Committee Summary for House Municipal and County Government (02/18/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB554 00:12:42.920 - 8:11:13 AM	Public Hearing	enabling municipalities to choose whether or not to place political advertising on municipal property.	Andrus, Louise(R)[B+]2024
HB512 00:30:37.279 - 8:29:08 AM	Public Hearing	relative to preventing municipal employees from being paid under multiple municipal contracts simultaneously.	Pearson, Stephen(R)[B]2024
HB562 00:55:16.319 - 8:53:47 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the filling of vacant positions on elected municipal boards and school boards.	Alexander, Joe(R)[A]2024
HB125 2025-0153 01:22:58.360 - 9:21:29 AM	Public Hearing	relative to electing Strafford county commissioners at-large.	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[CT]2024
HB490 02:10:12.520 - 10:08:43 AM	Public Hearing	relative to indemnification for municipalities adopting policies to address homelessness.	Howard, Heath(D)[F]2024
HB668 02:29:51.319 - 10:28:22 AM	Public Hearing	authorizing municipalities to hold a referendum to rescind the licenses of historic horse racing facilities.	Ohm, Bill(R)[B]2018
HB230 2025-2778h 04:08:11.640 - 12:06:42 PM	Executive Session	relative to the adoption of public health ordinances by municipalities.	Harvey-Bolia, Juliet(R)[A]2024
HB689 04:14:33.720 - 12:13:04 PM	Executive Session	enabling municipalities to adopt a volunteer incentive property tax credit.	Hemingway, Wayne(R)
HB766 04:18:08.560 - 12:16:39 PM	Executive Session	enabling municipalities to adopt an exemption from the local education property tax for certain elderly residents.	McMahon, Charles(R)[A-]2024
HB625 04:21:55.840 - 12:20:26 PM	Executive Session	relative to enabling municipalities to levy payments against non-profits at a percentage of their assessed property values.	Bolton, Bill(D)[CT]2024
HB147 04:24:26.680 - 12:22:57 PM	Executive Session	relative to clarifying tax exemptions for properties used by religious, educational, and charitable organizations.	Mooney, Maureen(R)[B+]2024
HB426 2025-0141 04:30:37.560 - 12:29:08 PM	Executive Session	relative to property tax exemptions for charitable organizations for the prior tax year.	MacDonald, John(R)[B+]2024
HB617 2025-D437H 04:43:38.560 - 12:42:09 PM	Executive Session	relative to the homestead right.	Litchfield, Melissa(R)[A-]2022
HB425 04:56:02.958 - 12:54:33 PM	Executive Session	allowing tax-exempt entities to keep their tax-exempt status while renting facilities or property to entities that share their mission.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B-]2024
HB421 2025-354h 04:58:52.480 - 12:57:23 PM	Executive Session	relative to notice of tax exempt-status filing procedures by town officials or offices.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B-]2024
HB458 05:08:50.840 - 1:07:21 PM	Executive Session	limiting local assistance to U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents.	Roy, Terry(R)[B]2024
HB782 05:14:22.280 - 1:12:53 PM	Executive Session	expanding property tax exemptions for certain elderly and disabled persons; raising public awareness regarding tax credits and exemptions; and requiring an annual report regarding the efficacy of the low and moderate income homeowners property tax relief program.	Manohar, Sanjeev(D)
HB547 05:19:09.480 - 1:17:40 PM	Executive Session	relative to county reimbursement of funds.	Pearson, Stephen(R)[B]2024
Unclear 05:21:51.878 - 1:20:22 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

HB554: Representative Louise Andress, representing Merrimack County District 5, including Andover, Danbury, Hill, Salisbury, and Webster Support00:12:42.920 - 8:11:13 AM; Representative Andress introduced House Bill 554, which seeks to allow municipalities to decide whether political signs can be placed on municipal property. She expressed frustration over a state law from 1979 that prohibits such signs, which she claims was not enforced until recently. Andress mentioned that in her town and others, signs were traditionally placed on municipal property without issue until last year. She believes that municipalities, not the state, should have the authority to regulate political signs on their property. She also raised concerns about the unclear boundaries of state versus municipal property, particularly in relation to state rights-of-way. Andress concluded by hoping the committee would find a way to enable municipalities to make their own decisions regarding political signs.
