Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Welcome back from a brief break. Are now picking up on changing topics. We are now picking up on our newest draft, 4.1 of our homelessness bill. And we are going to do a walk through. So let me just update folks on where we are in terms of process and what's happened since we last looked at this bill, which was prior to break. So during break, I worked on this bill. As you can see, it's about double in length now and probably not quite done on the length part. So it is a lengthy bill. So I worked on that. Katie did her magic and put it into language form. I had a meeting with the administration, and they have come back to the table, I guess I would say, in terms of providing feedback and interacting with us. They will be providing some feedback. I asked if they could get it to us by our afternoon session so that we could have it for the afternoon. Oh, it did?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: No, we just received it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, did. Oh, awesome. Just came in on email. So I haven't had a chance to look at it. We're not going look at that right now, but we will this afternoon. And then Jubilee met with providers and advocates and folks yesterday and really encouraged people. And I realized that this bill just dropped yesterday. People just had a chance to look at it and not really digest everything that was in it. And asked people to jointly come together, and they did. And they provided us comments, which then last night, Jubilee and Eric and I went through the bill, went through all of the comments, made some changes, have some comments about the comments, but that are probably clarifications for people that will provide as we go through the bill. And so, Katie, we have some changes to suggest as we go through the bill. And so that's where we're at. We are still on track to vote this out of mid age tomorrow. And so it's a compressed timeframe. But I think it's actually been beneficial for us to take a little bit of a break from it as we were working on June and come to this with fresh eyes and understanding that we are thread some needles here. We're doing some needle paint. And I'm gonna just state upfront. I know that there are things in this bill that the administration doesn't like, that advocates don't like, that providers don't like, and that some of us don't like. But I am hopeful that people can come to the discussion today and tomorrow with the sense of understanding that we don't have anything in legislation right now that provides governance, that provides any real structure, and doesn't really help us to try to address the issue of people experiencing homelessness in the state. That's not saying that we don't have wonderful providers out there doing great work. It's just we are not working together as a system. And I know that there's some folks who disagree with that statement, but we are trying to improve the outcomes for Vermonters, and we are also trying to put some new structures so that people will know what they should be able to expect from state government when it comes to supports and services for people who are experiencing homelessness. So I'm hoping that people can come to that mindset. And yes, I am going to be right up front providing, under this scenario, more services to fewer people. So I'm not trying to disguise that at all. That is what is contained here. In order to be able to do that within the appropriation that we have, which I do want to remind people is more than the appropriation that we had last year. So I guess that's enough of an opening statement. Katie, let's move to the bill. Okay.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Thank you.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So I'm assuming that we should jump in with changes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So they don't need you in healthcare this morning. This morning. Morning. They may need you this afternoon.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Good. So shall I just skip ahead to where we have changes?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, I think that we should because given the break and the people haven't looked at this, we don't need to read everything. But just a refresher, let's go through each section.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Sure. So the first section is a finding section. You have two findings here. I won't read through them. Section two is your legislative intent section. You have four items for legislative intent. And then you have a purpose section. It's the purpose of this act two. And then you have a list of all the items or purpose items. And this is language that you previously looked at. Page four section four. This creates in title 33 the new chapter of Vermont Homelessness Response Continuum. And I know you've spent a lot of time on the definition, so that is what leads off the chapter is the definition section. Let's see here that there haven't been many changes to definitions to BLAST looked at them. Let me see if there have been any changes. No changes to the definition section. And then the next section of the chapter establishes the program. So you have language that it's established to prevent and address homelessness, and it's administered by OEO. In subsection B, we have direction that OEO is to maintain a continuum of care that is flexible, housing focused, designed to prevent homelessness whenever possible, prioritizing intervention, rapid resolution, equitable access to emergency and permanent housing. So I want

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to make a comment. And Eric and Jubilee, pipe in if I missed something. One of the pieces of feedback that we got from the I'm trying to find it from last night. I left in a hurry. The group sort of got together and gave us sort of combined comments. One of the comments that we got, and I think it was in two pieces of comment, actually. Jonathan One Ferrell at Cox and also from the group. And it was the use of the term continuum of care being the same as the COC. And so we're keeping continuum, Vermont Homelessness Response continuum. But Katie, in places where it says, and I'm going to try to highlight them as we go through, but where it says continuum of care when it's referring to the program, We're gonna say, do we say support services? Continuum of services. So

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: we're replacing care with

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: services. Okay, thank you.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so we'll change that on line 18. And I might not I could do a word search later, but if you see them, please shout. Top of page nine. So this is the responsibilities of the program. We have a list that has not changed. Twenty two zero three. So just to remind you, this is sort of the structure for what this program looks like. SPEAKER This is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: my timeline. We will say continuum of services.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Services. Thank you. So this is the continuum of services components. Is that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We could just say program components because we already say, we've already defined program. Program components? Yeah. Okay. But then the continuum of services is fine that in that lead in. Yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: This is sort of the this subsection a lays out the framework for what the program looks like in terms of the different services offered. And this structure is repeated a few times throughout the draft governing what is meant by level two and what are the parameters around who can access and for how long. So you'll see this structure a a couple times. I can't remember the conversation, but on page 10, line two, maybe I had winter weather and it was changed to cold weather use of hotels and motels instead of winter use. That change was made as a result of our last markup, and I can't recall the conversation. Middle of page 10, prevention and diversion services. So now we go through level by level. Each section takes a new level and describes what is meant by that service and what it encompasses. It also talks about whether services and the extent to which services are required with each level. And we

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: do have an edit change on line 14 of page 10. And so this was feedback that we received from COTS. And it was based on the notion that, yes, prevention diversion is a primary entry point, but that actually people do come in in different places. So for instance, it was brought up that somebody might come in at a day shelter or somebody might be accessing some other place. They didn't want that to then have to say, well, no, you can't, We're not gonna talk to you. So at the end of the first sentence where it says continuum for all households, although connection may be made at any level. And then on 19, there was some feedback about wanting to make sure that people understood that this assessment that we're talking about is not the coordinated entry assessment. So we inserted shall receive a brief standardized initial prevention and diversion assessment. And then we talked about the department developing that form later. So for people in the room, what we're really envisioning there is kind of like a one pager, just very basic information so that we know who the person is, we know how to contact them, that kind of thing. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I will skip ahead to 2205. That's the shelter services. And as you remember, this piece is broken into two pieces. So a is the highly structured, b is low barrier. So you have language about the highly structured services. The department is to enter into agreements with community partners for the provision of these services for a period of not less than two years. Highly structured shelters shall provide programming, emphasizes case management, housing stability. This hasn't changed. You have language about fire safety at the shelters. And then the top of page 12, there's sort of language that's repeated throughout, which says that if the eligible households' needs cannot be met with the prior level, so level one prevention and diversion services in section twenty twenty twenty two zero four, then highly structured shelters is the preferred placement.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Can ask a question about the Yeah. The reference to highly structured shelters? We have some other specialized shelters, shelter, and other things that are in the definition section. Should that be in the definition section? I guess there's really two starting on line 13. Is that the definition of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So should we have a definition? So we had shelter and then we say specialized, we don't have highly structured and we don't have low barrier.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Wonder if we move those into the definition section for consistency. Yeah. I think it's a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: good point to since we call them out to have definitions there.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: K. So I'll move the first sentence changed slightly into the definition section. Per section of two, a two.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Madam chair, other questions or thoughts we have that aren't structural? Would you prefer we wait on those to get those first read?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I'm I'm I'm giving your feedback that we we pulled together from folks last night. So if you have other questions, it's okay to have that kind of thing now. I'm just gonna while I'm thinking of it, we had a lot of discussion about what term office and department, and that was some feedback. And so rather than doing it here, Katie, I think I'm gonna give you a copy of my markup. Or maybe I just do it here. I haven't had a chance to go through and because it's not always obvious if it should be department or office. Explain the contracting and why we sometimes have

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: to say the department. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. So in so it's individual divisions or offices don't issue contracts. Departments issue contracts. So in some places, will say department. But like here, under shelter services on page 11, we're going to insert the office shall determine the need for the because they're gonna be the ones with the expertise. And we're gonna the and on line 10, we're gonna say the department via the office shall enter into agreements with community partners. And on line 19, we are substituting office because they're the ones with the staff.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry. Line 16? 19. 19.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sorry. Sorry. No. I might have said 16. Don't know. Where does office go? Road staff?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Rather than department.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The So 19 number three, they say the office. A

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: little bit higher on line nine, and this is to the extent funds permit, and that's repeated a few times in the bill, struck me as a little loose, if you will, and I wondered if something along the lines of to the extent funds are allocated for this purpose, as funds permit, that seems to create greater latitude in the execution of what we're doing rather than maybe a little more specific. Again, funds allocated for this purpose.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Appropriated, I would say.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Appropriated. Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. That sounds good.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Second. Okay. Okay. Like that. That's that's what that is intended to mean, but you're just It's clear. Yeah. Appropriate it. When will we get a fiscal note on this out of curiosity? I don't know. Don't know the answer to that question. After the bill is done is when the fiscal notes are done. Okay. So I think that that kind

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: of language where we see that, that's okay then to change. Okay. Page 12, subsection B, this is the low barrier shelters. Subsection A, the department is determining the need. Should that be office?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then Office. Line A office,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: a permanent via the office. Can I say through the office?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, we can do whatever you

