Committee Summary for House Finance Division I (02/19/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1 00:02:54.280 - 9:02:00 AM	General Working Session	Unclear	Likely Text to Speech Error on Bill #

HB1: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:02:54.280 - 9:02:00 AM; The speaker discusses the budget for the Senate, noting that the Senate spent $2,928,1863 in 2024 but was budgeted for $3,548,000 for two years, which is roughly $620,000 more than spent. They propose a $500,000 per year cut to the Senate's budget, which would still leave it $120,000 more than the actual 2024 spend. The speaker also mentions that the house budget is $600,000 more but on a larger base. They acknowledge needing to know specific line items for cuts, particularly in personnel and benefits, and suggest that adjustments could also be made in travel expenses.
HB1: Representative Eil Information Only00:04:46.919 - 9:03:52 AM; Representative Eil asks about the justification for the additional budget allocation for the Senate, to which it is clarified that the increase is primarily in personnel costs.
HB1: Representative Maguire Information Only00:05:32.160 - 9:04:38 AM; Representative Maguire discusses the need for specific line items to make budget cuts, emphasizing that personnel and benefits are the major components where cuts would be applied. They suggest that cuts should be directed towards specific class items like personnel, benefits, and travel.
HB1: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:07:05.720 - 9:06:11 AM; The speaker further discusses the Senate's budget, noting that the $2,156 million figure is based on fiscal year 2025 authorized amounts, not actual employee costs. They highlight the fluidity of positions and the inclusion of employee raises in the budget, suggesting that the proposed $500,000 cut could impact unfunded or vacant positions. The speaker also questions whether the budget figures are from general funds or all funds, confirming they are from general funds.
HB1: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:10:12.720 - 9:09:18 AM; The speaker concludes the discussion on the Senate's budget, mentioning the historical context of staff support for joint committees chaired by Senators. They acknowledge that the Senate no longer provides such support and suggest moving on to the next budget item, retirement, admitting the exercise was useful.
HB1: Jan Goodwin, Executive Director of the New Hampshire Retirement System Information Only00:12:27.360 - 9:11:33 AM; Jan Goodwin introduces herself and the team from the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS), emphasizing their mission to provide secure retirement benefits. They discuss the system's progress, operational improvements, and the strategic plan to address deferred initiatives. The budget presented does not include general funds and is part of a three-year strategic plan. Key points include the NHRS's statutory administrative budget, the increase driven by IT upgrades, modernization projects, and salaries to support new positions. Goodwin highlights the pension system's modest benefits, contributions to the state economy, and efforts to manage unfunded liability.
HB1: Marie Mullen, Director of Finance at NHRS Information Only00:18:45.640 - 9:17:51 AM; Marie Mullen discusses the NHRS budget, highlighting actual expenditures for the last three years and the increases due to pension system upgrades. The operating budget includes general funds for group two benefit changes. Mullen explains that the budget reflects a strategic plan to address delayed projects and ensure superior service to members. The budget increase is driven by group two benefit changes, IT upgrades, and new staff positions. She provides a detailed breakdown of budget allocations, including salaries, benefits, and technology upgrades, and opens the floor for questions.
HB1: Unnamed Representative Information Only00:21:51.720 - 9:20:57 AM; The representative questions the significant increase in salaries and benefits, noting a 25% rise and inquiring about the number of new employees. Mullen explains that the NHRS currently has 78 employees and plans to add 9 in 2026 and 3 in 2027, primarily in IT to ensure security and support new software implementations.
HB1: Representative C Information Only00:23:18.159 - 9:22:24 AM; Representative C questions the justification for a 500% increase in healthcare costs in 2027. It is clarified that this increase is related to group two enhancements for police, fire, and corrections employees, not the actual budget increase for NHRS operations. The representative also inquires about the new software and its impact on staffing, to which Mullen explains that the new positions are to support both current and new systems, including temporary positions for project implementation.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:25:56.399 - 9:25:02 AM; The speaker inquired about the consideration of using contracted positions instead of adding employees to the payroll. The Finance Director, Mullen, explained that the approach involves assessing whether the need is long-term or short-term and structuring the project accordingly. There will be both temporary and permanent employees added in the budget years 2026 and 2027.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:26:42.960 - 9:25:48 AM; The speaker asked if the new employees added in 2026 and 2027 include temporary positions and received clarification that all new employees are full-time and part of group one at the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS).
