Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Good afternoon, everyone. Nice to see y'all back. So a couple of things. Our budget memo, I sent you a copy of the budget memo, and it is posted to our committee's webpage. I'm sure that would be of interest to people listening and people Oh, yep, the red is unmuted. Okay. I have muted it before. It's all good. Thank you. But like I said, you read my mind. So one of the things I want to point out is that we had language requested for the 800,000 for recovery centers, but we had not put it actually in the chart. And so I'm like, well, that's not gonna work if we have language and they don't see it in the chart. So I added it to the chart.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Talked about it, but it didn't appear anywhere. And I thought like, oh, I read the language. And I said, well, I think we need to solve that problem. So you will see that in the chart that was not there when you looked at the last version. Other than that, and then the cover memo is all new. And then Anne has done some really great work summarizing some of the issues around the high end system of care and really us needing to put a pause on that so that we can understand really what are we committing ourselves to, particularly given the extremely high cost of the contracts that have recently been entered into for the Southern Vermont program. Anyway, so we took an unusual step and we attached that full memo to the for our budget memo. So you'll see all of that all in in one thing posted on today's website. And for people for ease at some time in the near future, you also see it over on the left hand side of our webpage where there are relevant documents that people like to refer to often. So you'll see it there as well. So Katie is tied up on third reading in the Senate, but she will be here momentarily. So if you go to today's, you will see draft 3.1 of 20 six-seven 66. So I want to tell you what I've been up to. Sometimes there's so much outside and inside, I just want to call it noise, if you will, that you really need to sit down and think about it all. And so what I essentially did is I have started over somewhat on this build. And take time, Katie. I'm just kind of telling them what I've been up to. And then we'll have you walk through what we've got. So I wanted to respect the process of what we have heard, and we've received a lot of written feedback as well. And we heard from the administration about their dissatisfaction with the bill. And I might be misguided, but I remain committed to trying to have some cogent public policy when it comes to serving people who are homeless in the state of Vermont. And we don't have that right now. And so I started to think about trying to meld some of the concept from May around what were called tiers there. I'm calling levels because I I did not want any reference to what always brings up for me act two fifty and that tier thing and act two fifty. And I did not want any I didn't want any mistaken references to act two fifty to cloud people. And this is still a work in progress. So what you don't see here yet, because it's very complicated to put all the information together that I received from DCF. We received information from another source about what expenditures go where. So I'm still working on that. And I'm still working on what would be called the limitations of service that will come. And I will be totally honest. I'm doing this on my own with Katie. So what I'm trying to do is to take in the things that we've heard and the things that I think as a committee that we can try to reach some consensus on in the group and try to have a fill when we reach the end of crossover. So we're not going be voting on any bill this week if that's I know it has set it on the agenda. This is going to continue to be a work in progress over the break. And I have not had any additional meetings, either with the advocates and providers or with the state. So what you see here is me trying to distill information without losing the concept of this continuum of services that we have been talking about. So with that, I'm going to ask Katie if she can come walk us through this draft that we've got so far. Do have any questions about what

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I just shared? Yeah, go ahead, Sal. So

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: thank you, first of all. But I'm interested to know what you would hope going forward. Do you want us to dive into this like it's the first thing you've ever seen and the whole process is going to start all over again? Or do you hope that you'll be able to kind of just tighten things up a bit? What is Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, you're not going to see 100% brand new language. I mean, you're going to see things that are familiar to you. So no, you don't have to start over. But you'll start to see this concept of within the continuum levels of service. And you'll see sort of how as we get walked through this, you'll see how they kind of build on each other. And so, yeah, so no, we're not starting over per se. But I felt like I couldn't go further with the draft that we had. I couldn't just, like, keep going and fill in the rest of the missing pieces because I felt I needed to kinda, like, rewind a bit and bring us to something that I hope will resonate with people a little bit. Okay. Okay?

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: That's good. Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright. You, Katie. Yeah. You're welcome. Katie McLean, Office of Legislative Council. Here we go.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So this is draft 3.1. Changes since the last time you have seen them are highlighted in yellow. So some of these changes reflect some of the committee markup from last week. So one of the big changes is the title. It had been Vermont Homeless Response Continuum. So Vermont Homelessness Continuum, you'll see that throughout. And then we move to our findings section. The General Assembly finds that although an imperfect tool for measuring the true number of unhoused Vermonters, the Vermont Homeless Management Information System, as of December 2025, indicated that there were 4,022 individuals who were homeless in the state, eight sixty three of whom were children 18 years of age. Subdivision two, the General Assembly finds that in 2024, Vermont Housing Needs Assessment notes that of the 36,000 primary homes needed in Vermont between 2025 and 2029, the number needed to address homelessness is 3,295. Then on page two, we move to legislative intent. It is the intent of the General Assembly that unsheltered homelessness be eliminated and that homelessness in Vermont be rare, brief and non reoccurring. That Vermont reduce reliance on the inefficient use of hotel and motel rooms for emergency housing that utilization of an emergency housing benefit to access hotels and motels through the General Assistance Program end and be replaced by a continuum of care and a continuum of supports and services be available to provide a stable pathway to permanent housing that meets the specific needs of households experiencing homelessness. It is the purpose of the Act to establish a continuum of supports and services for households who are experiencing homelessness or who are at risk of experiencing homelessness. To ensure that tailored temporary emergency housing assistance is available to Vermonters in a manner that encourages efficient and accountable use of taxpayer funds. Page three, that support self sufficiency and reduce returns of homelessness by developing personalized housing plans with required participation by households. It establish clear eligibility criteria and require active household participation. It expands the use of alternative emergency housing models in partnership with municipalities, nonprofit community based providers, and private landlords. That integrate supportive services to assist households to achieve permanent housing stability that establish transparent accountability measures reporting requirements and oversight mechanisms that increase program efficiency and promote maximum flexibility in administering services and supports in the continuum that empower local communities to administer emergency housing services with maximum flexibility and that create a diversified system of emergency housing options, including shelters, specialized services, shared housing arrangements, host home models, master lease units, and rapid rehousing placements that provide cost effective, sustainable, and supportive outcomes to households.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'll just pause there just for a minute, Katie. So some of the changes that you see here is a reflection of looking at the work that the committee had previously done, and then also looking back at some of the language in May that seemed important to the administration. So where you see not all of the changes in yellow, but some of those changes in yellow are to reflect sort of a marriage of the two. Thank you.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Madam Chair? Yes. Can we just reflect on page two, line seven, utilization of emergency housing benefit to access hotels and motels through GA program. I think we understand what that means around the table, but I think our discussions and by the administration, the hotel motes hotels and motels will continue to be used in some form sort of shelter like. And I wonder if some clarifying language of access to hotels and motels on a per night basis through the program. If someone looks at I'm just envisioning a year out from now, two years out from now, someone's like, there's still all sorts of folks living in the motels. I thought we were doing away with the motels.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's why it says through the general assistance program. Yeah. It seems to be I guess I'm gonna say, and maybe this is just because I've been living this for so many years now, but that people refer to it as the GA emergency housing. So that from my perspective, I think that That's covered. Covered. Okay. Thank you.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Let's move to the next section. Page four, section four. This is the creation of the new chapter in statute in title 33, the Human Services title. The first section is definitions. Maybe I'll just go over them if they've changed since the last time you've seen them. So we have alternative housing options means housing options, including shelters, specialized shelters, transitional housing, recovery residences, shared housing arrangements, post home models, master lease units, and rapid rehousing placements. And two, applicant means a household that applies for emergency housing assistance. Skip over three. Four, case management services means individualized supportive services. Subdivision five, coordinated entry, means a process that standardizes the way households at risk of homelessness or experiencing homelessness access and are assessed for and referred to the housing and services that a household needs for housing stability. I should flag here, I'm not sure that we're I think we should check. I have already said this at the end of this process to see that all of the defined words are used in the text of the chapter. I'll skip over department. I'll skip over the definition of disability. Those are unchanged. Diversion means a strategy aimed at preventing homelessness by helping households find immediate alternative housing options instead of entering shelters. Diversion focuses on addressing the needs of those who have recently lost their housing. Eligible household means a household that is homeless and is physically present and intends to reside in Vermont, as evidenced by active participation in a housing, employment or other AHS recognized plan. Let's skip over emergency cold weather shelter. Oh, no, that does have a change. Publicly funded shelter beds made available to households during periods when the National Weather Service is forecasting temperatures at or below 10 degrees including wind chill for the majority of the state. Subdivision 11 Emergency Housing means temporary shelter, lodging or other housing support or related services provided to eligible households to protect the health, safety and welfare of an eligible household when no safe housing option is immediately available. Homelessness means lacking a fixed regular adequate nighttime residence, facing imminent loss of primary nighttime residents, fleeing or attempting to flee domestic violence, residing in a place not meant for human habitation, such cars, parks, abandoned buildings or streets, or otherwise defined as homeless under federal law. The definition of household, the last clause, was removed. Minor child is unchanged. Office is unchanged. Permanent supportive housing means long term housing with wraparound services for individuals with complex health and social needs. Prevention means services intended to prevent a household from becoming homeless, including housing relocation or stabilization services or short term rental assistance, including rental arrearage. The program is the Vermont Homelessness Response Continuum. Rapid rehousing means short to medium term rental assistance and supportive services aimed at assisting a household to quickly exit homelessness. Shelter means a facility that meets the department's shelter standards, and the second clause has been removed. Specialized shelter means a facility that meets the Department's shelter standards and applicable standards for the delivery of additional services, including health care, mental health services, services related to substance use disorder. We have a definition of supportive services, and there is the addition of services to ensure continuity after permanent placement. Also, swapping out such as with including on line three and I think on line four, switching out on for of. And then Subdivision 23, unsheltered homelessness, means sleeping in a location not designated for or ordinarily used as a regular sleeping accommodation, including cars, parks, abandoned buildings or streets. In 2202, we move to the description of the continuum. So the Vermont Homelessness Response Continuum is established to create an array of services that prevent and address homelessness in Vermont. The program shall be administered by the Department's Office of Economic Opportunity. The office shall maintain a continuum of care that is flexible, housing focused and designed to prevent homelessness whenever possible. The continuum shall prioritize early intervention, rapid resolution of housing crises, and equitable access to emergency and permanent housing. And c, the program shall provide temporary emergency housing to eligible individuals and eligible households experiencing homelessness.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We should get rid of eligible individuals. Just trying to be consistent because the definition of households includes individual. Thank you.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Judge strike eligible?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. No. Eligible individuals. Oh, you're right. Yeah.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Provide temporary emergency housing to eligible households experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness. Reduce reliance on hotels and motels for emergency housing assistance. Expand use of alternative housing options in partnership with community organizations, municipalities and private landlords, integrate case management and individualized housing plans into all emergency housing placements, and ensure accountability, transparency and cost efficiency in the use of public funds. And then 2203

