 Good afternoon. This is the continuation of the afternoon meeting of the House of Appropriations Committee on April 5th. And we are joined now by our colleagues from the Department of Family and Children really appreciate you all being here. I think when we originally were thinking about asking you in last week, we just have some time on our agenda. It's when we can kind of go deeper into. Issues that are of importance to all of us. And that's the reason we slotted you and then there are some. We wanted to learn more about the developments with the emergency housing program. So thank you very much for taking the time. And I'd rather have the general conversation that maybe you should begin however you would like to. Sure, I think what I'll do is I'll start with just a general update where we're at in the roadmap in terms of just programmatically and what happened in the budget adjustment act and kind of how we've implemented that. And then transition to the curve ball that the federal government last week treasury guidance for ERAP 1 and ERAP 2 and kind of the work that's going on to kind of analyze that as we plan to transition on July 1st to the new program. Okay, terrific. Thank you. Sounds good. We've got about an hour. Sure. And we're probably going to be joined. We may be joined by some of our colleagues from other committees who are interested in this too. Sure. And with me today, we have a team. We have Katerina Lesias a senior advisor to the commissioner. We also have Nicole Tuzion who's filling in in the absence of the deputy commissioner right now her and Andy Leander kind of tag team and helping keep things moving at the economic services division. And then we have Jillian Niggle who is from our financial office as well and who is really well versed in this area and it's been working with us very closely on ERAP and FEMA and whatnot. And then also we have here today from a deputy secretary. And so at any point, please feel the jump in with questions. As the committee knows, we've been running a very expanded emergency housing program for just the last two years now. 100% by FEMA, the language in the budget adjustment act of asked us to continue to run that wide open program through the end of this state fiscal year with FEMA. The understanding that we would develop this new transitional housing program that we would be able to use the federal emergency rental assistance fund. Grab one in Iraq to. And so right now we have about 1455 households and motels under the emergency housing program funded by FEMA and we will continue to operate that program as is through the end of June. At the same time, you know, for the language that was being discussed in the budget adjustment act, we worked with the GA housing workgroup and we developed a set of rules and programmatic requirements for the new transitional housing program. That will go into effect on July 1. And so we filed the emergency rules with L car on March 31. And so that program theoretically went live on April 1 for new applicants, even though those in motels now will not transition until July 1. And so, and we actually have one application from a household that is becoming homeless in the coming days is over income for emergency housing, but actually meets the income guidelines for the new transitional housing program so we are actually going to have households in the program earlier on July 1, as if new households come in that meet that criteria so it's so in the first day we actually had someone come in the door so that I think that's a good new story to say that someone in that missing middle as I would say will hire income for some of our programs but needs the income threshold for And so, you know, we have developed the documentation to support the program working with the workgroup created The occupancy agreement. I'm sorry. It's an agreement that they household in the in the motel established hotel establishment will sign that creates that contract that allows us to use emergency rental assistance for as like a rent payment. It'll be paid in a monthly upfront installment and also given the ability in this program we're actually able to pay a security deposit upfront as well, which helps, you know, give some security to to the hotels that are participating in the program. And so we are now working as we transition over the next three months. Our staff are going on site to all of the motels in meeting with the families to complete the occupancy agreement and any other documentation we need Work with the hotel and it'll all be post dated to go into effect on July 1st. So we'll be able to start making those rent payments and security deposits for that July 1st launch date for all of these households and so that we're visiting 40 different hotels across the state this week with our staff and And economic services doing that work and that will continue through June so that we can get everyone into that program when it's ready to go live and lose the people money and the program reverse back. So we're well positioned for that work now. As we designed this program, we were aware that we had two tranches of emergency rental assistance one was Iraq one, which was approximately around 200 million. And then Iraq to which is about 152 million and I would defer to our financial people to correct me at any point and find this speed. And each household under the under the federal legislation and program is eligible for up to 18 months of emergency rental assistance. So as we develop this program that was in mind that each household could be eligible to 18 months, whether it was in a private market apartment or in a hotel room in the program that we served. Also, the funding under the legislation was available to states through September of 25 so we had envisioned running this program through September of 25. If there were funds remaining to be able to run that program. Given much of this was moving quickly at the federal level, we had received some initial Iraq one guidance. Let us to believe that we were on on a good trajectory. And then we were awaiting Iraq to guidance in terms of how those dollars could be used at any recapture guidance and any other requirements. Last week, we received some guidance from the federal government that we've been waiting for for Iraq to and it wasn't it was, I would say as we categorize it worst case for