 Welcome everybody. It is Tuesday morning. And this is the General Housing and Military Affairs Committee. And we are addressing two items on our agenda today. We're going to spend the first hour on H783, which is there are amendments that have been filed to the bill that we passed back in March, one from the Human Services Committee and then one from our committee from Representative Kalaki that just clarified some of the definitions in the bill. We had a conversation about these two issues on Friday. But we also received a document from an individual which has been posted on our Facebook page. And it was a document that and a person that I've interested in who's interested in recovery housing, who has actually been in contact with VTR. And so the items in his email tended towards processes within recovery residences. It didn't so much address what we're doing with the bill, which again, I wanted to thank Katie for taking us through the bill last week from a purely, there's several ways to look at the bill. One of which of course is why are we doing this bill, which is an important part of the conversation, but also a reminder that Katie made is that this is basically enabling and for this is enabling act. This allows recovery residences to be certified by a certifying organization. In this case, we've named VTR as the certifying organization, but they don't have to be. And they can adhere to law of the law and the underlying law in the statute. So for all different purposes, if they so choose, and they would only be choosing to join to be certified by VTR in order to receive the benefit that's offered in this bill, which is to basically say that there will be a statewide allowance in zoning to allow recovery residences to be in a residential neighborhood, same as group homes, basically using the same language and the same numbers. So with that, I wanted to reintroduce Jeff. And Jeff, I just wanted to be able to, again, it's been a while since we've seen the bill. We did get some information on it on Friday. But I think from your perspective, if you could just start by really discussing how you felt the bill has gone, what you felt the changes in the suggested changes in the amendments are, but then if you could focus a bit of your time on what that letter was addressing and how VTR has worked either with that person or how they intend to utilize not just the information, but have the discussion on how is that going to be shaped within how your certification process is developed. And I will, can you unmute yourself easily? Or shall I try? There you go. One more time. There you go. Great. Thank you. Jeff Moreau, Executive Director for the Vermont Alliance of Recovery Residences. Thank you to all of you for your continued work on this bill. The amendments that were proposed on Friday, I think all make perfect sense. I'm especially pleased that Representative Kalaki has addressed with all of you preliminary certification, because that really would have been an issue for new homes to get fully certified without having any clients, so to speak. So, the preliminary certification allows us to certify them based on a review of the policies and procedures that are in place and a site visit to ensure that the home is going to be safe. And then we come back in after that six months to provide the full certification and make sure that things are really going well. So, in terms of the amendments, I think we're headed down the right track in terms of Mr. Wolff's memo to you. I'd like to preface that I had the opportunity to meet him at the Recovery Coaching Academy, where both of us became certified recovery coaches. And I found Kyle to be a very knowledgeable and thoughtful person in the recovery sphere. And just recently, I'd say about a month ago, he and I had coffee and he shared all the good work that he's done and that he proposed to all of you. And I would say that there is so much that he has brought forward that we can learn from and that we agree with. The one thing I will say is having one prescriptive method for dealing with an individual that has a reoccurrence will be detrimental to the system. We certify homes based on four levels of service delivery. And so as we shared with you originally, that's everything from a completely peer run home with no staff to more of a level four, which is really clinical and has staff and maybe even provides medically assisted treatment. So you can see there is a wide variation in terms of resources that would be available to support the individual. So if we just took what Kyle brought forward, that wouldn't work in all circumstances. But I think what he has brought forward will really help us launch a conversation of how we create that safety net that I've talked to you all about of sobering centers. And really the crux of it is utilizing the public inebriate beds that are already existing across the state and not reinventing the wheel. And I think that's where Kyle is spot on. We've reached out to ADAP and we have representation on our board from ADAP as well to begin the conversation of how can we partner with ADAP and other providers across the state to get access to those public inebriate beds. Right now it's the funding silos and we're fairly confident that through this partnership we can break that down. And that will be a resource that these home operators will be able to utilize going forward. So the last thing I'll say is that everyone's path to recovery is very different and we really want to be mindful of that. That's one of the tenets that we believe strongly and so having one prescriptive approach isn't the best practice but having lots of options for people to explore. And Kyle's really opened that up for us, you know, having time to reflect in the public inebriate bed, having access to go back to residential treatment if that person desires that, having access to medically assisted treatment, having access to counseling and support, those are all the sorts of things that we want to try to wrap around an individual with and let he or she choose how they'll move forward from that reoccurrence. And so the amendments, one of the conversations that we had about the amendment that was passed by human services addressed the notion, the bill that we passed basically talked about the medical side of it and only the prescription side of it. But the human services definition I think made it more inclusive of the counseling, that's what we heard from Representative Noyes, is that an accurate way of, and is it more inclusive to you in order to get the definition right? Yes, I think that's spot on. And then Representative Kalaki's also, again you mentioned that at the beginning of your testimony about the 45 days allowing a home to be open for 45 days. I guess, well, we have a couple of questions. I'll go to Representative Triano first and then Representative Walz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thanks for coming in, Jeff. I'm really enthused or happy to hear that Kyle's message has been heard because it kind of reflected my concerns over the entire course of discussion in this bill is that we all know that relapse is part of recovery. So if we don't deal with that properly, then I think the bill would be flawed. But I have become more encouraged as we went on that these conversations are taking place at this understanding is generally accepted by new folks and most folks that we have spoken with. So, you know, I'm happy to hear that. What do you think the possibilities for these public inebriate beds, access to those, as it would suggest in this amendment? Do we think you think we're going to make some headway with that? I really do. We've been talking about this for over a year on the ground. And I'll give you an example. The community of St. John'sbury received a HRSA grant and I've gone to some of their meetings and the field service director in that region had already indicated that they've already done some work in this area and to be able to open up access to what is really underutilized. To be perfectly honest with you, I think as part of the process, though, we have to do an inventory of where the capacity is and then we need to figure out how we shore up the capacity where it's lacking. My understanding from the early work that we've done on this is that Chittenden County's public inebriate beds are pretty well utilized and there's not a lot of capacity there. And I think we'll find that in other parts of the state. But generally speaking, we do know that there is some access availability. So we want to take advantage of that and then where there isn't enough access, we want to find other avenues. So one of the things that's very exciting is in St. Albans, there has been great work done in collaboration with Samaritan House, otherwise known as Tim's House, to create a second shelter that will be low barrier for folks that are homeless or that have substance use disorder. And the facility that they've acquired is right, it's in the same building actually as Vermont Foundation of Recovery's Recovery Home. So in that instance, if someone did have a reoccurrence, they could literally go downstairs and take a couple days to think about what their next steps are. So that's one of the ways that we'll address any of the identified gaps. And frankly, it has to be a partnership between ADAP and VTAR and some of the other providers to really get this done across the state. Yeah, I would agree. Of course, through this emergency order, we have found that the Department of Corrections has been working on their furlough policy, which is also encouraging that in respect to somebody not being yanked out of a recovery house for relapse and thrown back in jail. So that's the other encouraging piece. I think it's coming together pretty well. And I'm optimistic that overall, this bill, this recovery housing is in our communities is really what we need. And it will go a long way to help those in need of recovery. So thanks very much, Jeff, Gus, and John. My pleasure. And everyone. Before I pass the microphone to Tommy to Representative Wallace, Jeff, ADAP stands for Alcohol Drug Abuse Programs, and it falls under the Department of Health. Kelly Docherty is the Deputy Commissioner of that program. And just as a reminder for us, VTAR is the Vermont Alliance for Recovery Residences, and we are the Vermont affiliate of the National Alliance. Okay, you may now go back to using the acronyms. Thank you. Representative Wallace. Thank you. I have a couple of questions, and you just touched