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sets up the components of the continuum of care. So Level one is prevention and diversion services. Level two is shelter services broken out by highly structured shelter services and low barrier shelter services. Just a note there, it might not be the right term, but high barrier didn't make sense to me. So I tried to come up with something that was more reflective of what happens. So if somebody else can come up with a different term, that's fine too. But high barrier to me would mean that it's hard to get into.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Level three, specialized shelter services. Level four, permanent supportive housing services. Level five, hotels and motels broken out into hotels and motels with supportive services. And winter and non winter hotels and motels. I think I need

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: an S there. And then states is other emergency housing services. So let's pause here for just a minute. How this is flipped essentially, previous versions, of course, we didn't see these level things. But in previous versions, we saw prevention and diversion. And then we saw hotels and motels, and then we saw shelter, and then the specialized shelter, and then permanent supportive housing. And this is set up to show that, as you will see in the next piece, that you only use the hotels and motels if you don't have access to any of those things that come before that.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Ask a question. Of course. Prompted by looking at the the hotels and motels. And earlier, I was asking a question about the reference to hotels hotels and motels, and how it's coming to an end for the GA emergency housing. Are there smaller components of GA emergency housing outside of what we think about with respect to the homeless? I have a recollection back from past career working at the Red Cross. Someone who's had homeless destroyed in a fire maybe put up through emergency housing, got through GA for a few days or something like that. Are we unintentionally making a change or impacting the non homelessness use of GA?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's homeless. Somebody if somebody's buying a house, it was burned down. I

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not that I think, but as we work through this, keep that in mind. Okay.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm going to skip over subsection B, and that brings us to 2,204, Prevention and Diversion Services. So now we have a header at the top of each section reminding us what level we're in. Prevention and diversion services shall function as the primary entry point through the Vermont Homelessness Response Continuum for all households. The Department shall ensure that prevention and diversion services are provided through an agreement with one or more community partners in each region of the state in a manner that accommodates an eligible household's disability, if any. All households, upon request for assistance, shall receive a standardized prevention and diversion assessment to identify safe alternatives to homelessness and resolve immediate housing barriers. And then the next two sentences are broken out into subdivisions. Prevention includes activities to avert entry into homelessness. Diversion includes problem solving interventions and supports that safely resolve a housing crisis without the use of shelter and hotel placements. On top of page 11, funds administered for prevention diversion services shall have maximum

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: flexibility. So a concept that I've been thinking about, but haven't really figured out whether it should be kind of like a a a just one overarching section that applies to everything or whether it would we should be thinking about it in each section. But so when this says the that they would these services are provided through an agreement with one or more community partners. So trying also to use existing structures as much as possible when they make sense. So we have existing local housing coalitions that are located throughout the state. They cover the whole state. So I guess that's something that I'm interested in feedback about from the committee. So we can be generic and say one or more community partners, or we can say fewer agreements with each local housing coalition. I don't need a reaction right now, but it would be a more specific direction being given to the department. And those coalitions include a variety of different people. Nobody's excluded from being in a coalition, but it gives more direction and that is at that regional level.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: There's also community decision making process to it rather than one organization getting the funds and being like this person of thing, or more. I think it forces that.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Any

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: concern that in different parts of the state, the strength of the coalitions may vary? I'm not familiar enough with them to know whether services would be consistently available through the coalitions, maybe not an issue.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that what we'd be saying is that these coalitions, if they're gonna have the responsibility for the funds, would need to assure that these services are provided in their region. Now it doesn't mean every member of the coalition has to provide every service. It just means that, you know, what we're saying is that the state would contract with you to provide this type of service in your region. And I don't know as much about whether we'd say a lead organization within it or I kind of prefer to kind of keep it a little more broad and say the local housing coalitions, because then that gives them the opportunity to, I think, have discussions among themselves for the local decision making about the state's not gonna give it to like, if there's 10 different organizations in a local housing coalition, they're not gonna I would not want them to divvy it all up among 10 organizations. Concept is that as a region, you decide how we best gonna manage this.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Are those housing coalitions set up in a way that they can receive funds? I don't know the level of formality in which they operate. Are they?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's what I mean by they would be talking among themselves about how is it best to administer these funds to our region. So it it could be it could be one per one type of provider in one region and a different type of provider in another that sort of takes on the responsibility for managing the funds. But that's a decision they can make locally. That's the part that I like about it because there's local decision making that happens and they agree as a group about what would happen in discussion with the department. So yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: It strikes me along the same point that five years out, this stuff will probably all sort of sort itself out. It'll sort of kind of get organized. And so I just wondered if, I don't know, perhaps down in the further on, there's some description about how we're kind of overseeing that or is there a board of folks that are seeing this? Are we expecting the OEO to manage those various processes? Is it just through the granting process?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It'll be through the grant process. So the allowed uses and the outcomes expected and those kinds of things, that would be in the grant process.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: And that feels sturdy enough for you to feel like it would work?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's what we do in state government. Yeah. Jubilee?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, so same issue I had kind of in the last draft. And I see there's been some changes to the prevention and diversion services. Just this bullet two, specifically without the use of shelter or hotel placements. And I am concerned because the current amount of money that does this work allows it to be used on folks who are in shelter or motels so that they can quickly divert out being in a shelter or motel through paying the security deposit on their half or maybe a utility deposit or first month's rent. And so this language makes I have a fear that they won't be able to use those funds similarly anymore, which are really crucial for people, even if they're in a shelter or a hotel, to rapidly exit out of homelessness. So I just am concerned by including that parameter in there that they can't act if they're not in a shelter or hotel placement. Well, isn't that the whole concept of prevention, though? Well, diversion, though. That's why I kept bringing up these definitions of prevention diversion. Diversion can be of diversion. It doesn't necessarily mean that they don't enter shelter. It just means that they quickly resolve their homelessness. And so I'm just afraid by this language that they won't have access to those really important funds that do allow them to divert rapidly from homelessness. So I guess what I'm laying out here is that I wouldn't want these funds to be actually used for hotel or shelter placements. It doesn't mean that they couldn't utilize funds to assist somebody who is in a hotel Mhmm. To access.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And so that might not be clear. So the Yeah. The what you're talking about, which is a current use, would continue to be allowable.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Just to me, and might I know Lily had the same feedback when she read it, that this is precluding folks who are in shelter or hotel from accessing these funds when these are the funds that allow us to get them out. Yeah.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Adding a clause at the end. It's without the use of shelter hotel placements, comma, or to access to the same expeditiously or whatever.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Well, I think what it's I think we can we want to be able to continue to use those funds how we're using them now. We just don't want them to be used for hotel and shelter placements because those are covered by another part of the bill. And I wouldn't want things that are really intended for prevention and diversion to get sucked up by use of hotels.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: But they can work in concert together.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Actually, they can. Yes. I need to print me out a copy of this. But will you print me out a copy, Laurie, then I'll grab the bill. Yes. Okay. Thank you. So let's keep going. So that brings us to Section two

