Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, welcome back, folks. We are taking up unedited changes. I wanna be clear about that. I wanna protect Katie. She is busy working. She's continuing to work on the changes that we made around the restructuring of tier five. So you won't see that in this version. But I told her I would walk through the changes, and she reluctantly agreed. You will find version 5.1 on committee's website. And I am only going to walk through the changes. And then we are going to take up the feedback and comments from the Vermont Network and the Agency of Human Services. Okay?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: on page two, you'll see in the middle of the page on line nine, replaced by a continuum of services. Change that word there to be clear. Okay. That's the only only change on that page from what we did previously. Definitions on page six. She has inserted definitions for the shelters, so highly structured shelter, and that language was taken from how it's referred to later on in the bill. Provides programming, emphasizes case management, housing stability, employment, education or treatment services, as well as anything else that's appropriate in a manner that accommodates an eligible household's disability, if any. Any questions about that or comments? Okay. Low barrier shelter. You can read it. I don't need to read it to you. But means shelter minimizing barriers to entry by reducing rules and programmatic structure while still providing case management and other housing supports. And then the rest of the things are all just renumbered. And then we see another change on page nine, line seven. Office shall maintain a continuum of services. That's that change again. On page 10, we just, got rid of continuum, and we just called it program components because we've already defined what it is. And then again, the change to continuum of services on line two. Excuse me, page 11 at the top of the page. Upon assessing a household's needs, the office or community partners shall place the household in appropriate level of care to address the household's needs. The other thing, although I don't see them all highlighted, but we have changed office, many of the departments to office, although I don't they're not all highlighted. But I'm just realizing that they've been changed, but they're not all highlighted. Okay. And then on that same page, on page 11, line eight, this is where we're talking about prevention and diversion. That's the primary entry level, although connection may be made at any level. And again, the office there. And then on line 12, shall receive a brief standardized initial prevention. I think there should be a comma, brief standardized. I probably get that. Usually when you're leaving out and then there's a comma. Okay. Prevention and diversion assessment. Page 12, This is where we started to change the language to actually be consistent all the way through now because in some places, we had it. In other places, we didn't. So to the extent funds are appropriated for the purpose, the office again. And then on line three, the department through the office. And then line 13, again, the office. Same change made on page 13 as it was made on page 12. Page 14, same change to the extent funds are appropriated for this purpose. And then on page 15, at the middle of the page, lines nine and ten, this is about recognizing that some household or members of the household may not be Medicaid eligible at the time of receipt, And some of the services may or may not be eligible. Yeah, we may need to double check that. They could be read as they're eligible for Medicaid? Yeah, they're not eligible for the housing. It means if the I know what we mean at the Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I just was thinking the same

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: thing. So

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: if the household and services are eligible for Medicaid.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: For Medicaid. Yeah. Just make it clear. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay. On the next page, we're talking here about hotels and the space available in hotels at the bottom on line 18 with space to provide services as negotiated.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Does that sound a little more directive? Should that read, with space to be provided for services as can be negotiated? That seemed to fit. I think we came to the conclusion that in some instances, it will be available, some it won't. And I'm just a little concerned the way it's currently phrased. It's directing them to negotiate that, We want them to do, but not not to not to the exclusion of using.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. But to say you're you're negotiating,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: it doesn't mean you're gonna succeed. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: We want them to negotiate for it, but I think it's actually clearer without, I think.

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So if, like, if we insert something like can be, that means, like, oh, well, maybe I'll negotiate it and maybe I won't.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: On