HB554: Representative FR Information Only00:15:48.680 - 8:14:19 AM; Representative FR asked Representative Andress who informed her that signs could not be placed on municipal property. Andress responded that it was due to an incident in their town the previous year, which led to the discovery of the state law prohibiting signs on municipal property.
HB554: Representative Gilman Information Only00:16:24.880 - 8:14:55 AM; Representative Gilman inquired whether the term 'public property' in the law includes rights-of-way, such as areas in front of buildings or next to sidewalks. Andress clarified that the law prohibits signs on municipal property but allows them on state rights-of-way, highlighting the issue of unclear boundaries between state and municipal property.
HB554: Representative Majori Information Only00:17:32.559 - 8:16:03 AM; Representative Majori asked for clarification on who within the municipality would have the authority to decide on the placement of political signs, pointing out that the term 'municipalities' might need refinement to specify whether it refers to libraries, select boards, town councils, or other bodies. Andress agreed that the language may need to be refined to clarify which municipal body has the authority.
HB554: Representative Murphy Information Only00:18:11.559 - 8:16:42 AM; Representative Murphy raised a question about the potential reduction of the moderator's role in the bill, specifically regarding the decision-making on signage placement at polling places. The concern was whether the moderator's authority over signage, which can affect voter access, should be altered or if another body like the select board should handle such decisions.
HB554: Representative Gilman Information Only00:19:15.840 - 8:17:46 AM; Representative Gilman inquired about electioneering issues in their town related to the placement of political signs. They asked if there were any problems with signs being too close to polling places and how far from the polling place signs were typically placed.
HB554: Representative Gilman Information Only00:20:14.720 - 8:18:45 AM; Representative Gilman asked if the bill would apply to town hall or town office buildings, specifically regarding the placement of political signs by State Representatives. The response indicated that such decisions would be left to individual municipalities under the current law.
HB554: Representative Guthrie Information Only00:21:08.440 - 8:19:39 AM; Representative Guthrie questioned the potential for a 'patchwork' application of the bill across the state, where different municipalities might have varying rules on sign placement. The response clarified that the bill's language was changed from 'shall' to 'may' to allow municipalities flexibility, but this could be amended.
HB554: Representative Guthrie Information Only00:22:39.840 - 8:21:10 AM; Representative Guthrie shared an example from their town where signs were placed along the entrance to the voting spot without issues. The response acknowledged that political sign placement is a contentious issue and should be decided by individual towns.
HB554: Representative Stavis Information Only00:23:28.640 - 8:21:59 AM; Representative Stavis expressed concerns about potential cognitive dissonance in the bill's wording, specifically where it relates to current law on sign placement with owner's consent. The response suggested that an amendment might be necessary to clarify the bill's intent.
HB554: Representative Majority Information Only00:24:44.760 - 8:23:15 AM; Representative Majority asked about potential conflicts in the bill's existing language, particularly regarding the removal of political advertising from public property. The response indicated that if municipalities are allowed to set their own rules, the state should not override them.
HB554: Representative Frock Information Only00:25:38.120 - 8:24:09 AM; Representative Frock sought clarification on the statute the bill aims to modify, specifically regarding signs placed on municipal property versus near polling places. The response clarified that municipalities would need to adhere to state laws on electioneering.
HB512: Jim Majori, Town of Northampton Information Only00:30:37.279 - 8:29:08 AM; Jim Majori introduced House Bill 512 FN, which aims to prevent municipal employees from being paid under multiple municipal contracts simultaneously. He offered to answer questions but none were asked.
