House Human Services reviews final draft of H.91 to set statewide homelessness program, funding and rules

Members of the House Human Services committee met to review the final draft of H.91, the bill that would establish the Vermont Homeless Emergency Assistance and Responsive Transition to Housing program and allocate one-time funding, focusing on wording changes, program responsibilities, and implementation deadlines.

The committee’s legislative counsel, Katie (Legislative Council staff), walked members through highlighted edits and told the panel the draft they were reviewing had been posted that morning and that the meeting would concentrate on the changes. "The changes are highlighted," Katie said, adding that the group should raise questions during the page-by-page review so the office could incorporate corrections before the vote.

Why this matters: The bill would set program structure and responsibilities for community action agencies and a statewide organization serving people who have experienced domestic violence, create an advisory committee and implementation plan, and put limits and procedures around use of hotels and motels for emergency shelter. Committee members also discussed a one-time $10 million allocation described in the draft and the relationship of the bill to a separate budget adjustment (BAA) process.

Key clarifications and provisions

Definitions and scope: Committee members revised language to refine the bill’s definitions. The draft replaces the term "precariously housed" with "at risk of homelessness" and adds text distinguishing households imminently losing a primary nighttime residence from people who are precariously housed but not meeting HUD's standard for homelessness. Katie explained the edits were intended to align the bill with HUD categories and to capture people who repeatedly return to homelessness.

Program operations and roles: The bill’s draft establishes the statewide program in the Department for Children and Families and specifies it "shall be operated by the community action agencies to the extent funds exist." Committee members amended the draft so a statewide organization with population-specific experience would provide or "cause to be provided" services for households experiencing or who have experienced domestic violence, a phrasing the committee said is necessary because community action agencies will subgrant or subcontract many services.

Advisory committee and membership: The draft creates an advisory committee whose membership includes representatives with lived experience of homelessness (appointed by Chittenden County Homeless Alliance and the Balance of State Continuum of Care), representatives from community action agencies, local housing coalitions (including shelter providers), and an added Director of the Department for Children and Families Office of Economic Opportunity or designate. Committee members discussed ensuring parallel phrasing across sections so that subcommittee membership and special populations (older Vermonters, people with disabilities, those reentering from incarceration, substance use disorder, families and children) are consistently included.

Hotel and motel use, rates and prioritization: The draft requires community action agencies to comply with program rules and says the department shall propose hotel and motel rates as part of its budget presentation to the General Assembly. It directs community action agencies not to pay state monies for per-room, per-night rates that exceed the rate approved by the General Assembly. The committee added language prioritizing the use of hotel/motel room agreements (often blocks of rooms contracted with a property) over individual, per-room-per-night arrangements "to the extent possible," while leaving an exception for instances when a block agreement is not appropriate for a household’s needs (for example, accessibility requirements). Members discussed whether the department should set caps and how local dollars might be layered with state funds; committee members insisted the draft be clear that state funds cannot be used to exceed the legislatively approved rate.

Implementation plan, deadlines and follow-up: The draft requires DCF, in collaboration with community action agencies and in consultation with the Agency of Human Services and the implementation advisory committee, to submit an implementation plan on or before February 1, 2026 to the House Human Services and the Senate Health and Welfare committees. Committee members moved many operational details (allocation formulas, accountability measures, intake and assessment processes, prioritization regimes, and behavioral/participation expectations for emergency shelter) into that implementation plan so the statute sets structure while leaving detailed standards to the plan.

Funding language and budget context: The draft includes a one-time $10,000,000 allocation described as: $6.5 million to DCF for distribution to community action agencies and statewide organizations serving households experiencing or who have experienced domestic violence, and additional sums (including a $3 million line) for shelter development or capacity. Committee members noted the draft also contains language of legislative intent that some FY25 temporary funds be redesignated in FY27 if the legislature so decides; members emphasized the draft’s language does not itself appropriate ongoing base funds. During the meeting members reported a related budget adjustment act (BAA) negotiation had removed $1.8 million that had been proposed earlier; committee members said the policy language to extend shelter stays remains but the additional money was taken out because the administration indicated it could fund extensions from existing FY25 balances.

Questions, concerns and process notes

Several committee members repeatedly cautioned that the bill does not "fix" homelessness. "This is not a fix. The fix is housing," said Brenda (committee member). Others pointed to the bill’s immediate aim: to create an organized system intended to reduce trauma and statewide costs produced by unmanaged homelessness. Greg (committee member) said a standing program could reduce expenditures elsewhere — emergency rooms, law enforcement and other crisis costs — by getting services organized and coordinated.

Members pressed for clarity on accountability, overlap reduction and formulas for allocating funds. One member asked that the draft ensure community action agencies consult with local housing coalitions, mental-health and reentry providers, and that the program specifically include people transitioning from custody of the Department of Corrections and care of the Department for Children and Families.

Next steps: Committee staff said they would incorporate the technical edits discussed, re-highlight the draft, and return to the committee within minutes for a vote pending those edits; the committee planned to vote after the court-judicial retention item on the calendar so the bill could be referred to appropriations. Members noted further changes remain possible on the floor and in the Senate and that the implementation plan would return to the Legislature for review and, if needed, statutory follow-up.

Ending

The committee’s session focused on aligning statutory definitions and operational responsibilities, adding protections and designated roles for domestic-violence services, and clarifying hotel/motel procurement and payment limits while preserving flexibility for providers. The bill remains subject to technical edits, a pending committee vote, and separate budget negotiations reported to have removed a previously proposed $1.8 million addition.