on one of them. I was wondering about the availability of these public anibriot beds. Wow. I'll get that to come out right. Public anibriot beds. There we go. And I'm thinking there probably are regional differences in the availability. And I think you just touched on that. But is that going to be a real problem in some places or a shortage of these beds? I think there'll be opportunities to fill those gaps, but we are going to find shortages in different pockets of the state. Okay. Well, thank you. And the other question I have is I'm not really clear on the continuum of care. So we have a person in a VTAR type program who has a relapse, goes to a public anibriot bed. Do the services follow? I'm not clear on what the path is there. Sure. That's a good question. Most of the homes, and again, we certify based on four levels of certification. So it really depends on the type of home that folks are in. Most are certified under what we call level two, which has a part-time house manager. So there aren't a lot of services being provided by the recovery residents to that individual. Rather, they're being provided throughout the community. So if I'm living at a V4 home in St. Albans, I might be going to the turning point, which is literally almost across the street. I might be going to the Howard Center for Counseling or Northwestern Counseling and Support Services. I would be going to the medically assisted treatment clinic. So those services would still all be available to the individual. And the home operator would be checking in on the individual, making sure that they're accessing those services as best they can support that person. But it really, it is kind of that village approach helping the individual. It's not always coordinated completely through the recovery residents. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Absolutely. And one of the key points that's so important in all of this is personal choice. You know, an individual that has a reoccurrence, it may be severe enough that they really would benefit from going to residential treatment. On the other hand, it might have been, look, you know, I was in the wrong environment. I allowed myself to be tempted and I used and I'm ready to get back on track. And then everything in between that. So all those circumstances and then all the individual choices that go along with that play into what the next step is for them individual. Okay. Representative Kilecki. Thank you. And thank you, Jeff. I think the one concern from a lot of people I still am hearing about is we've laid out the written agreement between the landlord and the resident and then there's also the procedures are laid out for temporary removal. But I think there's a concern that people are just going to be tossed out of on their own. And so can you address that concern from your perspective as a certified agency? Sure. I think that's a that's an excellent grounding to this conversation that perhaps I neglected to start with. If you remember what we talked about very early on and you folks did a nice job of crafting the language within the bill to support this. If Representative Kilecki is running a home and I enter that home, he's going to ask what my plan is if I have a rare occurrence and I would identify that hypothetically I would go to grandma's house. You folks added language that you wouldn't just take my word for that that John would have to call grandma and say Jeff's identified your home is a safe place for him to go if he has a reoccurrence. Are you okay with that? And that has to be documented. If I'm under supervision of probation and parole, you've also put into the bill that you will document who my probation and parole officer is. So if I have a reoccurrence, the bill now says that the operator will bring out that document and sit with the individual and say you've identified that you're going to grandma's house. Let's help you facilitate that. We're going to contact your probation and parole officer so that he or she's made aware so that you're not losing your residency and that hopefully all works out beautifully. What we've talked about is the opposite end of the spectrum today with the public inebriate beds. Grandma's now upset with me and said to John, no, I'm not having him. He's not coming here. I have no other options. So this notion of a sobering center using the public inebriate beds or a low barrier homeless shelter would allow me to go to that space. And that's really what Mr. Wolf is really encouraging with his language and why we're so excited about what he's brought forward because it really does give us that safety net that we want to develop that people are rightfully concerned about. Not everybody is going to have a safe option to go to. So that was the next step in this legislation is once we had this to build a safety net across the state for folks that might fall through the cracks. Can I answer that? Okay. Yes, thank you. Representative Byron. Thank you. I guess my question is sort of what is there a scenario you mentioned before that there could be in theory a potential shortage to the inebriate beds? What is this? What's the backup plan to the backup plan, I guess? Sure. Well, it really is doing an inventory of the low barrier homeless shelters and where there might be access there. So in Burlington, we know the access to the public inebriate beds is going to be problematic from just anecdotally what we're hearing in terms of utilization. But a new place, an organization that's a nonprofit in Burlington is doing amazing work. They would be an ideal place for an individual to go. And they are actually expanding their services beyond their traditional settings. So that is one avenue that we would be exploring. I think really what we want to have at the end of the day is all the options that are available and feed those into a help link, which is the health department and ADAPS new 800 number that people can call when they need help with recovery services. So really what help link wants to have eventually is almost like a bed board that you'd see in a hospital that shows what is the capacity for treatment centers? What is the capacity for recovery residences? What is the capacity for public inebriate beds? So that if an operator calls and says, I have Jeff with us and he needs some help, what's available on the state? They're hoping to really fill that eventually. I'd be lying to you if I said, oh, pass this bill and next week will be good. We've got some work to do, but there really is a commitment on VTAR as well as ADAP and other providers to get to that vision that I'm sharing with you. Okay. So basically like expanding capacity is what you're saying? Right. And there is federal funding through the block grant that comes through that could be used to fill the gaps. I think like Vermonters do, we don't want to create a whole new program of sobering centers across the state. We want to utilize what we already have. And that's where the public inebriate beds and the mental health crisis beds and the low barrier shelters really make a lot of sense. And then we just need to fill the gaps with that. And it's just going to take some time to get a good inventory of that and have it embedded into this new help link process. But everybody's committed to working on that. And I can honestly say to you so much better than what we've had over the years. We had no certification. We had no oversight of these homes and everybody just did the best they could. And I think we've taken a big step forward. Thank you. Representative Tran. Yes. I just wanted to mention that when we had the Department of Corrections in to testify on this bill, they were very clear at least that the probation officer would respond quickly. And that could be a resource for transportation for a bed that is available outside. Now, do they work on catchment areas, Jeff, or these public inebriate beds? They work in a catchment area or are they available to someone who is in South Royalton to go to St. John'sbury and get a bed? Is that the way it works? I'm not 100 percent certain in terms of the geography if they would allow someone to access from another area. I would assume they do, but I don't know the answer to that for sure. Okay. I mean, one thing that we always hear in a lot of the human service elements is transportation. And that's, you know, that is a great resource for us to build a tap into. I know a lot of the home operators, they will bring someone to treatment if that person just doesn't have a ride. And I know recently, John Casaris from Valley Vista has said they'll come get the individuals. They've got some new resources to be able to do that. So we're making improvements there as well. Good. Okay. Thank you. All right. Representative Hengel. Good morning, Jeff. I just wanted to ask a quick question about help link because I did publish that. And I want to make sure it is available for individuals, but also for treatment counselors and other folks who are in the helping professions. Absolutely. They're developing a lot of materials too. So if you need access to that, right on their website, you can request materials to share with professionals. So if there's a conference or you have a great relationship with the education system, educators should have access to that information as well. So it's for the entire state to be able to access. And, you know, like anything that's new, I know that they're learning as they go and they're improving and they're updating information. And that's just how information referral works. I was one of the founders of Vermont 211. And we all know that hasn't been perfect. It continues to evolve. But I think it's going to be really a wonderful resource for people. And one of the things that we often forget about with these types of systems is, sure, it provides information and referral. That's great. That's what it's there for. But one of the side benefits is it also provides all of us with real-time data. So to represent Byron's question of, what about that gap? Well, we'll be able to have real-time data of people that are calling in and not finding a place to access in Morrisville, hypothetically. And then we can take that information to decision makers and funders and say, look, this is the real-time need that we have. It's not just hearsay and anecdote. It's actually people that felt through the cracks that didn't have a resource. So we need to lean on that system for that information as well. Thank you. So, Jeff, two quick questions for me. First of all, how