Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Wonderful, good morning everybody. It is Wednesday, February 11. It's also recovery day at the State House, so we are going to be hearing from several individuals this morning on recovery housing. So I believe we have Candace Gayle up first, who has been in our committee before, correct? Last year, right? You're welcome. Please come on and

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: take a

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: seat and we can hit the ground running. Yeah, we probably should introduce ourselves because there are other people, thank you, who have not been in our committee so far. Hi, I'm Rep. Leonora Dodge from Essex Town, City Of Essex Country. Nice to see you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Joe Parsons, Newberry, Thompson and Craft. I'm Tom Charlton, Athens, Chester, Crafton and Windsor. Debbie Dolgin from State

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: of Johnsbury, five thirty, 30.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Gayle Pezzo Chittenden, 20 Nicole Chestnut. May I have the Patrol Ridge, relative to District 6? Good morning. Good morning. I'm Elizabeth Burrows.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: I represent Windsor One, which is Heartland West Windsor and Windsor.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: Emilie Krasnow, South Burlington.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Ashley Bartley, Fairfax and Georgia, and our chair will be joining us. Great. Good afternoon, Chair, who's coming? Thank

[Candace Gayle]: you for the opportunity to be here. For your continued support of Recovery Housing and Recovery Services in Vermont. My name is Candace Gayle, and I serve as the Director of Community Relations for Vermont Foundation of Recovery, often referred to as V4. V4 is a member organization of Recovery Partners of Vermont, and we work closely with providers, advocates, and people with lived experiences across the state to strengthen and expand Vermont's recovery ecosystem. I want to begin by thanking this committee and the legislature for your past support of certified recovery residences. That support has helped Vermont move from having very few certified recovery homes just a few years ago to a growing accountable system that is saving lives, stabilizing individuals, and strengthening communities. I'll start with a brief snapshot of the current recovery housing landscape in Vermont. Vermont Foundation of Recovery operates 10 certified recovery homes across the state, providing a total of 79 recovery vets. These homes serve men, women, and parents with children and are located in multiple regions to ensure access where it is most needed. Statewide, Vermont has approximately 150 recovery residence beds. While that represents meaningful progress, it remains far below the actual need. Certified recovery residences consistently operate at a near full capacity and wait lists are common. The Division of Substance Use within the Department of Health has identified recovery housing as a critical component of Vermont's continuum of care and has set a statewide goal of reaching 400 recovery residents beds by 2030. That goal reflects what providers and people with lived experiences see every day. Recovery outcomes depend not only on treatment, but on safe structured housing during early recovery. B4 is positioned to help meet that need. We are actively pursuing expansion opportunities in Middlebury and Brattleboro as our next priority communities. Based on identified gaps and strong local partnerships, our ability to scale responsibly, however, depends on policy alignment and sustainable funding. That brings me to S-one 157. S-one 157 is a landlord tenant exemption bill that recognizes the unique nature of certified recovery residences and allows them to follow credentialed discharge policies that protect both individual dignity and community safety. Recovery residences are not treatment facilities. They are pure based structured living environments that relied on shared standards, accountability, and community safety to function effectively. The current application of landlord tenant law creates real barriers for certified recovery residences. It limits an operator's ability to respond appropriately to relapse, unsafe behavior, or violations of house standards that can undermine the safety and stability of the entire recovery community. S-one 157 provides a narrowly tailored standards based solution that aligns with national best practices and allows certified recovery residences to operate as intended. If Vermont is serious about reaching 400 recovery housing beds by 2030, policy alignment through S-one hundred fifty seven is essential. Without it, expansion will remain slow and uncertain in many communities. In addition to policy alignment, sustainable funding is equally critical. I am here to clearly and directly ask the legislator to support the Opiate Settlement Advisory Council's FY27 recommendations related to recovery housing. Specifically, we are asking you to support $1,750,000 in operational funding for certified recovery residences and support 200,000 in scholarship funding to help individuals access recovery housing. These funding streams serve distinct but complementary purposes. Operational funding ensures certified recovery residences can maintain safe staffing levels, meet certification standards, and cover rising costs related to utilities, insurance, maintenance, and compliance. Scholarship funding addresses one of the most common barriers to entry. Many people leaving treatment or incarceration do not have the financial means to pay up front housing costs. Scholarships help bridge the gap and ensure recovery housing is accessible based on need, not income. Together, these investments support a system that is accountable, accessible, and scalable. In closing, I respectfully ask this committee and legislator to support S-one 157 to ensure policy alignment that allows certified recovery residences to expand responsibly and OSAC's FY27 recommendations of $1,700,000 for recovery residence operations and $200,000 for recovery housing scholarships. Thank

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: you

[Candace Gayle]: for your time, your leadership, and your continued commitment to recovery in Vermont. I'm happy to answer any questions.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: I have a few questions. That's all right. I promise I won't grill you. Just some clarifying questions. The 79 beds that you were talking about, that is at before? Yes. Okay. And how many of those existed before we as a committee cleared up the landlord problem from, I think, two years ago. Yeah,

[Candace Gayle]: so we added 10 beds since then.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: And do you know how many of the 150 statewide have been added in the two years?

[Candace Gayle]: I would have to defer to Jeff Moreau, who is the executive director of E. A. R.

[Jeff Moreau]: We have three new operations that we've certified since then, and that is roughly twenty days.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Okay, sorry, can you just state your name for the record, please?

[Jeff Moreau]: Thank you, I'm Jeff Moreau, I'm the executive director of the Vermont Alliance for Recovered Residences.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Thank you, Jeff.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: Wasn't it? So, I don't really understand the scholarship question. Not that I'm against it, just need to understand it better. So when somebody leaves the corrections system, if they have gone through the treatment that has been provided by the state inside of that system, they don't have I mean, we don't have any transitional housing for people leaving our system anyway, but they don't have immediate access to the recovery funds that we have.

[Candace Gayle]: So essentially, the scholarship is used for someone to be If someone's coming out of incarceration and they obviously don't have money yet, the scholarships allow for them to pay for the first month's rent or the first month's membership fees for a certified recovery residence, as well as pay for us the 400 deposit that we have when you enter a home. So it gives them a month to really start securing the job without having to worry about income right away. Do

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: you feel that there's a gap there that ought to be addressed not just through scholarships. When you say a gap? I'm thinking about in terms of housing, the number of people who are incarcerated in the state who remain incarcerated because there's no place for them to go to. And the cost to the state of that versus just using one month of that cost to pay for everybody's transition into, because it's tens of thousands of dollars a month. That could be alleviated by paying to have anybody who needs it to just have our corrections system set them up in the recovery housing that they need in order to be successful. So that's the perspective that I'm coming from. Do you think that the scholarships are enough is I guess what I'm asking.

[Candace Gayle]: Right, no, I see what you're saying and I can't speak to the overall system of care entirely. I don't think that that is enough. But what happens, at least from, I can speak from Vifor's perspective, is that if we have someone coming out of DOC and say they need a higher level of care, we will have them go to say a Valley Vista or Serenity House, which treatment first to make sure that they're stabilized. And then we'll have them come over to a recovery residence like before or afterwards. And then they can use that scholarship that comes from VTAR, the Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences, to basically offer them and pay for that amount of time while they're looking for jobs and getting themselves But yeah, I feel like we could absolutely use more services. Thank you. Yep.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: I

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: have a couple of questions and comments.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I might have asked you this last time in here and I don't remember. Are the residents receiving wraparound services? Is that part of the entry that if there's an assessment or a diagnosis that they have to seek treatment outside of the resident?