the state of Vermont. In terms of our ability to how far out we can use those dollars and how much have to be obligated by a date certain. Which really accelerated some of the timelines and spending that we had anticipated would come under the guidance so it really limits Vermont's options into the future and how it can leverage these funds. In addition, they issued some updated era one guidance that we were not expecting, which did the same thing. So essentially, both accelerated the timelines that we need to spend and how much where it would be recaptured by the federal government and both guidance are really restructured for them to recapture as much money as they can in a short amount of time. And at that point I would love to have Doug come up and maybe give a little bit more detail on how that will impact Vermont. For us, it we're doing the calculations to determine how much funding could be recaptured by the federal government within what time frame and then how much will be left for the state to spend to support. ERAP funding across the state and the different programs that supporting because it's more than just the transitional housing program state housing authority. Some stability services through Department of Housing and Development and some other spending as well. Doug maybe I have you jumping here in terms of your initial analysis of what we're what we're understanding. Thank you Commissioner. For the record Douglas Farnham, Deputy Secretary of Administration. So Madam Chair, I would say the the era one guidance. The Treasury had been calculating it on an expense. How much you were spending how much is going out the door and right before the end of the period they released this new guidance which kind of flips their formula on its head and looks at what you have obligated. So we're within six months of the end date of the area one as a fund as of September 30. Those funds are no longer available. Unless you received a reallocation of funds from another state. And so that was one reason it was crucial that because we had pushed out the emergency and transitional housing program start July 1. We didn't have obligations on the books and we needed to establish that so that Treasury wouldn't take back that $36 million. So we had kind of a gap in our obligation amount that my previous experience with Treasury and the recapture formula they use the first two times around is that they are very fond of a one size fits all approach and are not really interested in push back from specific states. Basically I tried to explain our circumstances to Treasury how we have utilized human and our planning and tried to make sure that we are retaining recovery dollars for, you know, as long as we can and then spending them intelligently. And the response from Treasury is essentially very diplomatic. That's great for you, but we're going to need the money back anyway. So in the area one we have ended up sending back $31 million at this point under the obligation formula because of DCS hard work and quick action. I believe that our obligation should be sufficient to avoid a recapture in this calculation. But Treasury leaves the door open to say in June or July we'll come back and we'll do case by case recaptures. So they're basically saying they're going to scrutinize people's reports and then they may take money back in June or July to make sure that states have enough for the last quarter of expenditures. So I think for now the obligation and obligating that money has served us well at that point when they come back in June or July we will have concrete evidence of agreements that are helping beneficiaries and they've already said in the law in the federal law that they cannot take back money that is obligated to a beneficiary. And you can obligate up to 90 days so this population will be protected for area one from July through through September unless Treasury comes back to us earlier that could complicate things. So how we did that just for the committee's information working with Doug's team and guide house. We overnight drafted a letter that we finalized the next day because we those letters needed to be in the mail by the close of business that next day. And so we mailed those and drafted those letters finalized them to our mail center in a mail merge format and we sent letters to all over 1500 households at that time that were participating in the hotel program. And we were able to put a dollar amount that we obligated each letter effective July 1st for a three month period which allowed us to obligate and basically hold on to those funds for those households as Doug was saying for the ERAPS one. Let's just pause and do some questions. Rep Harrison. Yeah, so I'm trying to understand and get my arms around how the program is changing. I get it that you're trying to make program work for reimbursement under this new emergency rental program. But it sounds like if I'm hearing you correctly. We went from a night by night voucher program. You know you might be the room tonight but you don't need one tomorrow because you found housing or something to a three month rental program. Is that what I'm hearing. It's a month by month rental but each household is eligible for up to three months at a time but we will we will work with each household and establishment monthly payments. So there may not be any incentive for someone if you were three months because they know they've got it covered for three months for housing. Well whether they're in this program or they find a private it would be the same federal dollar supporting them. And so in it long term it is in that household's interest to secure the permanent housing that opens up that secure for them because that's a much longer opportunity for those households than a motel that might not have a capacity in three months or six months. Okay. So I'm looking at an article that was in last week's. I think it was written Harold. You've probably seen it the former holiday and which is lost a franchise or something that was 14 and there's questions being raised under active 250 permit that they're no longer a motel. It may be some type of other short term long term housing. So it may violate their use. I'm wondering if other places may run into that same type of issue. I mean it's a legitimate question from what are we understanding the town's inherited some