Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay, welcome back, folks. And thank you to the committee for coming back so promptly And after a long this afternoon, are switching gears, sort of. We're still talking about the impact of some of the changes that are being made at the federal level. And we're also talking about how this will impact Vermonters who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. And so we have invited a number of witnesses to share information with us, particularly as we look at individuals who have little to no income and what their housing situation is or is not, as the case may be. So first off is going to be Kathleen Burke, who is the director of Vermont State Housing Authority. And thank you so much for being here, Kathleen. I appreciate it very much. And we do have things online. So you're in the audience. Are you going to share screen or are you just going to share screen? So welcome.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members for having me in today. I wish the topic was more of an uplifting topic, but anyway, for the record, my name is Kathleen Burke, Executive Director of the United State Housing Authority. And joining me on Zoom is my colleague, Kevin Loso, who's the Executive Director of the Vermont Housing Authority. So I'm going to just get right down to it. We're here today to talk about Federally funded housing vouchers. I've titled this presentation A Lifeline and A Vermont Summary. And thank you for inviting us in to speak with you today. Last February, I was before this committee testifying on the topic of anticipated funding reductions to Vermont's federally funded Housing Choice Budget program. These funding reductions were memorialized for the passage of the fiscal year 2025 continuing resolution in March 2025. The federally funded Housing Choice Badget Program is facing significant federal funding challenges that have reduced its effectiveness. Budget cuts, as early as 2025, analyses by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that proposed federal budgets would leave the Housing Choice Budget Program with its most severe funding shortfall ever. This was attributed to insufficient funding increases to keep up with rising rents and inflation. Badger attrition. Due to funding cuts, local public housing authorities are being forced to reduce the number of vouchers that they administer. Reading lists have been closed to new applicants. Now, just some data, because I think it's necessary for community members to truly understand the why behind the situation that we're in. This slide illustrates, and this again is for, it's an aggregate of data for all public housing authorities in Vermont. It's not specific to the Vermont State Housing Authority, but to all public housing majorities in Vermont. So this slide illustrates that the budget authority, meaning the budgets that we're all operating under, are spending I'm sorry, let me restate that. Our spending is exceeding our budget by 107.98%.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: That's the line graph you're referring to, The black showing

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: line is the budget utilization. The green line are the number of doctors that are leased. And so you can see from this illustration that housing authorities are overspending. This is what I was talking about last spring and early summer when we were anticipating the public housing authorities were going to have a shortfall in funding, resulting in the need to exit families from the program in order to come in line with the budget that Housing and Urban Development ultimately allocated or Congress ultimately allocated through HUD to public housing authorities.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And so I just want to make sure that and maybe you're going to get to this maybe. I'll wait, I'll wait. Keep going.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Moving on, this slide illustrates the leasing changes. Again, and this goes back over the last five year period. So you can begin to see what's really at play, again, for all public housing authorities in Vermont on the trajectory. The orange line is leasing utilization. And so that's really new vouchers that are being issued or that are out there on the street. The black line represents the unit months leased, and that's an acronym that's specific to the Housing Choice Voucher Program. Really what that means is the number of families served. The green line, and this is again, I've talked a lot about the downward spiral of the Housing Choice Badget Program. And that year after year over time, Congress has just underfunded the program. And so the green line represents unit months available. And what that is, is the total number of families that we could serve.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: If Congress allocated enough funds to public housing authorities to serve those families.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So will you tell us again what the orange or red line, however it's appearing on your screen,

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: what That's voucher utilization. So what that's telling you is that public housing authorities are not issuing new vouchers. This slide illustrates new admissions to the program. And again, so if you go to the far right, the black line represents new admissions of homeless households. The green line represents new admissions of non homeless households. There were about 40 during this time period of July in total for the state of Vermont. What we anticipate to see with that trend line is that as housing authorities resources become smaller and smaller, there are certain programs where we continue to issue subsidy to homeless households. And those are specific to project based funded properties that have a requirement to serve homeless households. And so what we expect to see is that that trend line will really become more and more Black, and we'll be serving more homeless households than non homeless households. Although the caveat is subject to funding availability. We need to have cash in the checkbook in order to pay those subsidy payments.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So I guess that's a basic question. So if housing authorities are spending more than they're receiving from federal allocations, are your other sources of revenue?

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: I'm going to share that with you. Okay.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: You won't be the first. This

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: slide illustrates the per unit cost of a voucher in the state of Vermont. And the trend line here illustrates just how much those costs have increased over the past five years. You just see the trajectory just going up, up, up. The average subsidy that's provided to a Vermont household right now is $911 a month and a little bit of change. And then you'll see the breakdown for the public housing authorities. It's presented in a variety of ways. But you'll see, for example, Monterrey Housing Authority had an increase of almost 40% in their per unit cost over the last five years. Vermont State Housing Authority has realized an increase of almost 38% in their per unit costs, which is the subsidy, the average subsidy amount for each family over the past five years. So the increases in subsidy costs have surged due to rising rents and stagnant incomes.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And these are numbers that reflect not only, I guess I would say, publicly financed housing projects, like we have one in development in Waterbury right now, but also folks who have private landlord arrangements and receive a subsidy?

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Right. So these statistics, these data do include properties that have a commitment for project based rental assistance. Yes.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And they do include private landlords?

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: It's as long as there's a housing choice subsidy committed to the specific unit, regardless of ownership type that's being reported out in these data.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Okay.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Because we have heard about the really increasing costs of the low income housing development over the last five years. And so I was trying to figure out if this is skewed by that. Well, obviously, it's impacted by it.

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: But yeah. Think to that

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: point, and we will look at the data and make sure this continues to be so. But historically, what we found is the average subsidy in our project based voucher program as compared to the Housing Choice Badger program. It's really one large program, but there's two components. The average subsidy in the project based voucher program has been less than the larger Housing Choice to actually program. But that's something that we're gonna have to fact check if it continues to do so. So it gets at that. So this is where we're at right now today. And these data are current as of Monday of this week. And this is an aggregate, again, of what Beach Public Housing Authority's unique situation is here in Vermont. It's not a pretty slide to present, but this is what it is. As a result of the fiscal year twenty five funding reductions, again, we were anticipating going into shortfall. We are in shortfall, what does that mean? For each housing authority, you can see what that means. So for example, the Vermont State Housing Authority, we're estimating a shortfall in December of approximately $630,000 that impacts five twenty two households. Is that an annual figure that you expect for a fiscal year? That is for a portion of housing assistance payments for the month of December.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So just for the month of December. And a portion. Exactly. Portion. So you might have I'm not going ahead like some of my counterparts do. Are you going to tell us how much that would mean for a full what you're anticipating at the end

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: Yes, of the

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: we have.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Okay. All right. So in total, and this is, again, it's important to be mindful. The Vermont State Housing Authority's annual budget for the bachelor program is about $34,000,000 a same program, right? So in December, in order to make December housing assistance payments in full to all current participants, public housing authorities collectively are going to need to come up with a little over $1,000,000 in resources. If they don't, they would have to exit collectively nine forty three families in the program. People who are already housed. People that are already housed.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And so that doesn't even take into consideration any New. Mean, essentially, I'm paraphrasing here. But it seems like other than already promised project based vouchers, essentially, it's dried up for any new applicant.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: That's exactly the case.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. So this is a rhetorical question, not that I expect you to answer, but then, how would somebody accept homelessness who has SSI as their monthly check and be able to afford an apartment anywhere on that amount? They wouldn't. Represent

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Bloomley.

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: You've got it.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Oh, thank you. So again, staying with the impact of the fiscal year 'twenty five reductions, as I said, the shortfall represents a portion of the housing assistance payments that need to be made for the month of December. To continue to support nine forty three households for a one year period, for an entire twelve month period, we would need an appropriation of $10,000,000 based on our current statewide per unit cost of $911 per household per month.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: Again, no people coming to rest.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Just no new people it. Stabilizing

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: the program. I'm just going to sort of repeat it back to you. So, what I hear you saying is that nine forty three

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: households Right, this is the number that Right.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: After December 31 could be impacted by all of the housing authorities' inability to continue to make the subsidy payments.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Right. They're not going to be impacted in December, and I'll tell you why they're not going to be impacted Going forward, we don't know what the fiscal year 'twenty six budget is going to look like. And so I assume if we're lucky, we might have a continuing resolution that funds the voucher program based on a proration of what it's funded now. But you're absolutely right. We are continuing to, the voucher program is spiraling down. We're in a crisis situation. I'm just going to name it. Yeah.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And so I want to make sure I'm understanding the ramifications because we'll be entering budget adjustment, which I'm presuming that there's going to be a request in budget adjustment if you're in this situation. What I'm trying to figure it out is the difference between not knowing what your FY 'twenty six federal budget is going to be at the same time as recognizing that you were already in the hole because because we were already expending more than what we had for an annual allocation for FY '25. Is that accurate? That's absolutely correct. Okay. So at some point, because it seems doubtful that there'll be some sort of magic wand, big increase at the federal level. At some point, we're going to need to make collectively, I mean, collectively, you're gonna need to make a decision about whether we continue to house people who are already housed.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: You're absolutely right. You're absolutely right. Let me just move on, and hopefully I'm gonna be able to answer some other questions that I'm sure that folks are thinking about. So this is what it looks like in such a short period of time. Unfunded vouchers as of 01/01/2025, for the state of Vermont amounted to $11.80. Those are vouchers that public housing authorities competed for, were awarded through a competitive process. However, Congress has failed to fund the voucher program adequately for years, resulting, again, I keep saying it, this downward spiral program. Unfunded badgers as of 12/31/2025, which we anticipate will be $13.11. Our loss this year alone is 131. So this is a big question. As I illustrated earlier, Vermont Public Housing Authorities are in a shortfall situation. In order to make all December housing assistance payments on behalf of tenants to landlords. We are going to need to collectively come up with about $1,000,000 We, public housing authorities, have agreed that there will be no participants exited from the program at the end of the year. Vermont public housing authorities have committed to using other PHA resources to pay housing assistance for December only.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So you can anticipate, what's other mean? So

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Slide. So public housing authorities have the ability to use prior year's earned administrative fees for housing assistance payments.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: That's a federal reimbursement? These are fees

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: that we've earned as a business for doing our work. When we administer a program, you earn administrative fee. It's meant to cover the cost of the business, your staffing, etcetera, etcetera. So over time, some public housing authorities have a bit of an administrative fee reserve, which is a good business practice. We need to have reserves. Housing and urban development allows public housing authorities to use those administrative fees for housing assistance. I

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: don't know the billing phone number

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: I

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Should have for

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: they do that, those funds are realized in the individual PHA's base renewal funding for the next year. Carry forward. To carry forward to the next year's funding renewal. However, public housing authorities, it's bad business practice to use administrative fees for housing assistance payments because our businesses will collapse. We won't have the funds available to pay our staff. This is like the legislature using one time money to fund ongoing expenses. It's the same kind

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: of thought.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: We try not to do that.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Just yes.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Go ahead.

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: Back back on that last slide, I'm just I'm just missing something. There's an indication that public housing authorities will use these other funds for December, but December only. But in purple, it references no participants will be exited from the program at So the end of the after December, how will folks be able to stay if there aren't sufficient funds? We don't know.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: The government is shut down. We don't have a continuing resolution. And we don't have a budget for fiscal year 'twenty six at this point. We will be out of appropriation, federal appropriation, at the end of the calendar year.

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: So absent changes in those circumstances, people will have to be exited.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: Excuse me?

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: Absent some sort of change, people would have to be exited.

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: Exactly. Do

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: I think that's going to happen? That is the reality. That's a factual reality.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So I mean, I think what that is saying to us is that the stalemate at the federal level obviously needs to be resolved. And even then, there is likely to be some issue of cash flow, given how late we are in the year at this point. Are you able to deal with the cash flow issues for you and your other counterparts.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: We have funds that have been obligated through

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: December. That's it.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So does that leave you I guess I'm going ask this question. Does that leave you with any of the other funds in your administrative fee cap shall be here.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Does that leave you with any balances there? There will be some balances, yes. Insufficient to do that another month, I'm presuming. Well, I think that the situation is such that I don't wanna get too far ahead of where we're at. But I believe it's safe to say that public housing authorities are not in a position to fund housing assistance payments out of pocket for January 1?