HB512: Kristen Schultz, Resident of Northampton, NH Support00:31:29.240 - 8:30:00 AM; Kristen Schultz expressed support for HB 512, citing her concerns about the Northampton Select Board's decision to allow the full-time Town Administrator to hold a part-time position in Newcastle, NH, without public consultation. She highlighted the negative impact on town services, including the resignation of key personnel like the police and fire chiefs. Schultz also mentioned being denied access to time sheets and billing hours through a 91-A request. She suggested amending the bill to remove the felony charge for failing to report new employment offers, believing this would improve the bill's chances of passing.
HB512: Barett Christina, Executive Director of the New Hampshire School Boards Association Oppose00:35:11.320 - 8:33:42 AM; Barett Christina opposed HB 512, citing examples of current superintendents serving multiple school administrative units (SAUs) part-time. She mentioned specific districts like Siri and Sullivan, Winchester and Hinsdale, Plainfield and Cornish, and Alton and Barnstead, where superintendents manage multiple SAUs without full-time commitments in each. Christina criticized the bill's language on page 16, which she felt could be misinterpreted to affect superintendents working under multiple contracts. She also noted arrangements where one district purchases services from another, such as Rollinsford and Somersworth, and Governor Wentworth and Middleton. Christina expressed concerns about the bill's impact on local control and the feasibility of implementing changes mid-contract.
HB512: Representative Frock Information Only00:39:12.880 - 8:37:43 AM; Representative Frock asked Barett Christina if the New Hampshire School Boards Association would continue to oppose the bill if it were amended to allow part-time employment by more than one district. Christina responded that they would prefer the entire section related to school districts be removed.
HB512: Representative Davis Information Only00:40:12.680 - 8:38:43 AM; Representative Davis inquired about the appropriateness of asking witnesses about potential amendments in the absence of the prime sponsor. The chair responded affirmatively, stating that once introduced, the bill belongs to the committee, which can decide on amendments.
HB512: Representative Dolan Information Only00:41:00.880 - 8:39:31 AM; Representative Dolan questioned whether the bill addresses a local issue that could be resolved through a local warrant article or citizen's petition. Barett Christina responded by advocating for local control and expressing concerns about the state dictating local contract terms, especially with existing multi-year contracts.
HB512: Colby Information Only00:42:33.079 - 8:41:04 AM; Colby discussed the financial implications of hiring part-time versus full-time superintendents in school districts. He highlighted that the decision is influenced by the economic conditions and size of the community. He mentioned that there are likely several dozen part-time superintendents in New Hampshire due to small community and district sizes. Additionally, he pointed out the increasing number of school administrative units and a decreasing number of individuals entering the field of superintendency, leading to more part-time positions often filled by retirees working across multiple districts.
HB512: Colby Information Only00:44:53.000 - 8:43:24 AM; Colby further explained the process of hiring a superintendent, detailing his experience with the New Hampshire School Boards Association's superintendent search services. He described how a medium to large school district forms a committee comprising various stakeholders to develop a leadership profile, conduct community surveys, and hold public meetings to gather feedback. He noted that initial interviews are typically non-public, but final interviews with finalists are open to the public. For smaller districts, the process might be more straightforward with the school board directly interviewing candidates. He also mentioned handling interim positions with retired superintendents.
HB512: Colby Information Only00:47:58.240 - 8:46:29 AM; Colby responded to a question about the disclosure of current employment of superintendent candidates. He stated that the New Hampshire School Boards Association advises that initial interviews and candidate application materials are kept confidential to protect the privacy of candidates. However, the names of finalists are eventually made public, typically with a 48-hour notice to the candidates to inform their current employers before public disclosure.
HB512: Mark Milan, Executive Director of the New Hampshire School Administrators Association Oppose00:49:34.240 - 8:48:05 AM; Mark Milan expressed opposition to HB512, stating that the bill would limit the ability of small and rural communities to effectively search for executive leadership for their school districts. He highlighted the importance of collaboration and regional school districts in New Hampshire, which seek to maintain community identity while fostering opportunities and savings. He argued that the bill would hinder the search for efficiency and negatively impact student opportunities.
