Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There you go. Can you hear us online now?

[Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Can you hear us? Can somebody just Yes. Give us

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you, Jonathan. Okay. So this afternoon, we are going to continue our testimony on H594. We're planning to get a little

[Chad Simmons]: bit of

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: background on the point in time survey and some of the data from there and other sources, and to take a look at laying the groundwork of what is the problem for which we seek a solution, or at least progress, so that people have an understanding of what all of that entails. So I'm going to turn it over to Chad and to express our appreciation for your flexibility in our scheduling and rescheduling. So floor is all yours.

[Chad Simmons]: Great, thank you. And I will return the thanks to your flexibility in giving us a little more time. For the record, my name is Chad Simmons. I'm the executive director of the Housing and Homelessness Alliance of Vermont. I'm gonna go ahead and share my screen here.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I'm just gonna note for anybody else who is planning to testify this afternoon. If you have written testimony that you have not forwarded to Laurie, it would be really helpful if you could so she could get that posted. And if you plan to use the screen and share your screen, then you will need a Zoom invitation. And so I know you can do all that sort of behind the scenes. Okay, Chad, thank you.

[Chad Simmons]: Great. So is my screen being shared?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We see it.

[Chad Simmons]: That's great. Excellent. I should probably just look right behind me. So thank you, Chair Wood, for the invitation. I hope to spend the next forty five minutes or fifty minutes. I'd love to give a little more time to other folks who are here to testify and share what's happening in their communities and the creative ways in which they're meeting people's needs. So my hope today is to do a number of things, as Chair Wood described, and just give a little bit of background on the Housing and Homelessness Alliance Vermont, in particular our role in the continuum of care. I know in H594 there were some references to the continuum of care and I just wanted to clarify what our existence system is. That'll also lead me into how we gather data as a state. So, the coordinated entry system, the point in time count, and then recent coordinated entry data to give us a little bit of a snapshot of where things are at. I'll also speak about the housing needs assessment. My former colleague and mentor, Maura Collins, presented to you all over the last couple of years around the needs of the state. Surprise, there is not one reason why we find ourselves in these crises around housing and homelessness. There's many. So there will be a need for many different approaches and tools to access to get us out of those crises. I'll end with a few notes and feedback and observations around May. So I think the first and most important thing is why we exist, why HHAV exists, and that's to build a Vermont where the fundamental right to housing is enjoyed by all. And so just to emphasize that that is a fundamental right that we believe in and that everyone should have that access to housing. I just want to go over a couple of grounding principles and guiding principles for us, and this relates explicitly to May and our state's approach to homelessness. First and foremost, the role of government. Representative Maguire, I know in your introductory statement, you spoke about the need for the state to be able to provide the capacity and the resources in order to fill fulfill our obligation as a state. And so we believe wholeheartedly and foundationally that the role of government is to set the stage for people to thrive, people to live with dignity, and that also requires some resourcing of those needs. I'll also say that we firmly believe in restorative approaches to addressing the needs of our state. So if folks are in crises, experiencing trauma, experiencing mental health crises, we hope and we ask that there are restorative approaches, as evidence does show that punitive approaches haven't helped us. HIV kind of wears two different hats. One is me here before you doing advocacy work and supporting the legislature and our federal delegation and understanding the needs for monitors. The second is the balance of state continuum of care. And I wanted to spend just a couple of minutes here as it's really important to our requirements in terms of creating that continuum, that systematic continuum, as well as gathering data to understand our needs. I won't go through all of these in great detail, but I just wanted to provide the slides for some context on what the continuum of care is. It is HUD required, and the state of Vermont has two designated continuum of care. That's the Chittenden County Homelessness Alliance and then HHED, the Balance of State. So that encompasses the rest of the state. And the COC is essentially a community plan and a partnership. It's a plan to deliver housing and homelessness response, and it's partnerships between service providers and shelter providers, state agencies across the state.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can I ask a question? Yeah. So that funding goes directly from HUD to HHAV and to CCHA. Are you anticipating changes in that level of funding at the federal level impacting what you're able to do with those funds and how much you may or may not receive? Sure. Yes, it's

[Chad Simmons]: a good question. So the balance of state, ETTV acts as the collaborative applicant. So we gather all of the applicants from communities, and I'll get into that a little bit more in terms of the local housing coalitions. So they put together proposals based on their community needs. We compile all of them and submit them to HUD for review. And then Chittenden County does that for the Chittenden community. We do anticipate some sort of changes coming through HUD in what's called the Notice of Funding Opportunity, NOFO. They have given us clear indication that there are going to be changes in that process. My staff has been working with National Partners to be proactive in understanding how we would adapt our application. Over the last few days, Congress has been negotiating a new appropriations T HUD bill, the Transportation Housing and Urban Development bill, which would include some of the language that we've seen for the NOFO, but also fully funding a lot of the programs and services that we've been fighting for at the national level, which is good news. I will say, however, they've tied that funding to funding of homeland security, which is fraught with politics. I'll just leave it at that. So we are working with our national partners to better understand how to apply for future funding in a way that's both going to meet our state's needs and federal heightened requirements.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So are you and Chittenden County are you receiving funding under a continuing resolution now? Because it goes on federal fiscal year.

[Chad Simmons]: Yeah, and I'm still understanding mechanics of all of this, quite honestly, but my understanding is, as of right now, those for the twenty twenty four-twenty five applicants who've been funded are good. And we are following the current plan of applications going into FY '26 as it is. So right now, we're kind of in a wait and see mode, but as of right now, we don't see any immediate harm or challenges with our funding.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think I need to be a little more specific. Federal fiscal year started October, FY '26. So are you experiencing any cash flow issues? Are you receiving funding? So for instance, the first quarter of funding for that federal fiscal year theoretically would have been released. I don't know how the funding comes to you exactly. So are you experiencing any delays in federal fiscal year 'twenty six as a result of continuing resolution, or did they just level fund you at 25 levels for the time being? I can follow-up. I can

[Chad Simmons]: get back to you. I'll get them on those specifics. I'm not entirely sure, but what we've been told by our partners is everything that's been applied for, we have currently. So we're not experiencing any shortage of funding right now.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's for FY '25.

[Chad Simmons]: And there's a two year cycle, and so we've been funded at that twenty four-twenty five level because of the continuing resolution

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of So last that was the piece I'm missing. So it's a two year cycle. So you're funded for two years each time you're funded. Yeah.

[Chad Simmons]: And I can provide a little bit more specifics.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That actually answered the question. So I didn't know you were funded for two years. Okay, thank you. Of

[Angus Cheney]: course. So,

[Chad Simmons]: the continuum of care does a number of things, including leading proactive solutions and partnerships. But most importantly and pertinent to this conversation is that it dictates the annual point in time count for folks experiencing homelessness. It also manages the coordinated entry and HMIS system, which I'll talk just a minute about. And then as we just talked about, apply for manage the funding from PUD. So the Homelessness Management and Information System, HMIS, is required under the Federal CURPS Act that all communities collect unduplicated data of folks experiencing homelessness. And the HMIS is required under HUD for grant recipients of the COC programs as well as emergency solutions grant. So, as I mentioned earlier, the local coalitions, the lead agencies, they used to be called Continuum of Care Coalitions, now they're called lead housing agencies. We have 11 of them that represent 12 communities, and they are the conveners at the local level. And you'll hear throughout the afternoon the importance of listening to and getting data and evidence driven, community driven solutions as it relates to what the community needs are for addressing homelessness?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead, Representative.

[Doug Bishop]: You referenced 11 leading agencies representing 12 communities. Is that correct? Yeah. But would it be I couldn't say that do they represent more than 12 communities? If it's balance of state, I guess I'm getting to the balance of state. Sure. And there are more than 12 communities in the area served. So how does

[Chad Simmons]: that direct? It's a good question. Some of the communities go across different county factories. So they cover I'm not entirely sure if they cover AHS districts or not, if they fully align there. But they cover the balance of state, and then they're broken up based on the communities that are within that district.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I see some of them are counties, some of them are communities. Is that just history? That's a good question.

[Chad Simmons]: I don't know the history of how they all formed, but it's been over a matter of times that they've adapted based on the community's needs. So, coordinated entry, and so this is an important note is that it's a process, not a program. And so when we talk a little bit later about the, funding needed to, implement our strategies, and meet the needs of our communities, those are related to specific programs. So coordinated entry is a particular process. And without the adequate funding with those programs underneath, it is hard to maintain and meet the needs of our coordinated entry system. So it's really about understanding and working with partners in the local communities to decrease the time that people experience homelessness and essentially can help people move through experiencing homelessness quickly. It supports community wide or system level planning. This is an important slide because it gets to how we collect data. So, a minute I'll talk about the point in time account, but we have kind of identified that coordinated entry data gathering tends to be more accurate. We'll actually be conducting the point in time count tomorrow on the twenty eighth. It's done once a year, but that offers different challenges for accurately capturing who is homeless or unsheltered and what they're experiencing where they are. So the coordinated entry process, part of the screening and access, allows us to gather slightly more accurate data. That whole process includes assessment, master list and prioritisation, and then referral programmes. I won't go into this, but this just is a good visual of how lead agencies coordinate amongst local partners to ensure that our needs are being met. So the point in time count. This is a count of sheltered and unsheltered folks experiencing homelessness on a single night in January. It's HUD required that COCs conduct this. Our partners across the street go through training to better understand how to go through that process, how to reach people in various places, and how to then upload that information to the HMIS. So what did the data tell us? What have we been learning about homelessness in Vermont? So this is from the last point in time count in 2025, so it's a data that's a year old, but it shows some trends. I pulled this from housingdata.org, which I highly recommend folks take a look at. It captures a lot of different data and resources for communities. As you can see, in 2018, we had under a thousand people during our point in time count experiencing homelessness. As of last year, that number is just under 3,500 people. So we've seen a significant increase in people experiencing homelessness over the last decade. And I'll get into some of the pressures that are causing that. Before you move on,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: can you come back to the other? 2023 seems odd to me.

[Esme Cole]: That

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: seems like that's more of a count of people who were in publicly funded hotels. Yes. So,

[Chad Simmons]: I think it's important to point out that the point in time count does capture a lot of folks who are in various situations. So, it's somewhat hard to look at trends other than Total numbers. The total numbers, yes. So there might be very the weather, obviously, in Vermont plays a huge factor in our ability to count, And so that is why you might see some variable or some outliers from year to year.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that was in categorization because I don't think we ever had that much transitional housing in Vermont. So what I'm hearing you say is we should just be kind of looking at the overall number in terms of trying to gauge how many people in Vermont are experiencing homelessness. Yes, the trend. And it was pointed out to me when pulling some

[Chad Simmons]: of this information and better understanding how we gather data, that it is difficult to reach folks, especially in rural parts of our state, and who, for a variety of reasons, just might not be able to be counted. So again, we think that it's a good point in terms of data trends to look at, but not the most accurate in terms of captured data.

[Doug Bishop]: Go ahead, Esme. You probably have said this, and I probably just missed it, but this data is for balance of state numbers, not the entire state.

[Chad Simmons]: This is for the entire state. That's a great question, which I made sure that I had that answer. So this is capturing Chittenden County as well as the balance of state. Thank you for pointing that out. I just wanted to point out I'm not going go into this right now, but there is also what's the housing inventory account or TIC. We're happy to come back and do a more analysis of this, but this is essentially a point in time inventory of the provider programs within our continuum of care. So, beds dedicated to serving people experiencing homelessness and the types of housing or shelter that are being provided. So, want to spend a a couple of moments here on the coordinated entry and look at some of the trends over the last year. So, again, we believe that this is more reflective of the number of people actually experiencing homelessness over a period of time. So as you'll see throughout the year, we've covered around 4,500 people experiencing literal homelessness through the coordinated entry system, and they'll fluctuate a little bit by month, but that shows a slightly more increased need than we did for the point in time count. And I think it's important just to flag that as we look at where our programs and our delivery systems should be resourced and how we should approach unshipped homelessness and what are the needs, just keeping in mind the numbers that we're seeing and the consistency of those higher numbers over the last year.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And just to make sure that everyone on the committee's understanding, the difference between those people enrolled or who are participating in the coordinated entry process, because it's not a program, but who are participating in that process, that number being higher than the point in time is literally being able to find people at that one day of the year where that is done. Is that the primary reason for the differences in that? Whereas in the coordinated entry, that's a count of people who've engaged with the system throughout the year and also who have moved into stable housing or who have returned to homelessness. Is that

[Chad Simmons]: I think what I understand is yes, so the coordinated entry, the process allows us to better identify where folks are at in their lives. So if they're unsheltered or if they have untenuing or uncertain housing or are moving into permanent supportive housing, we have a better understanding of where they're at. And they're enrolled in that process. So we feel like the coordinated entry data has slightly better accuracy in terms of capturing the need throughout the state as opposed to the point in time where, as you pointed out, it's oftentimes difficult to find where folks are at on a particular night. Also,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: all people in coordinated entry are not necessarily unsheltered. Correct, yes. Thank you.

[Doug Bishop]: Madam Chair?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, go ahead.

[Doug Bishop]: Going back, a question about the description you have on the point in time slide says that HUD requires COCs to conduct an annual count of people experiencing homelessness who are sheltered in emergency shelter, transitional housing, and safe havens on a single night. But those who are living outdoors are also counted to the best of the Correct, yes, yes,

[Chad Simmons]: and that is part of the training that communities go through, is best understanding and working with the local communities and the local shelters and service providers to make sure that everyone is being counted. So this is just a snapshot of groups of folks, the characteristics of folks I'm sorry, this is the breakdown per county of folks that are experiencing literal homelessness through the coordinated entry process, and so you can kind of get a sense of where your communities and counties are at. And this one is looking at kind of particular characteristics of folks experiencing homelessness, and you'll see that mental health is one of the main drivers in what we're seeing right now, in addition to substance use, physical needs, so medical care needs. So, as you'll hear shortly, the acute needs of folks are multi pronged.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so I think it's really important to take a look at these data and understand how each community might have to approach the needs differently based on where people are at. When I say things like developmental, is that as assessed by the intake process, or is that as assessed by a designated agency or Dale as meeting the definition of adult male disability?