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: want. Okay.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: The last the seven has some of that extended. Extended family service.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Thank you. Two, low barrier shelter shall minimize barriers to entry. I'm wondering if this is definitional when we're wanting to move this similarly.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yes.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I'm not saying we want to

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: include a definition, but I don't think I just want to move it. I was thinking about that under highly structured as well. I don't think it hurts to repeat. Okay. In this, I don't normally say that, but

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: then line 18, that's office.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'm sorry. Did we catch the funds permit?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. She's gonna do that. She's gonna do that. Thank you. Yeah. Question

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: up at the top so on page 12, line four, we talk about geographic accessibility. And I think I get the intent, but I wonder whether it's unintentionally being restrictive. If someone at their at their option would leave their geographic area someone's in the Burlington area, there isn't geographic In that Burlington area, there isn't space, if you will. But there is in Washington County, and they're willing to go there. Would they be able to do that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think it prevents it, but the preferred is to stay in your own geographic region. I would think for most. Yes. But it doesn't prevent, and I don't read it as preventing. Can I give an example? I had a family of seven and I couldn't get adjoining rooms. I had to put them in another county, but the state paid for a taxi. So they do make accommodations so that they do have a ride. And there's a missing period on line four too.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Page 13. So here we have this language again. It's highlighted because I tried to tighten it up a little bit and have a cross reference. Twenty two zero six is a specialized filter services. This is that the relevant AHS department still determine the need for, and to the extent funds permit, I'll circle it. Yep. Develop specialized shelter services that comply with fire safety as well as any other applicable standards relevant to the specialty population. To the extent funds are appropriated for this purpose, we have it there. The relevant AHS department shall enter into agreements with community partners for the provision of specialized shelter services for a period of knowledge from two years.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And that is because we heard from DCF that their intent would be to do interparental transfers to those departments like Dale and or like BBH.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I may restructure that so it's a list because we have the same lead in language. We'll have it twice. I'll make

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it work.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Two, hasn't changed. Specialized shelter services shall provide services delivered in highly structured shelters, 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 be eligible of household stability. Top of page 14, subdivision three, this is the similar language that if your needs can't be met by the prior two levels, then they can be met here.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, Anne, so this is actually sort of my only question that relates to each of these levels, if this is the right time to ask you. So the way I read the language as it's written, I understand fully the idea of the sequencing of the levels, but it seems like even if you come in, you approach in the diversion phase or whatever and a specialized service shelter would be appropriate and has the space for you to be there. If you haven't done level one and level two, you go directly there. You have to be not able to go into level one, not able to go into level two before you can go into level three.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It says if the needs cannot be met. I think I had the same thought as they read through it.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: If they can't be met.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It's it's not I don't know that it's a it's a space thing. It's where there

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's not a capacity.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It's not a capacity. It's whether it's an appropriate setting for that. For

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that person.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay. Alright.

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

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

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I have the same

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. Because yeah. Thanks. If

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: we did still feel concerned about that, like, if capacity were to get in the way of somebody's even though I know it's counterintended, we could add something at the beginning of an eligible household meeting, probably met work capacity doesn't exist for that tier.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But you wouldn't if somebody didn't have a, say, a medical need, you wouldn't want them to as the next because there wasn't level one and two, so you now must go into level three before you can go to level four because of capacity, you don't want that mismatch either.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yes. I don't know if this changes too much, but if an eligible household's specific needs cannot be met, does that make it individualized in a way that it would prevent the confusion without changing to whom much else?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, but it's also like the specialized service agency may be utilized. It's not just if there's capacity and staffing, it's also, oh, that does say that, and they require, and they need specialized services. That's kind

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I think that's inspiring. I think it's fine. Think it's fine if

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: if You just have to let the lawyers at the table talk it out. I think also know the movement that was made in a suggestion of what was called kind of the no wrong door, and adding that language back up is also a good element that supports Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thanks. And then in the We're just getting to permanent supportive housing, and I'm not sure I can read my I can't read my note.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's the household of the permanent housing. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I see it now. Supportive housing services funded in whole or in part by Medicaid, comma, if the household and program are eligible or something like that. It's just not all permanent supportive housing may be eligible for Medicaid. Not all recipients may have Medicaid when they first come in or whatever.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Said if the household and program are eligible. I'm concerned to use program because program is defined to mean this program.

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

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Great. Thank you. So permanent supportive housing, we have AHS or any department from the agency entering into an agreement. Eligible households receiving this are shall participate in case management, management, planning for housing stability and other services to the extent of their ability. And then we have the same language. If your needs cannot be met in one, two, or three, permanent supportive housing may be utilized where staffing capacity, geographic accessibility are available. Page 15, hotels and motels. This is level five. The way this is structured is that subsection a sort of has general provisions that apply to all categories of hotels and motels, and then it's broken down into the two remaining categories. So first, we have intent language to decrease reliance on hotels and motels and subdivision two if an eligible household is Can

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we just say I just said sorry. No. It's okay. I'm just thinking you might have a question. I just wanted to get back to it. That's all.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. Well, with the number three on line 16

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: On page 14? Yep. Maybe

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I'm misinterpreting this, but same with, like, level one, two or three does not work, permanent supportive housing may be utilized. Although in my opinion, supportive housing seems to be in some cases the best option. We would love to get there for everyone immediately. So it made it sound like in this order, that was after all these things, even though it would be great to have all these

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: things too, if possible. I think that's why each thing has the intro of the eligible households' needs. So it's looking at the individualized needs of each household. And so it's trying to say, okay, after an assessment, the best place, if you can't get your needs met in any of those others, then because we are also looking at a continuum, sort of I don't want to use the moving up the ladder kind of thing. But I think that to me, if a household's needs can't be met in one of those areas, then you go to this. And that's what it's saying in each one, I guess, is

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: everyone needs permanent housing. Permanent supportive housing is a specific subsidized service enrich.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So it might not actually be the best place for everybody to wind up.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Oh, I see. So this is only in very special circumstances, because in a perfect world, especially, I would feel that this would be option one for the population that requires it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I mean, that's essentially

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It would be option one for that population.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: 500,000,000. No, I know. I know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, I hear.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Because of that household's needs and language. But someone who would be an appropriate would be appropriate in the setting of permanent supportive housing, there may be a low barrier shelter space available. Mhmm. But that's not appropriate to their needs. So they're bypass they're going

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They bypass that. They go.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I guess, yeah. Still a little progressive, but it's not just progressive.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That's the kind of dilemma. I want to make sure that's clear.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Idea is to partumize each one, and here you have your options. What option works best for Esme? That's the option we place Esme in.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Figure that out. That's cute.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Right, fat analogy. Anyhow, to put it in the most simplistic form, that's what it is. Your assessment and case plan says this, and that's the placement you go to. It's not like you've got to start at level one and work your way to level five. No, that's not how a continuum work. A continuum is applied to your best needs that's going to meet

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I your completely agree. And I trust all of you and your interpretation of this. Don't trust you, Esme Cole. Think if I were to drop this on you I

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: would take its swings today.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It's not

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: even 06:00 on a Friday. To

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: be honest, and I won't linger on this much longer at all, but if an eligible household would benefit from permanent supportive housing and cannot get it, then these three tiers can be used. It's kind of more what my initial reading of it would be. But maybe I know there are good reasons to have the phrase the way it is right now.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I mean, I think maybe we could think about language at the very beginning.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That's an axe for me that we're not met.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. At the very Yeah. But we could think about language at the very beginning that, well, we do talk about the needs assessment.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But that clarifies how it's intended to all work together. Right.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Should be something in 2203 that talks about the service, what do we have now, program components. We could maybe add a new subsection C instead of these little paragraphs at the end of each section that says something like

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I wanna keep those paragraphs.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, you wanna keep them? Yeah, okay. But I want it

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to be clear that you don't have to progress through the levels to get the service. Your needs are assessed and you receive services where your needs can best be Based on your needs.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: On on

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: your needs. Mean, like- That's stupid. No

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: one is gonna go and get, enter through prevention and diversion and go directly to permanent supportive housing. They're gonna go to shelter. They're gonna go to a hotel or a landing You

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: don't want

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: bar that

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: possibility. It happens to me.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's because I know there's

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: a place that

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: can be arranged that day. Katie is going to work her magic and think about how to work that. I think she's got the concept. Thank you. So

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: we're back to page 15. So this is the language generally applicable to hotels and motels. So we have intent language. We have language that if an eligible household is placed in a hotel or motel pursuant to this section, the department shall and then enter into an agreement, permit population specific placement, use only rates established by the general assembly. If an eligible household is placed in hotel or motel pursuant to the section, community partners are to enter into agreements for the use of lock hotels, negotiate conditions for those locks. Then we have language that the hotel or motels that are under contract

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Can I back up for this?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Go ahead.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Unless I'm sorry if I cut you off. No. With the including access language, I'm I'm just wanna be clear on what we're hoping to achieve with that. The very I'm sorry. Line 19 on page 15. So the negotiating conditions of use for those blocks, including access to providers of case management. I guess if that's just access, they wouldn't be able to prohibit a case manager going to visit someone who's living there, I wouldn't think. Are we just that's what we're talking about rather than We're talking about the providing space or

