Committee Summary for House Executive Departments and Administration (04/23/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB185 00:03:54.239 - 10:02:40 AM	Public Hearing	relative to reimbursement rates for ambulance service providers.	Proulx, Mark(R)[B]2024
SB61 02:02:00.840 - 12:00:46 PM	Public Hearing	relative to prescriptions for state prisoners paid for by the department of corrections.	Gray, James(R)[C+]2024
SB61 02:16:10.119 - 12:14:56 PM	Executive Session	relative to prescriptions for state prisoners paid for by the department of corrections.	Gray, James(R)[C+]2024
SB182 02:19:24.240 - 12:18:10 PM	Executive Session	relative to the maternal mortality review committee.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024
SB185 02:23:18.840 - 12:22:04 PM	Executive Session	relative to office of professional licensure and certification investigations.	Pearl, Howard (R)[C+]2024
SB172 02:34:55.520 - 12:33:41 PM	Public Hearing	banning certain contract provisions from being enforced against advanced practice registered nurses.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024
SB178 03:03:52.840 - 1:02:38 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the department of health and human services laboratory services for testing of water supplies.	Gray, James(R)[C+]2024
SB180 03:33:25.680 - 1:32:11 PM	Public Hearing	designating Coos county as a distressed place-based economy.	Rochefort, David(R)
SB172 04:26:21.640 - 2:25:07 PM	Executive Session	banning certain contract provisions from being enforced against advanced practice registered nurses.	Prentiss, Suzanne(D)[F]2024
SB180 04:28:54.479 - 2:27:40 PM	Executive Session	designating Coos county as a distressed place-based economy.	Rochefort, David(R)

HB185: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:03:54.239 - 10:02:40 AM; The speaker introduced House Bill 185, which amends sections two and three of RSA 3109. They expressed concerns about diving into the center of a section without considering the totality, specifically referencing paragraph one of the current law, which is not changed under this proposal. The current law states that misconduct must be brought within 5 years from the time the office could have reasonably discovered the act. The bill introduces a 30-day time limit for the board to make a recommendation and 90 days to complete the investigation. The speaker questioned the agency's ability to meet these timelines and mentioned the need for additional staff at OPLC.
HB185: Nicholas Fry, General Counsel with OPLC Information Only00:07:12.080 - 10:05:58 AM; Nicholas Fry discussed the fiscal impact statement related to House Bill 185. Initially, OPLC anticipated needing double the staff, but after an amendment, they revised their request to need fewer additional employees. Specifically, they are asking for five new investigative paralegals, one paralegal, and an off-schedule physician investigator for the Board of Medicine, totaling seven new positions. Fry explained that OPLC currently does not have a physician investigator but uses a panel of physicians or experts on call. He emphasized the necessity of a full-time physician investigator to meet the 90-day investigation timeline proposed by the bill.
HB185: Representative Grotto Information Only00:10:02.560 - 10:08:48 AM; Representative Grotto discussed the history and changes made by House Bill 655 to the investigation responsibilities of OPLC. He highlighted the shift from boards controlling licensing and investigations to OPLC taking over these functions, aiming for a more impartial adjudicatory system. He also mentioned the ongoing efforts to address the backlog of cases and improvements in communication and process transparency, including new correspondence and website updates to better inform complainants and licensees.
HB185: Nicholas Fry, General Counsel with OPLC Information Only00:12:10.160 - 10:10:56 AM; Fry elaborated on the changes brought by HB655, emphasizing the separation of investigation and adjudication responsibilities between OPLC and the boards to ensure a fair system. He detailed the new processes implemented by OPLC to improve customer service, including automated emails, follow-up letters, and updates on the OPLC website to clarify the complaint and investigation process. He also mentioned the efforts to address consumer complaints about the lack of status updates on hearings.