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: line five Okay. This is this is I'm going to skip through this section. Okay? Because she is she is re then it's she's restructuring the hotel section. Okay? So let's look through other emergency housing services on this one on page 18, line 12, the department through the office shall provide grants to municipalities. Again, the office, the office. And alternative agency and human services housing options, we took out the confusing language that was there and just started it on line 10 on page 19 with the agency. On page 20, again, those are just the office. And on page 21, so this is under the appeals section and notification, and representative Noyes provided some information about APS statute that we just modified. And it it stated within thirty days after having received I think I think allowing a little bit more time is necessary because the mail service is very unpredictable, and it's some it is sometimes difficult to locate folks. So are are could people be amenable to to thirty days, which is consistent with what we said in the APS statute? Not that we always have to be consistent with APS, but That's fair. That's fair. Thanks for checking on that theme. Okay. So on line four on page 21, this is additional information or timing. So essentially allowing the appeal, if there is an appeal, to happen before there's a referral to the office of the attorney general. Because the appeal may conclude that there isn't. Although they don't make determinations about fraud. I'll be honest, I'm a little iffy on that. Is everybody else okay with it? If other people okay with it, then I won't get stuck up on being iffy. I will tell you that I think that this whole human services board section, I think the agency human services has some I mean, we know that they have some concerns about that. They've indicated they have concerns about it. I I think that, you know, we will pass it with our language, but I would anticipate that there's probably gonna be some request downstairs to amend it. Okay. The next is a we separated out from although it's in a different location. This next section was part of the definition of misconduct. And we said that it really wasn't misconduct, but retained the provision, but just on its own. And then in lines eleven and twelve, that's well, that next whole section. The changes there are to and and we should read it carefully to make sure it's doing well. Yeah. Because it does. Yeah. There's a problem. Yeah. There's a new problem. So, what the intent here is, just to remind people, is to make sure that there's a distinction between somebody in a household is doing criminal activity or is dangerous and other members of the household? What are your thoughts there, Anne?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, it wasn't line 11, it's line 12. We moved criminal activity, the order of it, clarify it, and now I think it needs to come on it because it sounds like engaged in misconduct that is not related to a disability or criminal activity may be subject.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Can we just do a member of an eligible household? I think just having that eligible household language, I'm wondering if we could just strike that and do a member of an eligible household Engaged in misconduct. That would

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: make it a lot clearer. What if the whole household is engaged in misconduct? A member or members? Oh, I think that makes it easier to read.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: A member or members, yes. Yeah. Because for me, a household does, all households Yeah. Can't commit a

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, you gotta go back to the definition of household. Yeah. Oh, okay. A member or members of an eligible household. Okay.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Or to a criminal. Or a

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Or in criminal that is not related to a disengaged in misconduct that is not related to a disability. Or in conduct conduct that is criminal activity.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I feel like there needs to be a

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: comma Maybe after that fixes it if there's just a comma there. And then or to criminal that is not related to a disability, comma, or to criminal activity. Wait, no, no, no, that's backwards. No, that makes

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it worse.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Forget that.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: If you put also an n in front of criminal activity, then it's engaged in misconduct or in criminal Yes,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: we're in criminal activity.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Engaged, yeah, it's referring back to the engaged. Yeah. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And then on line 14, it may be necessary for the safety of other people in the hotel. It's not just

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, that's what other households means.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, other households? I thought that households, I thought was term of art for the people in the Oh,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: okay. But there could be When I wrote it, it was meaning the other people in the hotel, but for the safety of the household, we can just put

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: How many households do we need there? The household, other members of the household, other households, nonprogram participants?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, we could just say Well, it could be public. Or others. Others. Or Or others. Or Or others. Okay. So now it reads, immediate termination of services as necessary for the safety of the household, other members of the household, or others. Now we see you others twice at the same time.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, yeah. Well, they already did, but

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: What's the difference between safety of the household and other members of the household?

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Versus just members of the for the safety of members of the household or others. I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: don't think we need the first safety of the house. I don't think we need the first of the household. To immediate termination of services as necessary for the safety of other members of the household.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Why other? Why not just members of the household?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, well, because it's The person doing the crime, we don't

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: care if it's not safe for them. That's basically what I'm saying.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's not exactly right, but

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Or can we just do for the safety of others?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: We will.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: All of that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: As my theory for them,

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: for the safety of others.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think you can.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: That would include other households? Yes, everybody. Everybody.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It includes everybody. Okay. All right. I think we found a simple All right. That's D. Oh, sorry.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: You're stealth.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: A deeper conversation. Wasn't even looking up. Oh, okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: That's D, safety of others. So now

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: D A member or members of an eligible household engaged in misconduct that is not related to a disability, comma, or in criminal activity may be subject to immediate termination of services as necessary for the safety of

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: period. Others, period. Yeah, safety of others.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Now we're at? Yeah. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think that does it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, that does it. I'm just looking at E, but at E, which starts to sound duplicate, but not really because that's not saying immediate termination. It's just saying this is the definition of And

