CONCORD, N.H. – When a homeless person from Town A goes to Town B seeking shelter or other services, who pays for those services? One piece of legislation under review in the state legislature seeks to answer that question.
On Tuesday, the New Hampshire Senate Committee on Election Law and Municipal Affairs heard testimony on SB 110, which addresses the topic of municipal financial responsibility for individuals seeking emergency shelter, hospital or treatment programs.
If passed, the bill would ensure that any individual seeking those services does not lose their residency simply due to seeking those services and municipalities providing those services would be entitled to reimbursement from the aid seeker’s municipality of origin.
Proposed changes to state law proposed by the bill says an individual does not lose their original residency also specify if they self-pay for an emergency shelter room in a hotel or motel and then does not receive any additional assistance for 30 days. They also don’t lose their original residency if are removed from a shelter unless they remain “in a situation of homelessness” for 30 days.
The bill also requires municipalities to collaborate with each other in regard to meeting the needs of those individuals seeking support and also requires reimbursement for “receiver” municipalities when it is determined to be unreasonable for the person seeking support to physically return to their municipality of origin due to transportation, timing of need for assistance or unclear residency.
That last point was a concern for Stephen Tower, an attorney for New Hampshire Legal Aid out of Manchester. Specifically, Tower expressed concern over who determines what is “unreasonable” in that situation, although Committee Chair James Gray (R-Rochester) admonished Tower for additional testimony related to the bill he found to be superfluous, requesting testimony address the key issue behind the purpose of the bill: which municipality pays for services in these situations.
Other individuals testifying on Tuesday were enthusiastically in support of the bill.
Supporters of the bill said that most communities generally collaborate with each other regarding reimbursement support in these circumstances, some communities avoid cooperation as a way to save money and some smaller communities don’t regularly deal with issues of homelessness and may not be aware of their responsibilities.
“I strongly believe that every community in New Hampshire has a role to play in addressing homelessness, but I don’t see that happening,” said Keene City Manager Elizabeth Dragon. “There’s not enough financial motivation to bring everyone to the table.”
Todd Marsh, Welfare Director for the City of Rochester, was pleased that the language in the bill built upon comparable guidance given by the New Hampshire Local Welfare Administrators Association and expanded upon it. He believed that the legislation was targeted enough to address the issue of supporting communities that serve as “hubs” of homeless services for neighboring communities while protecting the rights of those seeking support, who could have potentially lost rights for things such as voting in their home communities if the language was broader.
“(Homeless people) are humans and they matter, but we need to be sensible to local administrators,” he said.
Gray said that additional deliberation may be needed in regard to removing the term “resident” from the bill completely, with the only other question during the hearing coming from Rebecca Perkins-Kwoka (D-Portsmouth) to Marsh regarding residency and existing law regarding settlement of disputes between towns on welfare-related issues.
Marsh told Perkins-Kwoka that the law only applies to people seeking emergency shelter services and not, say, a tourist, and that the 30-day provision came due to individuals or families who may be expected to pay some of their stay in a motel or hotel.
On the second point, Marsh told Perkins-Kwoka that each situation taken on a case-by-case basis and it is often addressed, but is not being addressed enough, thus the reason for the bill.
Gray indicated that a recommendation from the committee is expected in two weeks.