 Good morning and welcome to a joint meeting of the Vermont House Human Services Committee and the Vermont Health Care Committee. It is Thursday, May 6, and for the next hour and a half until 1030, the two committees will be hearing about the emergency housing proposal from the administration. What to do about emergency housing perhaps becomes even more important now as we move forward and out of the pandemic. However, Vermonters not having a place to live has been a crisis before the pandemic and in fact the administration had a plan proposal before the pandemic sort of stopped everything. And I have to say I am appreciative of the work of the administration and community providers in ensuring that people who needed a place to live were able to spend time in hotels and motels and be safe. Rather than share screens for those of you who are watching on YouTube, what I understand our testifiers are going to be using is talking from the emergency housing program. You can see those documents on either the committee webpage of House Human Services and health care. We have four people we have Commissioner Brown, we have Commissioner of Department of Children and Families and we have Jeffrey Bipinger who's the senior advisor of the Commissioner Department of Children and Families. Jessica Radboard who's a staff attorney from Vermont legal aid and Sarah Truckel, who's the financial director for the Department of Children and Families. Jeffrey and Jessica were on the sort of working group that I think came up with a plan. And I see that Representative McFawn has a has a question and go ahead Representative McFawn. Thank you Madam Chair. I just want to make sure which one where you mentioned emergency housing program. Is it going to do the housing work group proposed plan. Is that right. Yes, and I will. Whoever is speaking I will ask them to be clear about which of the documents that they are speaking from. Thank you. And what I would like to do with the joint committees forbearance with with 22 people. If we if every five minutes because I know the House Human Services Committee we like to ask questions, if we can perhaps hold our questions unless they're a question of, we don't understand what is being said, I don't know the questions until there seems to be an appropriate break. I think that would be most helpful. And so thank you. Commissioner Brown are you. Are you the conductor of this. Yes, I will start and then throughout the presentation will share that role with Jeffrey and Jessica. And then also when we get to the budget piece will have Sarah truck will jump in as well. And that might be the one time where we pull up the document on the screen is just because sometimes numbers are easier to see that then to talk about. Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I do want to acknowledge the members of the work group who met for a series of eight meetings during the month of April and continues to meet to work on the rules and rolling out this plan if approved by the legislature. The work group was facilitated and led by Secretary Mike Smith of the Agency of Human Services, along with Jenny Samlison, the deputy secretary it included staff from the secretary's office Andrea Della brew and deputy commissioner Tricia Tio Sarah Phillips as you indicated Jeffrey Pimpinger and Sarah truckle for our community partners today, Jessica Radboard participated as well on the work group as well as Josh Davis from ground works in the city of Montaburro, Rita Markley from Cots up in the Burlington area, Margaret Bozik from the Champlain Housing Trust participated as well Michael Redmond from the upper valley Haven and in Hartford white river junction area. I'm very case Kara Casey from the Vermont network against domestic and sexual violence. Paul dragon from CV OEO the community action agency up in Chittenden area. Tom Donahue from the community action agency in the Bennington Rutland area from Brock, and then also we had others from the administration participate to morning from the city commissioner from the departmental health participated and also at times we invited was Josh Hannaford and Sean Gilpin from ACC the department for community and housing. And I always put your that name so I apologize. I participated in the work group and and the work of that group is presented in this plan. There was consensus on moving this plan forward from all members of the group for which, except for one area which will highlight for the committee this morning. And that was a one piece of the plan and Jessica is here can explain their concerns regarding that one piece of the consent that where we did not have consensus of Vermont legal aid and Paul dragon from CV OEO raised some concern on one area of the plan and and she can speak to a little deeper of that today. As you indicated before the pandemic week we ran an emergency housing program, very prescriptive rules in place about who was eligible and for how long you were served. Primarily, when we had the adverse weather conditions we would use at us maximum 250 to 300 motel rooms before the pandemic in the depths of the winter. And many times we would run out of motel capacity at that when we needed that level of hotel rooms across the state. During the pandemic when the pandemic started the administration and our partners move very quickly to close shelters they were congregate settings and also other homeless individuals and we saw homelessness increase during the pandemic as households that were on the table house and staying with friends and family were made no longer able to do that due to health and safety guidelines. And so we relaxed the rules completely. And with the hospitality industry coming coming to a halt, because of the pandemic, we were able to close as many many more rooms and we normally would pre pandemic and we are currently housing utilizing about not just over 1900 motel rooms across the state right now to house homeless individuals and families. We do anticipate that that number will start to drop sharply as we reopen in July and through the summer and into the fall. And we do anticipate in the in the plan, you know, we have worked hard to try to increase our capacity. But we do anticipate like we've been given notice by the owners of the holiday in that they are going to stop leasing the facility to us, and that's been operated by CB OEO. We will lose that capacity other hotels have told us that they're going to start shifting back to serving tourists and travelers and so we anticipate that are available hotel rooms will drop sharply and then continue to drop through the summer and into the fall. We anticipate we will only have access to about 650 motel rooms by the end of the fall into the beginning of the winter. And so this plan takes that capacity component into account as we develop this plan. And I would point out that we are currently losing some capacities with hotels, no longer accepting new referrals and allowing those that are there to stay until they transition out. And so we are already bumping into capacity issues in some areas of the state. And I would highlight that Middlebury is one of those areas we have significant concern right now. We're planning on two phases of implementing this plan for those that are in the program right now there would be no changes through through June 30 they would continue to be eligible as they are now. However, for new households coming in there would be eligibility changes. And so this plan is in place for for June 1. And so currently right now anyone who's homeless as eligible. We would input, we would this plan proposes new eligibility categorical eligibility requirements. And I will walk the committee through those and highlight how they, how they look similar to what we did pre pandemic and how they are going to be different after we come out of the pandemic and if this plan is supported by the legislature. So it would be for new households coming in on June 1. And then also for those in the motels they would be able to reapply after June 30, and they could continue to be eligible under these new criteria, effective July 1. And so that would be the first point I would make to the committees this morning. And then the eligibility criteria that will go into place. I'll walk the committee through those, just as we had before the pandemic, we will continue as a category those that lose their housing due to a natural disaster, such as fire or flood or hurricane. During the pandemic, those households were eligible for up to 84 days of service in a motel nights in a motel. They will continue to be eligible for 84 nights under this under the new under this new proposal. Individuals and families fleeing domestic dating or sexual violence stocking or human trafficking or were eligible for 84 days pre pandemic, they will continue to be eligible for 84 days under these under these new proposed rules. So there's really no change there for for that category. The first area where you will see some change from the pre pandemic to post pandemic would be families with children. Before the pandemic we served families with children