[Chad Simmons]: I don't have the answer to that in terms of how the assessment is done. I can get back to you. Thanks.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Go ahead, Rob, stay careful.

[Todd Nielsen]: Thank you. I also wondered about co occurring conditions, and is there a way for the system to capture that?

[Chad Simmons]: Yeah, I can get back to, because I'm going way too, there we go. Guess I can get

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: because it has both alcohol and drug.

[Todd Nielsen]: Well, if someone has a physical disability and mental health, right? I'm curious how complex the person's Gotcha. So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we hear that people have multiple complexities in their lives. And so is this as self reported, or is this as assessed by a case manager or the intake system? How is this data derived? It's a good question.

[Chad Simmons]: I don't have the answer to that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, maybe some of our other folks might be able to answer this question.

[Chad Simmons]: I might phone a friend afterwards. Okay, well,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what person online just said, it's self report. Is that accurate? Patient management self reported

[Esme Cole]: through the CD platform. Thank you.

[Chad Simmons]: So the final bit of data I know I've been going through a lot of data here so is the Vermont Housing Needs Assessment. So this is done every five years. It's required as part of the HUD consolidated plan, which we going through we went through this last year the comprehensive analysis used to identify current and projected housing needs. So I posted that link in this report and encourage folks to take a look, but I'm just going go over a couple of the highlights and just name some of the pressures that we're facing as one of the many reasons folks are experiencing homelessness. I will note that you all, the legislature passed as part of the 2023 Home Act and 2024 Act 181 requirements to develop housing statewide and regional housing targets. So essentially, what is it that you all in your communities need to get to in order to kind of have a healthy housing market. That also includes setting targets that eliminate homelessness. So I think that's a really important thing to capture when we're looking at how we're developing and meeting our housing needs. And

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: kind of feel like I say this ad nauseam, so my committee is tired of hearing it. Setting housing targets to eliminate homelessness is all well and good as long as what we're talking about is housing that very low income people can afford. And any of the major housing plans that we have passed through this building do not do that. We put out over $1,000,000,000 in housing through all of our various COVID relief. And it's only very small amounts that have really gone to people at the end of the spectrum that we're talking about. And so I'm just trying to understand whatever it's called here, the housing needs assessment that HUD requires. How does that coincide with what the Agency of Commerce and Community Development does in terms of their housing needs assessment that they've done and however many tens of thousands that they say is necessary for Vermont to have a healthy housing market. Is it something that's done together? The timelines are a little bit different. And does this housing needs assessment focus on housing for very low income individuals who essentially live on SSI or SSDI if they even applied for that?

[Chad Simmons]: It's a great question. So they're one and the same. So the HUD consolidated plan and requirement to do a housing needs assessment every year comes through the Agency of Commerce and Community Development. And then a DHCD, the Department of Housing and Community Development, contracts out. So sometimes they may do it in house or sometimes they contract out with Vermont Housing Finance Agency. So the last two assessments have been contracted through the Vermont Housing Finance Agency, and they've been the ones to do the research and reporting. And I'll get to the second part in just a minute in terms of the needs of especially folks experiencing or have the needs for very low income housing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, and the supportive services, which I see up the other service needs. And my recollection of that report was that it does identify service needs, service supported housing, as necessary. But again, I'm just going to continue to toot the horn of we need housing for very low income individuals. Doing it two, three, four, five units at a time

[Chad Simmons]: is not going to move the needle. I'm hopeful that a couple of slides from now you will be a little more pleased with where

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We'll see.

[Chad Simmons]: I'm a hopeful person in general. Thank you. This just shows a few of the major needs that were elevated through this report in terms of housing shortage. And I'll get to that specific number, as Chair Wood mentioned. The housing quality we have some of the oldest housing stock in the country. Hardest hit so essentially focusing our housing needs and targeting our housing solutions towards the lowest income households, so those with the least income to be able to afford housing in our state, and then service needs as we talked about. So, were the four main takeaways from last year's housing needs assessment. I'll also point to something more Collins talked a lot about in her legislative briefing two years ago was the shift in the household size and how that has dramatically changed the need for housing. So these two slides just talk about our housing sizes, how big they are, in terms of how many bedrooms they have, how many square feet the houses are, and then how smaller our household sizes are becoming. So there's just a need for more homes just to be able to meet that incongruence in homes. I think more recently, too, there's been conversations around counting how many bedrooms we're at. So there's a lot of really creative ways in which we can meet our housing needs through HomeShare Vermont and looking at ways people can share housing in such large, older homes that we have in the state. The at risk housing quality relates to our health. So, if you can imagine the health of our homes that connecting to the health of our humans is very correlated. So we have about 25,000 rental homes were built before 1940, and the impact of a lot of those homes built before 1950 used lead paint, so about 96,000 of those homes built in that era. So just really important to kind of look at the housing quality and some of the impacts that had. The housing wage needed to be able to afford a home in Vermont is dramatically increasing, and so just more and more Vermonters are falling behind and not able to afford homes. This is the slide I like to spend the most amount of time on and talk a little bit about the pressures that so many of us are facing, but mostly poor and low income folks. As you can see here, about 30% of all Vermonters are housing cost burdened, means that they're spending more than 30% of their income on housing. If you look at the renter side over there, we have nearly 50% of renters are housing cost burdened. Of those, 25% are paying more than 50% of their income towards rental housing. That is unsustainable, and that's growing. We're just creating more housing insecurity by not addressing the housing costs and housing income needed. And so I think that's an important pressure point to take a look at. As Terry Wood pointed to, the housing needs assessment also pointed to the need for approximately 24,000 to 36,000 homes. You'll see the breakdown here of why or how VHFA got to that number, looking at meeting the growth rate in people moving to Vermont, and that's flatlined over the last few years, and then addressing the current need for homelessness. I'll note that this number is reflective of the twenty twenty four point in time count, not 2025, and then replacing expected homes lost. I will notice many of your communities are well aware that we've had a number of floods over the last several years. I'll point to that number, I think, is going to get higher and more acute as we see more climate crisis impacting our housing stock. The last slide here is homes needed by 2030. So, this hopefully will speak to your point, Chair Wood, around the need specifically for homes for the lowest income Vermonters. And so in this graph, it's imperfect. VHFA kind of did this work to better understand how many homes that we need to make based on our area median income. And so this is telling the story that nearly just under 11,000 homes need to be affordable for folks making under 80% AMI, and that would include the 30% AMI that folks living on SSDI are making. Really kind of focusing the development and preservation of homes for the lowest income households. Can you tell

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: me I don't can you tell me what we deal with the FPL in this committee. So AMI, what is 80% of area median income?

[Chad Simmons]: Every time, I need to remember that matrix. So, in Chittenden County, I believe 100% AMI is approximately $90,000 My math might be a little bit wrong there, but AMI is essentially that average median income, and there's differences between Chittenden, Addison, and then the rest of the state. And I can supply

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That would be great. Thank you.

[Chad Simmons]: I can supply VHFA's matrix that updates that amount every year in April.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. Eric Magill is gonna send that out to committee members. That would be helpful. There's still a big difference between 80% AMI and SSI rates.

[Chad Simmons]: Yes. And that's where we would encourage. That's why we fought so hard. And thank you to the committee for fighting for the housing choice vouchers. We need more tailored supports to be able to afford the housing. And I'll get to in a minute that investing in permanently affordable housing through the HCV is one of our best ways and our best tools to do that, tailored with rental assistance that most folks need. This slide just tells the story of what we've done in terms of the last number of years in investing in permanently affordable housing, and then also the shelters, homeownership, as well as the Vermont Housing Improvement Programme. If things go as we've seen over the last year, that will take a significant dip if the state is unable to continue investing in permanently affordable housing. That's our hope, is that we can continue that investment and take advantage of getting those units online that we need. So, I'll get you in a second, representative. I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: have to say I take exception to including shelter beds in this count. It is it's temporary. It's not permanent, transitional at best. And homeownership and manufactured homes and new rentals and farm or core housing, those it's a different category. And I think it's honestly kind of misleading to present it as affordable housing because it's not intended to be permanent housing.

[Chad Simmons]: Sure. Maybe I should restate. I think these were the investments the state made in all the housing choices that are needed right now. So as we'll hear in a little bit, we're still going

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to need to invest in shelters. I get

[Chad Simmons]: the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: need to invest in shelters, and I get the need for shelters. I am 100% supportive of shelters. And maybe it's just my thinking about them. When I look at all of those other things, it's a different category. It's more temporary than we would expect any of those other things to be. It's an investment. I understand we made an investment.

[Esme Cole]: It's probably That's me. Yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's Em Cole.

[Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Great. So looking at FY27, is that the governor's proposed budget as it stands?

[Chad Simmons]: This does not include the proposed this came up before the proposed governorship. Okay. Yeah. So it does not include the level in which this is kind of what we were anticipating based on FY twenty six budget. Interesting. Yeah. It would be interesting to see that bar graph adjusted with FY27, the budget as it stands. Good question. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So

[Chad Simmons]: just quickly, just to put a finer point on the impact investing in BHCV has had, and essentially kind of specifically meeting our homelessness needs. And so the investments that you all have made over the last couple of years and allowing freeing up apartments has allowed over 1,900 folks experiencing homelessness to have homes. So that's why we continue to say that through the housing continuum, one way in which we can meet people's needs is by investing in permanently supportive housing.

[Esme Cole]: Just

[Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: on that last slide, so I think that was within, I mean, BHGB is doing incredible essential work, but I think it's been six years, right? 2020 to 2026. So to get $1,900 and then what's the number we're looking for?

[Chad Simmons]: Coordinated entry number is just under $4,500

[Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So yeah, hopefully, that just goes to show the extent of investment that I think is going to be necessary very strategically, just like Cher Wood said, when we have groups, I'll just put out there, let's build homes for Mont, sounds wonderful. But we're putting that as a request to put public dollars into all kinds of housing when public dollars, I mean, that's what the market is for, is that higher tier of housing. So I really, just on the record here, really hope we can very strategically use these public dollars for this specific purpose because the market's not going to fill that gap there. And I don't want to be misled by organizations with good intent, I don't know. That's just my personal. But thank you for highlighting those numbers. It's really important.

[Chad Simmons]: Finally, of the investments the state has made in Vermont Housing Improvement Program, and I know that was a big component of May, and just highlighting that increased investments in these types, again, will need many tools, and we'll talk just a minute and some of our providers can speak to the investments through HOP, through GA that are also required, again, to address that gap that we have. So, if you just bear with me for one more minute, I just have a couple of slides, but I've been thinking lot about this. Again, I'm in week three of this job and thinking about what I've been hearing from our providers and the stories I've been hearing from people experiencing homelessness. I've been thinking about this idea that people are complex and systems should be simple, and what that means when we're trying to leverage the continuum of care that we have and the coordinated entry system and making these systems softer for people. So I just explore and encourage folks to look at this dance performance that was done a couple of years ago by Johan or she, to see if this works.

[Esme Cole]: That's a video. Okay. Oh, there

[Chad Simmons]: we go. There it goes. Double click thing.

[Esme Cole]: So it's a trampoline.

[Chad Simmons]: I will send this link.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, there

[Chad Simmons]: it goes.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: There you go.

[Esme Cole]: Oh, he bounces back. That's what's not on the slide. Oh, wow. I

[Chad Simmons]: think you all get the gist that our systems should reflect the complexity that people have and are, but our systems shouldn't create more complexity and more trauma and more harm. And I think my hope today is that providing this data will provide some context, but also hearing from our providers will show the role they're playing in trying to be that trampoline and to be that system that allows folks to get well and be served with the dignity that they deserve. So in my last slides, I just wanted to get to where HIV sees opportunities moving forward in the proposals, and hopeful that the data and the context was informative and can guide where we go from here together. So the question that we asked ourselves was, does five '94 move Vermont towards a just, effective, and dignified prevention in response to homelessness. And we do share the goal of decreasing the use of hotel and motel use, but it has to be only if there is adequate shelter in homes to access. I think you've heard in previous testimony that without that adequate housing or shelter, we're just going to see more suffering. And so with that, at this point, H594 does not align with our guiding principles that we laid out earlier, our strategic plan and our priorities for this legislative session. We're grateful for the invitation that this bill is highly amendable and amenable to that amendment. So we greatly appreciate that, and we want to put forward some opportunities to look at specific ways in which we can work together on proposals. And so I think one thing that we've been thinking about, and going back to those first slides, is the accountability. That's a big part of this bill, and looking at accountability from stance of how is government accountable to the needs of our communities and to people. And so, we ask that we center that and center the needs of people when looking at the provisions and the proposals. And so, we have a couple of things that we identified as opportunities looking forward, and I think some of these things were named in the testimony from the CAPS last week. And the first and foremost is to fully resource the evidence based and data informed and person centered approaches to the work that we do, and to tailor those resources to the supports and services and hazardous navigation to individual and family needs. Again, that human centred framework that prioritizes dignity, choice, and then long term stability, and that those approaches are locally and regionally driven. Some of the things that we identified is to build from what already exists, and you'll hear testimony and some examples of what's working right now and how we could scale those up. And again, our priorities for this legislative session are articulated here in terms of the funding and appropriations to both create and restore and preserve affordable housing, appropriations for HOF for GA, and then again, I want to thank the committee for its support the HOF financial assistance in the BAA and the Roger Contingency Fund, which we know is also in the BAA. And I'll end with just the land use and zoning and continuing to look at that as a tool, especially even with emergency shelters and the need for shelters and creative housing solutions to be able to access the land and have the permitting that allows those things to go online quickly. And as you'll hear in a little bit, that can be a barrier for some of our communities trying to increase shelter capacity. So we are working a coalition of housing and advocate groups are working on a proposal that we hope the committee will look favorably on. We'll be excited to come back and talk a little bit more about those provisions in the coming days and week. And then I'll end with just encouraging you all to listen to our experienced and talented and knowledgeable mission driven providers in our community.

