Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Welcome back, folks. We are picking back up on seven sixty six, drafting request twenty six seven sixty six. We are on page eight, section two. Now we're getting to the meat of beginning meat of the bill. So take it away, Katie. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So the section 2,202 establishes a program. The Vermont Homelessness Response Continuum is established to create an array of services that prevent and address homelessness in Vermont. The program shall be administered by the Department's Office of Economic Opportunities. The Department shall maintain a continuum of care that is flexible, housing focused and designed to prevent homelessness whenever possible. The continuum shall prioritize early intervention, rapid resolution of housing crises and equitable access to emergency and permanent housing. Then 20 two-three is the continuum of care components. This is where we have our list of what is in the continuum. It shall consist of the following services: prevention and diversion services, emergency housing services, shelter services, specialized shelter services, permanent supportive housing services, and other services as necessary. So the format of the bill for the next few sections tracks those each of those lines. You'll see we kind of There's a place where we kind of aren't following it as closely, but at least for the first four, we're following along.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I'm just wondering, since we say the continuum care shall consist of the following services, we don't need services in each one of those things.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Sure.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right? Or we just say of the following and we leave services either way? Do you have a preference? Uh-huh. My preference is just, like, just ended up following. Okay. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Then in b, the office of economic opportunity shall address each of the services in subsection a of this section by separate line items in its budget. The department shall be responsible for any transfers to other Agency of Human Services departments necessary to implement the services listed in subsection A of this section. The department and other departments within the Agency of Human Services shall maximize federal receipts as applicable for services listed in subsection a of this section. So I just wanna flag that in the first sentence, have OEO. Yeah. And then you switch to the department. So maybe it's just worth flagging for now. Well, in b, that really is accurate. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But I did I put under b Yep. Up above. In twenty two zero two, I changed that to office. Okay. Right. But it is the department who initiates interdepartmental transfers. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And maximizing federal receipts in third sentence is also Yes. Department. Yes.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Okay. So

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: now we come to twenty two zero four, which is the first item in that list that we just went over

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: in the continuum. Just before we move there, I just want to make sure that we had some brief discussion about it. But I'm on the top of page nine, where we're talking about maximizing federal receipts. So in some of these cases, I do believe in some of the substance use and potentially some of the Dale services that are envisioned here, we should be able to utilize global commitment in some fashion for at least part of it. So that will take some work. So I just wanted to call people's attention to that. That's all. And we've been joined by our friend from Appropriations. Hello, representative Lamoille.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Hello, friends.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hi, again, do want me to come in? Now I'll

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: move to prevention and diversion. Prevention and diversion services shall function as the primary entry point to the Vermont homelessness response continuum for all households. The department shall ensure that prevention and diversion services are provided through an agreement with one or more community partners throughout the state. The households, upon request for assistance, shall receive a standardized prevention and diversion assessment to identify safe alternatives to homelessness and resolve immediate housing barriers. Prevention includes activities to avert entry into homelessness, including financial assistance, landlord mediation and legal assistance. Diversion includes problem solving interventions and supports that safely resolve a housing crisis without the use of shelter or hotel placements. Funds administered for prevention and diversion services shall have maximum flexibility.

[Unknown committee member]: I just wanted to flag the safely resolves a housing crisis without the use of a shelter or hotel placement, And just wanna make sure that these flexible funds would be available to someone if all the other options were result, you know, were, you know, all the shelters were full, all the other things, there were not other resources. So they were housed in a hotel, but maybe after eight days they find another solution that may, you know, maybe they need some financial resources that this wouldn't prevent them, this language wouldn't prevent them from being able to use those flexible funds?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I have a question about that. The federal definition specifically says without the use of shelter services. Yeah, go ahead, Lily.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Thanks, Rutland. This is Lily. I think that, and this kind of follows up on the conversation we started to have earlier, I wonder if it's prevention diversion and then exit, like support to help people exit. And most time, I think that's what seems to me to be missing is, for instance, I think about half of our current health financial assistance goes to people who are experiencing homelessness, using the money to exit homelessness and get into housing. A small subset of that would be considered diversion, but the funding, for instance, that we currently get shelters for this, we call it diversion and rapid exit funds. I think, again, our financial assistance as a whole, you wouldn't really consider if it's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think I'd say it.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: And you can use I share some of the same

[Unknown provider/advocate]: concerns I think just brought me together. This is potentially inadvertently missing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So what I just did

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: The intention.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. What I just did, because I think we risk, if we say what they are, this is more about we've already defined them. So I'm thinking that this is more about how they're accessed in the system and about being flexible and all that. So honestly, I think about this from the state trying to implement something and say, oh, well, we didn't say exactly what we said in the definition here. So I'm just wondering if we this is a question, Katie. Since we've defined them already, do we actually even need what's on lines 13 through 16? The rest of it says that this is where we would expect people to enter the continuum because we want to see if we can prevent your homelessness or divert you from being homeless. And that they have to receive a standardized assessment in this process, blah, blah, blah, blah, and that the funds administered shall have maximum flexibility. And I wrote something about being available in all regions of the state. I added that. So I'm just wondering if I'm not sure we need to actually add definition here because we already say what it is. Prevention and diversion, both

