‘Schools not shelters’ bill divides committee — sponsors cite student welfare; finance panel warns of federal funding loss

Sponsor Juliet Harvey Bolia told the Senate Judiciary Committee HB 71 was motivated by closures of schools used for non‑student housing during emergency operations elsewhere and is intended to prioritize students and in‑person learning.

Representative Juliet Harvey Bolia (Belknap District 3) said the bill — modeled on legislation introduced in other jurisdictions — would prevent schools from being used exclusively to shelter ‘‘specified aliens’’ except for short‑term emergency use (the bill defines short‑term as not to exceed 72 hours) and carveouts for formally declared disasters. “After COVID happened and they shut our schools down…I swore that we would never let them shut our schools down again for political reasons,” Harvey Bolia told the committee.

Supporters argued schools are taxpayer‑funded educational facilities and should be preserved for students. Co‑sponsor Representative Lisa Freeman described instances in which airports and community centers were repurposed for large sheltering operations and urged a proactive measure to protect school operations.

Opponents stressed federal compliance and funding risks, constitutional concerns and the potential erosion of local emergency planning. Representative Timothy Horrigan (Strafford County) and others said the examples cited in testimony did not demonstrate that schools in New Hampshire have been used for this purpose and questioned whether the state should constrain municipal emergency responses. Kate Horgan of the New Hampshire Association of Counties testified that counties provide services (including long‑term care) to vulnerable populations and said ambiguity in the bill could put federal licensing and reimbursements at risk.

Finance committee testimony raised an explicit budget concern: Representative Stringham reported that committee review identified a potential loss of federal funding — cited in the hearing as up to $18,000,000 per year — if the state were out of compliance with federal refugee‑resettlement or HUD guidance. Stringham described the bill’s practical effect as limited (the committee estimated the number of qualifying incidents might be near zero), but highlighted the financial exposure if federal programs judged state practice noncompliant.

Other witnesses included parents and local officials who said using schools for long‑term sheltering damages students’ mental health and routine; Aubrey Friedman (Bridgewater) and others urged the committee to pass the measure. Several opponents urged ITL or significant amendment.

Why it matters: The bill raises a classic state–local tension between local emergency prerogatives and statewide statutory limits — with a specific overlay of federal funding and administrative compliance. Compliance with federal refugee and housing programs was a central practical concern.

Committee status: The hearing record closed with questions and public testimony; no vote on the measure was recorded during the session transcript. The committee received testimony from municipal, county and advocacy groups, and the finance committee comment about potential federal funding loss was a central part of the record.

Ending: The committee deferred decision at the close of the hearing; witnesses said planning for any future shelter operations should be transparent and coordinated with state and federal partners.