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I guess I'm following up on Representative Bishop's question. That's why I'm trying to figure out how you can definitively say participants will not be exited. I mean, we don't have

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: At the end of this year. At the December.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Not January 1 they might be.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: January 1 is a different story. It's a different story. They will not be exited. As we, I'm sorry, as we wind down the calendar year, we know we're gonna have a shortfall of a million dollars that equates to about 900 households receiving assistance. Public housing authorities are going to use their own funding to support those housing assistance payments for December. Okay, I got that. Thought

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: making you a statement that it went beyond that. After the end

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: of the year, so I'm sorry.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: That's okay, it represents that.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: We just saw him on the same page. So if the shutdown continues till the December, if the shutdown doesn't,

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: then you will have the money active deadline. So,

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: so, but if it, oh, I see, if they change your funding or are you talking about the shutdown? See, I'm confused. So if the shutdown, let's say is voted on next week, you'll have your money. That's what I'm saying. No, so Congress appropriates money to the voucher program on a calendar year basis. So January through December. Congress has not appropriated money to this program for 01/01/2026 at this point. Continuing resolution would possibly fund the government and programs like the Housing Choice Badget Program at some level to keep them operational after January 1. So that's a bookkeeper. They only funded you January the November? Why would you have not spent money that you were appropriated and why are you short for December? Congress appropriates money based on continuing resolutions, spending bills. It's complicated.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So they didn't sign you for December. They didn't let me try to intervene I'm trying to help you. I understand. They provided an allocation for '25 that, first off, was insufficient to fund all of the people that we currently have in vouchers. So the housing authorities on their own are utilizing funds that they've received for administrative fees to fund through December. They're not gonna be able to do that past December. So in other words, we need to the federal government needs to get their act together and hopefully reopen government so that as of January 1, there could be an expectation of the receipt We of know how much that would be, honestly, or if it would be sufficient for the number of families and individuals who are receiving currently right now. So that it's still a lot of unanswered questions.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: I was just wondering how- Yeah, don't think I was saying that back in January, come a lot short if we like to cut

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: the amount of money that Vermont got.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: That's what it was.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: And we already have the people in there? Yes. Okay.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I'm gonna urge us to kind of hold our questions and let the, including myself,

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: to let you get through because

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: we have a lot of witnesses.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: So again, if cuts are disrupting our systems of care, it funded rapid rehousing programs will not have access to permanent rental assistance, the Zonkate Home Vouchers, the Vermont Rental Subsidy Program, costing the state more money through extensions to keep these families housed or possibly exiting families into homelessness. Many of these households are on PHA waiting lists waiting for a permanent housing choice voucher. However, as I mentioned earlier, those waiting lists are closed. Cuts will diminish public housing authorities' ability to provide project based vouchers, a critical tool. Project based vouchers support housing providers and ensure housing for lowest income households. They offer guaranteed income to landlords, enabling development and rehab of affordable housing. Without a project based voucher, many projects cannot meet funding restrictions associated with the Low Income Housing Tax Program, Housing Trust Fund Program, and the HOME Program. This is a slide that illustrates just how many housing vouchers are committed to project based voucher units here in the state. And again, it's an aggregate. And so currently, there are 2,613 subsidies that are under a commitment for housing assistance payments and an affordable housing property. At risk, and I'm gonna say at risk, the 128 units that are under an agreement to enter into a housing assistance payments contract. These are agreements that are issued prior to project construction. It's a commitment from the housing authority, along with other financing commitments that they receive from BH3B, BHFA, etcetera, that we will provide x number of subsidies for this housing development. Again, this is an agreement. All agreements are subject to funding availability from the federal government. Just raising up that this isn't a new issue, it's a worsening issue. I've been around a while, so I was able to pull this letter out of the archives from 2013. And this is a letter that was sent to the then chairs of the House and Senate Appropriations Committee, encouraging the legislature to consider ways to mitigate the loss of rental assistance. And again, these are the data that are referenced in the prior letter. And during 2013, this was during sequestration, we were looking at a funding shortfall of just over $6,000,000 By closing appeal, we urge this committee to advocate for restoration and expansion of federal funding, support state level solutions to bridge the gap in affordable housing and invest in public housing authorities, appropriate general funds for housing assistance payments to stabilize voucher loss, prevent the termination of families from the program, and secure base renewal funding for calendar year 2027. How? We spoke a little bit about this earlier. Public housing authorities are authorized to use prior year's earned administrative fees to support leasing and voucher costs. If used, these funds are added to the PHA space, renewal eligibility for the following year. Administrative fees support PHA operations. PHAs cannot commit to using administrative fees to bolster leasing without a commitment from the general assembly to replace these funds. Time is of the essence. Every month that passes, Vermont will lose renewal funds for calendar year 2027. Why? Housing vouchers provide the lowest income families in our state with the ability to afford housing. Housing vouchers are a vital tool in our fight against homelessness, significantly reducing homelessness and housing instability. Housing vouchers are the lowest cost solution to stable housing. It costs about $11,000 to provide rental assistance to a family for a year, which is a fraction of the cost of emergency shelter or a state funded hotel stay. Housing vouchers are a critical tool in how Vermont creates and develops long term sustainable affordable housing. Housing is a human right. Without stable housing, individuals cannot thrive, families cannot grow, and communities cannot prosper. We must act swiftly and decisively to ensure that every Bomana has a safe place to conquer. Thank you. Thank you very much, Kathleen. Appreciate sobering information. It really is sobering information and points to the challenge ahead of us sooner rather than later, really. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. Taylor. Is Taylor here or online? Okay, there you go.

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: Hi, everyone.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I saw Kevin earlier. Thank you for being here, both of you. So we're now moving to some local impacts that we are seeing as a result of some of the sobering things that we are hearing from Kathleen, as well as others. So, Taylor, the floor is yours, if you want to introduce yourself. Folks, And we do have information in our, on our, website, for people who want to follow along. The floor is yours, Taylor.

[Taylor Thibault, Chair, Chittenden County Homeless Alliance; Associate Director, Champlain Housing Trust]: Thank you so much. For the record, my name is Taylor Thibault. I'm a chair of the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance, and I work at Champlain Housing Trust as the Associate Director of Homelessness Prevention Initiatives. First off, I'd just like to say good afternoon to Chair Wood and all the members of the committee. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance, one of Vermont's two HUD recognized continuance of care. As I move forward, I just want to let you know I'm deep diving into the email that I had originally sent and provided, to to Chair Wood. If you have any questions, feel free to stop me, and I'm I'm happy to, define anything or answer any questions you may have. So Chittenden County Homeless Alliance is deeply concerned about proposed federal changes to the continuum of care program that would limit how much funding communities can use for permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing. For context, permanent supportive housing provides long term rental assistance paired with supportive services to help households with at least one member with a disability achieve and maintain maintain housing stability. Additionally, I just wanna name that permanent supportive housing houses our most complex, vulnerable Vermonters, who outside of this program wouldn't be able to maintain, stability. The reality is those folks wouldn't be able to increase their income to pay without a subsidy because majority of those folks, again, have a diagnosis that wouldn't allow that to happen, it wouldn't be achievable because of a disability, etc. Rapid rehousing helps individuals and families with or without disabilities move quickly out of homelessness by offering supportive services and short or medium term rental assistance, typically up to twenty four months to achieve housing stability in the unit that they already reside in. I think this is a timely conversation after Kathleen's presentation because typically folks in rapid rehousing programs try to transition to other types of subsidies. However, we have learned today that those types of subsidies won't be readily available once these folks are ready to transition out of this program. The permanent housing cap, which is part of the federal administration's proposed changes to the upcoming Continuum of Care Notice of Funding Opportunity, would directly restrict both of these evidence based housing interventions as reported in the political article that I provided with you all today. These changes would not take effect immediately. They would begin in fiscal year twenty twenty seven, but the prospect of a cap is already creating significant anxiety for households relying on PSH or permanent supportive housing or rapid rehousing programs to remain stable, as well as for the providers who support them. To understand the potential impact, Chittenden County Homeless Alliance has modeled several scenarios. Under the most severe, a cap could force 15 to 20 formerly chronic homeless individuals, each living with significant disabilities, back onto the streets. If we think about what I had mentioned earlier, again, these folks, while 15 to 20 formerly homeless households doesn't seem like a lot in the grand scheme of things, and after hearing significant funding losses in other programmatic ways, these folks, again, have disabling conditions that wouldn't allow them to be stable in environments outside of a roof over their head. These Where was I? Okay, so for context, the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance in fiscal year twenty twenty four was awarded $1,200,000 through these federal funds. Almost 60% or approximately 719,000 supports permanent supportive housing. Almost 20% or approximately $245,000 supports rapid rehousing. Combined, nearly 80% of our award, close to $964,000 directly funds people for funds housing for people exiting homelessness. If HUD imposes a permanent permanent housing cap, CCHA could lose between $336,000 and $587,000 depending on whether the cap is set at 30 or 50%. Through work with our consultants and her in her professional opinion, it seems like it would be the latter, so that 50% decrease. Even under moderate assumptions, we would still lose over $270,000 in essential housing resources. While the impacts of these federal cuts are not yet set in stone, nor immediately disrupted the household most at risk,

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: we don't have to wait

[Taylor Thibault, Chair, Chittenden County Homeless Alliance; Associate Director, Champlain Housing Trust]: to make good policy decisions. The current federal administration has demonstrated a clear and persistent shift in its response to homelessness, a sharp break from two decades of federal consensus around the Housing First model, which prioritizes permanent housing and voluntary services. Instead, this new direction centers behavioral health as the primary focus of homelessness policy, introducing mandates and enforcement mechanisms that will reshape how assistance is delivered and who is eligible. For example, it would be treatment first organizations or specifically gearing permanent supportive housing or rapid rehousing or any of eligible resources towards elderly or people with physical disabilities rather than mental health. Vermont is facing the perfect storm of federal and state factors that are magnifying the state's already acute homelessness crisis. At the federal level, beyond the potential COC impacts described above, Vermont has also lost hundreds of federally funded housing vouchers, vouchers that have enabled Vermonters to access or maintain stable housing with hundreds more expected to be shelved or rescinded by year end, as you've heard from the SHA. At the state level, we know that long term solutions to homelessness is more permanently affordable housing. And thanks to state investments, Vermont has created thousands of new permanent affordable housing homes over the past few years alone. But we continue to fall short of the sustained investments needed to make maximize production of permanently affordable housing. In short, we're not creating enough of the housing we need to solve our crisis. Simultaneously, the state's cuts to the general assistance emergency housing program have, which has sheltered thousands of Vermont's most vulnerable unhoused residents, had profound consequences, including a 62% increase in unsheltered homelessness between 2024 and 2025, as you'll see in the State of Homelessness Report 2025 from HHAV. I edited this earlier and it didn't go through, but I just wanted to share that rather than the cuts to the General Assistance Emergency Housing Program, I feel like it was really the rigid back and forth between categories and eligibilities that really set people in a spiral, not necessarily the cuts in particular, but who was eligible for those services, when you were eligible for those services, if we were going to get if you fell within a category that could stay or not. So I just wanted to name that. That was edited and not here, apparently. Across the state, providers also lost critical homelessness prevention positions, including vital housing navigation roles when federal ERAP funds expired and the state did not include support for these positions in the final budget. It's also important to emphasize that Vermont has been highly reliant on HUD's complicated but productive funding streams. Without these federal investments, Vermont would not have developed the programmatic infrastructure that now allows us to secure competitive funding that enables the kind of ground level responsiveness that the state resources alone haven't yet matched. Because both permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing are targeted for federal reduction, this creates a painful decision point for our community. Either prioritize only PSH, preserving as many existing tenancies as possible but eliminating all of our rapid rehousing projects, or cut both permanent supportive housing and rapid rehousing proportionally, resulting in more households, including chronically homeless Vermonters returning to homelessness. Again, just to reiterate the concern around the permanent supportive housing decrease is the folks that are utilizing the system in that funding stream again are vulnerable. And I think it's worth knowing that you can only get into that program if you've been homeless for more than a year and that it had been documented. So majority of the folks in that program particularly have been homeless for years. Neither option is acceptable, both with destabilized progress that has taken years of collaborative effort between providers, the state and local partners to achieve. So our request today is simple. We need to explore state level strategies and investments that can help Vermont preserve the positive impact of these critical housing interventions and ensure that vulnerable Vermonters are not forced back into homelessness due to federal decisions beyond our control. CCHA and our member organizations stand ready to collaborate with the state to identify solutions. While we are developing short term mitigation strategies, they will not be sustainable without broader state partnership. We would appreciate the opportunity to return to this committee as soon as the potential federal cuts to the Continuum of Care program become final. At that point, we'll be in a position to provide a clearer picture of the new reality facing Vermont and make concrete recommendations for how this legislature can respond. Again, we thank you for your time and continued leadership during this critical moment, and I would be happy to walk through with the committee our modeling and discuss the potential strategies we're exploring.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you, Taylor. I have a question for you. So you've been Vermont has two COCs. Do the implications that you're talking about for the Chittenden County COC, is that will the balance of state COC face similar challenges?

[Taylor Thibault, Chair, Chittenden County Homeless Alliance; Associate Director, Champlain Housing Trust]: So they I had met with them prior to this testimony to consider adding them into what I had written. And their asks are a little different. The balance of state has investments in other federal funds that differ from the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance. So I don't imagine the impact to be as large to the balance of state when it comes to permanent supportive

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: housing and rapid rehousing programs. What I'm hearing you say is that that money in Chittenden County has more been invested in people actually receiving housing and the supports they need.

[Taylor Thibault, Chair, Chittenden County Homeless Alliance; Associate Director, Champlain Housing Trust]: Yeah. And I feel like I I know the balance of of state has focused their primary funding sources when they apply through for the NOFO on outreach specifically.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Alright. Thank you. And we'll hear from them at another time. But thank you very much for being here, Taylor. Does anybody have any questions for Taylor? Thank you very much. We appreciate it and all the background information that you provided as well. Great.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Thank you so much.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: We're going to move to Kevin, who's been patiently waiting.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Okay.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: If he comes on. All right. Looks like he stepped away for a moment. All right. I'm just going to Okay. All right. All good. All right.