for 28 days if they had a child under age six. Now we are proposing to serve families with children of any age up to 19 if they're still in secondary education, and that they will now be eligible for 84 days instead of 28. As it was pre pandemic also, we recognize that families need larger housing permanent housing in general and those are harder to locate. And so we are putting in place an ability for a family who's coming to the end of their 84 days to ask for extensions in 30 day increments, as long as they're continuing to be engaged with services and actively looking for permanent housing that we will be able to grant them to make 30 day extensions. So that they will continue to be housed while they look for permanent housing. Many of our families have housing vouchers right now is just the lack of units is really stressing the system right now and we see that particularly with families. Also, we will continue to serve households with older Vermonters before the pandemic. You know that they were served under the vulnerable category and were eligible for 28 days. Now households with an individual over age 60 will be eligible for 84 days. So that's a change from pre pandemic to post pandemic so we're expanding service for these households as well under the new program. Also, we will continue to serve households, including a person with a disability, including but not limited to those receiving SSI SSDI or VA disability benefits pre pandemic. They will now be eligible for 84 days under the new plan and similar to families. Those individuals with a significant disability that impacts their activities of daily living will also have the ability to apply for extensions, just as families with children will under these proposed rules as well. And they'll be able to apply for those and continue to be housed as we look for other permanent or living arrangements or care arrangements for those households. So that that as an expansion of services under the new rules versus the old rules. Also, we will continue to serve households that are pursuing legal resolution or violations of the rental housing code through through the Vermont Department of Health or other appropriate officials. And as a result of trying to remedy those situations lost their housing, they will be eligible for 84 days of service. Also households that were physically barred from entering their residents by their landlord will also continually will continue to be housed for 84 days under these new rules as well. And so, and I know Jeffrey wants to jump in here and add one more piece Jeffrey. Good morning. For the record, my name is Jeffrey Pippenshire. I am the senior advisor to the commissioner for the Department for Children and Families. Thanks for having us here. I just wanted to add one thing just to kind of pull back for a second and have a wire lens, which is that to remind people that as Sean who as the commissioners walks through these out of building categories that pre pandemic. We had a much narrower set of eligibility criteria. And it was that had different days for different categories right and they were very specific limitations on what populations, even nuances within those populations. During the pandemic as a response to the public health crisis we had opened up that eligibility wide. And so, as we're coming out of the, the deepest part of the pandemic and trying to transition to what's hopefully a recovery that we are then restricted we're proposing to restrict the eligibility to a narrow point than during the pandemic, but wider than pre pandemic. So it's just an important frame of reference to keep in mind. And then we were also proposing some other changes to how the program is operated pre pandemic to post pandemic in this proposal. A couple of those are income limits and self pay pre pandemic. This is an income standard that was more tied to the reach up program which is 60% of the federal poverty level like if you were above that you were deemed not eligible for the program. We are now aligning the income threshold for eligibility for this program in line with the three squares and Vermont and lie heat programs at 185% of the federal poverty level so that is an expansion of the income limits. So that's one of the proposals versus under pre pandemic. Also, we pre pandemic we had a self contribution for households with income. They would be asked to contribute financially 30% of their income. It used to be a gross calculation now we're moving to a net and and aligning it with how we calculate that under the reach up standard. This is a which is an expansion of how we approach this post pandemic versus pre pandemic. And then I would turn it over to Jeffrey to touch on the period of an eligibility and and changes to how we approach someone whose cause or own loss of housing. And I know that's an important area that Jessica will want to touch on as well. Commissioner before we turn it over to Jeffrey. This seems like a place where folks might have had questions for the first part of what you've gone through representative would You may have said this but I might have missed it. The 84 days so that seems to be a consistent thread throughout what you you spoke of what is wise 84, not 85, not 82. What is special about 84. 84 has been the historical maximum of eligibility under the old rules. And we know that households and families. It's kind of based on how long it takes someone to secure new housing and I would defer to Jeffrey with his experience here but we know it takes 60 to 84 days for households to secure new housing and so that's kind of how that date I think has evolved over years. But right now we were using the maximum time limit available under the old rules as the starting place. And someone that's always been tied to resources, whether it's the availability motel rooms or or this program has historically been funded with general fund, and just it was a resource limitation on both motels and financial. Representative what is I understand your question I think. Correct me if I'm wrong but I hear part of the question being like why that's why the specific number right. Yes, and the history behind that as far as I understand is that because usually we talk about things in 30 day increments 60 day increments 90 increments 123 months. 84 days is actually the three month increment, but in seven day chucks. So historically when the program was developed in those time limits and the durations of grant the period within which somebody was eligible for that motel voucher because we issue in the grant. So that was seven days or 14 days, and then up to 28 days over time at a time in one chunk. And so that's how you get to the day for days it's 12 weeks. Okay, thank you that's helpful. I, I'm presuming that the workgroup discussed the greater appears to be lack of affordable housing and so sorry historically that might have been sufficient to find alternative housing it. I just have had my questions about whether it's sufficient to find alternative housing at this moment in our history. So it's just a statement. Well, if there was one message we would want to leave with the committees today is I think the point you're making representative would. There is a real housing crisis in this state and it existed before the pandemic with really low rental rates and lack of affordable housing for purchase or rent. It's been incredibly exacerbated by the pandemic with housing prices going through the roof and folks coming to Vermont, seeking the relevant I think the relatively safety they thought it provided during the pandemic and so the housing market is right right now. And also on the rental market is is significantly worse than we've ever seen that I've ever seen in my time working in the agency and so you are exactly correct there. And I think that's why it's important that we are strongly advocating for the legislature to reconsider the governor's proposal to invest $249 million in affordable permanent housing for low and middle income from honors to build 5500 units, because that's essential for Vermont moving forward, we just do not have the units now we have, we have so much rental assistance and new rental vouchers coming in from the federal government and we're not able to avail ourselves with those, because, you know, we do not have the units for people to rent. And this plan was put together by this working group with the with the belief that new units would be coming online, the governor's proposal has 600 new units coming online. This year has new shelter capacity investments coming online as well but then also builds out in year two and year three additional units getting to 5500. And that is critical for investment for this state to make. And we would just urge you to reconsider and think about as you approach the budget this year. And that was a critical component of putting this plan together that they go that they go, you know, together. Thank you. If I can add onto that representative would that the other two other points about the, the sufficiency of 84 days in terms of being able to access housing. And that's why you'll see with