Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews bill to create Vermont Homeless Emergency Assistance and Responsive Transition to Housing program
Summary
The Health & Welfare committee reviewed a bill to create a statewide program (referred to in the draft as VHEARTH) to consolidate emergency housing programs, set service standards, fund community action agencies, and require an implementation plan and advisory committee; the bill includes a $10 million one-time appropriation for fiscal 2026.
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers and staff walked the House Health & Welfare committee through a bill on April 3 that would create a statewide program called the Vermont Homeless Emergency Assistance and Responsive Transition to Housing program (referred to in the draft as VHEARTH) to coordinate emergency shelter, extreme-weather shelters and supportive services through community action agencies.
The draft bill would create a new chapter in Title 33 that, under the bill, replaces existing General Assistance (GA) Emergency Housing and the Housing Opportunity Grant (HOP) program and would redirect funds for those programs to the new VHEARTH program beginning July 1, 2026. It also establishes a time‑limited implementation advisory committee and requires an implementation plan due to the General Assembly by Feb. 1, 2026.
Committee members were presented with the bill’s purpose and structure by legislative counsel Katie Winthrop, who said the committee had “draft 7.1, which is the human services committee report” and that the draft contains the elements the House is expected to send to the committee. Winthrop reviewed the bill’s findings, intent language, definitions (including “unsheltered homelessness,” “community based shelter” and “at risk of homelessness”), and the new program components such as supportive services, temporary and transitional shelter, and dedicated services for households impacted by domestic and sexual violence.
The bill would designate community action agencies to operate or cause to be operated the program services, with the Department for Children and Families (DCF) providing statewide planning, administrative oversight, monitoring, allocation of funds and rulemaking. The draft requires community action agencies to use coordinated entry, to meet department reporting standards, and to maintain infrastructure to receive and subgrant funds. DCF is directed to develop allocation methods using data including point‑in‑time counts, coordinated entry results and regional needs assessments.
Supportive services listed in the bill include intake and diversion, individualized household plans, housing navigation, financial assistance for obtaining and retaining housing, landlord‑tenant outreach, peer supports, and case management. The bill allows temporary use of hotels or motels if they meet adopted standards and national/public‑safety codes; hotel/motel per‑room rates paid with state funds would be capped at rates approved by the General Assembly and the department is asked to prioritize block agreements where appropriate.
The bill establishes an implementation advisory committee with a mix of representatives: people with lived experience, community action agencies, local housing coalitions (including shelter providers), the two federally designated continuums of care (Chittenden County Homeless Alliance and the balance of state Continuum of Care), and several state officials or designees. The committee would be time‑limited and expire on July 1, 2029. The committee must submit recommendations to the commissioner of DCF and the community action agencies; the draft does not explicitly require the committee to submit recommendations to the General Assembly or to the statewide organization that would provide services for survivors of domestic and sexual violence, an omission committee members flagged for further consideration.
The bill includes an implementation plan requirement (due Feb. 1, 2026) that must address funding allocations, accountability measures, appeals processes (including hearings before the Human Services Board), the role of 2‑1‑1 in intake, whether continued emergency shelter should require case management or financial participation, and prioritization criteria for temporary shelter, among other items. Committee members discussed the need to clarify prioritization categories and how people transitioning from corrections or other institutions would be served.
On funding, the draft contains a $10,000,000 one‑time appropriation for fiscal 2026: $6.5 million to DCF for distribution to community action agencies and the statewide organization serving households impacted by domestic and sexual violence, $500,000 to DCF for contractual and systems‑transformation assistance, and $3,000,000 to DCF for continued development of shelter capacity. Joint Fiscal Office analyst Noel Langwell summarized the fiscal picture and stressed that the House budget, as passed, currently preserves existing programs for FY2026 and that the bill’s appropriation is a separate proposal. Langwell said: “First thing that the bill does … section 7 has a $10,000,000 appropriation.” He also explained that the bill’s legislative intent would be to redirect funds spent in fiscal 2025 for GA emergency housing and HOP into the new program in FY2027, subject to next year’s budget decisions.
Senator Beck explained that one amendment being offered would codify into statute a recent gubernatorial executive order that establishes a narrow priority eligibility group for emergency winter housing (households already housed in hotel/motel by March 30 who meet medical or other listed conditions). Beck described that change as putting elements of the executive order into statute and the committee conducted an informal straw poll; the chair said she would “respond to this on the floor.”
Committee members asked staff and counsel to clarify multiple drafting issues (a duplicated cross‑reference in section 2205, the statute and rule cross‑references, whether specified partners are consulted in rulemaking, and the naming/role of the official to convene the advisory committee). Several members also raised concerns about relying on existing community action agencies’ infrastructure, the stability of those agencies going forward, and ensuring the bill’s legislative intent is preserved in rulemaking and implementation.
The committee scheduled follow‑up testimony and further consideration. No formal committee vote to pass or amend the bill was recorded in the transcript of this meeting.

