Members of the House Human Services Committee heard two witnesses on Feb. 21 about House Bill 91, the proposed law on an emergency temporary shelter program, and how it would affect municipalities and providers across Vermont.

Sarah Russell, special assistant to end homelessness for the City of Burlington and co-chair of the Chittenden County Homeless Alliance, told the committee she sees “positive changes” in H.91 but said the bill does not incorporate several recommendations from the GA task force and leaves important details to administrative rule.

Russell highlighted changes she supports — expanded adverse-weather shelter eligibility, new Agency of Human Services reporting obligations and a requirement that households may remain in shelter while an appeal is pending — but raised multiple concerns about the current draft. She said the bill does not clearly state whether households must meet categorical eligibility for seasonal shelter, omits discussion of income contributions, and replaces “pregnant person” protections from the task force report with a narrower “third trimester” reference in the draft. Russell urged that task-force eligibility language around protections for survivors of domestic violence be incorporated into statute rather than left for rule.

Russell described acute local strain in Chittenden County this winter: local counting shows about 257 people sleeping outside on any given night this winter, she said, compared with roughly 80 last year and 40–60 in the year prior. Burlington opened an extreme cold weather shelter after lowering the activation threshold from minus 20 to minus 10 degrees; the city operated the shelter for eight nights this winter, producing more than 550 bed nights and an average nightly census of about 70, she said. Russell said the city’s expanded sheltering has relied on overtime from multiple municipal departments and nonprofit volunteers and that in some cases medically vulnerable people have presented at shelter intake with frozen clothing and serious wounds.

Russell warned that the statewide motel program is fragile: she said the Agency of Human Services told local partners that 88 households will be exited from motels on April 1 if the BAA does not pass, including at least 12 families with children. She also said Burlington’s Community Resource Center, the city’s largest daytime service site that can see as many as 200 people in a day, was cut from the proposed FY26 budget and urged lawmakers to preserve daytime access as well as overnight capacity.

Mary (representing the Bennington Housing Authority and co-chair of the Balance of State Continuum of Care) told the committee how HUD funding and Continuum of Care (CoC) operations affect local responses. She explained the CoC’s role under the McKinney‑Vento Homeless Assistance Act and said Vermont has two CoCs: Chittenden and the Balance of State. She described the Balance of State’s lead agency, the Housing and Homelessness Alliance of Vermont, and the constraints HUD places on how NOFO funds may be used.

Mary provided local data showing coordinated entry pressure in Bennington: the coordinated entry list there includes 390 people experiencing homelessness, she said, with 64% of those listed as families. She added about 70 people at risk of homelessness, with 86% families. Mary said small landlords often lack capital to renovate units and cited a need for VHIP funds to enable unit repairs and placements. She urged continued motel funding as a stopgap until permanent units are available and recommended shifting some supports that had come from federal ERAP funds into local budgets to preserve assistance and case management positions.

Committee members asked about staffing and medical needs at pop‑up and extreme cold shelters. Russell said Burlington relied on overtime firefighters/EMS, a volunteer physician from a nonprofit, and volunteers from the Medical Reserve Corps for on‑site medical support; shelter staff are trained in basic first aid and Narcan administration. She described frequent, severe wounds and foot-care needs among people sleeping outside and said one person had not removed shoes or socks in months.

Witnesses and committee members discussed the tradeoffs of congregate shelter. Russell said congregate settings can save lives during emergencies but are not optimal for long‑term engagement: “Managing 90 different personalities, under one roof is incredibly challenging,” she said, and stressed that non‑congregate options that offer privacy and safety support recovery and trust building.

Committee members and witnesses also discussed coordination among HUD CoC funds, state HOP/HOP‑style funding, and local programs. Mary said HUD NOFO parameters constrain some uses of CoC funding and urged clearer mapping of funding roles; committee members requested diagrams and training on coordinated entry, NOFO parameters and how state and federal programs interact.

The committee said it hopes to continue H.91 testimony next week and begin drafting bill language, emphasizing a need to prioritize eligibility definitions, reporting requirements and elements that can be read into statute rather than left solely to rulemaking.

Two witnesses and multiple committee members provided data, program descriptions and operational examples that lawmakers said they will use as they revise H.91.