[Esme Cole]: Thank you, Chad.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just so people are clear about timelines, so we'll be taking testimony throughout the week here on this, and then we're going to be moving to markup next week. We'll be still probably a smattering of testimony during markup, but just so people have an understanding of timeline, because we have, in addition to this being a really important area, we have two or three other really important areas, including the budget that we have to fit in all before the March. So I just wanted people to have a sense of what timeline. So when you said you have a proposal that people are working on this week would be the ideal time at least by the end of the week to be able to understand what people are thinking that might be different from what the administration is proposing or what we have on the wall of the bills. I encourage people, if you haven't looked on our website, you can find the Department for Children and Families, what they're calling a housing proposal. Shelters are temporary housing, but there's going to be a parade of commissioners through here. Actually, we're going be in Room 11 downstairs tomorrow afternoon because there's quite a cadre of people who are going to be here. So I'd encourage people to join in and listen to their perspective about what they're proposing. But you can see it all in the, I'll borrow Anne's for a minute, their book that is on our website for Friday, Laurie? For Friday. Thank you, Chad. Thank

[Eric Maguire]: you, Chad, so much for that information. Within that, is your agency or anybody else taking time to explore the numbers within coordinated entry of new and returning enrollments. I'm not necessarily concerned with the new, more concerned with returning and as specifies here, returning clients that had exited into an HMIS. Previously, they were in the system, they were exited some into stable housing and now have returned. That number is significantly high. There seems to be a higher rate of new and returning individuals than our accident. Anybody maybe dug in a

[Chad Simmons]: little bit deeper to the why? Yeah, and I'm excited to hear our providers share a little bit more about that. I think some of the things, the feedback that our members have been sharing is adequately resourcing existing programs will allow us to kind of meet those more acute needs. As you saw in the coordinated entry data, one of our highest percentages of people identified characteristics are folks experiencing chronic homelessness. So those needs to meet the needs of folks need to be tailored. So we do recognize that the data shows that trend. And I think I invite some of our providers to talk a little bit about the approaches that they've been making.

[Eric Maguire]: Just to follow-up quickly, you used a word like that centered person, I see a little bit of it that involved to that. It's vitally important that we provide these opportunities and different entry points in regards to that person's response activity. That's person centered is recognizing their learning style, recognizing their need and their ability to respond to what's being supported and provided. That's why it's so imperative that we expand these programs via other rapid rehousing that are working. But we're also placing people in a position at this time that they may not be capable of responding to I. E. Somebody that's struggling with homelessness, but may be dealing with high acute mental health or substance abuse needs and placing them maybe in a more independent setting. That's a recipe for problems and not getting the support, they're not getting the need. Also, that's where I bring in the word accountability is I gotta ask, how are we defining accountability? Accountability is really defined as requiring or expecting to justify our actions and decisions responsible. With even within restorative practices as I do that too, the main component within it's layered is accountability within restorative practices, responsibilities in our commitments and obligations and doings. That's not punitive. That's restorative. If you remove accountability out of any layer of your system, the fidelity of the system collapses. So I like to encourage, we look at the context of what accountability is and not at times insert that word to maybe meet a narrative in regards to a punitive response because that's never how I practice. And the other point with age 94, we're looking to and again, highly amendable. We're looking to diversify and put things into place that helps strengthen the wonderful effective practices that are already being completed and understanding also a lot of those mechanisms, I. E. Eligibility, verification that pertains to the state benefit of a GA voucher. That is a state benefit. That's a benefit. That's not a program. That's a benefit. So with that, would it be easier to qualify and access the shelters, permanent supportive housing, rehab programs, or a GA voucher? What would be more if I'm homeless right now? What is the easiest access that I have to get on house? Is it through a GA voucher or access to the wonderful outstanding programs that we already have in place through shelters?

[Chad Simmons]: Will let the providers I think I'll let the providers I'll a contextual standpoint,

[Eric Maguire]: what are the eligibilities You're

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: not asking for an answer.

[Eric Maguire]: Yeah, no, no. What's the eligibility to access the CAH Powser? Nothing. What's the eligibility and access to GA? Powser, that's all laid on out there. So I wanna be clear that we gotta keep everything in the context of what it is. A lot of that eligibility stuff has to do with the GA voucher. The rest of it has to do with strengthening everything that you just mentioned there and also keeping accountability in the context of what it is. I appreciate everything you're doing.

[Angus Cheney]: Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I'm sure Jonathan will correct that, but shelters do have eligibility. It's not just like walk in and you get a bed. Do you have a question on how represents Steady?

[Brenda Steady]: Do you have any data I could get on people that were homeless, received an apartment or a home, and then were evicted for not paying rent, not taking care of the property, etcetera? Can I get that data for the last few years, maybe five years?

[Chad Simmons]: I can check to see if something like that is captured. I'm not familiar with it.

[Brenda Steady]: Okay. Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you, Chad. Appreciate Okay. Next, we're going to be hearing from some of our community partners out there, and appreciate them all being online and in the room. And Jonathan,

[Esme Cole]: I have you down as being first. Great. Welcome.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: Thank you all very much. Can you hear me okay?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, we Wonderful.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: So thank you for the opportunity to speak with the committee today. For the record, my name is Jonathan Ferrell. I am the Executive Director of the Committee on Temporary Shelter. We are better known as COTS in Burlington and I'm also a resident of Burlington. So first regarding H594, the Temporary Emergency Housing Accountability and Return Home Programs. There are a few issues with its design, including unrealistic shelter stay limits, case management requirements, and eligibility requirements, which others, including our colleagues at the CAP agencies, have already talked about. And I'm sure there will be more testimony about that. There are a few concepts within this bill with which I agree. And speaking of accountability, I do believe we should have a measure of accountability in our shelter systems. I disagree with the concept that guests in shelters should only engage with what they want, when they want, and only if they want. The purpose of our shelters is to help move people from shelter into permanent housing. Guests in our shelters should have the expectation to engage in that process, and this is the important part, to the best of their ability while they stay in shelter. There is a lot of nuance in engagement to the best of one's ability, and I believe shelter providers must be trusted to make those decisions. We do want to keep services an expectation of engagement, but we also want to keep them person centered to the best of the guests' abilities. Another aspect of this bill's intentions, with which I agree, is that the GA emergency motel program does need to contract. It is not a good solution to our crisis of affordability and homelessness. Motel rooms can be isolating. They are often barely habitable, and placing folks in motel rooms can leave them no better off than when they entered, and often folks are worse off for spending, a time isolated in a motel. However, this program must be ramped down thoughtfully with other alternatives in its place. I do believe that H594 misses the mark in its attempt to redesign our shelter system. Our shelter system, again designed to move people from shelter into appropriate housing, actually functions. It has a stable base of funding, a statewide view of the issue with its connection to OEO, shelter habitability inspections, metrics, results, safety issues, program reviews that take place with all of us across the state. Our shelter providers know how to interrupt generational poverty. We know how to connect people to services and benefits to provide opportunities for those who have fallen on hard times, like our friend on the trampoline, and also to allow folks who are recovering the opportunity to do so. And I believe we will always have a need for such services in our communities. And I would implore the committee to recognize that our shelter system does not need redesign nor does it need its established funding mechanisms completely upended. The issue that we're having with our shelter systems is that shelters have become the default infirmaries, the default psychiatric wards, and the default system for substance use disorder, and a default system for folks with physical and developmental disabilities. In COTS fiscal year 2025, we had 161 individuals stay in our weigh station shelter. Now the weigh station is a program shelter, that is it carries an expectation of engagement in housing navigation services. Seventy percent of the guests in that program identified having one or more disabling conditions, which again include substance use disorder, mental health conditions, physical disabilities, chronic health conditions, and developmental disabilities. Sixty one of those guests out of the 161 moved from shelter into permanent housing. Also in COTS fiscal twenty twenty five, we hosted 191 single individuals at our warming station. This was a low barrier shelter that was operated for four months in 2025. Of those guests, eighty percent reported one or more of the disabling conditions: substance use, mental health issues, physical disabilities, chronic health conditions, and developmental disabilities. One guest moved into housing from that shelter, and a few moved up into the program shelter. Our day station is a drop in center for those who are 18 and up who are experiencing homelessness. Every day we offer meals, showers, laundry, internet, computer access, access to the shelter program, our services, and we host many community partners in that space to serve the population. We're open three sixty five days a year and we are now seeing 80 to 100 people a day coming into that space. In most months, we see 400 to four fifty unique individuals coming for services at the day station. The month of November, we saw six ninety eight unique individuals. Six ninety eight. And we double checked the math 10 times because it was an anomaly, but that's how many people came to the program. 60% of the day station guests are experiencing unsheltered homelessness. These guests are also experiencing acute symptoms related again to substance use disorder, mental health, physical disabilities, chronic health conditions, and developmental disabilities. A lot of these folks cannot take care of themselves in a shelter or in a motel room. They really need specialized services. We need experts in these fields to spend time with them, to build rapport with them, to coordinate their care, and to help them get to a place and a time when they can engage in shelter and housing services and secure a sustainable place to live. This, in our area, in Chittenden County, in Burlington specifically, the vast majority of the unsheltered population are facing these very acute challenges. And I want to be clear. This is a result of long term structural changes that were made to our systems of care beginning in the 1980s. This is the result of lately increasingly addictive and destructive street drugs. And this is the result of isolation from the pandemic. This is not the fault of folks in our state who are doing incredibly difficult work in these fields with limited resources. Here is what I believe we should be focusing on. We need care coordinators, experts in substance use disorder, healthcare and developmental disabilities in our daytime drop in centers. Referrals to services do not work. People who are in the depths of addiction or mental health crisis or who have chronic disabilities cannot get to an appointment. They're worried about the next meal, where they're going to stay tonight. Folks in active psychosis, and we have them in our day station and we have them in our shelter, they cannot navigate a shelter setting or meet with a housing navigator and have any expectation of work being done. We need providers on-site daily to meet guests, build relationships and trust, and to navigate complex systems of healthcare to get people the correct service. This is important. Every one of the services we already have in our community are complex and our shelter staff don't have the expertise of eligibilities and billing and what services are available and which service providers. We need experts in those fields who can navigate those systems assisting folks who are experiencing homelessness. Sorry, is there a question?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There wasn't, but since you paused, I'm gonna ask So we often hear in this committee about how the agency of human services is 100% in across all departments. And you might have heard me mention earlier that they're going to be all in here, Room 11, tomorrow afternoon to say what they're doing in each one of their departments to help address the issue of homelessness. And so I am curious, Jonathan, is what I'm hearing you say is that you currently don't see those people in the community. And I get what you're saying about referrals don't work. Referrals, shmurls. I mean, it might still be a foreign language if somebody is struggling with, like you said, just trying to know where they're going to get their next meal or take a shower someplace. So do you see people I know when I was there this summer, you did talk about the Howard Center from time to time as people that come into the day station. Do you see other departments or representatives of other parts of state government coming into your day station on a regular basis?

[Jonathan Ferrell]: We see state partners more sporadically when staffing allows and for acute cases or specific needs for specific guests. So yes, and I'm going to get into a little bit longer, a little bit some of the pilots that we have running right now, where I think will illustrate this point a little further, if I may.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And then just one other question. So you've talked to around eighty percent or so in various programs that you have are folks who have sort of multiple disabilities or health issues that are going on. And how does that compare to ten years ago? I mean, what was your experience? I'm sure that you still had some percentage of folks who had multiple issues going on, but it seems as though what I'm hearing you say is they make up a greater proportion of the people who are coming. Not only are your numbers more, but the proportion of those people is greater now.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: That is absolutely true. Ten years ago, the complexity was not as high, nor were the numbers of people. So it's an accurate statement to say that ten years ago, folks were, the acuity of our guests was lower, you know, and that these are more complex needs, especially around mental health and substance abuse, which are often co occurring.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So what we're seeing in, and I guess I'll ask this question of everybody who's gonna come after you as well, but what we're seeing in H594 is sort of this investment in certain things, but then essentially ramping back and eliminating other things over a period of time. And do you feel like that's a realistic period of time to achieve what it is we're trying to achieve, which is a substantial reduction in the homeless population?