HB185: Nicholas Fry, General Counsel with OPLC Information Only00:20:54.720 - 10:19:40 AM; Fry discussed the potential conflicts introduced by House Bill 185, particularly regarding the 5-year statute of limitations. He explained that the bill's timelines could conflict with the existing statute, potentially undermining the public protection element of the boards' primary purpose. He also noted that the bill might undercut the executive director's rulemaking authority regarding investigative processes. Fry suggested that the executive director has previously used rulemaking to set stricter timelines when necessary.
HB185: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:26:02.600 - 10:24:48 AM; The speaker expressed concern about the impatience shown by the legislature towards OPLC, a relatively new agency, and the need for it to naturally progress and adjust. They highlighted that the bill's requirement for additional staff without a budget or appropriation hampers OPLC's ability to organically develop. The speaker also pointed out a potential conflict in the bill allowing the board to discontinue investigations, which goes against the intent of separating the board from the investigative process.
HB185: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:28:02.799 - 10:26:48 AM; The speaker expressed concerns about unraveling the work done on House Bill 655 with the new language in HB185. They noted the complexity and challenges involved in the implementation of House Bill 655, particularly the part related to timelines, which remains the most challenging aspect. They emphasized not wanting to divert from the ongoing efforts and suggested that any insistence on moving forward with the new legislation should consider modifications to the proposed 30 and 90-day timelines.
HB185: Representative Groa Information Only00:29:22.480 - 10:28:08 AM; Representative Groa, a co-sponsor of the bill, was asked how they were convinced to co-sponsor. They responded to the question but the transcript did not provide their answer. They expressed concerns about creating conflicting time frames for limitations periods, referencing a past Supreme Court case that led to litigation and costs to the state.
HB185: Representative Bailey Information Only00:30:36.640 - 10:29:22 AM; Representative Bailey raised questions about the financial implications of the bill, particularly how the costs associated with licensing would be covered. They noted the fiscal note was unclear and that licensing fees are part of rulemaking and go to JELCAR. They were concerned about whether the costs would come out of the general fund or be covered by license fees, and whether an amendment was necessary to clarify this.
HB185: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:33:18.480 - 10:32:04 AM; The speaker discussed the self-funded nature of the OPLC and clarified that costs are covered by license fees, not the general fund. They suggested that if funding doesn't go through for JELCAR, it might be a problem. The speaker also mentioned that they were asked to be a co-sponsor of the legislation but were unaware of the work done by OPLC at the time.
HB185: Bob Quinn, CEO of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors Support00:35:13.359 - 10:33:59 AM; Bob Quinn supported the bill, explaining the document provided to licensees and consumers about the complaint process. He detailed the three steps involved: intake and review, investigation, and adjudication. He highlighted issues with the current system, such as cases taking years to resolve and the need for more transparency and timely communication between OPLC and the boards. He suggested that if 90 days is not feasible, a longer timeline should be considered to ensure cases are not dismissed due to statute of limitations.
SB61: Senator James Gray, Senate District 6 (Alton, Gilmanton, Rochester, Strafford) Support02:02:00.840 - 12:00:46 PM; Senator Gray supported the bill, explaining its purpose to save money by allowing the state to purchase national brand prescription drugs when they are more cost-effective than generics. He mentioned that the bill could save the state $9 million and was part of a broader effort to manage prescription drug costs effectively.
SB61: Jane Graham, Strategic Communications Administrator, Department of Corrections Support02:04:57.960 - 12:03:43 PM; Jane Graham supported the bill on behalf of the Department of Corrections, emphasizing its role in providing safe, effective, and fiscally responsible healthcare to inmates. The bill would allow the department to negotiate with drug manufacturers for more cost-effective name-brand medications and eliminate outdated requirements for handwritten notes, aligning with electronic record-keeping processes.
SB61: Ben Carbone, Chief Pharmacist, Department of Corrections Support02:04:57.960 - 12:03:43 PM; Ben Carbone supported the bill, highlighting its potential to reduce pharmaceutical costs by allowing the department to leverage pricing incentives on name-brand drugs. He confirmed that the department already considers biosimilars as part of their cost-effective treatment options, making an amendment to include them unnecessary.