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: thousand two five, Shelter Services, and this is broken into two pieces. First is the highly structured services. The Department shall determine the need for highly structured shelter services and, to the extent funds permit, develop sufficient highly structured shelter services to address that need. The Department shall enter into agreements with community partners for the provision of highly structured shelter services for a period of not less than two years at a time. Highly structured shelters shall provide programming that emphasizes case management, housing stability, employment, education or treatment services, as well as other services as appropriate, and anything that accommodates an eligible household's disability, if any. Eligible households receiving highly structured shelter services shall participate in case management and other services to the extent of the eligible household's ability. Then we have a reference to the fire and building safety code. And lastly, if an eligible household's needs cannot be met with the Level one Prevention and Diversion Services in Section 22.4 of this chapter, highly structured shelter services is the preferred initial placement if capacity staffing and geographic accessibility are available. Then Subsection B is the low barrier shelter services. The Department shall determine the need for low barrier shelter services and, to the extent funds permit, develop sufficient low barrier shelters to address that need. Department shall enter into agreements with community partners for the provision of low barrier shelters for a period of not less than two years at any time. Low barrier shelters shall minimize barriers to industry by reducing the rules and programmatic requirements found in highly structured shelters while still providing case management and other housing support services in a manner that accommodates an eligible household's disability, if any. Days in low barrier shelters shall be time limited, and eligible households shall be transitioned to highly structured shelter services or permanent housing as soon as feasible. Same language about the fire and building safety code. And then four, subdivision four, if an eligible household's needs cannot be met with the prevention and diversion services in level one or the highly structured shelter services in subsection A of this section. Low barrier shelter services may be utilized if capacity staffing and geographic accessibility are available. So let's just pause here for a second. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: this is using some of the concepts that were laid out in May, and, really looking at, preferences for what services are received first and assessing needs and what is the what's the preferred access first. So that's that's why you see a a different order here, essentially, than what you saw before. And I guess that's it. That's all I need to say. Somebody remind me what that section was just before this, that we were just talking about the diversion and diversion. Yep.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Your last line of page 10.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yep. Got it. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, King.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. That brings us to Section twenty two zero six, Specialized Shelter Services Level three. The Department shall determine the need for and to the extent funds permit develop specialized service sheltered services that comply with the Fire and Building Safety Code, as well as any other applicable standards relevant to the specialty population. To the extent funds are appropriated for this purpose, the Department shall enter into agreements with community partners for the provision of specialized shelter services for a period of not less than two years. I just So, sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I keep going till the end of the section, then I'll talk about the section. Okay. Sorry. No, that's okay.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Specialized service shelters shall provide services delivered in a highly structured shelter, as well as additional specialty services such as services for substance use disorder and mental and physical health conditions. Eligible households receiving specialized shelter services shall participate in case management and other services to the extent that the eligible households the eligible households felony. If an eligible household's needs cannot be met with Level one Prevention and Diversion Services in Section 2,204 or the Level two shelter services in 2,205, a specialized service shelter may be utilized if capacity, staffing and geographic accessibility are available and the eligible household requires specialized services. So,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sorry for interrupting before. It refers to the department. And in this case, it means the Department for Children and Families. And we've heard in testimony that these specialized shelters are more likely to be developed by other departments within AHS. So for instance, the shelter for people with healthcare issues is something that I know that Dale is working on. And I think BDH is gonna be the entity that works on a shelter for people with substance use disorders. And so I feel like we need to somehow modify the language where it references the department. Maybe the departments of

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the agency shall determine the need for, and to the extent funds exist, develop. Rick, I just have the agency as well. Any?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I think as the department can still determine the needs for the the needs for the shelter. I'm thinking it was more to the on line nine. So it probably it's not gonna be DCF that enters into agreements with community partners. So maybe we could just say the relevant AHS department or something like that. In line nine? In line nine.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Up on the line five and six, where it says the department, also determined the need, but also it says online six develop specialized shelter services where at that point, they may identify that they're probably handing off to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Probably handing off the development to a sister department. Yeah.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Just put a period after permit and start a new sentence. We can use that same phrase, the relevant AHS department shall develop.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Shall develop. Yeah. That sounds good.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The next section is 22.7, permanent supportive housing level four. The Agency of Human Services or any department within the agency shall provide or enter an agreement for permanent supportive housing that combines long term community based rental assistance with voluntary flexible supportive services such as family supportive housing and other supportive housing services funded in whole or part by Medicaid. Eligible households receiving permanent supportive housing services shall participate in case management, planning for housing stability and other services to the extent of the eligible household's ability. If an eligible household's needs cannot be met with the Level one prevention and diversion services in Section 2,204, the Level two shelter services in Section 2,205, the Level three specialized shelter services in 2,206 of this chapter, permanent supportive housing may be utilized where capacity staffing and geographic accessibility are available. One thing

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I wanted to point out here because I think Lily had brought up the question and I think Ray, you had brought up the question. So this is intended to include family supportive housing. So that phrase is added on line eight, but it's not the only thing. Mean, there's other supportive And we referenced that they may be funded in whole or part by Medicaid. So this is the other thing on lines five and six. It's any department within the agency. What I previous So versions of this really were just speaking about DCF. And we know in this committee that the agency human services through other departments like Dale, like DMH, like DOC, even, they provide supportive housing to folks in a variety of different ways. So I felt like it needed to be broader than just DCF. So I just wanted to call your attention to that change.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 2208 is hotels and motels.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Sorry. The last sentence, if we look at twenty two zero six at the top of page 14, successfully are available and the eligible households require specialized services. We need the same online 18 to finish that sentence words and for consistency and held full households requires permanent supportive housing, or is it not a support?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do you have the yet to remember?

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Is your husband met the phrase and requires the special. I only did that for the of security because they are special services for individuals with a mental health condition or substance use disorder. Flagging that prerequisite for going into those type of shelters would be a need for those type of shelters

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: versus the general population. And that's determined before you actually even get to Okay.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Twenty two zero eight, hotels and motels. This is level five. It is the intent of the General Assembly to decrease reliance on hotel and motel rooms. However, until sufficient permanent affordable housing or shelter services are available, the use of hotel and motel services shall be permitted. I break into the two categories. First, level 5A is hotels and motels with supportive services. Annually, as part of the Department's budget presentation, the Department shall set goals for increased housing capacity, including permanent supportive housing, permanent affordable housing and shelter beds. The Department shall provide data pertaining to the increased shelter capacity and the extent to which shelter capacity meets the needs of eligible households experiencing homelessness each year. The Department shall propose hotel and motel rates as part of its budget presentation for the General Assembly's consideration.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm just thinking, Katie. I'm just thinking that not not the last sentence of paragraph a, but the rest of paragraph a is really something that doesn't necessarily go under hotels and motels. It's something that's Okay. Up it it I think it goes more at the beginning of this part of the chapter. Okay. Or or maybe under a section that will have is American responsibilities or something. But I think it needs to move from here. Okay. Without without a cap, how are you gonna know if people are overabusing the hotels? It it does not appear here yet, but I am gonna be suggesting caps. Thank you. Because I can see it being abused. Thanks. You might not like the ones I suggest, I'm just Well, you know, I have no idea. I'm just That was sort of a joke, so

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I'm okay. I'm okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I didn't want you to get too excited, Brenda, that's all. Okay, thank you. Okay.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Retaining this sentence, the department shows hotel and motel rates as part of it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's references to hotels. Hotels.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: And then E, eligible households placed in a hotel or motel pursuant to this program shall participate in PACE management services, planning for housing stability and other services to the extent of the eligible household's ability. If an eligible household is placed in a hotel or motel pursuant to subdivision one, the Department shall enter into an agreement with one or more community partners to provide relevant supportive housing, permit population specific placement to the extent certain populations are not isolated from the wider community served by the program, and use only hotel and motel rates established by the General Assembly. If an eligible household is placed in a hotel or motel pursuant to the subdivision, the Subdivision one, the community partner shall enter into agreements for use of blocks of hotels and motel rooms and negotiate conditions of use for those blocks, including access to providers of case management and other supportive services. And then we have an E, the rules that have to be complied with by hotel and motel used under this chapter, and that's with the licensed lodging establishment rule and the Vermont Fire and Building Safety Code. In Subdivision F, if a household's needs cannot be met with the level I won't go through them all. But one through four, the Department may utilize hotels and motels if capacity staffing and geographic accessibility are available. I wonder if there's shorthand for that. I think I do that in B, where I finally gave up

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: and just did

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a yep. Right there.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I gave up and just did a range.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So maybe I'll put that there. So the, this is wait. Okay. It says that the heading. I just wanna make sure that people are clear that this level is the use of hotels and motels with supportive services. Mhmm. Maybe that calling them to be run as shelters because we run into zoning issues.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Wonder if that could be made fair in the language. Yeah. That's what

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was wondering. I felt like by the time we got to the end, I wasn't sure that that was clear. Yeah. The department should propose hotel and motel rates.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It feels like there needs to be something sort of summarizing what is happening in 5A before we jump into the rates.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Maybe define hotels and motels with supportive services? No. So maybe we start it with hotels and motels with supportive services are defined as, and then we say rooms or blocks of room. And then we kind of say what we what we talk about that have to be entered into in the agreement. But then we reference supportive services as defined and reference back to the definition to make it clearer that those supportive services, that that's what we're talking about here. Okay. I don't know that

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: we have to reference back if it's in the same chapter. I'm sort of wondering what's leading with this language in B. Hold on. Eligible households placed in hotel on hotel pursuant to this program shall receive supportive services and participate in case management, something like that. Something like that.

