$245 Million More Approved for Shelters, Effort to Limit to Residents Foiled.

House Democrats voted Wednesday to steer another $245 million toward the overwhelmed emergency family shelter system while capping how long people can receive its services, along the way rejecting a Republican proposal to limit program eligibility.

The House voted 121-33 to approve the spending bill, which also makes permanent some pandemic-era policies like takeout drink sales. Eight Democrats voted against the bill -- Reps. Mike Connolly of Cambridge, Colleen Garry of Dracut, Natalie Higgins of Leominster, Joan Meschino of Hull, David Robertson of Tewksbury, Danillo Sena of Acton, Erika Uyterhoeven of Somerville, and Jonathan Zlotnik of Gardner -- in addition to unenrolled Rep. Susannah Whipps of Athol. All Republicans also voted no.

The bill features a new approach to how Massachusetts administers emergency family shelters, more than a year after demand for services began to spike amid an increase in new migrant arrivals and four months after Gov. Maura Healey capped the maximum number of families in the system.

With the Healey administration projecting shelter costs will pass $900 million this fiscal year and next, House Democrats are growing more mindful of difficult budget choices and now say they need to make changes to keep the system afloat.

Massachusetts, which is the only state in the country that guarantees emergency shelter services to some families and pregnant women, eclipsed a record number of families in the system months ago. The sustained need prompted Healey in the fall to impose a capacity limit of 7,500 families.

As of Wednesday, there were 783 families eligible for shelter but on a waitlist because no spots are available, according to a spokesperson for the Executive Office of Housing and Livable Communities.

To trim costs while keeping services operational, the bill caps most shelter stays at no longer than nine consecutive months, compared to the current average stay of 13 to 14 months. Shelter residents who are employed or enrolled in a job training program could get another three months. The bill is mostly silent on what would happen to families once they hit the time limit, but House Ways and Means Committee Chair Aaron Michlewitz said it gives the Healey administration options to create a "reapplication process" for people who hit the limit.

Representative Paul Frost had proposed an amendment to the emergency shelter legislation under consideration. His amendment sought to impose a six-month residency requirement for eligibility in the right to shelter program.  It was rejected by what Republican State Committee Chair, Amy Carnevale, called "the Democrat supermajority in the House." Establishing a six month residency requirement for the Right to Shelter Program stands out as the most viable approach to curbing the influx of migrants entering Massachusetts while preserving the essence of the program, she argued.

"It is deeply concerning that Democrats are unwilling to entertain the notion of implementing a six-month residency requirement as a means to regulate access to the right to shelter law. Such a measure is the most effective strategy to manage the influx of migrants entering Massachusetts," said Carnevale.  Rather than addressing the root of the issue, Democrats seem content to perpetuate the crisis through endless spending which will result in serious consequences for programs important to our cities and towns.”

“Representative Frost's proposed amendment resonates strongly with many Massachusetts residents, who feel that decisive action is necessary," Carnevale continued. "It is imperative for Massachusetts residents to understand that today, Republicans stood up for a prudent approach to addressing the migrant crisis, only to have it dismissed by Democrats,” Carnevale concluded.