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we added intentional. Right. Okay. And then we have office. And, okay, this is where we're gonna We've added has experienced constructive conviction. No, ejection. Eviction. Eviction. Eviction. Eviction.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Got it. Thank you.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Would like to know what it could have struck up in Vegas. Okay, so we're gonna just go through all these changes and then we'll come back and we'll talk about the veterans that we started to have a conversation about. Okay? Office, office, office. Page 23, line 10, including the use of plain language. And then lines fifteen and sixteen, just to be clear that we're not talking about the payments for rental assistance, temporary rental assistance. And we inserted our shelter standards. Same thing at the top of page 24 on line three, shelter standards. Okay, so we have more changes. I'm gonna let you take over Katie now.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, I'm working from draft 5.2 that you don't have. My draft now incorporates the change to motel hotel. I'm going to skip over motel hotel. I'm on case management services. Won't use page numbers. Each Okay. Eligible household shall be assigned a lead case manager except where specifically exempted for certain services, which may be from any agency of human services department or community partner. Case management services provided pursuant to this chapter shall be informed by acuity level of the eligible household and include individualized supports that connect an eligible household to public assistance, comma, health care, employment, permanent housing and other services. The household may request a change in case manager. Needs assessment. The green means that's a question for you. You'll be seeing some green coming up.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, I think we have an answer to this. Okay.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I'm just a household sorry. A household may request a change in case manager. I want to add language where you can request a change, just that they have choice. If they have a provider they've worked with who they would prefer be that case manager, I just want to make sure that it's not just they're reassigned a case manager.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: If they had a preference, they could May request a specific case manager or a change. Change. Okay. Like that.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Needs assessment, twenty two-fourteen. Oh, was there 2028 or 2030? Yes.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Oh, I don't know what the year is.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, what was the last year? Excuse me, Chad, am I calling you? What was the last year for the housing assessment?

[Chad Simmons]: Chad Simmons, the Housing and Homelessness Vermont, 2025 was the year it's released. So it's done every five years.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: So the next one would be 09/30. 10/30, okay. It

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: would be done before 2030. It would be

[Chad Simmons]: would done by the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: You go the release release date. Okay, so this is

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: beginning in 2030. Every fifth year beginning. The contract.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: But that's like when they would start the trials.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: No, beginning.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah. Oh, I get it. Never mind. Read that. Yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's okay. So 2030, Katie.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Okay. Although, I mean, way you that's shall contract with an organization to conduct. They start the process. Yeah. After starting the contract in 2030. It's not

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: gonna be. Then it's not gonna

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: be done in 2030.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Does this not appear someplace else in statute? I mean, I guess I'm wondering why we're including this. Should we have to say the year at all? Can we get started?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think this is done

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: through ACCV. It is. So it's not done through DCF. It's like just general statewide housing assessment.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Maybe we should reverse this a little bit, That what we need here is that the department and its community providers shall collaborate with the housing needs assessment done, performed, or contracted by the Department of Housing or DCS.

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: know if we all put the agency or the department. Well, doesn't need a year. It doesn't need a year. Yeah. Do you know what I'm saying? I'm putting it out there as a thing because it's actually not DCF who is doing it. It is a different agency that's doing it, but provide they need information and they need to provide and want other people who would have something to say about that to be part of it.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: It sounds like the more rather than the year being the important thing, the collaboration. Right.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: And it's really It's not their responsibility to do. It is a I different

[Unidentified Committee Member]: just wanna ensure that there is this focus within it, because

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it is a very Yeah. So sort of we're seeing those Yeah. Focus. Yeah.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: That's why I like having it in this bill, is that we want to make sure we're really not just housing. We're looking at services, or where are there deserts of shelter availability? Which this collaboration should But be that's why I want to keep Well, it in the language

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: and I think honestly, we're talking about all these things and we're talking about, again, coming back to the systemic approach, you would always need to have a needs assessment to guide how you are moving in the next to do your next planning. So do you have the sense of that, Katie?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I think what you want to say is DCF and community partners shall collaborate with the Department of Housing community development. I don't know if it's in conducting or in The department's not gonna be conducting. Department of Housing Community Development will. So in their process for completing the needs assessment. Right. But we do want the identifying

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: gaps in services for households. Can we put households who are homeless instead of homeless households? Yes. In the state and includes recommendations to ensure provision of equitable services throughout this. So we want that language to be considered in the Yep. I got it. Okay.