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

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Esme. I'm keeping struck by the needs cannot be met piece just because By

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the way, I'm sorry, coughed when you

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: said Oh, that's okay. The needs cannot be met language because, yeah, in terms of our legislative intent, what does that look like? The needs cannot be met? Or is there a precedent in terms of saying that someone's needs cannot be met through a particular policy?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm sure there's precedent someplace. I'm not gonna be able to tell you where that is. The concept is starting out with the lowest cost, lowest intervention and moving through. And I'm not going to say it because it doesn't all follow that because actual placement in a hotel is lower cost than placement in a shelter. But that we prefer the services of a shelter over the non services in a hotel. So it's not all based on cost, but it is essentially trying to identify the preference and policy for what services get used first. Now, I need to be real. We know that at least the last I knew, 100% of our shelter beds were all full or very close to that. So that's why it says to the extent that they're available. So you might move through this relatively quickly without actually going anywhere. Do you know what I'm saying? Sure. I guess part of my question is, is needs like shelter or is needs like service connection or is it both? It's both. It's like, can that So that's what we're defining accommodated both by what the shelter provides and what the person needs. And so there might not be a match, for instance. So there might be an opening at a let's just use this. There's a specialized shelter for women with substance use disorder in Central Vermont. Let's just say, okay, so you have a woman and she has children and there might be an opening there, but she doesn't have substance use disorder. So it wouldn't make sense to require the use of that bed because the next person that comes along may in fact need that and need that specialized service. So that's how I see it. That help at all?

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: It does. For the categorizing of where people are placed, it is helpful. Because the needs, I guess, yeah, just wanting to make sure that it's hard because the needs perspective could come from either the person themselves or the department placing them in a certain place. Like, here's what I think your needs are versus here's what I think they need that. The person receiving this needs. So I just wanted to make sure that the language was precise enough for us to convey to what you just described. And I didn't know if there was history there or if this is sufficient. Maybe it is. It just kept calling my attention in terms of how it could be interpretive. But right now, I don't have a suggestion,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and it helps to hear the context of where you came from with that. Well, and I think we need to talk about I'm not necessarily envisioning the department making those decisions. That's why when I was talking about the local housing coalitions, I know that they have systems discussions, but they also have case discussions. And you would hope that there would be, I hate this term because it's ridiculous, but the no wrong door. So if I went to the base station in Burlington, they would be talking and that person is presenting with whatever needs that they have. And they're thinking about this continuum of services and thinking about their local housing coalition and needing to be able to connect with the right people there that a person could be assessed relatively quickly and receive shelter relatively quickly in whatever level that might be appropriate and if it's available in that geographic region. I think that's another one of the things is that trying to avoid people being moved all over the state and trying to avoid the things like Representative Maguire has talked about, feeling like some communities have received overplacement of people. And of course, people would prefer to stay connected in their local communities if at all possible. So that's kind of how I envision that. You have something, Eric?

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: No, no, no, no. Just syncing and processing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I wasn't sure.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Five b is winter and non winter hotel and motels. To the extent funds exist for this purpose, a household shall be placed in general access hotels and motels if available options exist within levels one through five A of the continuum of care.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Change the last word care to a continuation of our continuum of services?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Whatever we call it.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: There was I don't know if there's a consistency thing going or not. There was mention that the word continuum care is sort of a branded thing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, have to say continuum. I think you just

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: heard Continuum.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: If an eligible household is placed in a hotel or motel pursuant to the subdivision Department shall enter into an agreement with one or more community partners to provide relevant supportive services, permit a population specific placement to the extent certain populations are not isolated from the wider community served by the population.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Roman numeral three use only hotel and motel rates established by the General Assembly. Subdivision C. If an eligible household is placed in a hotel or motel pursuant to this subdivision two, The community partners shall enter into agreements for the use of blocks, hotels, and motel rooms, and negotiate conditions of use for those blocks, including access to providers of case management and other supportive services. So before we get to Dee, so the concept here is that it's still not, I guess I would call willy nilly use of hotels. It's still a plan, something that's planned in advance essentially and still has an expectation that I'm saying this out loud that there's still an expectation that people participate in planning for housing stability. So it's not intended to be just a roof over somebody's head. I'm having a as we're talking about, and I know Katie had emailed me about this. I'm in my head now, I'm having a little bit and as I'm reading through this again, having a little bit of trouble discerning this section from actually the previous section. And so think got to think about that. One structural thing is

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm hearing it out loud. It is on page 17b and c are duplicative of what is in level 5a. That's what got me thinking about it. It sort of makes me wonder, maybe those could be moved up under the twenty two zero eight, like the main language before we break it out into categories so that language is applicable to both. Both. Yeah. And then you would just have your sort of programmatic specific instructions under A and B.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Is it that you're trying to distinguish between hotels and motels being used as a tool to address the housing issue, essentially, as opposed to what I see coming in Section D, which is more emergency related. And that's the kind of line you're drawing there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. The answer is yes to that. I I mean, I I think that we're trying to limit the use of hotels and motels that do not come with supportive services.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: And that happens at D, essentially. Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm feeling like I maybe overcomplicated it a little bit.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: It strikes me as I read it and hear it, it strikes me that D and C are essentially the same thing.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, that's what reaching that conclusion as we are working through this. I think that that is I'm not the only one who is feeling that as it was kind of as you're reading it out loud, that's what was striking me. And so it seems like other people are having that same sense. So I'm thinking, Katie, we might think about how we work that. There maybe I'll ask you a question. I'll try that approach. Is there anything different in 5A from 5B before we get to winter weather?

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The emphasis on, especially the change we just made to receive supportive services in what is now labeled 5A Subsection Subdivision B. We now have eligible households placed in a hotel or motel pursuant to the external receive supportive services and participate in case management. What I'm sort of thinking about as I'm sitting here is taking what is right now on page 15, C, D, and E, and those would apply to all hotels and motels, I think, and moving that language up above one. So it would just fall under the heading 2,208. So everything that would apply to both categories would apply up in that section, and then any program specific language you have would appear in level 5A and level 5B. So if you wanted to retain this language in 5A that you have to meet these if you can't be served one through four, then we come to five a, then that would be under the five a section. Was that clear? I think I get it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Right now, as I'm looking at these side by side, the only thing that is different is on page 15, paragraph B. And the thing that says department should enter a big winner to provide supportive services. So we actually say that in the next section too. So that's starting to get me thinking. Because we're saying the department enters an agreement to provide supportive services, but then there's nothing that says that the people are going to receive supportive services in in 5B. That Although you

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: just added that. Electable households placed in a hotel and motel pursuant to this program. Oh, and 5B. Sorry. I'm looking at 5A. Yeah, under 5A.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that what we want to promote is that if motel and motel are going to be used, that it comes with supportive services, period. So I'm thinking that we're gonna eliminate the redundancy until we get to D. Until we get it, yeah. Zon?

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: So I'm thinking of an instance maybe I'm not thinking correctly, but I'm thinking of an instance down the road. It seems like with the dollars available, this might not be able to happen now, but there might be use of five B use for hotels and motels that have no services involved that are not emergency either. Would there ever be a space where there would be people?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I honestly think that's what we're trying to eliminate. Yeah. Okay. Alright. I mean

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: So in other words, eliminate

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's one of the problems that we're trying to solve.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: And that is hotels and motels are not housing in the sense of housing without services, private housing. Right. And this would leave that possibility. Yeah.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I think

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: the likelihood of that existing is still available, but we're trying to intend it not to be that way, so it's smarter not to put the language in.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Mean, think that that When I think about the big picture, we are actually trying to eliminate their use without supportive services because we don't want people to stay there.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Right, exactly. So one thing I'm struggling with, but I'm conflicted because of limited resources, is that we know supportive services are not inexpensive, right? It takes resources to provide that service. So I'm just kind of trying to grapple on my head of, we will reach a point where we may have more capacity of hotels and motels, but we'll not have capacity for the supportive services.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: That's where I'm feeling, that's where I'm feeling. It's like the winter transition period.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Well, winter would, but outside of the winter months, then it's a policy decision.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Winter months is about true safety from my

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: resurgence. So

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: again, it is a personal conflict for me because I know the balance of resources versus Right, better service fewer people. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: think that's something we all need to sit and think about. But for the next version, Katie, let's think about this as child support services and then we'll move into cold weather. I might be missing it, but did we take out accountability from H594 to help people get on their feet and require them to get help and recovery and help them with jobs. I can't find that. Yeah. It's in there. Oh, it's coming. It's coming? It's right in the beginning.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: It's right in the beginning. It's also in a big

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's Are they leasing Okay. As long as it's fair, because otherwise you'll never get people to do it. It says in every section, the participants shall participate in case management, planning for housing stability and other services. Maybe putting employment though, like recovery, job searches. Maybe it should be more It does say that here someplace because I Yeah. Remember reading I missed it. It could be in a definition someplace. Oh, my name is listed out. Supportive services. It's in there. And then

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: sometimes, what happens when you list things out, then it's only those things.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then you kind of Find something else. Yeah, so you limit yourself by- Given like a time period if they don't participate and they miss more than one?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: There's a section that we're gonna set yet to be worked out that has a heading we haven't quite come Okay. To with

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I just wanna help people get out of There's

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: a specific section identified there for any details. Okay. Thanks, Brenda.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: On page seven, starting on line 10, if you read through that whole definition, it goes up onto page eight. So every time we say supportive services, that's what that is. People are required to participate in. It's all of those things. Okay. Yeah. Because otherwise poor people will never get out

