Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homelessness Transport Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates bill to restrict transporting people experiencing homelessness across municipal lines
Summary
Lawmakers debated House Bill 162, which would bar transporting people experiencing homelessness to another municipality without written consent from that municipality; supporters said it would stop out‑of‑state actors, while law enforcement and some members warned of unintended consequences and urged further drafting.
Representative Lipscomb introduced House Bill 162, saying the one‑page bill would prohibit transporting people experiencing homelessness to another municipality without written permission from the receiving jurisdiction, except where authorized by law, court order, or the individual’s consent. "It basically says that if you have got homeless people within your community... that you may not transport them to another municipality without having some written permission from that other municipality," Lipscomb said.
The bill would permit intercounty (or intermunicipal) transfers if a written agreement exists and the receiving entity formally accepts the individuals, and it would classify violations as a class A misdemeanor for each offense, according to Lipscomb's description.
Supporters described repeated incidents that motivated the measure. "This was something that I first learned, about perhaps 15 years ago when I sat as a municipal court judge," Representative Chestnut said, recounting cases of people saying they had been dropped off in a different city by officers from another jurisdiction.
Several members and the committee’s vice chairman, Representative Betzel, raised practical and enforcement concerns. Betzel, speaking from his law enforcement background, said the bill could criminalize routine transports intended to connect people to services. "I see this from my perspective of being a law enforcement officer... we don't have a lot of resources when it comes to homeless. So our resources are in a neighboring county," he said, adding that officers sometimes transport people to hubs where services are available.
Lipscomb said those operational issues could be addressed through amendments, including language to protect law enforcement acting in good faith, and noted that written agreements between jurisdictions would resolve many cases where transfers are coordinated. "If you've got an issue where you're concerned about the law enforcement officers being fined, I think we can probably do a floor amendment or something to that magnitude to address that," Lipscomb said.
Committee members disagreed about process. Some members urged referral to a subcommittee for additional drafting and stakeholder meetings; Lipscomb opposed further delay, saying prior subcommittee work had not produced agreement. One member asked to "carry it over the call of the chair" to allow more meetings with interested parties. The sponsor later identified the committee vice chairman as the primary opposition during the prior session.
Outcome: No committee vote was recorded on HB 162 during the meeting. Representative Chestnut moved for a favorable report; members discussed carrying the bill over for additional work or returning with amendments. The committee took no final action at this meeting.
