Committee reviews Human Services budget priorities: 4% COLA for community providers, shelter funding, ERAP extension and H91 transition

A Department of Human Services staff member told the House Committee on Human Services that the department is proposing a 4% cost-of-living adjustment for preferred substance‑use providers, mental‑health partners, recovery centers and recovery residences.

The recommendation, the staff member said, is intended to be applied “across the board” so that community partners that provide direct services are treated consistently. “What we’re looking to see is if we may be able to implement a 4% cost of living increase in regards to our preferred substance use providers, mental health, as well as our recovery centers and recovery residences,” the staff member said.

Committee members discussed how to fund that increase within the governor’s budget. One option described was a $1,000,000 general‑fund increase to the Home/Outreach/Prevention (HOP) base line; committee staff calculated that $1 million would approximate a 4% increase for existing HOP providers. Committee materials cited a HOP base of $30,798,061 (presented as $30,798,061 in the working document) and noted an increase of roughly $3.7 million in the governor’s proposed base compared with FY25 in some documents.

Why it matters: committee members said community providers have not received systematic inflationary adjustments in recent budgets, unlike state employee compensation that the governor’s budget already reflects. Committee members framed the 4% proposal as an effort to maintain parity so providers can cover rising costs such as food, fuel, insurance and other operating expenses.

Shelter expansion, ERAP and case managers

The committee reviewed one‑time and base funding for sheltering. The governor’s budget included a $2,000,000 one‑time line intended to increase shelter capacity; committee members said they have not yet received detailed plans from the department on how that money would be used. Committee staff noted prior one‑time shelter tranches in FY25 and said those funds have been committed by contract though not all spent.

Committee staff recommended $3,750,000 to continue Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) activities, describing that figure as a revised total after one community partner indicated it would not seek previously anticipated funding. The staff presentation said the $3.75 million would support 33 case‑management positions and rental assistance elements tied to ERAP operations.

H91 and the 80‑day cap

Members debated an 80‑day hotel cap in current program language and possible changes under H91 (pending legislation). A staff presenter described the 80‑day limit as “arbitrary” and harmful because required housing‑application and verification steps typically take longer than 80 days. Committee members discussed alternative drafting options, including measuring “actual housing days” rather than paperwork time, and acknowledged H91’s anticipated effective date would likely require a transition year (committee staff said transition funding and session‑law language are expected).

Other program and base requests

• GA Emergency Housing: committee materials showed a governor’s base figure of about $8,150,000 and recommended one‑time amounts of $30,500,000 in some lines; staff said FY25 included multiple tranches, contingency and one‑time funds and emphasized ongoing review of expenditures and commitments.

• GA support services: staff described small general‑fund lines for emergency groceries, room and board, burial assistance, pharmacy costs and other short‑term needs; a proposed reallocation would move some funds into GA Emergency Housing lines to match legislative directions.

• Summer EBT: the committee agreed with a recommended $5,400,000 addition in spending authority to support the summer EBT meal program and noted that program funding is separate from the monthly EBT benefit calculation.

• Restaurant Meals program: the committee placed a placeholder in the budget to support a restaurant meals program for certain SNAP participants (seniors, people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness); the placeholder included an estimated full‑time staff position at about $125,000 (50% federal match noted for operating costs).

• Agriculture/food security: the committee recommended support for agriculture committee proposals including $500,000 to NOFA Vermont programs (Crop Cash/Crop Cash Plus/Farm Share) and $2,000,000 base funding for the Vermont Food Bank’s Vermonters Feeding Vermonters program in committee recommendations.

• Other requests: staff reported requests to extend certain voucher programs (a home family voucher request of $2.4 million to extend assistance for additional families), and small increases to VCAP programs for microbusiness development and financial coaching.

Process, next steps and funding notes

Committee staff said they are still awaiting some numerical detail from the Department (a named staffer, Nolan, was cited as the source of outstanding calculations). Several members said language and exact dollar allocations remain in draft form and that more precise session‑law drafting would be shared later. Staff repeated that amounts shown for some programs include both federal and general‑fund shares, and that some operating costs (for example, restaurant‑meals program administration) would be 50% federally funded.

The committee did not take an immediate vote in the session covered by the transcript; staff said the committee will revisit draft language and recommendations when language is available.

Ending

Committee members asked staff to return with refined language and any outstanding calculations; staff indicated they would circulate working drafts and session‑law text and continue coordination with DCF and other departments.