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:27:29.720 - 9:26:35 AM; The speaker inquired about the total amount of money allocated for the retirement savings systemwide annually, which was reported to be approximately $900 million. The discussion clarified that the administrative expenses are less than 1% of the total fees and costs, and the administrative costs are 2% of the total activity, not the corpus.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:28:16.880 - 9:27:22 AM; The speaker asked about the $5 million allocation for group two enhancements for the first year, to which it was explained that the number came from the governor's recommended budget, but the exact reason for the amount was not known.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:29:02.000 - 9:28:08 AM; The speaker questioned the decrease in personnel services non-benefit from $7.236 million in fiscal year 2024 to essentially zero. It was explained that the large amount was related to a one-time $500 payment approved by the legislature, which was processed through the operating budget.
HB1: Representative Lehman Information Only00:29:49.640 - 9:28:55 AM; Representative Lehman followed up on the $5 million and $27 million allocations, confirming that these figures were part of the governor's budget and related to revenue from video lottery terminals, which would be directed to the general fund as per HB2.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:30:36.720 - 9:29:42 AM; The speaker questioned the allocation of $27.9 million for group two benefits, which was assumed to be based on the $27.5 million per year for 10 years directed to the retirement system in the HB2 bill.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:32:20.720 - 9:31:26 AM; The speaker asked about employee training expenses, which include a combination of items for staff development, college tuition assistance, and conference attendance. An increase in training costs from 2024 to 2026 was due to a moratorium on training during the pension gold upgrade.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:33:06.559 - 9:32:12 AM; The speaker asked about the possibility of changing the budget to add fewer employees, and it was confirmed that the committee is authorized to make such changes.
HB1: Representative Wer Information Only00:33:51.679 - 9:32:57 AM; Representative Wer inquired about the employer contribution rates for police and fire in group two, which were 31.2% for police and 30.354701% for fire in fiscal year 2024-2025. The employee shares were 11.55% for police and 11.8% for fire.
HB1: Katie Easterly Marty, Community Development Finance Authority Information Only00:37:15.400 - 9:36:21 AM; Katie Easterly Marty, the Executive Director of the Community Development Finance Authority (CDFA), along with Ian Hart, the Chief Financial Officer, presented the budget request for the State Treasury Department's required match for the administration of the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG). CDFA, a state-chartered independent nonprofit, administers CDBG funds to support housing, living environments, and economic opportunities in New Hampshire. The budget request is $280,000 each year for 2026 and 2027, totaling $560,000, which is approximately 2.9% of the total funds to leverage around $19 million into New Hampshire's communities.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:41:34.160 - 9:40:40 AM; The speaker confirmed that not providing the $560,000 would result in losing the $19 million federal allocation, which would impact community investments.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:42:20.160 - 9:41:26 AM; The speaker asked about follow-up on CDBG projects to ensure their completion and compliance with federal requirements. It was confirmed that CDFA conducts both desk and on-site monitoring to ensure projects meet all federal requirements and to support municipalities.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:42:49.000 - 9:41:55 AM; The speaker inquired about the number of CDFA employees, which is 18, with 16 full-time and 2 part-time. It was clarified that the $280,000 budget request does not cover the full administrative cost but is part of a larger operation that includes other programs.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:43:36.280 - 9:42:42 AM; The speaker asked about the prioritization and process of grant-making for housing projects. CDFA holds public hearings and uses a scoring system based on quantitative and qualitative data to prioritize grants, with a focus on housing and public facilities.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:44:28.359 - 9:43:34 AM; The speaker questioned the absence of positions in the budget detail for CDFA, which was explained by CDFA's status as an independent nonprofit that administers programs on behalf of the state. The $280,000 is used for staff activities across multiple programs, making it cost-effective.