SB61: Ben Carbone, Chief Pharmacist, Department of Corrections Information Only02:04:57.960 - 12:03:43 PM; Ben Carbone discussed the need for special training to handle biologics which must be mixed on site due to their short shelf life. He clarified that the DOC does not offer a compounding pharmacy for these biologics and that individuals would need to go offsite for administration. He confirmed that the bill would permit this practice.
SB61: Representative Dari Information Only02:09:52.719 - 12:08:38 PM; Representative Dari asked about the training required for handling biologics and whether the bill would allow for offsite administration. Ben Carbone confirmed that the DOC does not have the capability to compound these drugs on site and that the bill would allow for offsite administration.
SB61: Representative Howard Information Only02:10:58.159 - 12:09:44 PM; Representative Howard inquired about the removal of Medicaid references from the bill's language. Ben Carbone explained that the DOC does not directly deal with Medicaid, as they supply medications from their in-house pharmacy. He noted that the removal of Medicaid references was a cleanup of older, unnecessary language.
SB61: Representative Howard Information Only02:12:03.760 - 12:10:49 PM; Representative Howard asked about the coverage of medically necessary drugs for residents and whether Medicaid is billed. Ben Carbone clarified that the DOC does not bill Medicaid for medications during incarceration, except in certain hospital situations, and that the cost of medical care, including medications, is included in maintaining an inmate.
SB61: Representative Howard Information Only02:13:09.280 - 12:11:55 PM; Representative Howard raised concerns about the potential substitution of cheaper alternatives for required prescriptions. Ben Carbone explained that the bill does not circumvent pharmacy rules requiring generic equivalents and that biologics have different substitution rules.
SB61: Representative Lamb Information Only02:16:10.119 - 12:14:56 PM; Representative Lamb clarified the nature of biologic products, stating they are grown in cells and do not need to be compounded on site, contrary to what was discussed previously. He emphasized that these products come fully formed and ready for administration.
SB61: Representative Scitec Information Only02:15:01.280 - 12:13:47 PM; Representative Scitec commented on the potential for questions from the floor regarding the bill, suggesting that the committee should be prepared for scrutiny.
SB61: Representative Schmidt Information Only02:16:10.119 - 12:14:56 PM; Representative Schmidt discussed the implications of the bill for the DOC, noting that the current practice would not change significantly under the new legislation, as individuals would still need to be taken offsite for biologic administration.
SB61: Representative Lamb Information Only02:17:05.679 - 12:15:51 PM; Representative Lamb corrected information about biologic products, stating they are not compounded but are grown in cells and come ready for administration.
SB61: Committee Vote02:18:34.638 - 12:17:20 PM; The committee voted unanimously to pass Senate Bill 61 with no amendments, and it was placed on the consent calendar.
SB182: Representative Lamb Oppose02:19:24.240 - 12:18:10 PM; Representative Lamb expressed strong concerns about Senate Bill 182, which would change the designation from working with the Northern New England Perinatal Information System to a New Hampshire subsidiary. He highlighted the potential severance of ties with academic medical centers, the possible high cost due to removing the prohibition on payment for commission service, and the expansion of the scope of mortality review to include non-pregnancy-related deaths. He also raised privacy concerns regarding the access to identifiable medical records and suggested the bill was not ready for a vote.
SB185: Representative Pearson Information Only02:23:18.840 - 12:22:04 PM; Representative Pearson discussed the subcommittee's findings on Senate Bill 185, which deals with the timetable for complaint management. He noted conflicts with House Bill 655 and the impracticality of processing investigations within 90 days without hiring additional staff, which would require fee increases. He suggested retaining or deeming the bill inexpedient to legislate.
SB185: Representative Bailey Information Only02:24:14.000 - 12:23:00 PM; Representative Bailey added to the discussion about Senate Bill 185, emphasizing the backlog of complaints at the OPLC and the need for patience with the agency's development. He noted the impracticality of the bill's timelines and the potential need for increased staff and fees, questioning whether to wait or to address the immediate needs of the board of medicine.
