SB33 amends Kentucky law governing recovery residences, which are certified housing facilities for people in recovery from substance use disorders. The bill requires the state cabinet to verify certification at least annually, track changes in certification status, and maintain a public website listing certified recovery residences and approved certifying organizations. It also requires the cabinet to notify local governments when a residence begins the certification process, receives certification, or is fined, and to collect and treat certain contact information as public record.
The bill also strengthens enforcement. It gives the cabinet and local governments authority to impose civil fines for violations, including failure to submit required information, fraudulent reporting, or operating an uncertified recovery residence. It further allows local governments to seek legal action to shut down recovery residences operating in violation of certification requirements. At the same time, the bill preserves local zoning, land-use, and rental-property regulatory authority, and it allows local governments to maintain their own public registry of recovery residences.
Impact
SB33 would expand state and local oversight of recovery residences by creating clearer reporting, disclosure, and enforcement requirements under KRS 222.504 and 222.510. It would make certification status and related contact information more transparent to the public and to local governments, while also authorizing civil penalties and legal action against uncertified or noncompliant facilities. The bill does not eliminate local control over land use or rental regulations, but it does create a stronger statewide framework for tracking and regulating recovery residences and coordinating information between the cabinet and local governments.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests strong support, with the Senate passing the bill 34-0 on third reading. No committee transcript is available, but the bill’s structure indicates a generally pro-regulation and pro-transparency approach that appears aimed at improving oversight of recovery residences while preserving local authority. The unanimous Senate vote suggests little visible opposition at that stage.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are the bill’s expanded disclosure and enforcement powers. Recovery residence operators may be concerned about public posting of contact information, mandatory reporting, and the possibility of civil fines or shutdown actions for uncertified or noncompliant operations. Local governments may support the added authority and information-sharing, but there could be debate over how much discretion they should have in regulating these facilities versus the protections afforded to certified residences. The bill attempts to balance those interests by preserving local zoning authority while creating a presumption of compliance for residences that provide proof of current certification.
Health: substance use disorder prevention; competitive grant program to provide grants for recovery community organizations; modify. Amends sec. 273b of 1974 PA 258 (MCL 330.1273b).