 Welcome everybody. It's Wednesday morning, special meeting of General Housing Military Affairs. We are here to do the next major step in our work on creating a proposal for using the CRF for helping to mitigate homelessness in the state of Vermont. It's the General Housing Military Affairs Committee. We have many of the same advocates that we've had over the last couple of meetings and we have David Hall as well from Legislative Council and David, if you I believe you've been given control of the screen. Basically folks just to catch up as since yesterday what I asked David to do is to put a lot of language into the bare bones that existed yesterday that tries to clarify some of the appropriations that we are proposing. I think it was pretty clear yesterday that having a little bit more detail in terms of the process was going to be more comfortable for us. So I want David to be able to scroll through the document and what I asked him to do was for instance we had a conversation yesterday about well should we use language that was suggested to us that almost names an organization or do we just go ahead and name the organization. So we should be seeing some language that gives us that choice and you know we'll just go through the document and make those choices as we go along. The other issue that came up yesterday is one we were talking about tier two and how that was going to work and I brought that up with leadership and basically we don't we have a choice. We can either put tier two suggestions into this particular proposal or we can take tier two out the words of tier two out and deal with them at a later date which could be as soon as this week or next week or August but it's our choice whether we want to continue and I think that there was some discomfort over prognosticating what tier two could possibly look like especially given the usage but on the other hand you know the benefit of having tier two language is that it illustrates our commitment to moving some of these programs and making sure that there's funding in these programs as we move forward. So that's something that we should answer today as well. Again we can by by taking language out of this proposal about tier two it's not does not mean that tier two does not exist for us it just simply means that we're gonna we're gonna have further conversation and perhaps be able to refine the tier two proposals. So David if you're here I'm here and if you want to take over the screen I'm assuming that our I'm assuming that our two-page proposal has lengthened to oh look 11 pages so if you could just take us through this and committee just if you show me I mean the only people I can see on my screen right now now that David is sharing the screen is John and Tommy and Chip but if there's a if there's a do we want to go through this line by line and do we want to hear the whole thing or do we want to go through it section by section and make the decisions as we go along? What is your pleasure? I think I'm leaning I'm personally leaning towards section by section okay I mean but that's just my preference I think I would absorb it section by section better than doing the whole thing and then circling back to the whole thing. And I think if David if you can it could give like a overall reminder so not a section by section but a I don't know some high level something so that we get it something as overview but then really go in section by section so a little bit of a hybrid I don't know if that would be possible. I agree with that approach. Yeah that sounds right to me. Okay David is that clear enough? I think so. Okay so so let's do a let's do a synopsis of the of the overall and then just go and just go section by section. Okay well good morning David Hall Legislative Council on your screen you should have a draft 2.1 of the COVID relating housing legislation. The chair indicated yesterday we work through the two page sort of skeletal framework and then the construct of this draft is to put more specific language in on most of the different components and at this point there are five of them so there are legal services then basically housing and facilities for closure protection rental arrearages and eviction stabilization and then and then the last piece is sort of a modified V-HIP to provide for the renovation of private dwelling units to be brought into service to house COVID related persons who have housing needs whether those are persons experiencing homelessness or need rehousing for some COVID reason so those are the five pots each has a different allocation of funding all tier one at this point and then there is a tier two section here in this bill which we can discuss afterward but let me go through each one of the areas and discuss what's happening so legal services the first one really is still pretty straightforward it's five hundred and fifty thousand dollars obviously the bracketed language is too Vermont legal aid to provide legal and counseling services to persons who are at risk of experiencing homelessness or who have suffered economic harm due to the COVID-19 crisis so sure at this point you've heard the proposal from legal aid to be able to provide services across the board for people who are in housing situations and need assistance with negotiations with rents or leases with back rents with eviction proceedings and so that's what this money is for I don't think I said definitively to you yesterday that I don't see any problem naming a particular recipient of receiving appropriations we do do that I think it's permissible it doesn't have to pass through the department there are benefits and costs to doing it both ways so I don't again along the theme yesterday of there's no one right way to do this I just want you to know that you have that flexibility whether you choose to name somebody or not and I think well I'll leave it at that so any questions on legal services just quickly again committee I'm not easily sharing it but there was an email from Angel Zakowski asking for some assistance as well but I and I've invited her to the meeting to talk about it but I again I'm working on sharing I'm going to send it to Ron first and if I can if I can get it cleanly and then that'll be in your email box in a minute it's not a specific appropriation it's just a different way of going about it to follow along with what David is saying but chair I don't see the hair raise a hand raised function when we're in this mode but a comment on this and in general wouldn't it be better excuse me in most cases to specifically name the agency then we don't get into the issue of trying to you know determine who's going to do it if we name it right from the very beginning in the legislation it seems maybe we could move the money a little bit faster that's been the theory so that's something that's really strongly in you know and that's why I asked this two versions or you know these versions of this whenever you see bracketed material that's kind of my equivalent of asking David to say this is not set this is a draft this is a suggestion so yes but we can follow up with that absolutely just that's that if that's the thread we're following yes I'm sorry I see two more hands representative triano and representative Gonzalez yes thank you David at some point in the discussion it may have been around age 739 but legal aid services talked about entering an appearance but not representing individuals in matters of foreclosure and eviction and is that do you know if that's the process that we're following here your explanation was very good I I'm pretty clear on what services would be rendered through this but the only question I have is that something that is anticipated as well from legal aid services I don't know I'd have to defer to Wendy or Jean Wendy's here Wendy do you want to chime in I can't see you Wendy so if you can either send a note or if you can unmute and take the microphone so I think we what you're referring to is what we call limited appearance which the courts allow so that we can go in for just one hearing and not the whole case this this section I think anticipates a much broader range of activities because in reality as you've heard from Jess Radborne she does a lot of negotiation she doesn't necessarily with landlords directly and she doesn't necessarily enter an appearance or she just does for purposes of entering a settlement document so I think this would be the full range whatever is appropriate given the case okay I understand thank you thank you perfectly yes okay representative Gonzalez I just wanted to support what Representative Walt said in terms of naming folks and and if we can get those the organization's named as we get this out the door then I think the money would get quicker after work finished with our work so I just want to wanted to verbalize that thank you okay anybody else in this section right now does anybody have any position to taking well I want to hold off on this for a minute and in terms of because I wanted to hear from so the notion here is to make sure that that in this particular case tenants and I guess Wendy the question here is you is 99% of the work that you do with tenants I mean landlords tend not to come to you for legal help is that accurate you're unmuted yeah I'm on mute yeah okay oh you're not you know I'm sorry thank you um yes I think we very very rarely represent landlords and that might happen in situations for the senior citizens law project when the landlord is a senior citizen and we don't have the same kind of uh income guidelines that we have for example in the poverty law project so it's very limited that we represent landlords however I want to emphasize that we do work directly with landlords regularly on settling these these cases okay um and so um the angel is the kowski has joined us and an angel I just want to end in the email that angel sent this morning is in your email box right now so angel I just if you're available to talk of the question basically the the issue that you raised in your email to us is that um is that this is a direct appropriation to legal aid to help tenants but that landlords may need the same kind of assistance um can you just talk a little bit about that correct I mean I'm anticipating at least my organization and there may be some other folks that work with landlords who will be fielding these questions help landlords navigate through this process perhaps doing some of the same negotiation that legal aid is describing with working with tenants and you know the committee may or may not know but I I am a one woman shop it is me and a part-time assistant so if the volume is what everybody is anticipating I will need some help I cannot do all of this myself um so that's uh just my ask is for the committee to maybe think a little broader that there may be some other folks that are providing assistance um as landlords and tenants both navigate through the system and so josh handford commissioner handford you're here um under the normal course of business is this something that is that that could be requested through um the department of housing as a grant um whether it's I mean we're talking about crf we're talking about an expansion of need throughout the rest of this calendar year is that something that may be available through the department of housing in existing funds or existing programs um no we don't receive any general funds to support housing other than Sean Gilpin and and Arthur Hamlin's salaries um I'm talking about in terms of in terms of a grant request you know with all of this with all of this stuff without a grant request from