HB512: Representative Gilman Information Only00:51:33.400 - 8:50:04 AM; Representative Gilman reported the results of the remote sign-in and the day's blue sheet for HB512, indicating 14 in support and 13 opposed to the bill.
HB562: Joe Alexander, Town of Hillsboro, District 29 Support00:55:16.319 - 8:53:47 AM; Representative Joe Alexander, the prime sponsor of HB562, explained the purpose and details of the bill. He highlighted that the bill aims to ensure fairness in filling vacancies on municipal and school boards by mandating that if a board chooses to fill a vacancy with someone who ran in one of the last three elections, they must first offer the position to the candidate who received the next highest number of votes in the most recent election. He provided an example from his town, Hillsboro, where a school board chose a candidate who finished sixth over one who finished fourth, illustrating the need for his bill to respect the will of the voters. Alexander emphasized that the bill does not force boards to choose the runner-up but ensures that if they select from previous election candidates, the runner-up is given priority. He also addressed potential concerns about the bill's language, clarifying that boards can still choose other applicants who have never run for the position.
HB562: Representative Guthrie Information Only00:57:45.880 - 8:56:16 AM; Representative Guthrie posed a question to Representative Alexander about the bill's application in a hypothetical scenario where a candidate who received very few votes in a multi-candidate race would be offered the position. Alexander clarified that the bill does not require the board to choose such a candidate but mandates an offer if the board decides to select from previous election participants.
HB562: Representative Colby Information Only01:00:38.680 - 8:59:09 AM; Representative Colby sought clarification on the bill's language, questioning whether it required boards to offer the position to the first runner-up from the previous election over potentially more qualified applicants. Alexander explained that the bill allows boards to choose from applicants who have never run for the position, but if they decide to pick from those who have run in the last three elections, they must first offer it to the candidate with the next highest votes from the most recent election.
HB562: Unknown Information Only01:02:22.400 - 9:00:53 AM; The speaker explained the purpose and structure of the bill, stating that it requires a committee to first offer a vacancy to the runner-up in the most recent prior election if they choose to fill a vacancy with an applicant who ran in any of the last three elections. The bill's length is attributed to the need to amend various sections of the RSA concerning different municipal positions such as budget committee, charter commission, cemetery trustees, district officers, town election positions, library boards, and supervisors of the checklist.
HB562: Representative Dolan Information Only01:03:19.480 - 9:01:50 AM; Representative Dolan questioned the approach of the bill, suggesting that holding a special election might be more appropriate to let the voters decide based on available candidates. The response to Dolan's query was that the bill aims to respect the voters' will from the last election without the added cost and lower turnout of a special election, proposing that offering the position to the next highest vote getter is a more cost-effective solution.
HB562: Unknown Information Only01:04:48.000 - 9:03:19 AM; The speaker raised a concern about what happens if the runner-up has moved away, to which the response was that the position wouldn't be offered to someone unqualified to serve, such as someone no longer living in the municipality or zone.
HB562: Representative Walker Information Only01:05:33.520 - 9:04:04 AM; Representative Walker pointed out what they perceived as contradictory language in the bill. The explanation given was that the committee has the choice to fill a vacancy with an applicant who ran in the last three elections, but must first offer it to the runner-up. If no applicants from the last three elections apply, the requirement does not apply. Further clarification was provided on how the bill's language works to ensure the next highest vote getter is considered if applicable.
HB562: Unknown Information Only01:07:52.160 - 9:06:23 AM; The speaker suggested that the bill's language might be clearer with an 'if-then' clause, and noted that the bill enables a choice rather than mandates a specific action. This clarification helped Representative Walker understand the bill better.