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Alright. We're up on top of page 26. Yeah, I don't know what is for you. Number two.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah, 2215?

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Mhmm.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay, so it's a fair hearing, changing department to office, an A1 and A2, 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 the written notice. Green, because you are wondering about that.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, we changed it to thirty. On the first part of this.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: In the households prefer method of communication. So you'll see this green language again.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Before we get to the change, can we review starting on line 14? I don't know if this is the intent, but this creates less options for participants who feel they've been aggrieved. It's my understanding than currently. So I'm just wondering adding a more catchall,

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: or was that the point? I responded to that comment previously. So there's two things that are being done. So if your application is denied, so that's pretty basic. That's before you even get into services. So if your application is denied, you get to appeal. If you're terminated, reduced, suspended, you get to appeal. If you don't believe that your benefits are being provided in accordance with all of the applicable rules and policies, that's everything. So I disagreed with the comment. Okay. I don't know how much more things that you can appeal, it's everything.

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Katie's gonna surprise me again, I know what if I keep looking down. An applicant or household shall file a request for a fair hearing with the HSB sixty days following the date of the applicant or the household. We're gonna stay with received because we've added days there. That's okay. Okay. And then if a household files a request for fair hearing within ten days after receiving, so we're staying with received. Okay. And I'm gonna move that to fourteen.

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

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Steady dropped all your wisdom there just to get.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I know you're very exhausted. They weren't ready. Okay. So Katie, the bottom,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't know what section we're on now. Two-twenty two-fifteen paragraph C. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's just, yes, we're leaving received a written notice because we've expanded the timeframe. Okay. At the top, I mean, I won't use page number. D, fourteen days and keep received.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Question about that received, if we've extended the deadline, sixty days from received, could that be in question as to when someone received it? Just within sixty days of the written notice that allows does that allow ample time for mailing, etcetera?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Since we're increasing the number of days, I think that that's a valid point to consider. I think the issue before was in using received. What if they don't get it? What if they don't get it? Time. I I think the date because we've allowed that sixty days now, I think that that is what other things? I think I'm with you on that, I think, Doug.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: But he's only fourteen days.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: That's on purpose because you have to, if you're gonna, yeah.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Well, this one should be received because it's only

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, indeed. Because it's received.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right, yeah. This one should be received. But the other one that we have for you.

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: you're sending shouldn't be received. Katie? Yes. It's Naples all felt hard, now we'll make sure. Which case is due date of the written Okay. So it does say, Doug, on our version, the top of page 26, after the date of the written notice, it does say there, written notice.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Received written notice. Received written notice, though.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No, I'm looking at the top of Oh,

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: at top

[Unidentified Committee Member]: of page two, after the date of the written.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Okay, so since we've allowed that extra

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: then on

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Within sixty days, yeah, so that should be after the date of the written notice on c instead of just received a written notice after the date because we're allowing sixty days.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. And then is there a change to d, receiving notice?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: No. Not that. Okay. Well, I thought we were Well, 14.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Yeah. Yeah. But But not English.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Good catch. Okay. Okay. This is this is where we were saying sorry. Under this is we this was the point that Anne was making about the interruption I mean, the continuation of services. If you have been a person who had been risking the safety of others, you don't get to continue services because you're hurting at a default.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Can probably be shortened again. Yes. Safety to others. Okay.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Got

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: it. Yeah. You make that language be the same as the other one that you just went Okay. Hearing shall be conducted. What was different? I don't remember what that was.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Just said conducting.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, several. That's a tense issue. Okay. And then page 28, the creation of a brief standardized initial assessment. Office again, and down at the bottom of page, other subjects.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: Earlier, were you saying you thought a comment was needed after a brief?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. It did. Thank you. Okay. And now we're going to the reporting section, section 20 two-seventeen.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: I had a bit of conflicting guidance on this because you had said you don't want the annual report coming to the committees. But then

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: The other annual report. There was two annual reports, and we got rid of one annual report and made it the monthly thing. Okay.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: You asked me to use Representative Maguire's language for A to replace A. And he had an annual report coming to the committee.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It wasn't for A, though. It was for what was in here for B. I wish I had to keep b. Hold on. Let me see. Let me see.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Changed it with a month.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Right. A is the monthly report posted to its website. That's the one that's similar. Okay. So there was a little bit