long is an average stay? Do you have that if someone is released? Well, it could be released from the DOC custody. But if I were at a place in my life where I needed to go and I applied to recovery residence, what would be the expected time from the recovery residence perspective? Like, what's the timeframe? I mean, I know my individual recovery would be an important part of that. But again, this is a reminder to me that recovery residence is about living in a place while you're establishing your recovery in a way that will eventually allow me to step up. We heard a lot about step-up apartments that may be offered through some. But this is a process that allows me time to get more secure in my recovery. And we know recovery can have its issues, as we've discussed. You're not successful always the first time through. But if I were successful in a recovery residence, what would it look like from a timeframe? Sure. You've asked a few questions there. So I'll hit it a couple of different ways. The most operators, and again, this varies, but most operators ask for a 30-day commitment as the minimum. So people can expect to stay at least for 30 days. I would say, you know, to give you a rough range of average, I think six months is a good solid experience for a lot of folks. And then the longer range would be around two years. And what that might look like is an individual that came in and lived in the recovery residence for six months to a year, and then moved into a transitional apartment that is affiliated with the recovery residence and lived in that maybe had a roommate or discovered one. And then the two of them go out on their own and get their own apartment. So that's kind of the ideal. When you insert the corrections element to this, it tends to be a longer commitment as part of their opportunity. That will tend to be more of the six months to at least a year that they're in one of those types of programs like Dismiss House or the Restorative Justice Center's program in St. Alvin's. Okay. And last question, I think for me for today is, I mean, I feel like I would be remiss if I didn't ask, given the concentration that we've paid over the last several months about congregate housing, what are the issues that you've seen or how are you addressing social distancing and isolation in the recovery residences that you're aware of? Well, knock on wood. We haven't had any positive cases that I'm aware of of COVID-19 and any of the recovery residences that we've been working with throughout the state. So we're happy about that. What we've tried to do from VITAR's perspective is just provide a lot of education. So from the CDC, the health department, of all the precautions for folks to take. I was actually on the phone this morning trying to get more PPE for our certified homes to be able to have access to. So we've really just focused on education for the homes. I do know that one home, they didn't have a positive case, but they were concerned. So they did isolate one individual and asked that he stay in his room primarily. And they really kind of wrapped around that particular individual until they were sure that he was okay to protect everybody else. So we haven't had anyone have to be removed or any of those sorts of things related to COVID-19, which is certainly a blessing. The other thing that we've done that I'm just really proud of, our board at one of our meetings a couple weeks ago said, you know, how can we help the individual? This is such an uncertain time and we want to send a message to the individual living in these recovery homes that someone cares about them. And, you know, they get a lot of caring and attention from the operator of the home, but someone out in the community. So what we did is for all our certified homes, we bought gift cards to local grocery stores. And it wasn't based on need or anything. It was like, here's a gift card for every single resident in your home for them to go out and get groceries. And we got the nicest notes from folks. And it just made us feel really good to be able to do that as a system. Representative Kolecki. Yes, Jeff, how many homes are you working with that you've certified? And how many individuals is that? It's an interesting thing about the COVID relationship. And I just like to understand the scale. Sure. We have eight homes that are currently officially certified. And then we have another 14 or so that we're working with that want to get certified. Of the eight homes we bought, we bought 50, $20 gift cards. So we invested a thousand dollars. But how many people are living in these eight homes? 50 people. It's about 50, yeah. Okay. Thank you. There were a couple empty beds at the time. So, but we just bought the cards regardless because they'll be coming in eventually. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any further questions right now for Jeff? What we have in front of us is two amendments. We passed 783 out of our committee again prior to crossover or what would have been crossover. And so we have two amendments in front of us. We have the human service amendment. And then we have one that was being presented by Representative Kolecki. We would need to vote on those one at a time. And so, and if anybody needs, does anybody need a reminder of what those amendments are? The human service amendment was to, as we discussed a little bit earlier, our bill basically defined MAT as the prescription drug portion of MAT and the human services amendment expanded that simply by taking out some language and said that it's actually, John, I'm going to actually ask you to describe what the two amendments are because you studied them a little bit more deeply than I am. And I don't want to get that wrong. You can unmute. I can't hear you. Yeah, I'm sorry. It was me. Katie, I wonder if you're here with us on this call. I am. Okay. So I think it'd be the four instances of amendment from human services. Could you just remind us of those? Sure. So I'm in the first instance of amendment for the human services amendment and part of the definition of recovery residents. There's a subdivision A and they deleted a clause at the very end of that subdivision A which read available to persons recovering from substance disorder. And that was referencing assistance, accessing support services and community supports. And that language was sort of duplicative with the lead in language. So that language is gone. The second and third instances of amendment make the same change. And that is the version of the bill, the report of your committee discussed MAT and specifically referenced the medication portion of MAT. Whereas definition and statute kind of takes the medication portion of MAT and counseling together as kind of one entity. And that is how MAT is defined, those two components. So what human services does is reference that definition and take both components of MAT when it's referenced. And then the fourth instance of amendment for human services was just a technical correction. Right now the report that is coming in with regard to furlough is going to a number of committees. The underlying bill said the Senate Committee on Economic Development and this clarifies that the full committee title is Senate Committee on Economic Development and Housing and General Affairs. And that's it for the Human Services Amendment. All right, committee. So what's our pleasure? I would entertain a motion on accepting, finding the Human Services Amendment as favorable. So moved. Is that, Katie, is there a draft number on that? Yes, it's 2.2. 2.2. So I'll move that the Committee on General Housing and Military Affairs accept the amendment as proposed by the Human Services Committee draft 2.1. 2.2. Thank you. Second. Representative Wallace, second is that any further conversation? Seeing Representative Zahn. I just need a process clarification. I'm all screwed up. We're voting on these amendments and is that the end of it or are we voting on these amendments and then once again voting on the bill again as amended? We are simply voting on the amendments. I mean we voted to support 783 back in March and so we're finding these amendments favorable to the work that we did. But we won't be re-voting on the bill as a whole? No. Okay. All right. Further questions or comments? Again, I know they're not here in person but in absentia I'd like to thank the Human Services Committee for hearing the bill. I mean simply having both Katie and David Hall as our attorneys on this bill representing the split between the issues that are raised by what a recovery residence is from a medical perspective or from a human service perspective and then of course on our end from a building perspective landlord tenant perspective was a very interesting mix and I appreciate the work that the attorneys have done on this on working together but certainly in the human services on weighing in and helping us craft the definitions in a better way in a more inclusive way. So thank you to them. Seeing no further hands up the clerk may commence to call the roll if she wants to take us take her off herself off of mute. Mary are you you're still muted Mary? There we go. Okay. Okay. Okay. Representative Walls? Yes. Representative Gonzalez? Representative Long? Representative Gamash? Yes. Representative Triano? Yes. Representative Howard votes yes. Representative Kalaki? Yes. Representative Zot? I certify I'm Representative Zot and I vote yes. Representative Byron? Yes. Representative Hango? Yes. Representative Stevens? Yes. Representative Gonzalez? Representative Long? Representative Gonzalez is not feeling well today and so she's not here. Oh okay. And then Representative Long was here but she had to duck out for another meeting. Okay so that's 9-0-2. Okay. Second amendment is from Representative Kalaki. Katie can you give us a quick synopsis of what that amendment does? Sure. The first instance of amendment also amends the definition of recovery residence but in the subdivision B instead of A the language as it left the committee doesn't reference preliminary certification and this new language does a recovery residence that is obtaining its preliminary certification to be deemed a recovery residence under the definition. So that's the first instance of amendment and second there's an update in language that would allow a resident who has been temporarily denied access to either have their property returned to him or her or to ensure it's safekeeping at the recovery residence. And that's it. All right. Any questions on this being none? Oh