the households with children. There's the ability to extend for 30 day increments. That's a conscious acknowledgement of that, particularly because you know that with the way which adverse childhood experiences and the trauma of being a motels and what many other traumas over the last 14 months. So I'm sure that we can support those households as best as possible moving forward. And then I will also remind folks that on the flip side, as the commissioner had indicated at the beginning of walking through the proposal, we have a very real capacity challenges going forward that even if we were to say, people had 100, 150 days or 300 days. We wouldn't have the motel capacity to be able to house people there. It would, it would create a different sort of problem in terms of people being able to access that emergency temporary housing. Pre pandemic we were stretched often in the winter in terms of our mental capacity in many regions of the state, and that has only amplified during the pandemic. In relation to the 30 day extension. The language talks about eligibility extension of eligibility for 30 day and 30 day increments if they stay engaged in services. First of all, what are the services that they're supposed to be engaged with, and what does engaged mean. I appreciate the question manager. I think some of those details will be worked out as we promulgate any of the rules going forward but I think suffice to say that during the pandemic we have people have been engaged with housing navigators through our community partners who have done extraordinary work during the pandemic to support people. Whether it's housing navigation or whether it's other types of case management or perhaps engagement with mental health services or substance use supports I think there are many different ways we might find that going forward we're trying to just make sure that people are connected, which as you might recall pre pandemic was not a function of the GA motel key shirt. I'm getting a t shirt. Representative Redmond and representative McFawn and I don't see any other questions I would like to suggest that after those two questions we move on because it is 930 and I want to make sure that we actually hear the whole presentation. Representative Redmond. Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you Commissioner and Jeffrey and crew question about the 30 day extension. What is the limit on that extension and going to kind of the point you alluded to before what happens if you reach those capacity limits what's kind of the, you know, and someone is really, you know, eligible for this need. What, what are, have you thought through kind of what that backstop is. How we've how we've approached that in the past and it can look, you know, depending on the situation. We may it could be a capacity issue in one district. And so we ask the family if they're able to if we, you know, to have to locate to like, say if they're in St. Albans and we have a room of room for a family available in Burlington, if they are willing to go and we can put the so that's the first layer of what we do. And as Jeffrey indicated in the past, you know, we really run into some capacity issues in the winter, particularly around some of the big holiday ski weekends. And how we've approached that in the past as we were prepared ahead of time with providers to stand up pop up emergency extreme cold weather shelters so that if we ran out of motel rooms. We open those up for the duration of the really cold weather event. And then normally what would happen is, is once the holiday weekend past capacity would free up a little bit and then we would be able to adjust that way. But we've certainly and it's and believe it or not, it's always certainly been timed around a holiday weekend on Martin, the Martin Luther King weekend in January, President's Day in February. And we ran into issues every year around those two holidays during the ski season. And so we will be prepared again there as well. And then also, you know, we try to, you know, many motels won't work with us or, but we do continue to call around when we get into the winter and just plead like we have one family we can you please work with us with this one household, just for this duration until you know so there's a different strategies we use. So, I think I'm represent McFawn we're on to you. Okay, thank you madam chair. Last, thanks for coming in this one. Last year we put out millions of dollars to renovate existing units and though, and other buildings that were not being used to kind of go in and renovate them and to create housing units. And I know it hasn't been a long time since we put that money out, but it's been about a year. And I'm wondering if that effort had any impact at all on this plan. We did see the impact on when some of those projects came online representative McFawn, like one of those initiatives. Well, some of it impacts us negatively and it impacts us positively. And one way it can impact us negatively is some of those projects involved the purchase of hotels and converting them into you permanent housing units. And so we lose capacity that capacity of that motel as an emergency housing resource, and when they build back permanent using the units it's not a one for one room because sometimes they take multiple rooms to make one unit. For instance, Champlain Housing Trust purchased the Baymont up in the Essex Colchester area and converted that. And so when we saw that open our numbers in the emergency housing program and some of the other projects, our numbers went down but over time they have gradually increased just given the long term economic impact that the pandemic is having on households. You know, it continues to put pressure on families and individuals and we still see households becoming homeless as a result of that. And so we did see the benefit but now we're kind of back up to where we were before that. So there was a dip and then it came back up. And I can also respond to representative, I would say that what you're speaking to specifically is the rental rehabilitation program that our partners at DHCD had department housing community development had stood up and I think that the reality to be frank is that we need as much housing as possible in the current climate. So that may be some turning motels into single room occupancy settings it may be permanent support housing settings it may be building permanent housing may also be renovating old stock or with that with the rent we have. I mean, I think we have often talked you've heard us say this many times in testimony that there are three legs of the stool when we talk about homelessness and housing security. There's rental assistance, there's services, and there's housing stock. And I think we're at a point where we have more rental assistance and more services than we've ever had. And right now we need to use as many of those tools in our toolbox to address permanent housing as possible including that rental rehabilitation but not limited to because that is an important part. Thank you. Why commissioner or Jeffrey. I guess you're going to move to talking about when people aren't eligible and those things. Yes, and I will have Jeffrey take the lead on on that piece and then Jessica as well. Thank you commissioner. With regard to the period of eligibility. They're historically the well let me let me lay out sorry. Let me try that and lay out first of all we're proposing which is that we're proposing a period of eligibility to that would be two tiered. Major violations and lesser violations. A way to think about that is that these major violations as laid out in the proposal things like violent criminal behavior or attempted criminal behavior, major theft, creating safety hazards or disarming smoke detectors or blocking exits, threatening guests or staff. These sale and distribution of illegal substances, destruction of property these sorts of things are would be subject to a period of eligibility for your first events that would be 15 days and 30 days for each subsequent events afterwards. These are minor violations or what folks are referring to as lesser violations. And these are essentially more in the line of nuisance, or behavioral issues. This is in some ways comes from a harm reduction model, we don't need to be making people ineligible for 30 days, because they were being loud. And annoying their neighbors or being disruptive. So, we're trying to have a much more nuanced approach to something that was historically a blunt instrument. So, in those cases there's lesser violations there would be no period of eligibility. However, motels do their private businesses they still can exit a guest from a hotel. And motels, and motels, and there are clients who they, they choose not to rent to going forward. And so that could be a possibility. I'd like to point out that that period of eligibility pre pandemic was across the board 30 days. Additionally, we are something that was instituted during the pandemic that we are going to maintain is that the period of eligibility will not apply to households with children, and that