Representative Alice Emmons

Legislative Report, May 10,2026

With just a couple of weeks left in this year’s legislative session, work needs to be completed on three major bills. These three bills, (issues) are intertwined. We need to resolve first and foremost the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year that funds all of state government functions, the yield bill which will help set the statewide school property tax rate, and the education bill which would set in motion the process for voluntary school districts consolidations. Once these issues have been resolved between the House, the Senate and the Governor, the legislature will adjourn for the year. A lot of negotiations needs to occur between everyone in the next couple of weeks, so it will be very busy in the halls of the State House.

The House did pass an important piece of legislation this past week dealing with services that local hospitals provide to our communities. Senate Bill 189 sets up a process for the reduction or elimination of hospital services. Currently there is no policy as to how a local hospital would notify the community of a discontinuation of services they would provide. Over the past couple of years we have seen at least three hospitals in the state eliminate a service, be it obstetrics, inpatient psychiatric services, or dialysis services. Going forward, if a hospital is considering eliminating a service, they need to provide notice of intent with the Vermont Agency of Human Services, the Green Mountain Care Board, and the Office of the Health Care Advocate. The notice of intent needs to include the rationale for the proposed service elimination, the financial impacts on the hospital and the description of all possible alternatives to the proposed elimination that were considered and the reasons they were not pursued. This is so the public is aware of the reasoning behind the proposed service elimination.

Once this is done, the bodies that were notified would work with the hospital to explore opportunities to maintain the service or to address the circumstances that lead up to the proposed elimination. If the proposed elimination of a service is to occur, there needs to be an explanation of the rationale for the proposed elimination, the timeline for the elimination and a transition plan. This would need to be done 60 days prior to the service being eliminated. Prior to any elimination of service, the hospital would also need to hold public hearings in the county in which the hospital is located and respond to public comments regarding the proposed service elimination. This legislation is to provide transparency in the process of a hospital proposing to eliminate a service and this openness does not always occur in some locations across the state. The bill passed the House on a unanimous voice vote.

As we enter the final few weeks of this legislative session, please feel free to contact me with your thoughts. During the week I can be reached in Montpelier by email at [email protected] or by phone at 1-802-828-2228.

Legislative Report, April 13, 2026

At this time of the legislative session is when House committees are reviewing and working on Senate bills that have passed that body and are now in the House. My committee House Corrections and Institutions is currently reviewing Senate Bill 193 that would establish a forensic facility within our correctional facilities. The legislation applies to individuals who are charged with a criminal act and are not competent to stand trial or have been found not guilty of the crime by reason of insanity. Currently there are no facilities in Vermont that would house these folks. A person not competent to stand trial would need psychiatric care as well as therapeutic care to possibly be able to gain competency in order to proceed through the criminal court process.

Forensic psychiatric care is specialized. It requires 24/7 clinical care until a person is stabilized. The care must include a full continuum of treatment which includes medication treatment, therapy, peer support, case management and social work. Everyone in my committee is supportive of taking care of these individuals in an appropriate facility. The issue in placing these individuals in a correctional facility under the custody of the Commissioner of Corrections is that the world of corrections is not designed to deliver this level or type of care. The committee is looking at possibly placing these individuals under the custody of the Department of Mental Health or the Department of Aging and Independent Living. The question remains as to where to house them.

By placing these individuals under the custody of the Department of Corrections and being held in our correctional facilities raises constitutional concerns, not just policy concerns. The courts have ruled that states may only hold someone for competency restoration for a reasonable period of time. The courts have rejected prolonged detention. In the proposed legislation it could hold the person in a jail indefinitely. And we must remember these individuals have not been convicted of their crime or have been determined by the court to be insane at the time of the crime and therefore have been found not guilty. In terms of competency, if competency cannot be restored within a reasonable period, the response must shift to treatment. Continued confinement in a correctional facility is not appropriate.

So the concern of the proposed legislation is not the goal, but whether the structure of housing the folks within a jail and under the custody of the Department of Corrections can meet the goal in a clinically sound and constitutionally durable way. The question before us is can the Department of Corrections and its correctional facilities realistically meet the clinical standard of care needed for these individuals. The concern is this may be the “easy” solution but is it the ethical and/or constitutionally sound solution.

As always, please feel free to contact me with your thoughts. Over the weekends I can be reached at home by email at [email protected] or by phone at 802-885-5893.

Legislative Report, April 5, 2026

Another week is in the books for this year’s legislative session. Though it was much quieter than the previous one. Being the week of Passover and Easter many of my colleagues were getting ready for family arriving, religious ceremonies and dinners. By the end of the afternoons the State House was quiet with many folks leaving to go home. But during the day committees were still meeting and we did vote on bills on the House floor.

One of the first bills we took up was H-941 that deals with municipal regulation of agriculture. For many years agricultural activity and farm structures have been exempt from municipal oversight. In May of 2025 the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that the law could be interpreted differently. The court ruling stated that municipalities could impose regulations on farms, with the exception of water quality rules. House Bill 941 works to restore the exemption of municipal oversight, restore the historic status quo for existing farms, give towns limited authority over new farms on smaller lots, and establish the right to grow food without regulation.

The legislation would restore the exemption for existing farms, but give towns and cities the ability to regulate future agricultural activity in limited ways. Some of the oversight methods that could be put in place revolve around siting and setback restrictions, and the control of traffic flow in and out of the property. The bill explicitly prevents towns and cities from regulating the growing of vegetables and ornamental plants. It also maintains the right of the municipality to enact ordinances on non-farm settings that restrict the raising of poultry, such as the number of birds, setbacks of coops and fencing. Roosters are treated differently; they can be banned. The legislation is also silent on raising backyard livestock, so towns could continue to regulate that activity. The House passed the bill unanimously.

At this point in the legislative session, House committees are beginning to review Senate bills that have been sent to us for our review. Some of those are; S-327, an economic development bill, S-202 allowing for portable solar devices for one’s home, S-218 reducing chloride contamination of state waters, S-232 relating to public libraries and S-298 creating the Vermont Voting Rights Act.

As these pieces of legislation unfold, please feel free to contact me with your thoughts. During the week I can be reached by email at [email protected] or by phone at 1-802-828-2228.