from the Vermont landlords association for funds that would that would provide the same you know similar services as just described is that something that they would be able to apply through you or is this something that would require a direct um appropriation if we were appropriated some funds from this corona relief funding we could uh sub grant to any entity to help you know if we defined um broadly that we needed you know legal support for tenants we needed um technical assistance and legal support for landlords you know um and other services we could put out um those grants to different organizations if we were allocated money absolutely okay all right thank you um represent representative Gonzalez did you is this an old hand or is this a new hand sorry that's an old hand okay I got it representative hang go thank you um I'm really grateful to Angela for sending this email before we really got started on this because I'm a firm believer in if we're helping tenants we also need to help landlords because there's two sides to this equation and I think that um the department of housing and and community development is really the best positioned to um service both of those groups I think that they both can then request grants and um be granted money if there's a need and that's kind of a a moving piece right now we don't know how much the landlords are going to need and if they do end up needing money it might be a little harder for them to go through Vermont Legal Aid um because it's not a big umbrella organization that can as Josh said they can appropriate to various groups so um I'm definitely in favor of broadening it to DHCD and not just Vermont Legal Aid okay thank you um representative Byron I just wanted to say that I also support making sure there's there's money for both sides of the equation as we move through this I think there will be added legal and administrative expense especially for independent landlords going into the unknown I think having a support mechanism for those individuals is wise did I guess the question I would have just in general I mean for us all is um no no I'll retract that Tommy representative Walls I want to add my support too for having some sort of funding for landlords and probably through uh DHCD and I'm thinking uh to help them whatever whatever process is necessary for example also in the housing rehabilitation process if that's a grant application form and you know lend there may be landlords who aren't so good at doing that kind of thing if they could use some help I think we should provide it to them so the question like so as of this this second now I mean just in terms of um is this something that we want to we didn't get a direct number and again we haven't we haven't um considered this we've had a direct number from VLA for weeks and weeks now um the knowledge of what their program is so the question here is do we try to um put a number down that may be a direct I mean again I have no idea what that would cost um and what but but in terms of if there's a process here that um and Angela this is this is for you in terms of where this document goes and how it's going to be uh how it travels obviously it's going to go from our committee to appropriations and it's going to go to the senate and then it's going to come back to us but the idea presumably um but the the with without a set proposal or without a set um understanding I guess the question here for us is um does this do we put in language you know specific language in to where DHCD is that allows for an application process to happen for these purposes um for for the Vermont Landlord's Association um and then work on then work towards a more specific proposal as um as this bill moves through as his proposal moves through the system um representative Stevens in response to that I think my initial uh response or proposal was one so yes I could provide DHCD or this committee with a number but there may be other organizations out there um that can also assist with this um it wasn't necessarily that mine is the only one um and it may be more appropriate for um some other outfit to assist with portions of this or have increased personnel or capabilities um and DHCD and ACCD may be the entity that is best position to make that decision ultimately as to which organizations will be of assistance um you know and just sort of off the top of my head I'm you know having another full-time person um in addition to myself and a part-time person you know I mean maybe talking a hundred hundred fifty thousand dollars it's not a giant you know we're pretty streamlined and we move on sort of a shoestring budget but some assistance would be helpful no I I am totally sympathetic to that and and acknowledge that that it is um you know I mean what do you mean you can't do it all um so there's there's a feeling that there's a there's definitely a feeling of of acknowledgement that that's this would be helpful and necessary to to provide this support representative Hango and then Wendy um so I just looked quickly through this bill and I wondered if um legal services could be added to number four on page three um under rental assistance eviction protection if we rolled legal services into that um and specified that it would well it is it is specified sort of that says the department shall administer in partnership with statewide organization with an expertise in partnering with private landlords nonprofits other agencies and municipalities etc and it's also for tenants so I wondered if that might be a good place for this legal concept to reside um and certainly if if the funding is an issue if if for for instance Vermont legal aid is is concerned that that that my proposal is removing the $550,000 I'm I'm not suggesting that at all um and maybe that can be found elsewhere in this um in these line items that we could specifically say a dollar figure but administered by DHCD because really DHCD is the one organization or one agency in my mind that that has experience dealing with all of the entities that are in the housing world thank you um uh Wendy more um so I'm not quite sure how to respond with the last one my my biggest concern would be that there be clarity on whether or not we're going to get this grant so that we can start hiring people because that's going to be a bit of a process and so we don't want to have that lag that would be my biggest concern representative Kalaki uh chair I would put um a placeholder of just $750,000 in here and um through the department as we discussed and then see if as we go through the other line items if we can find the $200,000 if we need to and I just and the other part I just I'm eager for us to get beyond number one here and whether it fits where a representative tango says or I like that it's there by itself it's an important part but it can it can fit somewhere else if we need to but so I would just say let's put a placeholder of $750,000 and let's move to the next part I would the committee agrees are you suggest are are you suggesting at the second that that the idea is to just put is to take legal aid out of it and just say legal services yes okay and Wendy had just said that was slowest down that would slow down the process for their purposes anyway um so just just to be clear okay um thank you representative trial yes I'm not in favor of that I think that that I agree with Wendy that would slow things down I think that what's represented in number one is adequate and and on point so that it should stay there I believe and let's so let's move on um we're going to keep the brackets around that right for this time being I think Lisa Wendy did you have another comment or did I not take your hand down okay um and we will get to page three where that where where Lisa mentioned that that legal services are um mentioned that gives DHCD freedom to do exactly this it sounds like so David if we could go on um so that would be um the housing and facilities are you are you with us David sorry I don't know I was still muted I apologize um number two here housing and facilities so this is 11 million dollars and the bracketed language is to the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board which the board shall use in part through grants to non-profit housing partners and service organizations for housing and facilities necessary to provide safe shelter and assistance for persons who are at risk of experiencing homelessness mitigate COVID-19 effects and enable compliance with public health precautions so you may recognize the language it is the same language from your s350 amendment this used to be this used to be the shelter uh specific piece of this proposal and following on yesterday's testimony um I think there was sort of broad-based support for uh expanding the scope of this because it may not necessarily be limited to shelter renovations it may not uh necessarily be for for instance cdc specific compliance but there's just a lot of issues that could come up and so this language is broader it is intended to give more flexibility and the proposal on the table is to give it directly to bhcb questions right um representative hango so um reading this I gathered shelters and I know we're moving away from shelters I know we're not really talking about it today but the ahs plan that came out indicates that yes indeed they are as I've been asking all along over a number of months they are moving away from the shelter and motel system so my concern is granting all this allocating all this money to bhcb um and not again to an agency or department in the administration that really has oversight over all all housing um I just am a little reluctant to name one organization in this case because this is going to look really different um my I'm envisioning requests for proposal um for grants for various types of housing um not just housing and facilities necessary to provide safe shelter which to me really means a shelter or a motel in an emergency situation so I'm I'm not I'm not really sure how this differs from other parts of the bill that specifically deal with other units other types of units so I guess I have two objections it's not clear to me what types of dwellings this this refers to because I feel like it shelters in our motels and I'm not entirely certain that we should um designate one particular organization for this so thank you sorry to ramble about that okay thank you representative khlaki thank you um David I'm a little it's a little vague for me as well because I thought it was I mean we we we do have to renovate and adapt our shelters to make them more compliant now with with all of the new precautions and so I thought this portion was really for renovation and expansion of our shelters um so it says for housing and facilities necessary it doesn't really earmark it in the way that unless I'm misunderstanding it because the other thing is could if if we I mean we spent an enormous amount of hotel vouchers if I read this hotel vouchers could be part of this as well um and and I don't think that that was what the what we had earmarked this for so this is um I'm in favor of of adapting the shelters as we need to and renovating them I think it's the right agency but I'm not sure that it's clear for me and maybe I've misunderstood but I thought this was for renovation and adaption of shelters um I'm does uh Jen or Gus want to address this language at all and how you read it from the BHCB perspective Gus totally I can't hear you can you hear me now yeah a little bit yep thank you very much and thank you to staff for broadening the language a bit um our intention here