HB1: Representative Eel Support00:46:00.200 - 9:45:06 AM; Representative Eel moved to accept the CDFA budget as presented, citing the incredible leveraging of funds and the benefit to the state. The motion was seconded and unanimously approved by a show of hands.
HB1: Joseph Mica, Chairman of the New Hampshire Liquor Commission, with CFO Tina Deir Information Only01:00:52.280 - 9:59:58 AM; Joseph Mica, Chairman of the New Hampshire Liquor Commission, along with CFO Tina Deir, presented budget details to the committee. They clarified differences between their proposed budget cuts and those included in the governor's budget, noting a $500,000 discrepancy due to positions already accounted for by the Department of Information Technology (DOIT) and shared positions not directly under Liquor Commission's control. They responded to questions about specific budget lines, explaining increases in expenses due to the inclusion of transfers to Health and Human Services (HHS) in the budget, which was previously accounted for after revenues. They discussed the transition to the new D365 system, which necessitated the use of consultants, and the increase in enforcement salaries due to part-time positions for loss prevention and pay raises. They also addressed the increase in federal funds for tobacco compliance and the projected spending for FY 2025.
HB1: Representative Mons Information Only01:01:39.440 - 10:00:45 AM; Representative Mons inquired about the positions included in the governor's budget numbers, specifically whether they were exclusive to the Liquor Commission. Joseph Mica clarified that these positions were statewide and not directly part of the Liquor Commission's budget, thus could not be reduced from their proposed budget.
HB1: Representative Water Information Only01:03:58.079 - 10:03:04 AM; Representative Water asked about the shared positions and whether the Liquor Commission was paying for them entirely. Joseph Mica explained that they only paid for their share of three positions, with one already reduced in the agency phase, and the others being managed through the DOIT budget.
HB1: Representative MZ Information Only01:06:19.000 - 10:05:25 AM; Representative MZ sought clarification on the transfers to HHS, specifically about the 17616 and 126 AA laws. Joseph Mica explained that 17616 transfers 5% of the prior year's gross profit to the alcohol fund, while 126 AA supports the Medicaid expansion based on HHS requests.
HB1: Representative EV Information Only01:16:34.400 - 10:15:40 AM; Representative EV asked about the federal funds line on page 309, specifically regarding the FDA tobacco contract. Joseph Mica confirmed that the contract was not impacted by federal cuts and is essential for ensuring tobacco compliance, particularly preventing sales to minors.
HB1: Representative Lean Information Only01:18:06.080 - 10:17:12 AM; Representative Lean questioned the projected revenue increases in the governor's budget despite a declining revenue trend for the Liquor Commission. Joseph Mica explained that the projected increase was due to changes in transfers to HHS related to Medicaid expansion and prescription drug changes, which would reduce transfers to HHS and increase general fund revenue.
HB1: Representative Le Information Only01:23:34.600 - 10:22:40 AM; Representative Le inquired about the worst-performing stores and potential store consolidations. Joseph Mica mentioned Walpole and Woodsville as marginal stores, with considerations for consolidating stores in Hopkinton and Wolfeboro. He also discussed the impact of store size on consumer satisfaction and the natural progression of smaller stores closing.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:25:40.520 - 10:24:46 AM; An unnamed speaker asked about the potential for liquor delivery and the revenue from out-of-state mail orders. Joseph Mica explained the 'John Hunt tax', an 8% premium tax on shipments into the state, and provided revenue figures for 2023 and 2024. He also discussed the lack of regulation on THC drinks and potential state action to regulate and tax them.
HB1: Representative Ms Information Only01:30:21.679 - 10:29:27 AM; Representative Ms asked about the impact of closing stores on the budget. Joseph Mica explained that closing stores would have minimal costs and that consumer shopping patterns would shift to nearby locations. He also mentioned the transfer of full-time employees to neighboring stores and the potential savings in rental and personnel costs.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:31:55.960 - 10:31:01 AM; An unnamed speaker inquired about licensing fees and enforcement costs. Joseph Mica provided figures for licensing fees, administrative fines, and direct shipping revenue, and discussed the oversight of 6,300 licenses. He also mentioned that licensing fees had not increased in a long time and provided comparisons with other states.