expanded definition of household children the over the side under the age of 18 or 19 secondary school or thereof, which is again a shift from pre pandemic. And the, the other piece that the commissioner mentioned was the causing one's own loss of housing. Temporary housing is intended to provide short term for applicants who are involuntarily without housing due to circumstances that could not have recently been avoided. Historically, the, that ended up in a six month period of an eligibility. But has what was reached during the conversations within the GA working group was that that has been reduced from six months to three months. So, the department would house a client and a motel if they cause their own loss of housing within the past three minutes, and causing one's own loss of housing. Other includes leaving housing where one could have stayed. If a person's disability may have played a role in that. Then that's something that would be reconsidered and that process will be developed that and would include a review and decision by the ESD economic services deputy commissioner. I think this is a point where, where our colleague Jessica Radbor would want to weigh in about their perspective, perhaps said Jessica if you would like to add your thoughts that would be well. Actually, if it's okay, I have prepared remarks. So I'd rather hold off and just go through it all at once when when you're done. Okay, and then moving on as we indicated, you know, these new rules and programmatic changes would apply to new applicants. On June 1st, and then everyone that's in in at the end of May would continue to be eligible under the pandemic program requirements. Through the end of June on June 30. During that time, you know, we would be working with our housing partners who are working with many of the households in the motels now to help them reapply under the new rules. So that effective July 1st, if they have continuing eligibility, they would continue to be eligible for under the new program rules as proposed here. Another piece that I would point out is that we've historically operated in the winter months and adverse weather policy where we relaxed the rules and anyone who's eligible news homeless. I was able to come into the program and we will continue to do that this winter as well. We don't propose any any shift from that policy in terms of that. The other thing I want to highlight, you know that the state emergency operations work closely with our program and was able to utilize FEMA funding and issue grants and contracts to providers across the state to provide meal deliveries to all of the households that will end July 1st. Along with the state of, you know, as intent, you know, the state of emergency ends and that service would end, you know, our work is continuing to look at that to see if providers in the community can continue to have any other existing meal services connected to motels. Also, we're going to work with hotels to make sure that households have a place to eat food in a centralized area. Many hotels that that don't have kitchenettes in their rooms. Do not allow heating appliances in the rooms due to fire safety hazard and code. And so we're going to work with hotels just if they if they do not have that service in their rooms that we can, they have a centralized area where people could at least heat food and or prepare food if necessary. And so we'll work with motels there, but that that's something that that will happen as well. The other point I would want to just touch on is the financing behind this plan and I would turn to Sarah chocolate to pull up. And then we'll talk about the budget and how we're going to fund this proposal and then walk the committee committees through that and then just highlight certainly some of the challenges of the funding sources that we're going to be using as we move forward this year. Can you and Sarah do that in no more than 15 minutes in order to give Jessica time to make her prepared remarks and then the committee to perhaps make their questions or comments. Not Sarah, not not that we're not interested Sarah in money. But yeah. Yeah, we can do I believe we can do that easily in 15 minutes. Happy to do so. Sarah charcoal DCF financial director for the record. Can I get the ability to share a screen. If you'd like to see the numbers up. Can everyone see my screen. So, at the last page of our housing proposal plan. We have a basic table that outlines the budget to move forward with this. So we are planning to spend just over $17 million in motel housing that is for non adverse weather conditions, and $12.5 million for motel costs during the adverse weather condition months. The proposed funding sources behind that would be a mixture of FEMA and E wrap. E wrap is the emergency rental assistance program. And we are currently leveraging FEMA funds for the motel costs at this point with an anticipation that those will end at some point during SFY 22. To be noted as Commissioner Brown indicated that there are some operational and fiscal challenges with using our E wrap funds for this purpose. For example, there is a time limitation on households receiving those funds. So, under the first E wrap bill they're allowed to use funds for 12 months of rental assistance and up to three months, an additional three months for retro background. So under those, those terms, if a household has already received the max allotment of the E wrap duration then they would not be eligible to leverage those funds if they came into the GA program so there's some limitations on that funding source. In that way. Additionally, there's a requirement around income documentation as well as a signed application that has to be filled out that we're working through the logistics of operationalizing now. Additionally, we're working on those components but it will look a little bit different in order to leverage this fund source than it has historically. Additionally, for motel based services we're looking at leveraging an additional $4 million above the current housing support services authorized under the first E wrap bill. And these would go out to our community partners. Additionally, we would use $650,000 of our existing coronavirus relief funds that exist within DCF in the housing for the housing plan originally for motel based security services. These CRF funds were authorized as part of the original $16 million last year. Some of them have been freed up by FEMA now being 100% covered for motel based services by the federal government rather than the 75% fed fund 25% state match which we were using CRF funds and that happened in January, under the Biden administration. Additionally, we will also use our base budget those moves that you saw in the governor's FY 22 proposed budget and shifting funding from the GA debt ID to our OEO debt ID, and that will expand community based shelter and temporary and permanent options within OEO. Those will also go out the door using our state general fund dollars. We will additionally have $4 million of coronavirus relief funds of which $3 million we anticipate using for what we're calling essential support payments these will be for payments for households who are exiting the motel system and to provide funds for potential needs that they may have. We also plan to use a million dollar dollars for rapid resolution purposes. These funds are a little bit different and where we pay for things like a deposit down an apartment, or a bus ticket or a lot of services to promote permit or rehousing of our clients. We also have additional funds for our 211 contract leveraging our CRF funds, as well as 2.25 million in ERAP funds for staffing needs in order to operationalize these plans with some of those logistics around using ERAP DCF will require an additional 17 new limited service positions to work with these clients and getting all of those different components as well as the reporting requirements for the ERAP funds themselves. Bringing us to a total budget need of 40.9 million of which just under 5 million is our existing coronavirus relief funds that have already been appropriated to DCF. And to just touch on the staffing needs, this program historically served on average 180 to 200 families at any one time across the state and ESD was stacked to manage a case load of that size during the pandemic at group times 10 to almost 2,000 families at its peak. And we utilized FEMA funding to create 20 temp positions to do that work. We are now and we've certainly had some challenges with those they have our limitations, and they also have, you know, what they don't come with benefits and and and so it was hard to recruit and retain those staff and so we are looking to shift to limited service positions to help us do the work of this program next year. So that would create some stability in the staffing because we really do need to work closely with the household we're serving here to make sure we have all the documentation so that we can comply with the federal guidance of the use of the ERAP funding. A lot of a lot of compliance issues we need to worry about there for the