is to survey all the shelters invite them all to apply and we and just do not know and have not had the same level of contact exactly where the needs will land and whether for and I used Barry as an example yesterday they may not want to renovate their existing shelter they may want to put the money into a new and different facility that would be much better so we understand the intent we will certainly live with that intent we will conduct outreach to that community we have funded virtually every shelter in the state at one time or another some so long ago that they may not remember that we've given them a grant in the past but we do have an ongoing relationship with those organizations the structure of the board is that the agency of human services is represented on our board the secretary is represented on the board and we will be working in partnership and closely with them in allocating any funds you provide so our goal was simply to have more flexibility if somebody wants to do something different because their current shelter is really not adequate to the current job and I think this language gives us the breadth understanding exactly what your intent is here to improve shelters where that's the appropriate thing to do okay and I and folks you'll see just underneath that bracketed material that language there's the original language which says so shelter rehabilitation um those are the two choices that are you know that that is the exist that's the language that was that we talked about yesterday and the um the language that Gus was just explicating was um was an expansion of that language uh representative triano well that clarifies for me um because I was wondering where that language had gone uh to be uh COVID uh to be CDC uh compliant compliant uh with these shelters and I envisioned that uh there would be um no uh congregative living situations and um I envisioned you know private rooms uh in these shelters and such so that um the safety would be considerably better and as I say CDC uh compliant so if that language is in there I'm okay with this representative Gonzalez thank you yeah I think for me the the increase of flexibility is um really important uh I don't usually talk about it my my spouse is a builder and so whenever there's a renovation they're uh in theory it's very different than when you actually get into it and so thinking about shelters and what they need to do in order to be able to provide uh provide the CDC compliant spaces it might not be possible with their current building it's in confirmation configuration and so I really think that BHCB is situated to be able to get the funds out as quickly as possible and to be able to provide for the flexibility that shelters will need as they look at their existing buildings and see what might be possible in the house and that about tiny homes and other things like that that provides some flexibility and so I I like this language because I think it does what we need it to do of getting money to an organization that can is connected can really provide it for the shelters and really provide it for the folks that need it great thank you representative waltz thank you I support the broader language as well and and Gus uh said exactly what I was going to say uh if we specify that it has to be for rehabilitating existing shelters that might not be the wisest use of the money and again I was thinking specifically of Good Samaritan Haven in Barry we're trying to redesign that facility may not be the wisest thing to do it may be uh wiser to look at something different that could accommodate more people so I do support the broader language thank you representative Hango sorry I didn't think I was next in the queue so I'm seeing language with one bracket and oh see the second one but I'm not seeing um other language about CDC were you saying that there was language about CDC in the second in the in the in the original language on line 15 that's on our screen oh uh no CDC is not on with guidance of the Centers for Disease Control that's the screen I'm looking at David Hall's shared screen and the original number two from yesterday talks about to achieve compliance with guidance of the Centers for Disease Control and to ensure public health okay sorry I guess I'm not seeing the exact same thing that you are what I'm running what I'm running into is the the 2.1 draft that I printed off that was from 151 yesterday is not syncing up with what's on the screen exactly yeah we're not seeing that's what it's totally throwing me off right now yeah me too I'm really sorry but this is um but yeah my printed copy is not this right so I just I just added the piece from yesterday so that you could see them juxtapose with one another on the screen oh okay so 2.1 that was on our website when we started this meeting this morning is not what you have up on the screen not as a four minute to go okay that's that that was really throwing me off right now yeah and I need to like blow it up to read it on my own screen so I'm not reading it off the screen so anyway regardless of that I'll look at that in a minute um I'm just curious about the surveying shelters for ideas of whether they need to renovate or what they need to do um that Gus mentioned um I know my shelter in Franklin County they already know they had a plan ready to go before COVID-19 started so um to me that just seems like a duplicative effort to resurvey shelters I know Rutland has a plan um and I know my shelter works very closely with OEO and um I I feel like that's already in place so to reinvent the wheel would be wasting time not um not saving time so that's my point and could that new version be posted to our web page please Ron the the new version is what's in 2.1 if I'm not mistaken no I actually meant the version with both languages could that be oh that's fine yeah okay thank you what I'm sorry please say again what is it you're asking me to there's language there's language that David just added to the screen um so I don't know if you can get a cut and paste from David to just post it I don't know what I always doing is posting the language that's not in the printed version I mean I don't know what the problem is here the problem is at least excuse me that Emily's talking please I just wanted to say he put it up for us to be able to look at it and compare them between the two it's not actually a version is my perspective of this he's sharing a screen with that two versions up there we can make a decision I hate to have two of the same thing posted on our when it's just being put there for us to review so we can compare the two that's how I'm saying thank you may I ask a question then please do thank you in order to facilitate my making a decision about this I need to see the language as it was and what he had on the screen was very helpful I would like to keep it and look at it somehow I don't I didn't want it to go away so whether he could email that to us um so we could look at it or it just it just hit our inboxes thank you very much thank you okay can we scroll down so so again we're we're we're doing we're folks we're we're doing this in a way that's kind of a little bit of a hybrid of what we started off with doing so we're not we're getting the we're getting both a high view and we're we're really getting into this this is fine but just I just want to be conscious of the time and and the page we're on so we will come back to this we will we will continue to get the the update of what's on in the bill as David is presenting it and then we will have to come back and go section by section again um and and make those decisions so David if you could scroll down to um and David I just had a question about the the 11 million dollar number is that something that I can't remember where the um I can't remember where the um 11 million dollar number came um if that was taking what came from number five and adding it to number nine or if it was simply and whether the math and adds up at the end of this so let's just scroll down yeah sorry go ahead yeah go ahead no you finish you go ahead I I think you'll have to decide that um the so there was the two million dollars in yesterday's version that didn't really have a purpose yet and so the discussion was do you add uh that two million to the housing and facilities because they were both intended for VACB or do you split that between uh the advanced VHIP and this so that would actually be 10 so I I think you guys have to decide where the what's it to do with that two million dollars that yesterday was non-specified and and now needs a new a home if you're not going to have that so the 11 million the 11 million is is is a is a possibility as is the increase in foreclosure protection I mean so let's yeah let's just go down to foreclosure protection and and I I apologize if that's confusing I I I think it's fair to say that all of these numbers are you know iterative I believe is the phrase iterative great so just for your viewing ease and pleasure on the screen I just I just move this down a little bit so it would be on the same page so the next bucket is foreclosure protection six million dollars so there's basically two ways that have been uh contemplated to approach this one as well there's the first bracketed paragraph which is shorter it's it's to DHCD to provide foreclosure protection prevention services which will be administered in partnership with a Vermont based statewide organization with expertise in financing and promoting affordable safety and housing opportunities to lower and moderate income from honors and that's not naming anybody in particular obviously this is language that commissioner Hanford had supplied to you previously and then the other approach is more direct it's directly to VHFA to provide financial and technical assistance to stabilize low and moderate income homeowners and prevent home foreclosure for Vermont families this language is taken from an earlier draft of I believe it was called the home forever fund that the agency had suggested but so it's it's modeled directly on that it has more stuff in it so so division a you know the duty to design implement a program funding the statewide regional housing partners administer the distribution of funds to homeowners and native assistance provide that homeowner uh technical assistance to homeowners b um requires standard application form describing the process of instructions to process will ensure equitable approval applications distribution system ensuring accountability for partners and homeowners see agency develop eligibility requirements for partners implement to ensure funds are applied towards homeowners equitably including limitations for eligibility regarding earned income forms and guidelines show proof of need limitations on the actual benefits will not exceed the mortgage liability or three times the monthly mortgage liability and a reapplication process that provides if there are remaining funds at the end of three months they can apply for assistance again so no right or wrong way but obviously there's more detail in the second piece of the proposal okay and um I we've received testimony from more Collins yesterday about this and from josh can they kind of turn their mute their microphones on and weigh in on the language and tell me if this is sufficient or if it is accurate or if it's preferred or if there are fixes that need to be suggested to the language more you can jump in for I don't know I can't see anybody right now so more if you want to jump in first or yeah more if you want to jump in first that would be great it's okay with josh