Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Welfare Policy Residency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
State bill debated in public comment: towns could set 30–90 day residency standard for welfare aid under HB 348 proposal
Summary
A public commenter who identified legislative language urged support for House Bill 348, which would allow towns to adopt a residency requirement before they must provide general assistance; the commenter said the current RSA 165‑A creates inter-town billing and confusion.
A commenter during the public comment period described a recently introduced bill, House Bill 348, and asked the Select Board to consider supporting language that would allow towns to adopt a residency qualifying period before they are required to provide certain general-assistance payments.
The commenter said the current statute (RSA 165‑A) requires overseers of public welfare to provide assistance regardless of residency in “whenever a person in any town is poor and able to support himself, he shall be relieved and maintained by the overseer of public welfare whether or not he has residence there,” and that the new bill would allow towns to include a residency requirement of up to 90 days (the commenter suggested towns could choose 30 days). The speaker said the bill is intended to reduce what they described as confusion and inter-town billing when one town provides short-term aid and then seeks reimbursement from the person’s previous municipality.
The commenter urged the Select Board to discuss the bill and to consider sending a letter to the municipal and county committee that will carry the bill at the upcoming hearing. They said the bill’s sponsor will carry the measure next Thursday.
Ending: The speaker said they would follow up by emailing town staff and asked the board to consider discussing and possibly supporting the legislation at the municipal level before the legislative committee hearing.