[Candace Gayle]: So we recommend that they have treatment, a higher level of care treatment before they come into a recovery residence. And we've actually put a lot in place to encourage that as much as possible. So if we have someone coming in, especially from homelessness, because we have sixty two percent people who apply to B4 that are coming in from housing insecurity. And so if they're not stable enough coming into our home, we automatically work with our treatment providers to get them that higher level of care before they come into a recovery residence. A lot of times we will work with that member who is wanting to come into our home to try to hold a bed for them while they're going into treatment so they don't have to worry about not having a bed when they come out. That was my next question is if someone does relapse,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: whether or not they go into treatment or they don't go into treatment, do you do with that bed?

[Candace Gayle]: Well, we hold it for that individual if we can.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is there a timeframe that

[Candace Gayle]: you hold it? So yeah, we have to hold it for forty eight days, but we do work with the member to see if we can hold it for longer. Right now that cost is incurred by the member if we do hold the bed because there's no other way to do it, but we are actively

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: working Why would they pay for it?

[Candace Gayle]: They would pay for it once they came back to the recovery residence. But it would still be a cost that is accrued for them. I'm so sorry.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: If we can wrap these questions up quickly, just because we do have individuals who experience and we don't have a big time. We can absolutely have Candace back, but

[Brenda Siegel]: would love to have our

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: other witnesses. Yeah, absolutely. So

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: we're gonna have our other witnesses. I can always come back. I'm here quite a bit. Thank you so much. Thank you. I'm so sorry. No, you're fine. So we have Nicholas. Nice. I promise we're really nice. We are. A little amazing.

[Nicholas Burrows]: It's not that I don't think you're nice. I know you're

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: nice. I

[Nicholas Burrows]: was just, I was still in the last conversation. Just trying to get my thoughts going here.

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Thank

[Nicholas Burrows]: you for having me again. It's a pleasure to be here. I love this day. Every day is awesome. My name is Nicholas Burrows. I'm a graduate of Ben's house and I still work returning recovery in Newport. I work full time for ST Ireland. I've been there. I've been back now for the last year. I graduated Ben's house two months ago. I was there twelve months. And for me, this was where the journey really began. It was time to take the lessons I find to put in the action. To say that every day is a win, would have been lying. But what I can say is that from situations and trials I went through while living at Ben's house, was able to reflect and see how I processed and handled everything changed and how I used these lessons in my life. I worked with Brian and my family, are the most important things to me. I was able to rebuild my family and be the leader in the role model in every teacher and even be a teacher, which is which to me was the holy grail of gifts. The last year has been a complete blessing, especially coming from I was completely broken prior to Ben's house and everything I had everything and then I lost it all and after going through Valley Vista and into Ben's house and getting into Ben's house, Ben's house is where I was able rebuild everything coming from my health insurance. Was that wraparound thing you were talking about. Got everything I needed was offered to me at Penthouse and I established everything I needed to and I gained it all and then I put everything into practice and it was a blessing, you know, because I was gone. I was really lost. When I moved to Ben's house where the team of January recovered, pushing and challenged me every day too. And these are the most important things that I think was so amazing at events outside of my heart and got and especially from during recovery was to look, to see, to feel, to love and to accept and not judge and to understand and to see that everyone's on different levels, not everyone's out to get me or hurt me. And that taught me how to love and that's something I never knew how to do or even wanted to do, you know. So that was huge to me and then when I finally gave myself that love and support I needed, that's when I was able to be the leader and the friend and the father that I always wanted to be. I lost my father when I was a child. I grew up, I didn't have anybody. I didn't grow up in a loving family. We didn't love it like we loved each other but it was very distant love and now to learn the skills on how to love myself first, but being able to love somebody else and to accept and to understand and to process and to step back and to just be able to like process it all was a beautiful gift that I got from Ben's house, from the staff returning to recovery, from them pushing me, from them making me sit, think, process, you know, and not run, you know, and I loved, I loved every aspect of it. This place saved my life. Not only saved my life, it gave me a life back. It gave me being a father, it gave me being a brother, it gave me being a husband, it gave me being a member of society. Something I didn't want to be, I didn't even want to give a shot. I didn't want to. I thought everything was out, was trying to get me. My guard was up. I was cold. I didn't care about nobody and it wasn't good. Was on a bad path and I'm just grateful that there was this place, Fence House, I was grateful that Lila never gave up on me. That people actually want to help and want to see someone like me who I thought my life was over, I really did. I threw it all away but she was there by my side 100% even on the bad days. We had some bad days but we got through them and that's what life is, right? Situations. I go through a situation, I go through a situation and it gets good. It gets better or it doesn't but what I've learned there is I'm the one that can change this and that's what I want now. I've been gone two months. I'm back in the work life, I'm back in life and I practice this every day. Some days I fail. I'm human, I ain't perfect, but I take that step back and I try to be that positive influence that was taught to me, that was given freely to me, now I gotta give freely back because I want, I mean, I want somebody else to have the opportunity that I got, Or to understand how to understand, right? Understand and process and evaluate the situation and to see that we can't get through it without numbing ourselves or we can't get through it without putting our God up and resorting to the things that we don't need to resort to. And that's all because of her at the Penthouse. So thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You. That's

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: really amazing. I just this is why I'm glad I'm honored in my service to the committee because I would just be following all day long. Thank you so much for sharing your story. This is one of my favorite days of the year so that I can really hear the real stories. And I think since we're the housing committee, what you highlighted is so important because recovery is also made possible by community, and these recovery houses give folks a community to go right into. And as someone in my generation, I have a lot of friends who have been through recovery, and it's such a long it's a journey. And places like Ben's house that you're describing seem like a really good opportunity for folks so that, like, you can be sober, but if you don't have the support system in, like, that type of setting, it can be really hard. So I really appreciate your story and very moving. And the one thing I ask is I hope you keep sharing your story, not just in rooms like this, but out there as much as you can, because every time that you share your story, like you said, it helps someone else. I really appreciate you coming in. Thank you. Hope you come back next year, too.

[Nicholas Burrows]: I will.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Nicholas, Thank I just wanted to thank you for, think you've said Ben's Place about eight times. Ben's

[Chad Simmons]: House.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Ben's House, yeah. I heard Ben's Place. I'm sorry. But I just happened to look on the map of so that says it was brought online in 2025.

[Nicholas Burrows]: Yeah, I got there. Yeah, what? I was the third person for a graduate.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: I thank you for highlighting that and for coming because we often think of recovery as this impossible dream. But this goes to show that when we put together really good evidence based recovery community and dollars that we're making an investment for the future. You're now working in construction, which we are desperate in our community. Construction that walks into our committee, we're like, it's

[Brenda Siegel]: all on you.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: No pressure. But thank you so, so much, because you truly do embody your testimony, embodies all of the things that we need to hear. So, you're amazing.

[Nicholas Burrows]: So are you.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: And we have, I believe, one more witness, and it is Justice? Hello everyone. My name is Justice Donald. I'm a former resident of Jonas Promise in Johnson, Vermont. I have been in recovery for seventeen months.