more Collins with vhfa we would prefer being the named organization that you see as the second choice uh that david walked through um like you've heard from others we are already working to design this program throughout the month of june so that we can launch it I can't commit all it can launch on july one but wow I'd like to so um being named would keep our foot on the accelerator um organizationally another change is that um as we've been designing and discussing this with the department we think that it's best to use the regional housing partner organizations referenced for the first time um on page two online five um that that uh that reference may have been wrong because I know we have different things going on right now uh to use the those as the technical assistance piece they would provide the counseling and assistance in that way but it is uh to move the money efficiently vhfa will be administering and working with the loan servicers to take in the applications and directly uh sending money to the servicers we don't intend to send the money to the um regional housing partner organization who would then send the money to the borrower who would then send it to the servicer we want to work directly with servicers which we have a long history of doing so the on your committee page ron just uploaded um some edits um for you to see in track changes uh where we strike the regional housing partner organizations but again our intention is to absolutely use them for the technical assistance piece just not for the distribution of funds piece um there is a place where we've inserted some language um in part c um part in the number two um where it talks about showing proof of demonstrable need for assistance we'd like for it to say show certification or other proof just to clarify that like in other cares act um places when when a borrower gets forbearance they only have to attest that they are without uh employment and that could be proof but we want to be clear that uh that kind of certification or attestation counts as proof uh so that we can move this along not have um too many restrictions and that's in compliance with what we see the forbearance rules are from the cares act in other places i don't we don't want to have to get w2s and pay stubs and things like that and finally um potentially the most meaningful change is that later on in that section c it talks about three times of the monthly mortgage liability and vermont legal aid and vhfa uh think that that should be six times um the josh said that that was okay with the administration the intention of that is um to not have someone need to um apply for example in august and then reapply um just a few months later we want to get this money out there also are a considerable number of costs to a borrower that are not covered by this assistance hoa fees um uh tax not taxes um uh mortgage insurance property insurance these things won't be covered by this program so giving them a bit more of their principal and interest paid for will help make them whole and truly cure their problem as opposed to bandating a lot of people who and maybe we're just postponing the inevitable we want to really fix um this burden for borrowers by giving them a bit more since the money is so limited i mean this is smaller than all these other pots of money that you're talking about so like everyone else i want to put in a plug for some of that two million dollars to come towards foreclosure assistance i want to be very clear because that we have 72 percent of vermonters are homeowners and so we think a lot of them are going to need this kind of assistance uh i think that um borrowers won't wait until september until they have six months to apply because the money could be potentially gone by then so allowing for that six months again doesn't play that game of making them apply for three months and then apply again and maybe the money's not there so those are some of the reasons for these changes okay and just so out of that two million dollars again in the in the some of the bracket of material there's another million dollars proposed to go from five which it was yesterday to six and i think we're also looking at again depending on um need or used obviously the tier two this is kind of an argument to this is kind of an argument to disengage the tier two conversation from this from today's conversation because that's going to i mean we have to react to the actual usage of this so um committee any thoughts on uh and actually commissioner my understanding is that you support this language yes i support everything mora just said uh completely um and we'll we'll add that the thoughts right now are to provide some of our HUD um cdbg assistance to help with the home ownership centers technical assistance separate from this money that is a good fit we have relationships we have agreements we can add money to and it's a good use of our cdbg uh covid money and i would second what mora said that um this is a pretty small bucket compared to everything else and and keeping homeowners housed and not going down this road is very efficient way to spend money uh prevent big problems i don't none of us know the exact amount that the need will be but um we don't want to leave uh uh homeowner short change there you know we have one of the largest homeowner rates in the country with a lot of low income people that are on the edge so just flag that no i i we hear you and uh um and just ran away um so i can't there you go um the they i just want to make clear that the money that you do have that you mentioned about technical assistance that would go to the home ownership centers or other other centers like that would be relatively fast and flexible if necessary i i i mean i know that there's usually an annual uh process for granting money on an annual basis but in the in this case again we have to keep reminding ourselves that all this money that we're talking all of this money that we're talking about has to be spent in some way shape or form by the end of by the end of 2020 the just flexibility you know just to clarify um uh the the cdbg money that we have already from covid moved faster than i've ever seen hud move money i mean we received a notice that we would get this we amended we applied it's already in our account quicker than our process to distribute this and we have another two million coming which will also be quick and that doesn't have six months timelines it has two years so we can really tailor that money to help people ongoing after january first uh as they need it which will be very helpful yeah great um committee any comments on the suggestions from um vhfa or should we just forward it to david or just have david um i guess the question is are these changes sufficient do we prove of them and shall they be incorporated into our draft representative triano yes i would support this language i think that um whatever that these changes are are positive changes and from what we hear uh we'll uh get this money out and directed in a manner in which it should be so i would support this language change representative consoles just echo that it's for the language change anybody else thumbs up thumbs down thumbs up okay so david if you can um strip that language from the um document on our document page and and insert that um all right what's next david reshare your screen again that number that foreclosure protection number is six million dollars that was taking an extra million dollars from the from the what was number five this is the original request for foreclosure protection from the department can everybody hear me okay yes or i can anyway i'll speak for myself so the next uh bucket is rental assistance and eviction protection so this is 30 million dollars um there's again brackets the first one is two g acd to provide rental assistance to persons who have suffered harm due to coven 19 including rental arrears since april first security deposits and expenses to secure new rental housing which department shall administer in partnership with a vermont based statewide organization with expertise in partnering with a lot private landlords nonprofits other statewide agencies and promoting preserve affordable housing and with prior experience in administering federal rental assistance funds so this is again two d hcd to the organization that shall not be named that was a joke and then um on the next piece the bracketed language is much more specific and involved it's uh well yeah so here you would have d hcd development implement a rental housing stabilization program to provide funding to vermont state housing authority to administer the distribution of funds to landlords on behalf of tenants in need of rent or rearage assistance and then we've got details developing the program department coordinate with a hs and partner organizations on homelessness to provide additional support services and remote upstream homelessness prevention and housing stability under b department will require the authority that's b s h a to develop a standard application form for landlords and tenants describes the process includes instructions and examples under c authority will ensure equitable approval of applications notice of grant decisions within 10 days appeals within 10 days and distribution system that ensures accountability authority will ensure decisions are made according to rules of the program without regard to any previous information decisions known concerning tenants no tenant or other landlord can benefit or suffer harm due to previous knowledge decisions under d the authority will develop eligibility requirements to ensure funds are applied to tenants currently homeless households and landlords those in most need including certification of rent or rearage waiver of termination termination of tenancy or eviction for a period of time waiver of lay fees compliance with the rental housing code agreement not to increase rent for a period of time other requirements would be that uh assistance to provide directly to landlords on tenants behalf there will be a streamlined application process for certification of past due rent authority will require landlords to delay or cease eviction proceeding some of this is overlapping but i don't know um under four authority will adopt limitations on assistance we want to exceed actual liability of months due the bsj payment level uh reapplication if there's more money under five unsustainable tendencies get emergency housing benefits from dc after no assistance you can use the fund first month last month's rent security deposit necessary payments through december 30th landlord has a certified that he wanted big so she wanted big should the tenant leave prior than the amount received for blah blah blah reimbursement appropriate not later than august 10th very after upon request from the legislative committee the authority shall issue a report to the legislative detailing number in the amount of grants would each category by so short version in the long version okay and this so this is um this is pretty clear about the the um interface between the authority that we're giving to vsh a um and landlords and tenants to create the system so that so that landlords um are able to receive their back rent um it doesn't specifically say anything about dhcd being able to have funds available for landlord associations or as proposed earlier um though it does hint at it i mean it intimates it earlier on but i would um first committee what do you think of this expanded language this is pretty thorough but it adds it adds a real element to me of of of um transparency