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: space. Or Right. I mean, but that'd be negotiated in whatever agreement they reach. But

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: If we I guess, that's what the note the note I made myself was, are we talking about space for their use and whether we wanna be any more specific.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Acting only requires you let them in.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, it's also gonna depend. Not every teller motel in use, right, potentially has a So meeting I don't wanna prescribe that and then borrow it from being able to think

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that would make social in an issue. I think I wanna keep access. I think it's generic enough that it's negotiated in the agreement. What's being set up here is that there's service provision that happens in the hotels.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: There There has to be a way to do it. There has to be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a way to do it.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Would we consider a comma at the end with space provided as available or something like that?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: As negotiated. As negotiated. Right.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I I would I comfortable with something a little more specific about our space.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Great. Say meeting space a little more specific.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: To say meeting space, though. I space. Oh, then then then somebody's gonna interpret as we don't have a meeting room. Well, no, but you might negotiate in whatever agreement an extra hotel room that is usually different. I think just Yeah. You say your phrase again? I'm sorry.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: It's not a Services. Comma

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The space to conduct services as negotiated or something like that? Yeah. That's correct. Provide. The space to provide services. Negotiated. Now, at the end of that sentence, it'll say, including access to providers of case management and other supportive services, comma, the space to provide services as negotiated.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And 16 refers to the rules, the lodging establishment rules and fire safety rules. And then we get to B. So this is where we break down into the two hotel and motel types. 5A is Supportive Services. Eligible households placed in a hotel and motel are referred to this program. Shall receive supportive services and participate in case management services, planning for housing, stability and other services to the extent of eligible household stability. The Department shall propose hotel and motel rates as part of its budget presentation for the general assembly consideration. We already have something about rates up above. Let me just make sure that doesn't conflict. Let's see. Oh, that's about proposal and that's about use. Okay. Disregard. Subdivision three, if the eligible household's needs cannot be met by levels one through four, as described in the sections above, the department may utilize hotels and motels at capacity staffing and

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I would say office. Thank you.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: The utilization of hotel and motel rooms pursuant to this subsection shall be kept at 700 rooms per night. And then on page 17, to the cold weather use of hotels and motels. To the extent funds exist. So I'm going to

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: circle that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Flag. A household shall be placed in general after tax hotels and motels if no available option exists within the previous levels annually between December 1 and May 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 and 5A of the continuum. Services provided pursuant to this subsection shall not occur on a night by night basis. When I say subsection, yes. Utilization of hotel and motel rooms pursuant to this subsection should be captured at 1,000 rooms per night between March 1 and March 31.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So that is pursuant to this subsection. So just subsection c, cold weather use of hotels and motels, there'll be a thousand rooms available for that purpose.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes. That's good to say. Hey Katie, you're doing great. Yeah, no,

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Whatever it is. Really. Thank you,

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

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: only question about the cold weather use, particularly because it is not night by night, a little confusing services provided, I assume that means access to those rooms. How does this connect to, involvement in what support services, because we don't want to create a position, a assumption that if you get a cold weather hotel room, just hang out there for all those months. You don't have to participate in case management, housing becomes available and you like the hotel, all of that stuff.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, no, it's four months. Right, right. You can't just be there without engagement. Without engagement. Yeah. So then it begs the question, Katie, about the structure of that. And remember, we used to have

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: three

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: levels of hotels, right? When I started this, did we have three levels of hotels? And then you brought up the question, well, what's the difference between the first two? And it's like, well, really, there isn't. Right? And so then we combine them. And now it's it's really the It's that more rooms are available. More rooms are available.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It shouldn't be that a service set that the services, you know, can be ignored. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You don't have to. Yeah.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: With notation that it the requirements on the other levels also apply to To that

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: level. Yeah. Rather than being silent on it, might imply that none I of that is expected of

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: look at it as it is expected because it is implemented within the continuum. It may be a subunit, so to speak, but there's still a level of attachment. But I believe making a notation that the requirements also expand to bear Katie?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If you take number one on page 16 and put it under hotels generally, then it applies to both. You can fix Yes.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Excellent.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Aren't aren't the rates also isn't number two be two? Wouldn't that be something they would also propose? The proposal? So propose hotel and motel rates. Well, yes, that applies. So that could also be in the overriding hotel motel function. There

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: was something about I gotta think about this for a minute. I think I think that would be okay, think that'd be okay. Then

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: the only difference, well, you already said that. So unpopular suggestion, how strongly do you feel about having two categories?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm not. That's what I'm sort

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: of like going through. We could make this one big section and then just have a subsection that says for the months of, I won't even say them, X through Y, that this applies. So it'll just be a standalone subsection and then otherwise

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That basically just expands the cap on the number

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: of rooms

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to be able to accommodate the fact that more people You want more people to have shelter in the whole world.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So the only question arises when we come up into time limits. Participation, it refers to a level. So we can figure that out.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's true.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm gonna let you think about that. Cause it's not policy, it's just structure.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Let me clarify. It

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: might still be useful that to clarity.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: We get to the sections that break it out again, let's take another look and think through it. Shall I move on? Yes, we're on other emergency, right?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: yep. So one thing I did here is it felt confusing when we last talked about this because we have multiple support we're talking about. So I tried to put a heading in for each paragraph. So we're kind of being a little bit more clear about what we're talking about in each subsection. So A is municipal supports. And actually, we should say the department through the office. We'll provide financial assistance to municipalities in areas of the state with a high volume of unsheltered homelessness, including municipalities underserved by traditional funding sources. Use of this aid is at the discretion of the municipality and includes providing access to basic life sustaining shelter when National Weather Service declares a cold weather advisory. Shelter provided pursuant to the section shall be time limited, shall not require coordinated entry assessment or case management. She'll have minimal data reporting requirements. I think we should say, she'll provide

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: financial assistance sort of sounds like you incur a cost and the state the And state reimburses what I'm really envisioning here are grants to municipalities. So I think we should say shall provide grants to municipalities.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Top of page 18, emergency cold weather shelters. These are shelters managed through an agreement between the department. Do you have office there?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah. Yeah. No. No. No.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And one or more community partners to provide overnight low barrier shelter when weather conditions warrant. Department, let's say office, and community partners shall ensure equitable access to emergency cold weather shelters for communities with high number of households experiencing unsheltered homelessness. Shelter provided pursuant to the subsection shall be time limited, shall not have coordinated entry assessment There or

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: you go. Sorry. That's a big difference in what we were just talking about.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, yes. These are the it's cold. You you're out in the cold. You get to come in.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: That's what the the language is. The weather conditions warrant rather than tying it to something either a degree or a National Weather Service declaration of some kind. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Now, at some point, we had we had this discussion and we had degrees, and then they and then

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: because they were very

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, maybe definitions. Hold on. Let me flip back and see if emergency cold weather is dealt with in the definition.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yep. Oh, yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Below 10 degrees. At or below 10 degrees.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So if I be cold weather use of hotels and motels, it is not emergency use of hotels. During

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: cold weather, it is just the presumption that we have winter in Vermont and people need shelter. Right.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Yes. But then there are other even more extremes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Exactly. Right.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And that's what this is.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because the hotel motel still has a cap. Yes. We wanna say Okay. We wanna try and make sure at the extreme

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: At the most level extreme.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That we do as much as we can to make sure anybody who eats

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The roof.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Alright.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Is it Should we repeat the temperature here or not?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, it's a defined term, you don't need to.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You don't need to. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Keep moving. Alternative AHS housing solutions.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. We have a change here. Okay. So one of the pieces of feedback that we got that it didn't add anything, it confusing. Beginning phrase that says independent from this program. So we're just going to start with the agency of human services.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Under this section, provides households with time limited or permanent housing, such services including recovery housing, residential supports for individuals with intellectual developmental disability, home care, services for older Vermonters and individuals with physical disabilities, transitional housing for individuals exiting correctional custody and residential options for individuals with mental health challenges. Emergency housing provided through the program is not intended to limit access to other AHS 10 limited or permanent.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Are you thinking on that, Ms. Addison? Do you have

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a note? Or maybe I was just making a note to myself. Did you have anything, Eric, from last night? Put parentheses around that last

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I remember I think we were going to talk to the group about yeah, I can't remember.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: No, that was actually a question for AHS.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. Okay. I think that the

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: point is

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I didn't write down the question though.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Okay. We wanted to ask, yeah, I think best how to ensure from AHS to kind of, yeah, we're trying to break down silos and make sure someone's participation here or there doesn't preclude them from any other access Yeah, to any other And I think you're right. We were gonna talk to AHS about that.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And there

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: was a couple of unfortunate.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. All right. We're good on that. Okay. And we got rid of eligibility on the next one. It just says household responsibilities now. Okay. As we've defined eligibility. Okay. And within the funds appropriate for this purpose, Doug?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Inconsistent, but I'm glad it's there. Household should qualify for services under the program if the household is physically present and intends to reside in Vermont as evidenced by active participation in a housing employment and housing, employment or other AHS recognized plan, Agrees to a coordinated entry assessment that prioritizes household or permanent the household for permanent housing unless explicitly exempt under this chapter. Engages with a lead case management entity such as a Department of the Agency of Human Services or an authorized community partner? We've just said for a community partner. A community partner? Okay. I think that pops up a couple