[Jonathan Ferrell]: I'm not sure what the timelines are for each of those in May other than the motels being pulled back. That's a good question, Chair Wood, and I'm not sure I have the answer to that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, okay. All right, thank you. Keep going, thank you.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: Sure, yeah, of course. Similarly, having these experts in our daytime shelters, I believe they also need to have presence in the evening in our overnight shelters to support folks who are returning from physical or substance abuse rehab. So while they're in shelter after treatment, they can have ongoing supports in the shelter. To be clear, the goal here is not to turn shelters into infirmaries or psych wards, but these experts will divert folks to the appropriate treatments and support post treatment stay in the shelter while folks are engaging in housing navigation. We also need to invest in residential treatment beds for substance use disorder, mental health, and for health care. And I'd like to illustrate with a few stories, if I may. We have raised money through the temporary opioid settlement funding and through private donors to have recovery coaches from the Turning Point Center of Chittenden County full time in the day station. That's eight hours a day, seven days a week. And in the evenings at the weigh station, seven days a week. A person who had been in and out of our shelter and other services in the community for more than a decade showed up at the weigh station, heavily intoxicated on a brutal winter night, and was given a temporary overflow bed. In our shelter, an overflow bed is a cot in the lounge where staff can monitor the folks to make sure they do not die. This person wanted to be admitted into the shelter program, and we asked that they meet with a recovery coach in the morning. After meeting with the recovery coach, shortly after, they were offered a fourteen day treatment bed at Valley Vista. That treatment turned into an offer for a ninety day treatment program, which has been accepted by this guest. When they complete their treatment, they will have a bed in our shelter and they will have recovery coach support daily and every evening, seven days a week, while they're accessing the shelter program and housing navigation. We had a 71 year old woman with a chronic health condition who has been staying in our shelter. Previously, they were unsheltered, living on the streets, coping with UTI and other health issues. And because community health centers is funded to be in our day station two times a week and in the way station two evenings a week, again, this is through temporary funding through the opioid settlement funds, She has the medical help that she needs, and she has the people who know how to navigate the medical system. Again, our shelter staff run shelters, which is difficult work in and of its own right, and they cannot be health experts, they cannot manage medications, they cannot arrange appointments, and they cannot navigate complexities of the healthcare system. And lastly, an individual experiencing homelessness was discharged from the hospital in Burlington to St. Alden's because his chart showed that he had family there. Well, he had not lived there in over twenty years and was discharged into the streets. He managed to find his way to Burlington and to the waystation shelter. And again, staff provided an overflow bed and he was examined by community health center staff who were there. An appointment was made for him for the following day and COTS got him to his appointment. He was treated for his physical disabilities, for his physical ailments, and was able to follow-up with medical staff in the following days at the day station. He was also able to connect with the Howard Center Street Outreach team and get diagnosed for his mental health issues. The interventions made it possible for this person to be admitted into shelter and to engage in housing navigation services. As an aside, we also have a nurse from UVM Health in the day station once a week, and they are able to help navigate folks in the healthcare system, but the need is overwhelming for one person a few hours a week. This nurse has also confirmed that dozens of homeless individuals have the note DCDS on their chart, and that stands for discharge to day station. So left the hospital, dropped off at COTS. So in summary, I would implore the the, committee to please stop tinkering with the shelter funding and shelter design. That's solving the wrong problem. I would encourage us to keep our shelters adequately funded through HOP and OEO. There will be a need for shelters until housing affordability and supply is increased. Please do not repeat the flaws of H-nine-one that tried to give funding to the CAP agencies to create services like mental health services in which they hold no expertise. That's an important part. Please thoughtfully shift GA funding from motels to our state departments of health, its division of substance use programs, the Department of Mental Health, the Department of Aging and Independent Living, and Economic Services Division to provide experts in the field to our daytime and overnight shelters. We again need expert care coordination at least five days and evenings a week who can get to know our guests, build relationships, diagnose, triage, and arrange care management for those who are in the throes of mental health issues, addiction, and medical disabilities. That's the problem that we need to solve. We need to better coordinate our existing healthcare systems, evaluate and if necessary provide more residential treatment centers of all varieties where people experiencing homelessness can get the help that they need before entering a housing focused shelter system that functions. I believe that my colleagues at the state are aware of this need and are willing to do the work to direct the funding and the personnel to meet this need. Lastly, there will also always be a need for a limited pool of motel rooms to solve immediate crisis. We often have people and families show up in our offices, in our waiting room with nowhere to go on Friday afternoon. A reasonable supply of motel rooms for short duration will provide an immediate solution that can then be followed up on. Thank you so much for your time. Happy to take any questions if time allows.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Jonathan. And would you it seemed as though you had some prepared remarks. If you could send them into Laurie, that would be great so we can post them so we can make sure to review them in detail as well.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: I certainly will.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. I think that what we're gonna do is hear from your colleagues, and then we're gonna open it up for questions for everyone, if that's okay. So Angus is in the room and thank you for being here. Will that work for you, Jonathan, if we do that? Have that? Okay, Thank you. Welcome.

[Angus Cheney]: Thank you so much, Chair Wood. Good afternoon. For the record, I'm Angus Cheney, executive director of the Homeless Prevention Center. Our organization provides emergency shelter supportive services to people in Rutland County. And a little about where we fit into the homeless continuum of care that Chad introduced earlier. So we conduct outreach to people who are unsheltered or in motels. We're the lead agency for coordinated entry, and so we provided 332 household assessments last year and technical assistance to the county's 18 other coordinated entry partners. We operate programs tailored to families, individuals, youth, and people struggling with mental illness. Currently, we're providing case management to two forty three people in 117 households. And I want to note that 70% of those households that I just mentioned were have been involved with the state's GA program in some way. Some are sheltering in a motel right now, as we work together to secure permanent housing. Others were in a motel when we started working with them, but have since transitioned to permanent housing, and so we're providing the retention services. And another another group of them were in motel, and we've since been able to bring them into one of our nine scattered site emergency shelter apartments where they're getting services. Just for folks who if they're interested in the capacity, that's nine emergency apartments, 17 bedrooms, 25 beds, plus three toddler beds, two cribs. We provide supportive housing for both families and individuals through partnership with our local landlords. We chair the local Rutland County Continuum of Care group and staff a landlord liaison who works with local owners and coordinates with the agency administering PHIP, that program, Vermont Home Improvement Program that was just brought up. Last year, we provided over 422,000 in targeted financial assistance and rental assistance to rehouse 110 homeless households prevent homelessness for another 116 households who met HUD's definition of at risk. That sort of thing keeps us going. It's hard work, and those are the data that we keep bringing back to our continuum of care and to our staff so that they can see that what they're doing is working. It's a great time for me to thank this committee too because you've also been considering, through budget adjustment, some additional funding for both the cap agencies and our organization so that we can keep getting people into apartments and preventing evictions. So thank you very much. And we were successful.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Far.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Now the full body needs go on it, but the appropriations committee voted yet.

[Angus Cheney]: Much appreciated. It's so it's so timely. Thank you. All of these activities and more that there just isn't space for here are aligned under two simple objectives, prevent homelessness among people at risk and rehoused people who are already experiencing homelessness. This year, we served over 900 Vermonters who are homeless or at risk, I and wanna thank the legislature and our many partners for making that possible. Just a side note here, sometimes when at my organization, when it's really not working well with a client and everybody gets a little heated up, maybe they maybe they leave in a hop, and the door gets closed kinda loudly. They cool off, and they're back a week later. We're working with them. And I feel a little bit like that myself. I know I had some real criticism with certain legislation the last session, and I appreciate that you welcome me back into your into your room and are willing to hear from me again. So thank you. Thanks. So much for hearing from HHAV and some of the directors around the state today. I cannot tell all the stories, and so it's really good. We've got Jonathan here and Julie and and other folks who are queued up. They know what's working locally. They know where the gaps are, and those local realities powerfully inform our opinions on h five ninety four and related legislation. At this month's local continuous care meeting in Rutland, we were exploring trends and data from last year and noticed an uptick in the number of people who exited the homeless master list to permanent housing around the time of one of the GA eligibility contractions, cliffs, whatever you wanna call it. I will say that, you know, there's there's no one who wouldn't agree that the 2025 was a stressful time for providers, communities, advocates, and anyone in motels. But it should be noted that while some people in Rutland County exited motels to unsheltered homelessness, many who had been in motels for two, three, or four years secured housing as that deadline loomed. This illustrates a fundamental tension with the general assistance motel program, namely that no single policy works for everyone. It's cold, and there are hundreds of Vermonters who absolutely need that room stay extended while a housing plan is fitted together. There's also a smaller but not insignificant number who've become accustomed to life in Vermont's GA motels and struggle to engage in the uphill work of transitioning back toward housing. Some portion of this group we work with would appear to benefit from a more therapeutic and better staffed setting, where they could receive clinical support around acute addiction, mental health crises, or serious and complex health needs. Now Jonathan and I did not have time to coordinate our testimony, but I think you could see some themes emerging. To be clear, the number needing these types of therapeutic support are a small fraction of the population in motels, but they can overwhelm a fragile system and are not being well served. In Rutland, we struggle to reconcile our strong rehousing and prevention outcomes with the dispiriting data on how many of the county's motel rooms are still serving as long term shelter. Analysis shows that while our county has robust programs tailored to the needs of the people we serve, Many who end up in a Rutland shelter or motel did not become homeless here. This is not to blame other counties or states for homelessness in Rutland nor to suggest we would serve one group and not another. It is to express this provider's frustration that we can't reach people with our effective prevention programs when that eviction or crisis took place outside our service territory. We get to see amazing successes in this work, growth that inspires people getting second chances, families reuniting, people leaving shelter to move into their own apartments. Yet homelessness on the scale we have in Vermont is an indicator something isn't working. I appreciate that h five ninety four recognizes the imperative to improve on the general assistance program so that it works for more people in more Vermont communities. Clearly, a major driver of Vermont's high rate of homelessness is a national shortage of the right sort of rental housing and the subsidies that make it affordable. But it also hints at gaps in other systems of care, either in capacity, treatment modalities, or access policies. And as h 94 sorry, five ninety four alludes to, some portion of the issue may be linked to GA eligibility and a small state's challenge in moving away from maximal eligibility embraced in the early weeks of a global pandemic. H five ninety four does speak to a number of the challenges we see with GA in parts of Vermont. Where the legislation would need additional input is around understanding Vermont's existing homeless services landscape beyond general assistance and anticipating how some of the aspirational legislation could actually be implemented. For example, we know the participants who engage with case management tend to have better housing outcomes than those who do not. But providers of these services will acknowledge that case management loses much of its nourishment when it is force fed. Success often requires adapting our approach to meet people in crisis, people experiencing trauma. Case management is so important, but implementing the requirement seems problematic and likely to encounter resistance. Much of what h five ninety four promises under accountability is already happening in Vermont's continuum of care. So it is unclear whether the legislation is speaking to assurances in new activities funded with GA sources or guaranteeing that these things would continue in existing programs under h five ninety four. We must be clear on what isn't working with GA while acknowledging the successes of other programs in the broader homeless continuum of care. Age five ninety four seems clear about the first two years, less so after that. There may be logic in making sure certain criteria are met before transitioning to a phase two, but Vermonters will be understandably curious or concerned around what phase two looks like and where accountability would rest. H five ninety four's promotion of high barrier shelter is the primary portal into care is a departure from the push of the last fifteen years. It seems important to address who might be left out by this approach. Some additional suggestions before I close here. GA uses a mix of population based and situation based eligibility criteria. It could be complicated to forecast who might be eligible, when, and for how long. And as we have seen, being found eligible does not always translate to getting a room that night. I really like what Chad mentioned earlier about people are complex, systems should be simple. I wanna echo that. It is difficult to legislate the real time chaos out of emergency programs, particularly when rationing an essential benefit. Whatever shape new legislation takes, the legislature and administration may want to engage the human service board proactively to see if there are areas of agreement such that the number of hearings might be reduced, and participants, state administrators, advocates, and HSB members but would have the clearest understanding possible about what warrants an appeal and how that appeal would be received. Few things are as controversial as discussing residency requirements for programs, but I encourage the legislature and administration to explore this area to see if there aren't solutions that would be fair and humane to people in crisis without Vermont becoming a regional response to homelessness for the Northeast. This might start with the state agreeing to at least gather better data on where people are entering GA motels became homeless, but not tying that to eligibility. If this isn't better or understood and addressed at some point, I do not see how additional state investment in housing could significantly reduce demand for Vermont's emergency shelter programs on a one for one basis. What h five ninety four gets right is that the GA motel system is unpopular, and we should stop avoiding the hard work required to perform it. Before embarking on a comprehensive overhaul of a program which serves as a critical safety net for so many, it would seem appropriate for legislators to strive for consensus on a few framing questions. Those are, what would success look like in a new approach to emergency shelter? What might progress toward that success look like? I think that was brought up earlier earlier this afternoon. How will h five ninety four or similar proposed legislation reduce the high rate of homelessness in Vermont, both for people who were sheltered and who were unsheltered? And lastly, beyond general assistance, beyond our homeless continuum of care, beyond more housing or more housing studies, what adjacent systems of care must be reformed for Vermont to realize the reduction in homelessness we all wanna see? I thank you so much for your time. Thanks. Take it over to the next presenter, and I'll stick around for questions.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. I was just gonna ask if that was gonna work. If not, we we have spitting questions now. So much. Okay, Julie, what's up next? And I just want to take a moment while we're about halfway through this, just to thank all of the folks, particularly the folks who are providing direct services and overseeing those direct services for being here today, because I know it's a hard time in the middle of winter when it's such a cold spell that we have going on now. So I know you've been incredibly busy. So thank you all for being here online. Appreciate it very much.

[Esme Cole]: Thank you. Welcome, Julie.

