 All right, good morning everybody. This is General Housing and Military Affairs at the Vermont General Assembly House of Representatives. And this morning's agenda is posted on our website. We have with us the folks that helped us stand up the rental assistance in a REARGE program, the eviction moratorium program. Actually, those folks aren't here today. This is about age 966. So we have more columns from VHFA, Richard Williams from the State Housing Authority and Jen Holler and Gus C. League from BHCB. I would like to start today simply by welcoming them and by sharing my gratitude to them for really, as long as we've been working on this working on a program that gets us to where we are on standing up a program or a number of programs of this size is very difficult to do under normal circumstances. And certainly as we continue under the pandemic, these are abnormal circumstances. And while we worked with speed, I'm sure we did not hit all of our marks. And I hope to hear from the folks where we didn't so that we can improve that what we did. But I do want to take the opportunity to thank them and to really thank us as well for, you know, but to thank them for executing what has been able to get done so far. It really truly is unique in at least my experience here in the building. And I think a number of people have related to me on the positive side that there's, you know, that this is gives us a lot more hope than we had a year ago in terms of working under these circumstances and trying in the case of homelessness, trying to minimize it as much as possible. That said, it's not without it's, there is improvement to be made. And I suspect by the end of the, by the end of this session today that we'll have a pretty good idea of what we would need to consider in the coming week. So with that, I think I will, I'd like to actually, I don't know what the agenda says, I don't have it in front of me, but I'd like to start with Richard. And if that's okay, and then go to VHCB and then to VHFA to just do a review of what's been able to get done, kind of give us a standing of the process. And then certainly give us a standing of what the financial situation is with each of these programs and what the forecast is. I think I wanted to start with Richard because in one respect, the true level of the crisis may not be known yet. September 1st is among us and that'll be kind of the first big month without where unemployed people are not able to have the $600 that would help them with their rent. So 600 weekly. So Richard, welcome. And the microphone is yours. Good morning. It's good to see all the representatives and thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Richard Williams. I'm the Executive Director of the Vermont State Housing Authority. I'm sorry, you folks are having to spend your August and September in Zoom land here. Zoom peal, I think as somebody's calling the phrase Zoom pealier. Oh, there you go. That's a good one. I'm going to write that one down. You know, for us folks that are testifying this is about as convenient as you can make it for us. You know, we're not running over to the state house and, you know, standing out in your hallway waiting to get in. So it's, I know it's inconvenient for you folks and I know that it's not like being in the same room where you can actually read emotions and body language and see who's in the room around you watching you. You know, I look at the YouTube and I see there's a lot of folks that are following this. So I actually do think it has opened up and made the process transparent. Those are just my personal thoughts. So just to give you a quick history, as you know, it's bill H966. It was related to COVID-19 funding and it was assistance for broadband connectivity, housing, economic and relief. And that was signed into law by Governor Scott on July 2nd. The Vermont State Housing Authority launched on Monday, July 13th, the Rental Housing Stabilization Program. Just a reminder of the program funds landlords on behalf of tenants in need of rent to rearage due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The program and use the acronym going forward, we named it the Rental Housing Stabilization Program. So I'm going to use the RHSP. We'll provide rental rearage to the landlord for the actual amount owed by the tenant or up to the VSHA payment standard, whichever is less per single household if the unit meets eligibility criteria. The primary goal, just to keep in mind of this program is to keep her monitors housed during this public health emergency by allowing them to keep their rented homes by granting back rent funds and avoiding terminations of Tennessee, court evictions and homelessness. The secondary goal that some folks seem to forget it's also to compensate landlords from some of their losses due to the CARES Act, you know, the judicial emergencies, state of evictions proceedings. You know, since the governor's emergency order went into effect in March 16th, I think it is. And then with the passage of S-333, which extended the moratorium on evictions for non-payment rent and such for 30 days past the emergency order. So Governor Scott, you know, extended the emergency order to September 15th. So now it is October 15th, assuming that the emergency order is not continued, which I expect it probably will continue. And so as of currently these cases cannot get into the judicial system. So this has been a little controversy, but the applications are currently processed on a first come first serve basis. And that's stirred up a lot of activity in the beginning because people thought we were gonna run out of money quickly. That's not the case. And finally, the units have to be occupied and free from life safety hazards. The IRH SP has been active for six weeks and has paid out $2.1 million in background assistance. So that's over $70,000 per day or $350,000 per week to 816 Vermont households. It's reaching every county in the state. It's highlighted a tremendous need in our state with the stream of applications. The first few weeks, it was just nothing crashed, fortunately. We were able to keep our call center up and respond timely. But I think the first day we had 500 years, by the end of the third day, I think we're close to 1,500 applications. There's been some challenges because of the way the program was designed that the tenant could submit a request and the landlord could submit a request. And there were reasons behind that and it's regarding, I would call it quality control. Sometimes parties don't report the same information and it's sort of a check and balance when you have the landlord and you have a tenant saying how much is owed in a rearage. But what that did do is create a lot of extra work for us because we have to, well, we've referred to them as orphan applications because we have the landlord side and we don't have the tenant side or we have the tenant side and we don't have the landlord side. So we spend huge amounts of time communicating back and forth trying to get the data that we need to process the application. We have deployed the resources of staff and on an extended schedule, including nights and weekends to meet the demand. And we were also implementing weekly check runs. As of right now, there's no evidence of declining numbers. Well, the pattern of the applications has proven that many tenants have not been able to pay their rent during the current public health crisis. It has also demonstrated the continued need for affordable housing and shown that the most vulnerable populations were hit the hardest. Daily inquiries and pleas have come from hardworking Vermonters saying they have used all their reserves to pay rent up to this point, but they are worried about how they will pay rent next month. The SHA is dedicated to the task at hand with the realization that it's necessary public service for the physical, mental, economic health of our communities. And while we are meeting a current need it's certain that the need will continue. We developed a streamlined application that is almost entirely digital but remains fluid enough to implement changes and adaptations as needed. For your information, we meet weekly. We have a standing meeting every Tuesday afternoon with Commissioner Hanford from the Department of Housing and Community Development, Wendy Morgan and her team from Vermont Legal Aid and Angela Zawkowski from the Vermont Landlords Association. And our team here at Vermont State Housing Authority. So we continue to make changes in modifications as issues come up. I think it's a good process. It's our intent to continue that. Out of that is we're going to be standing up some modified applications hopefully today with some new FAQs on our website. It's, our processes internally here is to expedite the review of the applications but we put a strong emphasis on quality control and we've set up this six point process that focuses on accuracy and integrity of each submittal. We've, our outreach has ranged from digital paid ads from front porch to live radio spots around the state. We're also having some conversations with Vermont Housing Finance Agency, looking into the possibility of sending out postcards to everyone in the state. And the Vermont Landlords Association has expressed an interest in participating in that if we go forward. We still plan to continue our radio ads. We're thinking we're reaching a lot of population here. We've got a good response from front porch forum but a lot of the folks that need our assistance may not be accessing that media. And so we're constantly looking for new ways to get the word out. Angela Zawkowski from Vermont Landlords Association mentioned in testimony yesterday and before the Senate that she was still getting a lot of calls from landlords that are not familiar with the program and that's concerning. So we're gonna do another mailing. We, to all our landlords that we participate with through our Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program. We probably have over 5,000 to 6,000 landlords that we send checks to on a monthly basis. And so we're gonna, we did that initially but we're going to do it again. Just letting, you know, I think there was in, you know in the beginning, you know with any government program there's always skepticism but I think the word's getting out that the program is working well. I think the landlords are, you know a lot of payments have gone out so that's a good thing. And so from my perspective, my phone's not ringing off the wall from you folks. So that means we've either done something right or they're not calling you but because I've only actually had two senators and two representatives called me in the last, you know, seven weeks I guess now with constituents that needed some help. Not, there was any, not complaints. It was just that, you know how do you access the program and such like that. So we've been managing, you know again in the beginning we, you know we participated, you know in large group video conferences and webinars where our community partners and service agencies and we maintained this call center with three phone lines for 12 hours a day six days a week and with all our programs we have interpretive and translation services available upon request. That was, that was quite an issue in the beginning because you know when we set up the program we didn't have everything translated at the time and folks who wanted to see that but on the website it did so that you know our services are available. They always have been, they always will be because that's the type of programs we are we need to make those available. But we have not had any requests even though that was, you know that was a big issue in the beginning but and I checked in yesterday and we still have not had any requests for interpretive services from this agency. Now other agencies are providing that you know information as well in services you know Vermont Legal Aid is the Vermont Landlord Association if you haven't seen it did a great video out there and they're having that I think translated into seven different languages and so Angela did a great job on that. That's up on our website and it may be on others as well. So we're anticipating you know with the federal unemployment money cut and then reduced in the month of August VSHA expects to see an uptick in the number of landlords and tenants applying for the program. It's likely that many of these applications will be new and therefore we'll have lots of questions regarding application process and again that's gonna be an administrative burden to the program at an elevated level for a foreseeable future but that's on us. A referral from a partner from the program