Vermont Senate defeats amendment to codify governor's motel-priority list, approves FY2025 budget adjustment

Montpelier — The Vermont Senate on a roll-call vote late in the session rejected an amendment that would have written the governor’s recent executive-order motel-priority list into statute, then passed H.4.89, the fiscal year 2025 budget adjustment.

The amendment, offered by the senator from Caledonia (the amendment’s sponsor), would have established a limited priority category for motel assistance between April 1 and June 30 and specified that nights in that three-month window would not count toward an applicant’s annual 80-day cap. The sponsor said the change “attempts to do is to prevent or protect a class classes of very vulnerable people in the state of Vermont,” noting the language tracked the governor’s executive order.

The priority criteria named in the amendment included households that on March 30, 2025 were in a hotel or motel under the program and households with documented medical needs: a child 18 or younger meeting the Medicare definition of homebound, a household member requiring a life‑saving device that needs electricity, persons in active cancer treatment or severe kidney, liver or heart disease treatment, individuals receiving Medicaid‑eligible or Medicare‑eligible home‑based nursing services, and people in or entering the third trimester of pregnancy between April 1 and June 30. The sponsor said the list was drawn by the administration and could be expanded or narrowed by the Legislature.

Supporters of the amendment argued the statutory language would reduce legal risk to families if a court later struck down the governor’s order and would expedite an approach they characterized as targeting the most medically vulnerable. Opponents — including the Senate Health and Welfare committee, which reported it took a straw poll and did not support the amendment — said the list omitted many groups identified in prior legislative work and would weaken the Legislature’s policy role.

"This morning, I woke up and I said it's a great day to be homeless, which it is not," said the senator from Chittenden (member of the Health and Welfare committee), arguing that the amendment failed to match prior legislation and rulemaking and would leave out people who had lost housing for reasons such as domestic violence, fire, natural disaster, court‑ordered eviction, or the death of a household member.

The senator from Madison framed the debate as a separation-of-powers issue: "The governor's attempt to circumvent the intent of the General Assembly is unconstitutional encroachment on a core function of the legislature," the senator said, urging colleagues not to codify an executive order into statute.

Other senators raised operational and fiscal concerns. A senator from a rural district said they consulted local service providers who reported a small number of households at immediate risk; advocates and other senators warned that narrowing eligibility could push people into shelters or onto municipalities and hospitals, increasing local costs. One senator cited a local estimate that Burlington had spent more than $8 million responding to recent housing needs, though the amendment’s sponsor disputed that the amendment added new spending and said no additional appropriation was attached.

Senators also questioned specific language choices: why pregnancy protection covered only third trimester or imminent third trimester entry, why some medical conditions were singled out while other serious conditions were not included, and why veteran status was not explicitly protected. The sponsor acknowledged the list was subjective and said it mirrored the administration’s priorities.

The Senate voted on the motion "shall the Senate propose to the House to amend the bill as offered by the senator from Caledonia." The amendment failed, with 14 ayes and 16 nays.

Later the chamber proceeded to the third reading of H.4.89. The Senate passed the fiscal year 2025 budget adjustment on a roll-call vote, 17 ayes to 13 nays. Senators then voted to suspend rules and message the Senate’s actions on H.4.89 to the House forthwith, and the Senate ordered delivery of the bill to the governor under Joint Rule 15.

The debate combined policy concerns about who should receive emergency motel assistance, constitutional questions about executive orders and legislative authority, and logistical worries about local capacity and costs. The Health and Welfare committee’s review and a General Assistance Emergency Housing Task Force report were cited repeatedly by senators arguing both for and against the amendment.

H.4.89 will move to the governor for consideration following the Senate’s messaging and ordering motions.