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: of times. Okay. Yeah. What that is intended is to recognize those entities out there like the folks we heard from down in Londonderry and other folks out there who are providing services out there, that the case management that they are providing is recognized.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So engages with lead case management entities, such as a department of AHS or a community partner, to develop a housing plan and participate in employment treatment or other activities as appropriate, unless explicitly exempt from case management requirements under this chapter. And lastly, abides by program rules and refrains from misconduct, which is defined below. Subsection B, a household that knowingly provides false misleading or information regarding residency, disability status, household composition or other eligibility criteria shall be subject to termination of services within five days after receiving written notice from the department or community partner. Page

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: On that Yep. Five days later on on page 24, there's a reference to fourteen days. Studying on line 19, the effective date of this is notice of appeal, right of fair hearing. The effective date of the action, which in this in the case of termination, reduction, or suspension shall not be sooner than fourteen days after the written

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: that

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: The effective date of the action. So the effective date of the fair hearing.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: We're intentionally setting a shorter time period to us.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That'd be sooner. So what is this one saying? Hold on. There's the five days.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: To be honest, I'm not sure that that's going to be information that's gonna be known in five days if they falsely if they provided false information. Rather than having two separate dates, I think we should probably just change this one to '14. Okay. Do you get one same?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Mhmm. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Rather than being confusing, oh, do I have to give five days or do I get fourteen? Just make them both the same.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay. Thank you. I

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: think later we have language, yeah, we have language in that later section about appeals. Do we wanna make any references to something about appeals in this subsection or

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Is it a cross reference?

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

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Chair best looker.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, then we'd have to be making them in other sections So as the appeals apply to everything.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Top of page 20. Excuse me. Department may refer cases of suspected fraud to the AG's office or state's attorney for investigation and prosecution under applicable state law.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I do have something about that. Do we want that to be after the running of the period of appeal, the department may refer a case to the attorney? Generals, it seems like we're referring to the attorney general's office pretty quickly with that appeal process running its course.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It doesn't say when it happens.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: But it also doesn't preclude it happening before an appeal.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Pending the outcome of the appeal? Well, let me just think that through.

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

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Sort of two different things, because the petitioner would be bringing an appeal because of termination or limited services. It would be different than a fraudulent application. The board wouldn't hear anything about a fraudulent application because it's only the petitioner who's bringing something to the board, I think.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Got it. So they wouldn't have a chance to appeal if there's an accusation of

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, I'm just thinking

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

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: misleading or incomplete information.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I could be wrong, but I don't think DCF would be bringing a case of fraud to the board. I think instead it would be a petitioner bringing

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Correct. Correct. The petitioner, but the petitioner if I read this, the department will refer a case, but the petitioner may be exercising their rights to go to the infant services board

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: to have that attorney issue?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: On this issue, the department believes that there's some false misleading or incomplete information it. And the person brings And then they make a referral to the IG office what

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: you're saying.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: With the petitioner the petitioner who may be the Got

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

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Well, it's a policy decision, but I think you could put some language pending pending the outcome of a relevant appeal or something.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm okay with that.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Thank you.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And at least number two and number three should both say office. And number four. I don't I don't know if AHS is gonna be okay with that. I'm just I'm just pointing it out. I mean, I I Just seems like there's I I see both points of view, I guess, is is is my comment about it. I the if you The appeal process can take some extended length of time to happen. We're not talking about, you know, termination for other reasons. We're talking about fraud.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: False, misleading, or incomplete, I guess.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And then

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: What's what's knowing what's knowingly providing incomplete information really could be a judgment call.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, that's why number four exists. Apartment or the office or community department should not pose a penalty household for a good faith immaterial error that was corrected on notice within a reasonable period of time.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I I don't know how many cases they're gonna be referring to the attorney general's office, but it just seems to me that if we have a department level process that includes the Human Services Board, that that would be appropriate to have that run its course before referring to the attorney general's office for

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, we can we can put it in and see what happens.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. We went over four, we didn't go over three. The department or community partners shall provide clear written notice to all applicants regarding penalties for fraud at the time of the application. Wonder if we should flip two and three. Does that does the order make sense, folks, if we flip them? Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Trying show you I've noticed. That should be One. Well

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think three should be one.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You're providing notice, and then if the person's

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Mhmm.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Perfect.

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

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Brings us Four seconds. Yep. I'm sorry. What? Could we put four seconds?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. Think that should go I think

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: that should go I that's normally what happens is there's a notice, you figure out the problem, and the person resolves it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I think we should start there. That's awesome. 14 is number 2. Number 1 is number 3. Number is number 3. Memorial, or number 2 is number 4.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Now, okay, I got it.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's the more logical sequence of what happens.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: An eligible household engaged in criminal activity or misconduct that is not related to a disability may be subject to immediate termination of services as necessary for the safety of the household, other households or staff.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And we're going to insert for the safety of other members of the household, other households, trying to deal with the sexual assault or domestic

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: violence issues. Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. We didn't want the whole household to be removed if it was only one member of the household, so if there was something happening.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay, I'm sorry. I thought you were saying only other participants in the program, like if somebody else in the hotel was put at risk, we don't care, no.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They got a chance.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I get it now. But I did still have a question in terms of criminal activity that's related to a disability is a pretty broad exemption.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it's I'm sorry, it could be sentence structure. Intent was misconduct that's not related to a disability.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, okay. No, I'm right. Oh, I can

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: flip them. Misconduct that is not related to a disability or Or criminal activity. Yes. Thank you. Okay. I apologize. I'm stuck on the previous one. I don't know if that does what it does. So the point of the members of the other household are so that one member of the household could be removed, could be terminated from services. But just adding this to the list, I don't think does this. I think it would read as you're terminating the whole household.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Well, I thought we adjusted that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's right. So an eligible household engaged in criminal activity, a member of an eligible household. Oh, that's where you're adding it? Right. No, that's not where I was, but I'm trying to address the Oh, issue that you

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: okay. What if we say both? An eligible household or member of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: an eligible household. And then I also wanna for the safety of the other members of the household, I want to include that as well. At the end? Yeah. Okay. I have it both places.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And then as used in this section, misconduct means documented behaviors that materially endanger the safety of others, involve the destruction of property or constitute a legal activity. Misconduct may include repeated refusal of suitable placements following documented suitability assessments and reasonable accommodations.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So I'm trying to cross reference and not find it that easily, but I know that there's notice and there's appeal in those different aspects if services are going be terminated. And I'm wondering, is there any carve out in terms of length of maintaining participation if there's Well, let me just So let's say you have a member of the household that's engaged in very serious misconduct, criminal activity, sexual assault on another member of another household. How long can they stay?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, hopefully, the arrest of the

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, that's right. And then that would take care of it. So maybe that's too extreme. I'm just worried about a very extreme safety issue and somebody then having a lengthy process before they can be removed from the premises.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, it says immediate

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the in the c above, say immediate termination of services. And I wonder if when we go to the appeal, if we need a provision about misconduct I'm or a

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: just trying to tie it. Maybe we haven't gotten to that, but we need to tie it somehow where if it's it may yeah, if it's criminal activity

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They may appeal that they might not be able to continue services. Exactly. Yeah. Because it could be dangerous situations. Yeah. I understand what you're saying. But I think that is dealt with on the appeal side. Yep.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Prioritization. Do you mind? I don't mind

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: at all. Speak up. Sure. So I'm still a little bit stuck on the misconduct may include repeated refusal to replacements. That doesn't scream misconduct to me, if they don't want be housed in a certain place. And I have no way add language about suitability assessments, but it does not seem to align with behaviors that endanger others. That's a totally different It should be

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I think it should be just spelled out. It is also a reason for potential Termination of substance. But to Call it misconduct. Identify it as a definition of misconduct. Agree that it needs to be a separate sentence or you can be terminated if you repeatedly refuse.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So it's an E, Katie, and it's not called misconduct. Just a household may be terminated for repeated refusal of suitable placements. Thank you. That was bothering me all along and I couldn't figure out what Thank it you. Let's see, back to priority. I wanna be upfront that I realize people don't think that that should happen. They're people who don't necessarily agree with that. I understand that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Subsection a, the department either directly or through community partners

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And that's an office. Office. Yes.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Shall prioritize services within the funds appropriated for this purpose to eligible households who are homeless or at risk becoming homeless and have a member who is 65 years of age or older, has a disability, is a minor child, is pregnant or is experiencing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, or other dangerous or life threatening conditions. But we are going to add the constructive eviction. I just want to

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: say, I'm really pleased to see this as a prioritization rather than as an eligibility. It's all still within existing resources, so it could end up not being very different from basic eligibility because there's no space, but it's not It's not eligibility. Yeah, I think that's a really better way to approach it.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I appreciate that, Anne. That's what my genius kicked in. Thank you. Is there a discussion of inclusion of veterans in that list?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If there are any one of those things, they're also included.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I would like to revisit this discussion, actually. I don't know if folks saw the late breaking news last night about some major changes on the federal level in terms of veterans and the VA and how we treat homeless veterans. And there'll be a strong push to take guardianship over them. I can provide you all more. Yes. And so I want there to be an avenue for Vermont veterans to access services and support outside the VA. If that's their choice, I can send you all information. Could you do that? Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I I think it still would need to be need based, not just veteran status, but yeah, because all of these are based on these conditions creating greater need and a veteran doesn't necessarily, some do, but some don't have a