to our partner organization Vermont Legal Aid have remained at a I think lower than expected level with the majority of those being from landlords with and I found out that a lot of people don't like this word but it's not my word but it began with recalcitrant tenants in which is under a group two provision on our application. And what that means is the landlord has tried to reach out to the tenant, tried to get them to participate in the program to get back rent and either has ignored avoids whatever the reason is is not willing to participate. Part of this program will allow the landlord to get half the arrearages and at the same time continually eviction process. And we talked about this with you folks in depth so that hopefully that doesn't come as any surprise but the number of those applications and I will get to the data soon is not great. I think a lot of people were concerned that landlords were gonna take that route and get half their arrearage and continue with evictions but as I explained the process already is that the stay on evictions is I don't understand why any landlord would wanna get the money not knowing when they might be able to get into court why would they wanna try to work out in a relationship with the tenant? Most landlords we work with don't want vacancies they don't want turnovers especially in a pandemic where just getting a contractor to do work has been challenging for a lot of landlords. So we work closely with, as I said there's huge staff time spent going back and forth between tenants and landlords legal aids doing the same thing the Vermont Landlords Association has reached out to I think over 400 landlords. We're now starting to settle some court cases. I think if you remember it's earlier testimony and way back in May and June which seems like a year ago but I know it wasn't it's we've already settled a couple of the cases working through the Vermont Landlords Association I know Vermont Legal Aid and the Vermont Landlords Association is selling a couple. It was a challenge for Vermont Legal Aid to get access to the court records and I don't think they get those into pretty late in July. I'm sure that Wendy Morgan will be on to talk before this committee at some point in time and Angela will as well. And they can talk to you folks about some of their struggles and issues that they ran into. So I guess the most important lesson learned for us has been how to adapt on a daily level to the sheer volume of applications and inquiries and to meet this demand and continue helping Vermonters in the most efficient and effective way possible. We're continuing to hire additional staff to cover the call center and the application processing and we've been spending a lot on overtime on a daily basis. It's clear the trend's gonna continue and the administrative burden to keep the program running successfully will remain high. Currently there's, we've made only a few payments so far. Currently there's a little over $22 million remains in the program for rent or rearage grants and thought I might just kind of go down some of the challenges that we've seen and some of the program trends and such and moving forward. So the challenges have been the volume of applications being incomplete or conflicting applications. The program trends, as I mentioned, early on we had some larger grant requests. We're starting to see now requests coming in for the month of July, the month of August and some folks have even started applying for September because they know they just don't have the money to pay their September rent. So I think the grant requests amounts will be less and for less months. We've thought about, should we hold these claims until the end of the month? You know, but rent is due on payable on the first of the month. So we're paying these going forward as a submittal. So program trends, more applications for smaller amounts, applications with more recent timeframe. We're now starting to see tenants looking for that first, last and security deposit and possible rental assistance. Better in the other program trend is better community understanding of the program. Moving forward, I've asked that Vermont Legal Aid and Vermont Landlords Association help us stand up to program for the first month's rent security deposit and possible some rental assistance through December. We've also added a question to our application form for landlords asking if they need a small grant or loaned to be able to turn over their apartment to be able to reoccupy their apartment to rent their apartment. And we wanna refer those to the rental recovery program or the rental rehab, which is, Commissioner Hanford stood up with the home ownership, the five home ownership centers here in Vermont. So we wanna be able to make those referrals to that program as well for any units that have life safety or extensive maintenance issues. So just to look at a couple numbers. So this program has been active for six weeks. As I said, we've paid out a little over $2.1 million dollars. And our next check run is September 4th. As of yesterday, there's $1.2 million dollars ready to go out the door next week that may be actually higher. But that's what is in the queue and loaded up for direct deposits for September 4th. Households served to date is, it sounds like a small amount, say 816 households. Our next check run though is for 710 households. So you can see it's ramping up. So total served by September 4th will be 1,348 households. As I mentioned, we are reaching every county in the state. In those first check runs, group one, which is that's for the, those are for landlords that have not received the full monthly rent for the tenant. And there they have agreed to stop eviction and not to raise rents. There was 703 in that group. And this group two, which is what I referred to as a recalcitrant tenant. Those landlords are willing to accept half of the passive rent. There was 113 households there. A number of individual tenants for group one was 1,734 and with group two, so it's about 2,000 tenants there. Group one, the average dispersed per household is around $2,600 and group two was $2,100. The amount of grant funds dispersed per tenant was, group one was a little over $1,000. Average number of months of a rearage were four months. So the total program payments earmarked by September 4th will be around almost $6 million. And that's taking into consideration is, I think just 970 in complete applications we have right now. So we took that as an average and that's how we came up to that number. So we're, and I was asked this question in the Senate, everybody's wondering, are we gonna use this money? And we're all asking the same question and monitoring it closely, but if we do the extensions based on the way this is performing in the first six or seven weeks, we think we're gonna have a total program payout of around $19 million. And so I also sent over to Ron was a breakout by counties, the rearages, the grants. So folks can take a look at that. There was a couple of things I did wanna go over with you that came up in the Senate yesterday. There's concerns about that we're not means testing. That means that we're not verifying income household. We had a lot of conversations about that in this committee and there's good reasons why we didn't do that. First of all, it slowed this program down. Second of all, the concern is that, something that might be paying $3,000 in rent, might be able to afford $2,000 in rent and submitting a claim to us for $1,000. So I just remind them that this is a, you know, there are folks who had good jobs that might have worked for dealer.com or grocery.com or what are they lost their jobs and they're trying to maintain households. So I think the conversations that we had in the beginning and I think you're so good is that, everybody's looking for some help. We haven't seen a demand that we thought we were going to. We thought we were going to see huge demands. So what that tells me is, you know, Vermonters are trying to pay the bills, you know, but I think in the next few months, we're gonna see a lot more coming in, smaller amounts, but more people applying. I am very concerned if anything changes and that we have to do means testing because, you know, we run a section eight housing choice voucher program and, you know, it is very time consuming to verify income because especially if you're doing third party income verifications, we'll never get the money out the door. And that means that landlords won't get money and tenants won't get it. And so I'm hoping we don't go down now. The other thing that came up yesterday is, you know, if you look at, you know, in the bill, there was a section that talked about for tenants and unsustainable tenancies and households that received emergency housing benefits from the department for children and family general assistance. That's where the allows us to, you know, what the intent was that's where we could be using our first month, last month security positive and possible rental assistance. There was some concern raised about that because they thought that was going to be for only for DCF but there's a word in there says and households, you know, so it talks about unsustainable tenancies. There's a lot of people that are outside the DCF system or the agency, a human system that are living in a situation and they need to move to another apartment, you know, it's, we've seen a few of those come through where people are paying higher rent. They have an opportunity to move into, you know, maybe a, maybe a, you know, a subsidized development or, you know, affordable housing unit that, you know, has been produced through the tax credit program or through funding through VHCB where their rent would go down, but they need help, they need that first month's rent security positive to be able to move that. So in this program, we can help those landlords at first of all, that they're moving out of, you know, because we can help the landlord, you know, get some of their rental, we urge back. And at the same time, we can get some people into tenants into a new, more affordable housing. I'm just telling you, I just want you to be aware of it, it came up. Any other, you know, the other, we're really hoping that, you know, at the national level that this, you know, the CRF funds, you know, timeframe for spending is extended because, you know, there's gonna be, I don't see things changing quickly here, you know, in the next few months. So first of all, it would give us more time to spend money and for a longer period of time to help people out. So I don't know what's gonna happen there, but, you know, everybody that's trying to run any type of CRF, you know, program or run to the same, you know, same pressure is, it's, it was a short time to stand up a program. And it's a short time to spend the money. So, Richard, we have a couple of questions for you. I appreciate that update. It is the, there is a huge amount of frustration with the federal situation without knowing, you know, the Senate went away for their break without solving the, at least the extension issue. Nevermind the rest of the money. And so as you said, no one knows what the extension is gonna be. And I think in a situation like this, I'm glad to hear that the program as it's going is estimated to be still within the amount that we've budgeted. But I do think that what we budgeted was a guesstimate on it, but both the administration and we thought $40 million was probably right or $42 million is probably right. And that clearly can be the case if it's extended. I think, you know, it gets gonna ramp up too in a lot of the small ways. Representative Triano, you have a question. I do. I also, we also heard Peter Welch on yesterday talking about how he would support an extension of the due date on these benefits. And I think we will see some movement in Congress to accommodate that since I think states all around the country are coming in with the same issues. The other thing I wanted to comment on is that I understand means testing as a problem for an agency. When I worked in the courts and they went to a means testing for assignment of a public defender, it turned into a total mess. I mean, trying to get people to bring in W-2s or tax returns to establish that. It just extended the process. People weren't being assigned in time. So I agree totally with your assessment that that would certainly complicate things. But my question is just curiosity, not taking a position either way, but is there a question on the application for tenants as to whether or not their inability to pay their rent is directly linked to something to do with the COVID pandemic? I'm just representing