SB185: Representative Lamb Information Only02:34:06.319 - 12:32:52 PM; Representative Lamb mentioned ongoing efforts to address issues around the board of medicine, suggesting it might be premature to act on Senate Bill 185 until further progress is made.
SB172: Senator Apprentice, District 5 Support02:34:55.520 - 12:33:41 PM; Senator Apprentice introduced Senate Bill 172 on behalf of the nurse practitioner community, emphasizing the role of primary care providers in managing healthcare and the need to remove barriers for nurse practitioners. The bill aims to prohibit non-compete provisions for APRNs, aligning their protections with those of RNs.
SB172: Senator Apprentice, District 5 Information Only02:34:55.520 - 12:33:41 PM; Senator Apprentice provided clarity on the bill's intent to remove ambiguity and ensure equity for nurse practitioners regarding non-compete clauses. He clarified that the bill does not abolish employment contracts but specifically addresses non-compete provisions, noting that such clauses are already prohibited for nurses in New Hampshire. He emphasized that nurse practitioners, who hold dual licenses, should have the same protections. He was open to questions from the committee, indicating the bill's focus on specific employment terms rather than a broad abolition of contracts.
SB172: Representative Pearson Information Only02:37:17.600 - 12:36:03 PM; Representative Pearson raised concerns about the language of the bill, questioning whether it specifically addresses non-compete clauses or more broadly impacts employment contracts. He was concerned that the bill might inadvertently affect contracts without non-compete provisions and sought clarification on the bill's scope and intent.
SB172: Senator Apprentice, District 5 Information Only02:38:38.880 - 12:37:24 PM; In response to Representative Pearson, Senator Apprentice clarified that the bill aims to extend existing prohibitions on non-compete clauses for nurses to nurse practitioners. He emphasized that the legislation is intended to address a specific aspect of employment contracts without broadly affecting all employment agreements. He noted that the Federal Trade Commission has also weighed in on this issue, supporting the bill's direction.
SB172: Representative Schmidt Information Only02:41:04.800 - 12:39:50 PM; Representative Schmidt inquired about the resolution of similar legal situations in other states, seeking to understand if the issue of non-compete clauses for nurse practitioners is unique to New Hampshire. He expressed curiosity about the historical context and potential problems caused by the current regulations.
SB172: Senator Apprentice, District 5 Information Only02:42:07.760 - 12:40:53 PM; Senator Apprentice responded to Representative Schmidt's inquiry, stating that he could not speak to other states' situations but suggested consulting Kim Mohan from the Nurse Practitioners Association for more detailed information. He emphasized the evolving nature of healthcare professions and the need to ensure proper protections for patients and healthcare providers.
SB172: Representative Schmidt Information Only02:43:14.640 - 12:42:00 PM; Representative Schmidt raised questions about the necessity of dual licensing for APRNs, suggesting that it might be excessive if they already possess the necessary qualifications. He inquired about the historical reasons behind this requirement and whether it could be streamlined.
SB172: Senator Apprentice, District 5 Information Only02:44:08.960 - 12:42:54 PM; Senator Apprentice acknowledged the validity of Representative Schmidt's questions about dual licensing but stated that these issues did not come up during the Senate discussions. He suggested that Kim Mohan might provide further insight and noted that he had to leave for another commitment.
SB172: Kim Mohan, Nurse Practitioners Association Information Only02:45:06.399 - 12:43:52 PM; Kim Mohan clarified that the bill covers all Advanced Practice Registered Nurses, not just nurse practitioners, and explained the broader implications of the legislation. She addressed questions about dual licensing, stating that while her members hold two licenses due to statutory requirements, she was unaware of the historical reasons behind this. She expressed willingness to work on streamlining the licensing process in the future.
