MANCHESTER, N.H. (WHDH) – Fire crews were called to a reported gas leak after a driver slammed into a building in Manchester, New Hampshire on Saturday afternoon, officials said.
Officers and firefighters responding to a vehicle in a building with an active gas leak on Cedar Street around 4:30 p.m. evacuated the building and stopped the leak.
The building was determined not to be at threat of collapse and the debris was cleared from the area.
Gas was shut off and Liberty Utilities responded to the assess the damage.
Advertisement
No additional information was immediately available.
(Copyright (c) 2024 Sunbeam Television. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)
Join our Newsletter for the latest news right to your inbox
Despite strong support from Gov. Kelly Ayotte, New Hampshire lawmakers rejected a bill that would have required private insurers to cover a state-run mental health program for children.
On Thursday, the House of Representatives voted to send Senate Bill 498 to interim study, delaying action on legislation that would have required private insurers to help fund the state’s Families and Systems Together (FAST) Forward program.
It’s a wraparound care model that provides personalized services such as peer support, crisis planning, and family-focused care for patients aged 5 to 21.
Advertisement
Ayotte, in a statement, said she is disappointed to see “elected representatives choose subsidizing insurance companies over kids’ mental health care.”
“I’m not giving up on this, and I’ll continue working to ensure our children — and their families — get the care and support they need,” she said.
The decision leaves the state and taxpayers on the hook to cover roughly $2 million annually for commercially insured children who rely on the program but do not qualify for Medicaid.
After the House voted down the bill, John Hunt, the chair of the House commerce committee, said Republicans agree with Ayotte that children’s mental health coverage is a serious issue, but said the bill is not the right solution and should not be addressed through a “hasty, last-second Hail Mary.”
“We look forward to studying this issue and devising a sensible and measured approach that satisfies all parties and prioritizes patient care and quality,” he wrote in a statement. “I warmly invite Governor Ayotte to join us this fall as we work on the issue. Together, Republicans, Democrats and the corner office have the opportunity to come together and deliver a reasonable solution for the people of New Hampshire.”
Advertisement
The bill was sent to an interim study in a 188-164 vote.
Insurers push back
The FAST Forward program coordinates services tailored to each child’s needs, helping families access mental health care, crisis support, care coordination, and other resources aimed at improving long-term outcomes.
The program’s effectiveness comes from its wraparound approach, which bundles services together.
But private insurers typically cover only some services rather than the full scope of services provided.
Ayotte has directed much of her criticism at Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, which insures the largest share of children enrolled in the FAST Forward program.
Advertisement
Jim Turner, a spokesperson for the insurance company, called Ayotte’s criticisms of the insurance industry on this issue “inaccurate and misleading.”
“Over the past two years, Anthem has taken significant steps to increase access to mental healthcare for children and adults and to reduce barriers to that access – including being the first insurer to eliminate copayments and other forms of cost share for all children and teens for these services,” he wrote in a statement.
For families who do not qualify for a Medicaid waiver, the state spends roughly $2 million annually in taxpayer dollars to cover the program for commercially-insured children.
While opponents of the bill characterized it as a tax on insurance companies, state Rep. Julie Miles pushed back on that framing.
She said the bill is about affordability, healthcare access, and holding large insurance companies responsible for the coverage paid for by their customers.
Advertisement
“If insurance companies collect the premiums, they should help provide the care,” she said.
State’s burden
In recent weeks, there have been negotiations between the insurance companies, particularly Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield, to address the issue, but no solution has been reached.
“Despite the recent unwarranted attacks, we will continue working in good faith with the state and care providers on this issue.
Mental health advocates view the FAST Forward program as a way to prevent children from deteriorating to the point of requiring costly inpatient psychiatric hospitalization.
Recent data from the state Department of Health and Human Services show that, over a 12-month period, New Hampshire’s general fund paid for wraparound services for about 89 commercially insured children, with Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield covering the largest share of children enrolled in the FAST Forward program at 25.