[Julie Bond]: Thank you very much. Thanks, Sherwood. For the record, my name is Julie Bond. I'm the executive director of Good Samaritan Haven, a sheltered network serving those experiencing homelessness in Washington County and the Greater Central Vermont region. Thanks for inviting me to provide some feedback on H594 in an effort to envision a set of solutions to the housing and shelter crisis and the broader complex social and economic factors that play their part in the crisis. So I observed there are two parts or two concepts proposed in H9594. One, adding what is named as a continuum of care classification and eligibility system and additional oversight on top of the shelter and supportive housing systems that already exist. And two, the intention to reduce and do away with the motel shelter system currently administered by ESD. I'd like to propose a third element to the draft, which is the investment in the specifically funded plan to create the units needed for a one to one replacement of the reduction of motel beds mentioned in the draft bill. I propose that this solution is the element that receives some of the most focus in H594. From a provider perspective on the ground, it's most beneficial and impactful if state entities such as retain their collaborative roles for providers as an administrative oversight partner, triage in the agency, and specifically on the emergency housing side, a clearinghouse for eligibility and benefit provision, referrals to locations and environments that would best suit an individual or a family. The current public oversight of sheltering and supportive housing programs through the Office of Economic Opportunity and the Housing Opportunities Program work well with no need to disrupt that current system. From what I can discern from the draft bill, further centralization of shelter classification or eligibility programming and an intent to add an external case management system is being proposed. In our experience, local embedded case managers, staff, and clinicians in shelters and supportive housing organizations work really diligently to know the unique needs of the guests and tenants of a housing community. They're really best equipped to build trusted relationships, identify barriers and spot stress points and red flags to help stave off a crisis. Vermont communities are varied, so with unique conditions and sometimes specific gaps and services across regions. Centralization further distances people in need from those who know them quite well and who understand local conditions. So it's most effective and efficient to fully fund case management systems within existing shelter and housing organizations, which are currently understaffed. So in Washington County and Good Samaritan Haven specifically, our HOP request for more robust case management, in particular housing retention services, went $215,000 unfunded this last year, and the community's really feeling that. So to truly shift the tide of homelessness in Vermont, providers, community developers, municipalities, and other community partners can have the most impact if there is direct and flexible state investment in specific supportive housing projects and developments, not additional systems. The twenty twenty five Vermont January pick count, as Chad noted, reported 3,386 people experiencing homelessness. And then that following June, coordinated entry count noted 5,488 unhoused Vermonters. So with roughly 600 plus or minus shelter beds in the state, there's roughly 4,000 of Vermont's most vulnerable individuals and families experiencing homelessness. They'll need a new model of emergency shelter or supportive housing. And this is distinct from the traditional affordable housing investments that are also needed that we're talking about. What this bill must address is a type of permanent supportive housing that cares for specific long term needs of highly vulnerable and complex populations that traditional housing models may not serve successfully. I see that a lot as you're talking about returning to homelessness. Most counties and regions and providers in Vermont know what they need and how many people they typically serve. Washington County, that's currently between five hundred and six hundred people a year. There are only about 100 to 110 shelter beds in the county in the high season, so in winter season. And thus, there is a need for roughly four fifty more supportive housing opportunities for the population served, or roughly 10% of the state need what we're seeing in the county. So how do we provide a broad variety of complex care housing options for this population? The solutions are distinct from overhauling a state response and triaging system. It requires the mobilization of integrated social, economic and housing programs and partners. Each county and region in Vermont has its own way of doing this and its own understanding of what's needed. These needs are unique and we welcome sharing our needs as we're all doing today and over these weeks. In Washington County, the types of complex care housing options that we see are really needed are more home care provider and mental health group homes, not less. So in a moment when Medicaid eligibility is forcing this model of care to dry up, this will force more people, vulnerable individuals with mental illness or developmental disabilities, back into the shelter system or on the street. That's a great fear of ours. We're looking for long term structured recovery homes or recovery neighborhoods to have for building a life of recovery from substance use. Skilled nursing homes and residences that do not discriminate against those who smoke or who might have a history in the criminal justice system is deeply needed. Supportive housing communities, complexes, neighborhoods and buildings are needed that are staffed and managed to prevent isolation and loneliness and support executive functioning and life skills that are required to be successful in independent living. Single room occupancy units are needed for many individuals. That would be very helpful and successful. Within the above structures names, specifically housing for families, youth, elder housing, and DV housing options are certainly key demographics that are needed. A combination of solutions are needed that include economic, health care, social, and housing opportunities. Jonathan and I just really named that as four legs of stability, a stability bench. And housing alone will not solve this problem in a sustainable fashion if the poor social barriers aren't addressed along with that. Rural homelessness is vastly different from suburban or urban homelessness. Resources, spaces, real estate, transportation, job opportunities will all play a role in how a county fashions their own solutions to those needs. So as an offering for inclusion in the draft five ninety four bill, I propose we build a multi constituent, multi partner model and solution over the next three to six years across the state that takes into account the unique needs of each region. In Washington County, for example, there are opportunities to develop 50 plus units of supportive housing and complex care shelter capacity immediately if the projects were fully resourced right now. To address the four legs of stability that I noted above, I offer the idea that state might invest in things like recovery resiliency models that are akin to the recovery village model that's innovated and adopted by Jenna's Promise and Johnson Village in Caledonia County Lamoille County, right? Sorry, that was it. That's right, we know

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: where it is. Yeah, you know, know very well. And

[Julie Bond]: that supports folks in recovery from substance use. And it's a really beautiful village model. So that innovative and successful model espouses a holistic combination of economic downtown rural revitalization principles combined with life skills training, social connection rather than isolation, and the creation of recovery specific housing. So a resiliency village could do the same in communities with high rates of complex homelessness in multifaceted ways. So what community doesn't want to be resilient, healthy, and economically robust? A bold and creative solution could include the state issuing an RFP to allocate a phased level of annual investment in resiliency village projects or needs specific housing over a multi year period, like a six year period. And the goal would be to develop the 4,000 supportive solutions needed across the state with commensurate reductions in the GA motel programming spending as new supportive units come online. It will require that one to one replacement. Otherwise, we will see this unsheltered homelessness influx and crisis that we're currently experiencing. Our county is at a breaking point. So that will require infill in downtown relaxation of local and state zoning regulations. It'll allow for the revitalization of vacant infrastructure and new and existing business owners to employ those with complex support needs. And eventually, a rent model could be integrated past the voucher model, and then a homelessness to homeownership model for some. For those who need permanent supportive community living, it would always be available to them. We'll always need this. So in short, any of the sheltering and supportive living options mentioned above could be linked to the types of economic workforce life skills training that has been lifted up by those such as Jenna's Promise and the town of Johnson's Recovery Village model. So it's a great potential for the state, municipalities, business owners to weave social infrastructure with housing and our community partners that support our most vulnerable folks holistically and sustainably. So in closing, by fully funding the HOP program and the ongoing GA programming for 2027 and phasing in investment in resiliency villages or complex care needs specific housing, permanent supportive housing over several years, motel programming could be steadily phased out as units came online. So please consider allocating a third budget line, a third solution line for investment in new development. By engaging in the knowledge on the ground and the unique needs of each community, the local partner agency ecosystem will remain healthy, balanced, and will have the capacity to build the new alternatives to the motels region by region. By fully resourcing the existing organizations that have their own case management teams, we'll remain efficient, personal, effective. And finally, by engaging providers directly and becoming discerning investors in future projects that are already in predevelopment. Together, we can create one to one replacements for the reduction of motel rooms over time. We look forward to partnering with you in this creative and vital work. So thank you.

[Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Thank you very much, Julie.

[Esme Cole]: I appreciate it. Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I think committee members, can kind of see a trend in terms of supportive services and not doing away with one before we built the other, I think, is another common theme. And now we're going hear from Roxanne. Welcome, Roxanne. We're delighted to have you here from Bennington. And this is one of the good things about Zoom and YouTube. We can have witnesses from all over the state without them having to spend the day traveling here, especially when the roads aren't that great. So thank you for being here this afternoon. We appreciate hearing from you.

[Roxanne Crowley]: Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you all for giving me the chance to speak today. And I do echo the fact that I'm very appreciative that I can do this via Zoom. Not only are the roads not great, but we're also in our going into our fifth night of our extreme cold weather shelter. So that wouldn't have worked out so well for me today. My name is Roxanne Crowley, and I will apologize ahead of time due to exhaustion and my eyesight not being good to begin with. I will be reading, a lot today, and I normally don't, so I apologize for that. My name is Roxanne Crowley, and I'm the Executive Director of Operational Development and Shelter Services for the Bennington County Coalition for the Homeless. I want you to know right up front, I am not someone who speaks in polished political language, statistics, or data. I speak from experience, from the heart, and from what I see every single day in our community. I'm here today because H594 matters. It can change how people live, where they sleep, and where they are safe. And the people most affected by it are not in this room, so we are here as their voice. Who are we actually serving? In Bennington County, we desperately need more year round shelter housing, and we need it to be inclusive by design. Right now, our system is built around assumptions that people are either single adults or traditional families, but that's not who's showing up at our doors. We see nontraditional families. We see people with serious medical and mental health needs. We see elders, and we see unaccompanied youth. We see veterans. We see victims of DV and SV. We see those with criminal backgrounds. We see people in recovery and we see active drug users. We see people who simply cannot afford permanent housing. We see people who cannot survive in congregate shelter and people who do need and who do not meet the criteria of traditional family shelters. I should add, and I'm sorry that I didn't write in the beginning, in Bennington County, as Chad gave you the numbers earlier, we're counted at over 400 homeless individuals. And we know that we're not getting the full count due to our rural rural area. Bennington County Coalition for the Homeless only has 16 beds for individuals, adult individuals, and our family shelter is only nine units. We do thankfully have an outreach team that is out there trying to help those that are still unsheltered, but we are only housing we're we're we're not even housing up the smallest fraction of those who are actually homeless in Medicare. When people are turned away from us, it's not because they don't need shelter. It's because they don't fit the definition tied to the funding or because they cannot safely coexist in the spaces that we have available. That is heartbreaking and it's fixable. H five ninety four needs to support inclusive shelter units, not just shelter beds, so we can meet people where they are, not where a rule says they should be. Funding that doesn't match reality. We currently have 500,000 in hard earmarked funds, and we are actively looking for property. While we are grateful for that support, I need to be honest with you. That amount does not buy and renovate enough property to meaning meaningfully serve our community. And even if it did, capital funding alone does not keep the doors open. Shelters don't run on good intentions. They run on staff, heat, utilities, food, essential needs, case management, housing navigation, safety and support. Without guaranteed long term operating funds, we are setting projects up to struggle and possibly even fail. H five ninety four needs to clearly tie long term operating dollars to capital investments, or we will keep building plans instead of solutions. Congregate shelters are not working. I also need to say this just plainly again. Congregate shelter is not the answer for most people. Every day people are turned away in Bennington County because congregate spaces are unsafe or inaccessible for them, especially people with trauma histories, medical needs, mental health challenges, and or the need for stable sober living. This is not because providers aren't trying hard enough. It's because the system was not designed with all these realities in mind. H594 must make room for non congregate, low barrier options alongside shelters with programs and more structure for people who are ready for that. One size does not fit all and pretending it does is hurting people. Short term fixes aren't fixing anything. We continue to pour money into short term emergency responses, pop up shelters, extreme weather sites, and motel placements. And I understand why. When someone is freezing, you act. Several of us have been doing that exactly that for the past four nights with no immediate relief in sight. But these temporary shelters are crippling the very providers who are already exhausted from supporting our most vulnerable neighbors all day, every day. These approaches are expensive, exhausting, and temporary. They don't allow consistency, stability, or real progress towards permanent housing. They keep us reacting instead of solving. H five ninety four should help Vermont move away from repeating these emergency cycles and towards real lasting infrastructure. GA cuts will have real consequences. I also wanna speak directly about the upcoming reduction of general assistance motel rooms. I need you to hear this clearly. If this happens before we open more shelter units, it will once again increase homelessness in Bennington County and across Vermont. In fact, we will probably see numbers higher than we've ever seen. This isn't a prediction. It's a certainty. When emergency options are reduced before permanent ones exist, people end up outside in cars and in unsafe situations. Isn't it our mission to end homelessness? As H five ninety four is currently written, it reduces emergency options faster than it builds permanent ones. That gap gap is where people fall and we all fail. Timelines matter. Two years ago, about $10,000,000 was available statewide for shelter development. Bennington County received none of it, Not because the need wasn't here and not because we didn't have solid plans but we did but because we didn't already have properties ready to go. That's not because we didn't work hard enough. It's because real development takes time especially in rural communities. Property owners do not hand over keys because funding might be coming. Sellers cannot wait months for reimbursement. Reimbursement grants work for operations, but we need a better, faster way to acquire and renovate properties if we are serious about expanding shelters. H five ninety four needs to reflect that reality or communities like ours will continue to be left behind. What are we asking for? What we are asking for is not unreasonable. We are asking for more year round non congregate inclusive shelters, support for both low barrier shelters and program based shelters, operating funds that come with capital funding, realistic timelines that rural communities can actually meet, housing and support for elders, people in recovery, those with medical and mental health needs, veterans and unaccompanied youth. I'm going to stop right there for one second before my closing. Again, one of my biggest things is I'm begging, begging that non traditional families are included. It is not just a family with minor children. In fact, the reality is most of our families are one person, best friends, sisters and brothers, a couple that's not married and has no children. In closing, I want to end by saying this. The people doing this work every day are tired, but we're not giving up. We believe Vermont can do better than managing homelessness forever. We believe that together, we can actually end it. You have a chance right now through age five ninety four to help us profoundly change the outcome, to listen, to trust those of us that are here on the ground, to be brave enough to do this differently. If you do that, you will be our heroes, not in a symbolic way, but in a real one, because the decisions you make here will determine whether people are safe, housed and supported. Thank you for listening. Thank you for caring and thank you in advance for taking action.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Roxanne. I really appreciate the specific things that you and others have said here today in terms of what can be helpful and what isn't helpful. It's just as important as what is helpful as what isn't helpful. So thank you for saying that. And then last and certainly not least is Jean. Thank you for waiting, Jean. I appreciate you being here.

