Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: was one where we said we need to rework stuff. I feel like there needs to be more conversation with. Yes, we needed more conversation. But where we left off was,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, guess my question is should we go back and have that conversation?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, might as well if we're trying to resolve things as we go

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: along. As we go along, yeah, as much as possible.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So the discussion was around, we had started looking just to text on page 13 at the top talking about this it's like block for hotel and motel room yeah and how that needed to be not just the department entering into agreements or the department you know, authorizing the agency to enter into an agreement. But then we were going back and saying, but section one is talking about if a hotel hotels may utilize the department enters into agreement or wouldn't that be the same community partner as entering an agreement? Well, some people don't like the idea of them being connected, others say, well, that would be so we just realized it was kind of all sticky.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And just as an update, the department's coming in tomorrow to testify on the bill. We don't know exactly when. We do now? Or do. I'll vote. Likely, it'll be after floor tomorrow. That's what we're shooting for. They've asked to testify, so that's all I know. You know what I know. Bless you. Bless you. Bless you, sir. Well, I think you heard Lily say earlier this yesterday, I don't know what day, Tuesday, I guess, when she was here, that she asked, Well, is that the community or is that the department? When we were talking about some of this stuff before. So, honestly, I think it could be either. I don't think it needs to We best thing in the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: were doing this at the center, but then we realized it needed more restructuring because it was a little confusing because

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is language I was taking out of '91.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, I thought that's why I, yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I guess I'm trying to understand the reworking, is it beyond needing to be clear that it could

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: be the department or community providers? No, I think that was the clarity that the issue was you couldn't just inject words because it has an intro. Okay, okay. So that's a concept. Well, everybody agree that was the concept that we weren't sure. And then once the concept was resolved, then it has to be restructured so the concept applies to one and two. And I guess three and four kind of tie together. That's where it's- Like Michelle's prioritized.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. I know that the department had in its proposal the utilization of 21 staff positions, 12 of which would be stationed out in and around hotels. I think we had some questions about whether, like, why wouldn't those be community providers? Why would we setting up a separate system? Because the department's not gonna be providing the supportive services. This is gonna be the community providers providing the supportive services. So that seemed to be redundant, I guess, or somehow not make sense to me.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So it may be that just the lead in language, motel or motels being utilized, the department or an assigned community partner, well, but then the partner isn't going to enter into an agreement with a partner.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So, Katie, I guess what we're trying to get at is it doesn't have to be the department who's always entering into an agreement with a hotel. It could be a department or a community partner. But we still want the hotels to have to meet all the light safety rules and all of that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes, and there was that, that's actually, where is that? That's further It's page 12. Page 12. And that's where we had a comment about I mean, one and two, in theory, they have to anyway, but we spelled them out and that we should then also spell out the ADA requirements, as number three. Yes, they're required to anyway, but that's true one and two.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Don't know what the public accommodation rules are for ADA. Well, I don't think the Ollie rings have to be ADA.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, they don't, but they all have to meet the public accommodation. I guess it's the references to the public accommodation. I said,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: yeah, need to know the back. I mean, support the concept, I'm just not sure it's a requirement that all hotels meet ADA compliance. I don't know the answer to that question. Could you identify yourself?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Brenda Steady, I'm Melissa Strawat. It's not a requirement that they all need it, it's the person has somewhere they can go in their district that meets their needs.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That might not be possible. I mean, can give you examples of places where it's not gonna be possible.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Within reason, the reasonable accommodation means it has to be within. So. So that's

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: separate from what we're

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: requiring hotels and motels. It's a different section. Right. It'd be a different section.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. Okay. All right. So, okay. All right.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Alright.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We we do wanna state specific about reasonable accommodation, but it goes in a different section. Yes. Right. Okay. So I think we are now finished

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: with that section. So permanent

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: supportive housing services. I left this TBD honestly, because I was not the right person to fill this in because I didn't know sufficiently about exactly. Well, since she's left the room

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: with me, say Jubilee was gonna do that. Okay. I think there was maybe some conversation about maybe Jubilee

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: would have seen

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it, but I don't remember what

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: She said she had sent Theresa something when she was on the street.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Jubilee did? Okay, she may have. Was Yeah, I didn't look at email yesterday. Yeah. Yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. No. That's what she said. She said

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: something. Okay. What, Doug?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I thought she had said that she had was not gonna be working on this section. It was diversion and prevention and some language about diversion that we may have

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: been saying.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Thank you. I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: knew it came up. Okay. So nobody is working on it currently. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I need somebody to do some work with DCF on this. Esme? Sure. Can I ask you

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: to- Yeah? Make sure I want to make sure I understand very specifically.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're not looking for all the elements of providing supportive housing. And it's not just through DCF. Remember, other departments provide, it doesn't have that label, but they provide the same function. I'm just looking for really at this a paragraph descriptor.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: As a description of it as part of this

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: continuum of services. Yes. There's a list of

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: Madam Chair.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: Hi, sorry. I don't know if you guys saw my hand.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I didn't see your hand, and you moved on the screen.

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: Oh, sorry. I was just going to suggest to Esme, if you're working with DCF, maybe check-in with them to see what they use for family supportive housing, because the services are very similar. So Lily should be able to give you a paragraph of what, you know, align it with what is used for a permanent, for a family supportive housing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. And we just wanna make sure that it's a broad enough definition so that people who have other disabilities and might get funded by mental health or might get funded by Dale or BDH or Department of Corrections might understand that this means them too. Go ahead, Janet.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Now, the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: state of I'm general general,

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: the State of Community Action, The Department Health of has a permanent supported housing assistance program. There's 100 slots available right now. So it's pretty limited. And it allows the provider to go set again.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So that's not the new program, is it? The Medicaid new Yes,

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: that is the new program called permanent supporting hazard.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is it time limited? I don't know. I'm trying to remember if that's one of the things they said was at risk.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And we're meaning as a broader catch all

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: category of Multiple departments. Yeah. Okay. All right. You've got it. Bev?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, Vermont really challenged with advocacy loans. I think there may be a difference between permanent supportive housing, capital P, capital S, capital H, which is a Medicaid and permanent supportive housing, small p, small s, small h, which is a general concept. And it's family supported housing, also with capital letters, It's also a Medicaid benefit, I think. So definitely in fact, we hope you think that through a little bit.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, well, and we have indicated there's leading language here someplace that talks about Medicaid receipts to the extent to seek Medicaid receipts. So they, in the department's proposal, they did not identify any federal receipts. They all identified this as general fund. But I'm sure, for instance, that part of case management can be Medicaid, if it's done at Dale or DMH or potentially at BBH. And there are some housing like permanent supportive housing that has other names and other departments is also Medicaid billable. Amy?

