Senate Committee Reviews H.91 Plan to Shift Vermont's Hotel-Motel Emergency Housing to Community Action Agencies

Montpelier — Lawmakers in the Vermont Senate Health and Welfare Committee on May 9 reviewed H.91, the bill to restructure the state's General Assistance (GA) hotel-motel emergency housing by transitioning responsibilities and funding to a statewide network of community action agencies under a program discussed as "vHEART." Committee members, Agency of Human Services officials and community action leaders focused on the bill's timeline, budget needs and program design, and they flagged questions about definitions, data reporting frequency and protections for people with disabilities.

The committee heard that the bill sets multiple reporting and decision dates: an initial implementation planning report due Oct. 1, 2025; a progress and budget estimate report due Jan. 15, 2026; a follow-up implementation assessment due April 1, 2026; and staged funding and program transitions beginning July 1, 2025 and continuing through July 1, 2028. "On January 15 to April 1, there'll be regional planning and a report to the legislature," a presenter summarized during testimony.

Why it matters: The GA hotel-motel program has grown into a multi‑million dollar statewide system that state officials and advocates say does not consistently deliver wraparound services or safe environments. Testimony in the committee stressed that H.91 would seek to reduce reliance on hotels and motels while creating regional shelter capacity and supportive housing, but the bill's schedules, budget estimates and operational details will determine whether the transition is feasible without service disruptions.

Most important details and developments

Budget and current spending. Agency testimony provided several spending estimates that lawmakers said they will need to reconcile before deciding fiscal commitments. Committee testimony cited an estimated FY2025 cost of about $40,000,000 for the statewide hotel-motel program and said GA spending has averaged more than $50,000,000 per year since 2020. Officials reported that roughly $38,500,000 was included in the governor's request for a recent budget cycle. Witnesses also gave a near-term breakdown of GA spending: about $2.9 million for a call center vendor, roughly $2.9 million for limited service staff, and about $32.5 million for hotel payments. The administration said there is a GA surplus of about $6,800,000 that has been used to support other shelter projects.

Community action agencies' request. Representatives of the five community action agencies (CAPs) told the committee they had built an initial, lean operating budget to stand up regional capacity and supervise local shelter operations. Paul Dragon, speaking for the CAPs, said, "This person will help tie the 5 community action agencies together in this very important work specifically on homelessness," describing a proposed statewide vHEART director and local community engagement leads. The CAPs asked for recurring operating funding (their illustrative total was about $4.5 million in their presentation) to hire fiscal, IT and program staff to manage grants, data, procurement and local planning; they said start-up funding in the bill would not eliminate ongoing staffing needs.

Timeline and conditional transition. Agency staff and CAP leaders emphasized that the Jan. 15, 2026 report will include estimated FY2027 budget needs and will be central to the legislature's decision whether to proceed with transferring GA funds and the HOP (Housing Opportunities Program) component in later fiscal years. Committee members asked whether the transfers should be automatic or conditional; witnesses said a built-in "check-in" or go/no-go decision tied to measurable benchmarks would reduce risk.

Reporting frequency and information requests. The administration recommended changing statutory monthly reporting to quarterly reporting, arguing much data will not change on a month-to-month basis and monthly submission would impose heavy administrative burdens. Committee members also asked for clearer expenditure accounting (how past GA funds were spent on services, administration and hotel payments) and for the CAPs to provide both October planning materials and a January budget breakdown that legislative budget staff can use.

Definitions, program design and civil-rights concerns. Witnesses recommended aligning statutory definitions with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) definitions of homelessness and at-risk status. Lily Sojourner, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity, told the committee, "It is really about getting folks into permanent housing as quickly as possible with the supports that they need," and cautioned that some elements of H.91 emphasize emergency shelter over a pure "housing-first" approach. Disability-rights advocates and Homelessness Vermont urged caution with proposals to group people in clustered placements. Brenda Siegel of Homelessness Vermont said there is "a huge disability rights issue and a very negative history in our state of asyluming or institutionalizing people," and asked the committee to ensure placements protect civil‑rights and avoid segregating people with disabilities.

Use of hotel and motel blocks. The bill directs community action agencies to enter agreements to manage blocks of hotel and motel rooms and to negotiate conditions that increase access for case managers and service providers. Witnesses said block contracts can be a practical, time‑limited strategy, but the committee heard concerns about setting reduction targets for hotel use that assume a one‑for‑one swap of hotel nights for permanent units. Testimony suggested the state should set annual goals for reducing hotel reliance while allowing programmatic use of hotel blocks when appropriate.

Stakeholder concerns and suggested changes. Testimony from CAPs and advocates reflected broad agreement on the need to change the status quo but differences on implementation. CAP presenters said they had negotiated many changes with the administration and identified open questions on intake verification, the responsibilities of designated agencies, the handling of extreme-weather shelters, and how community action agency budgets would be funded and timed in relation to the state's budget process.

What the committee directed or will decide next

- The committee agreed to continue work on reconciling the Jan. 15 budget timeline with the state's budget calendar and to seek more detailed expenditure accounting for prior GA spending. - Members signaled support for a conditional transition approach with milestone "check-ins" rather than an unconditional transfer of HOP/GA funds. - Witnesses were asked to produce a redline draft that shows proposed edits (testimony references colored markups used in the meeting) and to return with more precise budget and staffing requests tied to the October and January deliverables.

Context and implementation risks

Committee members and witnesses repeatedly flagged implementation risk: the schedule depends on timely budget decisions, the five CAPs' capacity to expand operations, local municipal constraints to develop shelter and housing, and the state's ability to align definitions and reporting requirements with HUD standards. Officials said some development funding (for shelter capacity and supportive housing) is proposed in the governor's budget, but capacity-building and rehousing require both capital and operating investments and coordination with municipalities and housing developers.

Ending note

Lawmakers said they will continue receiving technical briefings from the Department for Children and Families and community action agencies and that they expect more detailed October and January reports. As one CAP representative put it, the work is intended to "simplify the current system in order to create a better future," but committee members stressed that refinement of definitions, budget timing and civil‑rights safeguards are prerequisites to a major statewide shift out of motel-based emergency housing.