Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Housing Homelessness topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee presses for more study and stakeholder rulemaking on housing and homelessness funding
Summary
Senators reviewed the Housing Opportunity Program (HOP) budget and bill language, questioned shelter capacity, staffing, and tradeoffs between hotel/motel spending and permanent shelter development, and asked agencies to develop clearer rules and a stakeholder-inclusive timeline before implementation.
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee spent substantial time reviewing housing and homelessness provisions and funding (the Housing Opportunity Program, or HOP). Agency officials, provider groups, and legislators debated program scope, funding priorities, and rulemaking timelines.
Lily Sojourer, director of Economic Opportunity at the Department for Children and Families, described HOP as an umbrella grant covering emergency shelter operations, transitional housing, direct financial assistance, data systems, training, and administration for domestic-violence support services. "The majority is emergency shelter services to operate emergency shelters in the state," she told the committee and offered to follow up with a written breakdown of which agencies and communities receive funds.
Providers and advocates said the governor's recommended funds undercounted the need. Chad Simmons of the Health & Homelessness Alliance of Vermont said demand for shelter development, hotel/motel funding and case management exceeds the recommendation; Brenda Seagull, representing provider interests, emphasized that case management is costly and essential to move people into permanent housing.
Members discussed changes the House made to the governor's funding structure: shifts from base to one-time funding for cold-weather shelters, additions to hotel/motel funding, and municipal grants. Committee members also pressed the administration for clearer definitions of "shelter development," "levels" in the service continuum, and what the municipal grants should cover.
A major sticking point was rulemaking timing. The draft bill contemplates program rules and performance standards; agencies and stakeholders warned that drafting and promulgating rules by a July 1 effective date is unrealistic. Agency representatives proposed extending existing guidance or targeting emergency rulemaking for a later date and asked for explicit statutory direction to include stakeholders in rule development.
On appeals and termination of services, the committee heard concerns about proposed 30-day notice requirements, whether community-provider decisions would be appealable through the Human Services Board, and how the bill treats immediate terminations when a household member poses safety risks. Advocates urged guardrails to protect people with disabilities and recommended that termination and reinstatement criteria be clarified in rulemaking rather than embedded solely in statute.
The committee directed staff to continue work with the agencies and stakeholders on rule language, stakeholder engagement in rulemaking, and a realistic implementation timeline before advancing the bill.