through the certification that they sign that they're applying for so that they need, this is the reason why they deed the money. We are asking the information and because of the number of applications, we haven't had the chance to data input this, but we do have asked a lot of information, what about the age of the applicant, they asking if they have a disability, asking if they have, and asking what the annual household income ranges are. So also the race, ethnicity, and is there a limited English proficiency issue in their gender? So once this data has been inputted, we're gonna have a lot of good data. And I think I can, what I wanna do is I've asked my staff to prioritize going through the payments that we've made to get this information so I can get back to the Senate committees as well as your committee as to, this is who we're serving. And I think I can hopefully alleviate any concern that we're serving people at higher income, very high incomes. For what we're saying, that's not true, but it's until I can get this data inputted, I can't prove it to you. Well, great Richard, thanks for being here today and thanks for this update. I have a whole page of notes already and I'm gratified for the job that you're doing. Thank you. So there is a new part of the program we're gonna stand up that hasn't been out there, but we'll be on the website and as we're calling it, it's under the group two, but we're calling it vacancy laws. This will be for landlords that, apply it under group one in a tenant to not submit an application or apply it under group two. And what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna send you these applications so you know what these applications look like and who's group one and who's group two. So they applied under group two but the tenant vacated the unit before the grant claim was processed and paid or the tenant vacated the rental unit after March 1st, 2020 owing unpaid rent and if the landlord is able to document the lost rent as a result, we will pay half the amount of the OBE for any arrearages incurred after March 1st going forward. So any arrearages pre-March 1st, we will not reimburse them but the idea behind this and we're gonna ask you to document this through a copy of the rent ledger, we're asking the date vacated or the date the landlord became aware of the vacancy and has the unit be re-rented and if so on what date and if it's not rented is the unit in rentable conditions. And those are yes and no and then we're gonna, as I mentioned, do you need access to loan and grant monies to re-rent your units? That's a yes or no. We're asking to provide tenant contact information of the new address if they know it. We're also asking if the case was filed in court and if so, who their attorney was. As I mentioned, this program is to purpose. One is to prevent homelessness but at the same time is to help out landlords that have got no and many have got no revenue since March. So they're paying the bills, they're paying their property taxes which we've all got property tax notices in our mail in the last couple of weeks. So we know they're coming due and they're paying the utilities. They gotta pay for their water. They gotta pay for the sewer. Some are paying for electricity and many in some in a lot of landlords have just not received a dime. So this isn't much, but it's a little. If you give them something, maybe they can turn over this unit. They can make it rentable. We can get somebody into it. So we ran this by commissioner Hanford and he ran that by, you know, I guess it's a guide post the consultant and also with his administration team that's watching every dime closely to make sure that feds don't come back and you know, claw back this money from the state of Vermont. So we're looking at it very closely. And as I mentioned, where we have standing weekly meetings with commissioner Hanford and folks and we're constantly looking at this program. So the question is, you know, if there is a surplus, you know, we've started having those conversations. But I don't think we're ready to have those conversations with you folks probably until maybe into October because you know, that's when we're really going to know. You know, I could see where this money could be transferred, you know, easily to, you know, to the rental rehab program or Vermont housing finance agency or for not using it. The challenge that commissioner Hanford will have is getting the units back online by the deadline, you know, by the end of December. So, but I don't know what those applications are looking like that are coming into the home ownership center, but I hear that there is there is quite the demand for this money. Because- We'll hear from commissioner Hanford a little bit later today. I have one more question for you, Richard before we have to move to VHTB is from representative Gonzalez. Sure. Thank you, Richard, for that overview and I'm very interested in seeing the application just so we've got that full rep around. And one, when you were talking about the demographic questions, I am specifically of questions if you are also gathering information on sexual orientation and if gender include is just about what are your gender categories that you're collecting? I see what the form says and it probably should be changed. It's, you know, it's the gender is male or female. So that's a good question and this hasn't been updated so we can fix that today. And in terms of sexual orientation, do you have that on your application as well? We speak about that, you know, as far as, you know any discrimination based on any of those, that's another, we think, a use of the first month, last month's security positive. If there's, you know, someone moves, you know and says unsustainable tendencies that does not just necessarily mean affordability. I mean, if you're, you know if there's a situation of whatever the situation is there's other opportunities to use this money to get someone out of a bad tendency and get them into a safe environment. Well, I'm glad that that is included in the other pieces and if we're collecting demographics then collecting sexual orientation is a helpful demographic for us to have as well as we look at the program overall. Take note of that. Thank you for the comment. Thank you. Representative Wallace, you have a question. Yes, I do and I apologize. I've lost connection a couple of times here and I don't know, maybe this is a question for you Mr. Chair, when do we have to make a decision on whether to repurpose funds? Must be a deadline to put that. Repurposing of funds is ongoing. I think it's, there's a deadline. There's a, as this, if 1230 remains the absolute deadline there's a stepping back, there's a 1220 deadline where it might be repurposed. There may be check-ins later. I think the way that it's being set up is that by next Friday, appropriations, at least the house appropriations and it'll be ongoing till we're done will be trying to develop a plan B, like what do we do when we're not here after September 25th or whenever our last day is and what, if there's money that's available not specifically money, like if the account that Richard is talking about shows a balance of $10 million, it's not about taking money from there and repurposing that, that's later in the year. That'll be later in the year. If there's like a rush to have to spend money at the end of the year, that might happen. But in terms of if there's all of a sudden a run on the money and we anticipate the need for more, the Joint Fiscal Committee will have to be given the right to make some of those decisions to move money from this $180 million pot that does exist right now. But the shifting of it that Richard's worried about, I think that's probably later on in the year when it's, it would maybe clear that the argument can be made that the money can't be spent before the 30th, but it can be spent someplace else. Okay, thank you. We'd know a lot more if we had an extension. How's that? If it would be helpful just to let you know that we got a request from the Senate yesterday that came in from Senator Kitchell to all the chairs. And I expect that they'll probably be happening the same as on the House, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, but they were, they're asking each chair to gather information because as their work through their budget and they were spending the remaining federal coronavirus relief funds, they wanna, they're asking about the current programs and the funding and how much is being spent and how much is uncommitted and what is expected to be spent. I'm sure your appropriation committee will be doing so. Yeah, they're following up. So, well, thank you for that. Again, this information, Richard's testimony is online on our website and do you have another report due to us after we had the August 15th report that's also on our website? I'm not sure if there's a later one. I just posted the one that this is, there's no actual formal request for a report but I updated the report, which is on your website as of today. Great. What the Senate asked for and I will provide the same for you is as we make, if you want it as we make payments, we will update you on the amount that we're spending. Yes, that would be appropriate. Thank you. We would like to know that ongoing. Thank you, Richard. I appreciate your testimony. Have a great day. Thank you and please feel free to stay. There are questions that I don't wanna get into right now because they could be another half an hour of discussion about elements. You touched on some of the elements about means testing but there's also the elements of, we all may have heard from landlords who have tenants who aren't leaving recalcitrant, as you said, making claims, which I have no reason to doubt where people are still working. How can we get people out or with respect to S333 and I think this is something we'll talk about with Angela and Wendy when we call them in next week is the notion of eviction processes with people who are destroying property. That seems to be a gap in, and then Commissioner Hanford may be able to speak to that later today too as well, from what they've heard. But I just wanna pop over to Jen and Gus. Jen is here. I don't see Gus as he had another meeting. He had to jump off to another meeting. Yeah, so Mr. Chair, I'm happy to go ahead but I also see that Josh is here now and I'm able to stay until 1030. I don't know what the demands on the Commissioner's time are but if he'd like to flip the order and have it okay with you, that's fine with me. And Maura, if you're tuned in, are you here until 1030? Yes, absolutely. Great, thank you then. Thank you, Jen, I will have Josh pop in. So thank you. And is Gus gonna, is this also a way to give Gus more time to come back or? I'm prepared and had planned to do the presentation so he'll come in and add if he can but I'm all good whenever the committee is. Perfect, that's great. So yes, thank you for that. Then Josh, let's, Commissioner Hanford, let's go to you. I think that there's a generalist testimony for you but also the landlord rehabilitation program came out of your shop. And I know as of recently as two weeks ago that it was almost ready to go but I'm not sure where it is now and if you could give us a feedback on that program and you've also expressed concerns to me about the elements of S333 which may have to be tweaked with respect to property damage as a reason for eviction. I know we'll hear from Angela and Wendy on this later as well but I think that's, I've gotten emails from people who can't get tenants out and they're destroying property and which is a fairly normal circumstance with the exception of the fact that we have an eviction moratorium now. So if you could just relay what you have for us that would be great. Sure, well, good morning everyone and for the record, Josh Hanford, Commissioner of Housing and Community Development and I have time this morning. So if any of the other witnesses have constraints I'm happy to go last. I'm not needed to 1130 over in the Senate so anyone feel free to jump in if you have to get out of here early I can pause or go after them. So one more chance. Right, so Maureen, Jen, if you find and if you find that you need to go just send me a chat send me a note in the chat box and I'll mute the commissioner. That's tempting. Oh, thank you, Jen. Well, great. Yeah, so that's exactly what I thought. Chairman, I would kind of give an overview and then jump into progress on what's called the Rehousing Recovery Program, the rehab program. First of all, I kind of want to step back and remember the flurry that we were going through in May and June and talk about how this all ended up and that