[Jean Montross]: Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you today. For the record, I'm Jean Montross. I'm the Executive Director at HOPE, which serves low income people in Addison County, Vermont, with a wide variety of needs including food, funds for housing, heat, medical needs, job related needs. Because a lot of our funding is private, we can do some flexible things instead of saying no, that's not on our list. List. A lot of our work involves many of the people who are homeless in our area, particularly those who have high housing barriers. And so the aspects of this bill that I want to address are the concept of accountability and sanctions that are proposed for people who might be deemed noncompliant. I agree that we must have an expectation that our clients will take responsibility for helping themselves whenever possible. In fact, in my services manager's office, there's a sign that says, this is a partnership. We'll do our part, and you will do yours. We don't consider much of our work to be offering entitlements. We use our private funding to help where it makes sense, and we know that it's finite, so we're not just going to pour it down a black hole. My staff and I are at times frustrated at some of our clients. Some of them don't arrive for appointments as scheduled, they don't follow through on tasks that would help them to get to a more stable place, they make decisions that make no sense whatsoever. This is not because they choose to blow us off, but because they are often incapable of carrying through. However, this is often not visible. There's a high correlation between homelessness and severe trauma and traumatic brain injury, or TBI. Now lately, the word trauma is being overused and it risks being discounted. What I want to tell you about is severe trauma. Psychologists recognize two distinct types of traumatic experience. Level one trauma is due to a single significant event, such as a serious car accident, an assault, a natural disaster. Level two trauma refers to a series of repeated experiences, including violence, domestic assault, sexual assault, physical abuse, and more often beginning when someone is a young child. Traumatic events change the brain chemistry, and therefore this changes how brains will function. People who've experienced trauma are always in survival mode. Everything looks like a threat. They're unable to concentrate, make rational decisions, to form meaningful relationships. There's just too much in the way in their heads. And yet, because they don't look as if anything is wrong with them, we blame them for their behavior. A traumatic brain injury, while it stems from a physical event, is much the same. When we look at somebody with a physical disability in a wheelchair, using a walker, unable to perform tasks without assistance, we understand, but what goes on in the brain, we don't see. People with TBI are extraordinarily challenging to work with. They're often emotionally unregulated. They act in ways that make no sense. They're unable to show up for appointments, appearing with no warning, being disruptive and argumentative. And that's not all of them, but many of them and the ones that I see, and for good reason. We've worked with lots of people who have PTSD and TBI in Addison County. Here's an example of one. A woman I'll call June has been homeless numerous times in her life for a number of reasons. Over time, I got to know her and eventually I learned that when she was quite young, her mother would dress her and her sister up on Saturday evenings in summer and set them out on the steps of their mobile home in the park, and then men would come by and pay the mother and then do things to the girls. Their mother was an alcoholic. She would beat the girls and scream at them. They grew up constantly afraid, and as adults they have struggled to navigate life. Looking at June, you would have no way to know this. And people have often blamed her for the way that she behaves, not knowing what's going on. Now I tell her story to you not to shock you, but to try to help you understand how some of the people that we as services providers work with have huge, very complex treatment resistant challenges. I'm concerned with H94, H594, that we might be moving toward a system where some decisions are made and sanctions are applied by state employees who don't have the training and real experience that allows them to understand the people they're serving. I'm concerned that we might be moving toward a process that is very prescriptive. A person must do specific things, and if they don't, they'll be out in the cold. Homelessness is traumatic in and of itself. Think of what it would be like to have no place to go, no door to lock, no roof over your head, no shelter from the weather, no kitchen, no bathroom. People who are homeless are often robbed, assaulted, raped, and even murdered. Their health is at risk due to lack of clean water and safe food storage. And for us to expect that someone coming out of this is going to be able to move from point A to point B to point C in a linear timely manner. It's just not realistic. Now I agree that we need to get people off of our streets, we need to stop the disruption that causes us in our communities, and we need to do that in a more cost effective manner than the hotel room, which mushroomed during the pandemic. And we can do that. We are doing that. What shelter providers do and the way we do it is working, but we need to do more of it, we need sufficient funding to do it, and we need sufficient housing that meets the varied needs of the individuals we work with. We don't need to create any new system, the one we have works. We need to be able to approach each person as an individual and work to best help them move forward in whatever way can work for them. It takes time, but it's about building relationships and building trust. That is what works, and I think that if we can fund this more fully, we'll see a lot of really great success. Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you very much, Jean. I appreciate you being here. So now we're going to move to questions for any of the witnesses that we've had here this afternoon. And I just want to be respectful of people's time. We'll hopefully do this over the next forty minutes or so. And we'll start off with Representative Steady. My question would be you. I missed where Jean was from. That's all. It's right on your agenda.

[Brenda Steady]: Oh, I was looking for a testimony.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I was just going ask Jean if she could, if you could submit your testimony in writing Jean, that would be good.

[Jean Montross]: Yeah, I'll be happy to do that. Thank you.

[Chad Simmons]: Yeah,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: yeah. Just That's okay. Okay, so I'm gonna start us off. So I seem to hear a theme among several of the witnesses that it would be premature to end access to hotels before replacement of them occurs in some fashion, whether through shelters or SROs or types of shelters, different types of housing, permanent housing, hopefully. Did I assess that correctly, I guess, is the question. Feel free. Okay, so I'm seeing nods from people. Okay. One of the things that I am thinking about is a number of you also talked about specialized services and even specialized types of shelters. And recognizing that there's a need for some of that, it's probably illogical to think that we would be able to do that in every region of the state where you all come from and others as well. So I'm just curious on what feedback that you might have about how, for instance, if we implore the Department of Mental Health to have more specialty based housing. And honestly, I think we need to implore them to have housing period for people with mental health challenges that they're kind of getting out of doing. So we'll be able to ask them that question tomorrow. But I'm just interested in your advice about our our inabilities, really, to be able to fund some of the specialty types of shelters or housing in every region of the state. I mean, what are your thoughts about that? Anybody can go first.

[Julie Bond]: I'd like to speak with that,

[Jean Montross]: if I might. A number of us have been talking through the summer after the experience that we all had with H91, and we believe that we can create a of a little bit of a roadmap. We know that we don't need and can't afford every type of shelter in every area, But I think that getting together and also speaking with the people at the Homeless and Housing Alliance of Vermont, I think we could probably come back to you fairly soon with suggestions about what types of shelter and where. And if my colleagues disagree with me, please let me know.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Jonathan, I heard you, I saw you unmute and then Angus has something here too.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: Okay, thank you. Yes, I think that we do need to talk to our colleagues about supplying that sort of housing. I think there's a two pronged approach. One is something I spoke about earlier, which is creating the inroads to existing systems. There are barriers to those systems that are hard for, again, our shelter staff who are not medical folks to understand how to get somebody into a long term treatment bed, how to access the resources at SHEP five up at UVM. So the first prong is those care coordinators who can understand the challenge and help feed people into existing places, there are some beds open for treatment in and around the state. A second approach could be some regional shelters for specialized care. So these would be not unlike a Valley Vista, right, where somebody does have to go get admitted and go into a specialized care shelter. So perhaps a few of those specialized care sites around the state could be an option.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Angus.

[Angus Cheney]: Thanks. I want to defer to my colleagues on what would work best once somebody is homeless and experiencing some of those needs. And I want to flag particularly for the committee dealing with human services broadly that I think this is two parts and it's one, how do we connect people who are already homeless with these systems of care? But there's a much, there's a more aspirational goal which is part of it, but we really get us where we want to be long term, which is what needs to happen in those other systems of care to prevent somebody ever getting to this point. I don't think you want a future state in which you go to cots to get access to residential treatment. That's not the goal. We might have to do things in the short term that aren't our ideal future state, but let's not let go of what we want it to look like. But I think Burlington and Central Vermont are probably farther along in the details of what would work there.

[Chad Simmons]: I wanted to defer to them.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, thank you. Another thing that I heard was that I heard this from a couple of the witnesses today that congregate shelter isn't always the best option for some people. And one of the options that's been envisioned both last year and this year, and I think in the governor's proposal is essentially conversion of one or more hotels to be run as shelters. So essentially people would have single room occupancy, but they would be essentially run as a shelter. So they would have access to sort of the case management and not just referral to services, because I 100% agree with you, Jonathan, about referral doesn't necessarily work for everybody that we're talking about who've already got complex lives already. I'm just curious about your thoughts about that. One, because it seems to address some of the issues of hotels, but also allowing for personal space, but then also at the same time potentially having the benefit of a more formal shelter system. So Roxanne, I see you have your hand up and then Chad. Okay. So Roxanne and then Chad.

[Roxanne Crowley]: Thank you. Actually, that is, I love that you brought that up. When that $10,000,000 was available, a couple years back, that was actually our big hope down here. There was a motel here with several rooms that was available, and we wanted to grab that and use those rooms. Why? Because it's not a congregate setting. They have their individual units. I'll use that word. And we would have all of our services on-site, so we wouldn't have to refer out. And we'd also have the space for community partners like that dealt with substance abuse or mental health. We'd have room, you know, space there for them to come to them instead of referring out. That was literally like the dream I had of what we could do with that space. Unfortunately, it sold and we didn't get the money.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know. I would be we wasn't a lack of trying.

[Roxanne Crowley]: No. I know. That is honest. That is honestly one of the best solutions and and with that money that I have right now for BCH, that is what I'm I I just keep praying something else like that's going to come up. Obviously, that's not going be enough money what we have. But that is like one of the best answers right there because they're small units. They'll be more easily converted than trying to convert, you know, a house. I mean, there's not that many properties that are big enough to really convert into a whole lot of units, but a motel already is.

[Chad Simmons]: Gotcha, thank you. Chad? Yeah, it's a good question. So it has been happening over the last number of years, especially since we've had greater resources through VHCb. They've been able to turn a number of hotels into single occupancy rooms. And so I think that there is a number through Champlain Housing Trust, Windham Wounds and Housing Trust have been able to facilitate the conversion of those. And I would note that I think Champlain or Windham Windsor Housing Trust is kind of expanding on that using the properties that might have extra land to then build permanent affordable housing. I would also just say, just kind of piggybacking off of some of the things that Roxanne was saying is like how tremendously skilled our providers are. They have to be developers as well as provide services for folks. These are complex systems that they have to navigate in terms of acquiring land, getting the permitting required, and then finding the capital to build these properties. So I just wanna echo the need for a multi year approach when looking at investing to be able to do that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I definitely hear that, and we certainly have some of that expertise on our committee. Can you clarify something, Todd?

[Todd Nielsen]: Yeah, sorry, so the work that's been happening with the single occupancy unit, do those come with services or are those just rental?

[Chad Simmons]: Yes, think each of those properties work with local communities, so just off the top of my head, Windham Housing Trust works socially designated with care and rehabilitation services, and then with Groundworks collaborative as well. So I think there's a collaboration that differs from region to region.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Roxanne,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Donahue. Thanks, yes. I wonder if people could weigh in on how you would define the word shelter. It just seems to me that there's enormous range of what's called shelter and maybe we need to break it out into terms. Mean, we've got we've got everything from when the Red Cross puts cots in a gymnasium because of flooding versus individual, you know, almost like describing with the hotel, semi SRO, if you will, with supportive services being the key to it being different from just hotel rooms, but having an actual program. And is that the breadth of how you see it being used now? Is that usable, workable to

[Esme Cole]: weigh in on that? Think shelters, yes, have emergency in terms of weather related things, and they're very, very temporary, flash created. And then there's some of these housing shelters that are not based on vouchers or anything like that. There's a spectrum of housing, We're talking about being for temporary or emergency housing shelter. I think that's important to know is that the shelter system has traditionally been considered a ninety day program, for example, you get in, you get bearings, you're as close as you get out. And a lot

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: of people, I think, in the public would never imagine a shelter as being a ninety day program.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right now the

[Esme Cole]: average is more like four hundred days a year, right? So it becomes more like a permanent or a temporary permanent housing, and that's where we're struggling. It is not voucher related to us, right? So we do not receive rents for income that way, that is why it's having a different funding structure than permanent supportive housing, for example, that relies on other ways to fund and provide services and more of a permanent nature for those who the traditional affordable housing or traditional housing in the market will not be a successful model. It just will not, unless you'll see a return to homelessness if that is where the placement ends up. That's helpful. Thanks.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And it looked like Jonathan had his hand up and then he took it down. Do you have it back up?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I mean, I would add to my question, just the difference in the word shelter between people assuming it means overnight versus it being a twenty four hour program.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: Think it was Julie who was speaking, it's hard to see.

[Esme Cole]: Yes.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: Did a good job in sort of laying that out. Yes, there's a wide range shelter and I think at least in the context of my own testimony, I talk about shelter, I'm talking about like a HOP funded shelter program. And you know, for us we operate four of those. We have 117 shelter beds that are all program shelters, that come with expectations of engagement. A small number of them are 20 fourseven. Well, family shelters are 20 fourseven, so people live there. We have a small number of beds for individuals. Our way station shelter is an overnight program only, and it is coupled with our day station. So that sort of gives you the 20 fourseven component. Cold weather emergency shelter, I think, is a little more self explanatory. It pops up for short durations when temperatures plummet to zero degrees.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. I'm gonna ask you, Representative Bishop, but I might ask one question while I'm remembering it because I almost forgot it. Everybody described service coordinationcase management as an integral component of the ability for people to get the support that they need, understand how to apply for other services and supports that may be there, as well as sort of that transitioning to permanent and then permanent housing, and even the supports after that transition into permanent housing. So we have a lot of agencies that provide that sort of broad definition of services, of case management slash and I don't like the term case management, but service coordination or whatever it is you want to call it. But some people call it housing navigation in this world, and other people call it different things. I'm just trying to get a sense of both what's funded by the state for those particular kinds of services, and what is then funded by the COCs specifically, because I know that's a component of the funding that is received there. So I'm going to ask Chad first, I guess. Do you contract out? Does HHS contract out to some of these same organizations and others for case management services or housing navigation or some label of support with the money that you receive directly from HUD?

[Chad Simmons]: So we do not. So the money that comes through HHS goes right back. So we don't actually administer programs. No, but

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, are you contracting out for case management? I don't mean for you, but you're sending it out. Is that one of the functions that you are funding when you send money out?

[Chad Simmons]: No, those are the providers that do that. They contract the housing navigation, or they do the housing navigation. So the plans that come to us, the funding that comes to us, that we're just an applicant aggregate, we administer, or we get the funds back out to the community. So the communities are the ones making.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think I'm not being clear. So the proposals that you get in from all of the coalitions, do they contain case management as one of the components of what they're sending to you to send up the HUD to then come back to us and then back out to them?

[Chad Simmons]: Julie, it's been

[Esme Cole]: It depends what entities apply for that money around state, through the human care balance of state, what the key elements are that are fundable. And then likely some of that is programming that is supportive in terms of case management. Not everybody is funded that way. Much of the money comes from the HOF program. And yes, that is where essential services, case management, housing navigation, housing retention, homelessness prevention is funded. But both and it just depends what one's funding sources are. Okay, thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, it would be helpful, Chad, and we don't have maybe Jonathan can help us access the Chittenden County folks. To know how much is coming into the state from HUD directly, not through state appropriation and is going back out?

