Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homelessness task force urges City action before June 30 eviction deadline
Summary
Members of the Montpelier Homelessness Task Force told the city council in public comment that Vermont Governor Phil Scott’s executive order that extended hotel shelter eligibility is expiring June 30 and the task force fears vulnerable residents will be evicted from hotel shelter. The task force letter said the state had not moved people into
Get email alerts on the Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Representatives of the Montpelier Homelessness Task Force addressed the council during the public‑comment period to urge the city to take immediate steps before a June 30 deadline tied to a state executive order that had extended hotel shelter eligibility for certain vulnerable households.
Zach Hughes read the task force’s letter. He told the council that Governor Phil Scott’s executive order 0325 — which allowed medically vulnerable households to remain in hotel shelter beyond ordinary eligibility limits — will expire June 30 and that many residents could lose shelter. The task force letter said the state “did not identify alternative safe, affordable, or appropriate housing” in time, and it cited a local estimate that in the Berry District roughly 158 adults and 34 children could be affected.
The task force asked the city to “do whatever is needed to address this emergency” and to find temporary alternative housing options to avert a medically dangerous outcome for residents who require hotel shelter due to medical fragility. The letter and the speaker stressed that many listed individuals are medically dependent (oxygen, wheelchairs or bed‑ridden) and would be at substantial risk if shelter ended.
Councilors did not take action during the comment period; the remarks were entered for the public record. The task force urged the city to act given the state’s role in administering shelter but the apparent absence of alternative placements for the most vulnerable.
What happens next: the comment places the issue on the council’s public record and could prompt staff follow‑up. The council did not announce immediate action at the meeting.