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: of conflicting information. I think we could still bring them together by changing the lead in language. So instead of the annually, the report to the committees, you could do monthly report posted on the website. And then these were all the this one through eight was from his list of things that should be reported on. So you could probably retain those, just have them posted instead of being reported to the committees.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Well, I don't think so. I don't think it's that simple. Because some of these things Some of these things are annual, like the average monthly number of rooms used. I don't think we need to know that on a monthly basis. I think that could be an annual report. But the households, housing stability. Alright. I have to think about this. K. Because I don't want to lose the monthly. I use those monthly reports all the time. I know other people use them for sort of, like, this quick status update about what's going on where. So maybe maybe what I'll do is I'll I'll go look at the monthly report and just maybe define The elements. The elements that we would want to continue. Okay. And then I'm Okay. I don't have other people give you a chance to read it, because nobody had seen what Eric had put together. Had asked Eric to look at the components of the continuum and to come up with what an annual report would look like. Because it's in we didn't say it would be part of the budget presentation, but I feel like it should be part of the budget presentation. I don't know. I liked that element of it.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Mhmm.

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Still have that in b, if that's what you want. The instructions were to keep b, so I kept both pieces. That doesn't mean you couldn't do A in the budget presentation also.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah. I think I would being called Issue's comments. If you want. Let's let's A, let's say part of the department's budget presentation.

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: This is going to get tweaked downstairs. They're going look at this and they're going to say, why do we need two of these? And then they're going to condense it. And I'll let her see that.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And then we'll So

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: is this going to be monthly? No, it's part of the annual budget. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, it's part of annual. I'm going to give you language for monthly. Jenna's gonna sit here and here

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: and hang up now.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: Take a stand up.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Thanks for thanks for the teamwork.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: It's ten minutes, Jenny.

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: That's what you can at least make longer.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: They're gonna come back after floor if floor is if floor gets over at a reasonable time. Because tomorrow's Friday. In the afternoon. We don't have the afternoon to spend on this. We have education testimony in the afternoon, so we only have the morning. And only part of the morning. Because we have 4AM in the morning. Right? So we we are gonna have to come back if it's yeah. Okay. So merger. So I'm just gonna move along to 2208 2218 with the agency human services or its departments. And then utilize the on line 12 or it's but she's working with a different version. We had she was still working. So she's at 61, and we're at 51 because she we don't have

[Unidentified Committee Member]: 592. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Oh, yeah. 5 yeah. 52. That's what I meant. Alright. So we in number three, we added end options and or hospital. And we changed the dates and made it consistent through the office at the on the next section, interim emergency rulemaking. Did she change them? Okay. So this is flipping them. We wanted emergency become before final rulemaking. So that's all that was. And then on the status report in section nine, describing the office's implementation process for the program. And then I'm moving to section 12, payment rate structure, the Department for Children and Families. And we were specific here because agency human services has other departments. We added including periodic rate reviews. So there's been some feedback about at the bottom of that page online about where it says, it's not the intent of the general assembly that the payment rate structure established, covered the full operating expenses of shelters throughout the state. So there may be instances where they actually decide that they will and they could impose, I guess, through the rate development process, they could decide on rates where they would and rates where they wouldn't, depending upon the circumstances and what other revenues that are coming in.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: You add be required in line 20, would mean they're not required to, but could establish pursuant to section not the intent be required to cover the full operating expenses. Did that get that?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Preference from the feedback is to remove that sentence. I just want to remind people about what the concern was. The concern was that the shelters that have been established, long established for some period of time, do not receive full payment. But we also have to recognize it's a wholly different system. Right now, everybody submits a request to hop funds and the department decides how much of your request they're going to fund. And this is a different structure. And I think there's some validity to that, but what we were trying to do is not to create a system of have and have nots and trying to have some sort of fairer way of recognizing that there's differences in shelters, but there's also similarities in terms of a base rate. Yeah, go ahead. I'm just wondering,

[Unidentified Committee Member]: should we address this later and have them come to us next year with a proposal for this, that would require taking action next year. But I don't know. For exactly what you just said, I am

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: hesitant.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: I don't know how to accomplish it. So yeah, I don't know.