and um accountability to all the organizations involved that's why we that's why i asked for it um and then asked for it to be included this is a large this is the largest chunk of money that we and this is only part of the largest chunk of money that we would be allocating for these purposes um so i'd like to get your thoughts on on this language i have two questions uh representative hang go thank you i think this is where i was proposing to um maybe just add one phrase about legal assistance for landlords and tenants i didn't mean to um i didn't mean to say that it was already in here um so i think this is where i was thinking of um taking language from number one and putting it in number four thank you okay um uh representative triano then kalaki thank you um i think that um as you say uh chair ma'am mr chair that i think that that language does sort of uh intimate that or indicate that uh there is room there i would support language a little bit more specific for the landlords uh but i think also that the transparency that you mentioned uh and reading through this section uh is very important because we really don't know what the feds are going to come back with uh for changes uh as hastily as this was put together and you see um i think it's safe to uh to have a language that is uh clarifying and uh and transparent so i support this section i would also support um uh from representative hang go's perspective a a little bit of language that would include the landlord services hey repris thank you um representative kalaki yes i too uh like the expanded language very much thank you for all that work um david the the one question i have is in this report you talk about the august 10th uh report to the legislature but there was a second part of that that um we were that i looked at yesterday um that then the the program should be reviewed on or before september one along with other coronavirus relief funds housing firms to german weather funds should be shifted my concern is that if we wait till middle december with with all of this money we've we've designated agencies but there's no way to recalibrate if we need to um and there's not going to be time in the last week of december to reallocate these funds and so there was a proposal that ties into this this report that's in this of august 10th to be able to look by september one to see if we need to recalibrate all this depending on the need for all these um services and support and i i i think that's important to have because some of these may be really stretched and all the money's used like morris said maybe the foreclosures we're going to need to put more money there if somewhere else the money is not being used so i i just wonder if we should insert that language as well that's my question okay um any thoughts on that i i don't know um you know i'm sorry reading the future right now is really not my my bailey wick i'm not feeling very strong in my crystal ball so it's hard to it's hard to call um let's let that stew for a minute um representative hango um the bottom of page three top of page four where um it's in brackets section a one the department of housing community development shall develop and implement a rental housing stabilization program to provide funding to vsha to administer the distribution of funds to landlords on behalf of tenants in need of rent a rearage assistance and i thought maybe just a simple um going back to my suggestion a simple addition would be and um funds needed for legal assistance or something to that effect that sounds better than what i just said thank you um uh okay um i have one thing i i noticed that on um i think it's on page three line 11 uh there was a reference to april one i believe all the coveted money is supposed to be available from march one on and i just want to make sure that that's accurate that that that that's consistent um i may have i may have suggested that in error um can i just throw something out in terms of in terms of the um in in terms of a direct assistance or potential direct assistance via dhcd we have we have this two million dollars that that could be reappropriated we took we're proposing to take at least one and moving it to um foreclosure to get that request up to speed to to be the the um administration's request um is there a pass and then this other million dollars while it's out there may you know go to the v-hit program we've heard various and sundry things about the you know the the the attraction of the enhanced v-hit program um i mean do we want to make and this is going to be a quick yes or no do we want to make a quick um appropriation or allocation is the best word for it an allocation of two hundred and fifty thousand dollars that dhcd would be able to utilize for these up to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars that the dhcd would be able to utilize for these purposes we can have a separate line item if we want if um i i hesitate lumping the taking away the direct um the direct allocation to vla but by the same token if we if there are between Vermont Landlord's associations and other organizations um it i'm just throwing it out there should should we consider putting a direct um like the vla so instead of one we have one Vermont legal assistance and then if we had in two or one a um that that uh two hundred and fifty thousand dollars would be made available based on the language that we're talking about here um that dhcd would be um that dhcd would be in charge of um because that's essentially what this language seems to me to be saying so um i'm just throwing it out there the lisa representative hango i don't know about the two hundred and fifty thousand to me that doesn't sound like a lot but we don't we have no idea what's really going to be needed for Landlord's for um legal assistance so i hesitate to name a number on that um so i i guess i'm not in favor of a line item with a number on it okay thank you yeah um represent trial but we did hear from legal aid that they also work with Landlord's so um and again not having a figure um is difficult but um it seems to me like uh administering 250 thousand dollars uh the Landlord's association would be adequate um i'm not it would be Landlord associations and others as as angela pointed out it wouldn't necessarily be straightforward it would be it would i mean my concern with this language here is that um if we grant this money to if we if we grant this money directly to the state housing authority DHCD isn't going to have those funds right there specified to be used for other landlord purposes and so i just i'm just suggesting this in terms of um you know if DHCD doesn't have this money to grant then the language that's in the bill i mean i think the language in the bill is is assuming that there's going to be a money that the that this 42 million dollars might reside with with DHCD and if we're having it reside with the housing authority then DHCD still needs the money to grant um representative zant yeah i i support a specific dollar amount listed as well i think it makes sense and i thought unless i was confused on the matter i thought Landlord association threw out a number of around 150 thousand for a staff person to dedicate or to build time in that regard so it seems like we built in some cushion in terms of what what they said they needed did i miss that uh angela had said had had just thrown out the number of 100 to 150 thousand dollars that would hire at least another full-time person and other people that she might need um to build the system again the the hard part is um i don't want to i that's a number she tossed out but um with respect to the work that you know she needs to do um and she also pointed out that there may be other organizations that would be helpful or want to help and so that's that's why i would go up to you know that's why i express the higher number um i don't think that i don't think that there is a baked number uh from that that would help right now um right i mean that's that's why that's why i think the number you threw out makes sense is what i'm saying essentially okay thank you um representative triano i should have borrowed my hand i don't have anything else okay that's a first yay um um representative fango and then fight ron um i think i must have um missed the boat on the 150 thousand by that was proposed by angela so i apologize um so thanks for bringing that up representative zot and i think maybe i was suggesting to put language in in the wrong spot in this so i'm just gonna withdraw the other comments that i made and um go forward with the 250 000 and i'm not sure where where it goes at this point so thank you okay representative by ron so with the way we're setting up a language for this on the the property owner side would this still allow for them to use existing legal counsel that they have a relationship with perhaps also a relationship with the history of the property or does this isolate them to using a designated entity i i mean off the top of my head if you have your own attorney you would use your own attorney you wouldn't necessarily have access to the funds for reimbursement is my question i think that the answer to that is no um this isn't a personal this isn't a personal pay for your attorney fund this is to utilize an organization like the vermont landlord's association for their for their guidance much like vla would be guiding tenants who don't have an attorney of their own all right now i just wanted clarity on that yep representative hango okay so that brings up a question that i forgot to ask earlier um i am under the impression that not all landlords belong to the vermont landlord's association so i wondered how that funding was going to work for private landlords so i guess i have my answer right now on that and i'm wondering how this how this can possibly help or how we can make it help private landlords who do not belong to the vermont landlord's association or or access for vermont legal aid um i think in the case uh my understanding i uh of the way that the vla money is is is structured or the way that vla is structured is that people call and if they can if they have the capacity to help they would help um what angela had described was um was a helpline was i mean we have a lot of so-called mom and pop landlords who don't have attorneys and who may call what used to be the apartment owners association landlord's association and ask for guidance on certain issues and i think that for what we're talking about is this limited amount of time between now and the end of the year where there would be um essentially um well i was gonna say essentially a helpline but i you know angela do you want to chime in on this about what you envision services to be about non-members absolutely um there would be no requirement that somebody be a member of the association to receive assistance for this program um we regularly answer questions for non-members uh we view it as part of our mission with educating landlords around the state of vermont um and if we were to receive some sort of grant money to help there nobody would be required to be a member um i would also anticipate fielding questions for attorneys who are trying to help their clients navigate through this system so the idea would be to be a resource for all folks on the landlord side okay thank you for that clarification representative gonzalez i think that does it i was just going to um talk about my understanding that the putting in language that doesn't just direct the money towards the landlord's association and and so that there is also um some openness around