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: are If they're slightly different, that just introduces confusion. That's my point.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I guess what I was saying is I don't see financial systems anywhere else in the bill, and I may be missing this. The way I interpret this right now is that if you have been in a shelter for nine months, you're experiencing homelessness, you have the opportunity to

[Unknown provider/advocate]: move in with your mom or get

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: into housing. You might not be eligible because that situation is not prevention or a diversion situation. So I think I agree with what you're saying, because I'm not sure of the right place of where to address that. And maybe, again, it's like diversion or exit in the definition or

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, maybe when we get to shelter services, that particular instance, we could include financial, short term financial. Although I thought that was part of

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: the services that we just listed out. I thought that's part

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of the shelter services. Financial assistance isn't necessarily part of the shelter services.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Right, in that example, it was, but if you were someone unsheltered in your car for nine months, you have the ability to get into housing.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You really being diverted? Are you being diverted? Right, and

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I would say, I don't know.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think you're being diverted. I mean, the the definition let me just pull it up.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You're not being diverted from homelessness.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You've been homelessness for a while. I yeah. I know. Yeah. I'm just gonna

[Aidan Carpenter (Zatz & Renfrow Consultants)]: send items.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm gonna just read it again. Come on. Strategy aimed at preventing homelessness, media alternative rather than entering emergency shelters, focuses on providing support and ensure homelessness is rare, brief, and nonrecurring. And it says recently lost their housing.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Is that the HUD?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is the HUD definition. Yeah. So it's maybe a different thing. I mean, it doesn't seem to really fit the diversion definition upon.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's it's not you

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: need flexible money for, but it's not Yeah. Alright. So let let's just, like, put that on the on the yeah. I was trying to think of that term, parking lot. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Could I move on to emergency housing services? Yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But I have deleted the definition where it says includes in my version. In twenty two zero four? Yes. Okay. And I think that we need to say that the department should ensure that prevention and diversion services with one or more community partners is saying throughout the state. I just want to make sure that are available in all regions of the state, instead of just saying throughout the state. Throughout the state is different than all regions? All regions of the state. Yeah. What line are you on?

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I'm

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sorry. I provided through an with one or more community. It's on the 9 and ten.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: To ensure availability throughout the Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In each region of the state. I I wanna be specific to region. And we can say yeah. I don't think we wanna say specific as county because Franklin and Grand Isle might be combined. So Okay. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: 2205, emergency housing services shall consist of. We have a list of three financial aid municipalities throughout the state to ensure equitable access to shelter without regard for eligibility when the National Weather Service declares a cold weather advisory. Services provided pursuant to the subdivision shall be time limited, shall not require coordinated entry assessment or case management, and shall have minimal data reporting requirements.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead. Is the intention that the only recipient of these funds are municipalities? In this one, yes. Municipalities need to see themselves in the bill.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But number two is

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Number two all the others. Is the other ones. Yeah. Do you have can you be more specific in your question if you have something else? Are you what are you envisioning? I'm just trying to

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: We currently have municipalities acting in that role as the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: lead. Yes,

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: do. In one, and then in two, they're playing a supportive role and or providing slaves. Right.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Aware of the space, but

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, the town of Middlebury, for instance, stood up shelter. And right now, it's kinda hit or miss about whether or not they receive any state funding. I mean, if they're if it's being done through what Interfaith Action has, they might be able to get some support. But do you fund any municipalities directly?

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: This year, the state of Vermont is not funding any of the sheltering projects directly. Funded by action, they fund the projects directly. So they are funding

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the city of Rutland directly. And then in Burlington, in Montpelier, some city resources are getting leveraged. So it's to provide some assistance. And it's not gonna mean every municipality gets money. I just wanna be clear about that.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's just a type. Yeah.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: And you're envisioning this, if for the sake of argument, interfaith action takes on a similar role in the next few years, this is outside of that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's number two.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Interfaith is number two. So So do we feel that having them funnel their work through inner faith is too burdensome or is limiting on a community's acting on an intention? I guess I'm just trying to seems like we're setting up parallel systems, and I'm just trying to understand the intention.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The intention was to reflect what's currently happy. I didn't have any other intent other than that. I I see I see the point that it's could be parallel, but I also see that it's

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I necessarily have a preference one way or the other, other than municipalities very clearly need to see themselves represented in this bill. The feedback that I'm getting.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Are they statewide?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Think that they are statewide

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: now with the grant funding that they've been receiving.

[Unknown provider/advocate]: Well, there's the I mean, you've had

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: a notice of funding for an administrator, and they were the successful bidder, and they are the operator for the whole statewide So

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: is it an intentional difference or do we need to work on number two are emergency cold weather shelters which are defined and that's the 10 degree definition under the National Weather Service forecast. But number one is for equitable access to shelter when the National Weather Service declares a cold weather advisory. I don't know what their cold weather advisory limit is, but It's colder than It's colder than town.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. It's what we've been experiencing the last three weeks. And when you get the little notice on your phone that says we're declaring a weather advisory for your area.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: So that's a technical term, a cold weather.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, it's a technical

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: term. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It means I see. There's no you don't see a temperature there because

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it's It depends on where

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: you are.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. Where you are.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: If you're way down in the South, it comes on when it's 30 degrees. Five three cold. I got a warning. In Brazil.