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Amy Shaw, remember, I just wanted to apply for family supportive housing. Actually asked, I have MHL center director this year today ask on about it. And they indicated to me that that's more of a perfection program, so it's more to help families stay in housing as opposed to what I understand prominence for a housing needs be after they've achieved housing. Just to apply that difference, both important.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, okay, thank Okay, so we're gonna move on from that one for right now and get to case management services. Oh, Katie, do you wanna join us? I just realized we we interrupted the flow, and I wasn't here yesterday. So I

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: You want the screen, the bill pulled up on the screen or do you want to use your own?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Everybody can use their own. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So case management is 2,210. Case management services shall be required for all eligible households participating in the program, except where specifically exempted for certain services. Case management services provided pursuant to this chapter shall be informed by the acuity level of the eligible household and include individualized supports that connect an eligible household to public assistance, health care, employment, permanent housing and other services. Each eligible household shall be assigned a lead case management entity, which may be from an agency, sorry, any agency. That's right. That's right. Any agency human services department or a community partner.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And we do have language that somebody found, I don't know if it was Rutty or Lori, I can't remember which, from two bills ago that references the ability to participate depending upon their disability. I can't remember if I sent it to you, Katie, not. I can't remember anything right now.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Think I tried to integrate it into something in the definitions.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We added it in the, yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I can add it here.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's in the, yeah, it's on page five, it's in the definitions. Eligible household means a household that's physically present and intends to reside in Vermont as evidenced by active participation in a plan and we added to the extent of

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So I use the language, so I now have plan comma, unless the head of the household has a disability that prevents the head of the household's active participation.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's not the language I was in the other field.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: It didn't fit neatly. So I had to try to change it to fit it into for this purpose.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't like it. Okay.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I think

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: the to head of household almost implies that that person would be relieved with someone else's voice.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. I'm the head of household language. Brenda, did you have a question or a comment?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, so I just wanna make sure that since

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: our preference is voluntary, if it's required that people have choice in their case manager. So even if someone's initially assigned, I think it should be clear that the person has a case that they choose, because that's what we've seen so many times if something didn't work, and so they do.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We don't have anything yet

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: from the statute that says you're required to participate in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the plan.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: No, it says that in this

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: plan. Yeah, she's just, if we get to that point where we're saying that, that's what we're talking Oh, about some point in the future. Oh, no, that's what we're saying right here. We're saying each person's required, shall be required for

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: all Okay, eligible this needs to be rewritten because to me that clearly says case management services shall be required. In other words, the provider of services are required to provide case management services to eligible households that are participating in the program. The way it's written, it's focused on the provider is required to provide the services, not that the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: participant is required to engage in them. I understand that. And that's an interesting read on that. So, Katie, I think I don't want to end that definition. I think I would prefer the language from before or something closer to it and putting it in in this case management services section. Sure. Then I think Anne's making a

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: You wanna flip it so that the Yeah. Says something about the family household receiving service. Okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Which, so this was the list of things that were

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: part of the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: continuum of care, but we don't have case management services on the list of continuum of care. We end that with permanent sartorial services and other services as necessary.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I think it says something else underneath there.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Other services as necessary.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Page eight. Patient's going to take four. Yeah, so we should add that then.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, that case management services Yeah. Are part of then makes it clear that I think that 2210 is about the services being part of the continuum of care and what that means, the individualized supports and so forth. And then it may need to be a separate section in terms of expectations of participants rather than commingled there?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not sure, but At least a separate paragraph. A separate paragraph. Yeah. I mean, what this is saying is that there'll be some need to evaluate what case management services means. Right. And more specifics, do you Yeah. Know what I

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Which I think we've described at some point previously.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I think that the comment that we received about choice is important. Not sure it's always gonna be available, but- That

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: would be in the section on what's expected, on the recipient services. Well,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think it would be in this where we talk about each eligible household should be assigned, but it should be down there with regarding choice of case management provider, if applicable. Go ahead, Eric.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Understand the intent is that within the continuum of care, everybody is involved in coordinated actually. Well, that's the case manager. They're the ones that are putting together the individualized plan. And with that, then they are choosing whom they want to engage with the provider. So the point being is that the, that case manager is the access point and coordinated entry. Then after that, their choice of who to engage and whatever services are needed, it's completely-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But remembering- this question. We're broadening up the expectation that coordinated entry be provided not just by the existing people who do it, but by other AHS partners, by AHS itself. But I'm just making sure that-

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah, but the original point of entry is with a case manager that's accessing and working with them and then putting them into coordinated entry. After the case plan is developed, then whatever choice the people are using, you utilize whatever services. The point being is that's the original case manager, that's where the team gets put together. Whatever choice they want to engage in whatever services they would like to engage, it's at their discretion to kind of throw it broadly on out there and saying, well, they should be able to choose their case manager while you're entering into coordinated entry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let me just show you, let me just say like a sort of real life example. So let's say a designated agency no, bad choice let's say an Area Agency on Aging. They're doing their work, they're out in the community, they realize, Okay, I've got five people at this hotel. I think that they could be eligible for choices for care. I'm going to ask them about doing a coordinated entry assessment. Now, are people who don't necessarily do those assessments right now, but they would be trained up to do them. I'm just wondering, I'm inquiring of you, are you thinking when you say case management of the current people who do coordinated entry? That's where we would begin now. Well, it wouldn't, because what we're talking about is it being much broader than just the current people who do coordinated entry. We're saying that a designated agency case manager could do it or a AAA case manager could do it.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: They still have to have access and get trained up on coordinated entry. Therefore, they would still be that point person.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, we're saying the same thing. Just wanted to make sure we were saying This the

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: is about a

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: lead case management entity. It's not about the lead person. I've used entity on purpose.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, okay. Folks, we have to switch gears here for a few minutes. We're joined by Doctor. Hildebrandt, Commissioner of the Department of Health. So we've been having this discussion, I guess I'll say, about the opioid settlement funds and the provision of any kind of resources to the city of Burlington via their grant agreement with the Department of Health, since it did not appear on the recommendations for either group. And we've been in the learning process of understanding that the subgrantee is looking at potential purchase of a property. So thank you for joining us, Doctor. Hildebrandt. And I think that what we'd like to hear from you is some, I guess, clarification of the involvement of VDH in these conversations, because what we're hearing from the City of Burlington is that they've been actively in communication with the grant manager, or I'm not sure what the position is called, feel like this sort of I'm just trying to figure out what's the department's position and where do we move from here essentially?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Sure, sure.

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: I do wanna say, and thank you for having me. I do wanna say, please understand that we have a somewhat biased opinion here. The position of the governor has been made very clear. And when the appropriation was first made intelligently, the legislature sort of gave us instructions that we shouldn't be in a sort of decision making capacity in this particular grant. And it was our job to help as a grant administrator. In this instance, we did get an inquiry two weeks ago on the January 28 that was asking whether it would be an allowable purchase or allowable use of the funds to use it to purchase a building. The appropriation language we did review and it was never contemplated to be used to purchase a building that was not ever contemplated in the initial sort of development of this grant, but it was not excluded. It was not explicitly stated in the appropriation or anywhere else that this is an exclusion of the funds. But just again, to be clear, that was never sort of contemplated. I don't think by any of us as a use of these funds. It is, I'm relatively new to this. I've been trying to learn up. This is a pretty atypical use of grant funds. It's not something that we would typically do is use it to purchase a building. What's been done in the past is we have used funds to pay for a mortgage as an example, as part of operational costs of a program. There are concerns in this particular instance in that line of talking. My understanding is the belief by VCJR is to use this building for all of its operations, not just for the overdose prevention center. And if that was to be contemplated using funds for something like paying a mortgage, I think it would be important to ensure that only the portion of the building that was being used for the overdose prevention center was to be covered as part of this grant. And again, that is something we have done in the past. The other thing I do wanna highlight is that part of this process as well is to do a service assessment that must be completed before we can proceed with this. And we've not received a service assessment from VCJR. It's an assessment of the facility to see that it could actually meet the needs of the grant. So we don't know that it's been done or not. It may have been done but we haven't received that. And that's an important step we would also need to ensure was completed prior to proceeding in any way.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you, Commissioner. The folks from the city and VCJ are not available to testify yet, and we are probably going to move the bill, frankly, before they have all their ducks in a row. And I don't know if we'll make any particular recommendation in this bill, but one of the- so, I guess two things. One, I think that it's understandable that despite repeated attempts, that they were unable to secure a lease for a building, given the topic of what would be there. So I don't think we have any particular opposition to the purchase of a building. It's how that happens and what kind of dollars are laid out and what the expectations would be with that building. Because, again, this is a pilot program. It's not necessarily set up as a permanent program. That being said, that's also an argument that it would be difficult to get a mortgage for something that doesn't have ongoing funding. And I don't expect you to answer this question off the cuff unless you feel like you want to, but one of the things that could be contemplated is in the recommendation for opioid settlement funds is money for the per so a specific appropriation for money for the purchase of the of a building and fit up, but with strings, essentially, that it's used only for this purpose. And if it stops being used for that purpose, then the building would need to be sold and money would need to be reverted back to the state. That's sort of the kind of thing I'm trying to figure out, some problem solving to move the policy along at the same time and to recognize some of the challenges associated with establishing a program like this.