the Department of Housing and Community Development was sort of tasked with distributing $36.5 million. We in your committee would talk to about director appropriations to the groups that we'd worked so hard and collaboratively with to speed up the process and make director appropriations to VHFA, Vermont State Housing Authority, Legal Aid and Landlord's Association. Sort of in the 11th hour and Senate appropriations that all changed and those director appropriations were put to the department to make those grant agreements and stand up those programs, essentially get the project, get the program in place and grant agreements with our partners to stand them up. So soon as this act was signed into law July 2nd, we started working on that process immediately, day and night, seven days a week. And I think it was pretty extraordinary that 10 days, less than 10 days later, we were able to announce the mortgage assistance program and the rental assistance program with the governor, with grant agreements in place in 10 days with this being two of the very first CRF sub-grant agreements directly to another entity to make further grants to private individuals in the state and landlords and homeowners. That was one of the first, these were one of the first programs reviewed and for eligibility, concerns for clawback provisions. So we had a lot of work to do to get these grant agreements approved and signed and in place so that these programs could start accepting applications, like I said in 10 days after signage. So that was a tremendous effort. What we actually did first, the actual first grant agreement in partnership we worked on was with the Landlords Association because we knew that we needed technical assistance in place before these programs could be successful. So people had a place to call. And so that was actually the first grant agreement we worked on and had out the door with Angela's group very shortly after signage of the bill. And then we jumped into the mortgage assistance and rental assistance program. And even after we had grant agreements in place on those and started accepting applications we had a few hurdles we needed to work through very important hurdles to sort of expand the eligibility and meet the intent of the bill. What happened on the rental assistance side and Richard touched on this, I'm sure, a little bit. And you certainly, Chairman Stevens, know what the challenge was that prior to March 1st, rental or rearage situations had been flagged by the consultants hired by the state guide house as a flag for potential clawback of these federal funds because it was outside the period of the pandemic impact. But we had planned in the legislation to go before that because the point was, if they were not paying the rent pre-March 1st and were in an eviction situation they were gonna be enforced into eviction homelessness during the pandemic. And we, our attorney, department attorney wrote a legal opinion that this was the intent and this was eligible, legal aid did. The administration was very strongly supportive of the goal of this. And we reached out to the legislature, Senators Rock and Chairman Stevens to get some sort of opinion or letter regarding that that's the intent of the legislature. So we all were on record that we understood this risk but we believe that there was a valid and it was appropriate because the result whether someone was a year in a rental rearages or not, or it was just during the pandemic the result would be the same. They'd be thrust into homelessness during the pandemic and that was the whole intent. And so we worked really hard to get that approved so it didn't upset the program. We could have been in a situation where Vermont City Housing Authority had to essentially stop the program and retool it and deny a whole bunch of applications if we didn't get the sign off on that. So we were successful in that. Then we had a challenge which more will probably get into way more detail with property taxes. That if you were not paying your property taxes you could also lose your home and enter foreclosure and tax sales are still going on in communities for people not paying their property taxes. And so we were able to get that approved as well. If their mortgage, if their property taxes were included in escrow in their mortgage payment we sort of already had that sign off. There's a general treasury guidance that says you cannot use these funds to pay government taxes. Essentially property taxes being one of them but then there's a very clear frequently asked questions that says accept if it will result in a foreclosure of your home. And we had a couple of situations that came up where there was folks that struggling because their revenue was down on furlough and they were paying their mortgage but they weren't paying their property tax and their property tax wasn't escrowed. And that was a very real situation that we were able to work quickly and get approval and sign off from agency administration and guide house as well on that. And so what we did really in the speed of state government to get these programs launched and get grant agreements in place was something like I've never seen. And what we did internally the program that the rehousing recovery program was sort of put the launch of that sort of back burner to get this money out to our partners and launch those programs first. That being said, I'll jump into the update on this program because we have made great progress and I think there's some incredible stuff going on in this regard and I did send a little update to Mark, no, Ron. So there is on your web page a little report for this rehab program that I'm gonna walk through. It's not a very fancy report. I have to remind folks all the time our entire housing division is two people in the whole department. So it's pretty crude, but I threw it together to give you a sense and remind folks of what this program was about. So there was 6.2 million of CRF money assigned to this rehousing recovery program which is the rehab of rental properties that were vacant, abandoned or serious code violations. We put out a letter of intent or slash NOFA as soon as we could after those other grant agreements were out the door and we received seven applications. We selected five. Two of them weren't really legitimate in our view. The five that we selected and moved forward with grant agreements on were with the five home ownership centers, Wyndham Windsor Housing Trust, NeighborWorks of Western Vermont, Down Street Housing and Community Development, Champlain Housing Trust and Rule Edge. The program in working through, because this is a much more complicated program, we had to work out not only our grant agreements, each is home ownership centers but how each of their programs was gonna roll out, how their grant agreements were gonna look, how they were gonna monitor the landlord, set up payment standards, eligibility requirements. We have a five-year affordable housing coveted on every single one of these properties going. We had to work through all of that stuff before we could even issue these grant agreements. But these grant agreements are issued, they represent, I can either throw up on my screen or just read through this. So Wyndham Windsor Housing Trust applied for $937,000 for 25 units, NeighborWorks of Western Vermont applied to stand up 45 units at a cost of close to 1.7 million. Down Street, 20 units at 750,000. Champlain Housing Trust 20 units at 750,000 and Rule Edge at 20 units for 750,000. So we have a total of 130 units being rehabbed, new units being rehabbed and available to folks at a cost of just under 4.9 million is what we have. So we have a little bit of money left on the table and I think that's a good thing at this point because some of these projects you could, they have tremendous demand for, from landlords seeking these funds. That's not the issue. The issue is timing, can we get it done? Can we get them all complete and folks moved in by December 20th? That's what's in the grant agreements. That's what the landlords are signing up for. They're signing up for also, their own private match of 10%, a five-year affordability covenant and a couple requests have already been made for program expansion that we're mainly putting on hold till we see how this goes. One of the elements that is in the bill and is eligible is for occupied units that have serious code violations are eligible for this program. That was at request of legal aid, knowing that folks that are living in non-code compliant units technically shouldn't be living there and they could be out on the street as well. But with AHS's coordination, because we had many coordinating meetings with AHS and their intent is to rehouse folks living in motels that are homeless into these units, they were not supportive of that being a large percentage of these rehabs. So we agreed on a max of 10% of the units at each of these organizations falling onto that occupied but non-code compliant so that the majority of these units are gonna be net new availability. We also have heard from several organizations about great, sorry, great opportunities for a unique sort of replacing existing 1960s, 70 area mobile homes that are rental units. That's what people are running. Some of these are on farm situations where you're talking migrant farm workers living in them that these owners would swap out these units for this $30,000, they would pay the extra $90,000 and buy a net zero or energy star mobile home, agreed to affordable rents for five years, housed their folks in a much safer environment, saved energy, but that's sort of outside of their original scope, because that is a purchase and acquisition and so that's on hold as something that maybe we look at down the road as well as sort of new unit creation, sort of if you can imagine, some folks looked at this program and said, oh geez, well, I can create an ADU. I can turn an existing part of my multifamily property into another unit. That also wasn't really the intent to this program, but it's a great use to bring new units online. So currently those two factors we have on hold is something that we may consider down the road. So it's good that we have a little bit of about one and a half million dollars that we can allocate for more currently eligible units or to expand this program or move it to a different use. I've talked to Gus about a couple of projects in Rutland that they're similar in nature, that there are existing rental properties that sort of sought the VHCB funding but maybe would fit more into this and so the goal is to spend every dime of this on new housing for folks that need it and that's what we're gonna do, but we're gonna be flexible about some of this remaining funding and how we can use it. You know, on my report, I did put the elements of our grant agreement with each home ownership center in this report so you can see how this program is rolling out, that the goal of this is to provide financial assistance to Vermont landlords. These have to be Vermont owned landlords to restore blighted vacant and code-viling rental units to provide housing for homeless and low-income residents who face an affordable housing shortage as a result of COVID-19 emergency. The home ownership centers will coordinate and make payments on a quarterly four times to the landlords, they're not gonna give all the money up front, the landlords have to get this work underway and start to front some of this, we're not gonna place all these funds in the hands and then have someone walk away from a project. We're going to have a equitable and fair selection process based on how quickly they can stand it up, their willingness to serve homeless households. Each landlords has to accept at least three applications from the Continuum of Care organization, so three homeless applicants for each unit from the intake system and accept the common application from all of the Continuum of Care organizations before they can select a tenant, these are private units so the landlord ultimately gets to accept a tenant that works, they have to prove that they can pay the rent and that they, but they have to accept at least three applications from the Continuum of Care organizations before they can select a tenant. That was what we worked with AHS and the Homeownership Centers as a process to prioritize folks coming out of homelessness first. It's up to $30,000 per unit maximum grant with a 10% match from the owner. They have to ensure all permits and rental housing, health and safety code is followed. They have to agree to the, when I mentioned the Housing Affordability Covenant, agree to affordable rents for five years, at least five years in that