HB1: Representative Leishman Information Only01:41:43.320 - 10:40:49 AM; Representative Leishman asked about changes in the number of positions within the Liquor Commission. Joseph Mica explained that positions were shifted to support the new financial management system, with some coming from store operations and marketing.
HB1: De Jurus, Executive Director of OPLC, with Director of Operations Heather Kelly Information Only03:17:25.399 - 12:16:31 PM; De Jurus, the Executive Director of the Office of Professional Licensure and Certification (OPLC), along with Director of Operations Heather Kelly, discussed the OPLC budget. They explained the replacement of their vehicle fleet in the last biennium, the addition of four new positions to make temporary roles permanent, and the division of administration and licensing. They addressed the increase in consultant costs for technical investigations, the indirect costs due to an agreement with the Department of Justice, and the transfer of costs to other agencies. They also discussed the number of licensees, fee structures, and a proposed 10% increase in licensing fees to address a projected budget shortfall.
HB1: Representative W Information Only03:20:29.399 - 12:19:35 PM; Representative W questioned the budget regarding the transfer of plumbing and electrical positions to safety in HB2. De Jurus clarified that the budget reflects only the division of administration, and enforcement positions would be discussed on page 162.
HB1: Representative Griffin Information Only03:23:37.399 - 12:22:43 PM; Representative Griffin inquired about the PHP (Professional Health Program) on page 160. De Jurus explained that it's a dedicated fund for licensees requiring assistance with substance misuse, as mandated by statute.
HB1: Representative R Information Only03:24:11.920 - 12:23:17 PM; Representative R asked about the increase in consultant costs and indirect costs on page 160. Heather Kelly explained that the increase in consultant costs was for technical assistance in investigations, while the indirect costs jump was due to an agreement with the Department of Justice for shared positions, which would later be moved into the SAGAP allocation.
HB1: Representative Rung Information Only03:25:06.920 - 12:24:12 PM; Representative Rung sought clarification on indirect costs and transfers to other agencies. Heather Kelly explained that the increase in indirect costs was due to an agreement with the Department of Justice for shared positions, which would later be moved into the SAGAP allocation, and that the transfers to other agencies were reduced due to negotiated rates and discontinued MOUs.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:33:16.479 - 12:32:22 PM; The speaker discussed a budget item on page 163 concerning the education trust fund, questioning its allocation and expressing confusion over the end of their office's section in the budget. They clarified that their office's section ends at line 63, where the total number of positions is 89. They expressed a humorous wish to use the million and a half dollars mentioned.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:34:04.319 - 12:33:10 PM; The speaker continued the budget discussion, focusing on the significant increase in section one of the budget by $519 million for the current year and $645 million for the next year. They noted that this section includes their office's expenses and acknowledged that their own office's budget had decreased over the years, indicating they are not contributing to the budget increase.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:34:51.239 - 12:33:57 PM; The speaker asked about the number of licenses their office is responsible for compared to other states, questioning whether New Hampshire licenses more or less on a per capita basis. The response indicated a lack of exact data but suggested that around 15 to 17% of New Hampshire's population holds a license or credential from their office.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:35:38.640 - 12:34:44 PM; The speaker discussed the impact of potential changes in licensing classifications and restructuring on their office's expenditures. They explained that the office's costs are incurred either through issuing credentials or enforcing laws, and ideally, these costs should be covered by fees. They noted challenges in balancing revenue and expenses but expressed a desire to align costs more closely with individual boards.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:37:57.560 - 12:37:03 PM; The speaker addressed changes proposed in HB2 related to inspections, focusing on mechanical and electrical inspectors and cosmetology shops. They explained that inspectors moved from the Department of Safety to their office in 2021, and a policy decision was made to restore these positions to the Fire Marshal's Office due to their public safety function. They also discussed a proposed lifetime certification course for cosmetology shops to reduce inspection frequency and costs.