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: greater Yeah, mean, they're getting, I mean, the veterans housing first policy and voucher, it's the best outcomes we have ever seen terms of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and homeless

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we're cutting it. Okay. Thanks for being on Katie, top of

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we're not adding veterans right at this point. Jubilee is going to give us information, But we are adding constructive eviction as a priority, one of the priority. Because people are losing housing at no I always get confused on the constructive eviction. It makes it sound like it has a reason, but that's for no reason.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Isn't it a little more specific? And that constructive eviction is basically that there's an issue related to habitability that the landlord is not attending to that is basically you don't have running water. You're constructively evicted because you I can't just

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it always sounds like it's the opposite for me. It always sounds like it's the problem with the tenant as opposed to the problem with the landlord. And it's So I'm agreeing with

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

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Like it. A legal term

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: - would mean that narrower conversion that Doug is It's what we had before, Katie.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I'll just put a six that says has six layers constructive eviction. Yeah. Okay. Subsection proof of an eligible household's disability shall be verified by: A, a healthcare provider licensed or certified and practicing in Vermont. A determination or certification from a state or federally recognized agency or program that provides services to individuals with disabilities, or self attestation by the eligible household subject to verification by the state or community partner within thirty days when other documentation is not reasonably available at the time of application. Do you want it to

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: say state instead of office?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It should say No, because you know what? Yes, I do. Because I remember that times. Would be a different department.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Subdivision 2. The presence of an eligible household member's disability shall be verified by Office? I

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

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Don't have anything.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Did I just read this?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: No. No. Okay. By the office or community partner during the household's initial application process, and shall be redetermined annually if the household is still receiving services. An eligible household with a member who has a lifelong disability, such as an intellectual or developmental disability, shall not be required to have disability redetermined. Top of page 22. The department and community partners, should

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that be office? Yep. Did I see something where you have to be someplace at eleven? Oh, did that change no.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It's They canceled me?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. No. It's the afternoon.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Afternoon. Okay, that was set. Okay, and I have a few places to be this afternoon. But

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you're here until lunch.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I'm here until lunch. Great. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: The department and community partners shall comply with the ADA with Section five zero four of the Rehabilitation Act for the purpose of providing reasonable modifications, effective communication and accessible placements. Program rules and case management requirements shall be reasonably modified as necessary to avoid discrimination against eligible households with a member who has a disability. 22.12, time limits for program participation. This is where we again have that structure that we already looked at.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sorry. I'm I'm, going backwards a little bit just on the on the thing that you were just, referencing. I'm just trying to figure out if we just use the if we add to that the term plain language, which is Plain language. Rather than effect factor. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Or both words.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Know. Program rules and case management requirements shall be reasonably modified utilizing plain language to avoid discrimination.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Sorry, I'm not sure quite where you are. Are you on

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: C? Lines five and six.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: The purpose of providing reasonable comments Modified Okay. Including use of plain language.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Including the use of plain language, as necessary.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: The end?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Modified including line six.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Line six. Line six. The first word.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, modified. Yeah. Including the use of language. Okay.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Moving to 02/2012, subsection A, time limits for program participation shall be governed by the level of service provided as follows: Level one, any temporary housing provided to the program's prevention and diversion services shall not exceed thirty days per rolling twelve month period.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We had some conversation about this last night. So just to be clear with people in the room, so if you provide financial assistance for rent, first or last month's rent or whatever, that's not housing. That's financial assistance. That's flexible funds or however it's referred to. There was a question about whether or not that would be considered two months of housing. It's

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: First and last month's. But otherwise, the intention does this state the intention is specific to rent, not first and last month? It is thirty days.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's specific to providing temporary housing. So a community action agency has an apartment that they lease. They have a master lease, not master lease, they lease. And they provide access to that apartment for thirty days for somebody, a household that's in an emergency situation. The intent is that this is prevention and diversion, is trying to solve a problem quickly. And if you can't, then you move on to the other services.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I guess I had read it as referring to rent.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's why I So I Because I didn't

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: know of other housing that would be provided through prevention and diversion. And are you giving an example?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I'm bringing it up because if there's a way to make it clearer.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Any temporary housing provided not in the form of rental assistance to the program's prevention diversion services shall not exceed thirty days.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That sound? Yeah. It wasn't intended to be the rental or the actual financial assistance.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Rental assistance questions will remain during breakfast.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I want to say temporary or I'm trying to think about that because we're developing a rental assistance program here. And I know the people who do this now know what it means. It's not ongoing. This isn't the ongoing rental assistance that you would get. Do we need to say temporary or whatever?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Why don't we say that in the form of temporary rental assistance, if that's your intent?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just on Yeah, the break, maybe we can have a chat. For right now,

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: k. So what did we just do?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We instituted the word temporary rental assistance.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Line 11.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. I'm here. So instead of temporary housing, take out no.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Comma, after provided. Any temporary housing provided, comma, and it would be something along the lines of not in the form of temporary rental assistance. No.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Just wanted to make it clear that it does include the finan it does not include the financial assistance provided to individuals. But I also don't want to provide any confusion that it's I don't want provide any confusion with the bridge program that we are establishing. And maybe just by mentioning it, I provided more confusion. So we'll see. I'll chat on the break.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Level two, the department in collaboration with shelter providers, should that be office? Yes, that should be office. Shelter providers shall establish the maximum length of stay in highly structured shelters and low barrier shelters in rural. Three, the department in collaboration with other relevant AHS department shall establish the maximum length of stay in specialized shelters in rural.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: On those two, yeah,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: would hope maybe if it could

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: be some kind of language that because that's in rural, that there needs to be some flexibility in my mind that relates to the capacity of resources. So, you know, it may have to be relatively short in order to try to serve more people when there's really limited capacity. But if in the wonderful world ahead there is an increase in capacity and being able to let people stay a little longer than what was in the initial rules because there's capacity which makes them more likely to succeed. You can grant extensions.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, okay. Alright.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well coming

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: up on this. Alright. Page. Okay. So that might adequately address it.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Does that get to the question? I made a note to myself about winter. Would they account for length of stay? And when someone's length of stay runs its course, it's February 1, does that impact the pandemic?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is why we did not put specific days in this year. It'll be up to them to talk about that. Because right now, all over the place, And everybody just kinda does their own thing. And we need to have some sense of equity about access, and this is one of the tools to do that. But it would have been arbitrary to just put something in because different shelter providers have developed their own. In the department's guidelines, I think it says that they have to have them, but it doesn't say what they're supposed to be. So they'll come to agreements at that. And maybe we say in rule. It could be in the shelter standards, which are not in rule.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Do I say in rule or shelter standards? Or shelter standards. For both two and three.

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

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: We're at the top of page level three. Level four, permits for housing services may be utilized by an eligible household for as long as the eligible household's plan indicates it is necessary. Level five, hotels and motels. And this is where we have the division of A and B. Eligible households may receive housing at hotels and motels with supportive services for not more than seventy days per rolling twelve month period. And then eligible households may receive services cold weather use hotels and motels between December 1 and March 31.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Can I go back to we talked about this last night and feedback? It's still you all felt it

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: was

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: clear. I'm just wondering if we can make it more clear about the night by night. We specifically stated within the level 5B earlier in the bill that that was not night by night. And people have this fear that this 5A may be limited. Maybe it's night by night, or you can have ten days now. Yeah, so I'm just raising that again about the five A around the seventy days. It's kind of I'm just raising this up because it felt better than telling everyone to go back. But in the beginning of the bill, or when we first get into the 5A and 5B, we specifically call out in the 5B section that it is not night by night. And I think folks are really wanting to see that spelled out in 5A as well. I know historically, we've been doing it, it hasn't been night by night. And so I think we've been operating under the assumption that it would continue to not the rest of the year kind of GA emergency housing, I think folks would just like to have that spelled out in statute or session law or whatever. I'm talking about You go back

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to level five a, would that be the place to

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: I think it would be because that's where we Yeah. I was just, this was an opportune time to

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: think Edge in it. Move this sentence. So page 17, lines eight and nine is where that sentence is. But if it were to apply to A and B, it would mean moving it to A. But maybe this is further argument to continue to just compress the two sections.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Well, that's what I was thinking is it's yeah. To make it more clear.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. That'd be yet another one that would be combined. Because then you could just have a couple of paragraphs under the whole five section that said, for April, you you could still divvy out where they do differ,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: which is less and less that they differ. Okay, so, I mean, it hasn't been the experience. It's kind of like a little bit of a

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: hasn't been the experience, but we're getting rid of that and we're creating a program. So we

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: should be explicit in that, I guess. I think, Katie, when you're thinking about whether we should merge these or whether or not merge these and how to keep those separate things, that would be an element that would apply to both. Can I

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: ask a question once I think this through? The seventy days would be in addition to the period we Okay.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. So we'll revisit that when you have sort of a rewrite of that. The office may grant extensions. Thank you. So extensions to