that transfers to anyone that they sell this to or any other subsequent owners. It means in effect, we can verify that each year by the landlord certificate that they have to file with tax on each of these units and we will be monitoring it for all five years to verify what they're charging is rent and what the individual is receiving as any sort of rental assistance via that rental assistance rebate program. So we have a lock tight system for verification for the whole five years, because we'll know who the landlords are and we'll know that they need to file their landlord certificate each year and we'll get a copy of that and that no anyone owner, property owner will receive more than 15, we can assist more than 15 units with any one property owner. So those are sort of the basic elements of the program. Each of the five homeownership centers are working with landlords right now. They continue to receive calls about new opportunities, but the requirements are that this work is done and a lease is signed by December 20th. So we don't have any signed leases right now, we don't have any completed units, but I think it's the same situation that any of the other housing capital projects are in. We have agreements, we have projects underway, but nothing's finished. The question that was answered earlier to Richard about sort of how do we move money around if we need to, we didn't have a crystal ball, we made the best decisions we could on how much money was needed for each of these four programs that's under DHCD sort of authority, we had to issue grant agreements for all of these and have to be sort of responsible for monitoring the funding. The first opportunity to move money around and reallocate it is September 15th, that's what's in the legislation that technically I have the authority to move money around. At this point right now today, there's no recommendation to move money amongst any of these programs. It's just too early. Some of these are barely seeing the need which we think will continue to grow, but I think all of us, we meet regularly between the different programs, want to see every dime spent on housing and it's not about this program being more successful to that than this other program, it's about putting the money where it goes. So we'll continue those weekly check-ins and I'm not sure exactly how a recommendation to move money will flow once you guys have adjourned, but I imagine there'll be a process to update you or you know, emergency board or joint fiscal or someone if in fact we will be moving money between these programs. So I can stop there and see what questions you have for any of the programs and the rehab program in particular. Sure, let's go to representative Triano and being mindful of time actually, I'd just like to limit the questions to the end after we hear from Jen and Maura, but I thank you commissioners so far with it. I mean, it's good to see the subscription rate as high as it is and that it, but I totally appreciate how difficult it was to get this going, you know, but representative Triano. Yes, just briefly, Josh, you say that there are a number of projects in progress. Have these landlords or participants had difficulty finding contractors to do this work? You know that? Many of the landlords doing this work, you know, they kind of have some of their own crews, you know, these are apartments, so, but yes, but there are challenges finding folks to do all this work and that's one of the, there's one stipulation sort of in this CRF funding that exists right now, that if there are supply change shortages, including labor shortages, that there is a possibility of extension beyond the December 30th date in the existing CRF funding if you can prove one of those situations exists. So we're all exploring that and, you know, are seeking guidance from Guidehouse and others of, you know, what does that mean? How can we, so we're asking our partners to collect that information and every one of the landlords, you know, document their challenges because if we don't get an extension from Congress, there is something built into this that allows some sort of request to extend the use of these funds on those two sort of situations if it can be documented and approved at the, you know, Treasury, US Treasury. So, you know, I don't wanna say we want that to find that but it is some sort of a relief valve that we're gonna do our best to document if needed. And just one other, will there be a method to a referral method for people who may be interested in moving into these apartments that first, last and security a referral to get some assistance on that for people who might need it? Right. So, you know, there's not only referral from all the continue of care organizations to work with their clients to submit applications and they need to be accepted in these units but there's also, as I believe Richard talked about not only his funding, but some of the funding from AHS that can provide some short-term rental assistance, you know, we can't extend the CRF rental assistance past December. So, trying to coordinate that, you know, where it works best like you said, first, last security deposit, you know, is one situation we just, you know, we don't have these nearly ready to have these units you know, to start using those resources but it could become very important. Very good. Thank you. Thank you. Sorry, my dog from Gustition. Excuse me, Chair, your sound is cutting out and we're not able to hear you very well. It sounds like he wants us to go ahead and I wonder if Ron could go ahead and pull up the VHS presentation. I'm going to start. Okay, I'm pulling it up now and I'll share screen. Thank you, Ron. Yeah. Gust will probably jump on in a few minutes too. So, good morning, everyone. My name is Jen Holler, I'm the Policy Director for the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board and so we'll be updating you today on the capital element of the Coronavirus Relief Fund programs that you approved and some of you participated in the House Appropriations Committee meeting earlier this week. So you've got sort of the high level overview but I'll be able to talk about it in a little bit more detail and then also of course be available for questions. I want to start with a thank you and appreciation also for the competence and support that you've given VHCB to play this role during the COVID response and I also would really like to just acknowledge and express a little bit of awe for what our colleagues adding up all these programs. It's really pretty incredible. I almost wonder if it's unprecedented an unprecedented effort in state government and over the last few decades, I really think it might be. So let's see, Ron, the, yes, that slide would be great. So just as a, to sort of kind of orient us, the U actually provided funding to VHCB in two different acts. The first was in the fast track bill, S350 that was passed pretty early on in June and that appropriated $23 million. Subsequently, you added to that amount in H966, the bill in which you funded a variety of different housing programs with CRF funds and that amount was for $9 million, bringing the total to $32 million as the program that we're administering. And the purpose and the language in each bill is actually the same, which has been very, very helpful because at that time, as Josh and others have said, we couldn't exactly predict what the needs were gonna be and what kinds of categories. So the language is the same and so that's allowed us to respond to proposals that have come into us for both creating, securing and rehabbing new housing to help transition people who are in mortals or shelters or experiencing COVID related homelessness to permanent housing and then also to make improvements to emergency shelters to make them safer, comply with CDC and public health guidelines as well as expand their capacity because to allow for greater social distancing and just keeping people healthier. We can go on to the next slide. So the first act, S350 actually directed, specifically directed BHCB to adopt guidelines and procedures, which is something we would do anyway but we did that, a board adopted them and officially embedded a creative program and guidelines process for using CRF for housing capital. So to buy and fix things, that's really what our program is designed to do and for two essential purposes that I just kind of referenced. Our projections and goals were to help secure rehab housing for 150 to 200 households and you'll recall that the CRF funding is really designed to address COVID related needs and expenses that are necessary in order to respond. And so we all know that there's an underlying lack of affordable housing. That's why there's homelessness to begin with in large part, but there was specific COVID related expansion and the increase in homelessness and AHS was seeing higher number of people's and housing folks in motels and they really were not in some areas of the state sufficient units to help rehouse them. So that's what this money was intended to do. To create more units and access for people to affordable housing in areas where it just didn't exist. And then secondarily to help shelters adapt to the new reality and become healthier and safer. Our board adopted those and then we can go on. So when you will hear the same thing from us as you do from everyone that the December 30th deadline is incredibly challenging. So when a typical housing project takes two or three years to bring to fruition. So we knew that we were gonna need to move really quickly if this were to have a chance of success. So when it began to look very possible that the legislature would support and the governor would support using funding for this purpose. We went ahead and requested letters of interest from shelter providers and nonprofit housing developers in the areas where there is the highest need. Those were due on June 23rd. It's actually a little bit before that I think the law was enacted. We received 56 million in requests. I believe that's information we've shared with you before. Our staff reviewed all those requests and invited those that looked like they could meet the CRF guidance and guidelines and the deadline were invited to submit full applications by July 20th. We received 29 proposals for $39 million, all the ones that we had invited to apply. Our staff reviewed those, made recommendations to our board and the board awarded 30, just a little over 30 million to 26 projects on August 6th. So to give you the breakdown kind of between the two bills, the $9 million from Act 137, that was $8,966, which you, I think, and we are all thinking of is more focused on the needs of shelters and the need to create expanded capacity there. That's been fully committed. And you can see the details of all this in our full legislative report, which Ron's posted on the website. And it actually lists each of the shelter projects that received an award. So if you're interested in that detail, it's there. Of the 23 million from the fast track bill, all but 1.97 million is committed to projects. There's more information on that, again in the full report. I will say that not all the projects are identified because at that time negotiations were still underway for some of the acquisitions and some are for shelters, for victims of sexual and domestic violence. And so we talk about those generally, but not specifically in terms of location. So over 32, we've got roughly two that's uncommitted. However, we are expecting two more applications in high needs areas. We've seen rough proposals for those, but we've got two more full applications coming in that we anticipate taking to our board on September 16th. Those are still coming together, but based on the information we have, we believe they're gonna request between four and a half and five and a half million. So what I'd like to make clear at this point though is that this process is very much, well, it's in some ways very similar. We get applications, we review them, we underwrite the projects, we take them to our board and then they act on those recommendations. That process is all what we always do. What's very different is the compressed timeline. So these projects had to come together very quickly. The scopes of work were not completely fleshed out in many instances. Negotiations around the acquisition of the properties weren't necessarily complete permitting and environmental assessment and those kinds of things were not as far along as they typically are. So my point in saying all this is that these projects are a little different from what we typically fund. By the time we fund them, they're in very good shape, have a very high likelihood of