[Justice Donald]: I'm here today to tell you guys a little bit of my story. My addiction began back in 2019. I had a lung collapse and I was prescribed painkillers, which I quickly began addicted to. The pills then rapidly burst into fentanyl and quesoacaine. When I used those two drugs, my life spiraled out of control very fast. I found myself going in and out of jail constantly, but the problem there was that jail is after the call for an addict, at least not for this addict. I felt and still do strongly feel as though that jail was just a pause button on addiction. The last time that I was in jail, the central judge, who had seen me come in and out of that jail for over two and a half years, stepped in and told me that I going to jail for months. And that she already had an interview set up for me. At the time, I thought, Yeah, this will just be another place that I try and tail at, but boy was I wrong. Genas Promise didn't save me like I thought would be good. They gave me the tools, the support, the accountability that I so desperately needed. During my time at Genas, I completed twelve weeks of IOPs. I attended health and wellness, where I learned to take care of my dog again. I engaged in a workforce welding program, where I was able to work at the secondhand store that they owned. I relearned how to write my resume. I learned major coping skills, amongst many other impactful skills I would need in my day to day life, both inside and outside of Jenna's promise. Before coming to Jenna's, I had lost my son due to my addiction. Luckily, mom was able to take my son for me. But Jonas helped me to take parenting classes with my child, or sorry, take parenting classes to regain my parental instincts and recreate the bond that I once had with my child. I truly cannot put into words all the incredible things that Jonas has done for me. I'm originally from Ferry, but after on ramping from Jonas, I got an apartment just a quarter mile up the road from, sorry, up the street from them, and I've moved my mom and my son out here with me as well. I'm currently still working at Copley Hospital where Jonas had helped me get a job. I'm beyond thankful every day for Ruthie stepping in and helping, or having me go to Jonas. I know there is other recovery communities in Vermont, but I truly believe that Jonas was just one for me. And I know it will continue to be for many other women to come. Jonas may have been the perfect fit for myself, but with only one coincidence, they were only able to help so many women at a time. Jail costs $100,000 per year to house an inmate. Jonas promised to cost $33,000 per year actually support and act in the road to recovery. I ask for your guys' help to please support Jonas Promise and to please support all other recovery residences as they truly make a huge difference for people like me. Thank you. Thank you. You did it. Yes. What

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: is an IOP?

[Justice Donald]: It's intensive outpatient programming. So it's, so there was cognitive behavioral therapy. There was, I can't think right now, but there was, yeah, just basically groups where we would learn coping skills, we would learn what triggers us and what things that we need to work on internally to become a member of society that once seemed possible for us. Six years ago, I didn't think that I would ever be sitting in the seahouse.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: I'm

[Justice Donald]: thankful to be sitting here today. And I'm thankful to just have a quiet life today because even a year and a half ago, I was very, very close to not having my life. To even be able to sit here in front of guys and be able to tell a little bit of my story and be able to have my family, my second family, I've done promise with me. It's a blessing, it really is. And the biggest part about it is that, Jenna's Promise helped me to regain my family again. So my mom, who at one point thought that I was 21 to Watska, we live together, and we'd bicker about who left the TV on. And I have my son back full time. My son's out here with me. All these things are made possible by being at a recovery residence. And yeah, so that's a huge part Vermont, it's the recovery of residences and the need for recovery in Vermont.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: I was just gonna say, and I believe I've heard that Genus Promise has been such an amazing program that they're looking to replicate it in different parts of the state now, I've heard on the radio and other places. So, it just has such

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: a good model where it

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: has the workforce aspects, the residential parts, the aftercare treatment, helping folks get back into jobs. So I hope that we continue to use that model across different parts of the state.

[Justice Donald]: I do too. It's definitely exactly the one that I needed. Many people that may not even be at it, they will eventually need one day. As Candice had talked about, I'm sure she meant that, as Candice had talked about with being a complete wraparound service, Gen X Homes was exactly that, with having their IOP on premises, their workforce was on premises, the health and wellness, the housing, where you can advance in phases to have more freedom. And there's an apartment where you can really start to reintegrate your family back into the community you're not leaving a house with staff and you're kind of more on your own. That was a huge, huge stepping stone in my recovery was to be able to advance to those phases and move forward.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: And I don't do coffee, but I heard the coffee

[Justice Donald]: is delicious. It is good. Is good. I'll tell you that. That's pretty good. When you mentioned about the IOP, was trying to understand structurally, so the IOP could happen at somebody's private residence, right? Like it just means that you check-in somewhere? So Jenna's promise is beyond just the IOP aspect of the step down from being in Yes, Jenna's Promise, you can't just log out to your computer and do IOP. They actually hold you accountable. They need rep to show up, be there, be on time, and be there, be present. Whereas, you know, just being on a computer screen, could shut off my camera and be down to the next room making cup of coffee. So they actually, they have you show up, be there, you you have to be on time, you have to be accountable for yourself. So it's actually, it's on the premises, but not at the house. So you have to walk maybe a quarter mile up the road to do it, then

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: that's where it's done. Great,

[Justice Donald]: great, thanks. Mary. I just want to say thank you for your testimony. You truly are a success story. I know right. It such a tribute to Jenna that her parents started this program. It is amazing. So keep up the good work. Thank you. Yes, mister chair. My

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: son exists because of recovery, and I congratulate you. I think Jenna has a lot to do with it, but a lot to do with it has to do with you finding your inner strength. And my son now, ten years out, and three kids, so

[Justice Donald]: a

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: life when I thought I would lose, I was sure I would lose it.

[Justice Donald]: My mom was in that same boat, she was just waiting for the phone call that I was about to hear, And I was waiting for them to have to make that phone call. I had come to terms with the fact that I was going to die about my addiction. And I was, said, I completely okay with it. It was one way out that I couldn't see another way out until somebody else had stepped in and really saved me from myself. Somebody pushing me to go. I believe, looking back now, I believe that they saw it in me that I didn't see then that I could do it. I'm not gonna pretend like every day at Jenna's Promise was a giant rainbows, but the one thing that was consistent was the support and the drive that they had always seen in me and they knew that I would I was actually just telling my uncle on the way here and that I was feeling there were some times that I was so angry like them for like consequences I had, but I'm like looking back now, it's because they saw that I was really going to make it and that they were there to push me in a pre step away to ensure that I made it. And now I live a quarter mile straight from home, so can't get rid of me. Thank you, thank you. Thank you, everybody, for coming and making it a day here at the safe house.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: I think with that, I'll turn it over to the chair.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thanks for coming and taking time out of your day to do it. Our next witness, we're returning to H-seven 72, an act relating to residential agreements with two witnesses, Brendan Siegel, the executive director of End Homelessness Vermont, and then following is Chad Simmons, who's just a little late but should be joining around ten. And then after his testimony, we'll take a break and then get into the 2027 budget testimony we have, all of which everybody remembers, we have a letter from our committee to appropriations next Friday. And so these, we're having testimony that will allow us to examine the letter and look at priorities, and decide what we want to pay appropriately. So, Brenda?

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Just need to be proactive.

[Brenda Siegel]: Yeah, I was looking

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: for this side of it, I can't see my

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Brenda, take your time.

[Brenda Siegel]: Thank you. I'm very sorry. Learning how

[Candace Gayle]: to do things.

[Brenda Siegel]: You are not the first person.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Not first person.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: You need

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: a little help.

[Brenda Siegel]: I'm not ready for that yet.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: I am going to get some help from

[Brenda Siegel]: your committee assistant for my slides, because I don't think I

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: can run them for my official. Okay, So, I'm ready.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Tell us your name for the record.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Yeah.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Have you been before us?

