A top administration official told lawmakers Friday they could avoid Gov. Phil Scott's likely veto on a must-pass spending package if they agreed not to extend expanded eligibility for the state's motel shelter program 鈥� and let municipalities take responsibility for the homeless Vermonters about to lose their state-sponsored rooms.
The program currently provides shelter to roughly 1,400 homeless households. Expanded eligibility, in place during the winter months, will expire at the end of March, and lawmakers have set aside $1.8 million in their to extend that date to June 30.
Scott has objected to that extension. But Vermont Administration Secretary Sarah Clark came to lawmakers Friday with the administration鈥檚 compromise: roughly $2.1 million for flexible grants to municipalities, to use however cities and towns wanted to respond to people leaving the motels.
Municipalities could take that cash and continue paying for motel rooms, Clark said, give it to nonprofit shelters to build out their capacity, or help relocate homeless Vermonters elsewhere.
鈥淢aximum flexibility means that they really have the ability to make that decision,鈥� she said.
The motel program has provided shelter to thousands of Vermonters in recent years 鈥� but it is expensive, and has become a political flashpoint amidst Vermont鈥檚 spiralling homelessness problem. Thanks to federal funds, the program鈥檚 capacity was dramatically expanded during the pandemic, but Scott has tried for years now to scale down the program, arguing that the state cannot sustain the expanded shelter program absent federal funds.
Democrats have agreed to new restrictions on the program since the pandemic. But they have generally been hesitant to downsize it as aggressively as Scott has. And on Friday, legislative leaders made clear they did not consider the governor鈥檚 idea a credible proposal.
It's going to cost more money than we had to just keep them in hotel rooms 鈥� and I think it's going to add a lot of extra work and worry and confusion.Sen. Andrew Perchlik, on the Scott administration's proposal
鈥淭here's no money savings,鈥� the Senate鈥檚 top budget writer, Andrew Perchlik, D-Washington, told Clark. 鈥淚n fact, it's going to cost more money than we had to just keep them in hotel rooms 鈥� and I think it's going to add a lot of extra work and worry and confusion.鈥�
Lawmakers also argued there was no way municipalities could take on the responsibility envisioned by Scott鈥檚 plan 鈥� within the space of just a few weeks. To underline their point, they invited the Vermont League of Cities and Towns to testify on the matter.
Samantha Sheehan, a lobbyist for the municipal advocacy group, told lawmakers Friday that, practical considerations aside, such services were the state鈥檚 job to deliver 鈥� not cities and towns.
鈥淪ome time ago, the Legislature and state government as a whole made that decision to remove those resources and authorities from local government and to take over the administration of human services, and that is how it is now,鈥� she said. 鈥淲e are not open to reconsidering that on the fly today.鈥�
Having lost their supermajorities in the November elections, Democratic leaders in the Legislature can no longer pass legislation without the governor鈥檚 support. As the committee鈥檚 meeting wrapped up, Sen. Randy Brock, R-Franklin, nodded to the showdown ahead. Without a deal on the matter, he said, the bill would almost certainly be vetoed, and Democrats alone would not be able to override it.
鈥淭hen what?鈥� he said. 鈥淢y sense is that 鈥榯hen what鈥� will be back to this proposal that gets fleshed out 鈥� perhaps in a slightly different way.鈥�
Have questions, comments or tips? .