[Chad Simmons]: Ours is, the balance of state is 6,500,000.0.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: 6,500,000.0. Okay, do you know what the Chittenden County is?

[Chad Simmons]: I don't know off the top of my head and not know if anyone's.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, and part of that 6.5 I'm presuming is held back for administrative and operation of the HMIS and stuff? Yes,

[Chad Simmons]: that part is administrative and then the training and kind of coordination role of the company.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, so we'd love to see a breakout of that. Sure. Thank you. And then if we could get it from, who is the coordinator for the Chittenden County one? Oh, you took your hand down, Jonathan, you don't wanna answer that question?

[Jonathan Ferrell]: No, I can answer that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: Chittenden County Homeless Alliance, so that's the Chittenden County COC, the projects are very specific by service agencies. So COTS, for example, does not apply for that funding, but we serve on the committee that ranks the projects to submit to HUD. Some of those programs provide case management, but they are usually distinct projects like permanent supportive housing or steps to end domestic violence have projects that are HUD funded through the COC. I'd be happy to grab the breakdown of the most recent HUD NOFO that would illustrate the service providers who were awarded that funding. And you are correct, a certain portion of it does fund the sort of administration of the continuum of care in Chittenden, so things like coordinated entry system, there's a part time staff person right now. So some of those are funded through the HUD funding.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Jonathan. That would be great if you could get a copy of that to us. Okay. And we had representative Bishop and then it looks like representative Maguire sort of has his hand up.

[Doug Bishop]: So I'm just trying to wrap my head around a question of numbers that aren't adding up. And that is that if we look at the point in time count, it's roughly 3,400 people from last year, or if you look at coordinated entry, 4,400 people varies over the course of the year. The most recent DCF housing report has six forty nine shelter beds. Whether we look at age five ninety four or the governor's plan where he outlines family specific sheltering options, domestic violence, sexual violence, shelters, medical vulnerable sheltering options, substance use. There's a huge disconnect between the number of people who need to be served, and I'm struggling to see how we'd even estimate the timeline as we could move people towards this type of sheltering capacity, or certainly we all know the struggles of permanent housing. So I don't know if anyone has any thoughts to help me along in this, but I just can't even begin to guess how we can set a timeline as we wrap legislation that would be realistic.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think it looks like Chad's raising his hand, but I also think that's a really good question for our witnesses tomorrow when we look at the agency of human services who has the responsibility for developing a plan, which I'm sure that they're listening. I'm going to give them credit because they actually came with a plan this year, which is

[Doug Bishop]: If I could just add. I referenced the six forty nine shelter beds for sort of the historic shelter providers and not at all as criticism how that's not matching the need because I know the struggles that each of you goes through adding five beds, 10 beds, 20 beds is a huge lift. And that's why I'm struggling to make your saddle. So I guess that was the statement more than

[Angus Cheney]: the question.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's okay. Rutland Maguire.

[Eric Maguire]: Yeah, just what we thank you so much. To a couple of concerns from Jenna, I'm gonna make this very, very Jean, sorry. Your concerns will not occur. I agree with them all 100%, they will not occur. Second piece, here is my concern with 94.

[Angus Cheney]: 594.

[Eric Maguire]: 594. Jeez. Currently at this time, Rutland County is utilized or excuse me, let me rephrase that. Rutland City. Those numbers for Rutland County for hotel utilization is not counting. That is Rutland City. Currently two thirty hotel rooms, GA voucher rooms, we only have 24 shelter. My greatest concern is that the hotel utilization will be de facto strictly to Rutland. That's a concern that I have. We don't have and people have spoken here about regional equity. People speaking about what are the community needs and equitably being able to establish that. And I hope that the providers will support and making sure that we also get regional equity involved with hotel deferment. Does everybody understand kind of where I'm at with this? And I know a great colleague behind me Angus can attest to this. And I can attest to it now as a shelter operator for Brock. And that's if we are going to continue to utilize and I agree wholeheartedly, there is no way we can go down to zero hotel utilization. But I believe that as we begin to implement and expand infrastructure, give you folks the tools that you need, continue to give those tools you need, expand it, I believe we're gonna see a greater progression on out. But I do wanna repeat that, that I'm gonna also do everything in my power to also not make sure all hotels are de facto back to Rutland. So I hope we can all be in agreement to regional equity and distribution and working together within this. Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Rep. Sam Maguire. Rep. Sam Noyes.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yeah. Just a question to our witnesses today around older Vermonters and where they find themselves in in this situation, homelessness. And do you think we need a separate, like, rack or I don't even know what to call it. But, like, should we be thinking of how we provide services to older providers separately from and what do you think that might look like? Just it's probably a bigger topic than we have time for today, but yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Roxanne, if she had something to say and then Jonathan.

[Roxanne Crowley]: I personally have a lot to say on that matter because my background where I originated was in adult care. My degree is in geriatrics. It is breaking my heart on a daily basis to see how many elderly people are coming to shelter. We cannot meet their needs. We can't help them. What are we going to do for an elderly person who no longer can work? They're receiving the max benefits they can in all areas. They're not able to go live alone anymore, or if they can, they won't be for long. We need more adult homes, we need more assisted living homes, we need more nursing homes. And if they're not going to be privately owned, that is something that the state is really needs to look at. I'm tearing up right now because I'll tell you that that alone is what help what keeps me from sleeping at night. It breaks my heart. Right now, in half in in the last year or so, it's almost half or more of our people that are calling for intakes or actually staying on our shelter that are elderly, and we only have one ADA room downstairs. So anyone who can't go upstairs on their own cannot come to our shelter. That means they are hopefully getting a motel room or they're on the streets. Children, elderly, and veterans should no one should ever be on the streets. But when we're talking about those three populations, if I know it, I speak for every one of us here today, it is heartbreaking.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: Jonathan? Yes, well said Roxanne, thank you. We are seeing an uptick in the number of elderly guests who are coming to the day station and looking to get into the way station shelter. We're fortunate we just launched a brand new facility. It's one level, it's accessible, there's new bathrooms And folks struggle with that. We do still have top bunks, you know, we set we still have bunk settings, some of our folks cannot access a top bunk, we've made every modification we can to eliminate top bunks, we still need them. This goes back to the piece I spoke about care coordination, because we do need to get, you know, for example, folks either funded by Dale or from Dale, the Department of Aging and Independent Living to be at the shelters to create relationships with our guests, to help understand what we can get them into. Nursing home care, nursing home adjacent care, it's a complex system to navigate, understand how it gets paid for, how to bill for it, how somebody's benefits can be used or can't be used. That's the sort of care coordination that I'm really talking about that we really need to get those folks out here with us to understand the scope of the problem, help us utilize existing beds effectively. I understand there are some empty beds around the state. How do we make best use of the existing systems and build more?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Jonathan. I'm just gonna ask in your neck of the woods, do you see AgeWell, Agency the on Aging, do you see them at your place?

[Jonathan Ferrell]: On occasion, we can get them to us, right? And more specifically, for folks who are in our housing units who are aging in place, there's a good spot for AgeWell to help assist people stay in their housing. We also work with UVM's Home Health and Hospice. It used to be called the Visiting Nurses Association. So Home Health and Hospice routinely visit our tenants who are also aging in place. But we have unsheltered elderly folks and elderly folks who are in our shelter that really need the, how do we get them somewhere where they can be served if it's not their own housing? Because some of them, as Roxanne has said, can't live on their own, can't afford it on their own.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. That is part of the charge of the Area Agencies on Aging, particularly with the Choices for Care program, which I know a number of people qualify for. But Roxanne, it looks like you had something to say on this topic additionally. I

[Roxanne Crowley]: do just want to add one more thing. I will say to what Jonathan just said, VCCI, we are very fortunate that we do have the nurses that come in to help because that that I don't know what we would do without them. And now I just lost my turn of thought for a second. I am so sorry. Oh, no. Our extreme cold weather shelter that we've opened up the past four nights and tonight, two two of the gentlemen that have showed up trudged over from wherever they have found during the day are both frail elderly gentlemen. So, I mean, it's just they should not be out there ever, but especially in this weather. So that really hit is hitting home for right now too, that two of the men that, thankfully, when we open up, they're the first two through the door right now in this extreme cold weather.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But, Eric, some noise. Did you have a follow-up?

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: No. Sorry. Just I know they're eligible for choices for care if they're

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no, I just had a follow-up because you had

[Esme Cole]: a question. You asked my question.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, that was it. Okay. Addison?

[Eric Maguire]: Yeah, I just wanted to respond to

[Angus Cheney]: that same question. I think it's really important. The data that we can get through the PICCAF, report entry, it's a great indicator for where systems are under pressure, and starting at the beginning of the pandemic that was the sync of our, if you break it into sort of either decennial age groups, or if you look at where the growth is, the older, failed Vermonters with the population have really ticked up. Whereas historically in Vermont the average person experiencing homelessness was very young, a lot of families with kids. That has shifted and we are seeing it because a lot of these programs are still run out of DCF, there may still be a commitment to looking at families with kids first and like who wants to choose, I'm not suggesting that we don't do that, but it's really important we get something more robust for older Vermonters who are experiencing homelessness. And I'd say there's two promising things out there. One is I'm seeing Dale engage with this issue more than they ever have. I think the commissioner and deputy commissioner are much more committed. We had the deputy commissioner come down to Rutland and continue to meet with us and explain what's available. We had Southwest Council agent come to our organization last or this month, but those programs are hard to access and they're hard to understand. So the same person who's most in need of them is going to have a hard time understanding the options.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would agree 100% with you, Angus, about the access. And we've been pushing Dale for the last two years hard to be out there and not anyways, just we've been pushing them to get out there. And I think that one of the things there is the Choices for Care program, people eligible for long term care Medicaid that can get access. But getting through that process is onerous. Even if you don't have anything, you have to prove that you don't have anything. And so it requires people who are familiar with that. And that's not going to be your average case manager. It definitely is not. And it's not even always for people who know the system, it's not necessarily easy. But I appreciate your comments, Roxanne, about the Vermont Chronic Care Initiative. We're going to be hearing from them tomorrow as well. They're part of the Agency of Human Services. So Representative Garofano.

[Roxanne Crowley]: Have a comment.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, we've been having fun. So I don't have a question.

[Todd Nielsen]: I have a comment. And what I want to say is we've talked a lot about and I'm a huge supporter of coordinated services and service coordination and people who are experts in helping people with these very complex, navigating these complex challenges. Kind of going back to Chad's slideshow system should not be complex. And I want us to really think about that as we're getting into a markup to not continue to kind of feed this, it's so complex that we need to keep investing in people to help the people that are most vulnerable. I mean, it should be easily understood by anyone, right? So I don't want us to keep adding these layers, so we just keep adding to the need that we need more experts to help people kind of navigate these systems. It should be simple. And I understand there are certain people that need that supportive service. There's trauma, there's mental health challenges, but there is a population that is experiencing homelessness where we should be able to make a system that they should be able to understand and access on their own, That should be our goal. That should be the gold standard. So rather than creating systems that will need an assister to help understand that, because that's where our money is going to go then,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: instead of going towards the person that actually needs the services. Yeah. I agree with you that the systems don't need to be as complex as they are now. I also We have certain limitations. Yeah, I also agree that most of the people that we're talking about will need assistance to access whatever system that they might be eligible for. And honestly, any of us sitting around this table would probably need assistance the way you're set up right now.

[Esme Cole]: That's a lot about

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the failure of the system. That's like an exclamation point. Reps. Maguire.

[Doug Bishop]: I'm just gonna share quickly.

[Eric Maguire]: Yeah, I agree wholeheartedly. It's not developing like that tier, that's a continuum of care. I see getting like training and utilizing that HMIS system. Are you kidding me? I mean, about a barrier and a number, I don't know if I can make that statement, but being informed of that same thing with you Angus and getting that training and going through all that stuff. It's like, I would probably turn around and say, something, I'm gonna go stay in the tent. Not to be blunt, but that system is just cumbersome.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A lot of questions

[Todd Nielsen]: out of our hands.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That being one. So one of the things that I think maybe Angus brought up is around residency and questions around where people became homeless. I want to maybe put the I'm hoping put the residency question to bed. I would encourage people to look at our was that Friday? I think we had Katie in. She describes very clearly about what is possible and what isn't possible. So the United States Supreme Court settled this question over thirty years ago. And so I just want to say, for the record right here, you can pass it on, that you cannot have a residency requirement in order to receive basic human life sustaining services. That's it. And if you want to know the court cases and all of that, you can go back.

[Esme Cole]: Is it on Friday? Wednesday.

[Rey Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Wednesday? Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Look last week under Katie McLennan's name, and there's a summary that she did for a committee. Racial Residence

[Chad Simmons]: of Fire and Scriptures.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, on Wednesday. Oh, yeah, Doug is showing off again. Durational requirements for state, say it again, Laurie? Duration residency requirements for state. Okay. So that's on Wednesday under Katie McLinn's name. And I encourage anybody who has a question about that to read that document and pass it along to your colleagues and peers. So the other thing that was interested in understanding, and I heard one or two people mention it, and Chad just mentioned it, is this concept of multiyear funding. I can imagine it's very difficult to run shelter services not really knowing what you're going to get from one year to the next and whether your proposal will be funded or whether, like this year, the state had different priorities and they underfunded a bunch of services that really are preventing homelessness. So I'm seeing head nods when I say that. Okay, we need to guess, spend a huge amount of time confirming that. I'm curious what the folks here in the room would say would be the necessary shelter capacity in the state? And I realize that you maybe can't answer that question right now, but I would encourage you to think about that. And if you have feedback to get back to us, because the state is encouraging shelter development. Every dollar we've put into additional shelter development is being taken away from permanent housing. And so I don't know what the balance is. We're trying to understand what the balance is. And I don't know about there exists some place, sort of the shelter beds per capita or something that exists out there. If you had a system that was balanced, if anybody has that information, we would be delighted to understand it better. Yeah, Julie.