HB562: Representative Gerard Information Only01:08:43.439 - 9:07:14 AM; Representative Gerard asked if the bill could be circumvented by boards seeking candidates who haven't run for election, to which the answer was affirmative, indicating that the bill allows for such a scenario.
HB562: Representative Wooden Information Only01:09:13.839 - 9:07:44 AM; Representative Wooden inquired about the scenario of a tie for the runner-up position, which the bill does not address. The response acknowledged this as a valid question but noted that the bill does not contemplate such a situation.
HB562: Unknown Information Only01:09:47.560 - 9:08:18 AM; The speaker clarifies that the bill in question is about selecting someone to fill a vacancy temporarily until an election can be held for the remaining term. They confirm that the bill does not override the subsequent election process but focuses on the interim period which could range from three to six months.
HB562: Unknown Information Only01:10:19.880 - 9:08:50 AM; The speaker raises a concern about the necessity of the bill, questioning whether the person who comes in third in a two-person race should automatically be considered the third choice of the electorate. They suggest that undervotes or write-in candidates might indicate a different preference among voters. They also express that without the bill, local committees already have the discretion to follow a similar process if they choose to.
HB562: Unknown Support01:11:06.960 - 9:09:37 AM; The speaker supports the intent of the bill, arguing it respects voter choice, especially in situations where the margin of defeat is small. They give an example from their district where a candidate lost by a smaller margin than the one appointed, suggesting that the bill would ensure the next highest vote-getter is considered first, thereby aligning more closely with voter preference.
HB562: Biry Dees, NH Municipal Association Oppose01:13:51.719 - 9:12:22 AM; Biry Dees from the NH Municipal Association opposes the bill as written, arguing that it could undermine the will of the voters by mandating that the runner-up in the most recent election be offered the vacancy first, even if they were significantly defeated. They express concern that this could result in less qualified or experienced individuals being appointed, and it would limit the ability of local boards to select the most suitable candidate. They also mention that the bill complicates a process that is currently managed effectively at the local level, and they request the committee to reject the bill.
HB562: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:16:44.440 - 9:15:15 AM; The speaker discussed the concept of special elections in the context of municipal offices. They explained that if a municipal office becomes vacant, a special election would occur at the next town meeting to fill the remainder of the term. They highlighted the importance of filling vacancies promptly, especially for positions like the board of selectmen, to maintain a quorum and ensure functionality. The speaker also clarified that while municipalities do hold special elections, they differ from legislative special elections set by the Secretary of State.
HB562: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:18:17.320 - 9:16:48 AM; The speaker responded to a query about special elections, confirming that municipalities do have them, but they occur differently than legislative special elections. They used a personal example of filling a vacancy on a library board of trustees, which was later filled by a special election at the next town meeting. They emphasized that typically, a vacancy is either filled or left open until the next election.
HB562: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:19:04.320 - 9:17:35 AM; The speaker raised a question about the applicability of the bill's language to cooperative school district budget committees, noting that the statute referenced in the bill does not cover these specific committees. They suggested that this might be an omission in the bill.
HB125 2025-0153: Representative Arnold Davis, Coos District 2, Maron, New Hampshire Support01:22:58.360 - 9:21:29 AM; Representative Davis introduced a non-germain amendment to House Bill 125, which aims to prohibit county, state, and publicly funded lands from being enrolled in carbon sequestration programs. He argued that these lands, purchased with tax dollars, should be reserved for traditional uses rather than carbon projects, which could disqualify them from intended purposes. He expressed concerns about the stability of the timber and wood products industries and questioned the efficacy of carbon sequestration in managing forests for multiple benefits including economic development, wildlife habitat, fire prevention, and recreation. He also mentioned the low percentage of carbon in the atmosphere and the potential impact of carbon markets on forest management.