Advertisement
Morissa Henn, deputy commissioner at DHHS, said New Hampshire has spent five years studying the issue and that taxpayers need not continue covering services that should be paid for by private insurers.
“The need is urgent and the status quo is not sustainable,” she said. “Families with commercial insurance coverage cannot keep waiting, and taxpayers cannot continue absorbing the cost of clinically necessary services for our children that should be covered by private insurance.”
While the annual cost for a child in FAST Forward ranges from roughly $45,000 to $65,000, an inpatient psychiatric stay, such as at Hampstead Hospital, can cost about $1,500 per night.
Hunt said on the House floor that, although the program is effective, some of its services extend beyond traditional mental health care, including respite care for caregivers and assigning a case worker.
Hunt said he believes the program would be more appropriately funded through Medicaid.
Advertisement
“Personally, I think the FAST Forward program should be funded by Medicaid,” he said. “If it’s good enough for kids who are on Medicaid, it should be good enough for kids who have health insurance.”
Around 12:45 a.m. on Thursday, members of the Concord Police Department, while being assisted by U.S. Homeland Security Investigations and the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, raided the building at 6 S. South State St. Two search warrants were executed during the raid after a tip pertaining to drug sales in the city was made to the Concord Regional Crimeline.
After about 15 minutes, several people were in custody.
“We’re still working on the upstairs apartment, clearing that,” an officer said. “Downstairs has been cleared.”
Two others were then arrested, and the police cleared the scene.
Advertisement
During the incident, which lasted around 20 minutes, five people were detained: Denise Davenport, 57, of Concord, on an electronic bench warrant as well as two felony counts of acts prohibited-sale of controlled drugs; Michael Davis, 54, of Concord, on a warrant out of Merrimack County Superior Court; Crystal Marquis, 46, of Concord, on a resisting arrest or detention charge; Brittany Price, 29, of Concord, on a Merrimack County Sheriff’s Department warrant on a theft by unauthorized taking charge as well as warrants from the Hooksett police, Brentwood District Court, and two Franklin District Court warrants; and Wilkie Gabriel Reyes Reynoso, 27, of Nashua, on three felony counts of acts prohibited-possession of controlled drugs.
Davenport, Davis, Price, and Reynoso were taken to the county jail and expected to be arraigned in Concord District Court later that day. Marquis was released on a summons and is due in Concord District Court on June 15 for arraignment.
Police did not comment on what was found in the apartments.
Editor’s note: This post was derived from information supplied by the Concord Police Department and does not indicate a conviction. This linkexplains how to request the removal of a name from New Hampshire Patch police reports.
Davenport, according to reports on Patch, has been arrested several times, on driving charges, deal-possess prescription drugs, warrants,
Advertisement
Price has been arrested several times in New Hampshire on drug, theft, assault, domestic violence, criminal mischief, receiving stolen property, and other charges.
In 2019, she was charged with acts prohibited in Webster, felony theft in Epping, two felony counts of acts prohibited in Concord, and felony theft and penalty for offense committed while on bail in Concord. The Epping theft charge was nolle prossed in November 2019. The Concord acts prohibited charges were dismissed without prejudice. Price pleaded guilty to the Webster drug charge in November 2019 and received a 12-month jail sentence and a $434 fine, both suspended for three years. Price also pleaded guilty to the Concord theft charge and received a two-to-four-year prison sentence, with a mandatory minimum of two years, all suspended for five years.
Price was charged with habitual offender and felony theft in Epsom in March 2025. That case is still active. A warrant was issued for her arrest in November 2025 due to failing to appear at an arraignment. She has a dispositional conference hearing booked for July 2.
Marquis has also been arrested several times, including assault, domestic violence, receiving stolen property, criminal mischief, and heroin possession charges, and camping restriction, and generic city ordinance violations. In July 2004, according to a superior court docket, she was convicted of receiving stolen property out of Ashland.
The past criminal history of Davis and Reynoso was not readily available at the time of publication.
Advertisement
The building, according to previous press reports on Patch and other outlets, cost about $1.4 million to convert into apartments, with local, state, and federal taxpayer funds and block grants funding the creation of eight apartment units.