HB1: Representative R Information Only03:44:21.520 - 12:43:27 PM; Representative R asked about the $100 inspection fee for cosmetology shops, confirming it is not part of the annual license fee but a separate charge. They discussed the option for shops to opt for a lifetime certification course at $59 instead of annual inspections, noting it could be cost-effective and reduce the need for inspection staff.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:45:52.279 - 12:44:58 PM; The speaker clarified that restaurants are typically inspected by local health departments rather than state agencies. They emphasized that the proposed lifetime certification for cosmetology shops would not compromise public health and safety, as complaints could still be investigated.
HB1: Melissa Information Only03:47:32.640 - 12:46:38 PM; Melissa discussed the budget changes related to the municipal distribution fund, explaining that it was moved off-book in fiscal year 25 due to the creation of a dedicated municipal revenue fund. She noted the fund was put back on the books for fiscal years 26 and 27, causing a significant discrepancy in the budget.
HB1: Eric Wind, Board of Tax and Land Appeals Information Only03:50:45.920 - 12:49:51 PM; Eric Wind, a member of the Board of Tax and Land Appeals, discussed the board's role and budget. He explained their function in hearing cases from various state entities, their challenges in filling the tax review appraiser position due to market demand, and proposed changes to their statutory requirements to allow more flexibility in hiring. He also mentioned a proposed change to hold eminent domain hearings in their office to reduce costs and discussed the board's filing fees, which have not been adjusted since 1992.
HB1: David Rogers, Chairman of the Housing Appeals Board Information Only04:20:21.640 - 1:19:27 PM; David Rogers, Chairman of the Housing Appeals Board, provided an overview of the board's budget and function. He highlighted their role as an alternative to Superior Court for appeals from local zoning and planning boards, emphasizing their expertise and efficiency. He noted the board's low cost and speedier process, with an average of 33 cases per year and a filing fee of $250. He discussed recent improvements in case management software and hardware to enhance their operations.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:25:34.279 - 1:24:40 PM; The speaker responded to a question about the savings for litigants using the Housing Appeals Board compared to Superior Court, suggesting significant savings in time and legal fees. They explained that the board's process takes about five and a half months from filing to decision, much faster than court proceedings, and noted that settlements often occur after remand.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:25:34.279 - 1:24:40 PM; The speaker, finishing their testimony at 04:25:34.279, was discussing the budget for HB1. They mentioned the involvement of a three-member board and raised concerns about the qualifications and conflicts of interest of board members. They noted that temporary board members are appointed by the Supreme Court to address conflicts of interest and that the budget includes funds for these temporary appointments. They also mentioned that the board has been fully staffed since recent appointments and is currently in a better position compared to a year ago.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:33:46.919 - 1:32:52 PM; The speaker continued to discuss the qualifications required for board members under RSA 6798 and the process for appointing temporary board members. They mentioned that the budget includes a modest amount for these temporary appointees, paid at a rate of $75 per day. They expressed satisfaction with the current board composition and the limited need for recusals. The speaker also mentioned the board's role in reviewing local zoning and planning board decisions and their efforts to educate local municipalities to encourage development.
HB1: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:47:03.360 - 1:46:09 PM; The speaker discussed the workload of the board, noting the variety of professionals they can call upon for temporary appointments. They mentioned the budget line items for different expenses, including salaries and office expenses for the executive counselors and the executive assistant. They also addressed questions about benefits for counselors, which are not provided by the state, and the frequency of redistricting, which occurs every 10 years.
HB1: Megan Rose, Executive Assistant for the Office of the Executive Council Information Only04:47:29.120 - 1:46:35 PM; Megan Rose provided an overview of the office's budget, explaining the roles of the executive counselors and the administrative support provided by her office. She detailed the budget lines, including salaries for counselors and staff, office expenses, and stipends in lieu of travel vouchers. She also clarified that counselors do not receive state benefits and mentioned the recent redistricting.