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Right. And I think that's exactly right, Sherwood. I think that if the city and the OPC were to talk with OSAC about this conversation, that's exactly the right forum to have this conversation. Hey, we tried to find a lease, we could not. We have a potential plan forward. It's going to require ongoing funding and have that discussion at OSAC. I think that's a really rich discussion for them to have. We will of course follow the instruction by the legislature in how to help administer this grant, make sure that we have clear guardrails about what this is and what is not for. But I do think that's the right venue to have that conversation. I understand that they did not go to OSAC this year to talk about this and understandably they had a lot of money that had been appropriated at that point but I do think that's the right venue to have that conversation.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Representative Steady, did you have a question?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I do. Do they have a specific building in mind already?

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: My understanding, and I don't know all the specifics here, but my understanding is yes. And they were very close to sort of signing something which is again of concern given that we never had this service assessment completed. You would absolutely need to do that before you were to outlay any kind of funding but thankfully that did not happen. They did not sign anything, but my understanding is they do have a very specific building in mind.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And would that have to go through DRB and planning where neighbors would be notified what would be used in that building so they could express their concerns? Have a lot of friends and relatives and relatives. That's

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: a great question. I don't know the answer to that, but that's a very valid point. Because I mean, again, the reason I think there was such a hard time in them acquiring a lease was for those very reasons.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Nobody wanted don't

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: know the answer to that, but that's a very good consideration as well.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah, that's what I heard from friends of Rollington. Neighbors and people that live in Burlington are sick of it. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yep. Go ahead, Maguire.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I know the all that feasibility stuff is still in the works. Are they looking at if if they are able they're well, not necessarily purchasing the building, but have they done any type of looking into insuring the building? Oh, that's true.

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: So we don't know, and that was one of the One very important thing as requirement for this grant is to have insurance, especially given the proposed activity there. We have not heard that information either.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. And those are all things required before you release any further payments, is that right?

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Correct, you need to have insurance as requirement, and again, that service assessment.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think in talking with Sheila that it took some months, but I think that they did acquire insurance.

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Yeah, it's for operation, but not for the building.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not the building, okay, thank you. And do you feel like there's been sufficient communication to under that, do you think that the city of Burlington understands what they need to do in order to?

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: I honestly don't know. Okay. You know, that's that's obviously an ongoing discussion, but I don't know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Alright. Are there any other questions from committee members? Okay, just for informational purposes, we are going to try to have the City of Burlington and VCJR in to testify. It might not be on our timeframe, so we might have some placeholder language. We might not, depending upon what the committee feels like. But this is likely to be an ongoing discussion as it moves through this process. Yeah, I was concerned as well, Commissioner, that this didn't go through the committee process. And, you know, to listen to the city of Burlington representative, they felt like senator Hardy's motion, that there would just be an automatic $1,100,000 I guess there was some motion made at one of the meetings for the four top priorities for ongoing funding, this being one of them. That's what was conveyed to me, anyway. I don't know exactly what that means. I think that all the way around, I think we need better communication and better understanding from both the legislative perspective, because we did not honestly consider the lump sum payment for a building. We did recognize in the ongoing operations budget that there would be monthly lease or potentially mortgage payments, but we did not envision a lump sum payment. And so that also would make me be thinking like the $1,100,000 included those monthly lease payments. And so should we be reducing that 1,100,000 Because if they purchase a building, they would not have those. So, okay. Appreciate that.

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: And if there's anything that we can do to improve communication or transparency, we absolutely wanna do that. I know this has not gone ideally, but if there's anything that we can help with going forward, we do wanna be there at any time. I'm trying to get as brief as I can on what's happened to date and bring that to you all.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you so much. Yeah, no, there were a number of us who were surprised, so it wasn't only the health department. So thank you so much for letting us interject into your day here.

[Dr. Hildebrandt (Commissioner, Vermont Department of Health)]: Anytime. Anytime.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay, so more to come on that, folks. But I want to be clear that I do want to move the bill tomorrow, if possible. And I doubt we will have sufficient information on this, and they will have to address it in other committees or in the Senate, is the way I'm looking at it. Because I also don't want to rush into something that we don't know all the details of yet. I don't wanna be fair to them, don't wanna be fair to the resources that we have laid out here. Okay? All right, so let's move back. Madam Chair. Yes?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Can I just make a quick note? Yeah. I have updated the sheet. From all your decisions, it's posted on the lab. Here are hard copies for anyone who wants updated here. It's also on the left side. If I edit in all the decisions you made today, you can see

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, thank you. Now, take that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So I should get rid of this one.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Get rid of it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Have you updated this since you gave it to

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: me earlier in the month?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Updated at 10:30, okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you for putting the time on us, and I realize if I- Oh,

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: there we go. That's why.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: We can

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: fly, miss you, coach. I appreciate that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so we'll come back to Opioid Settlement Fund later, not today, but later, tomorrow. Did Katie have to leave? No, I'm ready.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: She's right here, okay.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: You're not the only one who

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: does this.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I can't can't see you over

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: there. Cheers.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: I was about to

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: jump in when we got cut off, but you may want to do a lead in before I take it off mid century.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: 02/00/1953.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I think that was after seven days.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I was just being informed of that, and I'm Okay. Yes. It's not only pursuant to two two zero five. Right. And this is actually worth

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: keeping there because it's not only for emergency. Well, there was a price sale.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's why it's under the shelters now.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Right. Think 13.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yep, it's at shelters. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: While you were on a different topic, I rewrote this case management services. Is that useful? Would you like to look at that? Let me share my screen.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So I now have paragraph a and b.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: You much unless you have

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. It's not online.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: This is my working document. Better? Okay. A lead case management entity shall provide case management services to all eligible households participating in the program, except where these services are specifically exempted for certain services. You can play with that a little. Case management services provided pursuant to this chapter shall be informed by acuity level of the eligible household and include individualized supports. We've already read through that. And then I've created a subsection B specific to the households that falls in the language you sent me, which does use head of household. So unless the head of an eligible household has a disability that prevents the head of the household's ability to participate, it uses the old language used coordinated entry and coordinated entry and case management processes or where coordinated entry and case management is specifically exempted for specific services and eligible households served by this program shall participate in coordinated entry and case management processes, including cooperating with the Department and the lead case management entity on screening and care planning. To the extent feasible, an eligible household may choose the lead case management entity to which it is assigned. Does that get us closer?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just trying to remember why we said head of household. Why would it just