problem with that situation there and they're not happy. The town government's not happy with the extra cost that they have occurred. So I'm trying to understand if we're doing three months at a time. I mean it does change the use of that place. Well our agreement is for 30 days at a time. But up to 90. Well that's what a household's eligibility is. The motel and that relationship under the occupancy agreement there is language about how they can end that agreement with that household and ask them to leave it at you know and then there's a process how that works and then we would find them a new place to avail themselves of the program. Hotels are private entities. Some are choosing to continue to work in this new program with us just as they did in the emergency housing program. Some have chosen not to. In terms of whether it's a change in use or not. I'm certainly not a land use. And that's not your area. I would also just add that we don't contract with an entire hotel. These agreements are between the hotel owner and the participant for one room. So we don't say you must have X amount of rooms to participate in this program. But essentially the practice and at least a rotten area that I'm virtually that's the only guess that they have is transferred the hotel. And then you know that may be the owner's choice. And I think a little bit to the point you're making the budget adjustment act did have like some language in that modified because there's currently an exception in the tenancy law for households funded through either medical respite or the general assistance emergency housing program. A modification was made to expand that exception to this new transitional housing program we're running through September of 2025 in Vermont statute. So it does exempt these agreements and households from tenancy. So whether that plays a factor to that calculus or not but that that was included in the budget adjustment that statutory temporary revision. I'd like to come back for a moment. I'm still trying to understand what the new big picture is. Which so we had had a plan that would have provided for housing of folks without phones for about 18 months under the new Treasury guys. We are going to continue using FEMA money until July 1st. And then we've obligated up to three months of the Iraq money. And we had anticipated that we had additional months of emergency rental assistance available for other areas of spending what not through September. So we were able to obligate what we had through September. But with that but some of the other Iraq funding might not be available which means the state has to transition to Iraq to a little sooner and be anticipated and hit certain spending thresholds there. Doug could explain that as well. So there's a couple of different components. So far what we've heard about is FEMA gets us to July 1st. Iraq 1 gets us from July 1st to September 30th. And then Iraq 2 gets us some distance further. If everything fingers crossed everything goes as we understand it. Madam chair. Yes it's that's an excellent question. I think pre guidance. Our thinking was exactly along those lines. We would use ERAP 1 up until September 30th and try to use every last dollar of it that we could. And then on October 1st of this year so six months from now a little bit less. We would transition and start using that 152 million with the exception of some families timed out of ERA 1 and they can only get three months of benefits by utilizing ERA 2. So spend about four or five million to help those families that had been receiving assistance for a good amount of time. The Treasury guidance has now put us in a situation where on October 1st we will have to have spent $78 million of the 152 million. Any dollar less than that that we spend and Treasury is recapturing. Period. Period. End of story. I think you know this just came out last week so theoretically there could be political discussions but I do think the national picture of rental emergencies in other states and the pressures in California and New York are going to make it very difficult for Treasury to move off of the guidance they've published. And I think as grantees were obligated to plan under under the guidance they've published at this point. So that changes dramatically how we've been thinking about it because as of October 1st we'll have $78 million less than we had planned for just one week ago from today. That money should be sorry. Yeah. Bob. Excuse me. So what happens when all this ERAP money and other money drives up. What do you guys do then and you've got how many thousands of people out there that you've been keeping warm all winter. And everything else. You know you have no year from now two years. You have no money or certainly not enough. So I think that's why you sense the urgency for the administration and the permanent housing investments that the administration's been seeking in the BAA and the 23 budget. And in the 22 budget was our goal was to significantly expand the permanent housing shelter capacity in the state to meet the need for these households. As we've lost some of this federal funding through FEMA ERAP that allowed us to support these programs. I think you know whether there's general fund available or not in 24 or 25. You know our focus has been let's build this much permanent low income modern income. And for the homeless as we can in the next two years and transition these households into that housing as quickly as we can so that we don't have that worry. In 18 months or 24 months that these households are not in motels but are either on longer term shelter or permanent permanent housing. And so that was the urgency on the administration's part over over the last year or so was to make sure those dollars are allocated because every dollar we spend on a hotel pays for a night. Every dollar we spend on permanent housing and last the lifetime. There's one win win on that. That's most of it will be in the Burlington area and they'll be out of raw and then up there. I guess I should just consider myself lucky but those people I got a call. I spent my lunch hour talking to the guy from White Hall, New York that I don't know what he looks like don't know his name anything. But his daughter or as I'm sorry his wife and his son work for the holiday in place which is renamed themselves by the way because holiday in