Committee reviews S157: defines recovery residences, delegates voluntary certification to Health Department

Staff provided a section-by-section walkthrough of S157, explaining that the Senate-passed bill would add a statutory definition of "recovery residence," remove an existing sunset (set to expire July 1, 2026) and shift from detailed statutory certification criteria to delegation of program administration to the Department of Health.

Katie Mlan of the Office of Legislative Council told members the bill defines a recovery residence as a "shared living residence supporting individuals recovering from a substance use disorder that provides residents with peer support, assistance accessing support services and community resources." She explained the draft removes the requirement that a recovery residence be certified in the definition and instead adds a rulemaking path so the health department can establish a voluntary certification program.

Under the bill, the Department of Health must file an initial proposed rule by Sept. 1, 2027, to establish a voluntary recovery-residence certification program. The rule must, at minimum, require that a residence seeking certification comply with the certification standards of VTAR or another organization approved by the department, set data-collection standards and reporting requirements, and provide for annual reporting to the General Assembly on the program's effectiveness. The bill also contemplates that, if the department determines a fee is needed to support the voluntary program, it would present that fee proposal to the General Assembly for approval before incorporating it into rule.

Members pressed staff about the timeline and whether certification would offer incentives (for example, higher reimbursement rates); staff said the bill contains no incentive language and suggested the committee ask the department for specifics. Several members said the proposed rulemaking schedule (with completion actions stretching into 2028) seemed long compared with existing practice and asked the department to explain the timeline during testimony.

S157 also amends landlord-tenant provisions to preserve an immediate-exit or transfer process for recovery residences under specified conditions. Staff reviewed the residential-agreement requirements that would be statutory: a signed written agreement reaffirmed after seven days; a written exit/transfer policy (approved by VAR or another certifying organization approved by the department); contingency plans for alternative housing; a substance-use policy that exempts valid prescription medications when taken as prescribed; criteria that permit immediate exit or transfer (for example, criminal charges, theft, interference with others' recovery, or acts of violence); and a requirement that possessions be held for at least 60 days in a permanent removal.

Staff also noted a provision stating that a relapse that results in exiting a recovery residence "shall not be deemed a cause of the resident's own homelessness" for emergency-housing purposes. DCF had recommended removing that language because it does not match current emergency-housing program rules, but the committee retained it as a potentially protective statutory statement should program rules change in the future.

Committee members asked for witnesses who could explain certification levels and the practical differences among them and asked the committee clerk to invite people with lived experience of exiting and reentry so the panel can hear how policy changes affect residents. The committee scheduled testimony on S157 for the next day and listed expected witnesses, including BDH, VAR's director, the Vermont Foundation of Recovery, a recovery-house representative, Jenna's Promise and legal aid.