SB172: Representative Reese Information Only02:47:10.080 - 12:45:56 PM; Representative Reese discussed the possibility of amending the bill to address the dual licensing issue, suggesting that such a change might be necessary and beneficial. He proposed holding a hearing on this matter to ensure thorough consideration before moving forward.
SB172: Representative Leon Information Only02:48:14.080 - 12:47:00 PM; Representative Leon compared the language of the proposed bill with existing statutes for registered nurses, noting that the intent seems to be to apply similar non-compete prohibitions to APRNs. He sought clarification on whether the current language adequately covers APRNs and whether it mirrors regulations for other healthcare professionals.
SB172: Kim Mohan, Nurse Practitioners Association Information Only02:49:07.920 - 12:47:53 PM; Kim Mohan confirmed that the proposed bill's language mirrors that of existing statutes for registered nurses and physicians. She explained that despite this, the Board of Nursing could not guarantee its application to APRNs without specific language. She agreed that addressing the non-compete issue is a housekeeping measure, while dual licensing might require a larger discussion.
SB172: Representative Bro Information Only02:50:13.840 - 12:48:59 PM; Representative Bro inquired about the projected decrease in the APRN workforce, expressing concern about the implications for healthcare in New Hampshire. He sought reasons for this trend and potential strategies to mitigate it.
SB172: Kim Mohan, Nurse Practitioners Association Information Only02:51:19.920 - 12:50:05 PM; Kim Mohan explained that the projected decrease in the APRN workforce is due to retirements and challenges in the pipeline for new providers. She emphasized the need for investments in growing the healthcare workforce in New Hampshire and keeping providers in the state.
SB172: Representative Pratt Information Only02:52:00.960 - 12:50:46 PM; Representative Pratt asked Kim Mohan to weigh in on the discussions that occurred while Senator Apprentice was speaking, particularly regarding the clarity of the bill's language and the dual licensing issue. He sought to ensure all questions were adequately addressed.
SB172: Brian Cherichello, former state rep from Rockingham County Support02:52:00.960 - 12:50:46 PM; Brian Cherichello, a former state representative and county commissioner from Rockingham County, expressed support for the bill. He shared his experience during the COVID period when his county had to rely heavily on traveling nurses due to shortages. He highlighted the issues with non-compete clauses in these contracts, which prevented nurses from staying permanently, and emphasized the need to address healthcare workforce shortages, especially given New Hampshire's aging population.
SB172: Representative Cait Information Only02:55:12.319 - 12:53:58 PM; Representative Cait sought clarification on whether other jurisdictions have similar non-compete agreements for nurses, to which Brian Cherichello responded that such agreements are generally unenforceable and unnecessary in healthcare.
SB172: Representative Freeze Information Only02:56:08.399 - 12:54:54 PM; Representative Freeze expressed concern about the potential impact of eliminating non-competes on traveling nurse programs, questioning whether it might deter out-of-state companies from sending nurses to New Hampshire. Brian Cherichello responded that the focus of traveling nurses is typically financial and that non-competes have prevented nurses from staying permanently in desirable positions.
SB172: Representative Schmidt Information Only03:00:15.680 - 12:59:01 PM; Representative Schmidt asked Brian Cherichello about the Federal Trade Commission's stance on non-compete clauses, seeking to understand their enforceability. Cherichello explained that while the FTC has ruled them unenforceable, many people still feel bound by these contracts and do not challenge them.
SB178: John Williams, Legislative Director for Health and Human Services Support03:03:52.840 - 1:02:38 PM; John Williams introduced the department's support for Senate Bill 178, which deals with lab water testing fees. He mentioned that Dr. Gao and Lou Barinelli would provide further testimony.
SB178: Lou Barinelli, Water Lab Program Manager, Department of Health and Human Services Support03:04:56.080 - 1:03:42 PM; Lou Barinelli provided testimony in support of Senate Bill 178, which directs the Department of Health and Human Services to adopt administrative rules regarding laboratory services fees for water supply testing. He noted that the bill is department-requested and budget neutral. He explained that the current water lab fees are in statute from the Department of Environmental Services, which DHHS inherited in 2011. He thanked Senator Gray for sponsoring the bill and highlighted that other public health laboratory fees are managed through administrative rules.