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: I think

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Do we have Is Jonathan here? Is he online? Oh, right there. I didn't see you come in. Hi. So I'm gonna yeah. I I think Lily, you had asked to come together with Miranda. Do you wanna do that or do you wanna come now?

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: Whatever is most helpful for you.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Why why don't we go through all the community people, and then we'll have the state folks come up. Is that alright? Okay. All right. Jonathan, welcome.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Yeah,

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: right here.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Good afternoon, everybody.

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: Good afternoon. And

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: folks, we have Jonathan's testimony in our account. So welcome.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Wonderful. Well, thank you for the opportunity to be here. I appreciate the chance to speak with all of you and have some conversation around capacities for shelter. My name is Jonathan Ferrell. I'm the executive director of the Committee on Temporary Shelter in Burlington. We go by COTS, so feel free

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: to call us COTS.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: I wanna walk through a little bit of data this afternoon, focusing specifically on our single adult population who are experiencing homelessness. We have data to look through from Todd's fiscal year 2024, which run sorry, 2025, which runs from October 20 10/01/2024 through September 2025. This is from our day station, which is a daytime drop in center, our weigh station, which is an overnight shelter for single adults, and our warming station, which is a low barrier shelter that we ran this winter from January 15 through April 30. Starting first with the day station, the biggest trends that we're seeing are that the majority of our guests are now unsheltered when they come to stay with us during the day. In years past, it was the opposite. So in years past, the majority of our guests at the day station were in a shelter program, either at COTS or another community provider, and we had fewer unsheltered folks. So that's a one big shift. The second big shift is the number of visitors that come to the day station. So three years ago, our average number was 500 guests, unique individuals per year. In fiscal twenty three, we jumped to seventeen thirty five individuals. And this last fiscal year, we saw 1,862 individuals coming to the day station. So the day station offers showers, food every day, laundry, connection to the cot staff, connection to a wide array of community partners who also come into that space. The other piece that we're seeing at the day station, among with more, a higher number of people seeking services, is a higher acuity among our guests for mental health needs, substance use disorder, physical health needs, and disabilities. It is not uncommon for folks to be discharged from a medical facility at our doorstep. That happens often. And again, we also have, unfortunately, a list of folks that's sort of growing who are not allowed to use our space because of erratic behavior, specifically violence towards other guests and staff. I believe the same is true at other institutions around Chittenden County and Burlington. The library has folks who are no trespassed. City market has folks who are no trespassed. So again, it's highlighting this sort of higher level of need that some of our folks are seeing. I'll jump down to the weigh station. This is our overnight shelter for single adults. Again, looking at one year's worth of data ending in September. We currently have 36 beds at the weigh station, and we served 161 people in those beds this last year. Of those 161 guests, seventy percent of those guests report a disabling condition. Now these are self reported and folks can choose more than one when they do the intakes. But we're seeing forty nine percent of folks identifying with mental health issues. Forty three point five percent of our folks looking at chronic health conditions. Forty three percent of our guests experiencing substance use disorder and trying to recover from that. Thirty two percent of our guests with physical disabilities and twenty five with developmental disabilities. I'll also note that in that, out of the one hundred and sixty one guests who stayed with us, sixty one of those were able to move through the program into permanent health. So it's a fairly high ratio. But there's also one hundred people who were not able to do that, and obviously some people who cycle in and out of a shelter because they can't be in a in a setting around other people without deeper supports. We also think that these numbers are typically underreported. Sometimes folks feel if they report all of their problems, they may not get service or they to have the stigma. Frankly, it's hard for all of us to say. I'm experiencing difficulty. I also wanna highlight that anywhere between 7075% of our guests are employed while they're staying at the shelter. So in terms of capacity, we cut the ribbon earlier this week on a brand new facility, a 56 bed shelter that will replace our weigh station. It's a 55% increase for us on year round beds, so adding 20 beds to our capacity. We're shifting our model away from the bunk room settings into smaller rooms where one to four people will stay. And we're adding a consultation room that community partners can use. We've been leaning into standing relationships with Turning Point Recovery Center for recovery services. UBM Health has been coming to the day station. We're going to have them at the overnight shelter as well at community health centers in Burlington to try to address some of the outstanding needs that folks have while they're with us. Looking at the substance use disorder, want to dive a little bit deeper there. Of the sixty nine guests who reported SUD, we can see that there are folks who are experiencing both alcohol and drug use disorders. So about forty four percent of those sixty nine guests, thirty eight percent reporting drug use disorder and nineteen percent reporting alcohol use disorder. These are some of the challenges that a subset of our folks are really struggling with. I'll jump us now to the winter warming station. Again, this is a low barrier shelter that was run for a four month time period. And the numbers are similar, yet a little higher. So of our 191 people who visited us during that four month stretch, 157 of them did an intake with us. Others just came and spent the night. But of the folks who did an intake, we were able to get some data from them. And again, you'll see mental health disorders being very high on that list of self reporting. Sixty percent of those folks, forty four percent had a chronic health condition, forty one percent with substance use disorder, physical disabilities at thirty percent, and developmental disabilities at thirty percent. Of the warning station guests, nine to 10 were moved into a different shelter that is housing focused and has some programming. The majority of folks did not move beyond that winter warming shelter, only came in off the streets for the night. Some stayed a few nights, some stayed all winter. We can jump a little bit deeper into the 65 warning station guests who reported SUD. Those numbers are fairly high. So eighty six percent of those folks reporting a drug use disorder, thirty four reported alcohol use disorder, and twenty percent reported having both of those issues. So when we look over the course of this last year, the demand at the day station for services is up from previous years. We know that many people are sleeping rough in our community and that many of them are experiencing a much higher level of need than than they have exhibited in the past. Sometimes in the state, we talk about the number of homeless people. Therefore, we need x number of shelter beds or motel rooms. And I think it's a little more nuanced than that. When we look at the three eighteen people who we served and had intakes for over that time period, seventy five percent reporting a disabling condition. Well, I want to point out that we are facing twin crises here. We are facing a housing crisis and an affordability crisis. And on the other hand, we are facing a medical crisis. We have these these we have folks in our communities who are are experiencing high level of need, who are going to have a difficult time obtaining housing, staying in housing. Our shelters are designed as warm, safe, temporary places to stay while folks work on their next steps in security housing. And Cox and other shelter providers all around the state are very good at this work, but we are not designated agencies. We're not health care providers. We're not mental health care providers. And we are not substance use disorder clinicians. So as a state, I believe we need to create humane trauma informed 20 fourseven residential treatment centers for those in need of mental health, substance use care disorder, and health care. This is places where folks can go voluntarily because there is a need for that and via drug court and other off ramps to have the stability of their daily needs being met while they are receiving treatment. And I do believe this has to take place before they can enter a very limited and competitive housing market. Very few people that we serve who are experiencing high acuity can also spend time working on securing income, doing housing applications, looking for apartments. It's a lot that we're asking folks to do. Currently, we have inadequate treatment available on both the mental health and the substance use disorder fronts. Many of our treatment options average fourteen to twenty one days, and it is just not enough in the face of highly addictive street drugs like fentanyl and the rising use of crack cocaine that we are seeing, which also comes with a lot of behavioral challenges. Mental health needs are severe enough that folks cannot live on their own, but the thresholds for receiving treatment are abnormally high in our state. And folks cannot receive the treatment unless they are identified as being an immediate danger. And we have folks in our community who have hundreds or more than 1,000 contacts with police and with courts who cannot stay housed and need to receive treatment. So I want to urge this committee and the legislator to think about creating shelter is good, but also to marshal the resources of all of our state departments of health, health access, mental health, Disabilities and Aging and Independent Living, and the Department of Corrections to start looking at residential treatment care centers. I would urge the committee to look at the Recovery First mindset and speak with the Turning Point Center of Chittenden County, UVM medical staff who are starting to do methadone treatments in the ER with some success and with the Vermont Foundation of Recovery. Vifor would like to see 500 recovery residences across the state. Now these are residences where people can be supported after treatment and live in a supportive environment. They want to see 500. There are currently less than 200 across the state. And lastly, we've designed in our state a coordinated entry system that prioritizes the most vulnerable folks to match them with housing opportunities. And as a system, it's efficient. People do get matched with housing opportunities. But we are shifting the burden of the care for those most vulnerable folks to our housing providers who are struggling under the weight of the increased need. Evictions are up, revenues are down, and those revenues are important to keep those housing projects running, and staff are overworked. So Cott sees this in our own housing portfolio. And I would urge the committee to speak with folks like the Champlain Housing Trust, Summit Housing, who is doing a lot of tax credit housing and involved in in coordinated entry, the folks at Ever North who are managing portfolios across three states who are all experiencing the same burden. Probably heard a little bit about it earlier. And I'd also urge that the committee talk to the Burlington Housing Authority about the unintended consequences of all of these health care needs landing on the nonprofit sector and the nonprofit housing.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. Thank you, Jonathan. Do you have questions? Representative Steady?

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Thank you. I saw on

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: your pie that was there

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: a spot for people like a single mom that just doesn't have a home that has no mental illness or no drug use?

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Yes. The data that I'm presenting today is focused on single adults.

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: So this is, oh, okay. Not everybody there has a, like has an underlying reasons, even if they don't have a home.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: You have other programs, in other words. Right.

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: Yes, but I want to know because

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: I happen to know people that have used the facility, and I know they don't have any.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Absolutely. Absolutely. So, again, we're talking just about single adults, no children in the households We do also run family

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: But y'all, all the single adults that stay with you have at least, like, alcohol or drug use, do they? All single adults?

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: No, no, but seventy percent of them experience what is called a disabling condition.

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: Oh, there is. Okay, because I was looking on the body and there wasn't any little section of people that do not have a

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: disorder. Apologize for the confusion. The pie chart just talks about folks who identify having a condition

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: and what those conditions are.

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: Okay. It's just I know

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: people personally have used it and I knew they didn't.

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: Absolutely. Absolutely. I don't

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: know what to call it.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: That's alright. Jonathan, what have you seen in terms of changes in your length of stay? So what's the kind of range of length of stay for people staying in your shelters, both waystation and other shelters that Absolutely. You're running

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: So our length of stay, we do have a length of stay policy for folks, We try to mesh it to what we're seeing as a reality for getting housed. So we start off with a six month length of stay with opportunities to extend that stay. We do look for an engagement and services as part of that stay. So the six month mark gives us an opportunity to evaluate that, if folks are willing and able to engage or not. When folks are approaching a longer stay, if they're engaged in doing the best of their ability, they stay with us. So we rarely exit folks who are working hard on next steps. We've had people today as long as eighteen months before

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: they can get housing. It's a

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: long stay. Our average is about nine months on the same day. One

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: of the things that I heard from a housing provider recently was feeling like the referrals that they're getting and honestly, I don't even remember if it was in Chittenden County or not. But the referrals that they were getting for people to enter some of the new housing developments that are out there are coming from people who are currently unhoused, not in shelter. And they have, honestly, a lower success rate in being able to stay housed because of some of all the issues that you were presenting here today. And I'm just wondering how that referral process goes for COTS in terms of when there are openings that occur and how that connection is made for people actually staying in your shelters, people who are doing the work, as you said, to try to access supportive services and housing. Housing.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: So folks, just so I understand the question, folks staying in the shelter, How they get engaged in the housing

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: How they get engaged in

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: the housing market.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Sure. Sure. So there's a few different ways. Probably the largest one is the coordinated entry system. So everybody who's in the shelter is enrolled in that coordinated entry system. Some of our folks find housing on their own as they're working with our housing navigators. They find something in the open market. Most of our housing placements are with nonprofit service providers like Champlain Housing Trust or Burlington Housing Authority who manage properties. We heard a little bit about vouchers sort of being cut back, and that is a very big challenge for all of our populations in children.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So do you find that the people who are looking for permanent housing that you're serving would need access to a housing voucher in order to be able to afford market rate rents or even quote unquote affordable housing?

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: The majority, yes, would need a subsidy. As I mentioned, anywhere from 70% to 75% of our sheltered guests are employed and working, sometimes making very similar salaries to our staff.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: We have Representative Steady and then Representative Bishop. Oh, okay. I'm left handed, so I see things on the left. Representative Bishop, sorry.

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: With respect to the day station, you provided some data going back a few years that indicates the rapid growth of of the number of folks, the visitors that you're seeing. Do you have data over time with respect to some of the other things such as the 70 set the 70% reporting, a stable in condition? Do you know how that compares going back over time?

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Don't have that at my fingertips, but I can

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: pull that if the committee's interested. Yeah.

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: Depending on the amount of work it would take for you. I just think it would paint a clearer picture as to would help us understand better the changes that you're seeing related to mental health, substance use, and the various, disabling conditions you've outlined here. I'm just sort of generally curious whether it was close to seventy percent five years ago. Over time. Yeah. I'm looking

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: for is there is there a change over time?