[Esme Cole]: I would just note that, sharing my testimony that we're not suggesting necessarily that all the solutions should be sheltered. No, I understand that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A lot

[Esme Cole]: of it needs to be permitted for housing because the shelters aren't meant, we're not, clinical facilities are not meant to house the folks that we're seeing. They're so complex that we need to keep shelters for what it was originally intended. And so that 4,000 that I was noting, that's sort of the pool we're talking about of ultra complex folks who are experiencing healthy needs and homelessness suicide time. That's the same thing. I mean, don't need to wrestle with this at.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Amy, did you have something you wanted to say?

[Esme Cole]: I didn't clarify any question about what you were asking for. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Can you say your name because you haven't spoke?

[Esme Cole]: Jamie Schulberger for the record. I'm here representing the cat agencies. It sounded like you said, if we give you a number of shelter beds, we have to assume we're taking that money away from permanent housing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: She said there's a finite amount of resources in the state budget. And so when we devote resources to one area, it means it's not available to devote to other things.

[Esme Cole]: I just think it's gonna be hard for this group to tell you as a trade off. I think we could give you a number of shelter beds or some proposal around the way the system could work together, I think if I can say I don't think my client would say we think that money should come away from permanent housing. So it's just like an almost impossible question to answer if it's framed in that way, and

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just wanted to clarify what you're really asking for. So I'm not meaning to ask an impossible question,

[Angus Cheney]: but I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: also am Somebody stated at the outset, might have been Jonathan. I'm not sure who stated it. But if we don't know what our goal is, how are you going to measure your success towards achieving that goal? And so obviously, our goal will be to eliminate unsheltered homelessness, to eliminate people precariously housed. That would be wonderful. I am also trying to be realistic that that's probably not going to happen in the next two to three years. But we see an intense focus in the governor's, what he's calling a housing proposal on shelter development. And so I'm just trying to figure out, is that going to get us to I'm not going say optimum. Is that going to get us to a realistic number? Would we instead of perhaps say that maybe some of that should go towards more supportive housing for people with mental health challenges? Instead of having the Department of Mental Health look at shelter development, maybe not instead of, but maybe in addition to. So I'm just trying to figure out if we're looking at getting to the government accountability aspect of what we're trying to do and making sure that whatever resources that we have at our disposal, that the ultimate goal of reducing the impact of homelessness on people in the state of Vermont is actually being achieved. So where we divide up, even if we were to say we were able to keep all the current resources that we have, where we divide that up and how we use it is really strategic. We had to be strategic about And I think it's important to understand that. And I do need to be also honest that people who may become expecting additional funding, we are gonna be hard pressed to keep what it is that we have in the system right now. I just need to be honest about that. Because that's not what the governor is proposing in his budget. So I think that we're trying to be solutions focused, but recognizing it's an extremely complex, multifaceted issue that we're dealing with because we're dealing with human beings who are complex creatures. And you're particularly complex when you have no place to you don't know where you're going to get your next meal or you don't know where you're going to lay your head down at night, in addition to all the other things that they might have going on in their lives. So I realize that was sort of a roundabout way of trying to answer your question, and I'm I'm not expecting people to, you know, like, choose one thing over another. I just was curious about what people's thoughts were. You know? So we we're at 649. Are we shooting for 950? Are we shooting you know, would that be comfortable enough to then deal with, you know, the would that provide enough cushion in order to be able to deal with more permanent and transitional housing? Recognizing that right now, it's not ninety days. It's more like a year or more that people are in shelters. And one thing I have heard from housing people is that they would love to get more referrals from people who've actually been in a shelter for a while because they have a better understanding of rents and understanding, they've been through receiving supportive services in the meantime. So yeah, Amy, and then Jonathan.

[Esme Cole]: I just wanted to say thanks for clarifying and I think I speak for everyone. We want to be collaborative. We want to have a goals focused, solution focused method. I will say, I think the CAPS at least say the system has been radically underfunded for many years and that's a sense of challenge for everyone. And so, we're all going to do our best and that needs to be settled.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Jonathan?

[Jonathan Ferrell]: I just wanted to say, I think as you spoke, I got to the point of the questions like what's the right balance of shelter beds to create that will get us toward the goal of not needing those shelter beds. And I think I'm gonna sort of speak for my colleagues in shelter provision. If we could sort of regroup and maybe discuss that a little bit and get back to the committee, we could probably come up with a a pretty decent estimate based on our various various regions.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate that, Jonathan. All right. Any final questions for our witnesses this afternoon? Yeah, it was very helpful. I do want to just say that we've extended the invitation to other folks who said it's a very busy time for y'all. So I again want to thank you for being here. But if there are any of your colleagues who this week, we'll figure out how to fit them in if they're able to testify. I don't want to be accused at the end of this of not inviting testimony from anybody who wants to testify. Okay? Alright. Thank you all so much for being here. We really appreciate you.

[Eric Maguire]: You're welcome. And everybody, thank you so much.

[Esme Cole]: Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you so much. Appreciate it.

[Jonathan Ferrell]: Bye now.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Bye bye. Take care. Okay, folks, we are not adjourned yet. Are you standing steady? We are not adjourned. I'm just letting the wind I know, well, we're getting close. Okay, so I just want to tee up tomorrow. So tomorrow we are having the Agency of Human Services here. And like they are doing with the homelessness and housing project. They're bringing the whole cadre of commissioners to talk about the agency human services budget and how they develop that budget. So that's in the morning. In the afternoon, we are going to be hearing from another whole cadre of witnesses on H594, all from the administration pretty much.

[Esme Cole]: Are they all from the administration?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, because then it's the next day that we're dealing with people with lived experience. But we're doing that in Room 11. So just in case you didn't hear that when I mentioned it earlier. So at one that was a suggestion from one of our coordinating people. And again, you saw that Lori had printed for us ask you to make sure, if you haven't done it already, to read the housing section on this. That is what our testimony is gonna be on tomorrow. Okay? And so if you haven't done it, that's your homework for tonight.

[Doug Bishop]: We know whether in the morning all of these folks from AHS will be attending in person, or are they going to be up on the screen?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They attended in person downstairs or will be. I know in the afternoon they're all gonna be here, so my guess is they're probably gonna be spending the day.

[Doug Bishop]: In quarters.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I don't know. But we have a room for the afternoon, but we have this space for the morning.

[Doug Bishop]: Sounds good.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Anybody have any questions about that? Okay, and just to remind people, we're going to be moving towards markup next week on fiveninety four. And I would encourage people to look at H 91 and to look at the governor's proposal and to look at five ninety four. And I think you're gonna see a mishmash of components. Some components, of if you haven't read the governor's proposal, might look very familiar to you because they were in H91. And some of them are different. And certainly timelines are different and how they're implemented are different. But this gives you some idea. And the reason we need to move this through, because we have H-six 60 that we have to do, which is the Opioid Settlement Fund. We're going to hear testimony on that this week. And we also have what I'm calling an omnibus DCF bill that is going to have multiple chunks of different things that are up on the wall and some that aren't up on the wall that are going to be in a DCF bill that, again, will need to move before crossover. Yeah.

[Doug Bishop]: A very beginner question. I don't know where I would find the governor's proposal for House.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, you do right here.

[Doug Bishop]: It's in here.

[Angus Cheney]: Okay. Well, that's

[Jonathan Ferrell]: what I thought.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's not like one size full package overview and then you and then you That's it.

[Angus Cheney]: That's what I thought. Yeah. I thought maybe there's a place.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is they, it's in here, it's spread out, but you need to kind of look at it.

[Doug Bishop]: All right, yep.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's better, it's, yeah. I appreciate the AHS wide focus, which we heard today needs to be something that is broader than just DCF, which is of course what we have been preaching in here for a long time. Okay, anybody have any questions about what's up for tomorrow? And right now, I am anticipating that we are likely to go over the time that we've allotted in the morning. Which is a good time. Yes. We will be You can do individual work on your budgets. So meeting as teams and starting to formulate your questions and making sure that you're reviewing the memo that came out from stations around questions that they'd like us to sort of dig deep into. And speaking of appropriations, hopefully you've seen the one pager that they put out as a summary. And hopefully, you can see that pretty much our recommendations were accepted downstairs. So I think what I am trying to convey is that the work that we do here is important to what appropriations ends up doing. And so the recommendations, particularly, I think, we took it very seriously in terms of really trying to prioritize the things that we felt were most important, they ended up agreeing with. And so just appreciation for the work that we all spent on putting that together. Do people have any I realize we're sort of at the beginning stages of your budget work, but do any individual teams have any questions that anybody here can be helpful with, other colleagues? I realize you're just getting started on some of that. Go ahead, Brenda. I got Anne. I'm all solid. And Anne has a question.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Not a question from New

[Esme Cole]: York, probably from CWIS, whatever you call it. You need

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to look at page 112, which identifies, you know, almost $2,000,000 directly of lost federal of lost funding

[Esme Cole]: from Oh, yes. From the fact that we don't have a functional system.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And that they are not proposing that we Try to resolve. No.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: They're just striking the state funds that were in the budget because we can't get the federal matching funds because we don't have a system.

[Chad Simmons]: When I said

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: almost 2,000,000, it's actually closer to 4,000,000. Right.

[Esme Cole]: That's a fiftyfifty match. Right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And as we heard on Friday, we passed up the opportunity to update our system when it was ninety ten. I'm interested in people's thoughts or feedback about how Friday afternoon went in terms of the joint meeting with House Energy and Digital Infrastructure. That was the first time we've had a joint meeting with them. I really appreciated it, because

[Esme Cole]: I think

[Chad Simmons]: that their

[Todd Nielsen]: ones are very different than ours. So it was helpful to be able to ask both sides of the questions, more like the policy and then the actual nuts and bolts of the So that was really helpful to me, as far as the content and what was presented, it was disappointing because we continue to underfund or not fund something that it's safety.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead, Jen.

[Doug Bishop]: Regarding the content, I would share, professor Garofano's sense that I didn't feel there was a it was not conveyed to us the burning sense of urgency on the problem that I might have thought we might hear. But with respect to working with the other committee, one of the committee members afterwards approached me and expressed some concerns about what we heard and then seemed to share that he thought our committee was dealing with it. So I guess question jurisdictionally where things rest. I was left a little confused whether this is ADS, is it us?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So the funding, you might have heard the deputy secretary. I'm like, she looks familiar to me because she used to be a DIVA.

[Esme Cole]: She was commissioner at DIVA.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it's the responsibility of DCF to obtain or allocate the funding for a project that is based in their department. So that would be our jurisdiction. So if we are seeing a need to continue development of the new system, then that is something that we have to take up here. And that is in Brenda and Anne's jurisdiction because that's the family services division. So they would be responsible then for the ongoing sort of kind of like what we did together, sort of the monitoring of the ongoing development of the system. What are the issues that ADS is having in terms of negotiating an agreement? Like we heard, they're in the process of negotiating right now, so they couldn't release any sort of details. But they do have some funding that has been set aside. I think that we'll need to find out more in our committee about what's the timeline? Where are you going? What is the timeline for making improvements? And will run part of that system simultaneous with the current system? We heard from ADS and from DCF, any change is likely to cause the kind of thing that happened in December with three days being down. Any change that they have to do because the system is so old.

[Esme Cole]: And we better be prepping for it instead

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of reacting. Instead of just reacting to it. Yeah. So our committee

[Doug Bishop]: What what is it? Short answer. Is it DCF or ADS? I thought it was DCF who is put out the RFP and is getting the and is reviewing bids. Is that correct? It's DCF?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: ABS does the procurement process.

[Doug Bishop]: They do.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: DCF outlines the workflow and what do they need, the scope of work. But ABS actually does the procurement process of contractors and bidders.

[Doug Bishop]: And so if we had any budget language outside of any dollars, we may change. But if we had any budget language, if any of it's for ADS, would that have to be our colleagues on our sister committee It who would

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: depends upon what you might be thinking of.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: If

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it's about appropriating dollars, then no, they don't need. But if it's about ADS's workflow, then of course we would want to work with them. Doesn't mean that we both couldn't do it. Like, imagine we both will have something to say about the food bank with our colleagues across the hall, like we did last year. Yeah.

[Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: The situation is just like the transportation issues we're having now in Vermont with the funding and being able to meet our match with the feds and the impact it's gonna have on our communities. Losing money because of Losing money. It's just like the parallels are right there. We're be dealing with this for a while.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So just open kind of I want to, I guess I'm looking because it's shared to help clarify. Asked a question the other day about don't we have 30,000,000 there? And everybody looked like, what? No, of course not. And I want to explain where I came up with that

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That would be good. And I was curious.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because, and maybe I need to check with Nolan and see if I'm like totally off the wall by recollection. When we, I think it was three years ago, maybe two years ago, when we advocated to get 7,000,000 in there, which would then be matched federally, My recollection at that time is there had been an equivalent amount or something close to that in the VCF budget, you know, on the carry forward funds. And my interpretation was we were adding to it as opposed to those were already lost and we're putting in. And I tried to ask, I tried to ask Nolan, I tried to like, I wanted to reassure myself that we were adding to it, not just, you know, sort of restoring it. And I kinda, it kind of felt like I was being told yes, but I didn't really understand how it worked and I didn't pursue it. But that's why I thought we had third issue, because there had been some carryover and I guess it got lost in the process of what happens to carryover and I misunderstood that we got to keep it.

[Doug Bishop]: Batman came and got

[Angus Cheney]: it. BAA came in.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The bottom line, you know.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The bottom line is there's only seven figures, yes. And

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: so, the maximum would be 15. Right, right.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But that's why I wasn't totally off the wall and throwing out, I thought it was 30. It was just, it was recollection of something that I never locked in that I was reading it right, and obviously it was not right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Gotcha. Thanks. That's helpful. Okay. Thanks.