it but um angela your uh your clarity on being open for landlords who are not part of your association and your clarity of being open for other attorneys um and available i think is is really helpful to me as well so thank you okay um david let's get back to it thank you everybody for that so that was all under the umbrella of number four do i do i have a final decision on if i'm changing the numbers there if i'm creating language to specify an appropriation for landlords if you could if if you could create language um and i would i would insert it uh as one as right after the vla language so like 1b um and just if i mean i just will just put 250 000 to dhcd for purposes you know for for grant purposes for legal services to to landlords um whatever the whatever the appropriate language would be for that um in in accordance with you know it could be in accordance with the you know section blah blah blah or you know but i think keeping the the language that's the language that we're talking about here is if we if we make that decision that it goes to the state housing authority again it it unplugged the money from dhcd and so i just want to make sure that they retain the possibility of doing that um is that clear enough yes but does that 250 000 come out of the 30 million that's the no this is we have a floating one million dollars right now yeah okay uh wendy morgan so um i'm apologize for not raising this sooner but i expected there to be more discussion about it um you mentioned that perhaps april one wasn't the right date but that march one was the right date and i want to be clear that all of the conversations with the stakeholders on this part of the bill has included rent that was due prior to march first the state's obligation our thinking on this is that this is to prevent homelessness and the state has has a need to keep people safe and to keep preventing the the expansion of the coronavirus amongst the population so our thinking was that the state's obligation to use this money to prevent further public health concerns would extend to rent that was due prior to march first um i have we have this has been in our memo and i also i emailed directly with josh hamford about this several weeks ago and i have not heard any problem with that so i just think and i believe that perhaps you had a email from dick williams this morning about just cutting out the april first uh date completely and that's what we would propose as well um with regards to the 250 uh thousand i just want to say that i was wondering if when angela threw out her figure she was actually thinking about a full years uh income and salary and overhead i don't know but the legal aid figure is for obviously for a half year as you mentioned earlier uh mr chairman that uh all of this money has to be spent by december 30 so those were my only two comments so you're requesting that the march date be deleted all together yes and i think that's consistent with all the you can hear from the other stakeholders but so the april date only appears in the short version of the 30 million dollar allocation so if we're going with the long version then the then the question about april one or not is moved okay great thank you very much okay um david where are we we are on the last bucket which is the enhanced uh rehabilitation program um can everybody see the screen uh rehousing investments so the short version is it would be six million dollars to dhcd to assist land lores with the costs of renovations necessary to provide housing to persons who risk homelessness or require rehousing due to COVID-19 uh the long version is essentially the administration's original proposal uh for a rehousing recovery program so that's six million dollars to dhcd design and implement rehousing recovery program provide funding the statewide and regional housing partner organization to provide grants and forgivable loans to eligible applicants right now this still says forgivable loans just because that was what was in the administration's original proposal it's obviously up to you whether you keep the whole forgivable loan thing um i'll remind you that based on the may 28th update to the FAQs to the guidance issued by treasury that the state can issue monies COVID monies in the form of a loan um if a loan is repaid prior to December 30th the loan principle and any interest earned have to be either reused for an an for an eligible expenditure or returned to treasury if the loan is repaid after December 30th it still has to be returned to the treasury so uh functionally um if a loan is going to extend beyond then December 30th there's not a lot of point in in making it a loan versus a grant but those are that's the guidance we have so far so under be here administration uh department will require any partner to develop a standard application selection process grants management system see the requirements so department will determine um what form the assistance would be in each grant would have to comply with these requirements the owner may apply for assistance up to 30 000 per unit it must be blighted vacant or otherwise not comply the owner has to match at least 10 of the value of the grant or loan and comply with applicable permit and rental housing health and safety laws all units must be rented out or below uh fair market rents for at least five years or subject to penalties and repayment requirements is determined by the department not too sure about that piece um the property owner sells or transfers a property improved with the grant within five years the owner has to repay the funds upon sale or transfer or ensure that the property continues to remain affordable for the remainder of the period i just i want to flag that if they actually repay the money to the state the state will have to return that money to treasury when it's returned um the department will develop requirements regarding incentivizing uh property owners and organizations to work with local continuum care organizations limit the number of units so anyone owner can receive incentivize the goal advise the goal that at least 50 of the rehab units serve a person exiting homelessness during the initial lease upon completion of work um requiring that a percentage of the program's participants must serve someone exiting homelessness at the initial lease upon completion of work and associated incentives and requirements and incentives regarding statewide and regional housing partner orgs and property owners working with local continuum care organizations on three four and five here i just i want to flag that um you know if you're using coronavirus funds for this it the the person who's uh occupying the unit doesn't necessarily have to be homeless per se but i i feel very confident in saying that somebody is going to have to ensure whether it's in the statute or whether it's in the execution of the program that the assistance that's provided to a landlord is necessary due to the public health crisis and that the uh person that is assisted you know is going to check that box otherwise if you've only got half of these units that are demonstrably uh being used for a covid related necessity then the other half which you know possibly could go out just into the open market would be at risk of recapture from the federal government i know it's the intent of the department to you know house have this be part of the response to rehousing persons who are homeless or need rehousing because of the emergency but you know the way this language reads it doesn't look certain to me and that gives me pause um and then definitions blighted and vacant you would recognize from the v-hit program so that's that's this proposal okay we have several questions um representative Gonzalez then sot um less questions but just thoughts of uh been thinking about uh josh's uh comments i think yesterday um wears a little bit and how we investing in these houses really is a long-term investment and the amount of houses that we're re losing in because of our old housing stock and so in that i really think also about the cost of operating and we haven't talked at all about weatherization in this uh mostly because wanting to to get this out the doors as quickly as possible and to reduce the barriers and because we know that if our very old leaky homes cost so much to run that i've been thinking about stretch codes and it's just a all of these houses obviously would be built to code and then these stretch codes are just a little bit more energy efficient and um and so in that having just a little bit more attention to the detail without significantly increasing the cost but having it be reduction in operation cost and reduction in the or an increase in the the life of the property and so i want to bring up that idea as a potential to to implement that or to add that in there and really increase the the quality and the payback of this investment um and then just thinking about what david hall just said in terms of the uh the potential for the federal government to say not all of this is for covid related i wonder about if there's some language that um says something about potential loss of housing so it's not exactly homelessness but there's something maybe precariously housed folks or um uh something about that because i think about the people who who are not necessarily technically homeless but have been doubling up and so um i don't know if there's anything in that but that's what what came to mind when david you you mentioned that the difficult the potential difficulty of our language and the the federal government's requirements yeah can i pass um josh commissioner can you um speak a little bit you spoke you spoke yesterday about some of the uh provisions that are usually in place for monies that might be used like this throughout the normal course of business can you just re-clarify and i think there's i mean the the word that stuck out here from representative gonzalez was was um weatherization in particular but but i think that it illustrates the goal of building a better building a better home with this and and providing a better resource can you speak a little bit to that and what kind of review what you said yesterday and and what the department do i mean i think more broadly you know what i'm struggling with is the details of the language here and that you know i i i think we should have the same standards that are in vhcb's language you know about what level of rehab they will undertake as far as weatherization or quality permits required and as well as the folks that will be housed in these units you know i i agree with david that it doesn't need to be exactly um someone homeless to qualify you know we could broaden the language to say exiting homelessness or in danger of homelessness without the availability of affordable units due to kovid there's lots of ways to stretch this to make the language eligible but what i what i just i'm not quite understanding is the the level of of rehab um and detailed on these units that isn't reflected in any other language here around what the standards are for the other units that are receiving funding across the board and so i just want to be fair i mean this is less money per unit you know it says right in there they have to meet you know uh codes and permits so they will meet the the current codes in order to get a building permit um we have covenants and grant agreements i'm having a staff person find um that language in our grant agreement and sub grants for some of our pilot projects that we funded rehab with you know much smaller numbers to show how we get at that and how