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: the time limits established up above pursuant to criteria adopted in rule, including four, ineligible household actively awaiting a placement in housing treatment or other services, medical necessity, lack of reasonable alternative accessible placements for a member of an eligible household with a disability, and imminent risk to the health or safety of one or more available household members.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: I'm wondering if we can make

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: this stronger. I don't We can't It's pretty strong right now. Well, may versus shall is not. I know we can't use shall because it depends on funding. But they can, but

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: will

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: they kind of thing is, I think, people's fears. So I don't know if there's a way to put a little more in that.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think there are too many variables to say shall.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Yeah. Oh, and I'm not, yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I mean, I get it. I'm sorry. Just reacting to the, I'm just, I get it. I understand what you're saying, but I don't really, and so I apologize for responding so quickly. But I think there are too many variables that interplay in that. In the Within the funds. It's not just funds. It's funds. It's other people needing services. Whether or not I I just think that there are too many variables. And that I think that the the you know, right now, the department tells us that they aren't authorized to provide any extensions. And I'm like, I'm not sure that somebody needs to authorize you to do that. We're authorizing them to do that. Under case management services, changed, Katie, this sentence structure. It will say each eligible household shall be assigned a lead case except where specifically exempted case management. So the first part of that is crossed out. We say each eligible household shall be assigned a lead case manager. Then

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: me just follow along. Are you Everything before the comma is Yes. Yes. Okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Sorry, we're

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: looking Yeah, I'm confused. We're at the bottom of page three. Yeah. Case management services. The first part of the sentence, so all of line 20 and up to the comma on line 21 is crossed out. And we are saying now each eligible household shall be assigned a lead case manager, comma, except we're specifically exempted for certain services. So we exempted it for, like, the Cold weather. Cold, wet, emergency cold weather stuff. And then line five, for some reason, I had said it twice, didn't need to say it twice. You can eliminate line five. The whole sentence? Eliminate the whole sentence. But the next phrase, sorry, which may be from any agency of human services department or a community partner, Exempt at the beginning. It to the first part of the section.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So exempted for certain services, comma, which may

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Which may be from any agency of human services. You got it. And then a household may request a change of case manager.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: On line

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: four, chapter page 24, public assistance, public health care.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Edna, so I can

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Page 24, line four,

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: at least the risk free.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Page 24, after assistance. After assistance.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thank you. Chittenden. It's funny what one little comma can do. You know? Okay. Needs assessment. This is something that we have conflicting information about. It is every fifth year, but we heard from folks in the community that it's 2030, and I talked to the department and told us it was 2028, beginning in. So if we could just put a note on that, Katie, and then put 2030 and put a question mark, Hopefully somebody can clarify that for us.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I'm sorry, this is something that already takes place? Yes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And I think that would be office. The department be through its office, because we're talking about contract again.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay. And

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: some sentence in there about collaborating with Department of Housing and Community Development. I should sound more enthusiastic about that. I just realized, thank you, Doug. I'm just tired. Who's the organization that's currently now? I'm just wondering, is it an in state, is it an FI? I don't know the answer to that. So

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: if someone can tell me later,

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it's their expertise, we want to leverage.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so that brings us to 22.5. Notice appeals right to fair hearing. Should that be office?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, that should be office.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Office or community partners shall provide a written notice to any applicant or household whose participation in the program is denied, reduced, suspended or terminated. Notice shall include a specific factual and legal basis for the office or community partners.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, well, see now I'm Not sure. Because it is the notification. This is about the notice. Okay. The notice will come from the office. Yeah. I'm thinking about the appeal process itself. Oftentimes, there's a departmental appeal process before it goes to the Human Services Board. But this is about notice. So I think okay with office. But they'll tell us differently if it needs to be different. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So we did one, two, the effective date of the action, which in the case of termination, reduction or suspension of services shall not be sooner than fourteen days after the date of written notice. Page 25, subdivision three, a statement of the right to request a fair hearing pursuant to this section.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Sorry, just to go back to that fourteen days after the date of the written notice, is that the date that the notice is dated or the date that the notice is provided to the household?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's a good question. Especially today,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: if it's put in the mail. It would be the next day, you're

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: true. Date received, so what is that? Shouldn't that be July after receipt of the written notice?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, there's a

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: problem with receipt. Delivery

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: of the notes?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Don't know. We're not the only ones that deal with this. There must be I'm not sure what other appeal processes say.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Know we might like paying taxes. A lot of now saying it can't be can't be postmarked.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was thinking that he just did it with ballots. Yeah. He couldn't accept them. Yeah. So there is something going on. But I can't remember specifics to be able to give a good answer. I'll be sooner than fourteen days. Alright. So let's just flag this, Katie. Okay. I mean, I think it's a I don't I'm not sure what to do. I'm not sure if it has problems either, but But it is an issue because I don't think receipt is going to work. But the date of the notice and then rely, you know, that's why it's fourteen days and not like seven days because you can't rely on the mail. I'm just wondering if we should put something in here about the household's preferred method of communication. If it's email, for instance,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: or text. That could be, like, how do they find out the preferred method of that part of intake, because that becomes

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright. I think we need some feedback, more feedback about that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Top of page 25, a statement of the right to oh, I did that one. Hearing four, instructions and plain language on the process and deadlines for filing an appeal. Subsection An applicant for a recipient of assistance pursuant to this chapter may file a request for a fair hearing. The Human Services Board pursuant to 3VSA 3,091 when an applicant for assistance of the program is denied in whole or part, a household's benefits were terminated, reduced or suspended, or the household believes the benefits have not been provided in accordance with the applicable rules or policies.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so we say applicant. So we should have an application oh, it says right there, number one. Never mind.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. See, an applicant or household shall file a request for a fair hearing with the board within sixty days following the date that the applicant or household received written notice Yeah. For I'm going to highlight that on your

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: next I guess I want to make it as consistent as possible with current practice that people know.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: If a household files a request for a fair hearing within ten days after receiving the notice pursuant to A, that's another receiving notice, the department or community partner receiving notice, so office, shall continue to provide services under the program without interruption until a decision is issued by the board, unless the household voluntarily waives continued services. So that's the point that's saying, okay, what about something that's real safety risk too?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Because you don't want to make it even just criminal activity. If somebody's been shoplifting, that's very different from somebody who's been.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Was it anything that falls under twenty two ten c? It's Page the line. Page 20, line nine. That's the criminal and misconduct section.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Right. But if you you're allowed to be terminated for that, but that's termination, then then you have a right to a fair hearing, and you can continue.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Right. So do we wanna include that in the we wanna say that's an exception of the continued receipt of the services? Right.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But it would need to be it's not all those things under deed that would be an exception.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: I'm saying

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If there's if there's a risk of safety to other Right. Other people, then it can be immediately to they don't get continued services.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, okay. So c is already the immediate well, the immediate termination of services would still allow it.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: But the exception That's is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what I'm saying. If they require blah blah blah, the Department of Community Commission shall notice shall blah. Sorry, without interruption until a decision. So I'm saying we provide an exception to that. Yes. Right? If there is an issue of safety involved. Yes. That's fine.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Outlined in twenty two ten c. Because those are

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: It'll be

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: all of those,

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: though. Yeah. It's not all of those. It's only

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to say I think we should just say it's if there's an issue of safety to other members of the household or other right. Which others. Right. To others for issue of safety.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: But isn't it isn't that what isn't that what c on page 20 gets to? It's criminal activity or misconduct related to safety?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, no, because we're adding in their refusal of placements.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We have a separate section. It's a comp

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: or constitute illegal activity and I don't think it's necessarily all illegal activity that creates a safety danger.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Right, like a drug bust or

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: even even the the destruction of property because you broke a chair, you know, and that's why you're asking for the fair hearing saying, you this was not, you shouldn't throw me out because of this. So I think that is too broad to say you're denied continued services pending the appeal. So, we

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: are going to say you're denied continued services if there's a matter of safety.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Yeah, and I'm glad you brought up the broken chair thing, because I do think this really matters, especially in our definition of going back to that, if you sit in a chair and it breaks, I don't think that's responded. You know, and I'm very concerned about the potential framing for, like, definitely it has to be, like, intentional and it has to be, you know, it's

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: like So involve the intentional destruction of property Yeah. Exactly. We

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: had an incident back during COVID where

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: a child

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: and a window got broke. You know? So things like that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. Wasn't you know? Well, was intentional by

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: the job.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We don't know. Don't know that Katie. Okay. And so just to, we're getting close people. House of thousands of

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: requests

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: preparing the continuation of services. We are saying that you do not get continuation of services if there is a matter of safety involved. How about if they're doing drugs and they get a drug plus? That's a loose fair housing? No, I'm asking. That would be misconduct? Yes. Just curious. It's incident. Yeah, it is in there. Hearing should be conducted in accordance with due process standards, Right? Present witnesses, representative counsel, or other authorized There's a on page 26.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: The next page, please. So where she just got first line. Hearing shall be conducted.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: A hearing?

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: No. Conducted. Did it say conducted?