didn't want nothing to do with this. Or Tina in. And they took a name that had been discontinued in the wrong area that was very well respected and tried to cover it with that didn't work. They weren't there. And they've seen the interior or stories that take place in there and I'm not going to sit here and tell you all about him you guys. I don't know, but I don't think these are people you want to put millions of dollars into an apartment of some kind for stick them in there. The apartments last about a year and a half. I'm telling you is disgusting what's going on down there and then the daytime they can handle all day. All right there at the end of route for they're down there at the plaza. And I'm just tired of it they just stand there and wait for people to give them a change. I mean, we paid for this to happen. No, thank you. And Sean, I'm not blaming you. You've got to run the program I get it. This is not personal. But it's just, I think somebody needs to be a little bit more told about who we rent to and I'll tell you another thing. I think a lot of them are even from Vermont. I don't know if you have a proof of where you're coming from but I'm here to tell you. I got into the mini gritty of the whole thing. I bet you find a lot of Massachusetts, a lot of New York and a lot of people from other places. I really do. I can't prove that I'm not going to try. Thank you. So, I think we're probably going to have some different perspectives on on the efficacy of the program and I don't think right now. So my intention right now was to understand the situation of where we are and how we're needing to deviate from the plan. So I tried not to have an argument about whether or not we should have had this plan in the first place. Other. So I won't go there. So, the 152 million that is an era to that. I think there's an unless in the sense that I don't understand, but unless something 78 million will have to be returned to the federal government. September 30. So we have to obligate a certain amount if we fail to obligate that amount 78 million goes back. Do I have the picture correct and then there's also another spending threshold date of the end of December, which is important to the state as well. So, Madam chair, we have to spend roughly 20% of the money. With some, you know, complications in the way they calculate 20% we have to spend roughly 20% every quarter starting four days ago. So, that means we have to have approximately 100 million spent by the end of the calendar year. And then if we get to an obligation amount, which can mean our housing stability services grants which can be longer term, and then obligations to individuals for up to three months of perspective perspective assistance. If we get 114 million at that point, we are no longer going to be subject to the recapture formula. But my way of thinking about it is essentially we are forced to sprint to that 114 million. And then at 114 million, the program could slow down, but it's hard to slow down once you're moving that fast, right. So we're trying to balance getting to that number very quickly with what happens. Yeah, so the first six months of next year. So if you think, you know, you take 114 million at December when we thought we'd only be spending a couple months worth at that point because we were hoping that we could start spending up on. And one, now we have to start spending revenue. Now, so if we expend that hit that 114 so we don't have any captured that's out about total of $152 million. So that's like leaves $38 million of Iraq to available to the state. And into going into the new year. And just, you know, we're we're spending in our we anticipate spending around $5 million a month or so for this program. And that doesn't take into account some of the housing stability or the BSHA program or another spending that might be out there. So what we thought would be a bigger chunk of money that could get us closer to that September of 25. We're now looking at probably, you know, Doug and his team and guidance are still doing the calculations, but we're probably getting to end of 23. Possibly and then so into the state dispute 24. I think there's an open question at this point. What does that look like. It may be not even to the end of 23. So if we have to spend, assuming nothing's clawed back, if somehow you can make that work. If you have to spend 20% a quarter is five quarters that gets us to the third quarter that gets us into the third quarter of 23. Approximately amount of chariots. But if we hit that 114 that 20% a quarter drops off. Yes, yes. So, but if you hit 114 you only have I can't do the math 30 something which So that's six. So maybe it works fairly. It still just gets us to 23. What we don't know is how quickly some of the, you know, we know those units and shelter capacity are underway now. What we don't know is that's how quickly will some of these come online. And also what we don't know is VSA J's rate of expenditure, you know, as some of those households hit their 18 months do their expenditures drop free up more dollars past you know there's a lot of still unknowns we don't know yet. And so that's the work we have to do in the coming months is to try to come to a way to estimate that so we can determine do we get through 23. We almost get to 20. I mean that that's the work we need to do so we understand. So our planning longer term. How much is you said B. Yes, I think it was Vermont State Housing Authority is that yes, yes, what are they sending. So mostly housing authority actually just in March distributed 9.5 million of direct financial assistance so that would all be to people that are in traditional rental arrangements. And I do not believe that includes the utility payments that go through on state housing authority right now as well, which will put us up somewhere in the nature of just after $10 million for that month, March. So that may drop off. So that may free up funds that could be used for this program. Yes and no madam chair. I think the unfortunate part of all this is that Treasury is locked us into a situation where we use it or lose it. So even if BSHA produce a lot of capacity, what that would do is it would it would leave us with one less difficult decision to make next spring. If their program had tapered quite a bit, it would be one less pressure, but we still have to be in a similar