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Anecdotally, I'd say there's a change over time, but I hesitate to say it without having the numbers spread.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Thank you. Represents data. So can somebody that choose their eighty day motel hotel use their eighty days and then go on to you and use another six months?

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Oh, absolutely. Our system does not interact with the economic services in the eighty days in motels. Okay.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Great. Thank you so much, Duncan. We appreciate you being here this afternoon.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Congratulations on the opening up of a new shelter.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Thank you very

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Saw that on the news.

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: I'm gonna send you a congratulations to make sure.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay, Julie.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Welcome. Hello.

[Julie Vaughn, Executive Director, Good Samaritan Haven]: Thanks for having me here today.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thanks for being here.

[Julie Vaughn, Executive Director, Good Samaritan Haven]: My name is Julie Vaughn. I'm the executive director at Good Samaritan Haven, a former self care network in Central Vermont serving Washington County specifically as well as Greater Central Vermont. I'm speaking to the central area for the balance of state. So thanks for that opportunity to share the gap between the current sheltering capacity and the growing need for various models of shelter in the county. So I'll start with outlining the need. According to the latest coordinated entry numbers for the county, there are currently over five eighty five people the county experiencing homelessness or are precariously housed. For a balance of state kind of rural context, Washington County has a higher per capita rate of homelessness than Chittenden County per capita and receives 30% less funding per unhoused person to address that need. So that's from reports that we've been digging into over time. So for the first time in our community's history, we're seeing that there are more than twice the number of people living outdoors, so sleeping rough, unsheltered, as there are people in our emergency shelters. So that's a massive difference that we're seeing that flip. That means for us, Good Samaritan Haven Street Outreach team is currently serving over two twenty people outdoors compared to those that were sheltering indoors, or the total of roughly 94 shelter beds that are in the county. So this is a direct result we're seeing of the shrinkage of the motel system in the county. So many of the people currently outdoors, of course, were those that we used to serve in the motels over the last several years. So there always will be a need for that motel system to serve as a stop gap, that true, true overflow for last minute emergency housing. So it's important as a safety valve in the system, but it shouldn't be that primary safety valve that we've seen over the years. So state shelter operators and homeless service providers really need to be consulted about that current capacity situation and what types of solutions are needed in their communities. This spirit of transparency and collaboration is really vital for building a sustainable long term solution so that motels can return to that original role as temporary stop gap emergency beds. So thanks for this opportunity to share with you around this. We're witnessing that sheer number of people in need. We're seeing this flip to more people outdoors, sleeping rough, our current shelters at capacity. And as Jonathan outlined as well, this challenge that results from that intense acuity of need of folks that are in the shelters, since we're not clinical, we don't have that kind of resource. Shelters are housing some of the

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: most

[Julie Vaughn, Executive Director, Good Samaritan Haven]: complex individuals while operating with the least amount of appropriate resources for that need. So the shelters were never meant to carry that kind of shelter, that weight. Yet we do. We do it with a lot of dedication. And so based on this complexity, the needs of our unsheltered and unhoused neighbors won't fit into that one size fits all manner, as Jonathan was also noting. It's really the same in Chittenden County as well as the rest of the state. So, there's lots of different ways that we can do that, sheltering transitional temporary permanent housing. All of those solutions need to be tailored to specific subpopulations and the really unique needs that we're seeing. Specifically, there's great need, as also Jonathan said, for the shelter and transitional housing for complex mental health experiences, those with active substance use disorder, alcohol use disorder, as well, those who are in recovery or are looking for first steps into recovery. It's really, really important. Something that really is lacking in our area, that need for a bridge bed. So that critical set of days before or as one is contemplating going into a detox, the clinical part of that detox, really critical time between that and that time in a rehab bed, We don't have that right now, and that's such a vital thing for us to have for those that we serve. So additionally, older adults need really specific shelter and housing options, those in particular that we're seeing that need a nursing home level of care. We're having a lot of challenges finding that resource for elders who smoke or having history with the criminal justice system in particular, because those are really barriers to traditional nursing home environments. And finally, of course, families and those experiencing domestic violence situations really need a unique shelter environment or housing options. So the long term success of these special populations in being sheltered, stabilized, and meeting their personal goals hinges on being in the environments that are designed to support their particular physical, mental, emotional, developmental experiences. So, I'll talk now about the capacity and our response to the need. And in order to respond to those needs in the community, Good Samaritan Haven has grown fivefold in five years. Just massive growth in order to respond to this. So in 2020, as an example, there were approximately 172 individuals experiencing homelessness in Washington County. And in June, we did a count of six fifty one. And while Good Sam has grown over the years at that incredible pace, there is still a real need for at least 300 beds in the county to help stabilize our most vulnerable neighbors and reduce this strain on providers and municipalities in particular that are seeing this rough sleeping situation. So over the last five to six years, we've tracked every shift in need in our community really closely. Shelter operators and homeless service providers are on the front lines every single day. So we understand the realities really clearly. And we're asking that those with lived experience, those providing those services, are really at the table to architect and implement some solutions. So, for example, in July 2024, Good Sam submitted a response to the Shelter Expansion RFP that was issued by Department of Children and Families, OEO, to get more shelter beds online by December and propose a roadmap. So there's a lot of ideas that are out there for several projects that could have doubled the bed capacity in the county by adding upwards of 100 beds, but not by December. So the timeline was really strained there. So this plan outlined a combination of five additional overflow beds, building nine to 18 beds for a complex care shelter, creating roughly 40 to 60 beds in sort of a supportive SRO type of model of shelter care, and preserving 17 beds at one of our original shelters in Barrie City that's located in a floodway. So because the priority was placed on standing up shelters within that short time frame of six months, the only project that was able to be funded was five additional overflow beds from that offering. So if those projects had been funded in July '4, our county would be in a really different place today, much closer to addressing some of that need for emergency shelter that we're really facing with this flip and seeing folks unsheltered. Good Sam and other shelter and homeless service providers around the state are really keen, really keen to address the varying needs in our respective communities. We're really willing to take on that development of these projects, even though they're really complex to carry out. It means saving books. It means creating the stability that people need in their lives. So we're really willing to do that. But it's really important to note that as we respond to the increased capacity, organizations will not be able to sustain the level of growth that the operations aren't commensurately helped to be invested in. It's doing this and sort of tilting the organization for sustainability. So we know some of the right sized solutions for those unique communities of people. We need the funding to make it happen. So we need that collaborative investment from the state. So, for example, Good Sam has several projects in predevelopment and development that can be started immediately if the funding is there with appropriate time constraints. The roadmap in Washington County for 100 more beds can be implemented with the support of the states. It's really vital to decouple the funding from the timelines that don't allow for longer term intentional development solutions. I'm not talking about years and years. I'm talking about a shorter time frame, but not a four to six month time frame. So it's just tough to carry it all out. So a really successful project, I imagine Lily will speak of as well, is that we're partnering with the state River North and BHCB right now to establish the first permanent year round shelter in Montpelier. And from start to finish, this project will likely take nine to ten months, which is one of the fastest acquisition rehab bid up projects that we've known of. We're really proud of that speed at which we've tried to put up the shelter. So, we're just really hoping that that flexibility can be built into future expansion. We just need to be met with the right people and being empowered with the tools for that change. So in closing, we've moved, as we see, and Jonathan mentioned that there's a dual crisis, medical and housing. But there's also maybe a tri crisis right now. There's the housing crisis, the medical issues that we're seeing with folks, as well as the unsheltered homelessness crisis right now. So it's not the direction we are hoping to see our state going in. With targeted funding, key partnerships, and reduced barriers in the siting and the development of options, Vermont can move from managing this deeper crisis to building lasting solutions. We can do it quickly and efficiently and with intention. The shelter providers of the state are poised and ready with regional roadmaps for the unique communities that we serve. And what we need now is the state to invest in the creative and unique plans that providers know will best suit each region's needs. We have aggressive timelines, but they can be realistic. And it's definitely possible. So thanks for the time to be able to share that with you. I am glad for any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Julie. You're welcome.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I have one for you, and then I'll ask the state when I get to the four to six month timeline thing. Realize needing to look at short term things, but also needing to have a longer view as well. But one of the things that I heard you talk about is your outreach workers. And I just want to make sure that I understood you to say that they do work with people who are in hotels.

[Julie Vaughn, Executive Director, Good Samaritan Haven]: Our presence over the whole COVID era was that we had staffing in the hotels. Do not as with

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: the URAP funds. So that was with the URAP. Yes. Yeah. Yeah.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. And thank you for what you're doing and the expansions that you've had and the current project that you've got underway. So I think some of these success in the hotel conversions that have happened and things like that, we can show that it can be done with the right resources and time and energy and a lot of things coming together at one time to do it. So thank you very much. Appreciate you being here today. Thanks. Thank you. Okay. And Jenna, I see is online. We're gonna move to you, Jenna. Thank you for being here. Folks, as you can tell, we were trying to get people from all parts of the state. So we didn't want to leave out some of the more rural parts of the state, like the Northeast Kingdom and the Community Action Agency there actually serves a dual role. Also operate shelter services and all the other services that Community Action provides. So, the floor is yours, Jenna, and we are running a little bit behind time. So I think that, you know, to the extent that we can get to the meat of your testimony, that would be great.

[Jenna O’Farrell, Executive Director, Northeast Kingdom Community Action (NEKCA)]: I'll try my best. Thank you. I'm Jenna O'Farrell. I'm the executive director of Northeast Kingdom Community Action, and we serve Caledonia, Essex, and Orleans County. I also serve as the president of the Vermont Community Action Partnership, which consists of Sevka, Brock, CVOEO, and Capstone. And together, we cover every county in Vermont and provide support services to low income and vulnerable Vermonters. Thank you for inviting me to provide testimony today as part of a community shelter provider. It is not often that I'm able to say, that the Northeast Kingdom follows trends that happen all around the state of Vermont. But after listening to Julie and Jonathan, I can say that we are following very similar in our in our work. Mecca operates a 20 bed shelter in Saint Johnsbury that is currently full with a wait list. Along with the support of rural edge, the shelter at Moose River opened in January 2024, and we're moving towards an expansion of another 20 beds with the support of OEO and VHCb. The shelter at Moose River is considered a low barrier shelter. A low barrier shelter minimizes requirements for entry to make services more accessible. Instead of demanding sobriety, identification, income verification, our shelter focuses on providing immediate help with minimal rules, often allowing people to stay if they're under the influence of substances. We do have rules against bringing in drugs and alcohol. We establish a culture of compassion and prioritize safety. The goal is to meet people where they are, reduce barriers to act accessing support. Our job is to keep the environment safe, and the guest job is to help keep it safe. Additionally, we operate a micro shelter for four women who are transitioning from homelessness. They have authored and are actively engaged in housing plans to obtain safe, sustainable, affordable permanent housing. That shelter is not maintained with full time staffing. We have a staff member who has formed relationships with each participant and does daily check ins. One of our core values at Mecca is relationships, and our staff provide an array of services both in and out of the shelter that center on building trust and assisting participants in getting their needs met. We provide and coordinate financial coaching, job training, access to health care, and treatment. In our community action agency, not only do we provide wraparound services at the shelter, but we also meet with individuals experiencing homelessness in street encampments, hotels, in our food shelves, and in our drop in housing department. Not everyone chooses to come into our shelter. For example, we have a 27 year old community member who struggles with addiction. I refer to him as Colin. Colin met our housing advocates in his encampment. He clearly expressed that he was not willing to go into this shelter because of his substance use. On many visits, staff invited Colin to come into our agency. One day he came in, and now he regularly stops in for warmth, camaraderie, food, clothes, hygiene items, but it's a relationship that he has formed with our staff that keeps him coming. Colin has fractured relationships with family and friends, and he found acceptance from our staff and have been able to form and sustain appropriate connections. They consistently present him with housing options with the hope that one day he recognizes himself on a different path. At Community Action, we care for the entire community and help people help themselves and one another, and we ensure that no one has to face their struggles alone. From July 24 to June 25, the shelter at Moose River had 15 people exit to permanent housing, 12 to temporary housing, and these are considered successful outcomes. NECA supervises and holds a master lease on 37 beds and 10 shelter apartments throughout the Northeast Kingdom. And at times, when available, we're able to provide a continuum of housing support and options to assist people homelessness. Additionally, during the same reporting period, twenty two individuals returned to homelessness after a shelter stay. Four of those people were hospitalized due to chronic illness and one incarceration. The main reason for these negative exits are recorded as substance related. As a community action agency, we're always willing to partner with local and state agencies to meet community needs. NECA was awarded a grant from the opioid settlement fund to partner with our recovery centers to hire and train four peer housing coaches to work with those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness due to substance use. We have not received that grant currently, or we or we have not had any communication regarding the award. Today, there are 53 hotel rooms utilized by the state of Vermont in the Northeast Kingdom. They serve 83 people. 10 of the rooms are occupied from folks outside of Caledonia, Essex, and Orleans County. And according to our coordinated entry list, 86 additional people, not the folks in our shelter, not the 83 in the hotel, but 86 other people are considered street homeless who are not in shelter or the hotel. Now our homeless community members are faced with a challenge around SNAP benefits. We appreciate the legislative leadership in preserving the benefits during this time of uncertainty. I believe that this is worth mentioning at this moment because our homeless population is very is considered very much food insecure. Our staff at the shelter at Moose River and in our outreach department helps help participants with completing forms receiving benefits. At the shelter, guests are able to use their benefits to prepare and share food. Our staff engage in this process as mentors. They use it as a teaching experience. They model shopping habits, assist in meal preparation, promote nutritional options, and budgeting. The autonomy of being able to purchase their own food gives our shelter guests a sense of ownership and ability to care for others. Our hot budget is $4 a day per person for three meals. So if we were to rely on our hot budget alone to provide food without guests SNAP benefits to feed themselves, we'd be in a trouble. We all rely on these benefits for our vulnerable community members. We also have strong partnerships with our local high school, restaurants, community groups who all regularly donate food. When we experience an abundance, our shelter guests have organized a system to package meals and deliver them to the unsheltered community. We're thankful for the community support we receive. At Community Action, we change people's lives. We embody the spirit of hope, improve communities, and make our communities a better place to live. After listening to Jonathan and Julie speak, was thinking a little bit more about there's a clinical psychologist, Ross Green, who deals with challenging children, and he has this expression that there's kind of two schools of thought. That kids do well if they they want to or kids do well if they can. And I was thinking how similar that is with dealing with our sheltered, unsheltered population. If you go into it thinking, you know, they're here by choice. They want you know, it's like they want to, or they wouldn't be if they could. And I think that's that gap of, like, know, we have 20 beds coming online. It's great to have more beds, but we really need skill building opportunities and treatment opportunities and ways that folks feel supported to get off and to come into shelter, to come out of sleeping on the streets, that their needs are met in different ways. I think, you know, we approach everyone at good intentions and people are really doing the best that they possibly can in that moment and really need chances to be successful.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you very much, Jenna. I think all three of you have outlined the complexities of the folks that are living precariously, either unsheltered or in shelter or rough housing. I'd heard it before, but I'd forgotten that term. So thank you to all three of you. And appreciate the work that you all are doing to do what you can for the people that you can at this moment in time and recognizing that it feels like and the data is showing us that that's actually gonna become even more difficult over the next several months and potentially years. Okay. I think that right now, I'm going to actually call on Beth Ann Mayer, if you would come up and tell us a little bit about what is happening with Christ's Episcopal Church here in Montpelier and some of the connections and history that I know you've been involved with on the ground level here.