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of it. Thanks. You're welcome. Okay, Katie. So can I just recap on the structure for this level five? So now the title heading will be Hotels and Hotels and Supportive Services. That's what 20028 will be. And you do want that divided into two sections? You want an A and then a b that's specific for cold weather? I I I yes. Then what would the a be?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hotels and motels with supportive services.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I thought that was the whole section heading. It's level five a. Oh, that's still hotels and motels. Hotels and supportive services. So it's sort of same construct as now. Okay. Good.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, there's a thing that applies under level five that applies to all hotels. They have to meet the building codes and all of that. That should be at the beginning. Then under the five a, it would be talking about the participation in case management and support services and all of that. Okay, so now let's look at, I think we got up to winter weather.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Annually between December 1 and March 31, households may be placed in general access, hotels and motels. Use of hotels and motels during these months shall only occur if no available option exists within levels one through 5A of the continuum. I'll get rid of of care. Services provided for sites with Subdivision 2, Trilanotocur on a night by night basis.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: May I ask just what I don't know quite what that means that it should not shall not occur on a night by night basis.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I would read that to mean that it wouldn't be every night there's a decision happening, but more of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a plan put in place.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: I don't know if something different was intended. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the department indicated in their proposal that they wanted to revert back to what they called off, adverse weather conditions, which meant that each day they would decide whether there would be hotels available or not and whether they were sufficient for the people asking. And I just say that that's a nightmare to administer and it's not humane.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: No, I hear that. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's just my opinion.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: So basically some other plan besides by now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This would continue what we do now. There's gonna be limits because the financial part will limit it. What it's saying is that it doesn't need to be as complicated as it has been in the past. That literally is a nightmare to administer. Requires a lot of staffing, requires a lot of angst by people who are homeless to be able to know whether or not they're going to have a place or whether they're going to be saying, yeah, you can have a place, but it's in Rutland or you can have a place, but it's in Weilbury or- I'm

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: not at all in favor of it. I just wanted to understand what-

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Yeah, that's

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what the intent is.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, 20 is other emergency housing services. The department shall provide financial assistance to municipalities and areas of the state with a high volume of unsheltered homelessness. The use of this aid is at the discretion of the municipality and includes providing access to basic life sustaining shelter when the National Weather Service declares cold weather advisory. Shelter provided consent for the subsection shall be time limited, shall not require a coordinated entry assessment or case management, and shall have minimal data reporting requirements.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's what we've talked about in terms of providing some assistance to municipalities. You can come in. Come on in. And there's some seats over here on the other side too, if you want. Yeah, you can't sit there, but

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: you can squeeze in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: over there. All right, thank you. Welcome.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: On Section B, emergency cold weather shelters shall be managed through an agreement between the Department and one or more community partners to provide overnight low barrier shelter when the weather conditions warrant. The Department and community partners shelter equitable access to cold weather shelters for communities with a high number of households experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Shelters provided pursuant to the subsection shall be time limited, shall not require coordinated entry assessment or case management and shall have minimal data reporting. How are these different?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just thinking, does it where is the what happened to and maybe this is something I deleted by mistake or maybe I didn't. We had talked previously about 10 degrees appears here someplace.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yes, it is.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's in

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: definition. In

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it's already applied, using the same term. So, we've to check the emergency cold weather shelter definition.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Emergency cold weather shelter, yep, it's at or below 10 degrees.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: have to use the same phrase.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I think the National Weather Service, Cold Weather Advisory, I think it's colder.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: But no, the national service declares a cold weather advisory. I think that's between 20 to 29 degrees.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I was gonna say, that's what it means. Yeah,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: yeah. Used to be. They are two different things. So yes, the emergency cold weather shelters have been operating at a temperature that has Their agreement says minus 10, that they have to open, but they have flexibility to open at zero degrees. The municipalities, it's trying to replicate the availability of like we had during this very, very cold snap that we had a couple of weeks ago. So the A is not intended to be B. So they are intended to be different. Colder weather under a. And b, cold, but not as cold. I don't think it's realistic for us to expect municipalities to do something that's not under extreme weather conditions. I'm just going by what our experience has been in the last couple of years, mostly this year, actually. They sort of snap into action when there's something that, well, we saw it happen. We saw Rutland did it, Barrie did it, Burlington did it, but it was only on those where the national weather had issued that advisory and everybody was preparing for it. So I just think it's unrealistic for us to expect that municipalities are gonna do that on an ongoing basis. It would really only be time limited. Okay, I think we got to see. I had a note there. How do you put a dollar figure on the municipality? I'll be proposing a dollar figure. You are. Okay. Will all Who do I get the dollar figures? When we come back from break. Okay. I I mean, when we come back from town meeting break, not No, knew what you meant. Okay. I know. Okay. I Go ahead, Eric.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Just clarification purposes. What what it's saying under is the use of this aid is at the discretion of municipality and includes providing access to basic life life sustaining shelter when the National Weather Service declares a cold weather advisory. The cold weather advisory in Vermont is I'd have to look it up.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I just looked it up.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: And it says what?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Between Minus 10 and minus 19.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Okay. Cold weather advisory?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Geography dependent. It can be even

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: All right. No. No. I'm good now. Cold

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: weather advisories are those extreme events.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because once they will get on our

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: use the word extreme in there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We we get them on our phones if you've signed up for the alerts. That's that is what that's intended.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: It's a it's a definition.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. Yeah. It's a thing.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yeah. And I I don't doubt it, but it's a striking thing. Yes. I

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: know. Mine's what did you find maybe

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And they don't

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: get it

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: unless it's unless it's expected to persist for at least three hours. It's less severe than an extreme cold warning, which is even worse.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I didn't feel like we should come up with our own right for this. There's already things that exist. Right, just alignment with what Align it with what it Yeah.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: That's why I was going with just getting clarity on the cold weather advisory, what that digit is.

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

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: That's the AI somewhat. Question on the second

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: question, let's see, would be about the rules set, I guess, within the department's guidelines about distribution. And I know we specified those areas with the volume of unchartered homelessness. But would we have a check back kind of situation when the department comes up with a set of rules about the very specific when we actually have a dollar figure amount about how much is distributed there?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We can ask for I haven't gotten to reports or reporting section, but I am envisioning something akin, although modified somewhat, to what they report on a monthly basis right now. So every month, we get a report and it's posted on their website where we can go and see how much is being spent. We can see how many households are being served. We can see the breakout of those households by district. And there's a bunch of other stuff there. So when we get to that place, we can decide what it is that we want to see in that. With an updated system, we can decide what we want to see in that report. And I think it actually is helpful to know. Like, I don't remember if I just had this in conversation or if it was testimony, I can't remember now. But when the department was working with municipalities and they were working with community action and some of the shelter providers during our snap of really cold weather and trying to, and 02:11 and trying to make sure the information was getting out and they were issuing press releases. That's, we want them to continue to do that. So just

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: to clarify, Doug looked up the National Weather Service specific, which is geographically dependent and it's actually for Vermont specifically, it's minus 20 to minus 29.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, thought it was colder than

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: minus 10. Yeah, that's And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that's why we have these other levels that precede that. Right, let's keep going. Independent from this program, the agency

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: of human services through its various departments provides households with other time limited or permanent housings. Such services include recovery housing, various residential supports for individuals with intellectual or developmental disabilities, home care services for older Vermonters and individuals with physical disabilities, transitional housing for individuals exiting correctional custody, exiting correctional custody and residential options for individuals with mental health challenges. Emergency housing provided through the program is not intended in lieu of access to any other AHS time limited or permanent housing. So that's a whole new paragraph.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And once again, I'm trying to pick up on the nature of the department and the agency saying this is an all in kind of approach. And so there really have been no previous reference to the services and supports that other agencies and department or other departments within the agency provide with regard to housing. And since this is being called a housing proposal, it seemed

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: inappropriate to leave it out. Yes, Anne. So I'm sorry, back to the B, emergency cold weather filters through the community partners. That's intended to be different from the National Weather Service Cold Weather Advisory. Yes. Right? It may need to be a little clearer because since it's all under one section, people might interpret that to mean the same.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I was thinking what about adding little headers, one or two words after each section's designation to distinguish these three. So for A, it would be something like municipal supports. I don't know. We have something better.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Other thing I'm worried that so the things under A are under B. So let's say I'm just going to for example, we'll use Washington County. We know BIA has the contract, and we heard from Beth Mayer, runs a shelter here in Montpelier under this B framework. And so I am just thinking about our other communities that are quite enough to quite large enough to fall under this bee to have that ongoing and don't have enough of an unsheltered population are definitely not going to get any funding under A. And when those communities with higher populations have a resource already. If you see what I'm saying.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Just think is true that smaller communities

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And I don't even mean tiny rural. I just mean some of the smaller ones that aren't getting any kind of funding that do have unsheltered populations have no resources. And it looks like A and B are kind