[Brenda Siegel]: I don't think I have to, just by any means.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, why don't you give us your name

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: and then we'll give you ours. Okay, I do know most of but that would be great.

[Brenda Siegel]: Good morning, for the record, I'm Brenda Siegel from End Homelessness Vermont.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, So, Debbie, you want to start us off?

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Oh, I'm Debbie Dolgin. I represent St. Johnsbury, Concord and Kirby.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I've done Charles in Athens, Chester, corrected no Joe Parsons, Gover, Dobson, Brockton.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Who are going to address? I'm Marc

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: I represent Caledonia, Plainfield and Marshfield.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: Good morning, I'm Elizabeth Burrows, and I represent Windsor one, which is Heartland West Windsor, Windsor. I'm Mary E. Howard, and

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: I represent Rutland City District 6. We know each other. Gayle Pezzo, Chittenden, Colchester.

[Brenda Siegel]: Nice to meet you all. I want to start by saying that I'm urging, this probably will not come as a surprise to most who know me, but I'm urgent committee not to move this this year. It has far too serious repercussions if done wrong. And if you do decide to move it, and I will offer some recommendations if you do decide to move it, but I do think that Representative Lamoille's Bills H-four 40 is a good starting place to then build from. I I wanna tell you a little bit about what we do at Homelessness Vermont, despite our name. People find us at the point of their emergency and we continue to work with them through their permanent housing. So once, and we work primarily with people living with disabilities. So once somebody is housed, we continue to give them support services as they need them. It might be just a very light touch, or it might be coordinating services that they were not able to or ready for while they were experiencing homelessness. And so permanent housing and eviction are something that we deal with quite regularly. We also support people who are housing insecure, and so they are facing eviction. So while we're called End Homelessness Vermont, part of that is preventing homelessness in the first place. And I'm going to begin though by sharing with the committee something I rarely share about my personal story. It is broadly known that I lived in poverty for the majority of my adult life. However, I rarely share my own housing story. When my son was a baby, we lived in an apartment with a slumlord. It was the only option that I had. The apartment was illegally scraped be repainted, and lead dust came in the windows, and my 18 old ended up with severe lead poisoning. We had no immediate recourse or remedy, and we had to leave the apartment with no notice, leaving most of our belongings behind in order to protect my son. There was and still is no real remedy for that situation. Then it took me four months to find housing. My son and I were fortunate to live in a guest room at someone's house and an air bed, both my baby and I. When we finally got housed, it was with another less than adequate landlord, and we lived there for four years. Throughout that time, my landlord came and left without notice and without knocking. I was a young single woman alone with a baby, and regularly I would be stepping out of a shower and hear his voice calling me from downstairs. If I complained about this, he would threaten to essentially falsely accuse me of things to the housing authority so that I would lose my voucher, thus losing my ability to be housed. I needed to keep a roof over the head of my child and myself, and so I didn't complain about that. The house had black mold in it. There were rats in the kitchen that were coming in through the hole behind my stove. At one point, the upstairs bathroom started pouring into the kitchen, and that happened for months before it was repaired. Eventually, I did withhold rent. My landlord evicted me or tried. He also went to the housing authority and made up lies about me. Essentially, an attestation. I was lucky. I was raised with privilege. I lived in an upper middle class family growing up. I had a college education, and I knew that I had tender rights. I got ahold of legal services. That took a very long time. They helped me to write a response. That took a very long time. And eventually I agreed to leave, but on the condition that I did not have to return the withheld rent and the landlord had to give me $500 additionally. That was a success story for my clients. It rarely does not go like that. It rarely goes like that. Next house that I lived in was flooded by tropical storm Irene. Three years later, and we loved that house. We lost all of our belongings. The house was not beyond repair, but the landlord did not want

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: to do what it

[Brenda Siegel]: would take to actually remediate the mold, so I had to move. This time it took us eighteen months to find permanent housing, and the house I moved into is the house I live in now and have lived in for twelve years. The problem was never me. It was never my son. It was always the landlords who did not want to do the repairs and who understood that I did not have the power in that situation. The thing is, my story is not unique. This is what we come across every single day in our work. And I'm not saying that the landlords who are impacted are not impacted, but the solution is not the bills that I'm seeing before me today. But I will get into that in a minute because I do have some alternative remedies. I wanna go over a little bit of our data. And so just to level set that, we have two departments at Home Assistance Vermont. We have our Department of Housing Advocates. So we actually support people in their housing, as I just discussed. And we also have an office of research. And so we are conducting a multi year study and we're still in the phase of having the phase two of it report reviewed, the report reviewed that's drafted. But I was able to and got permission to pull some of the data out to show you, even though the report is not out. This data was taken from September 2023 to February 2024 to all people in the GA program. The third phase begins this month and includes people who have been housed from homelessness, people who are living outside, and people in shelters and GA. So it's going to be a broader version. I pulled out some of the data that I think is relevant to this bill. And it's okay. And I'm going to just move from this slide to the second slide. I always include this one because it's such a discussion point in our state, which is where people come from. What we found was that people experiencing homelessness, we interviewed 200 people across five counties and 10 towns. And of those people, 103 of them had been lifelong Vermonters. So if you look at the data, there's nine people that we interviewed that had been there less than a year. And of those nine people, we know that five were not last housed in Vermont. And of those five people, when you see the full report, what we know is that one of them came here to live with their son and that didn't work. One of them came here to flee domestic violence, and one of

[Chad Simmons]: them came

[Brenda Siegel]: here for a job and then couldn't find housing. And then two of them didn't answer why they came. In the next slide.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Me interrupt I have to confess, I can't really see the labels. You're saying there were about 200 people in the survey, right?

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Yeah, were 200.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yeah, of those, 103 were what?

[Brenda Siegel]: Had lived here their entire life. And 12 since childhood, thirty three, ten years or more, fourteen, five, over five years, five to nine years. Yeah. All right. And then if you look at the length in the GA program, there's 118 who had been in there under a year. This is again, started in 2023. So something just to note is that there might be people that have been in there longer now at this point, there was more influx at that time. And these are all people that volunteered. We had not met the majority of them before interview with them. Homelessness history. This is really important because this is how people became homeless in the first place. So nearly forty percent of the people that we interviewed had never been homeless before, and thirty nine point one percent had experienced their first experience of homelessness or housing insecurity or foster care as a child, because foster care is considered housing insecurity, was as a child. So that's the first time that they've ever experienced housing insecurity or homelessness was then. And that twenty three point one percent to twenty six point six percent, because some said maybe as an answer, experienced literal homelessness as a child the first time. So you can see that there's an age, it's in your data right there that there's an age breakdown of people experiencing homelessness or their first age of homelessness. And even some of them that didn't experience as a child, their first time was as a young adult. So that does make sense in the same category. Going to the next slide, which is the cause of loss of housing. So it's important to note that not everyone answers every question. They don't have to, it's a voluntary thing. I mean, that's what we want because we get the most obvious answers that way. But there were an 84 total evictions. Almost all of them were not caused by the tenant. Participants who reported losing housing to no cause evictions described the following experiences, and I'll go over the numbers in a minute. But among the 41 that were no cause, an overwhelming number were not allowed to have their child or parent live there on a lease. And several had reported health and safety issues, and then ended up with a no cause eviction. And several landlords wanted to raise the rent or renovate or sell their house. There were 41 who said that there was a no cause eviction. There were 20 who had condemned housing. There were 19 people that we interviewed who were fleeing violence. An eviction non specific was 16, so they said eviction, but didn't tell us why. A family eviction, this means a family member had to ask them to leave for whatever reason, usually sometimes disagreement, but oftentimes they couldn't have them there overcrowding or a situation like that. 11, retaliatory eviction. So that's when they complained about something. Five, foreclosure, seven, health and safety issues. They left because there was a health and safety issue, not necessarily a condemned house. There were eight. And flood or fire, there was six.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Can I ask a question? Yeah. Fiction non specific, if a landlord raises the rent and just raises the rent is saying, I'm fine with you remaining, renewing your lease, but someone doesn't want to pay that. Does that fall under