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: be Coordinated. Head of Coordinated.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Thank you.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: We could say that prevents a member of the house Why

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: don't we just

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: say household? Prevents the eligible household?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, because if that's defined as an individual or a group of individuals.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: So we'll keep the disability.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: A member? A member? Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: A member of the eligible household has the government's Yeah, that's better. Eligible household's ability.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: There's a eight seventeen second word kid count.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Unless the unless yeah. Do you want coordinated entry in case management? Yeah. Okay. So maybe we change that up here to an A so it's consistent and change the heading to be coordinated entry and case management. I'll do that later. Here, I wasn't reading. Sorry.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Alright.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So when we started talking about this and I was talking about reading it, which has now addressed reading it as not focused on the recipient. Now we have but that was part of kind of a larger question of what seemed to be a gap in this because this now says shall how is it worded shall participate but we don't have anything that says and what happens if they don't participate which if it's left wide open I mean, the department could say, You're not participating. You have to leave in twenty four hours. I'm exaggerating. But there's nothing in terms of the intent that said they need to participate, there's nothing we've had in past versions, if there's violence or putting other people at risk, they can ask for leave. Then there's an appeals process. And that whole piece seems to be kind of missing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, the appeals process will be in here because it appealable.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But what are you feeling is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you're not going to be ever asked to leave? Well, chances are you would

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: be asked to leave, but

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But we don't have that. It's something they can have, that's all I'm saying.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's a requirement. What we're saying is it's a requirement for shelter or emergency housing in order to receive that, unless you have a disability that prevents you from participating.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So you're saying that implicit, if you don't, they can ask you to leave, but we're not putting any strictures on when, how the department or can make basis for SB-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm not saying maybe that should be something, it's a whole separate section maybe Because about I see everybody's hands. That might be something to think about. Think part of what we're being shaded by, I guess, or I don't know, I'm not using the right words, is the experience that we've had in the Department operating the GA emergency housing benefit has been, from my perspective, not ideal. And so I'm trying to figure out what's the balance to create in outlining this new continuum of supports and how much is appropriate for us to put in statute and how much would be through the public process in regulation development, which we will be requiring.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because we don't want them to have

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: unfettered discretion. Hold on to that thought and we'll have more discussion about that. Esme and then Jenna.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Echoing Anne's point with just the word cooperating with the department, Cooperating is a really tough word in statute, I could assume.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Don't know what the Left into the eye and behold

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: there is.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Exactly. There's so

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: many issues with the department and what cooperation means and how it's directly tied to your ability to be sheltered. So, it's open ended. So that language I'm particularly belonging to.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I'm hearing you. Dennis?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I'm sorry, Anne, back on A before B, about coordinated entry. That would be coordinated entry, capital C, capital D. Yes. Okay, because it's a HUD process.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Unless a member of the eligible

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: No, I don't keep it either.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Isaac Dispatch, that seems like I could be any member of the family.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: It would have to be

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: eligible member, not household. Or eligible incentive. I don't know.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess I'm envisioning, is there a seven year old child in the house who has a disability, but they're not the one who would need to be participating in the process, if you will, would be their parent, guardian, etcetera, who would be participating. That household would not really be prohibited from participating.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But it could be if the child needed constant care. So doesn't only apply to if it interferes with. So if it's a child and that doesn't interfere with their participating, then that wouldn't apply as an exemption. But if it's a child with a disability, which is what's preventing the parent from participating, then it

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: would. I can just

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: give an example, working with a family in a hotel back when I did direct service. Her son had a lot of disabilities. In fact, if they were left alone, they could choke. They needed constant So there had to be some accommodations made to make the entire household be able to participate. And so it didn't look like everyone else's. And so this only comes into play if there is a disability that prevents the household participating in the traditional way, there will be some accommodations, and that might look a little different for a household with a family member with a disability.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And it might not.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And it might not. Yeah.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Thank you for that clarification.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: That makes sense. On that stage, think he wants to separate coordinated entry from his family because in coordinated entry processes, that family with a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: disability is going to get

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: priority over other people on the border. You want them to somehow bypass the refugee measure.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: good point. Yes. So maybe we have two separate sections, Katie. Mean, I think you're Yeah. Making an important

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So everyone you wanna go back to just having this be case management services and then have coordinated entry as a standalone section.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, that's what I meant. You had to up

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: on that, the call butts.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm gonna go ahead.

[Chad Simmons (Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: Chad Simmons, Housing and Homelessness Alliance, Vermont. I think this is just a really good example of it's really important to tie any definitions or programmatic guidance towards the existing definitions of coordinated entry and other defined processes. And so I think our concern would be that we would be creating competing or conflicting guidance.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, the two separate things from my perspective. It's why I was questioning Representative Maguire earlier because it's not necessarily the person putting in the assessment, doing the assessment that's going to be the case manager.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: There's no services for an agent. A person doing an intake, doing, like if it's a person at our agency doing an intake, or we have referral partners already in the community who are trained, they do the intake, they give it to us, we have somebody who manages the-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know, think they call it case management.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: It is, but it's not. They're the process in a list. You're not doing the extensive-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not the matching of the needs with the services. They're identifying the needs, not the sort of legwork that it would take to take somebody to three different res care homes and see if they're comfortable living or living.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So they are talking documentation. It's a system. The surgeon manages that coordinate and services. A coordinator person has hundreds of people out

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, right. So you can't do it, it's not real case management.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: I'm just saying, have- We're

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: gonna separate the two.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, and I had a note that we, it's my notes, but I think we've talked already about in our definitions, coordinated entry needs to be defined as what HUD says it is, as opposed to a generic description. Did you have that? I didn't. You did. Oh, you didn't. I didn't.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, all right. Well, that'll be something we had, I think we discussed it. I'm feeling anxious about saying that we're agreeing with anything the federal government's doing. Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, we don't have to cite them, we can just use the same definition.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Definition as of.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, we just won't cross reference it.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: We'll just use the language as of right now. Can

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I ask a question just for the structure? So we have a list of services sort of in the order that's in that continuum. I'm trying to figure out where I put coordinated entry. Is that sort of the first thing that happens? I imagine it's not happening before prevention. And then sometimes it's not happening with shelter services.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would say any place where we've said you don't need to do it says here someplace. There was Yeah. There two levels at least two levels of service where you don't

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: need you don't need it. Yeah. Would it I guess what I'm asking, would it make sense to lead off with coordinated entry? Is that sort of, like, the first touch point or just bundle it with case management services?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I just want to make sure sometimes the process of doing coordinated entry can be difficult for someone. And just want to make sure that we're not requiring, at the moment of crisis, to get into an emergency, to enter a shelter or a hotel room, we're not making sure that they have to be in coordinated entry first before they can do that. Because a lot of time, folks need time to resolve the crisis, get out of that mode and have a little time to settle in and attend to their basic needs before they're able to do the process. So there were some sections, and I'll have to go back through where it kind of made it seem like, no, you couldn't access these things until you were in coordinated entry. And that will be really sometimes dangerous for our most, the folks with the highest needs, where doing the assessment can be really challenging in great circumstances, let alone in their own business.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Madam chair,

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: you said chair.