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: of sending the same resources to the same communities. So somehow ensuring that those communities that aren't currently accessing any support or funding It is true that A and B is I'm sorry. So having a way where there's more equitable access to not only municipalities that know about this and have the infrastructure, they're accessing the funds, where there's a way for smaller communities that aren't typically getting these kinds of resources to actually opt in.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, for those extreme, like when we have that cold snap, where it might make sense for, I'll just say, look for Middlebury to stand up something, whereas they normally wouldn't, because they make do. And I know of other, all sorts of areas around, like Esme, like Hartford or White, those kinds of things where, yeah, it just- And some will have just things they do.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: I mean, Northfield's another example of that. They don't have the money, they don't have the ability to actually stand up that kind of a shelter. But on the other hand, when it's that cold weather advisory degree minus 10, when we're hearing on the radio all that, it's just sort of a natural Northfield that the Norwich Gymnasium

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: will be available. Our military police department lobby. So then they get volunteers or maybe they don't even have those every time. So it's just ways we can fill gaps in communities that tend to not have as many of these higher populations,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: but could do a lot with just a little bit of resources. So I do get what you're saying in terms of A and B are definitely aligned with the same communities essentially. And how do we recognize a more modest Yeah, you don't have to Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Prioritize underserved areas or the department should give think about underserved areas where

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: there is lack not of capacity. Capacity. Lack Capacities don't exist or something like that.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: We just took high volume out of there, or we sprayed that open to plug it in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the air. To be honest, do want high volume to be prioritized, I guess, I would say. But I think there may

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: be some language. Again, I kind

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of like that idea, some language that enables grants to also be made to communities that are underserved by formal Absent services exist? Absences of formal supports or something like that. I think it's a good point that you bring up, Jubilee, that A and B are both targeted at the same communities, the same regions. So

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: they might not have it, but

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, but I can see how they are

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: more still in the church or something.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And it can also in these smaller communities, it can also be harder to actually capture the unsheltered people living within them. So it kind of exacerbates their ability to think

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: about how to do that. Thank you. Was somebody over here saying something that I missed? Alright. We have what are we doing? 545? No. I don't know. You don't have a time.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: It's a two thirds.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. I think we can get through we can get through this because 05:45 is not gonna take too long.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Katie's only your total.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, what? You're here to three. Okay. So we'll we'll we're getting to the end of the new stuff.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So creation, but not content of a new section, that would be household eligibility and responsibilities. You have a section on case management services, and you had language when we did markup that'll lead to each management entity. She'll provide case management services to all eligible households. And then this new paragraph at the top of page 20, unless a member of an eligible household has a disability that prevents the eligible household's ability to participate in case management processes or where case management is specifically exempted or specific services, an eligible household served by the program shall participate in case management processes, including cooperating with the department and with lead case management entity on screening and care planning. To the extent it's worth. It's been feasible.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Guess I am thinking that the phrase that we've added in each of the areas Maybe it doesn't make this necessary anymore. That might not It's make this repetitive now, I believe.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And we have that new section where it's yet to be written that where anything that needs to be clarified can the responsibility one, this would really fit there. I was going to say this makes it like if we have a disability, you're exempted from all even though it may be it only impairs you from doing some forms, you know, so it would need a lot

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of work anyway. So the phrase that we are generally using, and this appears in each section, is eligible households receiving, in this case, permanent supportive housing services shall participate in case management, planning for housing stability, and other services to the extent of the eligible household's ability. It's more positive to say it, I think, from this. Right, I think

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: this duplicates now and we should eliminate. And if there is something more specific that needs to be said, it would be in that new session. I agree.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: 2212, needs assessment. Every fifth year beginning in 2028, the department shall contract with an organization to conduct a needs assessment that identifies gaps in services for homeless households in the state and includes recommendations to ensure the provision of equitable services throughout the state. And then we have an appeal section that was similar language in the last draft. An applicant or recipient of assistance pursuant to this chapter may file a request for a fair hearing of the Human Services Board. If the board hears makes identical determinations in X number of cases brought by applicants for the program or recipients, the department shall adopt the board's interpretation as part of its administration of the program. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think we need to probably reach out to the Human Services Board to see if that's a doable thing. I know that they recommended that in cases that were brought, the department declined to do that. But I'm not sure it would be a certain I'm trying to figure out. I'm not sure it'd be a certain number of cases. Do you know what I'm thinking? Because if there's 20 per Okay. If there is 20 participants in a program, you wouldn't have the same number as if there is 2,000 participants in a program. And we this will be a variable amount. So I'm just trying to

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: But if it's identical determinations, that would put, you know, out five.

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

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Five So identical cases. I'll ask

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: human services board officer to weigh in on that.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: The rulemaking hasn't changed, but last time we went through it, there was sort of the impression that that alone could stand by itself. And I think when you're designating or delegating authority, you might want to have more parameters and specifications as to what you would like to see addressed in the rules. So I flagged that for you. Reporting. We still don't have what will be reported on, but addressing each of the services in the continuum instead of continuum of care with regards to the following. So placeholder for now, but I'll strike up there. There's language that you've already seen regarding the merger of the continuums of care. Now we have intent language in order to promote the effective use of resources and continuity of care. It is the intent of the General Assembly. That DCF's OEO shall work in collaboration with the Continuum of Cares and HUD to establish a single continuum on or before October 1.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So this morning, when we were having testimony about another topic, legislative intent doesn't say that that actually has to happen.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: That's aspirational. Right.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not sure it's aspirational. I mean, I feel like I think that maybe needs to be stepped. So I think we need we would need to get a a progress report. And I'm not sure what's a realistic progress report time frame. So if this went July 1, and then there's I'd probably say I'd probably say January '20 this is 06/27. '28. Okay. Different than this week. January twenty months later. Oh, yes. I think it is different.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Probably the OLEO? Yeah. So Remove the intent language and then instead have this language standalone and we'll put a subsection B and that requires a progress report by January 15 from O E O. 2028.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Because 2027 would be too soon.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So you have Yeah. I get it. You have time. Okay.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: But yes to removing the intent language? Yes. Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: But then if that's the then completion of it is later than 10/01/2020 '8 if the if the interim report is

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Not necessarily. Right? That gives them ten months.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Oh, okay. Okay. I get it. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Desire is to see them moving towards that. This is not a feasibility study as to whether they

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not a practice. It's a status. Is. How is it going? Right. Unless we hear back that, you know, HUD says we cannot do that. Yes. If that's the case, then we have to live with it. All right? But if we don't hear back that that's the case, we would like to promote this and to achieve it. It was very telling, I'm sorry. I just feel like it was very telling that the differences in the timeframes between when coordinated entry assessments between Balance of State and Chittenden County. They're different. Very different. And it made me think, why why don't they why doesn't the Balance of State people help out the Chittenden County people? I don't know. That's probably too uncomplicated of an answer that's more complicated. Okay. Katie, I just wanna make sure we have time to do before you have to leave, that we have time to do five forty five. So I think that this is a good place to stop. Okay. Okay. 5485. Hello, welcome. Yeah, sorry it's standing room only right now. Where are you all from? Milton. Milton? Oh, great. So you have a representative here. Okay, we're just pulling up like we're pulling we're pulling up Okay, we're we're we're alive, Brenda Thank you. Please close the door, whoever is coming and going. Thank you. Katie, the floor is yours. We've moved to H. 545, which is our immunization bill. And what we are doing right now is reviewing the changes that were voted on in the Senate. It's been through second and third reading in the Senate. It should be on notice probably tomorrow. And so Katie will review their changes, and we will have a vote as to whether we concur. And then Zon will report on this whenever it appears on the calendar. Okay? Go for it.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. So only I have the documents, so I apologize. That's okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Hasn't been Laurie's actually posted the Senate Health and Welfare. Is this perfect? It's the same thing. It's coming in. It's coming. So we have to go out and go back in.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: You've got to refresh. Watch.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It may not even It's not quite yet. No.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: So there are three changes that the Senate made to H five forty five. The changes were requested by OPR. Sorry, had to collect my thought.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: My brain is Yeah, I know. It's been a pleasure for two years. I know. Moving over to

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the front. So the first change was in section three.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: The

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Vermont Immunization Advisory Council. If you'll remember, this is an existing council in state law. There were changes made to the membership. Originally, OPR had asked for the executive director of the pharmacy board and the executive director of the nursing board to be added to this group. The House did add those two positions to this advisory council, But afterwards, OPR said that they felt like the interest of having a practicing pharmacist and the practicing APRN were sufficient and that those individuals probably had more expertise to be able to advise than the executive officer So would of the two those two positions they requested to have removed. That's the first change. The second change is in Section seven, which is the Pharmacy Tech section. We go. OPR asks that this section B written, it is reorganized and some of the underlining is moving existing law to different, just reorganizing it in a different order. What's new is this language in two, which is the authority for pharmacy techs. And I will read through it. Previous version that the House had passed out more specifically referenced CDC, if I'm remembering correctly. Am I remembering correctly? Yep, it did. And so this version does not. OPR likes this language and does not want it to sunset on the 2031 date. So the third change is that where this committee, the House, had reverted back to the existing language, there will just be the words deleted in that section, meaning the section itself is deleted and this language would stay on after 2031. So this language reads that the pharmacy technician shall only administer immunizations when a licensed pharmacist who is trained to immunize is present and able to assist with the immunization as needed, pursuant to a valid prescription by a practitioner, a standing order made by the Commissioner of Health, or a protocol approved by the Commissioner of Health under the previous section twenty twenty three, which is the pharmacy section that you amend in your bill. Two patients who are 18 years of age or older and five years of age or older seeking influenza immunization, COVID-nineteen immunization and subsequent formulations or combinations thereof. So here you'll sort of see this strike through language and that has been moved up higher in this version, this 22, this reference to twenty twenty three has been moved up here. Still striking through the language about CDC guidance. This language in four has been moved up to the top of this paragraph. So that isn't a true strike through. That's a move. And again, the strike through was part of your bill striking out the reference to the CDC.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So that is the