[Unknown provider/advocate]: I'd say.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: It's summer in Brazil.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: With respect to municipalities seeing themselves, and I like I like that concept. I'm still a little uncertain about the concern I have about parallel tracks here for these shelters. But I guess I've had the I thought the municipalities seeing themselves was more in the use of services that's called upon by we have the mayor of Rutland in, you know, in my community and others. It's the draw on EMS, fire, and police that's often been what's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. We are probably not gonna do that in this bill.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Not going to do

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not the intent. Amy

[Aidan Carpenter (Zatz & Renfrow Consultants)]: Carpenter, Zatson Renfield Consultants, would you be willing to clarify that statement about not doing that in this bill?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sure. We are not going to and I mean, this bill is intended to provide shelter and emergency housing, not to pay for police, fire, rescue. So Is that clear? Yeah. Yes. Although

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: it could could you describe a situation in which this how it would activate? How would a community a municipality actually receive money?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So no, I can't describe exactly how it

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: would Or no, just your vision. Yeah, yeah, yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But there would be each one of these buckets that are outlined here in the continuum of care. We have in the parking lot the flexible funding area, okay? It's gonna, would have a funding bucket assigned to it. So it'd have funding assigned to that area, okay? And that fund actually had that, an amount appropriated. Did you shake that out, Katie? Amount is set.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I think it's later. Oh,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: it's I have it all in one section. Oh, okay. Appropriations section. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was drafting, no.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: That's under Steady. Yes, Steady funds are appropriated.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no. I had it for each service. I had that service paid in FY27, blank is appropriated. So the intent is that for each one of these buckets, that there's an appropriation tied to it.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Every time a hotel room gets used

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That'll be in one bucket. That'll be in this bucket right here.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah, okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And it will also be in the shelter services bucket.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: I see, okay. Explains what you're thinking.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, and the bucket that municipalities would apply for would be in this bucket. And we can be as specific or not. Mean, we can reference all three levels or if we end up with two levels or

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yeah, I understand.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: For some reason, you think it should all be one. I mean, it's just trying to identify, that, it's trying to also get at the this very first level is there's no eligibility. If you're out in the cold, you would have a place to be. It goes on what Anne was talking about before. Like, we're not checking your residency. This is literally a lifesaving stuff. Both number one and number two when they are in that situation. So that's why it says you don't have to be in coordinated entry, you don't have to do case management, but that's very time limited. Those shelters are episodic. They're there for over a weekend or for two or three days or maybe just sometimes two days or whatever. So it's meant to be broadly available, but minimal requirements.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: 100%.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, go ahead, Lily, and then Rey.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Just to follow-up on the discussion we started to have earlier, I'm not sure that after reading this and the section about it, I would still interpret it as it's the 10 degrees Fahrenheit, and that if programs cannot operate at that threshold, that would

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: not

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be the On number one?

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: No, on number two.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, don't think we had ended. We hadn't gotten through number one yet, I don't think. Are we through number one or anybody have any other questions about number We will come back to this. I have a question

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: to Doug's point. I'm just wondering if the way it's worded right now, would it prohibit the department to give the money to one org Could the BIA get all the money and then grant it out to either municipalities or where the need is, right? Could that be kind of combined to gain efficiencies? Do we have to kind of spell that out? Would You know what I mean? Because couldn't one organization partner with municipalities and give them the funding, so now the funding doesn't go from the state to the municipalities or the IAA or whoever that would different

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: code levels associated

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: with them.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do, but

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: they have to divvy

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it lot of money could be with one organization to say,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: okay, you get

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: think that would be cleaner than

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the state granting out money to the municipalities. So I really envision this number one as being more in not huge dollar amounts, but sort of like mini block grants to municipalities. So that's why I talk about minimal data reporting requirements, like how many days did you open a shelter? I think that a dollar amount can be set aside at the beginning of the fiscal year. And then we can So the method on how it gets to the municipality. I guess the thing is that I also don't wanna place an undue burden on a third entity to then manage a request process from two fifty two municipalities also, I guess. But maybe, I don't know, what do you think about that?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: For state

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: to issue that many grants, that would be a huge burden.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I would, yeah, I don't know, what do you think, Charlie?