[Brenda Siegel]: a victim's nonspecific? Misunderstand. No, but I am realizing that the non payment of rents category is not on this chart. Should it? Yes, it should be. Can explain why? Yes. So non payment, there's, when we had a number of people with non payment of rent, I'm gonna edit this and send you guys the new updated one, but the non payment of rent category, almost all of them reported that they had either lost a job due to severe medical condition event or a disability, a sudden disability, or they had a death of a family member. So not all of them. And then another subset said that their landlord had suddenly raised their rent significantly and they couldn't afford it. But is that considered an ejection or like an eviction? Well, it depends on if they stayed after there was a non payment of rent. So I have two categories.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Don't know how they didn't end

[Brenda Siegel]: up in here, but there's one category that says non payment of rent, and there's another category that says couldn't afford rent. And that's because non payment of rent would be considered the eviction and couldn't afford rent would be that they left because they couldn't afford it.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, Elizabeth.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: Is there any correlation between retaliatory eviction and non payment of rent? No, it's Like if a person was withholding rent, does that fall into the non payment of rent category?

[Brenda Siegel]: Yes, but I think the way we considered it in the study was that that was a health or safety issue because they were withholding rent. Sort of out, but still retaliate. No, not getting, no, everything's, yeah.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: And can I ask one more question? Sure. I'd love to go back just briefly to when you were talking about foster children in the, I hadn't heard that before, so I'd like to ask if you could talk about that a little bit more. So when hear when you say age first entered homelessness, or homelessness or housing insecurity as a child, I guess, would be the better one. Do you have a breakdown at all of people who were unhoused or housing insecure as a family unit versus those whose family had been broken up?

[Brenda Siegel]: Yes. So the people that were housing and secure homeless as a family unit, it is the 23.1% to 26.6%. And then it's not in this chart. I actually did not include the chart of social family services involvement in this one. But in that chart, which I can include when I switch over to this other one, it does show you the percentage. It's I think around 23%, but I have to actually see the number to know. And it falls almost directly in line with federal data that shows that the experience of foster care is an indicator for homelessness. We already knew that.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: I just wondered whether you could break that out.

[Brenda Siegel]: Yes. Yeah, I have another chart for you. It's in human services right now.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: You can see it there.

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Debbie? Well, I mean, we have laws on the books on what landlords have to provide, and we have to provide a safe, healthy environment.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: So there are things the tenant can do if that's not being supplied. Unfortunately, when you're experiencing abject poverty, you don't have

[Brenda Siegel]: a lot of power, regardless of what the laws are. If that's your only option and the landlord is aware that's your only option, and the threat of eviction is staying over your head or the threat of not being able to stay or not getting your lease renewed, those are things that not every landlord is a good actor, just like not every tenant is a good actor. And the landlord tenant laws are really there to protect against people who aren't good actors on both sides. So if that makes sense.

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Well, mean, it just takes a call to the health inspector or if

[Brenda Siegel]: Yeah, we did do that in our case and there wasn't proper enforcement. And so I didn't really have any repercussion. That is what we see with our clients over and over again. And so think that it does matter who's at the understanding. Actually,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: if we could drill down just a little.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Yeah.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Because your example, when you laid out your housing history. During the various processes you described, my understanding is you did complain to the health department. Yep. And they came out and basically issued a ticket or something.

[Brenda Siegel]: They said you have to fix this.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: Within a week. To the landlord. To the landlord.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: And just simply nothing happened.

[Brenda Siegel]: Nothing

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: happened. And they didn't come back, right?

[Brenda Siegel]: They issued another warning. The second landlord, I don't know if I went, he was very threatening, and so I don't know if I actually went to the health inspector that time. I was kind of scared of him. And so it took a lot for me just to withhold rent in that situation. So I felt like I couldn't even take the steps necessarily. So the person sitting before you today is not the person I was in my 20s when I was going through that experience, but even now, I think I would find it very scary.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, Debbie. Well, I was gonna say

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: even, it depends on when the lead issues happened, if it was before Vermont took it over, when it was the federal government doing it, again, you can report that and they will step in and they will handle the situation.

[Brenda Siegel]: I did, and I think ten years ago or so, because I paid attention to this, the law changed slightly. And so lead might not be the situation, but there's other situation. Fact, it was 20 ish more than he's 23. So around twenty one years ago. So it was still federal, but Vermont was supposed to do some things, but there wasn't any actual repercussion. And that part has changed to some extent, but it hasn't changed to the The thing is that when you're on this side of it, when you're someone who's in abject poverty, you are experiencing something different no matter what the laws are before you. So that's something that's really, I think, important. And you're completely reliant on other people's timelines to get help that you need.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, to clarify, I guess, am I right in what you're saying is, number one, that when you do complain, there may be tickets issued, but nothing happens. And the second is you're saying that in many cases, are afraid to because they'll be evicted. Right. That's retaliation, and if they don't have a lawyer, nothing will happen.

[Brenda Siegel]: Right, right. And so, and that's what we see every day. We see a lot of people, especially we have a client who's now housed, I'm very excited, but he had spent much time outside. He had MS, he has MS. He used to be a security guard here at the State House. He was a bus driver. There was a Boston Globe article about him recently that I'll make sure to link so you guys can read it. But when he actually unsheltered, he was exited from a hospital to the street. He can only move his arms just a little bit. And he could not even eat while he was outside because of this. We And finally found a hotel that would build a ramp that he could go into that would actually work for him. And then we were able to build a really strong team around him, but he had been evicted. How he became homeless was he became evicted because his wheelchair was running into, he became disabled while he was there, his wheelchair was running into the walls and he asked for there to be modifications made and the landlord said no. And then they evicted him for cause, which we hear often with people with disabilities. And then that essentially used against him when he went to apply at the housing authority to get a voucher. And we were able to overturn that through an appeal, but that took a lot of people with him to do that work.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: Yes, Ashley. For cause, for damage? Yeah.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: For damage to the department. Yes.

[Brenda Siegel]: It wasn't considered a no cause eviction, And that landlord in the eviction was supposed to not give negative references, and he did anyways. So we had to do a lot of work. Yes. Sorry. Yeah, it's okay.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: I work in HR, and legally, as an employer, if someone's an awful employee and I get a reference, I can't be like, Yeah, that guy. Yeah. Awful. Yeah. Is there, do you know, I mean, we haven't talked about it, so I'm assuming it probably would have come up, but

[Brenda Siegel]: does that No, and the problem with that to me is that there's a lot of personalities involved in a landlord and a tenant, and a lot of times, even if it's a no cause eviction, there is bad blood towards the end of the time. And so that not having that requirement, and even when they have that requirement, like, was it written in an agreement? In that case, was written in an agreement. And when the housing authority called and during the appeal, what I basically had to bring forward was, this is the agreement that was never supposed to be said, you can't use that to. But he had such a solid team of support around him that they were willing to work with him. I don't think we need to go over service connection, which is the next one. But just so you know, it is in there and it shows you how very well connected actually people experiencing homelessness are to services. But the slide after that, health of participants, I just want to make sure that you take a look at it because the people experiencing homelessness have far more illness and disability than you are aware of, and even that is reported. Even in coordinated entry, the way it's reported, it's still self report and it's connected to your housing. So research that is not connected to your housing is really critical for finding actual data. If that makes sense.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes, you'll have a question, but I just, to alert we do have a bit of a time constraint. So I'd say you have like eight, nine minutes left. Okay. Okay?

