Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sober Living Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill giving local governments new tools to certify and regulate sober living homes; Oxford House warns of housing barriers
Summary
House Bill 783, which would allow local governments to require certification and regulate certain sober living homes and pilot requirements in Hamilton County, passed the committee but drew strong opposition from recovery-residence operators concerned about ADA/FHA conflicts and access delays.
The State and Local Government Committee on April 2 voted to advance House Bill 783, a bill giving counties and cities permissive authority to require certification, apply local health and safety regulations, and set referral requirements for certain recovery residences and sober living homes. The bill includes language to pilot some provisions in Hamilton County.
Representative Martin, sponsor of HB 783, said the legislation was prompted by repeated neighborhood complaints about a particular residence near an elementary school that he said produced multiple emergency calls dating back to 2019. The amendment adopted in committee narrows an initial set of options by authorizing a Hamilton County pilot and clarifies that any local rules must comply with the federal Fair Housing Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Supporters said the bill aims to improve local accountability and public safety. "This bill does not aim to harm those seeking recovery, but it does aim to hold sober living home operators accountable," Martin said, noting the amendment adds a pilot in Hamilton County and expands referral sources to courts.
Paul Stevens, representing Oxford House Incorporated, testified in opposition. Stevens said Oxford House is a nationally scaled recovery-home model that is financially self-supporting and relies on fast placements. He warned that requirements for medical referrals or additional certification could delay access to housing for people in early recovery and that parts of the bill raise potential ADA and Fair Housing Act conflicts. "This bill will generate barriers to housing, violates federal law, and will have the consequence of harming not helping Tennesseans and Tennessee's quality recovery residence models," Stevens said.
Legal staff clarified several points raised during testimony. Matt Mundy said the bill’s 1,000-foot reference applies to a permissive certification requirement for sober living homes within 1,000 feet of a K–12 educational facility; the Department of Mental Health would maintain the list of approved certifying organizations on its website. Mundy also said the bill does not mandate local compliance with building or health codes or require medical referrals; those are discretionary tools a local government may adopt but must do so in a way that complies with federal disability and housing law.
After debate and public testimony the committee voted 15 ayes, 7 nays to move HB 783 to Finance, Ways and Means.
Votes and next steps: House Bill 783 advances to Finance, Ways and Means; the committee adopted amendment 6379 to pilot language and other clarifications.
