has the potential to create federal issues for housing providers.” 

Asked by lawmakers whether there were past examples of landlords getting into legal trouble after renting to people without legal status, Zaikowski said no.

“I think anything is possible at this point,” she added.

Will Lambek, from the group Migrant Justice, maintained that these fears of federal repercussions lacked legal basis. “Any fear of civil or criminal liability against landlords for renting to immigrant families is simply unfounded,” he said.

Read more about how federal immigration policy is looming over this debate here. 

— Carly Berlin

A sudden reversal in federal funding for school districts has affected about 32 school districts and one mental health agency in Vermont, Jill Briggs Campbell, deputy secretary of the Vermont Agency of Education, told the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday.

The decision came in a March 28 letter from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. It notified state education leaders that the federal department had reversed course on extending the deadline on a Covid-19 pandemic-era grant – the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief funds, or ESSER – that has paid for learning support and summer programming.

While the money from ESSER originally had to be spent by Sept. 30, 2024, President Biden’s administration had approved an extension to allow schools to use the money through the 2025-26 school year. (Public schools in Vermont operate on a July 1 through June 30 fiscal calendar; the federal government’s fiscal year ends on September 30.)

McMahon’s letter noted that the federal department had “reconsidered” requests from state leaders to continue the extension after finding it “was not justified” and terminated the program at 5 p.m. on March 28 — three minutes before the statement was sent.

Vermont school districts have at least $10 million pending in that grant funding, Briggs Campbell estimated. The department has received about $800,000 worth of invoices but cannot request funds until it goes through the new process outlined in McMahon’s letter, which states the federal department will consider extensions “on an individual project-specific basis.”

“All of these were approved for extension by the previous administration,” she said in the hearing.

Read more about how the funding loss is affecting school districts here.

— Auditi Guha

On the move

After an extensive — and mysterious — delay, the Vermont House’s massive education bill, H.454, survived a voice vote on second reading Thursday. The bill is expected to face a vigorous challenge on the floor tomorrow. 

—Ethan Weinstein 

Visit our 2025 bill tracker for the latest updates on major legislation we are following.