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: That's fine. Do you have any data on the length of, or the duration of these statuses? For example, whether any of these occurred prior to loss of housing.

[Brenda Siegel]: So in phase two, that's a good question. In phase two, we didn't ask that specifically. And so one of the questions that's prepared for phase three is actually that exact question. When did you become disabled? When did you develop this health condition? Because we aren't, unless they shared it as part of the story of sharing about it, we weren't able to tell if it was before or after their point of homelessness.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Thank you. We

[Brenda Siegel]: have our suspicions, but there was

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: not data. I was curious, when

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: you follow these people through this process and you say that there's a lot of anger going on, and you end up with a judgment, right, that's where we end up with a judgment, how much damage is usually part of that judgment?

[Brenda Siegel]: I think I don't understand the question.

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Well, you'll have Is there any damage to the apartment or is it just conditioned The when they rented

[Brenda Siegel]: majority of the time that, at least for the study purposes, we don't know the answer to that question. But when we're working with clients, the majority of the time our clients have not created damage unless they have a disability of some kind. But just keeping in mind that we work primarily with people having disabilities. That's who we are. And then the last slide I want to share with you before I just close, and I'll send you, I have detailed information about each bill, but it was too much for this time period. I just

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: sent That it would be great. The written testimony is really good.

[Brenda Siegel]: Yeah, so that I will send that, but I just wanted to do the learning disability slide, just so you know, when I send this in, what that's referencing. So roughly almost ten percent, so nine point five percent of the people that we interviewed either couldn't read or write or had trouble reading or writing. And I think that's really critical when we're making eviction law because things like they have to respond in five days or else the eviction will go through is really dangerous for somebody who can't read or write. And so those are things that I think are really important to be understood. And I will remember to include the foster care slide. And then I just want to close. I have a bunch of notes I was going to give you, but I've had such great questions. So those will just come in the written testimony about it. But I'll close by saying that any landlord or tenant bill on the horizon should be rooted in equity and should be data driven. The foundation of landlord tenant law has to consider both the landlord and the tenant. And H79 and some of its counterparts are really more of a landlord bill and essentially strips some rights away from tenants. Again, I know you asked me to go through all the bills and I will do that in writing. A bill that is truly equitable does not create effortless evictions. It will not create more homelessness. Several of the bills before you would create more homelessness and also a much more difficult time for individuals to get housed, leaving people in poverty with no hope. There is good data on just cause eviction. We know that most evictions make it through the process in sixty days and that there is no magic that will make being a landlord or a tenant easy. But we certainly can ensure it's scientifically, that it is scientifically driven and solutions that work. So, our three main recommendations that can address root causes without eroding any landlord tenant law for now is adding a restorative justice process so that if something is not working or it's not working correctly, then that can be either a required process, which I think restorative justice centers would say they don't like, or it can be an option for mediation that has to be taken by the landlord. Or can ensure, and two, ensure that already existing law for eviction for dangerous behavior is funded so that it works properly because there's already a fifteen day eviction. And I think the problem there is that that piece is not working properly. So rather than make it shorter, make it work properly. And then know we don't Studies where there's providers just sitting in a room, those have generally not moved, resulted in us doing something. However, commissioning an independent study that significantly researches both the experience of tenants and landlords and the data behind it so that it does not lean in any one direction and offer some solutions might be a way to move forward in another biennium on this.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Yes. Oh, well actually, I'm sorry.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Your next venue. So this is just a comment, and I'm not sure that it applies in 2026, but when you said people can't read or write, that doesn't necessarily mean that they're not US citizens. I worked on a suicide and literacy hotline, and there was just as many citizens than there was non citizens that don't read or write.

[Brenda Siegel]: Yeah, will actually tell you that every single person that's answered that they could not read or write was a lifelong reminder. That was something we found surprising. So in the full report, you'll see more of that kind of information.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: Are you aware that we did have the landlord tenant study committee? Yes. But So how is this different?

[Brenda Siegel]: This is an independent study.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: But how is that different? We had people from the only legislator was only myself and Joe and everyone else was a stakeholder from both. Right. And it pretty much would be the same stakeholder. No, because

[Brenda Siegel]: an independent study is a researcher. So it's not someone doing that. They're gathering data and making recommendations based on the data, as opposed to any of the interested parties. They would interview the interested parties, but they wouldn't. So when we do our research, it is people, they volunteer, we don't necessarily know them, we take, we will interview them if And we you're

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: suggesting, like, who would pay for that? Oh, we would appropriate an independent study on data.

[Brenda Siegel]: Usually, an independent study is somewhere between 100,000 and $200,000 for something like this. I do happen to know that. You don't have to go that way. But before making such drastic changes to landlord tenant law, it seems like knowing that the data supports it and that

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: the recommendations are true research. No, absolutely. Add that one of the components that I have hoped would be in the landlord tenant bill was a data aspect. So I do agree that there needs to be better data. Actually,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: it would help, a number of us are, in fact, interested. I'm not saying that I agree with the idea that we do nothing until we have work, but I think that in our position, we hear a lot of stories.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: And

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: we have to make decisions on the basis of stories. And we all kind of wish we could make decisions a little more on the basis of data.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: Right, kind of.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: But we've been a little puzzled as to how we would collect the data. Yeah. So I wouldn't mind it if you have the interest, if in the material you submit to us, you you think a little bit about what the methodology would be. In other words, you don't have to argue to us that data is a good idea. Where you could make a contribution given that you have been doing it, is a little bit your thinking on, well, what would the methodology be that might tease out good data? And you don't have to tell us now, but submit it.

[Brenda Siegel]: Yes, I can do that, and I can tell you that I got much advice when I started from a public health researcher, and I think that their methodology is pretty sound.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Okay, great. Thank you. Debbie?

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Well, when you say that we're hearing the stories, are we gonna have any of the people that I want to testify testify?

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Well, we'll talk about that after, when we don't have a witness here. Yeah.

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: Thank you so much, Brad.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Our next witness is Chad Penden.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: I could do a little less device experiment, I say. Thank you so much.

[Brenda Siegel]: Thank you.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Good morning. I don't think we need to introduce ourselves to you, Shae. Tell us who you are for the record and take it away. I thought you were in a new role.