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: Well, thank you. And I know it's been a really long day for you all. So I really appreciate this opportunity. I want to speak to specifically that third crisis that Julie drew out, which is the crisis of unsheltered individuals, which has mushroomed. And I just, from the beginning have found it so unacceptable that we are just feeling like this can happen, like people can live like this. So, I wanted to draw a picture of who the people are that we have interacted with. I'm a deacon at Christ Episcopal Church, which is like a block down to Main Street. I'm directionally challenged. And as you may have read, we have allowed people to camp in our parking lot. This came about when people seem to be getting kicked out of every other possible spot where they could pitch a tent and try to take care of themselves. As Julie said, we have over 200 people, two twenty is what they're counting, people who are living unsheltered, truly unsheltered. And many of these people are in cars, there are families in cars, they have nowhere to park, they have to move repetitively because nobody wants a car parked wherever they're parked. It's the same with all the people in tents, they can't, Department of Transportation gets them out of the woods if they own the land. The city doesn't want them in the parks. Nobody wants them in their yards. They're just I mean, we talk in what feels very blase way about the unsheltered people, but there is no place for them. And it is such crisis. And I see the state doing lots of work around the state, and I just feel that we have to prioritise the needs of people who have no place to be. I want to bust the myth that these people are from away. In our parking lot, we have had 30 people cycle through. Of those people, I live in Waterbury with Theresa, she's looking across the street from me. Of those 30 people, three are from Waterbury that I know of. They've all come up to me and made that connection. One went to Girl Scouts with my daughter, one played baseball with my son, one has a literal neighborhood and hill named after his family in Waterbury. These are longtime residents. These are our people. There's only one person cycling through our parking lot that is not from the Barrie, Berlin, Montpelier area, and he's from St. Johnsbury. So these people, they didn't come here because of our services to take advantage of anything. They are our people. We've had two young women, very young women, 17, 18 year olds, who became pregnant with their partners. Over the course of last winter, I knew five women who became pregnant. And I mean, I don't know what my decisions would have been if I had been in their position, but the rule of the hotel room when you're sleeping out, if you have a way to solve that, can cause some people to enter pregnancy. I'm not saying that any one of these people made that decision, but

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Just so that people don't misunderstand the nuances that that's one of the eligibility criteria to receive a hotel room.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Correct. I'm just making that clear for everyone.

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: Yeah, thank you. Have a 70 year old woman who had been living in an apartment in Barrie for thirty two years, very stable. She had to leave her apartment because it was condemned because of the flood. She entered hotel housing. She then got exited from hotel housing because she'd used up her eighty days, which included days under the executive order. She did not know that she could appeal. Nobody had ever walked that path with her. There have been all of the appeals of that have been successful. And people have been able to go back into hotels, but she didn't know that. So, a 70 year old woman with COPD, who used oxygen in the hotel, but not in our parking lot, was living in a tent in our parking lot for a month. All of these people have been helped by the street outreach workers from Good Samaritan Haven. Those workers were previously funded under a HOP grant, but this year they lost that funding as the administration decided to prioritize permanent residential shelter, not permanent, but twenty four hour residential shelter, which is very important, but these outreach workers have been very successful in our parking lot. We've had three households enter permanent housing from parking lot. We've had eight households enter hotel shelter. We've had two households return to their families. Their families were welcomed them back to safety. And all of this was, and we've had three people enter rehab from the 30 people that have cycled through. And it's because they were in a stable place, they had a landline that they can hold on to with economic services for hours, they had bathrooms to use, we didn't do much more. But outreach workers knew where they were going to be day to day and were able to connect with them. So, I just encourage you to think outside of the box. Think about what could be done in an emergency way for this crisis. As we enter the winter, we're looking at being 25 beds less in Washington County than we were last winter. We're working hard on it, but we can't find a location. But we had 25 overflow beds last winter that we won't have this winter, even though we have so many more needed. So, know, I can picture heated tents out on this vast statehouse lawn that where workers can connect with people. We could prioritize how state workers are spending their time engaging in connecting these people to moving on rather than engaging in all of the ways that these people are going to ultimately end up using more services as they get sicker and

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: less hopeful. So,

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I think this should be the priority of me to stay right now. Thank you, Bethanne, for again bringing us back to the personal trauma and consequences that people experience day in and day out. And something that seems as simple as just having a place to be, where an outreach worker knows where you are and can see you and connect with you and then be able to follow-up on the things that they've talked about is it seems simple. It doesn't appear to be simple. But it's really impactful, both in terms of how the resources for the outreach worker are being utilized, but then for the individual or the family or the couple or whatever, can you just say just a few words about what is never mind. I'm going to ask Lily about that when we get to that. So anybody have any other questions for Beth Anne? Thank you very much for being here. Okay. Hold on just one second. Believe it or not, we're almost back on time. I don't know how I did it either. If people need to take a quick break, just get up and feel free to do that. So if we could have Miranda and anybody else from the state? Lily, Monica, Brandon, you've been down with you. Well done. Thank you. It's nice to see you. Nice to see you, Lily. You too as well, but we saw

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: you earlier.

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: It's been a long day.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. And we've had so much positive news. Can't speak. So it is under Lily. Okay. So I've asked the state to concentrate on what we are doing as a state, both to look at our shelter capacity, but also in the general assistance, quote unquote, program, to two things. What this winter is going to hold for us, as today is a pretty kind of bitter day outside, and then what we are looking at in the sort of near term future. And I'm not going to ask you to divulge anything that may or may not be in the governor's budget for FY 'twenty seven, but just what we are working on now and some of the policies that have been inactive during this last few months since we last met. So I'll turn it over to

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: you first, Lily. Great. Thank you so much for having me. I'm Lily Sodirner. I'm the director of the Office of Economic Opportunity within the Department for Children and Families. And as you just mentioned, starting to focus on some of the short and future growth in terms of shelter capacity around And it was nice as Jenna, Julie, and Jonathan also were able

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: to speak to some of

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: these projects as well. This chart shows the steady capacity growth that we've had, in particular for year round shelter projects. Earlier, folks mentioned the difference between one time and base funding. And I think that's a little bit of what you see is that sometimes we've been able to start these projects with one time funding. And we've been able to shift to base funding, which is great, in order for them to maintain operations. So for instance, this year, we were able to preserve and maintain capacity for 96 households with projects that both started last year as well as projects that were new and have either already started or will start sometime during state fiscal year '26.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I don't mean to interrupt, but I'm going to It's something that I should have mentioned when the last witnesses were here. But I think it's one thing for committee to understand is that these shelters, yes, they receive funding from the state, but they also do a lot of local fundraising and are supported by other grant applications and things like that. So, I just want to be clear that this is a web of supports that need to be opened together in order to provide these services.

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: Thank you so much. I think that's such an important point to recognize that we are not funding all of these 100%. There also are a few shelters that operate in the state that are not included in this capacity because the state does not play a role in either funding or overseeing them. And so for instance, folks may have heard in the news there was a private donation in the Prattleboro area for a new family shelter to Winston Prouty. That's an example of a short term shelter that would not be included in this as the state is not playing a role either in terms of funding or oversight. So it's important.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And the reason that we don't have any oversight is because we don't have any funding in there?

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: Right. And so that they would be, for instance, interacting with the local or state entities that may be dealing with fire safety or some of those other codes, not in terms of our shelter standards. It's interesting. So just to dive into the specifics to help folks understand what we anticipate coming online in the next two months is a combination of seasonal and new capacity. We are working with Lamoille Community House to reopen the family shelters at Waterbury Armory this winter. Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity has significant seasonal capacity at Champlain Place. Groundworks Collaborative has some seasonal capacity. I'm

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: going

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: to skip to Upper Valley Haven. They also have some seasonal capacity. And then when you look at the Cox Waystation and this was mentioned earlier they are moving into a new space that's going to allow them to expand by 20 beds, which is year round, although that, again, will happen in the next two months. Then in January and February, we're shifting to some additional year round projects. Rock Community Action is going to have a new shelter in Rutland. We are working with Champaign Valley Office of Economic Opportunity, Champaign Housing Trust to move the foundation's family shelter from the Williston Barracks. This was the state operated shelter last year that CBOEO was able to operate starting in May. That will lead to an increase of one when they move to their new location, anticipating that in February. And then, as Julie mentioned earlier, Pood Samaritan is opening their new year round shelter in this time frame. So this is all great as year round capacity that's going to help individuals and families and be part of our ongoing network of support. And that's included in that six forty five,

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: the new ones coming online included in that six forty five days?

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: So that list is those that we are at a real place of confidence where, for instance, we either have a grant agreement in place or we've negotiated an award letter. I think one of the dynamics is that these are large acquisition and development and renovation projects. And so sometimes, there's a lot of prep work. Julie mentioned earlier how quickly this new shelter is coming in line in terms of from when they identified the building. But I think she didn't necessarily give her team enough credit for how long they tried to find that building in Montpelier. And they worked for years and looked at probably half a dozen spaces to try to get to the point where they could then identify a building. So it's significant. And sometimes, those plans that we think might come to fruition don't. And so in that chart at the beginning, we're really putting those beds up that are that level of confidence, where, again, we've made some type of award because we know they're coming online. And so what I'm going to shift to I'll get there later. The next thing that I want to talk about for the next few months as we really focus on the cold weather season is that the agency is taking a new approach to extreme shade weather shelter this winter. So this is shelter capacity that's not seasonal. So seasonal might be, for instance, it operates November to April. Extreme weather shelter is on a night to night basis under extreme cold weather. And we're taking a new approach this year where we have changed the activation level. So historically, the agency operated at negative 20 degrees. This year, we're operating at negative 10. We also are working with Vermont Energy Action as an administrator of the program this year. We had a notice of funding released in the spring, trying to get ahead of building capacity for the winter. They've been working with us to really develop training and technical assistance guidance that we can use to support this network of providers. And this is preliminary. And so I just want to say these are still in negotiations. And Vermont Interfaith Action is working very hard to finalize agreements this month and in the next few days. But we are expecting capacity to really be expanded this winter from what we've had in the past. Last year, for instance, there was capacity in Burlington that we supported, and that opened. And this year, we are expecting capacity in six regions of the state, nearly doubling the amount of individuals that will be served. And again, I think this is really demonstrating our commitment to continue to expand capacity, as well as the determination and commitment of local communities to try to rise to meet these issues using their community resources. So we're very excited about this, and we'll continue to share updates as we move forward. So this is another important approach to what we're doing this winter. It looks somewhat familiar.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Might have been mentioned at age 91. So sorry. I digress.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: I think

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: this is where we definitely have a lot of alignment. Mean, we put out our notice of funding, I would have to say, in the spring, I think, again, really recognizing that this is something And we wanted to think it's always great when we can celebrate where we're aligned with what's really important.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I do have to ask, though, because and I realize, you know, you put it in there with the activation level was previously lower and at minus 10. And I'm familiar a little bit with, there's just like right around a million dollars being allocated for this. It seems like in order to reimburse, do they have to document number of days or they're paid per access? I'm not exactly sure. But I'm just wondering, that minus 10 degrees seems honestly not really reasonable. I mean, that's really cold. And I guess my fear is, one, because we haven't had that many minus 10 to 20 degree temperatures in Vermont in the last few winters. Maybe this much will be different, I don't know. But then that seems like, Okay, then we'll have people out in the cold with having spent $1,000,000 and not enabling them to access something that is being put together. That just doesn't make it makes zero sense to me.