wait a minute Representative Kamash? I just have a quick question. Sure. Regarding the retaining the property and ensuring safekeeping is there a time limit on that? I'm just wondering if someone doesn't return for whatever reason or and does not make an arrangement to pick up personal belongings or such. How would that be handled? I think I totally understand keeping personal things. Yes, absolutely. And then I guess you know there's the assumption that the person would return unless there's some. Well this is for this is for temporary this would be for those days you know with the temporary removal which is your first right but temporary could turn into permanent. So I will ask Jeff if you can if you can unmute and just give us an answer to how this might work how what happens when an individual is put into a temporary removal and then might transition for either personal choices or for or for another breaking of the rules issue. If you could address that for Representative Kamash I'd appreciate it. Certainly. Can you hear me okay? Yes. Yes. Great. Most often the home has language and if this passes in the bill will ensure that they do in the membership agreement how long they will hold the personal belongings if the person leaves and usually it's 30 days. I think the nice thing about this amendment is it really gives strong clarity that if the person leaves that the operator not just drove the belonging out on the corner and it does give them access to it but I think Representative Kamash's inquiry is really an excellent one that can be handled through the participant agreement and most of the homes that we've certified do have that language in there. Okay thank you. All right further questions? Seeing none I would entertain a motion to accept or to accept Representative Kalaki's amendment as friendly. I move to accept the amendment as friendly. Okay and that a Katie what version is that? Is that a 1.1? 2.1. All right so Representative Kamash has moved that we accept Representative Kalaki's version of the amendment 2.1. I'll second it. And Representative Trinna further discussion Representative Trinna? Please I just wanted to it's just a comment that this was a concern that I think we addressed properly. I think it was Steven Whitaker that brought it up that oftentimes I know in my dealings with folks in corrections and people that are taken to jail suddenly lose their belongings and to restart that is really difficult so I think that this is a really important piece of this bill that individuals who are participating in these programs are not concerned about losing their belongings if they are removed from the house. I think that's a wise idea and I think it's a credit to the recovery house recovery houses and the recovery house bill so thank you. Thank you. All right. Seeing no further discussion or hands raised Representative Howard you make comments to call the roll. Representative Walz? Yes. Representative Gonzalez is out. Representative Long is out. Representative Kamash? Yes. Representative Triano? Yes. Representative Howard votes yes. Representative Kalaki? Yes. Representative Zott? I certify I'm Representative Zott and I vote yes. Representative Byron? Yes. Representative Hango? Yes. Representative Stevens? Yes. 902. All right. Thank you everybody. So these amendments Ron will be brought down to the clerk's office or sent to the clerk's office you will then also certify you'll send a sheet to Mary Representative Howard. Yes. Do I send the amendments down or do you to the clerk's office? I suppose I thought the committee amendment would come from the chair of human services and that Representative Kalaki would have to send his. Representative Pew would send hers even though this committee voted on it. Yes because you are just voting that you what the committee if the committee finds it favorable it's not the work of the committee. Okay so how does the vote get transferred I know how it happens normally but how does the vote get transferred to the clerk's office? Yeah I'm not sure. All right we'll send Bill the information and he'll catch up to it all. Okay. I think Representative Pew did already send to the clerk's office their amendment and then it came back to us it's my understanding. So we'll get this yeah we'll get this straightened out I mean I think the most important the first important piece will be for Ron to come send the vote sheets to Mary so she can certify them. We'll make sure that Representative if it's if it's Representative Kalaki's responsibility which I think it is because I mean this I mean this is just imagine any other normal day if you needed to get an amendment done for something you would go see the attorney and you would work with the attorney and it would be under your name and I think that's what we did here as Representative Kalaki's amendment so that we'll make sure Representative Kalaki can check to the clerk's office to find out that it's been filed properly. It's unlikely that we'll see this bill on this week on the floor so that gives us some time to figure it out because with the earliest we'll get it to the clerk's office sometime this afternoon and then it'll be unnoticed for tomorrow with the very you know so the very earliest we can deal with it on Friday is Friday but I think we're I think the way they're stacking up the bills and we're only on the floor for a short amount of time on Friday or scheduled to be on the floor for a short amount of time on Friday so I'm not sure that this would appear but again we will get that cleared up by the end of the day today and find out when that when that's going on I think this is a bill that definitely needs the this is a bill that definitely needs some caucus time some explanations in the whole all-house caucus to to give everybody the opportunity to hear it before it goes on the floor. I think we saw an example last week of where the tree warden bill in particular had not been given a hearing in a caucus and so people were just naturally curious about it which extended the testimony on it probably longer than that may have happened if we had had it in all-house caucus on it prior to the floor and certainly the recovery residence bill is complex enough that it's going to need some some education to the whole caucus before we get on the floor but we'll keep it we'll keep track of that so thank you Jeff um for coming in thank you very much everyone who's on who's who's listening to web radio oh no it's my cell phone all right i'm gonna mute you then um so um thank you katie yes thank you katie um so we are now explicated i think you you may go have lunch thank you for your help today so we have for the second hour today we're going to go back to the housing situation we have go see like back with us this morning this afternoon now and i just wanted to continue this conversation this is this is um you know this remains an important part of of our work of understanding what we can do um what we're able to do and how we're going to be able to do it it is so complicated with with respect to the cares act money and um i know that Gus uh as a representative from vhcb has been conversation in a testimony in other committees specifically over in the senate no human services here in the house with various facets of the conversation that we've been having as well and i just wanted to come in and first get a get an update not only of those conversations Gus but also of course of what you've learned over the last few days about what we can do with the cares act money what's what's been clarified perhaps what remains murky and then and then um you know again the news we heard from ahs sort of was uh their their input is going to be probably more geared towards the short-term solutions what's the next step from from when we need to move people out of motels um if and when we need to move people out of motels which i think is clear to everybody that that's the next step um but also what are the medium and long-term solutions that you've been hearing about i think because i think we're going to need to take a real probably a little bit more energized stance on on you know just investigating at the very least what are the options in front of us so the microphone is yours uh mr chairman thank you very much so for the record i'm Gus Selig and the director for the Vermont housing and conservation board and just i know i've been before you before in the past um but just to separate us us out a little bit from the alphabet soup of housing organization that you deal with the board is the one entity through which state funds are generally appropriated for the capital side of developing and rehabilitating housing um most recently we um with your support um endeavored with to develop a housing revenue bond that is now fully turned out to be 37 million dollars uh now fully committed and will produce 843 um homes or apartments all over the state over time we've been involved in 13,000 homes in most communities in the state um you know us usually best by investment in cornerstone buildings like the old waterbury seminary in the chairs district downtown buildings and hardwick so on and so forth we've uh in south burlington and other communities on new neighborhoods where that's been the need over the years we've worked with most of the homeless shelter providers in the state some so long ago that they don't know that we provided capital grants to them we also provide support through our americorps program there are usually five to seven americorps members that are assigned each year to those organizations that serve the homeless um as a matter of background um five or six years ago an executive order was issued that asked that anybody who's getting public support um set aside 15 percent of their homes for either homeless vermoners or people who are at great risk of homelessness um i'm pleased to tell you that that um that challenge has been met and exceeded about 17 percent of the provider of the housing that we have supported mental housing that we've supported is now occupied by people who are in that situation across the state uh and that's close to a thousand units of of of the rental housing that we've supported um i was in the human services committee as the chair indicated last week um and testifying along with me was jeffrey pippinger from the agency of human services and what he told them at that moment was that uh that week 2000 vermoners were in motels um as a result of the loosening of rules and support through the ga program and the the absolutely