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

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: Sorry. I I just I don't know if this is the right place, but what Jubilee was talking about made me remember something. Just wanna kinda throw it out there. At some point, I don't remember if was last year or this year, but we had the concept of, like, intake shelters where there is some you know, they're not doing full coordinated entry, but they're kind of assessing the person's needs to kinda figure out which direction they need to be sent to. So I just I think that kinda fits in with what Jubilee is talking about is kinda that's, like, the first touch point. And I don't know if we have that concept in this bill, but I like that idea of having some intake shelter type place where the first touch point is where a full coordinated entry assessment is not required, but some information is gathered to figure out where the person can be best served and how they can be best served.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know what to do with that right now. Right?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's fine. That's fine.

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: Can

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. I I I hear what you're saying. I'm also trying to think about it. I I know that that's something that Sarah Phillips had talked about and other people had mentioned along the way. Then that also then requires the people to move again if they turn out that they have to move again. And I'm not Multiple places geographically would be able to Yeah. We'd be setting up something in places where I mean, I think the concept can be used without actually having to establish

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: Yeah. I and that's I don't mean, like, a physical place, but I mean the concept of that first you know, it could be at wherever the person is. It could be at the lead agency. It could be wherever they show up. It could be at, like, a designated agency. But, like, that concept of they're doing it first initial intake to kinda assess the needs before a whole court because as Jubilee and others have mentioned, coordinated entry assessment is very, like, complex and lengthy and in-depth.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So it might even just be a a time frame of, you know, there's just this kind of threshold need, and then there's a window of a couple days before it's required that coordinated entry full process. Is that I mean, that's a positive concept?

[Unidentified Committee Member (remote)]: Yeah. I I think we had conversations about that last year where we said, like, they would do this initial assessment, and then they would have, like, x number of days to complete a full coordinate entry assessment and get in the system.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: If we did that, would just really want there to be some kind of accommodation process for those who would need more than a few days

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to feel safe. And they may not be able to do it all in one sitting. It's a long assessment.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And parts of it can be traumatic depending on your history. Yeah. Yeah. It can take multiple weeks sometimes doing a little section bit by bit and just making sure we're Well, it's a matter of them.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's okay. Think I mean, that's part of, yeah, accommodation saying for some individuals, it can't It's supposed to be collaborating to the extent of their ability.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right there about that. So, Katie, I think it can just be at the end. I don't think it needs to be in a sequential place. I put it right above case management. And then we do say that it's not required for emergency I just read it twice, that coordinated entry. Well, that's for the emergency. Right. Right. There's two places, Emergency I cold weather shelters and

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: municipal grants.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. The emergency housing services one and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: two do not require.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you want to move that down to this section or have it in both places?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'll keep it where it is. Then put it also in the other place. Where it's required and where it's not. Yeah, Okay. Go ahead, Amy.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Amy Schallberger, BCAP. If it's okay, I wanted to circle back to something that Donahue said a while ago about sort of enforcement of, are they actually participating? And beginning put this on the ballot because I wasn't quite sure how to do it, but during the discussion with the cats about the bill, one of the things that they talked about was sometimes participating in your plan, your housing plan, means you're just kind of sitting on that ground waiting for an opening. And so it's hard to demonstrate that you're actually participating because you might be ready to go, but there's no place for you to go. And so I think if you do put enforcement language in there, I think there has to be something that allows for. It's not always an active thing that the person has to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: be dubilee. Think the notion of individualized plans, as you set out, what that's going to entail. And so it could be just what you said, needing to have a rental subsidy until the rental subsidies are available. Can't seek a place to go. Or I guess I'm not exactly sure that it, because there could be other things.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's complying with their plan. The plan is

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: I I'll just speak from my own experience, having interacted with various systems, sometimes that's what seems like is the expectation, but then, you know, because of some of the stigma around big and low income people and that they're not actively working to change their situation, it can be sort of subtle punishments. And so I just want to make sure that people are protected if they are participating because the participation is actually being on a waiting list, or some other thing that isn't visible, that they're doing something.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I doubt we're gonna write that into a statue.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, no, but that's why we need some kind of structure that says, that rules. It's just more

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: about the enforcement. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I think the protection is there and that the I would imagine the enforcement starts with the case manager. And if the case manager has put into the plan that, you know, we shall maintain availability to answer questions for the next available voucher.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Yes.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Then they would be hard pressed, the case manager, the person has remained available to answer questions about the next available voucher, to say that they're not complying. So I guess I'm siding with the chair and the down at you that I think

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Just to salvage you then.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Show me if it's Okay.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Was your hand up?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah, sorry, hands off.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's alright, go ahead,

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I just wanted to say, and I came in the

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: middle of this conversation, don't know where

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: it started, but I can guess. Two things that I think would help and that are important is, yes, sort of, but if that case manager is someone that's not working well, that person with

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: a mental issue can look like you

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: have one before. But again, I think there could be some, even though you're not right, I think we're talking about rules, no, but I forget what we're talking about. If there's some ability for people to be able to appeal in this bill somewhere, then I think that would give them some ability to say, I was actually working on something.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, the intent was to have an appeal section. I have to look at 91 to see if that one is sufficient or whether it needs to be changed. But the intent would be to go to the human services board, like other agency of human services. Okay. So that brings us down to rulemaking. Just

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to summarize

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just where we left off here, there's gonna be a separate case management section, and there's gonna be a separate coordinated entry section. And they will reference the disability language that Lucas spoke of and ability to participate. I had not envisioned putting a particular timeline in here. I think that's something that probably should be done in rulemaking because change. It

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right, to the extent of their ability to be active participation, we said to the extent that that would work for coordinated entry concerns as well, it's to the extent of their ability to do so. There are a lot of reasons other than a disability that might prevent the ability to do so.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not only disability. Okay. Do we have any comments on the one line?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: We kept in their comment reference rulemaking and impart some of the limitations of L color. And I feel, and I'm not going follow the details, but with respect to the department's following legislative intent in rulemaking, there's been a history where it hasn't always followed legislative intent and didn't seem like the LCAR process changed that. They persisted with the rules that LCAR did not like. So would it be appropriate as suggested to have some sort of check back at the committee level, raising that as a question in light of history.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, think that we because we haven't talked about timeframes. I don't expect all of this to happen on July 1. So there's going to be a transition process. So I think that progress reports will need to be provided, yes. And I think you raise a good question about the effectiveness of that process. And it has actually resulted in us making changes in appropriation because the department did not follow the LTARR recommendation. And so it's just as important to know that the department's unwilling to do that as it is them just acquiescing sometimes. So I think other than reporting back to us on, I don't know, some specified dates on progress, it's the process that we have.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You just say after three cases with the same outcome on the same fact pattern, it shall be adopted as apostrophe?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's actually something we could do since they had over 200 topic, and the they got the same result, and they failed to implement it as a general rule. So that involves human services board language. It instructs the department. That's interesting idea. I have to think about that.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I'm not sure how viable that is. I like it. Go ahead, Amy.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Amy Schulmer, Madam Chair, let's just push back a little bit on the rulemaking process. We have comments in our memo with details with our recommendations. I have words on different rulemakings over the years and I'm well familiar with the Administrative Procedures Act and what it doesn't require is stakeholder input before a draft rule is promulgated. You could require that. What it doesn't require is making sure there are public hearings in different parts of the state often. I'm not blaming anybody, just what happens is there's forty eight hours from us for a public hearing and it's in one place where no one can get to. When we had BIT, that was a whole different situation. We don't have that anymore. It's another rant.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We got a zoo. It could

