Human Services Committee approves amended H.91 (version 7.1) on emergency shelters

The Human Services Committee voted to approve version 7.1 of H.91, described in committee as a bill “creating Behar,” after a preliminary straw poll on amendments and a formal roll call. The committee conducted a straw poll on the proposed amendment that was recorded as 10–0–1, then approved the amended bill in a roll-call vote recorded as eight yes, two no and one absence.

The bill, as amended in version 7.1, makes several substantive changes to existing shelter and homelessness-related language and program requirements. Committee members said the amendments collapse prior references to “transitional” and “temporary” shelter into a single term, “emergency shelter”; add the word “resources” after “funds” in the purpose section; and expand the definition of “at-risk homelessness” to include the phrase “precariously housed.” The amended draft also adds a statewide organization serving households experiencing or having experienced domestic violence and restructures some paragraphs and numbering (including a renumbering of subsection C). The committee recorded changes from the terms “grants” to “agreements” and edits clarifying service descriptions and provider responsibilities.

Key programmatic changes included new language requiring organizations to demonstrate community connections with regional partners — including local housing coalitions, housing providers, coordinated-entry providers and services for older Vermonters, people with disabilities, people with substance-use or mental-health conditions, people reentering the community after incarceration, those transitioning from Department for Children and Families care and families with children. The draft requires plain-language communications with households receiving services, the development of a regional needs-assessment and planning process in collaboration with community and state partners, and a prioritized approach to hotel- and motel-room use that favors coordinated room agreements over ad-hoc per-night arrangements when appropriate to a household’s needs.

Committee discussion included praise for committee staff and advocates who worked on the bill. An unnamed committee member specifically called out work by Jubilee and Anne, saying their sustained involvement helped produce the current draft. Another committee member said they had planned to oppose the bill earlier because of concerns that the committee would not have sufficient time to conduct necessary due diligence on complex implementation issues; that member said the remaining concern that would produce a no vote was the bill’s cap (the member said they wanted the cap specified in statute). That member cast one of the two recorded no votes.

A straw poll on the amendment passed 10–0–1. On the subsequent roll call to approve version 7.1, the clerk recorded the following votes as read into the record: Representative Bishop — yes; Representative Cole — yes; Representative Donahue — yes; Representative Estes — yes; Representative Garfano — yes; Representative McGill — yes; Representative Nielsen — no; Representative Noyes — yes; Representative Steady — no; Representative Wood — yes. Representative McGuire’s vote was not recorded on the roll call and the clerk noted an absence; the tally given by the clerk was eight yes, two no, one absence.

Committee members said an implementation plan will be considered within the coming year; language in committee references an implementation timeline and requires follow-up work on regional planning and service coordination. The committee did not, during the recorded discussion, provide a full funding breakdown or identify specific state or federal funding sources tied to the agreements; those items were discussed only as edits to program language (for example, adding “resources” after “funds”).

The committee’s formal actions on H.91 included the straw poll on the amendment and the final approval of version 7.1. The clerk concluded the session’s online business after the roll call.

Ending: The amended H.91 (version 7.1) moves forward from committee with an approval vote; committee members said additional implementation planning and regional coordination work will follow, and at least one member recorded a no vote based on unresolved concerns about a statutory cap.