dire need to get people out of shelters that would have been unsafe because people just could not in a covered environment be sleeping that close together there weren't separate bathrooms necessarily for folks and so on and so forth and ahs has just done a tremendous job i think responding to that immediate crisis but 2000 vermoners i is is an awful lot uh what mr pippinger said at that time uh that really struck me was that this was in essence an inflection moment for the state and a time to reimagine how we might deliver emergency housing services to people and how we could do better and that certainly is the work that i've been about and working on for quite a while and more intensively with our partners in recent weeks my colleague at the board gen holler worked with across agencies with our friends at ahs and that hfa and the housing authority on a project that we've reported to you on a few years ago called a roadmap to end homelessness we brought a national consultant in and in recent weeks that's really been a kind of cornerstone document of people as people have talked about what are the medium long term solutions to the problem of homelessness i think about three years ago this committee heard from dr megan sandal of the children's health watch in boston and her testimony struck me at two levels the first was that she argued very strenuously and with data to you that housing is a social determinant of health and that health costs and mental health costs go up dramatically when people don't have housing i think that's been borne out in any number of ways we understand the struggles kids have being educated when they don't have secure housing if you think about being a diabetic and not having a place to refrigerate your medication your health can't be as good as it would be the other key thing that she said and she showed you a chart um was she looked at what we spent in the united states on health care and what we spent on other supports and safety net programs including housing and then compared that with lots of other western countries in the world and not surprisingly we spend a huge amount much more on health care and much less on support services and and and housing um to support vulnerable people and i think her the fundamentals of her argument is that there are cost savings to be had if we invest more in housing and services um the fundamentals of the roadmap and any roadmap on this issue is we have some parts of the state where we have an inadequate supply of housing and you can give somebody a voucher and they may not be able to find a landlord who would accept it and if we don't expand supply and this was a big part of our work with a housing revenue bond um you will not house those folks successfully there are a whole host of romaners who um and especially in light of unemployment that we're now faced with uh simply need subsidy to get by and then there are other romaners who really need services some of a lighter nature and some of a clinical nature um so not everybody needs all three of those things but we need all three of those elements in a plan uh to be effective over the long term um and i can tell you that we've been talking and you saw a proposal from cht and housing from on a few weeks ago um we've been talking with the providers we work with on a regular basis about the elements of such a plan and i've been in close touch uh with more collins my colleague at vhfa and richard williams at the vermont state housing authority about a comprehensive what a comprehensive plan might look like i think richard testified last week or the week before i'm not sure in which committee that if we wanted to produce provide vouchers for a thousand romaners it would cost 12 million dollars annually um uh services are not my area of expertise again my colleague mark collins who's also chairs the is at vhfa and shares the pathway board uh is more expert than i am but we've had a lot of input from the agency of human services and depending on the clinical needs of whether somebody needs clinicians help or needs other kinds of wraparound services we can ballpark costs based on 15 caseloads of between 30 folks um we clearly also need some an infusion of some dollars if some of these facilities around the state that have provided shelter are going to be reoccupied to improve them you've heard from pathways vermont that they could house another 200 vermonters in existing housing so i think the elements are are in front of us and we'd be happy to work with you in giving you um a comprehensive long-term plan in recent days we've heard from a number of your colleagues including appropriators um about what can we do urgently with the corona virus the corona virus relief fund um we have looked at data that the agency of human services has given us about where we have the largest numbers of homeless vermonters in various in their regions across the state where there are the most families with kids who are homeless we have been in close contact both with nonprofit housing developers and would and they were their service providers about what the opportunities are in the short term to make a dent in this and the short term meaning that as we understand the guidance from the corona virus relief fund funding needs to be spent by december 30th and spent means more than we write a check it means that the work is done we think we've identified five to nine opportunities all over the state of various types again in these high area high need regions that could likely produce 200 new units of again of various types some might be micro apartments um some are apartments that need rehab and can be rehabbed relatively quickly the catch to this is we can do this work make some deals happen by the end of the year if we can also establish a rental assistance reserve and a services reserve it is not unusual when we close the housing deal um that a part of their budget is a capital needs reserve an operating reserve it is unclear whether or not a reserve for rental assistance and this is allowed under other federal programs uh like the national housing trust fund could be established um as part of a as part of the closing of a real estate deal um so that's what we're up against the thing that I would say to you today is that if we are to try to tackle that uh to add 200 units to our supply in those regions that where we need the housing the most and might continue to be a pivot point uh in the future as those folks get integrated into other settings and be much safer than the current shelter system we urgently need a signal that you want us to do that um it takes time to to negotiate real estate deals it takes more time in a remote environment to get those deals closed the projects we're looking at would all need many of them would need at least light rehab not the kind of substantial rehab you usually see us undertake um and the clock is ticking so the quicker you can get policy makers yourselves the appropriators and others to say yeah we'd like to have some long-term impact with the coronavirus relief fund uh the quicker we we can get to work and secure some of these potential facilities around the state so I'm happy to answer questions um I'm happy to go to work with Mora and Richard and others in developing a more comprehensive plan that will have a much higher price tag and take a lot of mapping of where can the resources come from as I said that the rental assistance for a thousand folks Richard tells us is you know each person costs about eight thousand dollars a year uh so it's at twelve million dollars to provide rental assistance for a thousand remoders we do expect that the administration will come forward with a short-term rental assistance program and a rent a rearage program um there's been a lot of discussion about that that's very important they'll probably come forward also with some form of a mod they've been discussing a modest rehab program as well um clearly we need to do whatever we can to make sure that as people have lost income lost jobs that they don't fall into homelessness and make the problem we have today worse um but I would say to you that um it makes both fiscal sense from my perspective because of the savings we'll ultimately accrue in our healthcare system our correction system our mental health system to invest in some some of these funds in some permanent solutions so I I'll stop there and and answer your questions that's just quickly the 200 units that you're talking about for this for this immediate situation would house approximately did you guesstimate on how many people this would this would affect or is it all dependent on whether it's a single family a single person household versus a family um well I know that you know for instance we have identified some apartments in Bennington that can quickly be renovated and another facility that is waiting for grants that wouldn't necessarily be announced until the end of the year that would all be for families so for those 30 households it would be at least 60 people and I think in the rest of the state you know there would be some families housed we opened a facility called Great River Terrace which mostly has single adults in Brattleboro in it uh but there are at least uh three parents with a child living in those micro apartments so it would it would be more than 200 I just can't tell you today whether it would be 300 or 250 or or exactly what the number would be I think we it's clearly in everybody's interest to focus as much as possible on getting kids and their families out of a situation of homelessness because the long-term costs and implications are the trauma that that induces in a family is just can be the data says it's very hard to overcome so that would clearly be a big focus of ours but I think we also want to work on individuals who have significant needs that you've all heard end up in the emergency rooms in our state hospital and you know I understand the hospitals are significantly those ERs are much quieter day and I think part of the reason is people are currently being housed so I do think their savings to be achieved and we have a handful of questions here I'll start with representative triano and then representative Hango thanks gus for coming in it's always good to see you a couple of questions one is I guess pathways that we were told by that pathways 200 beds would cost about three million dollars is that your recollection as well I didn't hear the testimony but that's how it was reported to me and I believe that's not that's an ongoing