federal government. I have a question from representative Rosenquist, I believe either for Sarah you or Sean you. This would be for Sarah and the commissioner possibly but I see this $40 million you say the majority of it comes from special funds for the relief we're going through as far as the pandemic, whether it's Corona or wrap around whatever he wrap and stuff. Which are once those funds are exhausted, it's just going to fall to our general fund to make up this $40 million or not. So, so part of the ongoing work based on the language in the House budget which we want to continue to honor is a plan to be submitted in November on regarding what the program will look like in state fiscal year 23 so this just looks at 22, and then we will continue to work through the spring in the summer on a proposal of what 23 will look like and that would include a funding proposal as well. And I think this ties back to, you know, if we're really going to, and homelessness or significantly reduce it in the state we know right now that that one of the biggest pressures is the lack of units in affordable housing and I go back to we need more units and and the governor's plan of the 5500 units over the next several years. That is critical to our work in this area and really making sure the monitors have a safe permanent place to stay. We just need more units there and they just don't exist right now. Thank you commissioner we have two questions and then I want to stop that if I may stop the questions in order that we can hear actually from legal aid who has some alternative views on some of this proposal and I think it's important that we hear that as well. I have two questions one from representative Cordes followed by representative McFawn. Representing Cordes. Thank you. We've, Addison County legislators heard recently from a program organized by a united way that they're in regards to housing there are many barriers. It stands to be I'm sure you already know hundreds of people in the next few weeks that may lose their housing. Just in Addison County, but one of the barriers they mentioned was matching that service dollars have to be matched with housing dollars and that those have been siloed in the past is this addressed in terms of what we're showing here with E wrap, making sure that the services can follow that we have the capacity to make sure the services follow the people. You're exactly right representative Cordes, this proposal can propose us 4 million to continue those services also, you know the base budget that that we're moving over to OEO. It's up around 6 million or 6 and a half million that were that traditionally was spent on motels. You know we're going to have available to support services and shelter work and make sure we're following families because you know in our work we recognize that it doesn't stop once someone's permanently house that many households need some support to maintain that housing for a period of time, and you know when we want to ensure that we have enough service capacity across the state to do this work well. Thank you. I would also add the 4 million here is in addition to the housing support services that have already been authorized and appropriated under you wrap so there's already millions of dollars that have been authorized. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Yes, you are. Okay, thank you very much. Commissioner. As I read through the list of violations and so on. I'm wondering. We want to keep them hotels in the program as much as we can. We want to keep community based shelters in the program. Keep landlords that are willing to take people with the vouchers in the program so that these people have some kind of housing. Now my question is this I looked at the all the budgets. I don't see any line in there for repairs or maintenance. When destruction of property takes place. Who's paying for that. Normally I think what you're referring to represent McFawn is many of our service providers that we support in terms of services. I would refer to it as a landlord liaison who work with landlords to try to keep them working with our programs and services. And I would envision that some of our service dollars would be available for that work and that we would encourage our providers and when we put out our request for proposals. We can, you know, we could highlight that that's still an ongoing need and that's where that happens today. And it needs to continue on as well. So that if let's say so if a room or a community shelter something is damaged and can't be used to get it back up in line and to keep those landlords that are willing to help. That service money might be used to do the repairs so that the it can come back online. Yeah, we've referred that into the past as like a risk pool. And, you know, I think that was a part of her earlier housing plan. Last summer, which we weren't able to implement because the pandemic kept going, but that was some of the components that we recognize that there needed to be like a risk pool to help. So that's one of those situations that you just identified and we want to make sure as we put out requests for services that they include that as well, representing upon. Okay, good. Thanks very much. Thank you. Thank you both. And Jessica, please. Go ahead and Sarah if you could stop sharing your screen. Thank you for the record my name is Jessica Radford and I'm an attorney at Vermont legal aid I've been serving as a member of the general assistance working group. Our working groups task, as we understood it from the legislature was to try to get to consensus on how to meet the needs of the most vulnerable or monitors experiencing homelessness within the limits of the number of motel rooms and funding resources made available for that purpose. And for the most part, we did come to consensus on the proposal that consensus position relied very heavily on some critical assumptions, which have been challenged in recent days. And with the passage of time, the realities of the proposal altogether have come to loom even larger for a lot of the service providers who participated in the working group. I know that's true for me. I'm getting ever more vigorous in my advocacy on some of the points that I'm going to be making today and apologies if I sound a little negative. So in my testimony today, I'm going to cover three things the parts of the proposal where we're not legal aid disagrees to the working groups assumption that as GA residents and motels ran out of their 84 days. There would be 600 new permanent affordable housing units coming online, just for them. Three, to share my very real fears of what will happen to our homeless neighbors as these new rules take effect looking specifically to June 1 July 1 and September 22. So first I'll talk about the areas where Vermont legal aid disagrees. One of them Sean, sir commissioner Brown had noted earlier and I'll discuss that in the moment, but the other thing that I wanted to talk about is actually a little bit of language in the budget. Specifically the language that says, quote, the assistance provided under this section is not an entitlement. There's a flag that this contradicts the statutory language for the GA program, and it's typically actually in the budget language only included in the language for community alternatives to GA, not in the GA motel program budget language. Section 2103 a of title 33 provides that so long as there are appropriations available the department, quote, shall furnish GA benefits to eligible persons under the program roles. And it operates like an entitlement for those who meet the eligibility criteria, so long as the program hasn't run out of money. So to be consistent with that statutory language and because as I always say, writes matter. I think the language in the budget bill and working on the rules right now so I have flagged this in our rules discussion I think those should be revised. And I'm happy to send language proposals if you would like to see those in writing. I'd also like to note that regardless of appropriations I think there is an argument that the department has a duty to ensure that all children and vulnerable adults are afforded basic shelter consistent with departments title 33 and obligations under chapter 49, which relates to your child welfare and chapter 69, which is protection of vulnerable adults. Another thing, as noted in the proposal remotely delayed also opposes the bar on eligibility for emergency housing for 90 days for any applicant who caused their own loss of housing. I've worked with individuals and families over the years who are denied GA under this rule, and I think it's bad policy and creates particularly adverse effects for children and people with disabilities. I haven't had the experience of having a child look me in the eye and beg me to help this family because he didn't want to sleep outside again. And that child did nothing wrong. I met with a mom and a three month old baby who run a tent last summer after being denied under the COVID era version of this role. A baby needs to be able to take a bath and not be in a