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I think to answer Representative Garofalo's original question, I do feel like the language currently in one or two allows the flexibility in terms of how to do that. And so I think it allows us to maybe explore some of those options and find

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that there's

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: no way to do that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think it prescribes that it has to be done in the state of It's

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: fine, Right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just that they would be eligible for Yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Now that everyone's getting settled on this, I hate to bring anything else up, but earlier you didn't want the language throughout the state. You want it in each region of the state. Do you want that on line 19? 19. Page nine, nineteen.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: My Page 20. Oh, I see. Well,

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: it says access

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: in the next slide.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I mean, I think we don't we don't want the Northeast Kingdom to be forgotten or Grand Isle or, you know, Orange County just because the numbers might not be huge in some of those places, but they still might have, a need that they associate with. I think throughout the state is okay here. Okay. Okay. You don't feel like

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: equitable, equitable access. Yeah,

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: as long

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: as you

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: say it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Okay, now we're on number two, Lily.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I think again, yeah, just circling back to my question earlier about this combined with the earlier definition, I'm assuming that an activation happens at 10 degrees Fahrenheit. Yes. And just sharing that observation that if we were to put out a notice of funding at 10 degrees Fahrenheit, I don't know that all of our current projects would participate.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think what we're trying to do is to be responsive to the feedback that we've gotten that the current levels are too stringent, too cold. I guess it comes back into how OEO administers it. Like, you don't have to require it. It's just eligible for funding.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, the definition does suggest it would be required. I'm just looking back at the definition because they are beds made available during those periods. Yeah. So the definition, as opposed to the language later kind of does lock it in the back. Mhmm. Unless it changed to made available. So I Well, says it

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: is at or below, so whatever. It could be Right. It doesn't yeah. It says at or below. I I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure how to specifically address it. I just don't I'm I'm not gonna put in policy something that says we're only gonna open a shelter at minus ten.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Zon? Yeah. That's our

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead, Zon.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: So I have a this is just because I probably don't know enough about what's going on in the state. But are there I'm imagining that there are communities that have community partners, communities with community partners that provide shelter in those towns. And then there it sounds as if there are communities that don't maybe have community shelters or community partners, but the the municipalities take that on. So aren't we sort of making one and two, as Doug says, the same thing? Give me an instance in which a municipality would open a shelter that a community partner would not. In Middlebury, for instance. There wasn't- Mopulear, isn't Mopulear? And- Monctuilera.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not the city, but in Barrie, Barrie City opened, Barrie City opened a shelter, that wasn't through Vermont Interfaith Action, for instance.

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: I'm thinking about the So where I'm thinking about, you might be able to imagine, is the communities that Where the Hotel Motel program was in those communities, and the communities feel the stress, the municipality feels the stress of it, the very thing you're saying, we're not going to, which I understand. We're not gonna address that here. But it sounds as if we are in some communities, in fact, going to be addressing those kinds of issues. If the municipality opens the shelter as opposed to a community partner opening it, am I?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: What we're saying is that it's open to municipalities to apply for. We're not gonna directly put in this bill that we're reimbursing people for police coverage or whatever. I think I heard Eric speaking about in Rutland, they used the library for overnight shelter for people. And people from first responders there actually got things set up and did that sort of thing. That's why it says minimal record keeping requirements. I really do envision this as going out as a grant to municipalities within x defined amount of dollars and not anything that you're not gonna be building any new shelf. You're gonna be utilizing existing resource, and it could help you to pay for materials, or it could help you to you know, have the, you know, local you might make a contribution to the local food shelf and in return, they'll fix meals or something. You know, it's I don't I don't think we have a defined way it can be used. That's the whole point of Flexible funding.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Flexible funding.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Kind of an emergent need.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think it's to recognize the fact that we have some municipalities that have stepped up to do it, and it's meant to provide some financial assistance and and, honestly, to kind of incentivize other communities to kinda step forward and and provide that sort of fail safe, particularly where we don't have formalized shelters, or where there's not an agreement with Interfaith Action or whoever might do it next year. You know, they were only required to open up in five locations. Is that five? Interfaith Action? We did six. Six. So there's obviously, we have lots of other places around the state. Anne and then-

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So, yeah, I'm still just really lost conceptually, philosophically, and I know we don't want to go into three yet, but it all relates. Why it would be, you know, 10 below zero for a municipality to get a grant to open something, but 10 degrees for an emergency cold,

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: which and then, you know, it

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: could be 50 degrees, and you get to use a hotel or motel because there isn't a 10 below or a 10 degree one open. That's why there's different levels.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Exactly what that means. So it's not generally gonna be the same people who are gonna be accessing all three of these, you know, when we're thinking about people who are going to avail themselves of these. So it is intended to be the first one being the well, the first and this one both being the do the best that we can to capture anybody who needs to have shelter, who who, you know, has to have a roof over their heads, who isn't already because there's there's gonna be limitations on this, and there'll be limitations on, you know, shelter services. So it is intended Okay. To be

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: What's what's the limitation on on the hotels?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know. We haven't gotten there yet. It's gonna be by it's gonna be by appropriation. I'm I'm throwing I'm gonna throw out that concept of limiting it by appropriation as opposed to days. But that was a concept that got.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Yeah. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thrown out.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It doesn't Doesn't compute for you. Doesn't compute for me.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright. Well, let's process it a little bit more.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I would want for people to have more access to shelter when it's colder rather than more access when it's warmer. Yeah, I get you. And this is reverse. Yeah, maybe.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I will say that part of my reaction to that and part of why there's actually, especially on number two, is so that the department doesn't unilaterally impose something that was not our intent. But there's another there's other words that we can use to do that without necessarily saying degrees. We can say that there isn't any. That communities can make their own decisions. That's part of what we're trying to think about here, is how communities

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: make their own decisions. If it's a quasi concept of a block grant, one would think all the more that it would be the community that would decide it What might they do what? But then you would say you'd have to open at I mean, the way it's structured now is you get flexibility at zero,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: but you have to open at minus 10. Right. And so I guess I wouldn't want them to use up all their resources, housing people at 30 degrees, which I don't think they will because they're not gonna have the But

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we use the safe resources to shelter at 50 degrees in a hotel room. We are. We are. That's what does make sense to me.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, you'll have to think about that a little bit. We had Aidan and then, you're good? Okay. Are you good or do you have something maybe?