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: So this type of night by night program is challenging to administer and budget for. And we've looked back using the weather service data to get some averages. And it swings wildly year to year. And so we're trying to walk a line of wanting to make sure that we can be reasonably confident that if we have this amount, we can pay for people to do it right. We don't want to under budget and then have people operate and not be able to pay them. The other dynamic is that some of these projects are not able to operate more frequently. And this is where there's a lot of diversity in terms of the space that's being used, as well as the capacity of each project, where some of them feel like if they were asked to operate too more frequently, they might not have access to the space, or they might create more tension about use of the space, or they might not be able to mobilize staff. So this is something that really part of this year is to do that assessment and try to find that sweet spot of how much can we commit without getting to a place where we either over budget or put a space or a group of volunteers at risk for them saying, we're not going to do this again next year because we were only thinking this would be about twenty days. We can't do more. So this is something that we're assessing and analyzing, because we absolutely don't want to have money obligated that then we're not using, and we could have achieved twenty days at a different threshold. But it's unfortunately just hard to balance when it's so weather dependent. But we're absolutely aware of that dynamic and having those conversations to see how to navigate it.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And I guess I would encourage you to think maybe a little bit more flexibly about how those resources could be used. So instead of funding on a, I pay because Anne Donahue is here, and so we're going to pay you $25 because she's here, and another $25 for me and whoever along the line. If you think about funding the IA to work with capacity at these five regions, then you wouldn't have to worry about all of that. So if they had the flexibility to design it, with parameters, obviously, and I realize this is already happening this year, but I guess I just urge you to think about how to be as flexible as possible, especially recognizing that we are seeing more and more and more unsheltered people out there. And so I appreciate the fact that you're doing this. I feel like it's being bound by some things that where you can achieve the same outcome and maybe even better outcomes, frankly, with less tightness. I guess what I'm saying is trying to fund a capacity. So saying to Bennington County, Bennington Town, based upon X, Y, Z, I don't know what is, the number of people, the number of people who are confirmed to be unsheltered, you're gonna get X amount of this pot of money, and this is what we expect you to do with it. I just rather than sort of the a lot of these are going to be volunteers and expecting the kind of documentation from volunteers that will necessitate the receipt of the resources coming back to the community. So I'm just encouraging you to be, as you're looking towards having this out there as an option, to be as flexible as possible. And that's

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: just my thoughts. Jen? Yeah. Right. Go ahead. Go ahead, Lily.

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: Well, was just it is not going to be a per person rate per night. So it wouldn't be necessarily like, oh, you have $25 per person. So just wanted to address that. Absolutely. And again, we're really appreciating the partnership so that we can lean into this and learn from this and evolve to make sure, again, we're walking that line of spending and obligating the money, but also recognizing that we have a quite wide array of differences in those who responded to do this.

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: I guess an observation or two and then a clarifying question. Sarah Russell from the City of Burlington last year testified before our committee, and the city of Burlington had decided to lower from minus 20 to minus 10 as a trigger for when they would open. And they, I think she said, had eight nights last year, Again, to the chair's point, eight nights doesn't seem like a lot in Vermont winter. And at the moment, at that time, when she was just fine, it made me think my wife, who teaches in Burlington, they can't even take the kids on the playground if with a wind chill, it's zero degrees. So they can't even go out for fifteen minutes for recess. So the clarifying question, just so I understand it, is that minus 10 with a wind chill or just straight up minus 10?

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: I think it's either way, but I would have to double check. So I think if it had the wind chill and you hit the minus 10, even if the temperature wasn't,

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: it would still qualify. But I'll double check. Thank you.

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: Yeah, thank you so much for the feedback. Again, this is something that we feel like is an evolution of this effort, and appreciate the feedback as we continue to grow the program.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And so I'm just curious also in Rutland and Bennington, who are you speaking with in those organizations or those communities? Are there people in discussions now? Or

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: the project are you still looking is pretty set. The issue was more around capacity. And I believe although I'd have to confirm with Vermont Energy that some of the capacity numbers are in flux due to needing to finalize agreements with fire safety, for instance. So in Bennington, it wasn't about the provider being in flux. It was more about how many people could they get approved for in that space. And then in Rutland, things look positive, but that is still moving forward. And I don't want to get ahead of Vermont Interfaith Action if it's not coming to fruition. But the other projects have their identified facilitators or coordinators. So this, I think, speaks to some of the discussion earlier in that, in addition to what was on that first slide and what I've talked about for state fiscal year twenty six, we have been making and continuing and continue to make shelter investments to look ahead, knowing how long these projects can take to come online. So here's a summary of some of what's in progress. A lot of these involve multi year funding, funding coming from the agency of human services, Vermont Housing Conservation Board, as well as private donors and others. So Northeast Kingdom Community Action and Rural Edge, they're seeking to expand shelter capacity, either by renovating their current building or perhaps looking to acquire a different building. We're in discussions with Champlain Valley Office of Economic Opportunity to expand shelter capacity in Burlington with the new project. Cornerstone Housing Partners and Brock Community Action are hoping to acquire and renovate a property in Rutland that would be a new family shelter. And then Groundworks and Upper Valley Haven have both been working on expansions for a few years now in terms of new projects, new buildings in both Brattleboro and White River Junction. And so hoping that this will again create, would say, 75 to 100 in terms of new household capacity for next year. And then we have lots of discussions that are always going on with providers. And sometimes things come to fruition. Sometimes they don't, unfortunately. I know it was mentioned earlier about sometimes having to make decisions about what could come online sooner or not. I think in that one funding opportunity, for instance, we had 10,000,000 to use, and we had requests totaling $35,000,000 So I think it's a challenge that sometimes we have to we are in positions where we're having to make these tough choices, especially for acquisition funds,

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: but always connecting with folks and trying to see how we can support projects. I'm curious because in previous testimony you heard this afternoon, we really heard a need for some specialized shelter supports, particularly for potentially people with substance use disorders or some mental health challenges or health care challenges. Have you ever received any applications for funding, or are they eligible for funding if you were to receive an application from recovery housing folks who might want to have a specialty homelessness focus for a program?

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: Yeah. So actually, at the Samaritan Haven, one of their projects is a recovery oriented shelter. And so they receive funding both from the Economic Opportunity and our Housing Opportunity Grant program to work as an emergency shelter. But then they also receive funding to operate as what I believe is a level two recovery residence. And so they have those two grants that then support the infrastructure at their facility. And that has been, I think, very positive for them. I think it works really well in a larger population area, especially where you can make sure that it would be fully utilized by people who are in that place in their recovery, where a shelter like that makes sense and you're going to fully utilize it. It is something that we are engaging with in communities. And we're in conversation with the health department around, are there other regions where that model makes sense

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: and we could, again, fully utilize a full shelter? It doesn't seem, from the data that some of the folks were presenting, that it would be a difficult thing to find people with substance use disorder or other challenges to fully utilize more shelter capacity for that.

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: Yeah. So specifically, that model is for folks who are in a certain place in their recovery. And in that model, really, then it's about creating a community of folks who are in recovery together. And I think that difference may be between people who may still be using or in a more pre contemplative or contemplated setting that recovery.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. Mean, I think there's a difference between recovery housing and recovery shelter. Or I wouldn't even call them recovery shelter necessary. Especially we talk about a shelter that, in some places, people refer to as low barrier, but with specific supports for people that have substance use disorder.

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: This year, we also or I guess last year, we applied for funding through the Opioid Settlement Fund to make available to shelters to help address some of the issues that they were seeing with substance use. And so we then included that as an opportunity for funding with our application for state fiscal year 'twenty six. And we had a number of shelters apply for funds for basic supplies, for training for their staff, so that they could make sure their staff had more of those skills. And then we did have some more substantial projects where they were looking to bring on-site to address really the transportation barriers that I think exist for some folks, providers to do wound care, as well as some of the recovery supports. And so that's something that we're doing this year for the first time with that one time money. And we'll be able to assess and see how that goes. And that's, again, recognizing that any kind of shelter might have well, it's clearly seeing these needs. How do we bring them additional support by both training their staff or addressing the transportation barriers? So that's something else that we're doing this year. Thanks. Yeah, great.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I think we've come to the end of yours. Before we move on to Miranda, does anybody have any additional

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: questions?

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: All right, we're hitting the mid afternoon wall.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: Mean, looking at the time, seems pretty clear that

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: we're nowhere close to immediately. I mean,

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: an increase of 45 beds or you know when you've got thousands of people who are unsheltered is that I'm really not trying to

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: I'm not, this isn't a commentary about DCF,

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: it is just reminding

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: myself really out loud that given everything we have heard this morning and today and this report

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: it's going to be a very difficult winter

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: and we should feel really good about the progress that we've made but but this is very it

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: these numbers are really hard to look

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: at given the big picture

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: So, sitting

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: on the Appropriations Committee, you know, a little overwhelmed by the need because we haven't even talked about healthcare and those needs. And it is, I'm not quite sure how we're going to be able to

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: read a framework within which to make decisions about all of these needs.

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: And that's for

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: us to be talking about. So anyway.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. Thank you, Lily. Appreciate your work, and thank you for the update.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Yeah, thank you for the questions, please.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And now we're going to move to the general assistance part, which is sort of the part that I didn't follow-up to represent Lendly that tries for some group of the people, of the 5,000 out there who are homeless, to meet some of the need. So we get I think my committee knows this, but everybody in the room might not. But we get a monthly report with updates on what is happening in the GA program. And some of that data is being shared with us here today. And really, Miranda, if you could also kind of focus on, I guess, what I'm going to preload a couple of questions for you to think about as you go through some of this. So I understand that we have designated some family only hotels, if that's accurate. If you could talk a little bit about that. And also the impact on other people by doing that. And I am interested to understand, when we have so many people who are homeless, why we have had, I guess, what I would call underutilization of the GA program during the summer and early fall. So I'll leave it at that and then turn it over to you.

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: All right. So I will skip really going through my slides, because you're right. I included the link to the excuse me, the Act 27 monthly report that we submit. You should be getting a new report tomorrow. And then included some data from Tuesday, just because there's always a little bit

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: of a lag when you

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: get the report. But I'm sure most of you are familiar with our website, where weekly we post the data. And so, yeah, I'm really trying to

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: I'm going to scrap it. I'm going to

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: do it if you would like.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: So I'm going to start with

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: the capacity. We were not anticipating that we would be at 1,100 rooms throughout the summer. And that's in part because of people having eighty days and knowing that people had used their eighty days. And it's a rolling calendar year. So understanding when we built the budget, it isn't budgeted on in the summer that we would be using the 1,100 rooms, which, just as a quick reminder, is the cap that we have right now starting December 1. That cap goes up, and then there's just a natural cap that we put in. And then, yes, I think we did implement more, I guess I will say, family hotels. And so this isn't necessarily a new concept, and it has worked the other way. Probably our longest standing, really adults only hotel is nearby. And that was based upon municipalities saying, this isn't a good space. It's a very busy intersection for children. And conversely, we have also had some incidents, some of them very public. You can go and check media, and we'll see that we've had children put in very precarious, unsafe situations. And we are the Department of Children and Families. And we've tried to balance that. To your questions, you might be keeping people out. I have 15 family only hotels. I don't have one in the Northeast Kingdom because we have very few hotels or motels that work with us. And so by having a family hotel there would mean that we couldn't serve other populations. So we tried to be very thoughtful. There was also not one in the Middlebury area for the same reason. And I think those are two main areas that we weren't supposed to John's Bay and Newport, if we're talking AHS districts, and then Middlebury. But trying to be very thoughtful about where do we have some capacity and trying to create a safer environment for families with children to be able to have their family there. I don't know if you have other questions, if you want me to

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So does that I guess so my I do have 15 family only, none in Northeast Kingdom and none in Addison County because there's insufficient number of people to designate that. Insufficient hotels. Insufficient hotels. It would limit the availability for other people. Exactly. So another thing that I hear rumors of, and I don't know to the extent that they're accurate or not, are you seeing fewer hotels willing to work with the state with regard to the GA program?