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: change from Senate. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm just trying to think of the practicality of Pursuit two, that number two, I'm trying to think about how If I go to a pharmacy right now, I don't have any prescription to get an immunization. There might

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be a standing order from the commissioner that already exists that would allow you

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Or there might not

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: be. Or there might not be.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, you see signs all over the place. Your free flu vaccine. Get your shingles. So, this is what's bothering me a little bit about this. Can you bring us to

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: the protocol part? So this is up above in this section. So this is the pharmacy section, the pharmacist section. State protocol. A pharmacist may prescribe, order or administer in a manner consistent with valid state protocols that are approved by the Commissioner of Health after consultation with the Director of Professional Regulation and the Board and the ability for public comment. And it lists what could be administered and included in that is recommended immunizations. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: then this does revert back. So after six years, this would again reference CDC instead of recommended immunizations. Okay. So that's what the current process is now. So I guess should we presume that all these pharmacies advertising access to these immunizations are operating under I these

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: would say yes, but if you would like to hear from OPI, they're going to be the experts.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Does anybody else have a question? But if it's only me, then I don't we don't need to.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: No. I'm only just, like, wondering what the rationale works behind

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: the Yeah. But I don't think you

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: can answer

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: that. I'm pretty comfortable with it. This is what whole PR presented there. It's neat.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I could see let me see if they have they kind of articulate their position in their documents.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, to Senate Health and Welfare? Yeah.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: I'm not seeing anything posting.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm just wondering if we might be able to yeah. What's her name?

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Jennifer? Jennifer or Lauren. Yeah. Either one

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of them. Probably Jennifer.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Also check my inbox and see if I have an email that is more descriptive.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think it's an issue. I just am like it it seems like it's limiting under what conditions. And then I'm just wondering, well, how is this stuff that's all out there now? Is that gonna be is is that because that's new language, is that going to limit what people are currently doing? Is it gonna somehow change what people are currently doing? That's really the only question that I need to ask, unless other people have other questions. Lori, could you check-in with

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Jennifer? What's her last name? Colin, c o l I n.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: OPR, see if she might be able to join us via Zoom to just answer one question on 05:45.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: This time line that we need

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to make a final decision about this is It'll be before tomorrow. Before tomorrow. Okay. So I figured and we got plenty other things that we need to do. Yep. So I figured, like, if we can get it all wrapped up, we don't need to be downstairs till 03:30. Yeah. If she's not available, she's not available. I had an email from her.

[Rep. Esme Cole (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Let's see what the email says, Laurie. We

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: realize that the language about immunizations that pharmacy technicians are permitted to administer required further revision. Pharmacy technicians could administer immunizations that are pursuant to prescription written by a practitioner state protocol standing order. The current language in February does not include any scenario other than a state protocol. In pharmacies, pharmacy technicians are and have been administering vaccines that are ordered through either a prescription or a standing order issued by the Commissioner of Health. So we are proposing the revisions below to align the statutory language with what is happening in practice. Okay. All right. So essentially, what they're saying is that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: health the department must be issuing protocols. And that must be how we see all these access to these various immunizations out there on these boards.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah. I don't know how they the issue that I was sending are. I would've been surprised.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's not up to us to there's we don't have enforcement opportunities here. And if what I understand from that email is that they're trying to make that consistent with what current So practice is with that that was the answer that I needed.

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Was that it for changes, Katie?

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. I I can show you where it says deleted. Does everybody know?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Zon, are you clear? Oh,

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: well, I think so. I have

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: to do some thinking. Have a question or two will pop up. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Think I'm good. On the floor, when this comes up on the floor, then we review just an overview of the changes, and then we would give the committee vote on it. I think these are just Are these straw polls to concur? We haven't done a change from this. I think it's just straw poll.

[Katie McLain (Office of Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: To concur. Yeah. So, Todd, I I don't know if you're there or not, but do you wanna participate in the straw poll?

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Means using them. Oh, no. It's.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Use them. Okay. That's just his name and not him. Alright. So how many people are, vice drop hole voting to concur with the senate as passed by the senate? Okay. So that's 902. 902. Okay, thank you so much, Katie, for spending so much of today with us. It's pleasure. Thank you. We enjoyed it very much. Thank you for all of your hard work. Okay, folks. So let's take the next fifteen minutes or so just to have some discussion about what we just saw in the latest version of the homelessness bill. Just free for all. It's a free for all.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: We don't have enough money to do the things that are really going to solve. Yeah, I just think it's unfortunate we have to remain within the governor's area, but it is what it is. And so what I'm kind of how I am approaching it and thinking about it is, despite that, how do we set up systems that will, hopefully, when we're in a better timeline I don't know, when all of the various things affecting what we are able to do might be different. Perhaps we will see more federal support for homelessness in future years. Yeah, mean, part, I'm just like, this is insufficient money, insufficient money, insufficient money. So I am, yeah, I mean, that's not a reflection on the bill, but when I'm reading it, I'm trying to approach it. It's how are we setting up good systems when we know we have insufficient funds to truly make progress in any of these areas.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would add to that, especially with the lack of housing assistance at the federal level right now, it's gonna make, I mean, you will see, it won't be a surprise to anyone because it was in the governor's proposal and we did hear state housing authority. There will be a section that creates a state funded housing voucher rental assistance section that I am gonna propose to say housing authority run it though, not that it'd be done at DCF because I think it needs to be broader than just DCF. I agree with that approach. I think if we had all the money in the world, we would there'd be we'd be the ones taking charge of trying to make sure that there's enough housing that people can afford. Other thoughts? Yeah, go ahead.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I'm just trying to figure out how we are going to work through what I anticipate to be a sticking point with the administration with respect to the winter emergency housing. And I agree with our position or the position expressed in the bill at this point in time. And they have to, they've lived through the night by night determination and nightmare of managing that. So where is the middle ground? I don't know if the middle ground for them is to set a specific number of rooms that can be utilized in this way, but make it available for this December 1, March 31. Just expressing a concern or a question as to where the sticking point is and how we're gonna find our path forward, but hopefully-

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's the one that you know, I'll be honest. When I signed on to May, it's the one I identified right away, you know, that that was the night by night thing was just it it's a nonstarter. There would be insufficient votes in the full house to pass a bill that has that in it. And so if they're hard and fast on that, then we would be at an impasse. And to be honest, the budget won't contain language about night by night either. So it will be an impasse here and it would be an impasse in the budget if we don't pass a bill. There isn't any way that the house will pass something that says night by night.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: And I hope administration will recognize the many elements of h five ninety four that appear here, that we can find a middle ground, that they can let us know where we need to be on it other than night to night, which I would agree. That's a nonstarter from my perspective.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I don't know if I could say this is well, it is a concern. The to get to a destination, we need a bridge. And this bill is or even the the other one. It conceptually it's conceptually sound. Problem is is the timing, the capacity assumptions, and the implementation of this do not reflect really the the reality on the on the ground.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Have worked on I

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: understand that's But both of these things are designed as long term reforms. And it's just not the long term reform is just not practical at this time. We need a bridge to get to those long term reforms. I don't know if I'm sounding correct. But again, if we have this destiny, yes, conceptually. I said the same thing in regards to the introduction of May. It was a bridge, H-ninety 1 is a destination. That was a destination. Both of these committee bills are destinations. We got to bridge it to the destination. So conceptually speaking, it is feasibly going

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: to

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: be very, very difficult to implement even the structure and the intent of the continuum of care program without building some type of bridges to get to that destination. That's my concern is where we may be placing providers in rather precarious position, which then in turn, time on those that we're serving. I know that's not the intent by any means. I'm just pointing out that we've got some language in here that builds a bridge to where we can feasibly operate it, manage it, and we're going to receive good outcomes. At this time, it'd be nearly impossible to implement and operate these strategies. And that's got nothing to do with ideology. That's got nothing to do with funding. That's got to do with what is what is practical and can be applied.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Yeah. Can I ask a a question of your Wouldn't that state wouldn't that

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: what we don't have?

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: Wouldn't the same statement be true regarding H 594?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I don't see H 594 is a bridge. That's what it I know it says right in the beginning 2728.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: No. Because it was the temporary the it most certainly most certainly was.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Explain it because I didn't

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Because it was temporarily defined. It temporarily drew down on this, helped build up capacity and infrastructure with providers gradually just implemented other strategies. And I can go through it all in my head, but it was truly, truly, as I introduced it, was truly a bridge because of the temporary elements to it that helped build infrastructure and workforce capacity. Wasn't there I guess guess I'm not sure I saw

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: this clearly, to the extent that there was something in there, I'm not sure it was a sufficient bridge because it ratcheted down very quickly the number of available hotel rooms in this upcoming fiscal year. To me, which seems unrealistic for the reasons you just said that the capacity we need to build out for the balance of the efforts, whether it's May efforts or this committee bill, is gonna take time. And the ratcheting down was a pretty steep hill in May with the number of rooms that were recommended.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: And to that point too, this is where the highly amendable came in. There were 14 clear access points within that bill that were completely able to be amended, I e, time limits, I e, hotel capacity drawdown, I. E. Eligibility verification, and other points that literally were designed as short term access points of amendable. You couldn't look at it and say, well, that was set in stone. No, that was a that was a one of those amendable points that could have been looked at.

