Senate orders third reading of H 4 89 after debate over motel program and governor—s executive order

The Vermont Senate on Tuesday ordered third reading of H 4 89, a fiscal year 2025 budget adjustment bill, after committee reports and a floor debate that centered on an extension of the General Assistance emergency housing ("hotel-motel") program and a contested executive order from the governor.

Senator Perchlick, reporting for the Senate Committee on Appropriations, said the committee removed items the governor had vetoed from an earlier version and returned certain appropriations to prior status. "We took out the ones that the governor objected to on his first veto in attempt to get to a bill that he would sign," Perchlick said. Perchlick listed several line-item changes and said the committee vote was 4-3-0 in favor of the committee report.

The debate on the Senate floor focused primarily on whether H 4 89 should be approved unchanged to preserve an undifferentiated extension of emergency housing through July 1. Senator Fujitnik urged passage, saying the governor—s Executive Order O3-25 of March 28, 2025, narrowed eligibility and was legally suspect. Fujitnik read from legislative counsel—s opinion and said the order "represents an overlap of authority so complete as to constitute an unconstitutional consolidation of power." He argued the bill would protect pregnant people, veterans, victims of domestic violence and others who would otherwise lose motel housing when an April 1 deadline took effect.

Senator Hardy, reporting for the Senate Committee on Finance, said two sections in the committee—s jurisdiction had only a de minimis revenue impact: a one-year delay in repeal of a telephone tax and a marking window change for underground utilities from 48 to 72 hours. Hardy said the finance committee voted 4-3 to pass the bill as introduced in that committee.

Perchlick and other speakers described specific appropriations removed from the bill to respond to the governor—s objections: elimination of certain positions in the attorney general—s office and Human Rights Commission that reduced FY26 appropriations by about $67,500; reversion of a $14,000,000 appropriation to the treasurer's office to its original bond-redemption purpose; removal of a $1,840,000 appropriation originally intended to extend the cold-weather motel program funding through July 1 (the date change remained in the bill even after the appropriation was removed); removal of a one-time $1,600,000 appropriation for towns with flood damage; and removal of larger housing appropriations that had been proposed—Perchlick cited $11,400,000 previously to one housing account (identified in the bill text) and about $8,600,000 for another housing-related appropriation that were not included after negotiations. He also noted roughly $850,000 in judiciary transfers that would revert to the general fund and a $50,000 project for an ADA-accessible bathroom at the Essex Meeting House that was not appropriated.

Fujitnik told colleagues that if the Legislature does not act and the bill is amended, the measure would need to return to the House and Senate and could create further delay, potentially forcing more people out of emergency housing. After floor discussion, the presiding officer called for the question. By voice vote, "the ayes do have it," and the Senate ordered third reading of H 4 89.

Discussion on the floor distinguished between policy language preserved in the bill (a date change extending the statutory cold-weather period to July 1) and appropriations ultimately removed to address the governor—s objections. Committee report votes were recorded but the floor third-reading order was taken by voice vote; no roll-call tally was announced on the floor.

The bill had previously been reported by the House and by Senate committees; the appropriations committee reported recommending the bill "ought to pass in concurrence affecting the revenues of the state." The Senate completed consideration of the bill's orders of the day by ordering third reading; further amendment or final passage would be subject to subsequent floor action and, if amended, a return to the House for concurrence.