Vermont Senate Committee Hears Conflicting Testimony on H.91 Shelter‑funding Overhaul

At a Senate Health & Welfare Committee hearing, shelter providers, community action agencies and homeless‑system advocates offered sharply different views on House Bill 91 (H.91), which would shift administration of Vermont’s General Assistance (GA) emergency motel program and potentially change oversight of the Home Outreach Program (HOP).

Supporters and opponents agreed on the scale of need but differed on whether H.91’s proposed regional model would improve services. Libby Bennett, executive director of Groundworks Collaborative, told the committee the state’s Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) provides critical oversight and technical assistance and “this part of the system is not broken and should not be dismantled.”

Why it matters: Witnesses said H.91 would affect funding flows and program oversight for people experiencing homelessness across Vermont. Testimony included several specific funding requests and timeline proposals that committee members said they will use as they revise the bill.

What providers said Libby Bennett (Groundworks Collaborative) described her organization’s operations in Brattleboro, saying it “offers food, shelter, and supportive housing services for over 5,500 people each year” and operates a 40‑bed year‑round shelter and daytime drop‑in center. She said Groundworks served 871 people through its shelter and housing programs last year and that its outreach team engaged more than 270 unique unsheltered individuals in about 14 months. Bennett said the current H.91 draft “shelves and dismisses the thoughtful year of work and recommendations from the General Assistance Emergency Housing Task Force” and warned the proposed restructure could “inflict undue harm to the system supporting Vermonters experiencing homelessness.”

Jonathan Farrell (COTS, Committee on Temporary Shelter) urged caution about moving existing fiscal and program administration away from OEO. Farrell said COTS has seen client counts increase sharply — from roughly 500 unique individuals in fiscal 2023 to about 1,780 in fiscal 2024 — and that his agency submitted approximately $760,000 in reimbursements to OEO and AHS in a single week and relies on timely payments. He said the bill “risks implementing five disparate service areas, which could negatively impact one another” and warned administrative costs at new regional entities could reduce funds available for direct services.

Frank Knack (Housing and Homelessness Alliance of Vermont) emphasized the statewide context for H.91. He said HUD‑funded Continuums of Care brought “over $7,800,000 of federal funds into Vermont” for homelessness projects and that Vermont’s statewide shelter capacity is 655 households, compared with thousands who seek help. Knack asked the committee to ensure the GA program is fully funded and highlighted a specific request to continue funding 33 case‑management positions now paid with ERAP federal funds, a request he quantified as $3,750,000.

Sarah Russell (special assistant to end homelessness, City of Burlington; co‑chair, Chittenden County Homeless Alliance) said regional funding models already exist in the continuum‑of‑care process and urged H.91 to align state distributions with the processes used for federal funding. Russell asked the committee to address FY26 continuity, warning that the bill’s 80‑day cap could recreate the seasonal “crisis” providers have been managing and to sustain critical case management roles.

Kim Anetzberger (Lamoille Community House) told the committee HOP “is a vital, high functioning program” administered through OEO, with statewide monitoring, inspections, technical assistance and reporting. She said replicating OEO’s functions across five regional community action agencies (CAPs) would raise costs, create inconsistent services and risk conflicts of interest where an administering agency also receives funds.

Community action agencies’ view Josh Davis (Vermont Community Action Partnership) and representatives from multiple CAPs said CAPs can run a regional model but only with time and adequate funding. They proposed a phased timetable the CAPs would prefer: FY26 for regional planning and infrastructure; FY27 for CAPs to administer the GA emergency motel program while OEO continues HOP; and FY28 for full implementation. Davis described specific funding requests from the CAP network: an original FY26 HOP request of $6,025,000 (prepared before the executive order and the H.91 shift) and a $6,300,000 annual transition budget to stand up the new program.

Points of agreement and unresolved issues Witnesses from both sides agreed Vermont needs more shelter capacity and stable funding. They diverged on whether H.91 should include HOP and on how quickly administration should shift from the state to regional entities. Multiple speakers urged the committee to preserve OEO’s technical assistance, monitoring and safety‑inspection systems or to ensure comparable statewide functions would continue under any new structure. Several presenters asked the committee to explicitly guarantee continued state responsibility and accountability for homelessness response.

Committee response and next steps Committee members thanked witnesses, requested written testimony for committee records and said the bill will be revised using input from providers, CAPs, continuums of care and other stakeholders. No formal committee action was recorded during the testimony session.

Ending Witnesses asked the Senate Health & Welfare Committee to fund case management positions and to provide a realistic, multi‑year timeline and dedicated transition funding if the committee proceeds with H.91, and committee members said they will continue to solicit stakeholder input as they work on the bill.