[Aidan Carpenter (Zatz & Renfrow Consultants)]: Can I clarify that example you brought up of the Rutland Library? So when you're thinking about the municipal grants, what in that scenario would be covered, that entire process of law enforcement setting up that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not gonna govern what's gonna be covered. Think the point is that it's flexible. They can decide how to use it.

[Aidan Carpenter (Zatz & Renfrow Consultants)]: I think, as I'm saying, I think my concern is maybe a lack of clear legislative intent and back wording. And if it then goes to Department of Health to dictate where- DCF.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: understand because our experience is that they're more restrictive than less.

[Unknown provider/advocate]: I just wanted to offer maybe that these past few weekends, which we have been working, there were municipalities that stepped up that maybe wouldn't have been in Jed. So that is to me makes sense, the two separate pots for that reason. And just urging that it's not get lower than 10 degrees. And then also just the other thing that I would say, we haven't looked at the winter, what you're presenting for winter hotels, but that long term housing is critically important and more stable. So this is like overflow, that's how I'm thinking of it. Is that how you're, this is like people that don't fit in these categories where there aren't enough spaces for them?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Honestly, maybe, I was thinking about the order of these being sort of lease requirements on the household to more requirements on the household. You go down to number three, you're going be required to participate in coordinated entry. You're going to have to have a lead case manager assigned. You're going to work on a housing plan. And that's not required for one or two. So I was thinking about the requirements placed on the individual. And so that's why they're ordered in that way. But I can see your point as well, Anne, in terms of maybe they should be reversed. Don't The

[Unknown provider/advocate]: only other thing is what if there was language that I don't know, and I can't read it right now, the language ensures that there is maximum flexibility, that those restrictions can happen. Share this concern that that could happen. So that is my other suggestion. And again, I

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: can't cheat it, so I don't

[Unknown provider/advocate]: know if it's already there.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it says minimal data reporting requirements, and I am adding maximum flexibility. You kind of have to sometimes think about, like if you're a government employee and you're trying to do the best you can to implement legislative intent, but also be good stewards of taxpayers' dollars and all of that kind of stuff. So remember, this is all general fund, so it's all direct Vermont taxpayer dollars. So I get that. I just think, like, I couldn't in good confidence put a policy and statute that said minus 10. As

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I look at the National Weather Service declaration of cold weather advisory in Burlington, It's issued when there's an 80% confidence of the event occurring, and for cold weather advisory, it says apparent temperature of minus twenty and twenty nine. Windchill. It

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: includes windchill.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Right. I assume that's what they mean by apparent temperature. But

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I never heard it phrased quite

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I haven't either, but that's I'm looking at the National Weather Service. So cold weather advisory, apparent temperature of minus 20 to minus 29. And that seems Influential. Older than our intention.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Potentially.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Your uniformity with the other reference.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because it says, Yeah, I mean, is there maybe having the same trigger?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: I think we may unintentionally be making it cold.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: My only intent was there not being a decision that the department has to make. That was my only intent about that. Okay. But I hear your feedback that it may not makes it doesn't make sense to have two different temperatures.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It also doesn't say does it differ based on where you're located? Or I mean, there's a big variation between even, you know, Burlington or way up in the Northeast or the Northeast So when it's a cold weather advisory for what part of the state? Well, I think we can I think we

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: should think about eliminating cold weather advisory and think about having the same criteria, whatever it is, for number one and two? Or we could just we could also reframe it, and we could also reframe it that could be available for that numbers one and two could be available during those periods of time that we have that we could use the same time periods.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And, yeah, we just have to Yeah. Dwell on it for a while. For a while.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And all those different pieces. Yeah. Do people think about that idea? So instead of having temperatures per se, have a period of time, like December 1 to March 31, that those would be available. Yeah. Go ahead.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: So currently, seasonal shelters are allowable in shelters under the Housing Opportunity Grant program, and they operate per those standards. Think

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And what those standards, what does

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: that The Housing Opportunity Grant standards, and that's how they can apply for funding through that process.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: What is that? By temperature or by the date?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: By dates. By dates, And