tent in the rain. This is an old fair hearing decision that supports the assertion that children have a right to GA, regardless of their parents alleged fault for losing their housing. In that case, the Human Services Board said, visiting the sins of the parents upon their children is a punitive result. HSB is position was that quote, there cannot be any more compelling societal interest and for homeless children to have safe and suitable temporary shelter. I agree. This is a disabled senior on insulin who gets evicted for smoking in their non smoking apartment. Under this proposal that person would be in a tent or in their car for 90 days, or until they end up in the hospital because they couldn't keep their insulin at the right temperature. I urge you to reject the 90 day bar on eligibility at the very least for families with children and for vulnerable adults. My guess is that such a change would make a very negligible difference in the overall program budget and capacity in the motels, and I'm happy to provide suggestions for language. Next, I'd like to touch on the need for permanent affordable housing that are working groups so heavily factored into our proposal. Other than for families with children and people with disabilities that significantly impair their activities of daily living time limits on provision of assistance are reinstated under the proposal the 84 days that we talked about. The 2020 data for coordinated entry it showed that it actually took 125 days in non COVID times to get permanent housing and the situation is even worse now. The thing is, when GA was created back in 1967, I think was designed as a short term benefit to address emergencies but things were so was a different world back then right. Even as a low wage worker or person on SSI it was probably a lot easier to get an apartment and we didn't have the incredibly low vacancy rates in the rental market that we have now. Even if we don't consider the affordability issue, there are simply not enough units to rent to meet the need that we confront. There was an article in VT digger just a few days ago that said that in December 2020 the vacancy rate in Chinden County was just 1.1%. I had my support staff do a run through of all the ads on Craigslist a couple of months ago in Chinden County, and even if you got a person in a GM hotel into every single one of those units. You'd only reduce the GM hotel population by 6%. That is mind blowing. A case manager in LaMoyle told me earlier this year there was not one single rental unit available in all of LaMoyle County that was under the fair market rents. Rental subsidies are useless if there's no place to go with them. They do appear on the private market. They tend to go really, really quickly and are most likely to get leased out to people who can pay right away even with a Venmo who don't need a landlord to do a bunch of special subsidy paperwork and you don't have negative or non-existent rental histories. Last Thursday in our working group, we reviewed statistics from the balance of state homelessness continuum of care, their coordinated entry needs assessment of homeless households, and the data was shocking, even for providers. I'll give you a little bit of a sample. So 26% of the people reported that they had never been named on a lease ever. 38% had been homeless before they were 25. 48% had chronic medical conditions that are disabling. 53% reported having been to the emergency room at least once in the last year. 22% they had absolutely no income whatsoever, earned or unearned for the last 12 months. It's true that some people in the motels are just low income, they need a subsidy and a whole lot of luck trying to get an apartment in this market. But from many of the people in the motels with limited or no rental history, little to no stable income, serious health issues, renting in the private market is going to be very, very, very hard. There's just too much competition for the limited number of units available. So outside of low barrier affordable housing providers, I just don't see a good exit strategy for the people that we have in the motels right now. Our working group, when we were looking at how long are people going to be able to stay was relying really heavily on our belief that we'd have those 600 new units of rapid permanent housing for the homeless, as outlined in the governor's proposal. And it's our understanding that the housing working group also supports that allocation of funding to develop those units. And I think they're offering testimony right now in house general. But here's the thing I do think that the Senate and some other legislators have raised pretty reasonable concerns about the proposal to use $90 million to create 600 units of permanently affordable housing restricted to people experiencing homelessness so I just want to go over a few of the things now. I'm not a housing developer. And I can't speak to exactly how many rental units you would get out of $90 million, but I just don't see the prospect of falling short of 600 units as a reason to hold back funding until 2022 or some later date. I don't want to see a single feasible proposal to create permanent housing for the people we have in motels turned down simply because we don't have the money. And as of yesterday, the Treasury had yet to release guidance detailing eligible uses for the coronavirus data and local recovery fund. So maybe the best policy is to do a mix of general fund and are I don't, I don't know. Either way, I just see an immediate need for that housing to be developed using whatever funding is available. Same thing for leveraging tax credits understand from the folks who know more about this stuff that leveraging tax credits can take longer when it comes to development. And again, I just see the need for immediate housing now whatever we need to do. I also understand concerns around creation of housing that segregates people with a history of homelessness. Again, right now we have a crisis, we're running out of time. We're going to lose this motel space and hundreds of people have nowhere to go. So I think it's essential to focus on rapid development of housing for people exiting GA. And I don't think that properties that house solely people exiting homelessness are doomed to failure. If you attach the right services and the right supports I think the tenants can be successful and the properties can be safe and over time they'll become more diverse. I do have concerns about service capacity. And I think, you know, we've seen gaps in services at the motels specifically for people with serious mental health issues or substance use disorder. So filling in those gaps is going to be really important. Households in the J motels need an exit strategy. I know my clients have been feeling really hopeless for an awfully long time and now they know that time is running out, and there's nowhere to go. So rapid development of housing for people experiencing homelessness is a critical and immediate need and can't delay need massive investment now. And finally, I offer a grim dose of reality. So let's talk about those those timelines right there are three dates that are weighing heavily upon me and I think they're weighing on the other service providers in the working group to that's June one. When the new eligibility rules kick in July one, when the current GA residents might start becoming ineligible in September 22nd, when a lot of the current residents 84 days of eligibility under the new rules are going to lapse. Okay, so June one. I have a client right now. We've got to notice to quit for no cause. Because our landlord wants to sell the property where she lives. She just can't find another place to go. She's got a low wage job she does work full time, but there are almost no vacancies. And she's scared to death she's not going to find a place come June one people like her for getting evicted for no cause or for sale of the property are going to qualify for nothing unless they meet one of the vulnerable criteria that we identified. And it's really hard to get a new home or keep your job when you're living in your car. Okay, fast forward to July one when the new eligibility rules kick in for current GA Motel residents. I've worked with youth who came out of foster care, who in spite of being able bodied enough to work had experienced so much trauma that they could barely look anyone in the eye, and so much anxiety that it's hard for them to be around other people. They don't have a documented disability, and they don't have a doctor, you can talk about their mental health challenges. And as of June one, and do worry that under our new program rules, kids like that are going to be terminated from GA, even if they have nowhere to go. And what's going to happen on September 22. Are all the people granted under the new vulnerable eligibility criteria. If they have yet to secure housing, they are going to be out of time. And if they have a real fear that with or without the $90 million of funding. We won't see 600 units ready for occupancy by September 22. Maybe we'll never see that many units with the