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: I guess I see the bridge in the committee bill version we looked at today as being the final level. Now, we may want to set up because we've got date, we have all these other steps before level one, two, three, four, before we get to five and the use of motels. We may want to assign dates by which we hope those levels will be serviceable, if you will, for this continuum. But to me, the bridge is to still have the availability of level five until we get levels one through four built. Does that seem to reflect the intent? It's more

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: of a bridge being in regards to the entire system and reform of the entire. This this bill is kinda just it's reforming the entire system as they

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: what and all that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not really sure it's doing as much of that as people perceive, to be honest. Because the intent would be one, to put more money out there in case management, you know? Which we all agree. Which I think there would be about money.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Here's where I can say, like, here's an expectation that everybody has a case manager.

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

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: So we're talking, as the numbers were showing on here, we're talking about possibly 4,000.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We're not though. We talked about that

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: we don't have the resources

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to No,

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: no, no, no, I'm not saying, but in there, there was an expectation that everybody has a case manager.

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

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: You can't, that's feasibly impossible to fund enough case managers where bridges are like, okay, let's gradually invest here and invest there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I don't think we're saying different things. And I'm going back to what you said earlier where you're conflicted.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Right, we haven't defined the buckets of money yet.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is going to mean that fewer people receive services in order to provide the comprehensive nature of services that we would expect.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: Not only services, but not worth it. It's It's It's because of the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: way I'm not even This

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: version that you placed on out is a lot better than the previous one. The previous one over time would have completely, was no way to run that, that would have completely destabilized the system as a whole. There are mechanisms getting back in here.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I think it is important for all of us to recognize that we don't necessarily have the workforce to accomplish what we see the desired state as right So how do we get there? So I'll be honest, I'm not particularly enamored with putting 21 staff at DCF to I didn't really understand all of what they were going to do, but I think those resources are better placed by investing in case management in the community. Agreed. And OEO will need some additional staff because they have more responsibilities here. More brands. So they will need some additional staff. But the bulk of that I want to see go out into the community. And I think we have to be realistic about if we're going to What I hear over and over and over again from the administration is that the need for supportive services and case management for people, think they use the term warehouse or something like that in hotels. I And guess I wanna say, you can't have it both ways. You can't say we need to invest and then say, we're not gonna invest. So I envision this as investing in a system, getting back to what Jubilee said earlier, in a system that hopefully we won't be in the place where we are right now, where we have so many people who are going through very hard times. And so I think that there's a place for both, I guess. Figuring out how to transition to a system that we would like to see and how do you transition to that? And that's through making essentially appropriation decisions each year about where you're going to put the money. And so, we'll have lots of discussion within the parameters of the governor's budget about how much gets invested in case management, how much gets invested in prevention and diversion versus level five of hotels or other municipal supports or any of those things.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: And that actually helps shape the Right. Position looks Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Kind of really the part around

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: like when make those decisions in the next few working days we have, for me that's going to create the guardrails and the lines of how much we will do. So to your point of like, there's just no limit, I think the money, the resources will create the limits because we're saying right now we have this X amount of dollars that the governor is recommending in his budget, and we're committing to not going over that. We're just going to make decisions on how to spend that differently. And I think personally, I'm going to look for ways we can invest that money more of it towards those prevention services and supportive services, because we know those have better outcomes. So that will mean, back to my earlier point, that we'll have less resources to devote to that, the least supportive service where it's just literally a hotel room or with no other things around it. So for me, those decisions will create the kind of guardrails that you're looking for, I think. And I feel like we're not there yet, but we're going

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to get there. So I hear what you're

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: saying, I-

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I said, I completely agree with the conceptual concept of the whole thing. The concern that I have is we may be building Rome in a day where to step back and make sure we have the appropriate, if we want to call them guardrails or mechanisms in place that the city doesn't crumble before we get the right mechanisms there. Another concern that I have is the hotel we got to take into consideration that once you put on-site supports at a hotel, and I'm going to use Rutland City as an example. That's a completely different permitting. They're changing the way that they operate. So we could run into situations to where we may be displacing people from hotels because the charters and the permitting won't allow that change of operation. When we go in from a hotel to a shelter. So And logistically purpose. Speaking Yeah. Well, logistically speaking, you run into several structural and logistical things that we certainly don't want to see take place. That's why bridging is always forget the things you get. But yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. No. I I I get what you're talking about, Eric. I do get what you're talking about. And and this this envisions a strong community based system. And I think that everybody would say that that community based system needs investment in order to become even stronger than what we have today. And I think we do have to be careful about unintended consequences. I feel like I need to hear a little bit more about how that bridge functions worked because as I was going through this and comparing what I was putting in here, was feeling like I was aligning a lot more with Five Ninety Four in terms of this kind of tier approach that was proposed. And other than what Doug said, the severe ratched down of the use of hotels, I didn't understand other than the first few words that said in FY '27 and '28, I didn't really understand how the bill worked as a bridge.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Just Totally. It was never designed as fully formed is what I'm getting at. H594 was never designed as a full reform of the system.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: Yeah. I'll tell you, if I end up supporting this, I will not have seen it as full reform. Because to me, there's no full reform until we have a roof over the head of anybody who's on the street, every person. And this doesn't remotely get there. So is there a full reform? Absolutely not.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, that's where I think

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: It's it not a full reform.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: It's But that's the I think that's another difficult discussion because I believe me, I'm all forward to it. But practically speaking, we are not gonna be the first in the country to end homelessness.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: So if that's our goal and objective through a bill, we're we're that's No. That's just what I'm saying. It's it's it's not it can't be, you know, all the way. It's it's all part of ultimately maybe making changes down the line. We do stay still in the aspirational, most aspirational, you know. Grief, non recurring. Grief and non recurring.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But that's purely aspirational. We know this isn't going to get us there. And I think one of the things that I am encouraging all of us to keep in mind is there is nothing in statute right now, nothing. And one of the things that I think that we owe to Vermonters is to be clear from a legislative perspective about what is the policy that we're expecting from state government. And especially because we're spending tens of millions of dollars every year on this. And right now, there is nothing that governs that other than what the department decides. And that's the purpose of the legislature is to set a policy direction and to assign resources to that. And absent having anything, that's been done through the budget, which is a really inappropriate place for that to occur every I think everybody agrees with that. So if you can keep in mind that we're not placing something, it's in there already because there isn't anything. And we have a responsibility as a body to set policy going forward. Do you have something you wanna say, Todd?

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: I just wanna suggest that, or say that I think that what I like about this approach I see today is that it's very visionary. And if we had twice as much money as we had, we probably would be having a different kind of conversation about that very vision. The fact is, think that what is causing attention is there's not enough money to do what we'd

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: like to be able to do.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: And so we're anticipating a pretty rough moment here coming about making decisions that are going to be not ideal no matter what we do. And we feel that restraint. And I think it makes it difficult to look at a plan that might be visionary and see it for what it might be and might be able to expand and grow some still even on down the roadways. But I think it's really great that there's this arc out there for us to see that's where we're headed and we do the best we can to get where we can.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And recognize that it has limitations.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Yeah, that's I think we can move

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: forward I still, also think, Eric, to your point of like system reform, I would not look at this so much as system reform. I look at it as setting up, creating infrastructures to set us up for success in the future. I think to Theresa's point, we are putting something in statute that does not exist.

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: It's not system reform, there's no system.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: There's no system trying to reestablish

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

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: And that's what's really scary. Think about that for a minute. I don't know how long Vermont's been around, hundreds of years, have

[Rep. Brenda Steady (Member)]: no system in

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: place address, and we knew about this crisis ten, twelve years ago. So to say system reform, yeah, wrong term. You can't reform something that never existed.

[Rep. Golrang “Rey” Garofano (Vice Chair)]: So we're establishing an infrastructure that will, you know, and for me, like we just said the word progress, for me, we've got to start somewhere with the limited resources we have in hope with the aspiration that that will get us closer to that aspirational phrase we have on the first page of the bill. Because, and we've done this before, we reformed childcare three years ago, we've done reform and we have had, out of this room, we've had really good policy that changed massive systems and state government and they've been implemented beautifully, working with community organizations, municipalities. So I feel like I don't want us to be afraid that this is too big of a change. That then will prohibit us from doing anything, because I think we need to do something because nothing exists right now. And with us committing to not overextending ourselves with the resources we have, I think we're making a commitment to our mentors to say, we're taking the resources that we have. We're not asking for more, and we're creating an infrastructure to help us do this in the future in a much more efficient, productive way with better outcomes. And I think that's what we're getting towards. We're still drafting, but that's what we're getting towards.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right, on that, I'm gonna note. It's worth it. No, no, no.

[Rep. Zon Eastes (Member)]: Just talking about this course.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, I wanted to end on that positive note. Laurie,

[Rep. Doug Bishop (Member)]: we're

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: all