we ensure that that i can provide um if the staff person had a family emergency at the emergency room last night so i'm trying to find someone else to dig that up for me but um we can provide that and i think give you assurance that um this work is done um with that in mind but i i just it would look odd to me that this one piece has this level of detail and specificity around what is expected for unit rehab who is supposed to be served etc in much larger funding in here doesn't speak to that at all so that that's my general comment and if i may mr chair um follow up with that that i i think that the the stretch code would be great to include in the rehabilitation for vhcp as well that um that it's just such a small little bit above what code is and so it's not getting into full weatherization it's it's not it's not getting into all of those uh extensive differences between code and not it's just a just a little bit better um and so uh i think that that's just an idea that i'd like to put on the table and i think if i sure i fully agree that if we have a language in one place we should absolutely have it in another place the um to represent us uh um so somebody was already addressed like when with the specific usage of the word homelessness yeah i certainly think like housing insecurity or precarious housing as representative Gonzales suggested would be helpful because it is clearly in the public health interest to not have people who are precariously housed end up uh on the streets um my question though uh was around the timeline of the um affordable housing requirements and also as david hall was mentioning um he was talking about the penalties somewhere in this language i'm sorry i got distracted but oh yeah the uh you know the five years will be subject to loan interest penalties and repayment requirements and then he sort of mentioned casually as he was reading through that that he wasn't sure about that piece and then he kind of continued on so i was curious what party wasn't sure about because i'm especially concerned about the details of the property or owner transferring the property to someone else uh especially if they've received a loan and they haven't they're not necessarily paying an adequate interest rate i could see an enterprising landowner using this money and then quickly transferring it to someone else and if there's not a heavy enough penalty for that where we lose these units affordable housing units where someone just has to pay kind of essentially a fee and they could do the cost benefit analysis and say well it's actually in my interest to sell the unit because the cost you know the penalty that i pay isn't going to offset but i'll end up gaining by charging a market rent and i need to make sure that there's a steep penalty so that that kind of gamesmanship doesn't happen um i would we would address that by putting a covenant on the property that comes with the grant that requires for five years that the rents be affordable no matter who the owner is and that transfers with sale you know in the same way it's not perpetual as some nonprofits you know or btb would have but it's the same form and function that the property has a lean on it with this condition until uh the length of time is satisfied that's how it's dealt with now in our existing programs that provide any funding to a private property owner regardless if they be uh you know a business or or housing or a nonprofit providing services if we're providing public funds federal funds there's a length of time that's required for that public benefit to be met and and that that's how we deal with it so right now we have the possibility that the unit can be sold uh and then this penalty paid and what you're what you're saying is an alternative is we just remove the prospect of a in structured more like a lean exactly yeah that makes a lot more sense that certainly makes me a lot more comfortable with that language if we just remove that piece thank you um next up we have um representative hango and then shriana thank you i just wanted to also comment on um supporting broader language around housing insecurity versus 50% homeless or exiting homelessness as is referenced in in two of the bullets here um because i really do feel that um there are there are a number of situations where someone could be housed right now um but would be much better off with one of these rehabbed units um and may not qualify as actually being homeless so um i had something else but at this moment i can't remember what it was so thank you representative triumph right just to get into the point of weatherization i think there are energy codes right now i am not certain as to whether or not they apply to renovation as opposed to new buildings but it seems to me that um any contractor would who would be working on a renovation of an apartment who found for instance rotten window sashes that those windows would be replaced with any energy efficient windows and i think if it was discovered that there was no insulation in the apartment i think that would also be part of the construction so you know i i think the commissioner had mentioned weatherization as part of this um and i'm not certain as to whether or not we need to specify anymore i wouldn't be i wouldn't object to it but i think that the language in there would indicate that these renovations would be done in a way that would be energy efficient so that landlords had more of an incentive incentive to follow up on that with uh and being able to maintain their rents due to the savings on fuel possibly and so i think the whole thing kind of trickles down that way that to a point where um you know it would be to the best interest of everyone to make sure that these renovations are done in a energy efficient way a representative um kalaki thank you i i wanted to uh say i like the broader language as well around homelessness because yesterday i sat in on in the corrections committee and al kormier was there from corrections and in the last two months 300 prisoners have been released statewide not not all of the prisoners have been released because of covid a lot of just been released because it was their time to be released but um i and i think that committee may actually put some rental support for people in transition but transitional housing is really problematic for people leaving the correctional system so i think that here we should also have not just homeless but people leaving there and in the rental uh support as well we just need to leave it open and it because otherwise these people are homeless um so all i'm saying i like to the broader language as well that's more inclusive throughout a representative can saw us so to um representative try trionos um point in terms of the the different language between code stretch code and weatherization uh the clarity that weatherization is uh intentionally going in and uh putting in insulation uh putting taking um reducing how the air air exchange between the outside and the inside of the house so uh putting in new doors new windows cocking and sealing all the different leaking spots at uh to different levels that that is the weatherization codes are the safety codes and the the base codes for any construction whether that's renovation or new build and then stretch codes are the codes that are just a little bit better than the standard code and a lot of those have to do with increased efficiency of a building so not full on weatherization but just a little bit more efficiency so for instance um the the example that eruption of torana you gave around you're you're going in you see a windowsill is is falling apart you fix that in that process you make sure that that the the base code and this is where I don't know codes enough to be able to give a specific example but uh you know that that you replace that and you need to also have the efficiency of the air exchange between the inside and the outside to be a certain level and then if it stretch codes it just needs to be a little bit better so you need to be a little bit more attentive to cocking or you need to be a little bit more attentive to the insulation around the window which is a little bit um tricky which is a spot that windows are leaky all around on the outside as well and so um when talking about stretch codes it's just a little bit more attentive to the the long-term efficiency of a building without doing much different at all and those are already laid out it is they will they will be the codes in the next few years and so it just is getting us um a little bit ahead and and with very little effort and so that's the lid would make our dismiss last uh longer a particular with our very old old houses so just wanted to clarify that and what I'm arguing for okay um representative hango um I just wanted to to respond about the um energy efficiency I it's always a great idea to make your dwelling energy efficient I just don't think that this is the forum to do it in right now I really think we need to concentrate on um just allocating this money and getting it to people who are really in severe need right now of not having home to be in and um we can continue this discussion I'm sure at another point in time thank you all right so I'm I'm going to admit to being um a little I don't want to I'm confused um so just about what we're asking for here because so my first run through on this language that that we that we took from other sources is that first of all the whole concept of forgivable loans needs to be cut I mean I think we took testimony from the commissioner yesterday that this is not a loan program this can't be a loan program there's no way I mean I think I think if someone took a loan out tomorrow and then repaid it by the end of um December that they were actually saying we don't want to we don't want to fulfill the covenants that are that that are being put in place here we don't want to fulfill this homelessness or precariously housed person it's kind of like the old the the original question of HUD funding back in the 80s which was people could buy their way out of their obligations and that's what the forgivable loan sounds like to me after after hearing it today so um it's 1022 um I want to say what so what is it that we're if we're putting this in there's two there's once again there's a choice there's a much more expansive language in this and there's much less expansive language in this um the expanse the much less expansive language is very broad um but it doesn't address much of what we were talking about here so the question that I have for us is what is the simplest language we've we've heard from the commissioner that we've heard from the commissioner that there are many covenants of existing programs in place that would that would occur with this program as well so what are we comfortable with in terms of putting this allocation into this session law this morning so I'm just I want to I want us to like take this whole conversation all of which is valid and bring it down to a point of like what do we want David to put in our document for our approval specifically do we want to say six million dollars goes to DHCD for this rehabilitation program and it shall um follow existing tenets of what DHCD already does does it is it um because I mean again I'm the reality to me is that a grant is a grant is a grant I don't know what leverage we have to take back that grant except through a lean program as as as a commissioner was talking about um the the commissioner can put if we keep it that broad the commissioner can put the things that we're concerned with um into those