[Chad Simmons]: New wish, although it does feel like it's been quite some time already. Chad Simmons, Executive Director of

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: the Housing and Homelessness Alliance at Vermont, it's good to be

[Chad Simmons]: back in your committee. Feels like you've been an entire session. Glad to be back here. You all are cooking this year. So my hope today is just to provide some general observations and reflections of H-seven 72 and of the other bills that you all have before you, and then provide a couple of recommendations and proposals to move forward. Before I start, I will just share as I shared with the committee prior that I coordinate a large alliance of organizations and individuals that come from a variety of perspectives. So that includes people who provide housing, organizations and individuals who provide housing. It also includes advocates who are advocating really focused on individual rights and health rights. So I hope you can appreciate that beauty and that tension of the variety of folks that we represent. So the few things I wanted to cover today is just some of the guiding principles. You've seen this before, but I just want to highlight a couple that are specific to these builds and our approach to making recommendations. Provide a little data, it actually will dovetail quite well into what Brenda just shared. So I appreciate her testimony and her focus on people who lived experiences. I'll share some general reflections and then recommendations. The first is this, our mission is to build a Vermont where the fundamental right to housing is enjoyed by all. And I think that's an important thing to name upfront in terms of what our perspective is on the impact of these bills. You've all have seen this before, but I'm gonna highlight one in particular, is that the role of government, in this instance, the role of state government to ensuring that promise that everyone has housing. And I think it's really important as we talk about the impacts of changing landlord tenant law and who has power and authority and the impacts on both the housing community, as well as tenants. You all have seen a lot of this data before. My former colleagues at BHFA have presented a lot of this to this committee, but I wanted to highlight some things that this committee might not spend a ton of time on in terms of the people experiencing homelessness. So these data comes from the point in time count. The last one was actually just done two weeks ago and it's done annually every year in January. It tries to assess the number of people literally homeless on one given night. And so we would just flag that we have and our partners have found that this oftentimes is an underrepresentation of how many people are actually homeless. And I'll get to that in a second. As you can see in the slide, homelessness has skyrocketed in the last decade. There's lots and lots of reasons for that. I think more comments has articulated that quite well, that there's many reasons why we find ourselves in this housing crisis. So we can't just pinpoint one solution to address why folks are in house. There needs to be many tools and toolbars. So we tend to point to the coordinated entry data. This is an assessment that's part of a broader community led process that assesses the needs of folks in the moment going through a statewide coordinated entry system. And this, I know you don't need to see all that. That is the state of my life right now. And so as of December, we identified at least 4,000 people, are self identified as literally homeless. So I think that is an important piece to note here.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: I've got a quick

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: question, my fault. And so the coordinated entry system, how can an individual access a coordinated entry system? Is that the two-one-one thing, or is it like if there's a great big flood and somebody goes through United Way, are they automatically entered into coordinated entry? What are the entry points for

[Chad Simmons]: it? The idea is that it can be accessed through a variety of ways in your community. So there are local housing coalitions, and those partners are going include the designated agencies, the community action organizations, the shelter providers, and all of those folks agree that if folks come in saying, I need assistance with shelter, or I am literally homeless, how can I get help? Then they provide assessment. Do they

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: have to have documentation when they sign up for coordinated entry?

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Don't know the answer to that.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: Others around the country fine. Driver's license, social security, documentation of their No. Okay.

[Chad Simmons]: Thank you. Yes?

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Is there any way of knowing or any estimate that you have of those that don't identify as homeless and enter the coordinated entry?

[Chad Simmons]: The assessment is self, so folks volunteer the information and fill out the assessment with a staff person. And so you're asking if Those who don't, just don't,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: who are just living on the street and they're not connecting with any- Well, living on

[Chad Simmons]: the street would most likely fall under the category of unsheltered by the high definition of literally homeless. And so those definitions based on the self reporting that folks give, those then would fall under the definitions as part of the assessment. So essentially folks answer questions. It's a fairly lengthy assessment And then,

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: sorry if you don't. I thought I heard you.

[Chad Simmons]: You're great, thanks. So far. And so folks provide in their own words what their status is. And that also applies to their current level of disability and housing type need that they're seeking.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I don't think I made my question clear. There's going to be a class of people who don't want to connect with any agencies. Do we have any idea, for whatever their reason is, do we have any idea if this is certain? I don't have

[Chad Simmons]: an answer to that question, so I would defer to others who might have.

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: So I mean, if you're talking about the point

[Chad Simmons]: is it called? Point in

[Rep. Elizabeth Burrows]: Point in time, know, everybody who works in

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: the business knows that it's a tremendously rough estimate.

[Rep. Leonora Dodge]: Okay. It's the best. It's what we have.

[Chad Simmons]: And the coordinated entry provides a more robust and community driven response on an ongoing basis. Thank you. Yeah, This slide just shows, and I think this is important, this will get important to the recommendations part of the testimony, is the number of people who self identify with disability conditions, including mental health and alcohol use disorder and substance use disorder. And so I think it's really important when we're looking at tailoring recommendations, policy recommendations, that those recommendations align with the acute needs of the people experiencing crises. Is this, what, this is out of a total of what? Does it relate to point in time count? This is the coordinated entry. Coordinated entry, okay. Yeah. So this gets to my, and I've shared this with other committees this year and kind of just trying things out on the fly, but this is something that in my work over the last decade or so, focusing on substance use disorder and figuring out how to meet people's needs where they're at, as well as working in the housing world, that people are complex and our systems should be simple. And that is not what we're experiencing right now. And I think people, and Brenda pointed this out too, that some of these systems that people are entering into are extremely complex and overwhelming, and that places a great amount of burden on individuals who are experiencing crises or experiencing homelessness. And it's also really difficult for the people trying to provide those services or trying to provide for folks. It's often daunting for, and I know you've heard testimony from a number of our members, including nonprofit housing communities, who have shared the difficulty in accessing certain supports and services in a timely fashion that provides community safety. So I won't show this video now. I've showed it in another community, but I think this articulates very well a system that would be human centered and appropriate for us to kind of mimic in a way. I encourage folks, it's a ninety second video, I encourage folks to take a look at it. It's by the performer Johan Vousouille, and it's a really compelling articulation of what our systems could look like and feel like. So some more reflections on H. Seven seventy two and the other bills that the committee is considering. I think first and foremost, and I've shared this with the chair prior to testifying today, is that I think any proposal should not create more homelessness and housing insecurity. As I said, our members come from a variety of different perspectives. And as we're working in other committees and in other bills, and as you all have seen in your communities, the impact of homelessness and especially unsheltered homelessness is really challenging and profound. And we advocate, we're strongly advocating for any proposal not to increase that burden on our communities and on individuals. Tenant rights need to be protected. I think we've heard from a number of folks that it's really important to understand the power dynamic of folks who are providing the housing and folks that in need of housing or currently in housing. And our members are asking for some relief. I think including some of our nonprofit housing folks, as well as a number of folks in the for profit housing community have shared that there is an existential crisis happening right now and that folks are looking for guidance and help from state government to figure out how can we both house people and meet people's needs where they're at, but also provide some stability and safety within that housing unit or that housing complex or community. So, HHAV is believed that both those things need to be true. So people in mission driven organizations providing housing should have tools at their disposal to move people in and out of housing that is most appropriate for the broader tenant community. And importantly, this should be done in conjunction with the tenant and the community partners to ensure safe and smooth transition into other housing or shelter arrangements that are most appropriate. And I'll get to that in the recommendations and investment part of the testimony is really aligning what we need as a state to ensure that people are not unhoused or unsheltered, but also have options and supports and services at the disposal. Eviction in and of itself will not really address the root causes or decrease costs. And I think this is something that we've been communicating in the House Human Services Committee and hearing really compelling testimony from emergency departments and healthcare providers that moving people out of housing because of whatever circumstance is happening is just shifting the cost onto local municipalities, nonprofits, and individual housing providers, as well as the broader community. So we're not saving money and we're not helping people out by evicting people out in the street. HHEV does support provisions in H440 that provide a clear just cause eviction process that includes allowing termination of non payment in the specified time. I think it's important to look at HHBs broadly in support of just provisions. And I think H440 does a good job of landing that plane. I'll kind of end my general comments here with something that I've been thinking about for the last several years, and I know Marc Owens has talked a little bit about this. And the links here are not necessarily causational, but I think it's really important for the legislature to understand that delicate dance, is that rental housing is part of a larger housing market, and that if we pull one thread, it impacts the other parts of the market. And so if we create too many restrictions on folks providing housing and don't provide the tools for folks to be able to be nimble, we're gonna potentially unintendedly limit and constrict the housing market to provide housing for people. What do I mean by that? Well, the housing needs assessment talks a lot about Vermont's very low vacancy rates, which means landlords and property owners and people who provide housing have the ability to charge more, charge less, limit the availability in some instances. I know in my conversations with houses over the last summer, there was very real concern and fear about what they're experiencing in their housing units. And some of them shared that they're considering taking their rental units offline. That runs counter to a number of the things that you all have done over the last number of years and investments made to increase the number of units coming online. And so I would just think about the implications of if we limit the options for folks providing housing, the impact on our housing market. I'll also note that the HFA has put out over the last number of years really compelling data about the impact of short term rentals and vacation rentals and how that is a definite pull financially for people who have housing units at their disposal. Meaning if it looks financially more lucrative to move from a year round rental to a short term rental, and if providing housing is fraught and challenging, there is an incentive to move from a long term rental to a short term rental, and the data bears that out, that there is a cost benefit that folks are making. We are seeing an increase in short term rental. It's still a very small percentage of our rental product, but we're seeing an increase. And so I would just caution any inaction or dramatic reaction that may limit the ability for folks providing housing to act in the best interest of the broader community. I Just wanna stop and see if anyone has any questions on that part.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Tell us what more you wanna do, just because I'm looking at the clock and I wanna get a sense of it. Yeah.