cost you know so what I've been focused on with the coronavirus relief fund is what can we do and incur those costs by December 30th okay the other pieces that we had spoken some about overlapping services that we have heard from plans from three or four different agencies and organizations and it did appear to be some overlap the services have you has that been looked into a little bit more gus as to well would be responsible what what I can tell you is that the way we are working and I I preface this by saying I'm not the services expert by any means I long ago I worked in community action but but that was 30 years ago what we have done for instance with our Brattleboro example and we have another project in development in Rutland at a former school that's been vacant for some time is we get the housing providers and other partners together sometimes it's the in the case of Great River Terrace it's a partnership between the mental health agency and ground the ground works collaborative so the housing entity does the capital end of it manages the property but there are they have contracts with the service providers to actually provide services to the residents and I think in every community it ends up being a what the mix of services is is a little different and in some cases you're working with groups that are focused on battered women so there isn't like one singular model but we certainly don't want overlap and we want coordination all right representative Hango thank you I have a few questions I just want to reiterate that you said that you've identified 200 units statewide that need some kind of light rehab that could be ready by the end of December did I miss a dollar figure that went along with that or no you didn't miss it because I didn't put it in front of you so it's a great question to ask we think that the acquisition and rehab is in the 21 22 million dollar range we think the the rental assistance is another seven to eight million the services is another two to three million dollars if we can capitalize those up front or if we can identify ways that though they can be met through existing services okay thank you and that leads me to the rental assistance and the support services you did not believe could be covered by the corona relief fund correct what I said is that from my perspective it's a gray area which is to say the argument I would make to you and to anybody is it is not unusual when we do any kind of housing deal you know we've just done a couple in Franklin County up in St. Albans that when we when the project closes there are reserve funds that are part of the project sometimes it's a reserve to make future capital improvements sometimes it's a reserve to cover an operating loss so I would say to you it is not unusual in in the affordable housing world to capitalize a reserve and what we don't know is whether the feds will accept the capitalization of such reserves up front as a legitimate cost for the corona virus relief fund so I'm not if you read it as conservatively as some people might you'd say that's awful off the tracks what I can tell you was two weeks ago the guidance that Mr. Steve Klein your joint fiscal officer got was you can't invest this in capital and then last Thursday I got an email from him late in the evening that said capital for to serve the homeless is now on the list so I think that it is possible we could get to yes on this but it will take your support and probably input from our congressional delegation to get the kind of clarity that I know everybody would be more comfortable with so thank you for that so by capital you mean that 21 to 22 million dollars that's identified you don't mean to say the additional 10 million for rental assistance and support services being built in into a reserve and counting on the corona virus relief fund to fund that as well what I'm saying is that we it appears quite clear that the money for acquisition and any rehab that can be done by December 30th clearly qualifies the capitalization of reserves for services and rental assistance is a gray area okay in my mind okay that's what I thought I just want to clarify that so I also have a question and how did you identify these 200 units that are vacant and ready to be rehabbed well in it's a variety of different ways and I actually my staff has been working on this so I can't tell you each one in some cases people are talking to brokers in one case there's a hundred unit development in Bennington known as Applegate Apartments and I happen to know there are 20 vacancies there and talk to the owner about what it would take to get them ready for use there's another facility in Bennington that we helped an entity buy and it's they're hoping to get a grant from the federal home loan bank but that won't be announced until the end of the year if we could use the coronavirus relief fund to get that work underway now it could be operable so there's a variety of different kinds of properties that people are looking at all over the state and that's being done by our community partners not by us I'm not my staff's not out looking for these properties it's really local people on the ground your constituents who serve these populations on a regular basis trying to assess what you know real estate is always opportunity what are the opportunities right now what's what's for sale on the market and they've been having those discussions at the community level okay so it's properties for sale it's not necessarily vacant rental properties that are not up for sale um in the case of Applegate Apartments it is uh that's an existing property that 80 families are in right now and there are 20 vacancies so as I said it's a mix around the state but in some cases yes it is properties that are for sale and by around the state do you truly mean all corners of the state or just focused in the larger municipalities like St. Albans, Burlington, Brattleboro, Bennington, St. Johnsbury um we have been focused based on the data that AHS gave us on Northwestern Vermont, the Upper Valley, Brattleboro and Bennington they would follow that by saying we'd love more facilities in Central Vermont and Rutland we if we give a signal to people that the legislature and the governor want to spend some money on this we may well get some proposals from other parts of the state as well but we don't have them today okay and my last question has to do with location so what what do you do if you have a congregation of vacant properties or available units let's call them in municipalities but your homeless people live in rural areas how how do you reconcile that well I don't easily reconcile that and I you know there is going to be more than one solution to this problem to this problem and certainly that's why a rental assistance program and the approach that a group like Pathways takes is so important um what I can tell you is the reason that I've named those parts of the state is because when we sat with our partners at the agency of human services they gave us the data on where is where are the greatest needs in the state um so um you know and I do think people will do better in the long term and this isn't everybody will be an exception to every rule if they can be someplace where there is public transit if they can be someplace where there are services and social services that they can get to either by public transit or on foot um as opposed to being far out in the countryside so we're following the data to focus on where where can where should we go first second third and fourth is what I can tell you today but I would I think it's very important to view that people are being economically displaced all over the state and we will need different approaches in different communities to meet the need um as well thank you all right representative walls thank you and thanks Gus thanks for coming today you know this rehabbing issue is one that's dear to me one I've been pushing for a while and I'm happy to hear there's a possibility through the corona relief fund for an infusion of cash that might have this make this happen but I I do have a question about the role of the Vermont legislature I'm not really clear about that these are federal funds and it seems like the administration would be figuring out how to deal with them and disperse them so what is it what do we do as a Vermont legislature what's our part in this well thank you um I believe that what your appropriations committee has done up to now was to say to the administration go ahead and spend some of that federal money on some things and then bring us back a plan uh for the balance of it that will be become part of the appropriations act so I think that there will be an opportunity for the legislature to weigh in to what the plan is and how those federal funds can best serve the needs of Vermont and you know and I'll be clear I know that housing is not the only need there are needs in the health care world and you know we there are needs and I'm sure the administration will be coming out with this soon to assist small businesses this is the part of the need that my that in my work needs to be addressed most and that's why I'm speaking to it today so I'm sure you'll see that the administration will be bringing lots of plans out for the use of these funds and there will be competing demands and you folks as the general assembly I have to sort out what you think is most important to utilize these funds for okay thank you thank you Mary Howard representative Howard hold on you're still on mute there you go sorry thank you and thank you guys for your testimony today you mentioned the renovation of the school in Rutland do you know if that is ongoing or if there has been a halt to that um my understanding is that that project now has all the funding that it needs it got an allocation of low income housing tax we supported it quite a while ago through the housing revenue bond in uh about a month or so ago our partners at VHFA gave it an award of low income housing tax credits and that should be under construction I would think this fall I don't think it'll be open by December but it should be underway uh and into renovation this fall okay great thank you that that'll provide 19 micro apartments I believe is the number there yeah okay thank you got some micro apartment is that a studio with a small bedroom and a kitchenette um well it's it's a term of art but it probably means 350 square feet or less so whether there's a separate bedroom or it's just a studio with a bathroom and a kitchenette