current market conditions. And we'll see hundreds of people with disabilities, seniors, domestic violence survivors and pregnant women being exited from the motels with no permanent housing lined up. The proposal would give them some cash, the cash is in a home. So, pandemic or not, I wish housing would always be seen as necessary for health and basic human dignity, and then investments would be made accordingly, and that would have gone back for decades prior to now. And the rules would be designed with nothing more than public health and safety in mind. And as a legal aid attorney I see housing and shelter as a basic human right. And that's not what we have in the proposal because limited resources were out of motel space. And it's hard to sit with that because when you really get to know the people in the motels and when you really listen to their stories. It's really hard to place blame on them, or to turn your back on their predicament. And I can tell you that over the years, every time I work with someone who isn't able to access emergency housing or shelter and I tell them they aren't eligible under the law or that they were eligible but they're out of time and there's nothing within the law that I can do to help them. It really makes the soul die a little because these are our neighbors and they matter and their health and safety matter. So, I hope you will consider supporting the changes I suggested for you today, and to support investing in rapid housing development for people experiencing homelessness. Thank you. Thank you. And I hope that you will. I did not see previously your remarks submitted if you could submit it both to house health care as well as health human services we would appreciate that. Before I open it up to questions just a little clarification. In. Are you speaking solely for legal aid or are there. Okay, you're speaking solely for legal aid in terms of solely for legal aid. Yes, in terms of your, your newest. Any additional concerns or questions that you have about the proposal, because as it was presented, it seemed like the working group of which you were a member were except for the piece about 90 days were at one point thought this was okay. Steve and I am saying it's not a, I just needed to highlight, there are a number of assumptions that we relied on, and in the last few days, we're thinking, maybe we will overly relied on that. So I'm not saying pull the plug on it. I just need to add the things that the realities of where we're at now. And I, and in our conversations with our partners in the work group I will concur with Jesse, you know, like, there's palpable concern from our working group members regarding the lack of long term investment in line with the governor's proposal, and that that component as this plan was developed and that's really giving a lot of the members pause right now that they really do work together closely. And without that investment, they're really concerned about what happens next, as we are, as well. I guess my question, Commissioner to you and to you, Jessica was what was pointed out is that the lack of a better term the the right to housing is being removed and being that no longer. It sounds like no longer is that the ability, you know, to be housed based on money available used to be a responsibility of the state, and that's being removed. Is that what you were saying Jessica. I just wanted to pass on to the to the community and the state is taking saying it's now community your role. No, not exactly. So, in the GA statute, which is separate from that but they're still the same language, right, which says the department. I was just concerning to me, and I fully admit, had not as vigorously advocated for this before but it's come to bother me a lot and so I'm flagging now that in the budget item, there's language saying this isn't an entitlement, which I think is not accurate and it's not accurate in the budget language, at least last year wasn't in the budget language in that exact place that only applied to the community based providers, not to GA. So, I've got some language that I can. Thank you. If I may jump in here I think what Jessica is referring to is I think she strongly believes that Vermont should be a state that there's a fundamental right to housing. And I think the language he's referring to it in the GA statutes there's language there refers to that, you know, basically this service exists until the money runs out that it's not right. And so we're not changing that I think the language just recognizes what's been in statute all along. Good to hear that you're not changing it. We can just make sure that you have no intention to change it. It sounds like there may be some individuals who think the language proposed does change it. So maybe we'll look at different language. But I've stopped talking now. I want to open it up for questions for anyone from house health care and house human services. Representative China. Thanks Madam Chair. I've been listening and digesting all of this information and, and just thinking about, you know, how, how, what policy do these committees need to support moving out of the pandemic to make sure we take care of people. And I've heard talk about investing money in the development of new units of housing. And in the policy behind that investment, I guess my question is, is that as anyone thinking about how, you know, if we give the money to existing landowners to build more housing that the state is taking public money, and investing it in a way that allows people who already have wealth to accumulate more wealth while providing housing, which is a right should be a right for people. Has there any thought about ways that we might invest that money into forms of housing in which the residents can build equity like cooperative housing, for example, like I haven't heard that that specifically mentioned but it is a policy decision if, if, if we choose to make a policy decision that we're going to give money to developers to develop more property. Then we're basically saying that the money of the state is we're investing it into people who are accumulating wealth while providing a service for the state, but if, but we could be investing that money in a way that actually builds the wealth of the people to whom we're providing a service and we could, we could lift people out of poverty. And so I guess I'm just asking is there any this any, any, like to our witnesses there any has there any talk of this do you have any ideas about how we might do that, you know how we might use the money in ways like that. Exactly what you're the point you're making, there's another workgroup testifying as Jessica indicated right now before general housing military affairs and that was the workgroup tasked with developing those longer term permanent housing strategies that includes representatives from the state housing authority the mock conservation housing board in terms of in their processes that they go through to to, you know, request proposals for those type of projects and they encourage and I know they encourage creativity and I would encourage these committees if you'd want to hear more on their work that I'm sure those members would come in and testify as well because that's really their lane of work right now, representatives seen as they've been focusing I think on those exact areas who just raised. And I can just add in for the rapid permanent housing for the homeless and expediting affordable housing mixed income housing pipeline that was in the ARPA proposal from the administration. That would be money going to affordable housing developers so they're nonprofits who typically are charging below market rates for lower income folks and specifically for the rapid permanent housing for the homeless it would have to be someone who's homeless right now. There was some funding for the VHIP proposal in the ARPA budget, and that would be funding that would go to private landlords, but the last time I took a look at the bill language on that which is s 79. There were different streams for and I think, I might get this a little wrong. One of them was they were required to take so it's a private landlord, they're getting some money to rehab a unit. And they were required to take someone off of the coordinated entry list so that people experiencing homelessness and keep the unit affordable for, I believe, five years or there was another option of taking someone who was, I believe below 80% AMI, but they had to keep the unit affordable for 10 years. There was also in the ARPA proposal the home builder program, which was try to meet that missing middle to get to a home ownership. I think there are lots of other ideas to right, there's 85 vacant mobile home lots across the state. And so, maybe we could fill those up with mobile homes for people experiencing homelessness or other low income folks, just an idea. And thank you for the question. Clearly housing is something that impacts, not just sort of human services but also health care. Also, how do we fund it appropriations, and how do we ensure that it gets built and things like