success and are pretty much ready to go when they pull together all their other funding. With these projects, we are the primary and in most instances, the sole source of funding for the projects and these projects are, it's gonna be challenging for them to meet the December 30th deadline. We funded the ones that we think can meet that deadline but there may be roadblocks in the way and there may be some that don't actually proceed. So we'll be checking in with them on a monthly, actually they have to report to us officially on a monthly basis but our staff are working with all of them on a weekly basis and we've hired a construction management consultant to primarily work with the shelters because they don't do development projects as often to help them keep things moving and we also have a couple of our staff assigned to going around the state and doing check-ins and helping people do problem solving. There may be, but there are roadblocks that have already come up. For instance, we had one project in Rutland County that had not believed it was subject to Act 250 after the project was funded. A jurisdictional opinion was issued that said it was subject to Act 250 that could have really slowed down the process. People across state government kind of jumped into action and a really remarkable turnaround with the supportive chair smelling and information from the Agency of Natural Resources. The district commission actually issued the permit within two days and now it's in a public comment period. So if nobody objects within the next week or so then that project will proceed. If somebody does, it's gonna make it really challenging to meet the December 30th deadline. In another instance, there was a project for securing a property to provide transitional housing for the homeless and some environmental hazards have been discovered on the site. So that's something they're gonna need to work through. So I share all this in the sense that it's really extraordinary that all these projects came forward and we're really happy to be able to report to you that nearly the full $32 million is committed to projects. And then we have another, you know, actually more than the remaining $2 million in applications coming in. But some projects may fall away and others may appear. So it's kind of a fluid situation. I guess I would just overall say it seems pretty clear that we're gonna be able to use the full amount of funding. We can go on, thank you. Thanks for the nudge there, Ron. So here are some examples of what has been funded. So we are gonna be able to secure and rehab housing for Vermonters experiencing homelessness. It's in 17 different communities around the state. 212 new apartments and emergency beds in the areas of greatest need. That's the part that's gonna increase capacity. And then also improvements to 13 homeless shelters that are all over the state. And together right now they provide 251 beds. And they've gotten grants to do things like add a bathroom, add cleaner surfaces that are easier to clean, no touch faucets, different kinds of security, you know, no touch security entryways and that sort of thing. So, and there's a variety of types of housing that's gonna be done in a couple instances where there are vacancies and mobile home parks. We could quickly get new modular homes and get them cited. You'll see this picture here in Rutland. That's one of three buildings in downtown or in a neighborhood near the center of Rutland that really needs rehab and work in order to bring it back up to code. And then to be, there'll be a total, I believe of nine or 10 units there. In Bennington, this is a property that's actually already owned by an affordable by Shire's housing. But there are a number of units there that needed capital investment in order to be able to rent them. They're not, they're vacant now and they needed work before they could be brought back online. So those are the types of projects that are happening. There are also three or four motels that will be purchased around the state that will be transformed into micro units or used as a shelter for domestic and sexual violence. People fleeing that. Okay, we can move on. So as I kind of referenced before, and as I think as you well know, but just to sort of reorient us, this is just one piece of the overall response. So you kind of took two approaches when you funded all these housing programs, which is actually getting some national attention. We've been written up in sort of national housing groups where Vermont has national housing groups. Information is having a really comprehensive program. So with the mortgage assistance and the rental assistance, you're really trying to prevent future homelessness and then with supported by Legal Aid and the Vermont Landlord's Association. And then you're addressing the homelessness that was already there through the support through the Agency of Human Services for Subservice Money and then the funding through VHCB to help create units where they're needed in order for people to transition to permanent housing. All this takes an extraordinary amount of collaboration and we have been so grateful for strong support from AHS and the Vermont State Housing Authority. So there's that coordination that's happening at the state level around securing rental assistance and support services where they're available to match them up with these new units. And there's also an incredible amount of work and collaboration going on at the local level between the affordable housing developers, the shelter providers and the social service agencies in order to create the partnerships there that are going to allow the coordinated entry system to identify people who are home, the people that are on their lists and then get them into these units and match them up with services. And even saying it that way makes it sound a lot easier than it is because the different services and rental subsidy of different requirements and you've got to figure out which ones can go together and what areas they can serve and then what service capacity is available as well as what are the program requirements about what kind of services can be offered. And so all those are being braided together. Okay, and the Good Samaritan Haven in Barrie is one of the shelters that's going to be doing some work to become COVID compliant. Okay, we can move on. So I wanted to just take a minute and then just to say but there's other good work that's happening. The CRF funding, $32 million is a lot of money and an incredible responsibility and we are very grateful for that and for the work that all our partners are doing out in the field to get the work. It's a very specific kind of housing for a very specific purpose and it's in part made necessary by the underlying lack of affordable housing. So I wanted to let you know that progress is still happening on that front and large part thanks to your support. So construction paused when everything shut down and but now it's backed up and for the most part, I mean, it's kind of been a gradual process but construction has resumed on projects that have been funded with the housing revenue bond and other including some from Josh's program and Morris tax credits. So almost 240 units will be completed or online soon all over the state and these are just a few examples of them. So in St. Albans, there will be 63 new units in the building that you see here and another one around the corner. That's a collaboration between Champlain Housing Trust and a private developer. Snyder Construction is doing that work and the person in the bottom corner is actually working on that's a photo from that site. In Vergeans, they just had an open house. Well, not really an open house. They have the ability, they actually showed the apartment. It's almost done. So they showed their apartment. People who residents are gonna move in were able to see their apartments recently and we got a report that they were just, they were brought to tears. They were so excited about it and they're single moms, they're seniors, there are people who have some physical disabilities are gonna be able to use the ADA units there and then there are a number of working households that for whom this is a good affordable auction for them and there's, I believe there's gonna be a ribbon cutting on September 25th. And then up in the Northeast Kingdom, the project at the bottom is just finishing up in Lindenville. So, and then we've talked to you a few times before about the Cornerstone Project in St. John's very new Avenue Apartments and that the construction is underway there and apparently there's great excitement in the community about that. But wanna let you know that this regular work is going on and it still needs to happen. And also to make the point that you've heard from the state auditor and others and from us and housing Vermont and others before that housing construction has one of the best economic multipliers and can be one of the best way to help jumpstart an economy. So it's, I mean, we hope to be able to continue to do this and continue to fund more housing construction. Let's see, so we can go on to the next slide, Ron. And so I can kind of bring it to a close here. The photo on the left is from Rutland and Kusam and Zahar al-Ahalak-Mansur moved into their family this summer. This is an example of the single family or the home ownership work that you've made possible through VHCB. This one was built by Habitat Q from Humanity and a grant from BHCB lowers the overall cost to the family. This is a little, this is my way of segueing to saying that providing for affordable housing in communities is one of the most important things and the best ways you can do to make them more inclusive and welcoming. And I'm really grateful that your committee is spending a good amount of time on S237. I think that's really important work. And I hope that that can advance. So I think to close is that at this point, Mr. Chair, you sort of, there are no tweaks to the legislation or the pieces that authorize VHCB that we would ask for. Honestly, the biggest single change that would help us would be a change in that federal deadline of December 30th. And we know that that's out of your hands although we've been in touch with Senator Leahy's office and we'll continue to pee and touch to let them know what the implications of that are for us. There are a few other projects that we would have been able to fund if not for that deadline. And it has created perhaps the biggest disappointment for us so far in the rollout of this is that because of the deadline and other circumstances, nonprofit developers in the Upper Valley and in Central Vermont weren't able to get a deal together in time to bring something forward to us. So I believe those conversations, those efforts may still continue just in case there's a chance to advance those in the future, we were able to help shelters in each of those areas, but there's not, we don't have a project in front of us that we're able to fund around creating new units in those two areas and those are high needs areas. So we would have- Oh, sure, sure. No, I was just gonna, I'm sorry, am I fading in and out again? No, you're there. I would just, Gus is here and I don't know if he has anything he'd like to add. We would just appreciate this opportunity to stay in touch around how the applications are coming in and how that looks compared to the funding available. Mr. Chairman, go ahead. No, go ahead. I would just add, and I think Jen probably covered this real hats off to the state housing authority, the Burlington Housing Authority and the Rotlin Housing Authority, all of whom are bringing rental assistance to a number of these projects, along with the Agency of Human Services and they're bringing a fair amount of service dollars as well. And I guess the only other thing I would say is whether within the CRF timeframes or not, there will be partnerships that are developed and projects developed because of the discussions that took place over the summer between housing providers and homeless service providers. There is, for instance, an old school in Barrie owned by the local housing authority, but, and eventually that'll get turned into housing as a partnership, but it would never have met the December 30th deadline to be ready. So I'm optimistic that you'll see more of this good work continue despite the deadlines. All right, thank you. One more thing I, I'm sorry, Mr. Chair, one more thing I forgot to say is, well, to thank this committee for its steady support of our base appropriation, which is, which is really important and appreciated you listening in earlier this week as the committee's looking at a potential