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I think you just I think emergency people's other shelters are intended to be a layer, right, that exists with these other types of interventions. And I think, again, allowing seasonal shelters to be an opportunity for funding through shelter, because there's just an operational difference when you have someone coming in one night at a time. It really is that life saving moment versus when you have someone there for months at a time and you have to start thinking about policies differently, of salons differently. Are you saving beds for people different? And I think then also that some of the associated monitoring and data reporting becomes a little more robust. So I think that is a way to go if you wanted to just do seasonal shelters. I think that I would have concerns then about having it be too flexible and potentially setting projects up to have operational issues if they don't have a policy framework to under. I also think, again, that's a different approach, and I appreciate the sentiment and if you move to seasonal, of these spaces that we're currently using are no longer going to be an option, right? So I think having it Those are just things to consider.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I mean, we define by seasonal, I haven't thought this through at all, but I'm just wondering, like the municipality, the clients say, well, we want to do, to do this as much as we can, we don't know if we can open it every night, but we like the grant for flexibility so that we try to meet this need, but we may only be able to do it when it's below zero in our town.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I think there are points of times, right, of how flexible and then you can potentially cut a scenario where it's just incredibly hard for people to navigate, what laser is not available on a predictable or reliable basis. And then that becomes, I think, administratively significantly more burdensome if you're allowing each town or

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: community to operate however they want within a broad spectrum.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: So you could see increased cost or pressures there as opposed to direct services to folks.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I I want be clear, I'm not expecting a huge amount of money in this bucket, bucket number one.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Well, I think that's also then to have it very broad and then not necessarily the funding attached to it, that outlook could create some

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not saying expectations. It's not saying expectations, that's the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: whole thing, it's voluntary. And if it has just a rublet to goose bump, I can

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, I can see the city of Burlington applying for $500,000 for instance. That's not gonna happen. I mean, they might apply for that, but they're not gonna get it. Those kind of resources are not gonna be available. So we need congregate on this, where I'm sort of thinking that we go is thinking about curiosity, is that the right

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: word? Periodicity.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Periodicity. And actually being consistent, but then maybe some additional, a little bit of additional guidance. Thinking, I think you raise an interesting point, Dan, in terms of thinking about how these are layered. For me, when I was thinking about this, I really was thinking from the perspective of the individual and what would be required of them. Moving from sort of what I would call least restrictive to more restrictive and more expectations. But I see other people are using different lenses and that's valuable to understand. So let's cogitate on that a little bit. And if anybody has some, don't send it to Katie, send it to me because we don't need five or six people sending it to Katie. So if you have ideas about how that could be structured that tries to represent municipalities, a more organized version, an organized version of what we have with extreme cold weather shelters with Vermont Interfaith Action this year. And we can ask them. I know they're gonna have some you're gonna have some feedback sessions with them afterwards. And then let's just talk about we haven't talked about number three, so let's talk about number three. And then I'm hearing you say we should specifically add the term seasonal shelter here someplace that's some- Term of art. It's term that is different than shelter or specialized shelter. And it's Or Right. Not it could

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: As we operate right now, it involves shelter services, and I don't know that it needs to be called out, but that's a choice

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that you could make. Under number two

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: or separate. Or if it was standard 23 is something. Twenty two-six, just under shelter services.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All the seasonal stuff is really in '20 Yeah. '20 then that would be

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: a change of how we'd operate now. And I think that would then

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All is just coming out of the same pot of money as it does now, Lily.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Yeah, I think in terms of that, it would need to maybe be a fourth one, because if you do

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it also It'd be its own thing.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Right, you would have to have your own guidance and expectations, and maybe a little bit more in terms of policy and reporting.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, so can you give me some words about seasonal shelters?

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I'm just worried.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: let's move to number three.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Hotels and motels between December 1 to March 31 of each year, but no other temporary or permanent housing or shelter services are available. Services provided pursuant to this section shall not be on a night by night basis and shall require a coordinated entry assessment for an assignment of a weak case management entity.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So let's talk a little bit about, keep putting this on, you're not looking up and down, I'm getting dizzy. In testimony last week, we heard, well, what about, and I don't think people hadn't necessarily thought it through, but as I started to think about it, I sort of liked the idea about this being limited by the resources that are appropriated to this line as opposed to a quote unquote number of days.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: What are people's thoughts about that idea?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Sorry. Can you repeat that? I'm not sure. Go.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So instead of limiting by a number of days, so we would still say, we'd still need the language that the department in its budget presentation recommend a daily dollar amount to be paid to hotels. The limit here would be by what is appropriated in this bucket, not necessarily number of days. Right. So much money. Is that what you're saying? Yeah. Can be spent on one person or one person or another? Well, no. That can be spent in this area, period. In other words But what would your cap on money be? It would be through the appropriation process in the budget. Oh, that makes sense. So the department recommended, for instance, that there not be a day stay, a day limit for families in their proposal. I'm just throwing it out there because it was a concept that was just briefly mentioned. The part I like about it gets us out of this argument. But

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: it does, do I understand it correctly that it does potentially mean that at one moment there would be no more hotels or motels available.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So they have to but they would