SB178: Lou Barinelli, Water Lab Program Manager, Department of Health and Human Services Information Only03:04:56.080 - 1:03:42 PM; Lou Barinelli discussed the legislation's impact on public health lab fees, which are set to expire in 2026. The bill aims to integrate these fees into the rulemaking process for a more unified approach. He confirmed that the fees in statute have not been changed since 2007 and are the ones that the bill would move into rules.
SB178: Representative Le Information Only03:06:16.560 - 1:05:02 PM; Representative Le inquired about the current funding of the lab and how the proposed bill would change the financial structure. The response clarified that since 1995, 50% of the fees collected go into the state general fund, while the other half goes into a dedicated non-lapsing account in the treasury. The bill would change this to deposit all fees into the dedicated fund.
SB178: Chairman Magcguire Information Only03:08:29.439 - 1:07:15 PM; Chairman Magcguire clarified the bill's text, pointing out that fees collected from public or private clients are to be deposited into the general fund, with 50% going to the treasury account, a practice in place since 1995. He noted that fees from grants or other state agencies go directly to the dedicated fund.
SB178: Representative Leon Information Only03:09:42.160 - 1:08:28 PM; Representative Leon raised concerns about the bill's language, specifically about where state agency fees are deposited. He noted that the existing law, which is being replaced, directed fees to the general fund, and he sought clarification on the new provisions.
SB178: Representative Broda Information Only03:14:47.120 - 1:13:33 PM; Representative Broda sought clarification on the relationship between section two of the handout and section three of the bill, confirming that they align.
SB178: Representative Pearson Information Only03:16:00.720 - 1:14:46 PM; Representative Pearson asked if there are any other entities using the lab's services besides public or private clients. The response confirmed that the lab serves private citizens and state agencies like the Department of Environmental Services.
SB178: Senator Gray Support03:18:00.800 - 1:16:46 PM; Senator Gray, representing Senate District 6 which includes Alton, Gilmanton, Rochester, and Strafford, supported the bill. He explained that the bill's initial request was to have all funds go to the department, but due to financial constraints, they settled on allowing the department to set fees through rulemaking, which would be more responsive and aid the budget.
SB178: Representative Syc Information Only03:21:34.080 - 1:20:20 PM; Representative Syc expressed concern over the bill's language, noting that it was confusing and did not clearly reflect the intended 50/50 split of fees. He suggested that the language should be rewritten to clarify the bill's intent.
SB178: Representative Leyon Information Only03:23:57.279 - 1:22:43 PM; Representative Leyon agreed to take on the task of rewriting the bill's language to better reflect the committee's understanding and intent, emphasizing the need for clarity before the bill moves forward.
SB180: Senator David Roford, Senate District 1, covering Grafton and Coos Counties Support03:33:25.680 - 1:32:11 PM; Senator Roford supported Senate Bill 180, which aims to designate Coos County as a distressed place-based economy. He highlighted the unique challenges faced by Coos County, including its rural nature, high Medicaid percentage, and the economic impact of losing the paper industry. The bill would help in competing for economic development grants and require state agencies to consult with county commissioners on projects affecting the county.
SB180: Representative Schmidt Information Only03:39:02.640 - 1:37:48 PM; Representative Schmidt inquired about similar initiatives in Aroostook County, Maine, and whether those could be beneficial for Coos County. Senator Roford mentioned that the economic development specialist who proposed the bill had traveled around the country and felt this designation would increase competitiveness for grants.
SB180: Representative Howard Information Only03:41:14.160 - 1:40:00 PM; Representative Howard asked about the origin of the term 'distressed place-based economy.' Senator Roford explained that it came from an economic development specialist and is used to describe areas with specific economic challenges.