HB125 2025-0153: Representative Ulette Support01:27:36.760 - 9:26:07 AM; Representative Ulette supported the amendment introduced by Representative Davis. They discussed the management of state lands like Franconia Notch and Cannon Mountain, emphasizing the importance of maintaining these areas for traditional uses such as hiking and skiing. They pointed out that land managed for carbon sequestration might not be compatible with animal habitats and recreational uses, which could impact how state and county lands, funded by public money, are used. They also highlighted the potential negative effects on wildlife habitats due to the focus on fast-growing tree species for carbon sequestration.
HB125 2025-0153: Representative Stavis Information Only01:31:46.880 - 9:30:17 AM; Representative Stavis inquired about the compatibility of using forests for carbon sequestration with recreational activities. They questioned whether there is an inherent conflict between these uses, specifically highlighting concerns about motorized sports conflicting with carbon sequestration efforts due to philosophical differences. They also asked about the impact on animal habitats, noting that mature forests used for carbon sequestration might not provide adequate food sources for wildlife compared to younger forests, which could affect traditional uses like hunting in New Hampshire.
HB125 2025-0153: Representative Grund Information Only01:34:17.920 - 9:32:48 AM; Representative Grund asked about the contractual stipulations when towns purchase land, specifically whether these contracts specify the continued use of the land. They were informed that the amendment in question does not affect municipal land but only pertains to counties and state forests. This clarification helped them understand that the original purchase contract's terms regarding land use might not be affected by the bill.
HB125 2025-0153: Representative Colby Information Only01:35:54.080 - 9:34:25 AM; Representative Colby raised concerns about how the bill might affect private landowners with land in trusts. They were particularly worried about the bill's language, which could restrict landowners from participating in forest carbon programs if their land was in a trust and had received any public funding. They sought clarification on whether the bill would affect the ability of private landowners to manage their property according to their estate planning.
HB125 2025-0153: Representative Murphy Information Only01:36:40.880 - 9:35:11 AM; Representative Murphy inquired about public lands that have been gifted and whether any such gifts had restrictions on them, especially concerning carbon sequestration. They were informed that while lands have been gifted to the state, there were no known restrictions specifically related to carbon at that time.
HB125 2025-0153: Representative Davis Information Only01:37:19.440 - 9:35:50 AM; Representative Davis asked about the future potential for forests used for carbon sequestration to coexist with recreational uses and generate revenue for the state. They questioned whether the proposed legislation would hinder this possibility. They were told that while it could be possible, lands bought or gifted to the state were generally intended for traditional uses, and any deviation would require legislative approval.
HB125 2025-0153: Jason Stock, New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association Oppose01:39:04.520 - 9:37:35 AM; Jason Stock, representing the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, opposed the amendment. He explained that the bill's language could restrict private landowners from enrolling their land in forest carbon programs if the land was in a trust and had received public money. He emphasized the importance of property rights and the potential for carbon and recreational uses to coexist on public lands. Stock stressed the traditional uses of state lands and the need for legislative oversight before changing land management practices to include carbon programs.
HB125 2025-0153: Representative Davis Information Only01:45:48.520 - 9:44:19 AM; Representative Davis asked if the issue of forest carbon sequestration required further study due to its complexity involving policy, environmental, and financial aspects. Jason Stock agreed, highlighting the need for a comprehensive study and the association's willingness to work with the committee and bill sponsors to resolve the issue.
HB125 2025-0153: Unnamed Speaker, Southeast Land Trust Information Only01:47:24.280 - 9:45:55 AM; The speaker discussed the current status of land trusts in New Hampshire with respect to carbon markets. They confirmed that land trusts, such as the Southeast Land Trust, are currently able to participate in voluntary carbon markets. They mentioned that there is a registry at the Division of Forests and Lands where enrolled lands are listed, and noted that the Lakes Region Conservation Trust is one such participant. They raised concerns about the proposed amendment potentially disqualifying land from carbon credit eligibility if it is part of a trust that has received public funding.
