Human Services members press General & Housing to remove opioid‑abatement money for recovery housing from draft 8.1

Representative Theresa Wood and Representative Lara McGuire of the House Human Services Committee told the General & Housing panel on March 13 that proposed appropriations in draft 8.1 using opioid abatement settlement funds created a jurisdictional and process concern and should be removed from the housing bill.

"Jurisdiction for substance use services is in my committee," Representative Theresa Wood said, describing the established budget and review process for the opioid abatement settlement fund and the advisory committee that vets proposals. Representative Lara McGuire, who led the Health Department budget team and the advisory fund review, told the housing committee that the advisory committee had reviewed 54 proposals this round and recommended funding for 20; she said the advisory committee chose not to take up one recovery‑housing proposal that had been submitted to it.

Why it matters: draft 8.1 included language and appropriations that drew directly on the opioid abatement settlement fund. Human Services members argued that diverting or reallocating those funds outside the advisory process would be unfair to applicants who followed the fund's application and prioritization procedures.

What Human Services described

- Advisory process: Representative McGuire explained that the opioid abatement settlement fund is administered through a prescribed process with a state advisory panel that includes municipal and field representatives and two legislators; the panel recommends awards to the legislature and the Department of Health. - Existing and proposed funding: McGuire told the committee that H.218 (the bill consolidating abatement awards) designates about $1,400,000 annually for certified recovery residences as a continuing allocation from the abatement fund. She also described the administration’s separate budget proposal for a "recovery campus," a staffed step‑down facility, and said the administration sought roughly $2 million for that campus in the budget cycle, including capital fit‑up and operating startup amounts.

Committee questions and clarifications

Members pressed for clarity about how much of the draft’s recovery‑housing language relied on opioid special funds versus general fund or other sources. Committee discussion clarified these points (as reflected in the committee record):

- Representatives said the housing bill as drafted had included approximately $2,510,000 in appropriations to recovery residences, with a roughly $360,000 general‑fund base request noted in the bill text; members asked whether the housing committee should remove the abatement‑fund portion and leave any pure general‑fund operations requests to Human Services’ jurisdiction. - Representative McGuire said the advisory committee had prioritized a set of ongoing services to be funded for the life of the abatement fund and that recovery residences were among four items chosen for consistent funding.

Working committee outcome (direction, not final budget action)

After extended discussion, committee members agreed to a two‑part, working approach to keep recovery assistance in play while honoring Human Services’ process: move two smaller line items out of the opioid abatement special fund language and place them in the housing bill as general‑fund items for committee consideration. Legislative counsel recorded a working figure of $625,000 from the general fund split as "$300,000 for three new certified recovery residences" and "$325,000 for first‑month fees/entry costs for individuals entering recovery residences." Committee members emphasized this was an internal drafting decision to keep assistance available, not a final appropriations decision; any final funding remains subject to Appropriations and the governor’s budget.

Quotes and sourcing

Representative Theresa Wood: "Jurisdiction for substance use services is in my committee," and she asked that the housing committee remove the abatement‑fund appropriation from the housing bill and allow the advisory process to guide those awards.

Representative Lara McGuire: "H.218, the recovery residences are one of the four that will remain consistently funded throughout the existence of that fund. They received $1,400,000 allocated to recovery residences specifically from the opioid abatement fund." McGuire also described the administration’s proposal for a staffed recovery campus and said the committee prioritized a staffed, professionally supervised interim facility over expanding peer‑run residences given limited funding.

Ending

Members said the change was intended to respect the established opioid‑abatement advisory process while preserving state support for both immediate tenant entry assistance and new recovery residences. No final appropriations vote was recorded in committee; the figures and the relocation of language were treated as drafting directions ahead of Appropriations' review.