Senate Health & Welfare debates H.91 changes, rejects amendments to move HOP funding without broader review

Senate Health & Welfare members on May 21 considered two amendments to H.91 that would change how the Housing Opportunity Program (HOP) is treated in the bill: one would remove references to moving HOP funding and administration; the other would create an advisory committee to study the feasibility of any transfer and report back before a transition date.

The debate focused on whether the Legislature should assume a transition of HOP funding into a different program structure (reflected in the bill text) or step back and require a study with broad stakeholder input. Supporters of removing the HOP language argued that deletion is the cleanest option and preserves future legislative flexibility; supporters of the advisory committee said a formal, diverse review was needed before any administrative shift.

Why it matters: H.91 would reorganize certain emergency housing and general assistance functions and contemplates moving HOP responsibilities into a different administrative structure. Shelters and HOP providers told the committee they want clarity and a process that does not presume a particular outcome. The committee’s decision could affect how emergency housing dollars are administered statewide and which agencies or community organizations handle day-to-day operations.

Committee staff explained the two amendment options. Katie McLennan of the Office of Legislative Council described one amendment that would delete multiple bill sections referencing HOP, including proposed changes in legislative intent and specific sections (identified in the draft as sections 5, 11 and 12). The alternate amendment would add a new section creating an advisory committee charged with studying whether HOP should move into the other program and reporting by Jan. 15, 2027. That advisory committee as drafted would include representatives with lived experience, appointees from community action agencies, representatives from the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance and the Balance of State Continuum of Care, shelter providers, the deputy commissioner of the Department for Children and Families (DCF) Economic Services Division or a designee, and the director of the DCF Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) or a designee.

Shelter providers and local HOP administrators addressed the committee. Angus Chaney, director of the Homeless Prevention Center, said the provider network “is in full support of the first one because it is the cleanest option,” and added that the second amendment would be preferable to the bill’s current language because it “asks the question” rather than presuming a transfer. Chaney also said providers “would much prefer a timeline that allowed the community action agencies to operate the GA version of the [program] for a full year.”

Neli Marmol of DCF told the committee the department was likely to be neutral on the amendments and suggested that, if an advisory process were used, it might be more productive for DCF to work with advisory members and submit the department’s report rather than have the advisory committee submit an independent report. Nolan Magewell of the Joint Fiscal Office flagged a fiscal point: given the advisory committee’s proposed size, per diem costs could total “about $25,000,” and those costs would be noted in a fiscal report.

Committee members questioned the proposed timeline and composition of the advisory committee. Senator Clarkson (presenting the amendments) said the draft calls for the advisory group to meet beginning on or before July 1, 2026, and to deliver a report by Jan. 15, 2027, to inform any planned transition intended for July 1, 2027. Several senators warned that committee composition could bias results if appointments heavily favored either shelter providers or proponents of transition. Committee members also emphasized that no action to dismantle or reduce existing shelters or HOP services is intended by the sponsors.

After brief roundtable comments the committee took two informal straw votes. Members opposed deleting all references to HOP from the bill and opposed adopting the advisory-committee amendment as presented. The committee chair said members would continue consultation with stakeholders and that no immediate decision would be taken to disrupt current HOP operations.

The committee’s conversation closed with a commitment to continued engagement among DCF, shelter providers, community action agencies, and legislators before any legislative change affecting HOP administration.

Ending note: Committee staff and agency representatives said they will continue to refine draft language and consult interested parties; H.91 remains on the Legislature’s calendar for further action.