SB180: Representative Dargy Information Only03:42:26.880 - 1:41:12 PM; Representative Dargy questioned whether the designation would enable Coos County to apply for specific grants. Senator Roford confirmed that it would increase competitiveness in grant applications.
SB180: Representative Lamb Information Only03:45:30.800 - 1:44:16 PM; Representative Lamb asked about the types of grants and opportunities Coos County would compete for with this designation. Senator Roford mentioned that the economic development specialist would be better equipped to provide specific examples, but they are federal grants.
SB180: Representative Slatch Information Only03:47:26.720 - 1:46:12 PM; Representative Slatch expressed concern about the designation potentially turning Coos County into an exclusion zone. Senator Roford reassured that the designation is seen as an opportunity rather than a threat.
SB180: Representative Freeze Information Only03:48:31.199 - 1:47:17 PM; Representative Freeze questioned the language in the bill regarding mitigation measures for state decisions affecting the region. Senator Roford explained that the intent is to ensure collaboration and provide reasons for state decisions, using the example of the 146,000-acre easement.
SB180: Representative Salacei Information Only03:54:31.600 - 1:53:17 PM; Representative Salacei asked about an exit plan for the designation if Coos County's economic situation improves. Senator Roford expressed optimism but suggested that a sunset clause could be considered.
SB180: Representative Per Information Only03:58:36.600 - 1:57:22 PM; Representative Per raised concerns about potential different regulations for Coos County compared to other counties. Senator Roford clarified that the bill does not intend to create different standards but requires state agencies to explain their decisions.
SB180: Representative Leo Information Only04:03:32.279 - 2:02:18 PM; Representative Leo questioned whether the bill could be split into two parts, focusing on the distressed place-based economy designation alone. Senator Roford indicated that the first part is more important but would be willing to consider separating the sections.
SB180: Representative Sitec Information Only04:04:28.000 - 2:03:14 PM; Representative Sitec asked about the current status of the Balsams resort. Senator Roford mentioned that the developer remains optimistic and is working on financing, with the community eager for progress.
SB180: Lori Corosren, State Representative for Coos County District 7 (Berlin, Whitefield, Jefferson, Kilkenny, Twin Mountain) Support04:06:27.680 - 2:05:13 PM; Representative Corosren expressed the need to help Coos County recover and improve economically. She highlighted the significant economic disparities between Coos County and the rest of the state, including lower median household income, higher poverty rates, and unemployment issues. She discussed job loss and growth data, noting the significant job loss in Coos County compared to job gains in other counties. She also mentioned the high housing cost burden in Coos County and the overall distressed economic situation, urging the committee to consider the bill to help the county attract companies and grants.
SB180: Commissioner TB Theberge, Coos County District 3 (Pittsburgh, Twin Mountain, Colebrook) Support04:09:16.800 - 2:08:02 PM; Commissioner Theberge supported SB180, emphasizing its importance for making Coos County more competitive for federal grants. He detailed the county's economic challenges, including high poverty, unemployment, low median income, declining population, and lack of diverse employment opportunities. He highlighted the unique situation of Coos County, such as the significant seasonal population increase in areas like Pittsburgh, and the challenges this poses to local services. He also mentioned specific grant applications that were rejected due to scoring issues related to population density and the potential impact of the bill on future grant applications.
SB180: Commissioner Robert Theberge, Coos County District 1 (Berlin, Milan) Support04:18:02.640 - 2:16:48 PM; Commissioner Robert Theberge supported the bill, discussing the economic struggles of Coos County, particularly in Berlin and Milan. He highlighted the population decline, employment and housing challenges, and the county's efforts to manage a budget reduction. He noted the significant contribution of tourism to the county's economy but pointed out the disproportionate return in terms of room and meals tax revenue. He mentioned ongoing efforts to attract businesses from Canada and the need for economic development support.