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: be not zoo, but they're not required to use it. So, I think it's just really important to make sure that people can actually participate in the loan. The other thing is a responsiveness summary is required in the rule making process, but it's often not published. So you can't even see what they said about the comments that you submitted. So there's no way to say at LCAR, we disagree with why they didn't put this in the rule.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I think,

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: without making it like a super long process or adding too many versions, it is important for something that is really going to be, frankly, life or death for people, to have a process that makes sure that we'll make them follow the intent of what we all agreed to learn.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You said you've had that list of pieces in

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: your house.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Will list it in our, yeah. It's all experimental, and

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: different pieces of legislation. Okay, great, thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We haven't gone through the written feedback from people, that'll be after this process. The rulemaking section. That's the rulemaking section? And, yeah, got you got copies. Right? Give me the inputs. Okay. Okay. So I I made some notes about needing to be essentially more accessible, having responses to public comments, having public hearings prior to adoption of draft rules. We'll we'll take a look at your list. Okay? And I I actually this is about the efficient use of government services, and I actually do wanna figure out language, Katie, about if there have been repeated appeals found where the department or I I don't know how to put it, but where where the petitioner has prevailed on the same topic that and repeated. It's probably gonna have to be defined by a number, but that department shall, you know, adopt that interpretation or something like that. Because it's not it's not utilizing our human services board. I'm surprised they I don't I'm surprised they didn't come in asking for more people. Just this one program alone, I think, has been very busy for a full year. So on reporting, let's talk about a schedule of reporting an implementation schedule. So it seems as, we would want one

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: When? Like, this January?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. We need a status report January before we before annual report start.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Wasn't thinking about annual reports. I was thinking about status for implementation.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Right? So the fifteenth

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'll say January 15. Seventh? Yeah, status report on 01/15/2827.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Can I ask if it's not a norm, I just feel like versus December 15? I just think Just thinking the same. The start of a new session, there's

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There's a You wonder why? Because at the next year, we don't know who's gonna be in these seats on January 15. We definitely I people haven't been sworn in yet. You wouldn't send it to a committee that's not I mean, we're officially still in our seats until January. Are unlikely Right. We are unlikely to have a meeting between now and then to take testimony. Do get what I'm saying?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: No, I get that. But I'm just saying, and the same 11 people who are at this table most likely will not be the 11 people at the table next year. But is there sufficient continuity of membership such that having it before the flood of things ten days into the new session may be beneficial for the committee?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Because people are thinking about

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Maybe I'm more optimistic about

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: the Yeah. Work. Mean Right.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That December 15, you will be starting to press

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Yeah. Section

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: and wanna read this in.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Oh, I can see you doing that.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Anyway.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And we're gonna have to come back to this, Katie, because I it'll depend upon implementation dates of the various sections.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So it'll be a progress report on the department's work to date, set up the program, and would you like to look at draft rules?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Draft rules. They I doubt they'll have draft rules by then. But one of the things that I was wondering in terms of ongoing reporting is not dissimilar to what they have been doing, so they're kind of accustomed to it, but also to have it by elements of the continuum. They have shelter services, but they don't like, it doesn't distinguish between what's like, I can't tell out of the 600 and I forget. The number's just gone up. 600. The last report, it just went up. It's not 649 anymore. I had that number committed to memory, but it's six seventy or something like that now.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, it could tie in, Doug, there's a requirement already about budgets being divided into Right. And so that could also tie into that they use the same structure.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: If you're doing that, you might just wanna make sure that your section that lays out the continuum is also tracking the sections of the bill. For example, we have the section on hotels and motels with supported services, and that does not appear in your continuum. Instead, you have transitional housing there. So I don't know. My baby brain wants us to line up, but maybe that's not the intent of the committee. Yeah. There's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I thought we got rid of transitional housing.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: It doesn't appear as a stand alone section. It's not part of the continuum of care either. Okay. Would you like the language about hotels and motels and supportive services for a place at? Is I'm it? What looking at the continuum on page eight.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sorry, I'm unclear what you're asking, Katie.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So the continuum has been outlined for the rest of the chapter of my Where transitional housing is, there is no transitional housing section. Instead, what you have there, after specialized shelter services, you have hotels and motels with supportive services. Would you like that reflected on page eight?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I see transitional.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Don't even see transition. Right, where

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: is that? What page is Page Page Okay, what time?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Fifteen. Showing health services. You're looking at the wrong draft. Like you keep saying, I said, I know I'm What gonna

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: do you have after specialized services and help?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Shelter services, specialized shelter, and then permanent supportive 08:30AM?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. That's it. 08:30AM. I maybe I printed an earlier draft. Okay. So I'm gonna cross that off of my draft. Okay.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Would you

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: like emergent what did I say?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't know, but we're confused enough. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I've been confused for the last Today, housing is a couple of Emergency housing services.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: Uses elsewhere. Should

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: hotels and motels with supportive services be captured in that list on page eight to track what's happening with the rest of the bill?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, because that's their 2,208 on page 11. Yes. Comes after specialized services and before permanent supportive housing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The answer to that is yes. Great. Thank you.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because they're part of the continuum

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of care. Yes, and we've added case management and coordinated entry.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: There are a couple of places in 2208 that refer to emergency housing. I don't think that's intended to be emergency housing as per just on the continuum. After that, there's emergency cold weather shelter and then emergency housing. And what is emergency housing?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: It is the temporary accommodations or related services necessary to protect health, safety, and welfare of eligible households. That's like shelters. And then emergency cold weather shelter is the ones related to those, yeah, when the temps are 10 degrees below. Or below 10 degrees. But then

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: that's you're talking about shelters. I think the use of the term emergency housing under 2208 makes it very confusing. Because if we're talking about shelter, we should say shelter. Well, it accompanies, I think, a broad variety of options.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It has. So on line 13 of page 11 is what Anne is referring to.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. There's two spots there. Yeah. Because if you go back to page nine, line 18, the heading is emergency housing services, DALconsist of. But we can so And that's one

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to All Back up a second. Page 11. Page 11, line 13. We could just end after motel rooms. Okay? Yes. That would That would clear it up there.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yes. And then You're gonna vacate it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Eight till No. Unpaste minute. Eleven. Thirteen. 09:13.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And motel rooms, period. Period.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And the exact same thing. Eight. Yep.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: We're watching out for emergency housing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Great. Thank you. Likewise,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: line 18. Same thing.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Emergency housing. Just the phrase for emergency housing. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because we want them to if homelessness is decreasing, we want serious to decrease.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's what

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I Or anything. Yeah. Just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: somewhat. Yeah. I have

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: a question. So if we're at page eight, the continuum of care components, This is a framing thing for me. I just need to understand. It strikes me that we're talking about what the continuum of care is. And these are the steps that we hope that we can through.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not necessarily, they can come in at any point. Once