agreements is that something we need to write down today um or is that something that by keeping it this as broad as the original languages or perhaps a little bit of an improvement on it um is that is that what we're talking about here chip representative ronald I think the specificity is a good thing I do think that we should make it known to all who may apply for these funds that number one there would be a transferable covenant on this on the property as far as maintaining an affordable rent in that particular unit or the units included in that um dwelling um and I think that um everyone should know that when they enter into this so I would I would suggest that we do um put some language in there that would um indicate that there are uh there are some protections and restrictions um on those who apply and and receive these grants as far as maintaining the um the affordability of the representative waltz well I find myself agreeing with representative to ryan over and over again and he said exactly the point I want to make yes I support that same concept so david do you have enough of what this last 10 or 15 minutes of conversation on this section has been to draft something that is um more concise and yet um addresses the the broadness that we're looking for in terms of the language instead of being as prescriptive as we are as as what's on the paper right now I can try okay um so david what is your schedule for senate economic development is it catches catch can today I think I'm supposed to be there in four minutes but uh I think this is due to be two appropriations at noon is it not yes and so what I would like to propose to us is um I would like I would like us to um right now go back to page one and scroll through stuff and say yes or no on what we've worked on I'd like to leave you I'd like to end this meeting um and I would like us to come back at 11 30 or 11 45 um if that works for the committee so that we can see uh see the the draft that would come the clean draft that would come out of our work right now and um is that is that sufficient for the committee all right so if we can be done in in in just a few minutes here so so david um you put up on the screen section so we're we're now back to what's on um david is sharing on the screen so section one the question is $550,000 to Vermont legal aid yes thumbs up thumbs down I'm sorry I can't I'm can you guys do that the hand can you do the can you do the hand raise on your participant list I can't see you with with everything here um one two three four five six one two three four five six seven I'm an eight um and those people who who would vote no I see two people voting no for direct um all right so that's so that stays um we have a new B um $250,000 to DHCD for grants to organizations that provide assistance um to landlords during I say um uh whom to assistance to landlords um I can flesh it out I just yeah sure I have it yeah and just and just ended with due to the COVID-19 crisis um is everybody um hold on let me just lower people's hands here everybody's okay with this or or I'm sorry who is okay with this um I see three six seven eight nine um and who is not lower your hands and people who are not okay with this I'm sorry Representative Gamash and Howard are you okay with this I see this um sorry I didn't lower my hand but I did okay um all right so that's that's the majority of people are in favor of that section two we are down to um I think that's I think we want we we came to some consensus not 100% but consensus is never 100% but we came um to consensus that the language that is here the longer language under housing and facilities is the preferred language but that the appropriation or the allocation would be nine million um folks if you want to raise your hands on that okay and people who do not prefer that language everybody lower your hands please and then um anybody who finds who doesn't care for that language please raise your hand all right so David that's set um foreclosure protections at six million dollars which is the administration ask um are we the the gist of this is um the the gist of this is um do we name the Vermont Housing Finance Agency and then utilize the language that's here Representative Hengu your hand is up is there a question okay um so all those in favor of this longer more prescriptive language that names the Vermont Housing Finance Agency please raise your hand more or put your hand down and if any and so you can remove your hands and if there's anybody who's opposed to this language please raise it okay thank you so that is that on the foreclosure protection rental assistance is 30 million dollars what is the second the second language is um the second language is the one we're either considering I think we were that we had consensus on the longer language bless you whoever that was so the everybody who's in favor of using the second language which which tells DHCD to appropriate these funds to the state housing authority please raise your hand lower your hands and anybody who's opposed to it please thank you so David that second language the one that appropriates it directly to state housing authority rehousing investments this is what we're just talking about so I think we have um so David I think we need you to come back with language that gets rid of forgivable loans and that addresses the concerns of the committee expressed about um having some some um keeps it broad but also you know made matches I think I heard matches some of the VHCB language but also that um that addresses some of the issues that came up about affordability and um stretch codes or whatever I don't know how best that's going to be phrased but if you can come up with something um in the next you know a little bit and have something do you could you think you might be able to have something for us at 1130 1145 probably okay so can I have I have some questions if you're ready yeah so that puts you at 51,800,000 dollars even with taking the two million away from the 11 yep I'm not sure what the target is it's 52 all right so you have an extra 200,000 dollars wow this feels like the wheel of fortune um I would I would I just say let's just talk about it at 1145 so well no because we actually want to have a set we actually want to have a set thing at 1145 um so 200,000 let's can we put the 200,000 in with the rehousing investments to just bump that up as high as we can get in tier one please if that's okay with everybody I would agree I agree as well agreed representative Hango thank you I'm having trouble unmuting myself um what are we doing with section two right now what is section two uh isn't that the whole rest of the tier two stuff that's in this bill it still exists right or I would I would again I well my suggestion is that we delete it for the time being and and have this further conversation I mean so much of and again that further conversation maybe as soon as tomorrow or Friday but I think um I I think it's it's better if we do not have it in the tier one proposal um there's too many unknowns there's too many unknowns just given the uptake we're not going to know what the uptake of the program is tomorrow or Friday but I think as we move forward and also in consideration of what we will hear tomorrow from AHS and their proposal I think it's wise that we um deleted okay yeah I just wanted to make sure because we had talked about it at all and you're asking David to come back so thank you no out of sight out of mind for me that was gone in my head a couple hours ago so um yep okay thank you um representative Howard did you have a question no representative clacky uh I I love where this is going I I do um I'm looking at some proposed language about at the very end of this bill and it would be any award and this is coming from um legal aid no okay well I mean I I agree in theory with the language if we want to share it with I think it's really late to start talking about that but if um if we want to share that language with David Hall okay my concern committee you have to look at it in the next hour and and we have to have it ready to go I mean go ahead and I don't know John if this language is already included in the larger package or not so um but what is your concern I'm sorry go ahead and I cut you off what language yeah um well it's what I raised the last couple days if we need to recalibrate in September may be the first indication that some of the monies are over allocated and some are under allocated and I don't think we can wait till December to in the last week of December have these dollars that are ununutilized so I think that there's a kind of check-in point um in September for the agency to really look at all the different re granting that's been done and say perhaps that more money needs to be going somewhere else if um you know and I'm just I'm just I want every dollar spent I don't want two dollars to go back to the federal government on December 30th and so I'm just trying to find a way so if it's in the overall bill chair that that's great and then I I don't know and I don't know that it is but it is it is you know representative Hango I just want to know where representative Kalaki is looking because I'm lost it's that's it's got to be shared to committee this came from an advocate so it has to be sure with committee thank you so um if the advocate would share that with the whole or share it with Ron please so that Ron can send it out to the whole committee and um and let's come back um and also share it with David so that he can include it at the end of the document again I don't know if it's in the larger bill it's a I don't know if it's something that appropriations can add um it's not it's not an invalid request it's just very late to spend any we don't have any time to consider a longer conversation about what it means beyond the the basic concept so um but if if it's shared to our committee and if you can review it in the next four well David said he might have he you should be able to get a draft for us by 1145 um I'm sure is that sufficient will people be able to get back online at 1145 for a final vote on this or please do um this is kind of the this is kind of where we are we also have um and then we can consider basically what David is proposing for the broader language on the rehousing and um we can consider this language representative zot I just want to clarification well I mean we probably don't know but I have a an appointment I can't change between one and 130 uh so I just don't know how long we anticipate the reconvening to go 15 minutes what's that 15 minutes okay great yeah no we I I just our deadline is at noon and I'm sure no no five they'll still keep the door open for us but I um would like to be done by noon all right sorry everybody uh Ron you have a question just alerting members that I've sent you a new link a new zoom meeting link it says 02 for a second session that'll start at 1145 today so that's already gone out you can look for it and representative Stevens I remind you that you have an 1115 at senate economic development thank you I'm looking forward to it this is my job I know no it's good I was um so everybody you know that's just fine and then we are on the floor at I don't know two o'clock um for normal every day um hijinks and so um I want to thank you for everybody I'll and I'll thank you again at 11 59 um but thank you all for your work today this was um we pounded through a lot of work here to get to this point and um thank you for your patience and for um and for your work this has been this has been an incredible week so um and we're not done yet