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Conducted. Oh, conducted. Oh, yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Not conducted. Isn't it funny how you're expecting it to say conducted? So I read You read it.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Absolutely. I

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: heard you say that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I'm hearing.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I'm I'm

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: saying, do know what looking right at

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

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: there another authorized representative. Okay. It's in. Human Services Board shall issue a written decision that sets forth the findings of fact, conclusions of law on the basis for its decision and the process for appealing the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court. D. If the Human Services Board issues 20 substantially identical decisions brought by program applicants or recipients. The Department and community partners will adopt this Board's interpretation as part of its administration of the program, and the Department shall revise the program rules accordingly.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And its Department visits. And that is department?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, that is department. I'm just going to point out for you that this is a big problem for

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: agency of human services, the department. So I'm pretty sure that I haven't read the feedback they provided in the letter, but I'm pretty sure it's possibly referencing.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: So my concern that 20 seems rather high is Right.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Wouldn't see that as a huge compromise to the department because I would have had it much lower. They can also appeal, you know.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I guess we're gonna review the department's feedback this afternoon, but I'm just highlighting that for you. That was that was that was probably with me already. Okay.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: And I guess also at the end of that sentence, the department shall revise the program rules accordingly, that's a lengthier process when we want more immediate application of what those

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: We're going

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to have more discussion about that. They have

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: to adopt it and then they have to fix the rules. I think they Whatever. Yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Rule making. Rule making. Department shall adopt rules and the implementation of the program addressing at a minimum requirements for community providers participating in the program, standards for highly structured low barrier and specialized shelters documentation requirements for household eligibility, including disability required elements for supportive services, including case management the creation of a standard application form that may be completed by hand electronically or by telephone. We have a change there. So

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: what this is referring to is that brief standardized initial assessment. And so, it's the creation of a brief standardized initial assessment form.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Assessment form?

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

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Six, a process for issuing timely written approval or denial notification to applicants. Seven, a process for issuing advanced notice to households when the household is being terminated from the program. Eight, applicant and household appeal procedures. Nine, time limits for program participation, including procedures for extensions. Penn, expectations for departmental oversight. Wondering if that should be office. And quality monitoring. College level.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Office oversight.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Mhmm.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Or the offices oversight. And Yeah. Other areas as deemed necessary.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We changed the reporting.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Let's see. I don't like the word areas. That's what I'm stuck on. See. Excess necessary.

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

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So we changed this. We got rid of this whole annually. And we got rid of the reporting to the Senate and the Health and Welfare Committee, blah, blah, blah. So we have essentially the monthly department shall post on its website a report. It's gonna be different language, it's similar to the one that they do now updated to reflect elements of the program. They have pretty good monthly reporting now on their website, and we just want them to update that with the elements of the program and just continue to do what they're doing.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I think because everything that has been required so far has been in session law, you might want to pull your specific reporting requirements here because what has been happening will go the requirements for that will go away. So just saying build upon that, I mean, that won't exist anymore, I guess is what I'm saying.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So you might wanna be more explicit. Well, I guess the problem with being too explicit is when you make a list of things, that's the only things that are included. And it's this kind of a living, breathing situation. I think things will change as

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: What if it was something that was sort of vague, like not specific, like x number of this and this number of people served, but sort of like general categories?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This where you were doing Mhmm. Okay. Yeah. So one

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: representative Noyes who was on to pay for the last bill, I am for this

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: one. Wow. So I'm

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: throwing people under the

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: bus. Hey.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Because anyhow,

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

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: in total. Okay. That's all the recommendations as requested for Okay. I sent it over to you in an email.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Send it to Katie.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Alright.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Put those in? Yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And then we'll talk about them in the afternoon version. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That means a very fast turnaround. We'll see how that goes.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Do you want the B? You don't get lunch. Yes, the B is still there. Kidding. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So keep moving. Continuums of care. In order to promote the effective use of resources and continuity of care, the office shall work in collaboration with the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance, the balance of state continuum of care, US HUD to establish a single continuum of care in the state on or before 10/01/2028.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So I wanna respond because there was feedback that we should just move this to legislative intent, which is aspirational, and decided not to do that because we would like to see this. However, we also know that we get to decide whether that happens or not. HUD gets to decide whether or not that happens. So what this is instructing is that there needs to be work to try to do that. We may or may not accomplish it, but we didn't want to just have that be intent because it didn't require anybody to do anything under intent. And then we added a progress report.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Then this section six is because it's happening at a later effective date, that 2218 is being added because you wanted this to happen after the continuum of care consolidation. So this is that any grant or other agreement executed by AHS as part of the program shall require a community partner as appropriate to participate in local housing coalition or other group established to assist eligible households who are homeless, utilize coordinated entry assessment for eligible households, utilize service plan options. Yeah, we got rid of that. Okay. They included in number four, utilize the appropriate planning process and options. And options, okay. For eligible household transitioning into the permanent housing, including eligible households with an individual with an intellectual developmental disability, older Vermonters, or individuals transitioning from a correctional facility. And lastly, measure performance outcomes, including diversion success, time to housing and housing retention. Lead into that language. Do you want that to say AHS or another entity? Where? Page 28, line 19.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, you know, I I'm think I'm thinking about this because I'm thinking this is apply this is applying to not just as part of this program. Part of this is getting other AHS departments to participate at the community level in the the local housing coalitions. So like designated agencies, some go, some don't go. And AHS asked us at one point in time to require them to require people to do this. I feel like it needs a little wordsmithing.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: This would be in the chapter about the program. That's where this

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, it would still be in the chapter about the program.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: The other grant executed by

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the agency, Hema Services, or its departments, I should say. NHS or its departments shall require a community partner. I think we just get rid of it as part of the continuum. So it would say any grant or other agreement executed by the agency, human services or its department shall require a community partner as appropriate to participate in local housing. Yeah, that does it.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I just wanna make sure that your intent matches what you're asking. So this, it doesn't matter that you're crossing out the continuum. It would still be part of the continuum chapter. So if you're wanting this to apply broadly to all grants, I don't know that you'd be accomplishing

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that. It's not as part of the continuum. Want it to Any grant or other agreement, agency agreement certs. Any grant.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: It's as appropriate. So it's not like everybody who receives a grant from AHS is going to have to have a person be as appropriate. So I think that then AHS in their contracting contracting with these grants will be able to determine who is appropriate and who is not to be required.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: But sorry, I just I want ask everybody is on the same page. But this would apply to the program because it's in the chapter about the program.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And if you wanted We do want them to participate to the extent that they serve people. They have people What we're trying to do is to help solve the problem where other AHS departments have not been as active in Silos. In serving people who are homeless, but who are eligible for their services as we would like. And so that's what we're trying to achieve. So whatever

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: language that exists, that would make that happen. That's helpful. But it's all related back to housing services.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's all related back to people who are homeless, who are experiencing homelessness.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Let's make the changes you suggested and leave it there.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. So on a smaller piece of that, four, do we want to include

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: individuals transitioning from a

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: correctional facility or from a hospital?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Sure. K. Where is that? Page 29. No. No. No. I'm on I'm here. I'm at on page 29.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: There is another place where we referenced individuals transitioning from a correctional facility. I don't know where. I could do a word search, but we might wanna check-in if you want parallel language. I'll keep moving for the time being. So this section seven is I don't know if you rather tee this up, madam chair, but this is sort of the chapter that we just looked at takes effect 07/01/2026. There is recognition that some components of the program can be put into place 07/01/2026, but that there will be work over the coming year to put the entirety of the program in place. Instead of dissecting the whole chapter that this piece can be put in place in October and this piece can be put in place in January and having multiple effective dates. This language is meant to sort of capture this idea that the work is starting July 1, some of the components will be in place July 1. But by 07/01/2027, everything will be in place. So recognizing that the department

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: say that for my education is '28.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. Then I have the wrong dates. I think I keep thinking fiscal year '27 and putting '27 in.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: First date is 2026.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: And then the last one is thank you.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: Same with the line. That's also '26.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Line 17 is '26.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, line 19 is that's fiscal year '20 That is '27. Yeah.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's what I keep doing in my brain.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: the second bill that I've done that on. Okay. So recognizing that the department and community partners do not have capacity to fully implement the continuum established in chapter 22 on 07/01/2026, the department and community partners shall implement the program to the fullest extent of their ability in fiscal year twenty seven while developing the capacity to fully implement the program on 07/01/2028.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: 07/01/2027.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: '7. '27. Yes. I have it written down here.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: I haven't made the change.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Maybe you should just say July '28. Do you want it on a date

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: certain though? Because you could

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I don't think honestly, it allows a little more flexibility if they need a little more time.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Implement the program in fiscal year twenty eight?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In fiscal year twenty eight. Yeah. Yeah.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. It's a heavy lift.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It is. That's why I recognize it. Yep. Yeah. Section

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: eight deadline Wait a minute. We're not there yet. I'm sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: On line 17, the department through its office.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: How about at the top on line 15?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That that the department's good. That's the yeah. Okay.