HB125 2025-0153: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:49:24.239 - 9:47:55 AM; The speaker responded to a question regarding the eligibility of the New Hampshire Old Growth Forest Network to participate in carbon sequestration programs. They were unsure about the specific eligibility of this entity but explained the general process of carbon contracts, which involves purchasing existing carbon and subsequent growth sales. They emphasized that if the entity owns real estate, there might be opportunities to participate in carbon markets.
HB125 2025-0153: Meredith Hatfield, The Nature Conservancy Oppose01:50:59.360 - 9:49:30 AM; Meredith Hatfield expressed opposition to the proposed amendment, echoing concerns previously raised about the underlying bill. She argued that participation in forest carbon markets can coexist with traditional land uses and highlighted the state's success in managing lands for multiple uses. Hatfield urged the committee not to limit options for counties and state agencies in managing lands and suggested further study on the issue. She also acknowledged the concerns in the North Country related to the forest products industry.
HB125 2025-0153: Rob Johnson, New Hampshire Farm Bureau Oppose01:53:17.560 - 9:51:48 AM; Rob Johnson, representing the New Hampshire Farm Bureau, opposed the amendment. He pointed out the ambiguity in the amendment's language regarding lands in trust receiving public funds, questioning whether federal money distributed through the state would be included. Johnson emphasized the importance of preserving landowners' options to enter the carbon market and used an example of a private landowner whose property might be used for a public trail, potentially affecting their eligibility for carbon markets.
HB125 2025-0153: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Support01:56:11.040 - 9:54:42 AM; Brody Dees expressed support for the amendment and Representative Davis's proposal for a yield tax on carbon tonnage. He highlighted the potential revenue loss for municipalities due to decreased timber cutting, particularly impacting areas like Pittsburg where timber taxes fund a significant portion of the budget. Dees argued that the current statute, RSA 79:5, is inadequate for addressing lost timber revenues and advocated for taxing carbon tonnage as a solution to preserve municipal revenues.
HB125 2025-0153: Bill Aringer, Attorney at Wrath Young and Pignatelli, representing Aurora Sustainable Lands Oppose01:59:13.159 - 9:57:44 AM; Bill Aringer, representing Aurora Sustainable Lands, the private owner of the Connecticut Lakes Headwater Forest, testified in opposition to the amendment. He expressed concerns about the ambiguity in the amendment's second sentence, which could potentially affect private land ownership. Aringer highlighted that Aurora manages the forest through a special trust and works closely with the State of New Hampshire. He emphasized the importance of private property rights and the potential constitutional issues if the amendment were applied to private property. Additionally, he discussed Aurora's ongoing management of the forest, including timber harvesting and support for tourism, hunting, and environmental preservation, all while adhering to the terms of their conservation easement.
HB125 2025-0153: Matt Ley, Public Policy Director for the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests Oppose02:06:10.440 - 10:04:41 AM; Matt Ley, representing the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, testified in opposition to the amendment. He acknowledged the concerns about forest carbon markets and potential loss of tax revenue to municipalities but emphasized that forest carbon projects are a valuable tool for forest land management. Ley expressed concern over the amendment's blanket prohibition on state and county properties and its potential impact on private forest landowners. He highlighted the complexity of forest management and the need for careful consideration to avoid overreach, noting the limited number of properties currently enrolled in forest carbon markets in New Hampshire.
HB490: Representative Howard Support02:10:12.520 - 10:08:43 AM; Representative Howard introduced HB490, which aims to provide municipalities with legal protection when using municipal properties as shelters for the homeless. The bill seeks to remove liability for municipalities if shelters are set up in spaces not fully suitable, such as those lacking proper bathroom facilities or snow removal. Howard emphasized that the current living situations of the homeless, such as living in the woods or on the streets, are far less preferable. The bill requires legal action against municipalities to prove they were beyond neglectful and acted with conscious disregard for safety, thus protecting municipalities trying to do the right thing.