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: So it is, I guess I would say, something that ebbs and flows. So we do have some hotels who consistently we're kind of getting out of leaf peeping season, but we will have leaf peeping. When we have college graduations, we have places who say, sorry, we're going to pivot now, and they let us know. And then we have had some new establishments who've said, you know what? We've been able to increase that side of our business. And so we are going to limit or say, no, thank you to using

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: GA at all. So can you give us some idea of the impact on capacity? So I think when we talk capacity, it's

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: a number of things, because there are also so there can be hotels that say, I want to use so many rooms or not to use so many rooms. I will also say that I have tried to be more diligent about hearing from municipalities. And the same concerns that you were hearing from Jonathan about the significant need that they're seeing in shelters are the same concerns, the same things that they're seeing in motels. And so hearing from municipal workers the impact to their community, that their services are all being drawn to areas. They're having to call other towns in to cover other service needs. That a lot of the municipal services are covered by those that are volunteers, and that volunteers are no longer volunteering because they're not filling states. The situation is too dire at how they're being treated. I was recently in a community where they said, we will not go in the room until law enforcement shows up just because they've had some serious things happen when they go in. And so trying to understand what that need is and trying to work with a community of like, we know that we have a need. It is very clear. We all heard it today. It's not getting better. But also trying to understand, what does the town feel like they can support? How can they support people without completely overwhelming them? So there are also some reductions that I will make after having those conversations. Some of them involve your peers, other legislators who have said, this is not working for our community. I've been to select board meetings, same thing, and people are saying, it's just too much. We want to help. But how can we do this? Because I think what we also know is there aren't necessarily rules. That is something that we're trying to talk about with hotels. But what are your rules? And some have implemented rules. And I think that also impacts capacity because they will say they're doing shorter authorizations. This is something that we had talked about, I think, a fair amount last year. They're saying, we're only going to take people for three days, because some people aren't going to even make it twenty four hours. But we want to be able to have conversation. Is this working for all of us? Are you feeling safe here? Are we feeling like this is a good fit? So we're also seeing reductions in that way.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Is that yes or no? Sorry, did I

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: ask your question again?

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Have you seen a reduction in capacity? So you're just talking about all the extenuating circumstances.

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: Yes, we do not have. Like, if you look back, yes, there's a reduction in capacity.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And by what magnitude? Let's just say we're at December 1, we have 1,100 people who are lined up and waiting to enter shelter. Will we have capacity for 1,100 people?

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: Sorry, I'm like, CNN's so new. It's because 1,100 new, not including the 700 plus that I have No, I just mean a

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: total of 1,100.

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: Sorry, I deal with a lot of nuance. So I think it'll be close. And there are some areas that have asked for reduced capacity that don't want to have as large numbers as they have in the past. So I think I'm happy to let you know as we get closer. But I think around 1,100 will be what it is.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah, I'm sorry. Missed. Go ahead, Representative Shient.

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: Circling back to the conversations you're having with municipalities, I guess if there's anything more you can tell us about that that interests me, is there ways rather than asking communities asking to opt out for participation, if you will, are there ways to support the communities that can allow continued utilization in those areas? And I guess, what voice do you give the communities in making the decision versus what you within your office working with the private businesses, the motel owners, come to decisions?

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: So it really is a fine balance. And I would say, like, I would welcome. I have conversations in one of your communities. Right? And some communities will say, like, there is no amount of money that can do this, because it is also just like, we can't get volunteers to come. We're a volunteer fire department, predominantly, or ambulance service, EMTs, so they just don't have the people. But we try. The commissioner recently went with me on a visit because she has interest in us, and we'll be talking about this a lot. And it is about, what do you think that you can do? So if this feels too hard here, like this big, what would work for you? And is it a family only? Does that work for the area that you're in? Or maybe it's not too. Would it be better if we were serving older Vermonters? So we try to not, unless there are serious concerns, in which we do have some of those in certain areas to have it be more of a conversation. Because in the end, we want to be able to support Vermonters that need this. And we want the community that they're in to also feel like they have the ability to help support those extra Vermonters.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. Thank you. Okay, so we have to make this the last question because we need to move on.

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: I do have a question. I wonder,

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: because like Doug said, maybe if you If somebody's disrupting a hotel and they're ruining it for other people, I know when I worked there, I was just told to put them in another hotel. It's a consequence. Now if they pull a knife on somebody, not say nah, pull a knife on somebody, are they going to call the, like I was, the hotel coordinator and say, can you just move them to another hotel that got kicked out of this one? Now do they have consequences? Because they didn't when I started the program in 2014. So yes, there's

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: a period of ineligibility for when someone has created a harm or they're creating a space that is unsafe for others. And so that is part

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: of the law. Maybe that would help with the town if you say we do have consequences, so it won't. Hopefully it won't happen again. And if it does, that person will be in your community. I don't know. I'm just throwing

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: that out. Absolutely. And that is a part of education, a part of

[Representative Brenda Steady, Member, House Human Services Committee]: what I did when I did it.

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: Thank you.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: And I just have one final question. This relates to the executive order, 03/25, or the governor executive order around GA. And I just want to be clear, because I have heard different things about whether the eighty day maximum that people have, whether the days that people spent extended stay for the reduced population, the prioritized population from April 1 to June 30, counted towards the eighty days. They did count. So I don't understand how that comports to the eighty day maximum shall be waived for the period April 1 to June 30, which is what it says in the executive order.

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: So if someone had already used their eighty days, which we did have household members who had, they had been in from the summer and the fall, had used their eighty days, were in for the wintertime, which doesn't count, that was giving them the ability to be able to be housed during that time period.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So some people counted for eighty days and other people didn't. So if you just came in, let's say you came in on March 31 and you hadn't used your eighty days, so you're on day one. Well, actually, were in winter weather, so you weren't counting. But if you stayed and you were one of those qualifying individuals for the next three months, does that person's eighty day clock was ticking during that time? Correct. But if you were that same person and you had already used your eighty days earlier in period of time, they got waived. They got additional days. Okay. Some people got it. Okay, thank you. You're welcome. Alrighty, Thank you, folks. Appreciate you being here today. And I'm sure we'll be seeing a lot of each other. Okay. So I had caught up, and now I'm behind again. So if we just could have Ledge Counsel Brynn Harris here. I just wanted her to explain to our committee what separation of powers means. Well, it's a nuance that there are things that happen in the course of business, and I just wanted you all to have a background about that as we then talk further. Thank you.

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: Great. Thank you. So good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Vice Chair you all, my name is Brynn Hair.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I am

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: director and chief counsel of Legislative Council. And as the chair just indicated, I was invited to testify today generally on the separation of powers doctrine and how it shapes your work. Separation of powers is really not just an abstract theory. It's a framework that defines what the three branches of government are responsible for, and it's really essential to understanding your authority as legislators, the powers of other branches, and the boundaries between those three authorities. The doctrine exists to ensure that no single branch of government accumulates too much power, and it can also create some tensions between the legislative branch, the executive branch and the judicial branch. Those tensions can be productive. As you all well know from your work on the complex problems that are facing the state, efficient government requires cooperation between the three branches. Legislative Council, just as a reminder, is here to help you navigate these boundaries so that you can legislate effectively within the limits of your authority. I'm just going to start. I'm going to be brief. I know you've had a long day and you're coming to the end. I'm just going to give a broad brush overview of the separation of powers doctrine under the Vermont Constitution and then some practical implications for your legislative action. Looking to the Vermont Constitution, this is really a state constitution inquiry here. Vermont Constitution Chapter two, Section five requires that the three branches of government be separate and distinct so that no branch exercises the powers that properly belong to another branch. So what are these three powers, just to get real basic? They are the legislative power, which is your authority to formulate and enact the laws. The judicial power is the power interprets and applies those laws. And the executive power is the power that enforces those laws. So can these powers overlap? As I noted at the outset, as you all can imagine with your work in your committees, that effective and efficient government is going to necessitate some overlap between these three powers. That's okay. There's not an impenetrable barrier between the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary. And the Vermont Supreme Court has said that the separation of power standards is somewhat tolerant of overlapping institutional arrangements. So how is it that you test for whether or not some action as one branch constitutes a violation of the separation of powers doctrine? The inquiry that courts are going to use as and when they determine whether or not a branch has unconstitutionally violated the doctrine is that first they'll look to see that the power exercised by a branch of government is incidental to the discharge of the constitutional function of that branch. So are they operating within their lane to begin with? Second of all, the court is going to look at whether the power exercised so encroaches upon the power of another branch as to usurp from that branch its constitutionally defined function. So this is really important. So I have a little bit of an analogy for you. If you've all seen the movie There Will Be Blood, there's the scene when Daniel Day Lewis is talking to another character about drinking his milkshake. Think about it like that. If you are wholly seizing the power from another branch of government, constitutes a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. You're seizing that power from another. Now I'm going to talk a little bit more, just shortly, a little bit more about the three powers. When we're talking about the judiciary, it is the province of the courts to decide whether Vermont's laws comply with the constitution. The Supreme Court of Vermont is the final interpreter of the Vermont constitution. The judicial function is not to weigh in on the propriety of a policy behind a law, except that it gets to determine whether or not the law that you all pass meets constitutional standards or whether it violates any fundamental rights. That's the judiciary. As the lawmaking branch of government, the General Assembly holds the supreme legislative power, including the power to prepare bills and enact them into laws. The only thing that limits the general assembly's lawmaking authority is the constitution. Legislature's power is practically absolute, except for where the constitution limits it. Also, only the legislature has the power to establish state revenue through establishing fees and taxes. And, also, this is the branch with the authority to appropriate funds for the support of governmental programs. So that's the other supreme power of the General Assembly. And then the executive power, the governor is required by chapter two, section 20 of the Vermont Constitution to faithfully execute the laws that are enacted by the legislature. Legislature. So that is an overview. I'll talk very briefly about attention that can arise between the executive branch and the legislative branch, because I imagine that see that there is going to be a tension between the executive and the legislature when it comes to spending. And I would just point you all, you have in your green books a statute that quite nicely summarizes or reflects the constitutional requirements and some jurisprudence around the separation of powers doctrine. And that is 32 BSA 704A. It governs the execution of laws relating to appropriations. I'm just going to read portions of it because I think it neatly sums this up. Subsection A reads, The Governor and every other officer or employee of the executive branch but shall faithfully execute the laws relating to appropriations so as to effectuate the intent of the general assembly in enacting those laws. That's a portion of subsection A. Subsection B says, executive branch and this sort of helps define where that tension can be and the authority of the executive the executive branch is authorized and encouraged to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to manage and administer state programs and agencies in an efficient, effective, and fiscally prudent manner. Then, importantly, provided that the legislative purposes for which the sums are appropriated are substantially accomplished. So that's one place right within your green books that kind of can neatly reflect what the separation of powers doctrine looks like. I'm gonna pause there because of timing. I think that's good. Okay. I think that's good. Okay.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you, Brynn. And we're not gonna have any questions on this. That was just to provide you a background because there's been some questions about that. So I appreciate the background. Thank you. Okay. Mary Ellen. I can see it. There she is. Okay. So some of you may be aware that there are a series of appeals that are happening around execution of the general assistance program, for which the administration's now left. And that So I just wanted you to have that background about separation of power so you could think about that as we are listening to the next couple of witnesses. And I also want to be clear with Joe and Mary Ellen that I am not at all interested in hearing something that may jeopardize any future argument that you may make, because this is still some of the information that you're reporting on may be taken up in the court case that is still pending. So thank you for being here giving us an overview of what's happening on the ground right now.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: Appreciate it. Thank you, Chair Wood. I'm sensitive to the fact that it's the end of a long day for you, and I had lengthy comments. I have them printed out. If I could pass them around, and

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: then I'll I'll just sort of

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: run through them, but maybe

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: not work. Sure. That would be fine. It's okay. And we have it we have it on our some people like

[Brynn Hare, Director and Chief Counsel, Vermont Legislative Council]: to have it tapered in front of them.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: You can just hand them here, and we'll pass them around.

[Kathleen Berk, Executive Director, Vermont State Housing Authority]: Thank

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: you. Do you get one? Yeah. Okay.