[Chad Simmons]: So over the last week, I've had a number of conversations with our members, through provider housing and advocates, and I cannot come here and say I have a position on seven seventy two. What I can say and what I've been telling our partners is there needs to be some sort of agreement. There needs to be some sort of tool that folks who provide housing can use within existing law that allows them some flexibility. As I talked about earlier, working with the tenant and community providers in good faith to find a better housing fit, and working with our current service providers to do that process. So I've asked our members to work on a solution. And as I shared earlier, I don't think inaction is an option. I think there needs to be some solution that our community partners and the legislature can come to. I would also say, and I'll get to the judicial part of that in just a minute, I would say, and I think H. 72 does a good job of articulating a number of investments that would be needed to strengthen our current system, to invest in those systems specific to programs that address the root causes of issues creating the challenges. For example, adding specialized housing and shelter capacity for substance use disorder, mental health, respite. So our community partners like Pathways has done some really good. Some of our shelter providers have provided some really phenomenal respite housing and shelter for people to get well if they are in crisis and to provide safety for both themselves and the larger community. Briefly invest in modernized Vermont's mental health and physical health and substance use system. I know that's a big one and not necessarily the purview of this committee, and it's vital to addressing some of the root causes that you all are trying to face. And then increased investment in Vermont's coordinated entry system. This is the work that Human Services Committee is currently working on and I look forward to seeing how that plays out. The last thing I'll say in terms of specific recommendations, and I have one more slide after this, is to work with the judiciary to identify efficiencies under current law that addresses both the tenant protections and due process, as well as the timely processing as evidence indicates. And what that means is allowing folks in housing situations to, if there are situations that include violence sexual or domestic violence, things that clearly need to be expedited under using existing law and due process, encouraging the judiciary to find efficiencies in the existing system. Finally, the investments needed. A number of things have already been listed in H-seven 72 that we agreed with, including the Vermont State Housing Authority rental arrears program. This is a really critical tool that can help alleviate some of the pressure that a number of folks in the housing community are facing. The rental payment credit reporting through the Vermont treasurer's office, where we're in strong support of that tool as well. Investing in the Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity Fair Housing Trains and Advocacy. These are statewide programs that can be accessed for both landlords and tenants and are highly, highly effective. Human Rights Commission, I know the legislature invested over the last year increasing their capacity. We would advocate for an increased capacity for them to continue during the work, especially in this fraught time where fair housing is under attack at the federal level. Legal representation available to all. This has been a recommendation from a number of our members that legal representation can actually speed up the process and allow for individuals to get the representation they need and then work directly with landlords and property owners. As Brenda Siegel just mentioned, and I'm so glad she did and reminded me that connecting with our restorative justice community is vital to this suite of solutions. Resourcing our restorative justice systems and capacity to be available in a timely way, I think is really important. And finally, increase the capacity of specialized options for people experiencing mental health and substance use crises. And that again is being worked on through the Human Services Committee. You want to take a breath? Stop there.

[Rep. Deborah "Debbie" Dolgin]: Questions? Yes, Debbie. I just have a question. I mean, all of this is taxpayer funded and Vermonters across Vermont are saying, we need lower taxes. So how do we lower the taxes and that all these taxpayers can do the programs?

[Chad Simmons]: Sure. It's a good question. I would say these investments are vital to ensuring people, both individuals and people providing housing, are able to do so in a humane way. And I would also say, again, of the testimony that I've been a part of and hearing from other communities, again, is that shift in cost isn't necessarily going away. It's just being shifted to other parts of our economy. So we're paying for, again, our healthcare premiums in our healthcare industry because people experiencing mental health crises and substance use disorder have nowhere else to go and our systems are overwhelmed. So we are paying for it in other ways and in other parts of our tech system. And so HHV would argue that investing proactively and preventatively, investing in these types of programs, would actually bring down the actual cost of. And for landlords? Yes, everyone, including landlords, yes. Other questions for this witness? I do have a

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: request on that slide. I noticed that the first three bullets are in seven seventy two. Fourth bullet is the HRC issue of their budget, is a problem. Am interested in this restorative justice matter, and I would really appreciate a lot more concrete ideas of exactly what it would look like, who would do it, and which entity would provide it, and what the rules would be. I heard you say probably it would be kind of tenant, maybe, it could be landlord or tenant initiated, but if the tenant initiates, it's mandatory, whatever, but whatever the proposal is, I don't know, you know, whether it would make it into this bill at this time, but I think I know a lot about restorative justice, I consider it. I will say, I really don't, I appreciate your testimony, I don't think that, I think you have to advocate the way you're advocating. To be really dark about it, I think the world we're operating in is, do we increase homelessness by making the process more efficient, or do we increase homelessness by discouraging landlords from staying in the process? In a world in which there is no money at all, that is the choice we are facing. I realize I am not asking that as a question of you. That is not something I expect you as an advocate to respond to. I'm just being honest. I think we are in a very dark world that way. Thank you. Thank I really appreciate both of you having come in. We're going to take a break right now, and we will return in ten minutes at 12:05, and we will have

[Rep. Emilie Krasnow]: a 11:05.

[Rep. Marc Mihaly (Chair)]: Thank you. 11:05, we don't need an hour to do what we need. 1105, and I noticed the HCB is at least partly here. Anyway, we will then we're gonna have testimony on on budgetary matters is what we're gonna do. We're off