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: It seems that it would be addressed in the rate study rate setting

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: before. I think let's draw upon our experience with the Medicaid rate study that we had done a few years ago. And we asked for a report of the impact of the rate study. That was before they instituted it. And maybe that would be something, maybe that's a way to of weave in this. Because I think that we don't want to destabilize anything, but we don't want to create inequity within the system. But we do want to recognize that in some circumstances, might be

[Unidentified Committee Member]: a need to do certain things for one shelter that you might not have to do for another. Doing the report back, like putting language in their justification for why they're covering 100% of these ones may tackle that issue. So, Jen, I think

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: that what we'd want to do is to talk about a report back to us prior to implementing. And so then I think that we would need that last sentence because we would be able to see what it is that they are proposing.

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: Jen Harving, Legislative Counsel. So you have them establishing this payment structure by 07/01/2027. So when would you want them? Do you want to give it a time? Should they come back in the next session sometime?

[Katie (Legislative Counsel)]: Do you wanna like, the

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: you know, like, marked by March 1 or something that's sort of in the middle?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: After crossover. After crossover. April 1? April 1. We need to do something with it.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Yeah, I would want it earlier before crossover. Part of the

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: budget presentation. I guess what I am struggling with though is that it will take some time to develop a rate structure, and it may honestly not be feasible to implement on 07/01/2027. So we might want to ditch the concept of implementing on 07/01/2027.

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: So you could direct them to establish a payment structure and report back to you sometime next year. With I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: just wanna make a point we get a report prior to implementation of it. And I think we maybe should leave it up to them to tell us when it should be implemented. There's a lot of steps. You have to collect data from the shelters. And it's not something department is actually going to do. The agency of human services maintains a contract with, it is called Burns and Associates, whatever they're called now. They will be the ones probably doing this.

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: Do want the date out, the on or before July 1? I I think that what we I

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I yeah. I think that that is probably not gonna be realistic to implement it by that time. I think that they should be able to have a report to us.

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: On a progress report sometime next?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Yeah, a progress report, I guess. And then a final report. I don't know

[Unidentified Committee Member]: if you want to know where they are. Have it

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: If they're not going to implement

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Well, I just that we have time to review it and have adequate time to take action before implementation. So I'm not hard on that. That date doesn't I just want to ensure that that That there's plenty of time to So those

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: we need a report in the first year of the biennium. But I think we should ditch the notion of it going into effect 07/01/2027. And I want to be clear that it's prior to implementation. But I want to give them enough time to have gotten a significant way down the road so that they know of any barriers or things that need to be addressed and that we would wanna know that. So I think Should the

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: report include a proposed implementation date? Yeah.

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: Okay. So do you see if we'd report back to the legislature?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think April 1 is okay. Yeah. So

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: I order 01/27 with a so you want a progress report and a proposed implementation date? Yeah. Yes. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I wouldn't call it a progress report though. Or an update or got

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: an implementation of this including a yeah.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: Surely give us their progress in it. Right. Okay. Alright. That's it for that. But can I give you so Katie wasn't here at the very beginning? Can I give you just some quick changes? We're not gonna get to what I wanted to get to beforehand.

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

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: On section twenty two zero four.

[Unidentified Committee Member]: Over. Yes.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It's just a comma after brief.

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: Brief standardized. Yep. Okay.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: On, section twenty two zero seven, if the household and services are, eligible for Medicaid.

[Anne B. Donahue (Ranking Member)]: And

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: I think she got this one, but just to double check under section twenty two ten, paragraph three. Sorry. It's four b okay. It's 4B4B3. It's at the instead of fourteen days, it's thirty days. Does she have that crossed out? Four B. Four. It's just the space.

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: K. That's where we're seeing Three. So I have fourteen days after receiving notice.

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

[Doug Bishop (Member)]: It's

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: That one's should be what? Thirty?

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: It should be thirty. Thirty. Okay. And under 4D, I'm not sure if she has this or not.

[Jen Harving (Legislative Counsel)]: So she has a member or members of an eligible household? Yes. Engaged in misconduct, etcetera. And then for the safety of others.

[Theresa Wood (Chair)]: So that's what I meant. Okay. So we're good. Okay. So, alright. So watch your texts for, time frame. I