SB180: Kate Han, New Hampshire Association of Counties Support04:23:24.080 - 2:22:10 PM; Kate Han, representing the New Hampshire Association of Counties, supported SB180, emphasizing the need to give Coos County a competitive advantage in grant applications due to its unique economic challenges. She highlighted the county's struggles with housing, unemployment, and its persistent recession-like conditions even during state-wide prosperity. Han suggested a mechanism for ensuring communication between state agencies and Coos County on decisions impacting the county.
SB172: Representative Dere Vote04:26:21.640 - 2:25:07 PM; Representative Dere moved to approve SB172, stating a preference to keep the licensing requirements for APRNs and RNs separate. The motion was seconded by Representative Leon and passed unanimously with a vote of 13 to 0.
SB180: Representative Sitec Vote04:28:54.479 - 2:27:40 PM; Representative Sitec moved to pass SB180, acknowledging the importance of the bill despite concerns about its implementation. The motion was seconded by Representative Pearson, who shared personal experiences from visiting Coos County and emphasized the need for different economic strategies to help the county.
SB180: Representative Beall Support04:31:46.479 - 2:30:32 PM; Representative Beall supports SB180, believing it will assist in reinventing Coos County's economic landscape moving forward.
SB180: Representative Bota Oppose04:32:33.399 - 2:31:19 PM; Representative Bota is concerned about designating Coos County as a distressed place-based economy. While they are fine with the special classification for grants, they worry about the implications of involving counties and state agencies, fearing it might set a precedent that could cause issues with other counties.
SB180: Representative Pearson Support04:33:49.919 - 2:32:35 PM; Representative Pearson argues that the legislative system is based on population, pointing out that Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties have more representation and thus more attention. They believe that recognizing the differences between counties is necessary and supports the bill, suggesting that all counties are not equal and should be considered differently.
SB180: Representative Grotoon Oppose04:34:59.520 - 2:33:45 PM; Representative Grotoon expresses concerns about the lack of enforcement in the bill. They believe that the state agencies and counties should already be working together and worry that the bill's language, without enforcement, will cause more confusion than help.
SB180: Representative Dere Support04:36:48.000 - 2:35:34 PM; Representative Dere supports the bill in general but is concerned about the enforcement aspect. They believe that the state may not be undermining revitalization but also not helping enough. They suggest removing the enforcement part of the bill to move forward successfully.
SB180: Representative Slouche Support04:37:57.520 - 2:36:43 PM; Representative Slouche agrees with Representative Grotoon in principle, suggesting a supportive stance towards the bill.
SB180: Representative Caitc Support04:38:46.879 - 2:37:32 PM; Representative Caitc views the debate as arguing about niceties while Coos County is in need. They support the bill as a message to help the county, even if parts are unenforceable.
SB180: Representative Lamb Oppose04:38:46.879 - 2:37:32 PM; Representative Lamb compares the bill's approach to praying over a severe wound without practical action, suggesting it's not enough to just put nice language into statute without backing.
SB180: Representative Schmidt Support04:40:05.600 - 2:38:51 PM; Representative Schmidt supports the bill, focusing on the part that offers a 'hand up' to Coos County. They discuss the high per capita cost that Coos County residents pay for their county government, emphasizing the county's unique challenges and supporting the bill despite the unenforceable section.
SB180: Representative Sashi Information Only04:43:06.760 - 2:41:52 PM; Representative Sashi suggests adding a sunset date to the bill to limit its duration, proposing 10 or 20 years.

McGuire, Carol(Chairman)(R)[A+]2024	Sytek, John(Clerk)(R)[B]2024	Layon, Erica(V Chairman)(R)[A]2024
Schmidt, Peter(D)[CT]2024	Thibault, James(R)	Howard, Heath(D)[F]2024
Sellers, John(R)[A-]2024	Sheehan, Vanessa(R)[A]2024	de Vries, Erica(D)
Dargie, Paul(D)	Davis, Fred(D)[F]2024	Bailey, Glenn(R)[A+]2024
Pearson, Stephen(R)[B]2024	Grote, Jaci(D)[CT]2024	Long, Patrick(D)
Slottje, Jeremy(R)