House and Senate leaders are at work on a deal that would preserve shelter for roughly 2,000 people living in motels who were set to be evicted July 1 — but are holding firm to the decision to ultimately end the pandemic-era programs housing them there.
Key details remain in flux as lawmakers scramble to draft a new proposal ahead of next week’s special veto session. But Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Baruth, D/P-Chittenden Central, said that the intention is to require the Agency of Human Services to keep that cohort sheltered until they can identify an “alternate stable setting.”
“There was a moment in Governor (Phil) Scott’s press conference — a month ago or something — and he was asked, ‘Can you say that disabled people, people with children, or elderly people won’t be put on the street?’ And he said, ‘No, I can’t say that,’” Baruth recalled. “And we are not willing to say that.”
Another key element: oversight. The legislation will include a mandate to regularly update lawmakers, using the Joint Fiscal Committee (a special panel that can meet in the off-session) on how many people are transitioning out of the program and where they are going. Administration officials have repeatedly told the press that while they are attempting to connect people who were set to leave motels with services, they were not tracking where individuals were headed. The bill will also direct state officials to negotiate better rates with motels.
The move is a remarkable about-face for legislative leaders, though it is only a partial concession to advocates. With federal cash that underwrote the efforts now gone, top lawmakers have insisted for months — in agreement with Scott — that Vermont simply could not afford the programs and needed to end them. One group of Democrats and Progressives had withheld their support from the state budget over the matter, and warned Democratic leadership that they would not provide the votes needed for an override of the governor’s budget veto unless the program was temporarily extended.
But both Baruth and Rep. Emilie Kornheiser, D-Brattleboro — who spoke to VTDigger in House Speaker Jill Krowinski’s stead because of the latter’s family emergency — said that leadership had since come to believe that the administration simply wasn’t ready for a mass exodus of those being forced out of motels.
They cited, for example, Scott’s surprise announcement that many who were initially slated to leave July 1 would receive a 28-day extension (officials later announced that others would actually receive an extra 84 days). The decision by the state to release a request for proposals for emergency shelter just days before June 1, when the first cohort of roughly 800 lost their motel benefits, was further evidence the administration’s planning was “months behind where it should have been,” Baruth said.
“Since we recessed it’s become clearer to folks in both the House and Senate that the administration needs more time, and maybe more resources perhaps, to be able to support folks leaving the motels in a way that is humane and equitable,” said Kornheiser, who chairs the House’s tax-writing Ways & Means Committee.
Rep. Mari Cordes, D-Lincoln, an organizer of the House effort to pressure leadership to change course on the motel programs, said she was “encouraged” about what she had heard from legislative leaders about the deal thus far. It appears “remarkably similar” to what her group had initially proposed, she added.
But Cordes said there remains an important unknown: “details about money.”
Both Baruth and Kornheiser said that how much lawmakers planned to appropriate remained subject to revision. The goal, they said, was to find enough cash — within the confines of the budget already passed by lawmakers — to continue housing those currently living in motels until the winter months, when the state relaxes its rules around who qualifies for emergency housing in motels.
Baruth and Kornheiser conceded that when spring rolls around, some may still have no place to go. In that event, they suggested lawmakers could pick up the subject again in the annual budget adjustment bill, a spending package that makes changes to the current year’s budget.
Cordes said her group was waiting until they’d seen the fine print before agreeing to support the budget and the new motel plan — and that it still had the votes to block an override if necessary.
“We’re hoping it’s not going to come to that,” she said, “and it’s looking encouraging that it’s not.”
But while the plan may mollify dissenting lawmakers and earn the necessary votes to pass into law, it was still sharply criticized by some advocates. Brenda Siegel, an activist and the Democrats’ gubernatorial nominee in 2022, argued that the plan leaves far too many people out — at a time when homelessness is rising in Vermont.
Based on new eligibility criteria that took effect June 1, the state stopped paying for about a third of those who were staying in motels. The new legislation wouldn’t restore eligibility for that cohort. Siegel argued that those requirements define disability too narrowly, and also force domestic violence survivors to jump through unnecessarily difficult hoops.
But, perhaps most importantly, she noted the new proposal only covers those who are already in the program — not anyone who might fall into homelessness after July 1. Those people will be subject to the state’s stricter pre-pandemic rules.
Outside the winter, when state rules relax, a family with children, for example, would be entitled to 28 days of shelter in motels within a 12-month period under those regulations. A person in their third trimester of pregnancy would receive the same, as would someone receiving federal disability benefits or over the age of 65. Someone fleeing domestic violence — who can prove it — would get 84 days of shelter.
Those rules are antiquated, Siegel argued, and out of step with the reality of a growing crisis. And she suggested lawmakers were more interested in avoiding the optics of a “mass eviction” rather than crafting a full solution.
“Just preventing what makes them look bad is not enough,” she said.
Anne Sosin, a policy fellow at Dartmouth College who is conducting research on the pandemic-era motel programs and advocated for their continuation during the legislative session, echoed Siegel’s critiques. The latest data show that Vermont is “on track to have the highest per capita rate of homelessness in the United States,” Sosin said.
“This calls for bold investments in evidence-based solutions and a more robust safety net of shelter, not a debate on who to unshelter,” she continued.
Kornheiser acknowledged that there would still be unmet need. “I think we are in a crisis, and we’re going to continue to be in a crisis, even if and when we’re able to get to agreement on this bill and the governor signs it,” she said. “I think that’s real and I don’t think that we should shy away from that.”
Both she and Baruth pointed to the hundreds of millions that Vermont has allocated to housing in recent years and expressed hope that it might put a real dent in the problem. And Baruth argued that with competing priorities to weigh, Vermont simply could not afford to keep the motel program running as is.
Legislative leaders are meeting with Scott on Friday to discuss their proposal. And while they expressed hope that the governor would get on board, Baruth also made clear their chief request will be speed. Even if Scott rejects the proposal, Baruth said lawmakers will be asking him to act within 24 hours of receiving the legislation, so that lawmakers could attempt an override, if necessary, within next week’s scheduled veto session. (The fiscal year begins July 1.)
Jason Maulucci, Scott’s press secretary, said he couldn’t weigh in until the governor had actually been briefed, but said he was “always happy to hear from leadership and looks forward to discussing what they might have in mind.”
“It’s always a matter of the details,” he said.
