S.B. 137 Homeless Services Board Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Um, this bill should hopefully make some common sense to folks and I I can explain a bit of the backstory without going down too many chapters into it. Um, there has been an increased focus on how our state is going to respond to homelessness and to individuals who have unfortunately fallen into that space. There have been numerous conversations and back and forths about what the most appropriate strategy looks like, and certainly there are varying opinions on what that answer is. In listening into many different spaces and across many different conversations, I spent a decent amount of time listening to our state, uh, homeless services board, which, um, has weighed out a lot of considerations and even recently, you know, put forth a proposal or brought bodies in to put forth a proposal about putting together a large scale campus that would address this. And I was listening to the conversations and, and I realized, wow, there is really a voice of subject matter expertise missing in that space. And I know we really have tried to condense committees and commissions and, and bodies down to where they're not unruly, also, where there's not undue burden on, uh, electeds and others and having to participate. But it became really clear to me that the peace for physical healthcare, what we think of as physicians going to the doctor's office for a physical visit and mental healthcare, which is the space with our, you know, our mind body connection is very real. So I tend to think of them both the same, but in the way they're organized, they're, they're siloed a little bit differently, and there really is no voice that can adequately give subject matter expertise to that. And it was most obvious to me when I saw a proposal that we would have 800 treatment beds in this new facility, which I think we would all love if there was an expansion of 800 treatment beds available. But what that would actually take to do is a herculean feat. And without anyone there to speak to what that would take and what that would look like and what the costs would be, I fear that the plan got down a direction, uh, which perhaps could have been redirected earlier. And we lost time and we lost ground. So what this bill is essentially proposing is that there would be two, uh, additions to the Utah Homeless Services Board, and they would be appointed by, um, two of our most knowing spaces around healthcare. Uh, the University of Utah and the largest not-for-profit system with hospitals in the state. I have no, uh, requisite requirements as far as it needs to be from within those systems. Uh, but I trust those systems to use evidence and to use processes to not have it be just a political appointment, to have it be someone with expertise. And I, I just truly believe this would be an such an asset to that board, such an asset to our office of Homeless Services, such an asset to our state as we try to move further and forward in this realm that is going to really be challenging and continue to be challenging. But let's do it with expertise and, and let's not get ourselves in spots where we commit to things or say we're going to do things that really aren't possible. We need the right voices in those rooms. So that's basically the gist of this bill.

Yes, I will. So moved.

I swear there's more oxygen in the room. I, I Thank You, Mr. President. Uh, this bill came out of multiple conversations with, um, folks in the space around what we're doing with our homeless services. And it became very clear that our current makeup of our homeless services board has a chasm in it. And that chasm is that there's no great representation of health, both physical health and behavioral health providers or administrators, people with familiar with that zone. And what that means is that when we have a proposal come out, for example, that would suggest a campus like structure or a big facility that could house multiple people and make the suggestion that there could be just easily 800 beds for treatment options, there was no one on the board to say, can I tell you what that would actually take? Can I tell you what that would actually cost? Can I help the board be smarter in its decisions? Uh, and then looking at the makeup of the board, it, it has important representation there of people with knowledge around property and property values and lived experience and service provision. But there's no one in the health subject matter expertise arena. And so then I thought, well, how do we make sure that we get expertise there? Well, as much as I love us all in our legislative and, and executive spaces, we don't know that as well as our healthcare systems know that. And so I added that I would like the appointments to be made one by the University of Utah and another by the largest not-for-profit, uh, system that has hospitals in Utah. Doesn't mean that those, whoever they choose has to be from within their systems, but it means they know what subject matter expertise is and they can put people on that board who will assist. So I know we're not in a time where we like to make boards and committees bigger, and I I actually appreciate and agree with that generally, but this is such a large gap missing and such an important piece that we simply have to consider the behavioral and physical health needs of this population. And we have to consider system and systemically what it would mean to address those. So that in a nutshell is this. Bill,

Thank you. President Sponsor agreed to yield. Uh, Senator Plumb. Will you yield?

Absolutely. Mr. President.

Thank you President. I'm not familiar with this, but can you tell me how many people are currently on the board?

Senator Plumb? Currently there are 12.

Thank you. Um, so I've just, my concern is that's a big board and I would rather see if there's 12. Certainly we could replace two of them if, if this is of a higher priority or among the 12. Uh, it seems like the board members could also access, like you just said, uh, those who are experts in the field for that information. But, um, which, which would you prefer if that was the choice?

Senator Plumb? I certainly considered both of those. And as I think we've seen in other commissions and board spaces, as soon as you suggest one that you say, I think that is less important than another, you get all sorts of new, uh, feelings that are hurt as well as turf battles. I think if there were a way, um, like for example, we had a representation of a mayor from counties of the first class that has, um, a homeless shelter in their municipality that had been removed from the board. Also thought that was sort of an important piece, but in the scheme of things not as important as the health piece. So I think that selecting someone to come off feels politically dangerous, although I don't disagree with you that that could be something to be considered. Um, as far as would there be consultation, I would've certainly hoped that. But after listening into homeless services boards meeting faithfully over the last 12 to 24 months, there has been no clear desire to bring in that subject matter expertise via questioning or via hearings or via phone of friends. So I think it actually needs to be put there.

Thank you President. Uh, um, I think as we've, all of us in our appropriations committee have been doing the difficult work of trying to sweep the corners and find where we can reduce the government bloat and increase, and this is just a little more of that creep it feels like to me. Uh, I think if we could replace a few with this type of, uh, of, um, professional knowledge, I would definitely vote. But I'll, I'll be against this. Thanks president.

No, I, I appreciate the, the thoughts that Senator Owens has put into my mind and I will continue thinking about that and perhaps, um, survey a few more folks about if there were to be a swap, what that would look like. But I do feel it is so absolutely critical for the protection of our state's resources and our dollars that we are making recommendations that can actually happen and that can be done in fiscally responsible ways because the spending in this space is unfortunately not going to go away soon. And I would like us to do it in an informed and thoughtful manner. So with that, I call

Um, sorry. Yes. I would like to call the question please.

Thank you Mr. Thank you Mr. President. Uh, this bill, um, aims to create more stable placements, better informed families, and stronger protection for children in dealing with the DCFS and it's related organizations. Um, we've gotten to agreement on the provisions

Thank you. Uh, this bill was circled just a little bit earlier today. Apologies I was not on the floor when it came up. This bill is one that we discussed yesterday about adding two voices of subject matter expertise around health in the homeless, uh, services board space. I appreciated the feedback from my colleagues yesterday and dove in to understand if there was possibly a spot we could switch out with. Spoke with a former coordinator of the Office of Homeless Services, Senator, former Senator Niederhauser. Spoke with the governor's office and, and realized that it had, that board had actually been cut down from 29 to 11 and they really felt that every voice that was on there was crucial, while also acknowledging the need for a health voice to keep the state's funds and our response to homelessness appropriate. So with that being said, I would vote that we, or, I mean I'm open to questions, but that would hope that we can move forward with this bill without any changes.