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: they have to

[Aidan Carpenter (Zatz & Renfrow Consultants)]: budget. Yeah. But

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it means that I mean, already it's limited by the number of hotels. This would limit by the amount of money you can get in terms of when you run out of space, you run out of money. That's Budgeted. Yes.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: But it have to be done with some sort of prioritization, I imagine. So, and they talked about potentially no limit on days from their perspective for a family. So again, I'll get back to the question that I posed last week was, I'm 59 years old, single, let's say, I don't have a family, I don't have kids, I don't have a substance use issue, medical issue, etcetera. I imagine that I will be on a lower prioritization than many other groups. So we have to be aware of whether that's our intention or desire, because I think if we're not prescriptive on what criteria we want, the department will create some.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, if it's purely a cap on money or rooms and nothing else, then it's sort of like first come, first served, which is not necessarily

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Maybe or maybe not. Maybe or may not be

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: No.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No. I'm just saying, mean, whatever we might wanna say, I mean, It could be first come, first served, or it could be prioritized, but isn't because it's coming through coordinated entry, doesn't that mean there's a priority That builds in a sort of case by case.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Cap on money could also allow them to negotiate on price like we talked about in the past. So they may be able to extend accessibility at less price.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, and remember, this is not the only place where hotel and motels are used. There's hotels with supportive services. Right, next page. Yeah, go ahead. Just

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: a point to ask throughout the bill where this really is department versus where this would be the odds of economic opportunity, and if this is intended to be use of hotels and motels either organized and facilitated by a state, or if this is intended to be grants for communities to access hotels and motels as part of a program? Well,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I have a preference, but I didn't contemplate that here. Because the management of that at the local level was vetoed last year. So this is is as written would be by the state in OEO, not economic services.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: So then I think that brings up administrative questions that we will have to get back to you on, because economic services flood people's system doesn't help the industry and other benefits to create and replicate that

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: equal amount additional costs. We would intend for the state to utilize HMIS. In other words, this is not gonna be a benefit necessarily because it's not a benefit anymore. So it's not gonna be something that automatically entitles you to x, y, and z, if that's if that's what you're talking to about. It's a different mindset. It's a very different mindset. In

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: terms of, I mean, so would referrals then come from coordinating and entering the agencies at the state to make the reservation, or coordinating and entering the agencies make the determination?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Know my preference. I mean, I would be fine with this being at the local level. So why don't you get back to us about that?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's the whole

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Can we define the understanding of of of local level? I thought I had heard, Lily, you say something. It seemed like it was more community slash municipality based. That's not what we're talking about. Community partners as we did last year. Yeah.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But the way it's written, does it prohibit the state to enter into an agreement with the community partner to administer the eligibility

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's not specific at all, but we could say

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that, we could say that like we do in some of the other ones that state enter into it.

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Right, because I imagine the community partners already have kind of relationship, right? They already have a lot of this infrastructure built. So if we just say the state can enter into agreements with those community partners to ensure this happens.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, Katie, just for placeholder right now, we use language back here someplace that says the state will enter an agreement with one or more community partners to administer.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Number two, it says it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right there. Yeah, number two. So why don't we just put that in here as a placeholder for right now, recognizing that this requires some thinking. Okay, so I think this is a good place to stop. Because then we're going to get into sheltered services and specialized shelter. Lots of questions. Lots of questions. So, and then I a definition for permanent supportive housing, or help in appealing that section. Anybody has any great ideas about that? Page 13. Yeah, Jubilee, I don't know if you have any I we take language off from the internet. I wanted it to be something that had some reference to what we actually do in Vermont. So if anybody has any suggestions, did I ask Lily for that already? No, I asked you for something else, I forgot what it was. Oh yeah, seasonal shelter.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Is these services, or is there surgery for those?

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: I'm sorry, what?

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Are you thinking different

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: services, are you using the rental assistance? This is kind of where I was thinking about inserting the rental assistance piece. Scott, does anybody remember the crossover date? Is that the eighteenth? That was our through Friday after team calendar. The thirteenth? The thirteenth. Friday by the thirteenth. The thirteenth. Perfect. Great. I

[Zon Eastes (Member)]: thought there was gonna be a request for the extension.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Not for a crossover, but for our recommendations. Budget, right?

[Aidan Carpenter (Zatz & Renfrow Consultants)]: I've

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: already assumed, I'm not asking, I'm just assumed that.

[Unknown provider/advocate]: Oh, I forgot we had an appropriate

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We have a lot of work to do.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I have so many things to do. I'm still qualified. But we are going to

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be fewer in our recommendations. Yes. I really task our group to be very focused. Recommend If something that's not on the governor's list, they gotta find a source of revenue for it. Oh, I didn't know that, that's good. Yes, I've said that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's not a governance proposal. You have

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to find where, either you're going to cut something else or you're going to find the money. I think,

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: okay, I didn't catch that part.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's right, why we can't. That's from your Yeah,

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: I like hearing that. So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it's gonna be, it'll fewer recommendations from our community because