with the governor's recommended as a 3% reduction in our property gross protects appropriation from last year. We have indicated to the committee that we can manage that because of what's been added in the capital bill for this particular fiscal year. But what that means for us is that we may need to look to some of the CRF funds for maybe from a half to one and a half percent of that to cover some administrative costs that due to that reduction, we had hoped to be able to use all of it for grants, which is what we did with the housing revenue bond. But we just kind of wanted to let you know that that's a possibility and to hear from you if that's a concern at all. Okay, thank you. I have two questions, but I also want to be mindful of the time. It's 1016 on my computer. We still have to hear from Mora if people can stay till 1045. I'd like to extend today's session so that we can hear about the foreclosure because there's a couple of, not only just an update from the foreclosure, but there's a couple of key elements that we may have to pay attention to. I think it was alluded to earlier where people were paying their mortgages but then couldn't pay their taxes and there was a tax sale issue. So let me just get to the two questions. Representative Triano and then Wals. Yes, thank you, Jen. I'm just curious now, back in March, Jim Levinsky from the Boyle Housing Partnership indicated he had five lots at a renovated mobile home park in Hardwick. And that he could quickly fill those lots with five-star energy homes which were 13 units were converted about three or four years ago. And it just turned the park completely around. So he said he had five new spots that he could put affordable five-star energy homes on. I was just wondering if there was any contact with him or if there's any funds left to try and do something like that. They, LHP did not apply Representative Triano. I'm happy to reach out to Jim to see if that's still a possibility but he has not mentioned that. So I'm happy to reach out. But the answer to the question of is there funding available is it would probably take an increase in funding to do that and I'll reach out to him today and let you know next week if there's some possibility of doing that. That is exactly what we're doing both in Bradford and Bristol is filling some park vacancies with modular housing that's highly energy efficient. That's why I ask, I am in contact with Jim right now and we're going to have a sit down. So if you reached out to him, that's gonna be great and we could continue the conversation between he and I, thank you. Representative Wallace. You mentioned places like the Goods, American Haven and Barry and undergoing revisions so it can be COVID compliant and I think that's gonna be true of other congregate models that's gonna result in a loss of beds. So my concern is what can we do to maintain the current or the pre COVID number of beds or even increase them? What are we doing to do that? So we've made a grant to the Goods, Merritt and Haven, what we call a project related capacity grant and we actually did this with state dollars pre COVID right after Rick DeAngelis became the executive director for them to look at real estate options throughout central Vermont because even pre COVID, I think we all thought representative Wallace that the facility was inadequate and overcrowded. And so that work is underway. It was a great disappointment. There was a lot of discussion with the owners of a motel in Barry town and fair amount of discussion with the College of Fine Arts about purchasing or leasing facilities from them and both of those negotiations were not successful. So we will keep working with Rick to look for the right piece of real estate that can better meet the needs of central Vermont. So it's still a big gap for us to... That's a huge concern. This is not a good time to be losing bed. So thank you. Yeah. All right, thank you, Gus and Jen. Maura, can I get you finally online? Yes, I am here, thank you. My name is Maura Collins. I'm the director of the Vermont Housing Finance Agency and I'll give you a brief update of the mortgage assistance program that you all authorized with $5 million of the CRF funding. I'm hoping that Ron would pull up the first page of the testimony that's on your website. You've seen our August 10th report which was due to the state and you all have a copy of that. I had asked him to just pull up the first page because I am hoping that he could just scroll down just through this one page so that you could be reading while I'm talking about some of the... These are excerpts from our applications which were the reasons why people needed the mortgage assistance program that was provided. And you'll see here as he scrolls a little bit that a lot of people had good jobs but for COVID wouldn't have needed assistance. I'm seeing phrases like it's humiliating and humbling. These are a lot of people who are in situations where they were furloughed, they became unemployed. Some of them may not be going back to work for another year until this crisis fully resolves. And this program has been critical for them. And so I just wanted to start by thanking you for selecting VHFA to administer this program. This is exactly what our mission is to do to serve the housing needs of the state for low and moderate income Vermonters. And so it has been a heartbreaking joy to participate in this program and get VHFA staff working directly with folks in this way. So you can see the rest of that document, Ron is scrolling through on your committee website. I'm gonna walk through it a bit out of order because I'm gonna start with the good stuff which is what we've done with the money and then I'm gonna jump back if we have time to tell you a little bit about the program design. Thank you, Ron. And some of the numbers I'm gonna be sharing with you are a little different than you'll see in the report, but that's because I submitted that report August 10th and it's now the 28th and I wanted to give you the most up-to-date numbers. So we've had, we've processed over 280 applications. Most of the homeowners owe about $1,200 a month as a monthly mortgage liability. A third of our applicants are five months delinquent on their mortgage and another 25% are either six or more months delinquent. So if we're processing the applications now and if we were to fully fund every application we've gotten which like Richard said, we're still just kinda double checking that all the numbers are right and line up with that the loan servicer agrees with the numbers that the person applied for originally. But if we were to fund everything we'd use about 1.8 million of the 5 million appropriated indirect program costs. As you've heard many times, the need for this program we do think will grow. Through July, people had the benefit of the pandemic unemployment assistance. There was the stimulus check that came out. And so we are anxiously awaiting what the first 10 days of September do because I wonder if a bunch of people maybe were not able to make their August and September mortgage payments. And as of September, they would then be eligible for the program because we do have an eligibility threshold that you have to be two months delinquent in your mortgage in order to be eligible. We didn't wanna create a moral hazard problem where people were maybe only one month delinquent. We want there to be a little time. The need, as I said, I do think will grow. We just got numbers this week from a survey of the Mortgage Bankers Association where just in Vermont, we saw that the number of mortgages that are more than 60 days delinquent has doubled to 6%. And so we're seeing more and more mortgages go into higher levels of delinquency. That said, the actions of the federal government and the foreclosure moratorium for the state have been helpful in keeping people housed. And we know that two thirds of our applicants do have a forbearance agreement. It means that their lender, whether because it's a fanny or Freddie-owned mortgage or there was some kind of mortgage insurance by the government like FHA or Rural Development, they had some kind of program that required that they be offered a forbearance agreement. Other lenders may not be required to offer that, but may just offer it to borrowers anyway. And that forbearance agreement lets people skip a couple mortgage payments. So that sounds great. I mean, in many ways, I think there's a question of how much is this program needed when someone has a forbearance agreement and their lender has told them that they could skip three, four, five months of payments. The problem that we see, and if you remember what you all grappled with in this committee and over on the Senate Housing Committee was what happens when that forbearance agreement nears the end. And what typically happens, whether it be six or 12 months of forbearance that's been granted, is that that loan gets modified and the lender near the end of the expiration of that agreement will turn to the borrower and say, all right, let's talk about how you can pay us back for those missed payments. And for the next couple of years, the mortgage payment will increase dramatically to pay back those missed payments. That can really push people, especially since our program is designed to serve low-income Bermaners that can really push people into the risk of losing their home and unaffordable housing. To get to some of the demographics, to speak to Representative Gonzalez's question earlier, we did work with VSHA, DHCD and Vermont Legal Aid and we all agreed that we would ask the same demographic questions. And we've been tracking it and I'm really excited that so far our applicants have been younger, more racially diverse with larger households and are more likely to be disabled than the general population. So we're doing some things intentionally through our outreach to target those populations. We have agreements with the five home ownership centers as well as AALV and the Vermont Center for Independent Living. Where we work with those nonprofits, we had special Zoom trainings with them to explain to them all the details of the programs and we've asked them to be ambassadors to help people, their constituencies to apply for the program. Many of them are offering up computer kiosks in their offices, they're assisting people with applications, they're helping us with a lot of outreach and then we're reimbursing those nonprofits and a nominal amount for every application that they help people submit. To the demographic question, we do ask a gender question, which is male, female or non-binary. And we don't ask about sexual orientation nor do the other, does VSHA, I believe, because again, we had agreed on asking the same questions. We had played around with that question as well as veteran status and a couple others as options of trying to get better, deeper demographic information. But we decided to limit it to the ones I mentioned or I haven't mentioned yet, ethnicity, race, gender, disability and household size because we really were trying to balance our need for information with our need to have shorts to sync, quick, get the money out type applications. So that's where we landed with that. You can see in the report that's on your website or you could go to VHFA's website and get live reports that get updated every week with the demographics of who's been served in the program. You can see how many applications by county we receive and we've compared that to the state, the number of state homeowners with mortgages. I'll tell you that we're serving slightly higher than expected folks in Chittenden, Lamoille and Wyndham counties. And we're a little low in Rutland and the Northeast Kingdom. So we've been talking with the homeownership centers in those regions about how to get more applications from those areas. And Richard talked about some of the additional marketing that we may be working on in the future with VSHA to get the word out about this program. For the program design in statute, you all asked that we set an income limit based on a percentage of area median income. We did that. And we also, again, to get to a real simplified program that we could move quickly and have be easily understood. We didn't want a complicated income chart. And so we went with one income limit for most of the state of Vermont with a second one for just for Chittenden County. And in both cases, we're able to pick income limits that are roughly translate to about 80% of the area median income. We are only looking though at their most recent 90 days of income because you could earn a really good income last year. But if you were furloughed and didn't have any income