um it's probably not quite a one bedroom but 350 square feet is the is the approximation in that range yeah um in terms of going back to the question about capitalization I think that there's a a nuance here I think that you're that you're talking about like what is a gray area in terms of that because under if I'm not mistaken under a conventional project you would include the the um capital improvements or you would include any other of the issues um the perhaps the service issues within the project itself is is that right and that's why you would consider it a capital expense even if the federal government does not quite get that yet as I said earlier uh Mr Chairman yes we when we close a real estate deal there are various kinds of reserve funds so that the project can perform as it's intended to over time and sometimes that's for capital needs sometimes it's to deal with operating losses or rent losses there have been a few times and I think we've been encouraged to do this with a national housing trust fund where you can set some money aside for services over a number of years um so it's not an unprecedented thing to suggest um but but but as I said we don't have clarity and yet on whether that will be allowed or whether we can look for other resources so for instance the uh speaker Pelosi passed the bill in the house last week that will provide a huge amount more money for the ESG program maybe that can be a source of rental assistance um I talked with somebody at AHS last week and they don't know for sure but FEMA has provided in past emergencies monies for case management so that might be another source for case management um but yes to get back to the to the to the question you asked we typically capitalize reserves and projects as part of getting them funded that's not an unusual activity and there are federal housing programs that have been used for those purposes in the past one of the concerns that that then I have and I've heard and I think we've all heard is that okay so if we spend 20 some odd million dollars in a short term or even 70 whatever the number is on finding projects and finding properties and and doing it your partners can't necessarily just do these without those services I mean isn't that kind of the precept of of affordable housing is that is that all of these pieces that make housing a vaccine as you were alluding to earlier but there's a like we can't just build a house and then expect to the services to follow those I mean and again that's part of I think one of the concerns that I've heard from you know in the appropriations world is that okay so we have these things now you're telling us that we have to bake in these these services and I think that gets at this gray error that you're talking about but I'm just what is it that would stop or whatever I guess I'll put it in a positive sense what is the combination that you need from from us to commit from the state to commit in order to make these projects happen well I you know because I think we all expect the state is going to have several difficult budget years our planning has been around a reserve that would you know take us out three to five years in terms of moving forward so that's the thinking we've been doing about it has been to establish a reserve that would carry us for a number of years to meet those needs and again not everybody will have the need for clinical services some people will need a lighter touch they may need help finding a job they may need other kinds of assistance but there are certainly people among the homeless population that need an intense level of services and whether that comes from the designated agencies or other providers in order to successfully house people that's that's an essential piece of the package so this is just a way of of saying okay so for these particular because these particular services will be available for three to five years to coincide to coordinate with the housing I mean I think one of the things with the pathways number which I actually think is probably closer to three and a half million dollars is that that would be the end that would include an increase to go statewide which is a desired outcome of sorts I mean they came in this year asking for two extra counties which would have been nine I think they're asked was nine hundred thousand dollars but this this larger number would then become the number that's in the budget for pathways down the line and that's that's what scares some people and I think that's that's what it I it scares me only because it scares other people I mean it the services cost money this is what it would cost we've seen pathways present statistics that show that that three and a half million dollars might be the equivalent of some other larger number as you alluded to when you're paying retail for services so it's just it's just an interesting but it's it if we can get this it sounds like if we can get this defined this gray area defined of what the capital expenses are that that might open some other doors and allow these projects to move forward that's that that's what we think we can do yes okay so committee I don't know what I mean I I think I'm trying to look for next steps for us I mean what more information do we need to hear in order to start in order to start you know I think having these discussions is important because this is this is a public conversation and I think we're we're trying to define what priorities are and but I'm wondering and asking for opinions on next steps here I mean we can continue to develop we can continue to hear what the possibilities are we will we can continue to try to imagine what the next steps are going to be for again the medium and long term but then you know the reality is is that the skinny budget is going to start being discussed pretty darn soon and so so is this is this proposal or is this idea that these ideas that are going to may formulate into a proposal is this something that we you know what do we need to hear what do we need to advocate for for work with appropriations to make sure they get the message because there is a lot of competition for the funding I think we're going to hear from I think we're going to hear from the administration sometime this week about their plans on some of the economic money to be spent on businesses that have that have been hit as we've heard you know this is it there's a long line of people who are who are hoping for help and so you know how we advocate for this or how we discuss this is really the next step so I would while we still have Gus here if there's any further questions or further comments on on what we should do and who we should be talking to and how we should be talking to them the floor is open and I see representative Kalaki and then Walls thank you George Stephen I'm I'm I'm wondering we heard from Josh and Sarah that there was going to be this rehousing plan that was being formulated and it seemed to be so aligned with Gus with many of the things you're talking about I don't know what happened to that is is Sarah Phillips not developing this plan and should we not hear from her because the conversations we heard there seemed to be a real congruence happening that seemed really terrific but so that's how I don't know how to judge moving forward and I mean this this committee you know homelessness is one of our things it's it's ours and so this I think is important to us to get it right but I don't want to start piece-mealing things and not understand in a bigger picture and so Gus am I wrong that there's is there still going to be a rehousing plan from the administration I think that I think and I can't speak for Sarah that the plan will be far more modest than she might have hoped and I do think you'll hear from Josh and they are very rightfully focused on rental assistance and rent a rearage assistance as a positive use I can't guarantee that but I know that they're pushing for that but I think the kind of comprehensive plan that we were I think we are very much in alignment at a staff level about how to take that roadmap to end homelessness that you got a few years ago and actualize it right I guess I would say two things today one is that it would be wise to have a small group of people begin to plot out now that we have 2000 Vermonters and motels what a long-term plan is going to look like that might not be for you to act on this year but and figure out how where the resources can come from to get it funded I think what I'm telling you we've suggested to the appropriators today for the coronavirus relief fund is a piece of that plan it's not it's not the full plan it doesn't do everything it's you know it's going to serve some of the people who have been who are made vulnerable but not do it all and and I guess what I would also say is the longer we wait to get started on it the harder it'll be to achieve even the 200 units by year's end right and we struggle each year well in the two years I've seen the struggle that I've been here in trying to build affordable housing and with with the bond that we had and I know there was concerns do we do another bond and that doesn't seem to be discreet prudent to do that there seems to be an opportunity as I understand it with COVID relief money to do a capital investment that can take a piece of this this dilemma that we were grappling with it so that's that's what I'm hearing from you is that correct Gus yes okay thank you and and I think um to the larger issue you know just to simply say okay we need to house 2000 people that's that's what we're working with but the I think we need to also keep in mind what Ken Schatz provided us which was the percentage breakdown where you have x number of people who are episodically homeless who may it may have just happened because of an eviction nor because of the law because of general poverty they lost their jobs and they didn't have a place to go as a and then there may be a certain number at at the other end of the homelessness spectrum of people who are chronically homeless who are who are some of the most difficult people whether it's due to mental health issues or extreme poverty or lack of availability and there you know but there is and and and Gus mentioned earlier there's a set there's a number of folks who have households with kids and you know again I'm not why I want to prioritize one or the other but if we start breaking down who's homeless and where they are I think I mean that may help us shape at least some of this conversation but understand you know