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: they're on a direction that's going. Right.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: I don't see how hotels and motels fits into this because hotels and motels is a tool that could be used in any number of these. We're describing hotels and motels at this point as being something that could be used for emergencies, they could be used for shelter, they could maybe be even converted at some point. And so if we list hotels and motels, aren't we going to have to kind of journey with that whole definition?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But it's only those with supportive services. It's the one where it's supposed to be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: essentially run as a shelter.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: So we have specialized shelter services, number four. It could be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A and B. Yeah, it could be, it doesn't have to be a separate two thousand two eight, is

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: that Yeah, what you're I guess what I'm trying to do is help us all get separated from the notion of the hotel motel program as a thing where we park people, which is what we need to stop thinking about.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're No, but if you look looking

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: at it as a tool through this entire continuum, it's just one tool.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah, no, I think it is a method of emergency shelter. Yes. Just while going to a bricks and mortar shelter is also an emergency shelter. They but look it's a tool. Then a lot of other programs, that's just what it is. It's an emergency shelter. It's kind of one we've stood up. And that's why for me that nuance is, it's just one form of emergency shelter

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: we're hoping to reduce. And for me, that's why it doesn't belong, exactly what you're saying, why it doesn't belong in this list.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Would it be under 22

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: I believe point A or B, but here we go.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I don't know where we go. Anna? Gets more confusing. So we have emergency shelter apartments that we master lease. The word emergency is not very clear

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: enough

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: because people get into these mass release departments or coordinate entry. So like if you prevent an emergency doesn't mean you're going to be in an emergency department, you are on entry and then the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: department is pretty easy

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: to reach out

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: It's the system, but they are called emergency shelter, mass police department.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Are we

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, you might have to rename them. Yeah. Go ahead, Brenda.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: You weren't here yesterday when I brought this up. There's no number of hotels, so I brought it up is so what happens in the middle of winter? Oh, and I was told that it will go by that amount of money. And even if the money is spent in the middle of winter, there won't be any hotels to put them in because we're gonna be out of money.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's why it's it's up to the department and up to us to budget responsibly.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: And that's part We have been able to do.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. But that's part of of the investment and focus on making sure the emergency seasonal, the cold weather shelters that they're because the hotel rooms are a backup if there's no beds left there, and so the combination hopefully meets that need. We're not making people on the streets. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it's like we're not saying a certain number of shelter beds, you know, like on the on the like cots. You know, everybody's familiar with cots. We're not saying, you know, those kinds of shelters are we're limited to, you know, 670 or 780. We're taking a look at what the needs are, and then we identify within the resources that we have.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Right now we're at 1,100 rooms, I think. It

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: was 1,200 last week.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: It was 1,200 last So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it could go over that if they have the money? In the emergency weather, yes. Not during a regular.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Because right now you're only allowed so many, right?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not in winter weather. Winter weather, it's by budget essentially. By budget. Like what we're talking To about

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: return back to Zon's point that he's raising, see if I understand it, we have twenty two zero six shelter services. And the language there, I think, if I understand it correctly, is referring to what I'm gonna call the traditional or historic shelter providers, like Cox, who you just mentioned. And should that be A, and then B would be what's under 2,208, the hotels and motels and the supportive services, as they are another variant of shelter services. Exactly. That's where

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Understood what you were doing. Yeah.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It's like hotels and motels seem to be the b under every one of these

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: laws. Yeah.

[Chad Simmons (Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: I Yeah. Know that. I

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: know. But

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: in fact, at least in the transition.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Or if it had a sort of a heading, shelter with supportive services, just so that it's clear that that whole section is not part of our intended permanent continuum of care, but this is what we're doing as a transition.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, it might be though. I mean, the support and services, I think it actually might be. Okay, right. It might be

[Chad Simmons (Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: different. So for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: right now, just kind of hold that thought. Okay, I understand what you're trying to get at. And I think it will be helpful for us to see a new draft. Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Know, maybe by Tuesday.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: You can have it sooner than that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. Tuesday will be fine for this group, trust me. You say you're so interested that you can just proceed as we have no. What it really means is that I have other things to add to this. And then Tuesday, add it and learn.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So you mean you? For And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that's why I just acknowledge them to me. And I'll think about that, because I do understand what you're saying. But I can't think of, honestly, another name or another label other than shelters or shelters.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yes, exactly.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If there was a broader label that's not emergency housing.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I hear you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we might have to live with the

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Well, thank you for the conversation because it helps me understand a little more. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And Jubilee, they told me to write down your name under permanent supportive housing that you had some language. Oh, then they took that back. And they took it back. Yes, they took it back. Sorry, I put it down, but I didn't press it.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: This thing's doing it now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I didn't realize.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I flew you under the door.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's all

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: good. And I advised Esme as well, I think we also want to connect with HHAV in addition to Lilly. But there is a HUD definition of permanent supportive housing because it's also a HUD.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. And I said, we want it to reflect that, but we don't want it to be only that. Only that, yeah. No. Because this is AHS.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So I sent her some of that. Okay, I'm all gonna check-in with her.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, all right, now we're on to section five on page 14. Remember, we're coming back to reporting. I find the monthly reporting incredibly helpful. I don't know if other people utilize it.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yes, but all of us is fine. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think we're going to keep some sort of monthly reporting. They're kind of used to it now.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Merger of continuums of care. In order to promote the effective use of resources and continuity of care, the Department for Children and Families Office of Economic Opportunity She'll work in collaboration with the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance, the Balance of State Continuum of Care, and the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development to establish a single continuum of care in the state on or before 07/01/2028.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah. HHABs, and I'm not sure who else kind of really spoke to.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I haven't had the feedback.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: There's a lot to dig into that, making sure we're touching base with HUD and what that process would entail. HUD does a lot of great things for our state, but it is an incredibly clunky thunder to work within, and things can often be slow. So I just want to make sure that there room that there's plenty of time to go through the process and the internal state processes. There's two kind of governance structures that then have to go up into different day. And yeah, and that there will likely be costs associated with this, as well as changes to the HMIS. And so I just wanted to echo the concerns and opportunities outlined in and make sure we spend some time digging into that once everyone's had a chance to read them. And I don't know, Chad, would it I don't know, like Abby Miller or who we might be able to reach out to who might be able to kind of walk us through what that might look like.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We don't need to walk through that. Okay. No. If it needs more time, I mean, I wasn't expecting this to happen overnight. And I knew it would be a process. There would be costs associated with that process because as much as the previous director tried to get the elements to match up, they don't 100 match up, and we want to explore the use of it for service for the service plan as well. You know? So there's different things that need to be considered. So I I'm perfectly open to other other dates, and we we can allocate some resources towards it as well. So, do you have a suggested date? Have you been in contact with the Chittenden County people?

[Chad Simmons (Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: Yes. So, it's a really good question, and a number of our members and a couple of of folks at the table shared some of the feedback as well, and so I think I've instructed my staff to pull together kind of a list answering the questions. What would some of the challenges be? What would the opportunities be? What would be the resources or needs to pull that together. Chittenden County, almost on the line, has been the same. I believe they've actually drafted an outline already. Two of both working on those. I think by and large, I think we just have questions around the expectation and the timings. Think the build out fills out an initial timeframe for that, and I think we're

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: pretty not responding. I just changed it to 2029.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Oh, okay. That's so cool.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And then, Chad,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you I can understand it taking a couple of years to accomplish something like that. I mean, I you know, you gotta get people all on the same page. But the the other part that I'm a little concerned about allowing too much time, and so maybe it should be 10/01/2028 instead of another whole year, but and because I was thinking, like, maybe it should match the federal fiscal year because that's when the funding comes in. Yeah. It should be an October date. I would make it October 2028. Just lost my train of thought. It'll come back.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And, Chad, is there you have wrote in kind of the list that one possible concern was that it could affect the overall amount. We might see a reduced amount of HUD funds coming into the state if we were to combine. Do you have more information on that yet?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I don't have more information.