financial position at the end of the calendar year, regardless. The one advantage is that if we do spend money faster, we then become eligible for reallocations from other states. On the flip side, we may be able to get some money. But I believe Treasury does that on a per capita basis so it likely would not be significant amounts of funds. There's really no way to think our way through this that they end up 23 or going into 24 with luck. These money are gone. So madam chair, I would say, working with a just right now on just kind of exploring all our alternatives and seeing if there's any any way we can use the year a one capacity that we have left and switching. I had to ask PSHA to switch to ER a two, which means they were the main entity spending our area one money. So there's a large amount of capacity left in that grant. And if we can find any other creative ways to deploy the money within the federal rules and we may be able to turn up some other options, but we're still very early in that thinking. And we're just trying to do everything we can to explore options there. So as Doug indicated, so what we've created a team at the agency level with all the commissioners and we're forming a working group to go through all of our housing spending across the agency to see if there's the ability to utilize that one that's being freed up from having PSHA switch on the rap to to then see if that frees up other money that we can hold and reserve so that we have it to either for permanent investments to build capacity quicker or to make sure we can get through 23 or whoever long, you know, those are the conversations we're having internal work that's going on right now. So there's a lot happening behind the scenes between AOA and AHS. So one of the things that I think about is so you've been dedicated to using the FEMA money totally make sense, but is it possible to use more of the Iraq money now hold the FEMA and figure out the ways we did last year. You know, are there alternative ways of using FEMA to either use it on the tail end rather than the front end or to use it somewhere else free enough general funds that we could divert into this. It's a reimbursement basis and it's authorized on a month by month and 100% is only authorized through June 30 and then I believe beyond that there's still FEMA money but it's available with a state match. And so we're not able to like it's not like we can say we want 50 million from FEMA and hold on to it it's a reimbursement so we don't so we won't be able to do that. The way we did last year, we put a significant amount of FEMA money into DOC, for example, and that was at least that's my recollection maybe I'm totally wrong. I'm not seeing that with CRM. That's the difference. So similar concept, with the exception that the program has to fit ERAPs criteria which are very rigid. So we're running through the exercise. It's uncertain how successful we in finding programs that might qualify. I think we've got some promising leads but at the end of the day it's a very restrictive use of funds unlike CRF which was more fungible. Folks, questions, thoughts, yeah. Yeah, I had a question you talked in the beginning about we had this program we were going to go through till June and then we're starting a new program in July. That was the original plan and sort of that's still what you're doing but the money has become complicated. Is there a difference in those housing plans that you've changed either the eligibility or the criteria or the family size or anything along those lines between our former program and the newer program you were going to. Yes, there is a significant difference in some ways. One is the first program was a general assistance emergency housing program which has a set of rules that have been in existence for a long time and we waived and varied some to make households eligible who weren't eligible during the pandemic. And then there was also a low income threshold. And so, and it wasn't like an agreement like someone was placed there by the state and we had a direct fiduciary relationship to the hotel that paid to pay that bill because of that placement in that relationship. It's a transitional housing program not emergency housing program so it's a little bit, you know, so we're paying out and with the rental assistance, you're eligible at a higher level. So for instance that that one household that came to us on the first day would not have been eligible for the emergency housing program because of their income they were a little over, but they are eligible for this program. They are able to be served and here is a written occupancy agreement between the household that's staying there and the hotel that outlines that relationship and we agree to pay the monthly rent payment with the federal emergency rental assistance. So it's a more direct relationship between the household and and the hotel establishment. And there are a lot less rules than there are under the, because it's not a financial eligibility program or say like traditionally think in the sense it's a, it's more of a federally funded source that we're using to create it and created this program. So it's a little bit different relationship between the staff and the house. And are the rates that we are paying the same. Yeah, the monthly rate is basically based on the night that we pay but and also there's benefit for the hotels this way. Because of the way we had to, you know, it was a reimbursement with FEMA way we had to reimburse and authorize households it was a really labor intensive for us in terms of hotels getting paid they had to submit invoices and that way to get paid and so here they'll get their monthly rent up front and a security deposit which we weren't eligible in the emergency housing program. So it provides a little bit level financial security to the hotel as well. Because you increase the eligibility in terms of the income level. Do we anticipate more than this 1500 families that we're currently managing? We don't anticipate a significant increase but we like here we will see some households that may not have been eligible before coming in but we don't expect it will be a large one. And those households then aren't eligible for 18 months? Up to 18 months depending on the availability of the federal funding source. And I felt this I would say population that that