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Based on the last couple of years.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Fine, it was the last couple of exceptions. Our budget memo and our accompanying chart was really long. Thank you, Lily, you're very fast. Okay. So tomorrow, you have budget work first thing in the morning at nine to 09:45. And then we are having a public hearing on recovery day, and we're going to be down with Senate Health and Welfare. We're having a joint meeting with Senate Health and Welfare, which will be nice. We'll be hearing from people with lived experience as well as some providers. And then we are going to tackle what I thought would be an easier bill, and turns out it's not so easy, six sixty. That's the Opioid Abatement Special Fund. And then for Disability Advocacy Day, at 01:00, we're going to be having another joint hearing, two in one day. And clarification, they'll both be in Room 10. They'll both be in Room 10, okay, not Room 11.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: There's not a lot of people in this whole room.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So if you want a seat around the table, you could get the herbal. And that's it. We're going to hear about the group that Anne worked on, Act 69, over the summer, and we're gonna hear the recommendations from that group. And then we're coming back to markup on this bill that we've been working on. All right. Yeah, Okay? Questions? Anybody have any questions? I

[Beth (unknown affiliation)]: I'm just adding on the chair, but it's also Vermont 211, and it looks like you're tomorrow. Oh, do want able to share that with you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hopefully someone may be able to step in in her stead and offer the proclamation. Oh, alright. If Jubilee is not here, do we have a volunteer to do that? Okay, thank you, Esme. Thank you for mentioning that, Beth. You'll be in the park. Okay. Alright. And it's it's kinda because we don't we don't have the meeting till 03:30. So I was wanting to make sure, for instance, that there was was still gonna be people around at 03:30. So and apparently, are. So okay. Anybody have any questions? Also, at the end of the week is that the end of this week, Laurie, beginning of next week? Hearing from committee, doing a deep And well, let me ask you all, because you all are meeting with departments and advocates and stuff. I need to have your recommendations for who you want the full committee to hear from so that we can schedule them for next week. By the end of this week. Yeah, sort of by Friday morning. I need to have your recommendations. Everybody know what I'm talking about? Yeah. Okay. And don't say everybody who's talked to you. Okay. And just to remind people that on 06:60, we're not hearing any additional verbal testimony unless it's from the department. If you need any clarification to the memo that they sent out, that Sheila Livingston sent out, we can ask her if she can be available by Zoom, if we need any clarification for that. Okay? All right. And then, so next week, we'll take testimony from the community partners who you have recommended. And just to be clear, they're only gonna get fifteen minute thoughts. Okay? Fifteen minutes. I because while I will have a number of them, I am sure that we will need to make sure that they're brief and they should have their written comments prepared ahead of time and submitted to Laurie. All right?

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: That's right. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then at the end of next week, yeah, least maybe by Thursday, we're going to do a debrief. You're going to be making your recommendations about what you think your department or your part of the department should get funded. Now, Esme and Jubilee, you have a We're doing all the housing stuff in this bill, so don't worry about the housing stuff. Just worry about Reach Up and Snap and the other stuff, okay?

[Unknown committee member]: Theresa or Chair Wood, we have a number of that are kind of like navigation related positions that are directly part of this whole homelessness conversation. And so I'm not sure if we should consider that as part of our conversation with this bill or consider them separately. And we can talk later if that's better.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay.

[Unknown committee member]: But just wanted Are to flag

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you talking about something different than the assisters?

[Unknown committee member]: There's the assisters, there's, you know, a request from a municipality, there's

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Even two one one is kind of Yeah. Navigation related. Yeah.

[Unknown committee member]: So there's there's a lot of requests that kind of touch on it. And I can I can send an email, like, kind of listing out the various requests and how they intersect, if that would be helpful?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I'm familiar with the the Barrie one, and, honestly, that would come under whatever we decide to put in the bucket for municipalities Okay. If that's how they decide they wanna use their you know, if they apply in their granted funds, we're not gonna we're not gonna have special funding for Berry. We would have municipality after municipality lining up. So they can use the funding that That's why I said it's flexible. And if that's the way they support their community best, they'd be able to use some of that if they wanted to, if they were funded under that. In terms of the assisters, that really crosses over, not just us, but also health care, because it has to do with Medicaid eligibility. You have it in your email. I I sent it again out. I can get

[Golrang "Rey" Garofano (Vice Chair)]: it under today. You know? You know? It's like

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, god. Trust me. I do. Yeah. I must have missed that. A sister. It came from I think I forwarded the one that came from Amy Schollenberg, I think, is the last.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Okay. I love it.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, you'll get to see it from me, thing but I didn't see it. You also I think you also all got it from Amy as well. Okay. I just put it at the top of your inbox. And the rental bridge program too will be relevant. Yeah. We're gonna have that whole discussion when we talk about the rental assistance aspects and where we think it should be. Good. I I think that we know we need it, but where it's housed and how it's run.

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: Yep.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that'll be that discussion wrapped up in this bill. Okay? So this would be built as May, right? The Us systems? Yeah. Because it says snapping. Oh, you got it right here. Oh, I had a problem. Oh, yeah. I should have known that Amy would be

[Lily (Office of Economic Opportunity)]: on it. Pull it right out of her magic trick guy.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right. Yeah, I know. Right, right on. Yeah. And I like paper. Okay. Anybody else have any additional questions or anything? No. Okay. Well, thank you for your work today and thank you for thinking this through. Alright, Lauren, we're, we're done. And so just to remind people watching in, we won't be back until 09:45.