it's like under I mean the the the benefit of having the data that we have is at least we we're beginning to know who's homeless as of now and where they are and that and hopefully we can use that information um representative walls and then try on them thank you actually I was thinking along very much the same lines as representative plackey was trying to make some sense out of this because there are so many moving parks and it's not clear what resources are going to be available for what and what is allowed so we really need to figure out which pieces all that we can deal with and I think uh representative Stevens you just you know you're just gonna take a good piece on what we should know about the homeless situation I think we need to do more of that and we need to know we need to have a better idea of is there really something available that we can uh recommend to take care of this or is the corona relief fund really available to help take care of that and and there just there are so many questions so I guess one of the things I would like to have is some kind of master plan which I don't know exists yet but within this master plan what individual pieces fit into the corona relief fund and which of those pieces are kind of our bailiwick having to do with housing and I think it's very hard for us to deal with any of this unless we unless we see something like that and then help you know can help refine it so that's my request and I just don't know if it's possible well representative walls I'd be happy as I said to sit down with my colleagues at the state housing authority and at the Vermont Housing Finance Agency and begin to sketch out something along the lines of a master plan I guess I am also saying to you as urgently as I can that if we want to take a bite into this now because we have 1.25 billion dollars available to the state to address an issue that I think causes lots of other disruption and financial impact that this is a good time to do that and to push as hard as we can to to get some of these folks into permanent housing and as I look at numbers you know we I think I recall that the road map and homelessness suggested we needed 368 units of permanent supportive housing. I think you know that number we have better data today because of the coordinated entry system and because we now have data on all the folks who've shown up needing GA support in this crisis to formulate that larger plan but I think if you wait for the master plan to do anything we will miss an opportunity that is in front of us now. Yep thank you for saying that Gus and that's not what I was suggesting absolutely we need to move this to the front burner and even before the burner we need to act on whatever we can do right now to take care of these people who are being temporarily housed. Yeah no question about that but to to get farther into this I need to I really want to understand the whole thing better boy it is vague. Well it is vague and you know traditionally housing resources from the federal government come in lots of different silos some money's come from HUD some money's come from USDA Rural Development as I said a few minutes ago there may be opportunities for service dollars from FEMA there are there's funding through tax credit programs so they come at it's complicated even for those of us who live in it every day how do we put the jigsaw puzzle together it's not like the old days back in the 70s of the section eight new construction substantial rehab program where you went one place and they gave you low interest debt they gave you rental assistance you know it all came at once that those days are long gone so it is complicated and again we'd be happy I think to begin to sketch out the master plan and how do we weave all the resources together and where are the gaps. Thank you very much guys. President Triano then Hengo. So if we do in fact have two billion dollars out there somehow I think that maybe this committee should be working with appropriations or making recommendations to appropriations to we've heard a number of different plans and that would house hundreds and hundreds of people I think it is to the best interest of Vermonters to provide long-term housing or permanent housing to as many of these folks as we can so you know my thoughts are to get to work with appropriations and get the most we can to place as many people as we can in permanent housing and maybe that's something that we need to do I like Tommy it's very difficult to see a bill materializing that would accommodate all of what we've heard on this housing issue at this point so you know maybe it's just to get to approach and make sure as much as many resources as are available are presented to to rectify this problem. Representative Hengo. Thank you I'm still kind of trying to wrap my head around the dollars of this and Representative Walsh brought up kind of a way of looking at it that we need to look at the big picture right so my big picture is telling me that you know we have 200 units available right now that we could put people in just for simplicity sake I'm calling that 200 individuals not 200 units and it would cost about 10 million dollars a year on going for those 200 units to be supported with services so we have 2,000 people who need to be rehomed rehoused and if I work that out in my brain that's like 10 times 10 million which is 100 million dollars just in services that doesn't include capital for building new buildings or rehabbing old units so I I totally agree that we need to see some kind of big picture of where what money is available to us for housing because obviously other hands are out asking for money for for their projects what money is available to us for housing and how we can use it when we need to use it by and going forward this is the more important thing how we would sustain it going forward I totally agree with Representative Triano that it behooves us to rehouse as many people as we can but my concern is that people are going to get left out from this because there it just isn't going to be the money to go around so rather than have a grand plan for say a thousand of the 2,000 people having a more modest plan for the 2,000 people who will need rehousing and I don't know how to go about that until like Representative Wells said I see the big picture because I really am a big picture person so that's more of a comment than an actual question for anybody. I appreciate that thank you that's I mean that's part of breaking it all down just one clarification and I think you're asking exactly the right question and I think it's absolutely fair to say what are the ongoing costs to the state of Vermont and what will be the offset savings whether in health care corrections mental health but one clarification I just want to make is that that $10 million for services to capitalize a fund for services and rental assistance would handle five years so that doesn't make your math question illegitimate it just makes it one-fifth of where you thought it might have been so I just wanted to clarify that thank you so it's about 10 million for every five years going forward not counting inflation or added needs that's correct thank you all right Gus thank you so much this is we will be in touch and we will keep pushing and I think that there is a clear desire on the part of the committee at least as expressed this morning that it would be appropriate for you to work and start shaping a master plan with the people who know how to do it I would like to be able to reach out to the Senate I know you're testifying the Senate I know you're probably going to be in contact with at least with Senate appropriations as I mean is and ours I know it's going to be a couple busy weeks on the appropriations front as as appropriations developed a skinny budget so there's going to be a lot of a lot of work on this I'm going to reach out again to Senator Sorotkin to see if we can actually if it's worthwhile to at least again I know you're testifying in front of them I think this week as well but it would be good to hear what the Senate is thinking as well I know that housing is a priority of of the Senate Economic and Development Committee General Affairs Committee as well so I think that the next steps will we will be in touch and we'll try to see what we get for our Friday session on committee committee and committee it's just being conscious of the time I just wanted to remind you if you did if you did not get a I'm sure you may have gotten an email from Luke Martlin today concerning doing a survey on the legislative council folks that have helped our committee he says it takes 10 minutes it took me 15 basically because we needed to answer questions on all the different attorneys I think we had questions on David Hall um as well as Damian and um and others including Luke so just take make sure you take the time as quickly as you can to do the to do that um it's important for them to get an idea of how you felt about the work that was done and provided by legislative council and chair you know Katie was left out of that and I didn't I didn't write to Luke about that should I you can write him a note um you can write him a note I think it you know it it speaks to the broad portfolio that we had like four attorneys and we missed one you know because I don't think Tucker was in there as well either and so um as opposed to maybe some committees only have one or two attorneys that they work with like government operations so um anyway just take the time and if you do have private notes there's plenty of room in the survey to let those go um I guess on a lighter note um one of the little I call them bumper stickers you know whatever little things that you see on social media over the weekend um somebody wrote a somebody wrote a little bumper sticker and said I guess no one wins the contest of I knew that from five years ago that said I know what I'm going to be doing five years from now um I think we all would have failed that and uh and uh so I thank you for your continued um work on this in efforts to try to have some form of regularity it's good to see you all after um weekend which was spent out in the garden finally and uh we will see you this afternoon okay on this on tap from our committee this week will be the um no pun intended will be the alcohol bill um represented by wrong I I believe is scheduled to do some conversation about it today and um it'll be on the floor on Friday so thank you everybody um Ronnick I'll stay on the line with you for a minute