[Rep. Daniel Noyes (Clerk)]: By moving it by an entire year, you should probably have taken care of one of the items in the DCF demo that's in our inbox.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: The timing does not make any

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: sense. Interim emergency rulemaking to go before permanent. Oh no, nevermind. I remember. I did this last night too. The header starts on the bottom of page 29 and it says on the top. We do. We want to switch B, but B before A.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I know why you're wanting to do that because you want it to be chronologically correct.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: But you're gonna tell us why we don't buy that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's like setting up the rule in A and then setting up the exception in B is the way I'm sort of looking at it. I worked with our LCAR attorneys, and this was their preference. But if you hate it, I will bring it back and ask if they have a strong opinion for flipping it. You are the experts on this kind of thing. Let me just think through this. So let's extend it by LCAR. The department shall by 10/01/2027. That gives them what does that give them?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I 15 get the concept of the I think that what I would do is in the header, put interim emergency rulemaking first. Okay. And then put deadline for adoption of permanent rules second. Okay. And then flip them.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Flip A and B. Yeah. I know, I know. That's what you ought to do.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Okay. It's your bill. I'll flip them.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: People read it according to

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I know. I know. But I just like the, this is the rule. And then this is

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the This is the exception.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, they will be flipped. And so then in what will be B, we're giving fifteen months to come up with permanent rules for the program, but that can be extended by LCAR. And B, and just to be clear, this is referring to the specific criteria in the statute that we've already looked at. So they have all of that guidance already about what should be in the rule. What will be A, currently B, prior, pending the adoption of the permanent rules, DCF is to adopt and maintain emergency rules deemed to have met the standard in emergency rulemaking. The emergency rules required shall take effect on 07/01/2026 and shall, at a minimum, address the topics required. So the emergency rules have to address what is required in statute. This section takes effect on passage, which doesn't give a whole lot of extra time, but it gives a little bit of extra time. But the idea is that if a program, if certain components of the program are going to be stood up on 07/01/2026, that there need to be emergency rules in place at the same time.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. Well, and there's excuse me. We want the eligibility to be effective this fiscal year. And the appropriations are going to be by continuum component, which are all gonna be a July 1. So I realize that I don't

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: know what to do about it. Yeah, it's a tight timeline.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You can't say tenone retroactive to July 1.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: It could be that on passage is the May, that gives two months,

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: a month and a half.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Think you're being optimistic. Think it's gonna be one of those last minute bills. Let's just put it that way. Well, I mean, they'll they'll have I mean, they would start working on something that they know is going to happen. Right. So they would have all of the gene. Okay, we can talk more about that. I'm sensing people are at a sugar low. So let's just get through the last few pages. Section

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: nine is a status report. This is by January. OEO is to submit a written report talking about its preparations. Maybe we shouldn't say preparations because pieces of this would already be in effect. Some of that, yes, I think. Process of implementation. Implementation process. Let's say that. Right. Implementation process.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: The

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: office's report is to include an initial draft. I made a change here to make it work with the rules. So at this point in time, there'd already be emergency rules in effect. So this would be them submitting an initial draft of the department's permanent rules, which probably wouldn't be super different from the emergency rules because they have all of the same elements that have to be included in both. But there could be maybe some variations. And I'm

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: going to make this February. On or before February fifteenth. And

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: then we have the section 10. If you remember last year when we worked on this, there was a component of the program you created that included households experiencing domestic or sexual violence. This draft handles households experiencing domestic or sexual violence separate and apart from the new program you're creating. So this is creating a standalone section specific to these households. The department is to select and enter into an agreement with a statewide organization to provide or cause to be provided supportive services to shelter those households that are experiencing or have experienced domestic or sexual violence. This should look familiar because it was pulled from the work you did last year. I

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: reached out to the Vermont Network. Okay. So they have some additional feedback. I I asked them to update their feedback, with the new draft because we were having a hard time going trying to figure out Line numbers. The line numbers and page numbers. So So we'll take a look at that this afternoon. I'll forward it to you, though.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Page 32 is the Vermont Rental Assistance Bridge Program. It's a session law because it's been limited. A, the program is established within the Vermont State Housing Authority for the purpose of linking households to require rental assistance to permanent housing when the household does not otherwise have access to relevant US HUD rental assistance. The program shall be accessible to eligible clients served by each of the AHS departments. The program shall be available to a household for not more than twenty four months and shall not provide the full amount of the household's rental payment. Program payments shall be made directly from the housing authority to a household's landlord. In C, the program priority is given to current recipients of the HOME program established in Title X who have not yet reached twenty four months of rental assistance. And D, the housing authority and relevant departments of AHS shall work jointly to incorporate any existing rental assistance funded by the agency and its departments into the program established in this section and establish eligibility criteria and any prioritization that may be necessary for the use of funds appropriated for this program. It is the intent of the general assembly that funds are appropriated for this program through fiscal year 2030. Intent so as not to find future legislature scans. Previous drafts had this language that by July, not this year, but next year, that the Department in collaboration with AHS and relevant community partners shall establish a payment rate structure for shelter services required by this act. The structure shall include a base rate and a supplemental payment for specialized shelter services. Do not be attended by the General Assembly that the payment rate structure established pursuant to the section cover the full operating expenses of shelters. You need to make at least Yeah.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: On line nine, we added payment rate structure, comma, including periodic rate reviews.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Periodic rate reviews? Yes.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Is it correct that the department is doing this?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That would probably be the office. Although it's going to involve the business office.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Would put department in my Okay. So this will, I'm going to add for children and families, services and special. And then we have an appropriations section. In fiscal year twenty seven, dollars 82,000,000 roughly is appropriated from the general fund for the provisional services implementation of the continuum, shelter development and operation, rental assistance, supportive services, including case management as follows. And then there's room for the breakdown of each of the levels. So A is just that number is the existing. Exact existing amount that we received from DCF as their FY20 FY20. Is from the proposed budget of administration. So then there is a breakdown. A is prevention and diversion services. So X amount plus the $82,000,000 will be appropriated here. And then we have this language which comprises X amount of one time and X amount of dates. B is shelter development and services. C is specialized shelter development and services. D is permanent supportive housing. E is rental assistance. Why did I put that there?

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Can I strike that? It's just out of order with the I don't think it's in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the order either way.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: It's the last thing. Emergency housing in hotels and motels is the last. Maybe I'll just flip those.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. E and F.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: E and F. Okay. And then G, other supportive services. H is hop. And then I created this separate section too.

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

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I was looking at. Sorry. Oh, oh.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Where you said Vermont Rental Assistance Bridge Program. I'm not sure why that's there. I was assuming it needed funding because you said it needs to be funded. It does. Is it part of the 82,000,000? Yes. Okay. And what about for domestic violence house? That's one

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: thing I just want to double check, but I believe that is also part

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: the I two thought those were outside. So I will make that change.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I'm gonna double check that, but that's where it's currently funded. So I'm pretty sure it is.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. I'll move those up. But if we have to make a change, we'll make a change. Then we have this language. Any funds that remain unspent at the end of fiscal year 'twenty seven shall be carried forward for the same purpose for which they were originally appropriated in this section. And b, any funds appropriated for GA emergency housing, or HOP, that remain unspent at the end of this current fiscal year are to be carried forward for investment into the program in the coming fiscal year. 14 is right now in statute under the General Assistance Program, there is a report, and you decided you wanted

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: to remove the report.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So that is what is happening in Section 14. Effective dates. We have a question. Yes, sorry.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: In previous versions, there was a slew of positions that was slated for ESD to do some of this administration. Yes. I don't see any reference, but I'm wondering if OEO will need any positions as their responsibility increased dramatically. Yeah, yeah. So that was something that was discussed with the department, and they will be transitioning some positions from ESD to OEO. And then there's the 21 positions that I probably would make some notation to. They're counted right now in the spreadsheet that I sent you all that Megan Smooten sent us. They're counted in that top line, the administration, those 21 positions and that's about $2,300,000 So we would be anticipating leaving some of those at OEO, but then transitioning some of that down into probably the case management and supportive services line in the community. But then there are other permanent classified positions that would transfer from VCF to, I mean from economic services to the And I don't know, do we need to actually state that? That's probably a Nolan question. Yeah, okay. Because it would be part of these various buckets of money. Well, the permanent classified one, but that's an administrative thing. We're saying the program's gonna be run by an ECF and they're gonna We're saying the program's gonna be run by OBO. They know because they asked the question that they would have to transfer positions.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Oh, maybe a transfer would have to be. Yeah. Let's ask Nolan.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, I don't know. Okay. All right. What perfect timing.

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: Right? Yes. Okay. I was just looking at community under the eligibility. It's small but important distinction. I noticed that heat violence was not included in those is experiencing domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, stalking, human trafficking, all of that. In prior things, I believe we had also mentioned hate crimes, hate violence. That was taken right out of the

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: appropriations bill. This is what it currently says. It doesn't mean that we can't consider it, but this is

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: what it It's currently a

[Rep. Eric Maguire (Member)]: small thing, but I think a really important

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: one to have in there.

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: All right, I'll double check that's incorrect. Okay.

[Rep. Jubilee McGill (Member)]: Thank

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you, Katie. I appreciate it. Thank Katie. We are going to be back at this at 01:00. I'll keep it in the classroom. Yes, thank you. Yeah. We'll be back at one to take this up again. And I don't know if we'll have a new version by then. I know that. And you're in some place else.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So could I just ask, let me prioritize the next hour of my time. 06:57 is the priority, right?

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yes, we would like to vote that. We have more time on this one for tomorrow.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: So I will try to finish that now and have that for one ish, and then I will see how far I can get done in

[Rep. Theresa Wood (Chair)]: the next hour on this one. Okay. Okay.

[Rep. Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: If you could quickly check the

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