Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Emergency Temporary Shelter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Witnesses urge passage of H.91 after testimony on emergency temporary shelter
Summary
Leaders from Vermont Interfaith Action and people with lived experience told the House Human Services Committee that current hotel-based programs and volunteer shelters leave gaps for families, elderly and people with health needs, and urged enactment of H.91 to create more stable, service-integrated interim shelter.
Get email alerts on the Emergency Temporary Shelter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montpelier — The House Human Services Committee heard testimony on H.91, an act relating to emergency temporary shelter, as leaders from Vermont Interfaith Action and people with lived experience described gaps in current motel and volunteer-run shelter programs and urged lawmakers to approve a service‑integrated approach to interim shelter.
Supporters told the committee the bill represents a first step toward eliminating unsheltered homelessness and requested stable, on-site case management and low‑barrier options so people can access services while sheltered. Tom Morgan, a Champlain Valley Unitarian Universalist Society representative to the Vermont Interfaith Action Network, said, “Let’s get House Bill 91 passed and then get to work on designing and implementing a comprehensive plan to end chronic homelessness in Vermont.”
Those who testified described emergency responses that rely heavily on volunteers and short hotel stays. A Vermont Interfaith Action organizer said churches in Montpelier sheltered 14 families (about 30 children) between mid‑September and Dec. 1 and are operating an overnight cold‑weather shelter that has opened 41 nights so far this winter. The organizer said the volunteer effort required roughly 246 four‑hour shifts over those nights, and that the church shelter operates at 13–15 people per night with an overflow site of about 25 beds. The organizer said volunteers estimate they are drawing from a pool of roughly 60 individuals and that, on fully booked nights, at least 20 people they know remain unsheltered.
Several people with lived experience detailed how motel placements and current shelter rules can impede stability. “I have been in a hotel for two years,” said Mindy, identified in testimony as a resident with lived experience; she described staying with five family members in one hotel room, moving between properties every two weeks to retain assistance and delays and errors in caseworker paperwork. Mindy said she is now moving into housing but urged lawmakers to address the systemic barriers that make staying housed difficult.
Jason Brosh, a Calais resident and volunteer who has lived outdoors and in shelters, criticized motel placements as isolating and lacking on‑site supports. “I have a very low opinion of the current situation,” Brosh said, describing managers who enforce restrictive rules and a lack of immediate, on‑site navigation to services.
Joey Corcoran, a retired licensed mental health counselor from Burlington, pointed to the Elmwood Community Shelter as a model of a low‑barrier, housing‑first approach with on‑site case management. “The pods are the small individual housing units with the bare essentials, but with a key essential for traumatized individuals, a door,” Corcoran said, noting Elmwood’s emphasis on privacy, staffing and consistent rules.
Testimony also highlighted deaths and severe health risks tied to unsheltered living. Tom Morgan recounted recent deaths among unhoused neighbors in Addison County and urged lawmakers to prioritize emergency shelter as part of a broader effort to reduce preventable fatalities.
Committee members asked clarifying questions about volunteer staffing, capacity and age rules. A committee member noted that rules allow sheltering with dependents up to age 19 in some programs; witnesses described situations where family members were excluded because of behavior rules or other eligibility limits.
No formal action or vote on H.91 was recorded during the session. Witnesses asked the committee to prioritize the bill and to design interim shelter that includes consistent on‑site services, privacy options for traumatized residents, and protections for families and medically vulnerable people.
The committee took written copies of testimony for the record and invited submissions for those unable or unwilling to testify in person. The hearing concluded with committee members thanking the witnesses and noting the need for continued work on design and implementation if H.91 advances.