Anyone who has information relative to this incident or any other incident and wishes to remain anonymous is asked to call the Concord Regional Crimeline at 603-226-3100, or submit information online through the Crimeline website at: concordregionalcrimeline.com, or text message TIP234 and your message to CRIMES (274637). Crimeline awards cash to anyone whose information leads to the arrest and indictment of criminals. All tips remain anonymous.
Do you have a news tip? Email it to tony.schinella@patch.com. View videos on Tony Schinella’s YouTube or Rumble channels. Patch in New Hampshire is now in 217 communities — and expanding every day. Also, follow Patch on Google Discover.
Lawyers for the Conservation Law Foundation argued before a federal environmental appeals board Thursday that the Environmental Protection Agency had not done its due diligence when creating a new permit for Manchester’s wastewater treatment facility.
Thursday’s oral arguments were the culmination of a months-long battle between environmental advocates, federal regulators, and city officials over what, if anything, should be done to protect the Merrimack River and people who live nearby from harmful chemicals coming out of the plant.
PFAS chemicals, also known as “forever chemicals,” are widely present in the environment and in the waste stream. Wastewater treatment processes don’t add PFAS to water, but they collect and transform those chemicals, putting them back out into the environment. A 2019 study found PFAS concentrations above federal drinking water standards being discharged from Manchester’s wastewater plant, and other studies found PFAS chemicals in fish from the Merrimack river.
The permit approved by the EPA requires the city of Manchester to monitor for PFAS chemicals in the wastewater entering their treatment plant, but it doesn’t put a limit on the levels of PFAS that can be in the water leaving the plant.
Advertisement
Lawyers with the Conservation Law Foundation argue the Environmental Protection Agency did not fulfill their duty to analyze whether the PFAS chemicals coming out of Manchester’s wastewater treatment plant could potentially harm the Merrimack River.
Jillian Aicher, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation, said that kind of analysis would be the first step to creating requirements to reduce the discharge of those chemicals.
“This appeal has very important implications for community members in Manchester, who are exposed to uncontrolled PFAS coming from their wastewater treatment plant with no reduction measures. And importantly here, no consideration by EPA of reduction measures,” she said.
Lawyers for the EPA argued the agency did consider the potential of effluent from the treatment facility to harm water quality. Federal regulators reviewed and agreed with an analysis done by New Hampshire state officials, they said.
In 2021, the EPA adopted a PFAS roadmap that includes restricting how much PFAS industrial facilities can discharge, and using the permitting process for wastewater facilities to reduce those chemicals in waterways.
Advertisement
Across the country, states have begun working to research and regulate PFAS in the waste stream. But the PFAS analysis that the Conservation Law Foundation is asking regulators to conduct for the Manchester plant is not common, said Tom Irwin, a vice president at the foundation.
He said Manchester would be an important place to start. The wastewater treatment facility, which is near some residential areas, burns its sewage sludge.
“People are being exposed to PFAS in the air, PFAS are being discharged into the water,” he said. “If the regulators take this on the way they should, this will provide a pathway for others.”
Environmental justice
The Conservation Law Foundation also argued the EPA abandoned environmental justice considerations during the permitting process without a thorough explanation.
Irwin told the Environmental Appeals Board that the agency’s reliance on executive orders that revoked Biden-era environmental justice policy was not enough, and that the policy change required more explanation.
Advertisement
“There is a growing body of case law that reaffirms that agencies can’t just change policy without analyzing why they’re doing so,” Irwin said in an interview with NHPR. “There’s no document from the Trump administration explaining why suddenly we don’t have to take into consideration communities that are overburdened by pollution and other health impacts.”
Lawyers for the EPA said the agency is allowed to use their discretion on environmental justice issues, and argued they did provide reasons for not considering environmental justice while they were drafting the permit.
Adam Dunville, a lawyer for the city of Manchester, also participated in the oral arguments in support of the EPA’s position. Officials with the city’s wastewater treatment plant staff did not respond to requests for comment.
