House Human Services reviews H.91 to establish emergency temporary shelter program

The Vermont House Human Services Committee heard a section-by-section reading of H.91, a bill to establish an emergency temporary shelter program within the Department for Children and Families (DCF), during a committee meeting this week. Katie Mithen, Office of Legislative Counsel, reviewed the bill for committee members and staff.

Mithen said the bill’s stated intent is “that the emergency temporary shelter program ... is a step towards ensuring that unsheltered homelessness be eliminated in Vermont and interim shelter opportunities be available to provide a stable pathway to permanent housing for all Vermonters experiencing homelessness.” The draft also lays out goals intended to reduce relocations between temporary sites, emphasize noncongregate shelter, and require housing-first and trauma-informed practices.

Committee members heard how the bill would create both a short-term advisory committee made up of individuals with lived experience of homelessness and an operating program within DCF that would take effect later. The advisory committee would be appointed by coordinated entry lead agencies, be reimbursed for up to 12 meetings from DCF appropriations, and be repealed on July 1, 2029; the program provisions are scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026.

Under the draft statute, DCF would operate the emergency temporary shelter program to temporarily shelter households that meet enumerated eligibility criteria and to do so in a manner that preserves participant dignity and advances housing stability. The bill prioritizes “community-based shelter” provided by housing and shelter operators and allows hotel or motel placements only after DCF has exhausted alternatives. Mithen told the committee that some program elements mirror provisions included in this year’s budget.

Eligibility and limits: The draft lists multiple eligibility categories, including households that lack a fixed, regular, and adequate nighttime residence and that have a member who is age 60 or older, has a documented disability, is a child under 19, includes a person in the third trimester of pregnancy or at-risk pregnancy, has a recent discharge from medical care, experienced the recent death of a spouse or partner, suffered a recent natural disaster, faces court-ordered or constructive eviction through no fault of the household, or is fleeing domestic violence, trafficking, stalking, hate violence, or other life‑threatening conditions.

The bill ties maximum hotel/motel shelter days to the statewide rental vacancy rate as reported by the U.S. Census Bureau: if the vacancy rate is below 5 percent at the time of application, a household may receive up to 90 shelter days in a 12‑month period; if the vacancy rate is 5 percent or greater, the maximum is 45 days. The draft also requires participation in coordinated entry and case management if temporary shelter exceeds 14 days, unless a household head has a documented disability that prevents participation.

Hotels, standards, and payments: Hotel and motel placements must comply with the Public Accommodation Act, hold required lodging licenses from the Vermont Department of Health, and follow the Vermont Fire, Building, and Safety Code. The bill authorizes DCF to enter into contractual agreements with lodging operators at a per‑room rate approved through the budget process. The department may withhold full or partial payments to lodging operators that violate laws or licensing requirements and may later resume payments, in whole or in part, based on the nature and extent of the violations and their impact on program households.

Reporting and winter shelter: DCF would be required to post monthly data on its website, including counts of households served by household size and eligibility category, available emergency housing beds by AHS district (with separate reporting for nursing and residential care homes versus low‑barrier beds), numbers of successful transitions to alternative housing, and quarterly expenditures for placements and supportive services. The bill also includes a winter-shelter provision: to the extent funding and capacity exist, and notwithstanding other provisions, DCF is to provide shelter between Nov. 15 and April 15; stays in hotels or motels during that winter period would not count against the 12‑month maximum days tied to the vacancy rate.

Rulemaking and timeline: The bill directs DCF to file an emergency rule to enable program operations and to file a proposed permanent rule by Feb. 15, 2026. Mithen explained that the emergency rule would be deemed to meet the statutory standard to allow the program to begin on July 1, 2026, and that proposed permanent rules would proceed through the interagency review and the Legislative Committee on Administrative Rules (LCAR).

Concerns and process questions raised: Committee members pressed on several implementation details. A member asked whether appointment by coordinated entry lead agencies requires that an advisory‑committee appointee be affiliated with that agency; Mithen said the appointment comes through the lead agency but the appointee need not have an existing relationship with that agency. Members also asked whether the statute, as drafted, creates an affirmative requirement that DCF provide nonwinter emergency shelter year‑round; the committee observed that the bill contains an explicit “shall provide” requirement for winter shelter but lacks parallel mandatory language for nonwinter program operations. Members noted a potential coverage gap between existing budgeted emergency housing authority and the program’s July 1, 2026 effective date and discussed the need for a budgetary “bridge” so services would not lapse.

Members also discussed LCAR’s recent review: Mithen and staff reported that LCAR asked DCF to reconsider portions of earlier proposed rules because those provisions appeared inconsistent with legislative intent; LCAR declined to act at its most recent meeting to allow DCF additional time to revise its proposals.

Next steps: Committee members said they plan to take detailed testimony from providers and stakeholders, to compare the draft with the task force recommendations discussed at a prior hearing, and to consider potential statutory clarifications (for example, which elements of the existing General Assistance rules should remain in force). No formal motion or vote was taken during the review segment of the meeting.