or were in unemployment for the last couple of months, that's what we wanna judge your need based on and not what you earned a year and a half ago. So we've asked for just the last 90 days. We thought that demand for this program was going to be much higher than it has been. And again, I wanna point to not only the pandemic unemployment assistance that probably benefited this, but also the fact that a lot of folks have been essential workers and maybe on more fixed incomes. And so maybe we're not impacted to the extent I thought they were gonna be. When I was looking at the number of mortgaged Vermonters who fell within our income limits, I thought we'd see many more applications than we have. As a result, we did not go with the first come first serve approach. We wanted a batch approach. We thought that that was more equitable for those who may not have great internet connections or with language access barriers or things like that. So we started taking applications July 13th and we said we'd take them until August 31st, which by the way we're gonna keep it open longer because we have money left. But at first we thought let's keep it open for that month and a half, take in the applications and we would prioritize those who were at greatest risk of foreclosure, meaning those who did not have a forbearance agreement because they would probably be up first for any kind of foreclosure action and those of the lowest income. We also originally the statute said that we could give six months of mortgage assistance. And we started saying we'll give you three months and very quickly after seeing the applications being at the level they were, we said, okay, we'll do up to the six months that statute allows. So we pay the money directly to the mortgage servicer and we think that that ensures that the use goes, it goes to its intended use, which is paying down the mortgage. And by accepting even a partial payment of what a mortgage holder owes, if they accept that payment, then they are required, if they've already been in a foreclosure process from maybe last year or something like that, it resets the clock and it restarts everything if they accept a payment like that. And so that has been helpful. In combination with the foreclosure moratorium that you all passed by statute in order to keep people housed. So another way that we expanded the program you heard a little bit about already, if a mortgage holder, usually a mortgage consists of your principal and interest as well as maybe escrow taxes and escrowed insurance payments. Those last two taxes and insurance homeowners can decide if they wanna escrow into one mortgage payment or if they wanna pay those separately. And everyone makes an individualized decision based on their circumstances. What we realized was that for those people who had escrowed their taxes, which is the common thing that we see with this population, then if we're paying six months of their monthly mortgage liability as you put in statute, then those taxes could be covered by this program, but there were circumstances and there was one in central Vermont that caught our attention especially where someone has a mortgage payment but didn't escrow their taxes, did the right thing by staying current on their mortgage so they didn't lose their home, but now we're facing a tax sale because they've fallen behind on their property taxes. And so kudos to the state. We turned to Josh, he immediately was an advocate for this. And I think it was within 48 hours we had a decision from their consultant's guide star and support from the state to expand the program in this way so that now if you have a mortgage but you're not escrowing your property taxes, we can pay up to six months of those back property taxes. And we were able to work through the home ownership center with this one person in central Vermont to actually stop a tax sale that was due to have happened yesterday. So that has raised a question about should we expand the program again? And for this we need a statute change. And I pose this as a question to you. I pose this to the Senate Housing Committee as well and I'll tell you where they landed but I wanna make sure you have the same opportunity. The way the statute reads, we are limited that we can pay a household up to six months of their monthly mortgage liability. There has been a question now that we've expanded the program with this being able to pay back taxes, should we also look to be able to pay back property taxes if someone does not have a mortgage? They may be facing a tax sale in the same way but they don't have a mortgage. So right now we can't help them because six months of their monthly mortgage liability six times zero is zero. I'm asking, do you want to change the statute to say six months of the monthly mortgage liability or the annual property taxes if it was going to lead to a tax sale and loss of the home? The Senate reception was lukewarm. They saw some need. They were worried about, as I said, I think that demand's gonna grow. I think that even in the next 10 days we're gonna have more applications coming in, like I said, from the folks who now are delinquent from August and September mortgage payments. And so without increased resources, you are taking this pie and slicing it more thinly. At the same time, one Senator was raising the idea that since there is property tax relief through our income sensitivity program, maybe this is a topic that that committee should take up in looking at income sensitivity a little differently this year. And instead of looking at last year's income, maybe there's a way to do something similar to our program where you look at a smaller window of income, like what was your income over a 90 day period in the year? Or did you have unexpected COVID related loss of income? So there was a question of not just helping people eligible for this program fall into the income eligibility, but maybe this should be something that gets handled more broadly through the income sensitivity program. I pose the question to you all in terms of, we're here to administer a program that you've designed and for you all to consider. The last thing I wanna say before I stop and hear you is just, I know it is absolutely important and responsible for us all to be looking differently at outreach and access in light of the social events that are going on right now. We have a light being shined on inequitable access to programs. And this has been a focus throughout the implementation of our program. So I talked about the demographic questions that we asked. We also translated an application guide into the nine languages that AALV recommended to us. And we put those application guides in those nine languages on our website. And as of last week, 75 of those application guides have been downloaded. So considering we've helped 280 applicants already and there were 75 application downloads in different languages other than English, that tells me that this is an important thing that we need to continue to push for across different types of programs. We spoke of the nonprofit partnerships that we've done and we've worked with legal services of Vermont and others in partnership to push this program. So I think that wraps up. Oh, Representative Stevens, you had asked Richard about future reports. Again, we have a website setup that we refresh every week based on the applications that we've received. So you can watch online what is happening both with demographics and demand for the program. Our next official written reports according to our contract is September 25th to the state. And then kind of a concluding one, December 15th. But I'm happy to engage with you all. We're doing everything very automated and computer based. So reporting is not a huge burden for us. I do wanna just make clear that when I speak of having probably spending about 1.8 million in direct program costs at this point, we have not begun to cut checks to services. We have the luxury as opposed to Richard who's dealing with landlords who are individual small businesses usually who haven't collected rent in many months and they're really hurting themselves by not paying their mortgages. In the lending world, it's not unusual for things to take a little longer. We're working with investors and servicers. So of the applications we've received in July and August, we anticipate that we always plan that the month of September, we would be processing those and working with the servicers to get ready to cut those checks and that those checks would be cut by the end of September and include September's missed mortgage payment. So that people are fully paid for as long as they are delinquent. And if a homeowner has not used up their full six months at that point, they will be getting a notification that says, we have made a payment on behalf of, let's say four or five months, but you may be eligible for six and we're gonna create a process that they could come back for those last payments if they still have a need and they're still eligible. Happy to answer questions. I've got one in the queue from Representative Triano. Thank you. And thank you, Margaret, to see you again. On the issue of forbearance, isn't there a possibility that rather than increase monthly payments once this emergency order is off that these payments are tacked on to the end of the mortgage at the same rate? Is that a possibility? It absolutely is a possibility, but that is not a guarantee. And depending on how long someone has on their mortgage, it actually may not be that likely. If you can imagine that that mortgage is actually owned by an investor and you're dealing with a servicer who processes the payment. So if there's a forbearance agreement and I have 20 some odd years left on my mortgage, I'm essentially providing an interest-free loan for 20 some odd years for that amount that wasn't paid because it's not gonna be collected for that time period. And so there is a cost to investors for that. And therefore it's not always the typical way that this gets done. If that was the norm, if that was the requirement, then I think I'd feel a little differently about this. But I mean, wouldn't those payments generate interest throughout the 20 years that they rode? Well, again, you have to have a loan modification to accommodate for that. There is math to that to calculate what that interest would be and how long that would have to be extended. And so that's why it always leads to a loan modification at some point. And just one other thing is on the property taxes, I think that the income sensitivity would be quite inadequate in helping with back property taxes. I mean, when I go around and speak to people in my district, you know, a fairly modest home and especially in my district, school taxes have gone up exponentially. And so we're talking about people, you know, with modest homes owing $3,000, $4,000 a year in property taxes. And it doesn't seem adequate to me to be able to distribute some of that monies through income sensitivity. It just doesn't have the capabilities, even if it were to be modified to a lower income, which would generate a larger rebate. But I don't see it happening that way. Thank you. All right, I'm gonna end the conversation now. This was, we have many of the numbers on our website in our documents for the day. I'd like to thank Richard and Gus, Jen, Josh, and Mora for filling us in. I think there's, as we've had discussions, as I've had discussions with them throughout the summer, it's clear that we're just now approaching what could be a difficult time. I mean, while I'm glad that the uptake was not as much as we expected it to be, I think that this is the next wave of possibilities. One of the things I heard locally, which probably only lends to it just to a small degree, was our local good neighbor fund helped a bunch of people with their back rent as well, probably not dozens, but certainly within our community, there was a number of people who were receiving money locally and not tapping this program. So I wonder if that's part of it. But I think that the rental-rearage program, especially the way Richard discussed some of the older back rents really speaks to some more chronic problems. But I think we have to gear up for the next couple of months, next three months anyway, at least to see how we come out of this period where people have less income through the UI program anyway. But thank you, everybody, for coming. Thank you, committee. We will, Ron will get out an agenda pretty soon over what the next week will be. We'll be focusing a lot on S237, also on H739, and in working on housing issues as they come forward. So thank you, have a good weekend, and we'll see you Tuesday.