Committee puts sober-living standards under study after lengthy public testimony

The Senate Executive Departments and Administration Committee on [date not specified] concluded a work session on Senate Bill 298 — a proposal to certify sober living houses and set operational standards — by agreeing to pursue further study rather than advance the bill.

Chair (role) opened the work session and said the topic is “complex and important.” Representative Groa said she left the hearing unsettled because she could not reconcile the roles of New Hampshire Corps and the New Hampshire Partnership for Recovery Residents (NHPRR) and expressed concern that the bill’s language could be interpreted by a future administration or legislature to sweep in shared rental housing that was not the bill’s intention.

Several committee members urged guardrails. Representative Slotchi pointed out that landlord-tenant law does not necessarily govern these residences and that misunderstanding the definition of recovery housing had led the committee down irrelevant lines of questioning. Representative Schmidt said the bill is important but “not ready for prime time” and recommended study and targeted fixes where ready.

State and stakeholder speakers urged the committee to slow down and work collaboratively. Laura Wargo, director of the New Hampshire Partnership for Recovery Residents, told the committee that recovery residences are treated as programs rather than traditional rental housing: residents sign program agreements rather than leases, so landlord-tenant eviction processes generally do not apply. Wargo said administrative rules currently outline reporting, discharge and notice requirements and offered to provide the committee with the RSA citation and the administrative rules to clarify existing protections.

Dana Larivier, chair of the New Hampshire Coalition of Recovery Residences, said she would participate in any subcommittee and offered historical perspective on contracting and certification. Anthony Shàuuchi of Tabula Sober Living and other owner-operators told the committee they had previously pursued legislation and were willing to serve on a work group.

Several owner-operators recounted experience that convinced them of the need for standards. Pphanie Lasparance, owner-operator of Grandmason Recovery Homes, said operators were “confused” by overlapping certifying bodies and asked the state to clarify which standards they should follow so operators can “do our jobs.” Sean Kenazaro, owner of Hope to Freedom Recovery Homes and a person with lived experience, described instances where uncertified homes took residents they could not safely serve, leaving vulnerable people homeless; he urged the committee to include operators and people in recovery in drafting protections.

Members discussed procedural options including interim study, a smaller subcommittee to develop technical fixes, or tabling. The chair said an interim study or subcommittee in the fall would allow more time and room to work through details and hear stakeholders in a less time-constrained setting. The committee did not take a formal final vote on SB298; instead members agreed to pursue further work and to collect stakeholder interest in participating in next-step meetings.

What happens next: The committee intends to form a subcommittee or place SB298 on interim study for fall work; stakeholders were invited to submit pink cards indicating willingness to serve. The chair said any future sessions will be noticed so stakeholders benefit directly from participation.