Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Municipalities, DHHS and harm‑reduction groups clash over MOUs to prevent 'dumping' of unhoused people
Loading...
Summary
SB 441 would require memoranda of understanding (MOUs) for municipalities that transport people for shelter, housing or substance‑use disorder treatment. Sponsors say MOUs would prevent residents being "dumped" in receiving cities; municipal associations, DHHS and harm‑reduction groups warned the bill's placement in RSA 1‑65, added opioid‑abatement language and DHHS enforcement obligations create confusion, fiscal burdens and risks to access.
Sen. Victoria Sullivan opened a lengthy public hearing on SB 441 FN by describing incidents in Manchester where people were allegedly transported and left at shelters or in public without notification or coordination. Sullivan said the bill would require municipalities that transport individuals for shelter or substance use disorder treatment to have memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with receiving municipalities so there is advance coordination and shared expectations, and to deter what sponsors described as demeaning and unsafe practice.
The hearing became the most contested and time‑consuming portion of the day. Municipal leaders and associations argued MOUs can and do exist today and opposed housing the language in RSA 1‑65 (the local welfare statute), saying that placement would cause confusion. The New Hampshire Municipal Association and the New Hampshire Local Welfare Administrators Association urged the committee to relocate provisions into a more appropriate statutory home because the bill explicitly excludes general assistance decisions but leaves MOU language inside the local‑welfare chapter.
DHHS representatives (legislative liaison Jenny O'Higgins and John Williams) said the department was not taking a position on policy but identified large operational and fiscal problems if DHHS is required to administer rulemaking, compliance and fines for MOUs across 300+ municipalities. They warned that the current senate‑passed text ties some rulemaking to the opioid abatement trust fund and would expose DHHS to large staffing and IT costs to implement oversight and enforcement; the department provided a fiscal note outlining those resource estimates.
Public‑health and harm‑reduction witnesses, including Jake Berry (New Futures) and Laura Milliken (New Hampshire Hunger Solutions), urged caution. They said compulsory MOUs and new restrictions on harm‑reduction messaging or services could impede access to life‑saving interventions (Narcan distribution, syringe services) and would risk reversing recent declines in overdose deaths. Local welfare directors said MOUs tied to RSA 1‑65 would confuse front‑line staff and that municipal capacity to evaluate addiction symptoms is limited; they recommended intermunicipal hearing language be placed in HB 348 (an existing vehicle for similar provisions) rather than RSA 1‑65.
Municipal and welfare officials urged a more measured approach, suggested additional study and recommended the committee consider the amendment the Senate Health Committee had adopted that would remove DHHS from direct oversight and place dispute‑resolution language in a different statutory lane. DHHS and other witnesses provided suggested technical fixes and fiscal‑constraint amendments to preserve services while addressing municipal coordination concerns.
The hearing record closed after extensive questioning and testimony. Multiple stakeholders asked for redrafting or routing the MOU and opioid‑abatement rule elements into clearer statutory locations; proponents said the problem of uncoordinated transports is real and called for enforcement tools. The committee did not take immediate action.