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: So

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: my name is Mary O'Neill Griffin. I'm a staff attorney at Regal and I was here today to talk about the appeals that have happened after the expiration of the executive order. So what happened on July 1 was that over 800 families were exited from housing because of the expiration of the executive order. This was not people who had used any of the days under the current law, but they lost housing because the department decided to count days in the last year against them. So, I heard Miranda Gray's testimony, and actually HD had only used her eighty days starting in July. So, you only count the days she used under Act 113, she would have been eligible again on July 1. But the department counted days under the executive order against her and told her that she wasn't going to be eligible again until December 1. And HD was a person who needs dialysis three times a week. She has a court to facilitate the dialysis that she has to keep clean. She has an adult daughter with severe cognitive impairment. She uses a wheelchair to get around because she's mobility limited. She's dealing with a lot, and she was out in a tent in the woods because of this. She appealed to the Human Services Board. There were a series of hearings. My memo says on August 7, Hearing Officer Reyner issued the decision actually July 28, got her housed. That it was approved by the Human Services Board on August 7. And what the Human Services Board found was that Act 27, the Appropriations Act, which is what governs eligibility for emergency housing, very clearly said you get eighty days under this section. This section pertains to fiscal year 2026. There is no exception to that. There is a whole series of laws about retro retroactivity, which you're probably familiar with as legislators that if you want to make a law retroactive, you can, but you got to be super specific. And it doesn't say it's retroactive. Other parts of Act 27 are retroactive, that part isn't. It starts, you get eighty days in fiscal year '26, so that essentially meant a reset for everyone on July 1. So after the hearing officer issued his recommended decision on July 28, HG and her family did get housing. The problem that happened was that other people in exactly the same situation did not get housing. And a number of people appealed. I know I saw hearing Officer Reyner say 400 appeals, something like that. They weren't all eighty days, but a lot of them were people in the eighty days, and the department declined to consolidate those cases. So each case had to be taken one at a time, and the person had to come in and put on their evidence and explain, and there were multiple hearings. People had to I understand that the agency may have changed their practice now, but in July and August, I definitely talked to people who had appealed on their own because they couldn't find an advocate legally, it was overwhelmed, and homelessness Vermont took as many as they could, it was also overwhelmed. They had appealed, they didn't know they could ask for benefits pending appeal. So their appeal was trying to work its way through the system and they were still out. So they said,

[Lily Sodirner, Director, DCF Office of Economic Opportunity]: You have to ask, you have

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: to ask for benefits pending appeal. So there were a lot of people who were eligible for emergency housing, but either didn't have the ability to appeal because of everything else they're dealing with or tried to appeal on their own and didn't know to ask for benefits pending and had to wait while the appeal works through the system. And also it took up a lot of resources at Legal Aid, a lot of resources at End Homeless Run, other advocates around the state. I know I was getting calls from all the homeless service providers who were trying to do the cases. So these caseworkers who really should be putting their time into helping people find permanent housing are trying to

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: do appeals to get people in.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: So a lot of people got in and that was good. But I think it was a big problem that there is no way to consolidate cases over the department's objection. So I do think-

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: we have a report coming on recommendations about how to improve the human services board appeal process. I'm sure that that will be taken up when we get that report.

[Miranda Gray, Deputy Commissioner, DCF Economic Services Division]: Okay. So I have a

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: few recommendations in my comments. I don't know if you want to hear that, or I can move on to talking about another issue that came up. So my recommendations are create a mechanism to consolidate the appeals and require the department to comply with Human Services Board legal findings. So the Human Services Board issued this long decision explaining what the law meant, and it was very clear in saying, Can't count the eighty days from a prior fiscal year. And we're here today, it's now October 30, and the department is still testifying to this committee that they can count those eighty days. They are not accepting the authority of the Human Services Board. Think that's a problem. The other thing is just to try to help the cases move faster. I know I chatted a little bit with Hearing Officer Reyder before this, and I know that HSV is working on things, but I think requiring the agency to also do things to make appeals go faster. The biggest issue we're seeing is the ways in getting the agency record. So a person appeals and it takes a month to get the agency record, and I can't really do anything without seeing the record. So there's no reason that should happen, that it should take that long. There are some things in procedures for DCF about how expedited appeals should go. We aren't seeing those being followed, and so

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: we would ask for that

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: to go into law to say that for emergency housing, the appeals need to be expedited. There should be a same day supervisor review. There should be simultaneous transmission on the case record and immediate implementation of decisions by the Human Services Board. So I feel like I'm rushing, but I did wanna But I think that's

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: you you got to crux of the matter, which is what are the recommendations to try to alleviate this kind of thing in the future? And that's that's really what this day is about, is trying to be as clear and specific as possible in future legislative activity so that, honestly, we don't end up in the situation where we are right now with this situation being in the courts. So not that I don't have confidence in the courts, they feel they're going to fulfill their constitutional role. It's just that this is, as you said, taking a significant amount of time away from people all up and down the system who really would rather be trying to assist people to find permanent housing or getting access to the temporary housing. So there's no apologies necessary. You were very concise. So that's good at this time of day.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: So one other issue that the committee wants to hear about that came up in the context of these cases was that the rules for emergency housing never got promulgated. So I mean, I've watched the LCAR hearing on March 13, where the department came in and said they would finalize those rules, they just never finalized them. They have been aware of not having finalized them since at least July, and as far as I'm aware, they've done nothing to actually promulgate any rules. Act 27 was very clear that they needed to follow the rules that they had proposed to LCAR on March 13, and they just never promulgated them. They do say that they're following them, but they're not rules. They never got finalized. They don't dispute that they never promulgated them. I think, especially in light of not following the HSB, not adopting the rules that they told LCAR they would adopt, creates legal uncertainty and really demonstrates a pattern of non compliance with the law. This committee does have oversight over these issues, and I'd ask you to investigate why they failed to complete the rulemaking. So I guess in conclusion, I would just say that the Human Services Board did function as designed. It reviewed the law, issued a thoughtful decision, and it's consistently applied that decision to everyone. The problem is that the Department has chosen not to follow that interpretation, except on a case by case basis. This And committee does have the power to ensure that that doesn't happen again. I'm happy to answer any questions. Go ahead, Representative Lamoille. So there's nothing in statute that requires a department within the agency of human services to follow the recommendation of the board? There is something in statute that requires the department to follow the decision of the board while it's on appeal. So the case is on appeal. The original case, it's called Invery HD, is on appeal to the Supreme Court. And they're required to follow that decision, but their interpretation has been, we only have to follow it for that one person. It doesn't apply to anyone else. Yeah.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you. We actually in our committee actually asked a line of questioning last year. We took quite a bit of testimony about the actions of the Human Services Board because we have a bill on our wall about it and asked what the experience had been from the Human Services Board and whether departments within the Agency of Human Services would apply that same thinking. So if you rule on one case, two cases, three cases, and they all have the same argument and they all have the same facts, then why would you force then 200 other people to go through the same process when you know what the outcome is going to be? But yet, that is what is happening.

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: And this is new. This is not something we Legal Aid have seen before. We And also haven't seen the department refuse to consolidate cases. Have exactly the same issue.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Thank you very much, Mary Ellen. We appreciate it. Joe, you get to be the final witness of the day. Is that good or bad? I'm not sure. Good afternoon. Thank you for being here.

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: Thank you. Senator Reynor, I'm the Chief Hearing Officer of the Human Services Board. So I've provided some information about our appeals since

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: I used the cutoff date of June 15 just because we started to get appeals regarding

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: denials were occurring with vouchers that were expiring in July, if that makes sense. We've received about 400 appeals total since then.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Can I ask a question? Sure. Because, of course, somebody from the agency of human services wanted to make sure that we understood that it wasn't all 400 of those are not regarding emergency housing. But this does say it is regarding emergency housing.

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: Well, they're all general assistance appeals.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: They're all general assistance.

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: I would say almost all of those are emergency housing.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Yeah. I mean, there's some smaller other benefit areas. We

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: don't see very often. And since the HD decision, I didn't put this in here, but it's about three fifty appeals. So so, you know, the numbers are there. I don't know. You know, we've reversed, you know, any case where the petitioner does not has not received eighty days of housing since since July 1. And, you know, that can be done a couple of different ways. There are preliminary decisions by the hearing officer, and it can also go to the board. Not too many cases have gone to the board simply as a matter of efficiency. And no one has requested that they go to the board, including the department. There have been cases obviously withdrawn, resolved, folks have found permanent housing, and we still have a number of cases scheduled. And I do think that the ability to order housing pending the appeal has been helpful in terms of dealing with the numbers. So again, I don't have a number for how many of those orders we've issued, but I would say I would estimate between one hundred and fifty and two hundred. And one thing that we have started doing again to address the the problem of people not knowing that they can request housing, we have been asking people or telling people and asking them if they want to request housing pending the appeal when we contact them about the appeal. So that's something that we instituted, I would say, maybe four weeks ago because the lead times for the hearings were becoming unacceptable just for trying to resolve something on an expedited basis.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: A large quantity of them would make that.

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: Again, I did wanna put these numbers in perspective because, it's such a high number, compared to previous years and, you know, just in terms of trying to manage all of that. So I think that's that's everything. Let me

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: I'm seeing I'm seeing in your in your summary that I wanna make sure I'm understanding and reading this right. Is it, am I reading it that about

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: that

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: the GA housing appeals account for about 85% of all appeals that the Human Services Board receives?

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: Well, I was actually trying to compare them to previous years. I was just sort of saying that we are on track to receive enough GA housing appeals that it would equal 85% of the average number of appeals that we received a few years ago. Just to sort of illustrate the scale of the appeal load. Now, I think I've mentioned this before in previous reports, testimony, we have had just an increasing number of appeals over the last couple of years, which I think it's become unsustainable. And so this is on another level of

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Right. Well, see you. You're track to nearly double what you were doing for the year between 2019 and 2022 and with the existing staff that you have. So I get that. And out of that, what looks like around 1,400, is it fair to say the majority of those are housing appeals?

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: Well, right now, I think that will be just under 50% of those.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Just because I I think if we're, yeah, if we're

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: on track to receive 680, again, that's if the, you know, the pace continues the same

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: day. Right.

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: So and and and we're also on track to receive over 1,400 bills. Okay. I see that. Yeah. Yeah. And and and, know, we do have other folks who have other pressing benefits and other things, you know, which we need to schedule on the side. Just because the issue came up about enforcement of board orders across the department or agency, I think arguably the only exception to that is in Medicaid cases, the single state agency concept. So any decision that the board makes that concerns Medicaid, and that's a very wide range of decisions. If it's not reversed by the secretary of AHS, it's deemed to have been adopted by the secretary. And my assumption is that's just a boilerplate element of Medicaid law, federal Medicaid law, and it's built into the state statute. My assumption is the policy behind that is exactly what we've been talking about here today, which is it's you don't want to provide a benefit to one person and not someone else. I assume that that's the reason for the Medicaid for that part of Medicaid law.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So just to be clear, I wanna make sure that I'm clear and the rest of the committee's clear. So in Medicaid appeals, which is another aspect of what the Human Services Board hears, you rule, whatever ruling that you make, that is in favor of the person who is appealing, and it is not overturned by the secretary, which that's part of the authority, then it is presumed to be available or to be accurate for any Medicaid recipient?

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Well, I'll probably be a

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: little more specific. It's deemed or presumed or just simply adopted, considered to be adopted by the secretary as the secretary's decision. So what happens is they have fifteen days. The board issues its decision. They have fifteen days either to reverse the decision. If it's not if they do nothing, it's considered to be adoptable. I'm just drawing the conclusion that the reason for that is to ensure uniform treatment of folks.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So just to compare that to what is happening in this circumstance around GA housing appeals. So for people who are presenting with the same case, if you will, after the first case went through, and let's just say if the secretary had not acted to reverse it, then all remaining cases would have been deemed to have met that threshold.

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: Well, the GA cases, is no secretary review.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. That's only for Medicaid? Medicaid,

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: health exchange, but not Oh, okay. Not a generalist.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: Okay. That just went directly to Supreme Court. Okay. All right, that's helpful. Any questions for Joe? Any other questions for Joe?

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: Chair, may I

[Deacon Beth Ann Mayer, Christ Episcopal Church (Montpelier)]: ask a question?

[Mary O’Neill Griffin, Staff Attorney, Vermont Legal Aid]: Yes, of course.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: I'm not on this committee, so I know

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: The only lie represent Luli. I'm sure they like us.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: I don't have that power.

[Representative Doug Bishop, Member, House Human Services Committee]: You asked

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: a question, my stag guy.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: So what is the procedural law that governs how you process, how you conduct your appeals?

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: So generally speaking, we have fair hearing rules that set out the process. The thing about the expedited cases is there really is no set procedure. We started doing them. I was not working for the board, but we started doing them years ago just by agreement. So there's a department procedure with sort of an interpretive memo that sets out what the procedure is supposed to be we're not. And I think it ended up in the rules, but we don't have actually specific requirements.

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: But there is a provision of law which prohibits you from actively just consorting the consolidation of cases.

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: On that issue, it's just not allowed. It's just not there's no provision in our rules that allows for it. Guess Is

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: there a provision that prohibits it?

[Joe Reyner, Chief Hearing Officer, Vermont Human Services Board]: No, I wouldn't say that. But I think we would I generally agree that we would not be able to consolidate over a gentleman because our rules don't allow it. Again, the exception is in Medicaid cases. Medicaid, as in federal statute or federal regulation, you can consolidate Medicaid cases with the consent of appellate. But to answer your question, Margaret, there is nothing that says, no, you can't do this.

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: So one of the things that we're doing now, we have the statute under review now from the Human Services Board, and there's a report coming back with some recommendations. And we've had some requests by legislators to take a look at updating the statute. It's been quite a while. So we'll undertake that come January. Thank you very much, Joan, for being here. Appreciate it. So this wraps up our day. And I want to thank committee members and all of the witnesses here today for spending a long day hearing about some difficult things. And I hope it helps you to understand what's ahead of us in January. And as Rep. Blumlee said, it ain't pretty. You didn't say that, but that's the way I'm saying it. And we'll have lots of challenges ahead of us. So thank you all for being here. Thank you to the

[Jonathan Farrell, Executive Director, Committee on Temporary Shelter (COTS)]: witnesses

[Representative Theresa Wood, Chair, House Human Services Committee]: and the people who