that, which is sort of house general and military affairs. The reason why we are right here are two committees are hearing the proposal that is in the budget for a reason, a reason is because of the intersection around these pieces. One of the things that you're that both of our committees are aware that there is going to be a small work group of two members from each of human services and health care and house general and military affairs and appropriations to look at the budget language, and we are focusing today on the proposal that is in the budget, not in other bills that house general and other committees are looking at. I was going to say representative Pippinger. Jeffrey, you're going to say something and then we have a question from represent Whitman. I'm just going to reiterate I think part of the point you were just talking about. I just wanted to remind folks that contextualizing what we're talking about here which is this specifically is a proposal around the GA Motel voucher program. Right, what does the program of last resort in the state look like for people experiencing homelessness and housing and security. That's a different but related question. Then, how do we end homelessness Vermont. The two are in a strict way linked, but you know this piece of it really is about how do we create a supportive program of last resort going forward that's also connected to these other pieces where as prior to and it was really isolated and disconnected from the system of care. And which is why there are two working groups which is also why throughout the pandemic we've been working with community partners as well as folks in the agency of commerce development to ensure that we're thinking about this in a more holistic way, but it's it's hard to kind of like bring it back down right to have these massive concerns because you know people who care about people right in the work that we do every day and also we're looking at a very finite slice in this moment in time. Thank you, thank you Jeffrey, and we have five minutes and we have two questions. So I say that both to the people who have questions, and to the people who are responding, because we have five minutes total representative Whitman, and then represent Barrows. Thank you Madam Chair and thank you to all of our witnesses for being here today. I just one concern that I wanted to flag Commissioner Brown mentioned that meal deliveries would end on July 1 and I just wanted to check if there is any process to ensure that households with children would continue to get summer meals delivered to their motels. There's a couple ongoing policy areas, Representative Whitman that our working group is going to focus on and that we have some takeaways to focus on. Jessica highlighted one of those, you know, a substance abuse and mental health supports as an ongoing area we continue to work on and I think the meals is the other and so we will work with, you know, our partners we're very connected with a we right now in the pandemic and the delivery of school meals and that work will continue, and that we coordinate that very closely with our education partners. And so we that that's going to be a focus of ours moving forward and we will connect with a we just to ensure how that program is going to look moving forward through the summer for these kids. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you, Chair Pew, and thank you to everyone who presented this morning. My question is for Commissioner Brown. In the very beginning of your presentation. You said that this was that this was a two phased plan, and then it seems like you only presented one phase is the second phase what the work group is going to be working on in November. Yes, that what the legislative language that came out of the house out of the house asked us to focus immediately on what 22 would look like, and then to continue to work and submit a proposal I believe on November 1 or sometime in November on what for 23 so that the legislature would have time to digest it for next session. And what what do you think will be entailed in that dialing back some of the plan for 22 or to be honest with you, I don't know because the work group hasn't started those conversations. I think that there's so many factors that could implicate that right now. One thing I would highlight for the committee is, you know, we're a lot this proposal, you know, and with the working group, you know, would lock us in for 22. And we wouldn't we wouldn't restrict conditions. If this would be what the program would look like in 22 with the one caveat that we are still, you know that we're at the mercy of the pandemic, and if there was a spike or something changed and we went back into a state of emergency. We would look to respond to that similar to we did at the beginning of the pandemic. But also I think what we'd want to look at is what units are coming online what additional capacities being built for permanent housing. How quickly is it coming online. We might not propose any changes. We might, as we did hear from you know this is a this program is going to look much different than the old program did pandemic in terms of length of eligibility for in categories for folks. I'll be honest with you as a commissioner. I always pre pandemic had some real concerns at some of the categories and and the limited service available and I feel much better. With these new categories and lengths of stay for particularly for families with kids and folks with a disability. I feel like we've made some improvements in the program. And so, I think, you know, we would take all of that information to the work group. And just as we did with this plan, we didn't go in with any, any, you know, we really work together really well in that process. I think came out with a product that overall everyone supported except for that one area that I think Jessica highlighted regarding the causing loss of housing this and so my hope is, is that we will bring another consensus plan for what 23 looks like to the committee. And I wouldn't venture a guess of what that will look like right now because there's so many factors. Is there I just very quickly as a, as a secondary indulgence to what degree have had does this plan take into account the moratorium on evictions. And it's and especially with this Supreme Court decision yesterday. I think that's one of the other factors that was, it wasn't a direct factor in the work of this work group and I would let Jessica jump in here too. But I think, you know, we're concerned about the end of that moratorium. But I would say for those who are at risk of eviction for nonpayment of rent there is a significant amount of financial resources available. And our work would be first to make sure that everyone who is facing eviction due to nonpayment of rent has access in this and we support them accessing those rental dollars to keep them in that permanent housing in their apartment because we don't want because of the, you know, the impact that losing your housing has on households. And so our goal is to make sure if we become aware of those households that we keep them in that housing and that some of the work our service providers will do with some of the dollars that were service dollars that we're providing in this plan. So we're giving a training at 11 today to service providers, talking about how are people losing housing during the eviction moratorium and V wrap is one of the things that I'm going to be talking about to use those funds to keep people in place. I did when I was giving my sort of stories of the people who are going to get left out. I did flag that I have a concern for the folks who are going to get no caused or evicted due to sale of property that's happening. So, so we're a little nervous about that if the people meet the eligibility criteria is for vulnerable, you know families with kids people with disabilities they'll be fine but there are going to be some folks where property sold and they just can't find something else. There's nothing. So thank you and we look forward to sort of seeing that in writing so we can digest some of the questions or concerns that you have so that each of us individually can sort of look at those and then at the same time, channel our questions or concerns to our respective work groups or chairs. So thank you for the closing, as it relates to homelessness and Jeffrey thank you for the way that you honed in on really what we are talking about here in terms of this proposal and representative Lippert do you want to just say anything before we wrap up for the morning. I really appreciate being able to have our full committee, as well as those representing our committee on the subgroup be able to hear and sharing this presentation it further illuminates the connections between the work of our two committees. So thank you. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you very much. I think we're going to take a pause and our respective committees will go back to our respective rooms and house human services I will see you back at 1045. That house healthcare will convene at 11.