[Chad Simmons (Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: That's what I've asked our team to pull together what could be some of the further challenges around a merge system. I think our initial conversation was there'd be a fair amount of opportunities. So I think it's a worthwhile discussion. I've shared with a number of members that these conversations are not new. They've been happening for quite some time. So I would like to get a full understanding of what some of those conversations came to, like where they came to, what were some of the outcomes other than, no, not right now is a good time to merge, but why? And understanding some of the reasons why behind those, and then maybe looking at what are some ways in which, if it was resourced, I think, Chairman Wood, you had mentioned, if we were to resource those conversations and bring partners together that were willing to have those conversations, I think we could still get some possibilities. But there are some potential drawbacks, and I think the uncertainty of things at the federal government right now, definitely there is definite reason to do this thoughtfully.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Maybe we have legislative intent language leading the in order to promote effective use, And we ask for a progress report on 07/01/2027. And then I I I understand the concern. And, honestly, if I were sitting at the federal level, if you're not running two organizations to do this, I would think about reducing some of that because I think it's fair. I don't think we should expect to get the same amount if we're not running two separate organizations. So I'll think about that, taking your thoughts into consideration there. Absolutely providing more granular detail. Yeah. Don't think in the previous versions, Chad, I don't think the legislature said this is something we want to see. That's a fair point. I'm not familiar with

[Chad Simmons (Housing & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont)]: it, but I'm not aware of any direction from the legislature.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. It's appropriate to grant agreements. So yeah. Go ahead, Amy.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. In terms of grant agreements, when we read through them, maybe people should be attentive towards I'm not sure that we want that. It must require for seasonal shelters under $2,205.01 and 2, because for instance they have to utilize the coordinated entry assessments or things like that. Maybe some do or some don't, but when we look through them I think we have to consider whether all of those. Yes, we're adding a section for seasonal shelter under shelters.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Under where? Well, is why having a broad category makes sense, because I don't want to list, like, five different kinds of shelters. Do you know what I mean? So I'm trying to think of something, but I haven't thought of it yet. But Lily brought up the fact that we currently have seasonal shelters that are operated by different people that are only stood up in the winter. And they're different than the emergency cold weather shelters. There's that

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: and stuff. And those are not things that we would want to come under these grant requirements.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. And I think that part of the grant requirements, and so think about this with a little bit different light, is think about what is it that we want to measure in terms of outcomes of this continuum. So I think that these will be looking different, I guess, is what I'm seeing. So we want to know the percentage of people who are participating in coordinated entry versus the percent who have applied. We want to see a reduction in the people who return to homelessness after having been placed in permanent housing, for instance. That's a pretty high percentage right now. And hopefully, a continuum that includes supportive services, that we can reduce that. This was something that people wanted last year. They wanted more participation in the housing coalitions from other AHS partners, like the designated agencies or the local SUD provider or Department of Corrections, probation and parole if it's appropriate, I don't know. So are those still things that people want to see here? And some of that is not through a grant agreement. Some of that is state employees. So I guess I'm just saying that this is gonna look slightly different. But if you have specific things that you think are elements that we should have to measure our progress in reducing homelessness, this is kind of the spot where I'm thinking about they should go. Yeah, Katie?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Just about the mechanics of this section. So I asked that this section would take effect when the continuums were merged. So this section takes effect in your draft, July 1.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But I just bumped it back

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: to October. So that's why this section would be a part of the chapter you just created, but it's split off as its own section so as to allow it to have a different effective date. So I just want to make sure everyone realizes how how the mechanics work there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I just got confused a little bit. So are you saying that this then relates to the continuum of care? This would be part of that chapter, the way this is drafted. This would be tacked on to the end of the chapter at a later date. Okay. But it's not just for an organization or shuns that is the continuum of care provider or whatever they call it.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not sure I'm following. I think this is any agreement for any of the continuing Amy? Care

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: I'm glad to be Scholzberg. But he just said he made an option about disability abuse. So it seems like the grant agreements come with the funding. You're available somewhere, there will be an appropriation for the coming fiscal year 'twenty seven. Are you envisioning this to be part of the FY 'twenty seven grant agreements, or is this

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Some parts of it will be. So I just

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: think that needs to be clear, like, which maybe even in the appropriations, we'd make a reference to this section if it's a post rule of five. You don't have to make it a lower hospital. Because I think, I'm just aware sometimes getting grants is complicated by disagreements about what we thought the legislation said.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. I also want to include reference in the appropriations section about any funds appropriate under this that are not spent in FY '27 or carried forward into FY '28 or succeeding years to be used for this purpose. Because we've been told that a lot of this new development is definitely not going to these are annualized, and a lot of this new development is not going to be next year. I mean, if it does, it'll be late in the year, so they will not experience these costs. Okay, I think the next chapter is all about the network. I think we're going to stop there. Katie, I'm just looking at section twenty one fifteen. It won't be called the General Assistance Program report anymore, but that's the- That is cleanup. Right now, there is a General Assistance Report,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: and we're removing housing from it. Okay. I mean, it will still be called general assistance because that report will still be about general assistance. It just won't be about general assistance housing because there won't be general assistance housing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We get that?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's an annual report about general assistance.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think we need it.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you wanna strike the whole report? Yep.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Been in this committee for nine years, ten years, and we haven't looked at it once. So

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I like this every day.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Didn't even know what was. Get a gold star,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: then Okay, I get

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: all right, so we're gonna, rather than getting into a whole new thing, we're gonna stop

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: here.

[Amy Schallberger (BCAP)]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: tomorrow, just I think I mentioned this, but just as a reminder, tomorrow we're hearing testimony from the department. I'm really not sure exactly what they're gonna say, but I'm sure we'll get some feedback about our discussions and the shape of our bill. And do we have a did they confirm yet, Laurie? Alright. I'm going to text my buddy. Then I am going to Katie, we'll proceed with the six sixty without the Overdose Prevention Center.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: But

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: the editor still had it

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: too. One of the things and Nolan took great notes. So, Nolan, if you're listening, I just want you to know you put great notes. One thing I I just wanted to note was that we we wanted in the bill sustainability language so that the and we want to to pause for one year new grant requests, with the exception of the four. He didn't he didn't make note of those.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I don't. I'll give you more information.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I'm presuming that they're going to give KFC updates on rural housing transformation grant. We wanted updates on the recovery housing piece to be included with that. Do you think that's appropriate to include in here, can I say? It might be something that goes in the budget language, not in the bill. That we should get updates on the Rural Health Transformation Grant to I'm sure somebody is going to have that language someplace. So maybe we don't need to Put it in. Yeah. So unless you don't see that language appear someplace Okay. We want to get updates at JFC, particularly about recovery housing, because that's what's in there for us. So I guess right now, it'd just be the that request for funding future request for funding need to review the sustainability plan and that we're gonna pause the request for one year to enable the committee to look at outcomes for existing and past grants. Okay. That's the only two things. Okay. So we'll see you back here tomorrow.