is using commissioner Brown's program. There's some overlap in that population and a little bit of back and forth between the BSHA long-term population but at that point at this point that BSHA program has helped over 10,000 households. Not concurrent but the total number of households that have used that program. So I know when we're doing the motel voucher we're kind of unique. Are any other states doing what we're proposing to do here with the ERAP money? For whether the transitional housing or whether to be extended stays and hotels? I'm not aware of any other state but I'll check with Catherine because she does talk with our delegation and they may be I didn't know what you were saying. We're pretty unique. I suspect currently because of the largest of the small state minimum that we had a totally different set of opportunities and virtually any other state. We've seen in some of the much more populous states is these sort of monies just disappeared into one city as they, for example, you know, it's thanks for that issue. So if you if states are using the ERAP money for what it was perhaps envisioned. Are other states running out of money? Will they be likely to return funds or are they because of, you know, high demand in an urban setting? They're using it all for the purpose that it was perhaps envisioned. So I would say that many of the larger states with more metropolitan areas have run out of funds have been receiving reallocations at this point. As far as from our risk perspective guide house was able to find some parallels to our program design. So even though we're we're doing something on a larger scale than is seen at other states. We're not going to find counties and other jurisdictions that were doing similar programs. So we're comfortable. He's not going to come back and try to take back the money at the end of the day. But yeah, the majority of large states have run out of funds and are requesting reallocations. And some of the small states, there was one example, I think North Dakota where they voluntarily reallocated over $100 million, which is not something I would recommend. Yeah, there have been a small number of voluntary allocations, but I think that has been the main driver behind Treasury pushing the RA1 and the RA2 recaptures much more strongly. So when you say reallocated, reallocated where back to the Treasury or to another program in the state? So the Treasury publishes, they take it. They have structures for voluntary reallocating money within your state. Like if we had larger metropolitan areas, we could have, you know, Burlington was much larger. We could have reallocated to Burlington instead of losing 31 million. But in many cases, it just goes back to Treasury joins a central pool and then is distributed out to states that have a reallocation request in. And then that's based on the estimated size of need, the number of applications. I know that New York's program is massive. It's not as if we could take the ERAP money and put it into an ARPA pod and use it for economic development or recovery. That's not a possible reallocation. I would suggest that we are doing exactly what was envisioned with the emergency rental assistance program is that we're providing emergency rental assistance. In this case, in the version of helping people without homes be safe during the pandemic. And I think of what this state has done during the past two years, the two things that I will always, for the rest of my life, be grateful for. One is we pull together, we said, we're going to solve this problem. And as volunteers, we're going to stand together and help each other recover through this survive and recover. And the second, which is really a subset of the first is we said we're not going to see people without homes on our streets or in the woods or under the bridges. We're going to figure out how to keep them safe. So I'm, I was so happy that we had this plan that really gave us enough time to figure out how to find permanent affordable housing. And honestly, 25 was barely long enough. There's no way in the world that we can build 1500 homes. And we have been failing to do that for decades to be meeting our housing capacity. So we were just barely going to be hanging on by our fingers to get there 25. And so this is totally changing what we're looking in. It's not because we're failing to put enough housing money on the table that this is going to be a problem. We never were going to be able to build enough homes by next year to serve this population. So this is have to continue standing together, trying to figure out how to solve this problem, so that people are not being put out on to get on the streets or back into the woods, wherever they've been trying to cobble together a life. Okay, I know how concerned you all have been. So you've, you've notified people of what the benefits going to be. Have you got any response from that yet? I mean, I know that letters just went out on Friday. What are you hearing? At this point, we've not heard, you know, we tried to message it to our partner so that they were, many of them are on site providing services so that they can answer questions. We've not seen an uptick in our phone lines with a lot of conservative and at this point, but we are monitoring it and are ready to provide information. We did work very hard to make sure that that letter was language was pretty cleared and it didn't create panic for the households that was wondering. So they were already interested in not guarding this transition from this one program to the other that we didn't want to raise alarm for this letter, but it was really necessary to obligate these on this people. So the government tried to grab the gap. So with the issuance of that letter, how much did you obligate the total? It was three months worth of rent and a security deposit. I can't remember the exact dollar amount now. Yeah. So it was the three months that we're able to on top of the security deposit. And then there's also this other payment we've created. For households that really struggled to stay house and what we call the heart to house payment to help provide support to the motel to maintain guests who really struggled with different issues to help them maintain housing. So let me just make sure I've got it in my head. The three months is July through the end of September. And then