HB1: Thomas FC, Office of the Right to Know Ombudsman Information Only05:15:57.360 - 2:15:03 PM; Thomas FC discussed the budget and operations of the Office of the Right to Know Ombudsman, which he staffs alone. He noted that the office was established on January 27, 2023, and is set to expire on July 1, 2025, unless extended by legislation such as House Bill 111. He outlined the office's responsibilities under RSA 91a, its budget, and the need for minimal expenses. He requested funds for a user's guide and potential part-time help to assist with inquiries and other tasks. He also mentioned the office's location in the State House Annex and the need for equipment like a lockbox for filing fees.
HB1: MZ Information Only05:30:44.280 - 2:29:50 PM; MZ discussed the enforcement mechanisms available after a ruling by the Office of the Right to Know Ombudsman. They highlighted that the Ombudsman's rulings can be appealed to the Superior Court, but the Ombudsman lacks direct enforcement powers such as sheriff's assistance or contempt powers. They can, however, make a negative inference if orders are not followed. MZ also mentioned their inability to compel external witnesses to appear and their reliance on personal influence rather than legal authority.
HB1: Le Information Only05:34:26.680 - 2:33:32 PM; Le thanked the Ombudsman for appearing and discussed the Ombudsman's report, noting that most claimants appear pro se, with only a few represented by attorneys. They discussed the challenges of underlying disputes that often accompany right-to-know requests and the Ombudsman's role in addressing only the 91a aspects of these disputes. Le also questioned the handling of voluminous requests under 91a, to which the Ombudsman clarified that only actual copying costs can be charged, not labor, and mentioned recent amendments to 91a regarding email requests.
HB1: Doug Ingersol, Executive Director of the Public Employee Relations Board Information Only05:46:30.958 - 2:45:36 PM; Doug Ingersol provided an overview of the Public Employee Relations Board's operations, established in 1975 and approaching its 50th anniversary. He detailed the board's jurisdiction over public sector collective bargaining, its structure with a nine-member board and four classified employee positions, and the board's case activity levels, averaging 106 case filings and 270 decisions and orders annually. Ingersol explained the board's hearing process, which mirrors a trial court, and the subsequent internal review and appeal processes. He also discussed the board's role in maintaining an inventory of contracts, with 93% of contracts being current, and addressed a budget request to increase the per diem for board members from $50 to $250.
HB1: Representative Ms Information Only05:54:52.558 - 2:53:58 PM; Representative Ms inquired about the overlap or boundaries of responsibilities between the Public Employee Relations Board and the National Labor Relations Board. Doug Ingersol clarified that there is no overlap as the National Labor Relations Board deals with private sector employees, while public sector collective bargaining is handled by state boards like theirs.
HB1: Representative R Information Only05:55:42.040 - 2:54:48 PM; Representative R asked if the term 'municipal' as an employer type included school districts, to which Doug Ingersol confirmed it did, along with other public sector entities like law enforcement and firefighters. Ingersol provided statistics on the number of education contracts on file and discussed the current status of these contracts. He also mentioned a budget request to increase the board's per diem rate and the absence of the necessary statutory amendment in the governor's trailer bill.
HB1: Representative Grille Information Only05:58:49.600 - 2:57:55 PM; Representative Grille asked about the frequency of the board's meetings. Doug Ingersol explained that the board physically meets to hear unfair labor practice charges, but most other cases are handled by a hearing officer. He noted that the board uses video conferencing for deliberations on motions for review, which counts as a working day.
HB1: Representative People Information Only06:01:07.080 - 3:00:13 PM; Representative People inquired about the difficulty in recruiting board members. Doug Ingersol responded that they currently have only two vacant positions and that availability is a significant issue for board members. He explained the process of appointing board members, which involves nomination by the governor and confirmation by the executive council, and mentioned the filing fee associated with unfair labor practice complaints.
HB1: Representative Le Information Only06:04:15.400 - 3:03:21 PM; Representative Le asked about the average number of cases the board handles annually, to which Doug Ingersol confirmed an average of 106 case filings over the last five fiscal years. Representative Le also noted the inflation-adjusted value of the $60 filing fee from 1975, which would be equivalent to $352 today.