Rutland coordinator urges reinstatement of town service officer, warns H.91 could unevenly burden some communities

Christopher Loris, one of two part‑time homeless response coordinators for the city of Rutland, testified Feb. 5 before the House Committee on Human Services on H.91, saying the bill and current emergency rules leave gaps in local coordination for emergency sheltering and have produced unequal burdens on certain communities.

Loris told the committee he recommends reinstating the statutory position of town service officer (TSO) so municipalities can coordinate shelter placements, access state reimbursements and work directly with state field service directors. "I really think it should be up to y'all to decide what the priorities are for the individuals when we have finite resources to manage," he said, urging the committee to consider either restoring the old V.S.A. language or authorizing the DCF commissioner to appoint local TSOs.

Loris framed his testimony around three themes: municipal participation and partnerships, equitable geographic distribution of sheltered people, and a data‑driven approach to policy. He described an 18‑month contract he and colleague Megan Novak hold with the city of Rutland funded by a grant from the Agency of Human Services and said the city has expanded emergency placements and is still trying to stand up family and single‑adult shelters.

The testimony outlined two technical options to reestablish TSOs: (1) restore the position in the V.S.A. (as it existed prior to repeal in the 2015–2016 legislative session) or (2) recognize that municipal appointment language still appears in V.S.A. 24 and allow the Department for Children and Families (DCF) commissioner to formalize appointments. Loris suggested Adam Sansek, the field services director for Rutland and Bennington counties, or another experienced state employee as a candidate for the role in that area.

Loris urged the committee to add explicit references in H.91 and its advisory committee membership to age and to mental‑health and substance‑use conditions when listing protected or priority populations. He also asked the committee to preserve municipal authority over local health and building codes, citing past instances where local health officers and building inspectors said their enforcement efforts were disregarded at shelter sites.

On data, Loris contrasted HUD point‑in‑time (PIT) counts and coordinated entry data, saying both matter but capture different populations. He cited PIT statewide counts rising from 1,089 in 2019 to 3,458 in 2024 and said Rutland’s 2024 PIT count was 682 — an increase he described as roughly 610 percent over the community’s prior baseline. Using county figures, he said Vermont’s 2024 PIT rate was about 53 people per 10,000 population and Rutland County’s rate about 113 per 10,000.

Loris said those shifts produced a concentrated burden on some smaller communities because early hotel/motel participation during the pandemic placed many people in towns where owners volunteered rooms but local resources did not scale with the placements. He described provider burnout and rising calls for service to hotels and motels, and he urged that H.91 include clearer language about geographic equity and the processes for moving people between districts.

He noted two emergency rule bulletins (24‑12 and 24‑22) still reference town service officers and recommended the committee reconcile statutory language with the emergency rules. He also asked legislators to consider whether monies allocated to extend hotel voucher programs in the Budget Adjustment Act could unintentionally reduce funds available to municipalities pursuing shelter projects.

Committee members followed with questions about the TSO model, municipal access to state reimbursement, and data collection. Loris said a TSO could be a volunteer municipal official (or a municipal health officer acting in that role) and that, under prior statute, towns named TSOs annually and the DCF commissioner formalized appointments. He said local TSOs could be authorized to seek state reimbursement for services, though he did not recommend charging municipalities for the role as a primary incentive.

Loris submitted written testimony for the record and answered several follow‑up questions from members of the committee. The committee did not take a vote during his appearance; his remarks were presented as testimony for H.91 and for the committee’s consideration of amendments and data standards.

The committee will continue to take testimony and draft language for H.91; Loris asked that the panel address geographic equity, municipal authority, and data standardization in any final bill language.