again, fingers crossed, no changes could be changes. It sounds like you're kind of anticipating could be changes. But we're anticipating ERAP to being available for for October, November and December. And we believe hopefully what that's the work we're doing in through the next two quarters of 23. And that's the analysis we're doing right now to see based on the expenditure rates and in the region, potentially capture how much funds are moving to stay being available into calendar year 23 for those first two quarters of state that's created. The last two quarters. Excuse me. With what we know right now, we're good through the end of calendar year 22. Yes. And then we believe the first quarter of 23 potentially that we're working on analysis for the last quarter of state fiscal year. So you think we're good for the for the. I'm losing my quarter. So January through March, you think we're good. So it's really the scary part to worry some part is the last quarter of 23. And there's and then there's nothing in 24. It would be difficult madam chair to design a program that would stretch in that manner, like, theoretically money could be available but it. That's one thing we're working on right now trying to figure out and I would say. I'm going to be monitoring all the programs of DCS programs or two of the programs that utilize this fund. And because it's an a one approval. This is such a tightly focused funds that it went through the JFC on process. And you're a to is the same CFD number the same is a continuation. So, in a way, I'm monitoring the programs and trying to push every expenditure above the required spending amount for your a to integrate one. So that we can come out of this reconciliation process with as much area to as possible. Without having any recaptured because that could also limit our options in FY 23 and FY 24. So that will be a constant for this year. Yeah. I'm sorry, you thought you were kind of over the worst of it. Yeah. One of the thoughts running through my head just before you came into the room, we had colleagues from the NCSL here and they were talking about a third code. Which, as I understood, did not allow for recisions and we're talking about reallocation versus rules, but is there any potential hope along those lines. I do not believe so because reallocate the reallocation structure is written into the program for area one and area two. So it's not what the federal. Oh, how to say this properly. There's been a lot of talk of pulling some money back from states that spent different types of COVID allocations and then using it for other purposes. This is all internal to the workings of the area program. I could be wrong. There could be a direct strike through of the programmatic language. But because the money's not leaving the emergency rental assistance program. I don't think that that's what that federal language was envisioned to do. So I don't think that protects us but I haven't done the actual research there. Are you going to be, as the end of the money approaches, are you going to be looking at participation and the populations who are participating and you clearly are going to have to start thinking about how the most vulnerable folks are protected and how that's going to be managed. And that's the work that's happening internal as well. We've brought again interagency team together from department of disabilities aging and living from mental health corrections to understand who's our population. And, you know, in the current program and transitional program and how do we focus on our work there to make sure that those that are the most vulnerable serving that we know and work very hard to get them to. Housing arrangement as quickly as possible. So that work is happening as well. Yeah, of course. Thank you. I'm just curious. So we know there are about 1500 families. And we know that all are working as hard as to get enough building done to get some of these out of the transitional hotel programs into housing. How close do you think we'll be? What will be the short if this plays out the way you just described? I don't, I will say that that's the analysis we need to do. I've given the work here of launching this new program and then the curve call. We need to kind of circle back to see what projects are in the works their estimated completion date their capacity and where they're located because those are all important. And then also look at what would the additional funds being allocated for that work through the 23 budget, you know, what do we just pay for projects how quickly some can come on quicker than others depending on the type of project. And then we'll be able to because we have to crosswalk with our district data where they're being built because it could be uneven across the state, depending on where the projects are. And so it could be a different response depending on the area of the state. So that brings me to another question, which is, we know that our towns, some of our municipalities are struggling with ones that have more motels in the program than others. They might, you know, it might be at 15% or only 3% right depending on how many how many motels that into the program. We know now that there are going to be families that we might not be able to find we're going to have to really put on our thinking caps to figure out what happens. One of the things that I keep wondering is that some of those towns who are getting hit hard by a lot of folks and not enough services to meet the needs. For example, police being called over and over, losing lots of their police force through this program, they're going to be less apt to want to work together with the state to figure out that next, that next step. And now we know that next step is actually going to be a lot quicker than we thought. And so, is there a way with some of this money that you're trying to quickly spend to, to help out some of these towns so they are more apt to find a way to put their arms around those folks who we are going to be struggling to find the spot for but that way it doesn't all land in one place either. It allows us to spread that out a little, but we have to help them, I think now a little bit. And it also helps you with your problem which is spend money quickly. I just wonder if you, if that's possible, if that's something you can look at. I'd say generally, no. The federal, so 80% of the money has to go to direct financial assistance. So out of the 200 million we were given that's down to 169 million. 80% of that has to go to direct financial assistance to the beneficiaries and can't be used for anything else. 10% of it can be used for housing stability services. And there might be creative ways we can approach housing stability services, but Treasury does have that fairly well defined. It wouldn't incorporate public safety, but it could incorporate additional case worker support for a household that's struggling with issues. That is something that maybe we could stand up happen between now and September and spend from the era one fund. It wouldn't change our October one forward situation because at that point we only have the right to to spend. And at that point we're still locked into that trajectory that treasury has set for us. But I think we can, we do have capacity in our housing stability services budget and we could definitely explore if there are any ways we could use that money that we haven't been thinking of yet. And I can say that we've been very engaged with the local communities across the state regularly with some municipal leadership or first responder leadership on a regular basis. And that also I've met with some Vermont or Vermont had some pretty significant conversations. Some of that is that they have an idea, you know, we've direct them to the BHCB where they're allocating. They have a project they want to move forward. We certainly make those connections for them. But also some communities are taking on themselves to use their their own direct ARPA allocations that cities got through through some of the federal government spending to create their own. I know in Barry they're trying to use some of the money to create some permanent housing in Burlington the mayor city council has approved it. You know, the pods that would be there for three years will become online. I think 30 pods for a pretty innovative approach. And so and I know those conversations are happening and we try to support them wherever we can to encourage communities because they're notwithstanding some of the pressures that this is happening with communities where there's large number of hotels. I'd say without fail, there is support to continue just, you know, in those communities to serve the vulnerable households, homeless households in this program. And want to do whatever they can be a part of the solution. We're uptown. I'm not a little bigger, but I just felt I should tell you that I did get a white holes name, your name called DCF Chandra. I'll just say that if we get reports of support conditions, we've worked very closely with our partners at the health department who are statutorily tasked with inspecting lodging establishments and they do go out when we make a referral. And, you know, if needed, ask the establishment to bring up and if we see other situations we've brought in the fire marshal, there are other safety concerns. And so we do work closely with communities where issues have been brought to our attention to make sure those situations get get remedied as quickly as they can. But we have to rely on our partners whose work, the sphere of work that is to move that forward. Since part of the problem, I think you've got a couple out of state concerns that don't care. And what I fear is to continue to go on for more years. They'll walk away and go back to where they came from, take their pockets full of money, and those two buildings will sit there and fall into the ground before the realities get squared away with them all. I understand your concerns. I will say that, you know, where we have had those concerns and we've worked with motel ownership to correct the problems and they've been slow to do that. We stopped working with them and that caught their attention and they made the changes they need to do. And so, I mean, we do have systems and mechanisms to, you know, provide a better service for the program and we do utilize those tools when we need them. Excuse me, but the mechanisms aren't working all like good yet. Thank you. We're kind of at a time I'm not seeing that there are any more questions and I'll come back to my observation that I'm extremely proud of what we have attempted to do. We haven't always gotten it right. I think from, we said, we're going to take care of our mothers if I could figure this out, we're not going to leave people on the streets today. I really appreciate it. All, all of you would stay kind of in DCF and kind of the epicenter of this and Mr. Fardemite, I'm sorry that you're still in the epicenter of this. I don't envy you, your job. Somebody has to do it while the chair. I just wanted chime in as well. I know it was a herculean task to reach all of those households on such a short timeframe and I can only imagine what sorts of logistics were involved. So hats off to that. And I also just want to say to Mr. Fardemite that I for one really appreciate the upfront transparency and it's our job as elected or as administration of this to solve problems. That's what we're setting here to do. Thank you. Okay, thank you. So I have a feeling. I'm sorry, Brett Fagan. Thank you. Commissioner, I sent you an email. You'll get it. It's got my phone number on there. Give me a call please as soon as possible. Thank you. Absolutely. Okay. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. I hope the next time we're together, we have really great optimistic work we've got to solve. If there is optimism here, we will in a short period of time, we're able to create this program and launch it. And so I mean, we do know it is going into a, you know, these households will be served on that first. We need to look at the positive on that side. Absolutely. And congratulations for doing that. Yeah. Okay. Thank you all. So folks, we are that's it for today, believe it or not, we continue to have this lack of a vehicle schedule. I think we are together at 830 tomorrow. Am I remembering correctly, we're right here from Secretary Moore on the climate investments and next steps. And then a personal favorite of mine, a conversation about universal basic income and education finance after that we actually have a fuller day tomorrow. Does anybody have anything else for us before we go off live? I don't see anything. So, thank you. See you in the morning.