HB490: Representative Colby Information Only02:12:02.679 - 10:10:33 AM; Representative Colby asked if the bill would benefit municipalities using temporary shelters as defined in their hazard mitigation plans. Representative Howard confirmed that the indemnification could help cover those situations, especially since having shelters is a requirement for FEMA funding eligibility.
HB490: Representative Dolan Information Only02:12:56.400 - 10:11:27 AM; Representative Dolan inquired about the indemnification in the case of a fire at a shelter not up to code, leading to deaths or injuries. Representative Howard explained that each case would be evaluated individually, and the bill requires proof of beyond neglectful behavior and conscious disregard for safety to hold municipalities liable. Howard mentioned that most buildings used as shelters are up to code, and the bill aims to cover minor issues like snow removal to enable more properties to be used safely.
HB490: Representative Stavis Information Only02:15:26.480 - 10:13:57 AM; Representative Stavis asked for clarification on the term 'beyond neglect' and whether the bill allows new use of public property for shelters. Representative Howard stated that 'beyond neglect' would be determined on a case-by-case basis by the courts. Regarding new use of public property, Howard confirmed the bill's intent to allow municipalities to provide temporary shelter, but noted there are no specific provisions for oversight of health and safety in the bill. He mentioned that other speakers, like those from Strafford County, could provide more insight into real-world applications.
HB490: Nick Taylor, Director of Housing Action New Hampshire Information Only02:17:33.599 - 10:16:04 AM; Nick Taylor, representing Housing Action New Hampshire, expressed that his organization does not have a formal position on the bill but appreciates its intent to address homelessness. He highlighted the significant increase in homelessness in New Hampshire, noting a 50% rise in the point-in-time count from 2022 to 2023. Taylor mentioned concerns raised by their members about potential risks to safety and the lowering of standards which could lead to unsuitable living conditions for the homeless. He suggested exploring innovative housing solutions like pods and temporary structures and emphasized the importance of systems of care, personal identification, and access to resources as more effective approaches to homelessness. He expressed willingness to collaborate with the bill's sponsor and the committee on potential solutions.
HB490: Chuck Rassy, City of Rochester Support02:20:32.880 - 10:19:03 AM; Chuck Rassy, from Rochester, introduced the bill and discussed his three-year involvement with the Strafford County Committee on Homelessness. He emphasized the complexity of the homelessness issue and the need for meaningful solutions. Rassy highlighted a survey that identified about 1400 functionally unhoused individuals in Strafford County. He discussed the challenges of dealing with homeless encampments and the legal and financial liabilities faced by municipalities in providing temporary shelters. He argued that the bill would allow communities to use available land or buildings to provide safer temporary housing without the fear of lawsuits, provided there is no intentional harm or negligence. Rassy sees the bill as a starting point to help small communities manage homelessness without the resources for full shelters.
HB668: Representative M, Prime Sponsor Support02:29:51.319 - 10:28:22 AM; Representative M introduced the bill, emphasizing that it provides local control over casino locations, allowing communities to opt out of having historic horse racing facilities. He explained the background of the bill, noting that cities and towns were not given the option to vote on these facilities initially. He detailed the financial benefits and low license fees for operators, which he believes unfairly impact local communities. He used the example of Nashua, where property taxes have increased due to a new casino development. Representative M argued for the need for municipalities to have negotiation tools with casino operators, suggesting that the bill allows for a referendum to rescind a casino license if the community is dissatisfied with the operator's contributions or impact. He stressed that the bill would not affect existing operations but would be applied at license renewal times.
HB668: Unknown Speaker Information Only02:42:19.760 - 10:40:50 AM; The speaker raised a question about the financial implications for casino owners if they were to lose their license, specifically regarding the cost of slot machines. The response clarified that these machines are typically leased rather than purchased, with licenses valid for three years. The casino owners make a business decision on their investment, and any further speculation on their financial situation was considered unnecessary.
HB668: Alicia Preston, New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association Oppose02:43:05.479 - 10:41:36 AM; Alicia Preston expressed opposition to the bill, highlighting the impact on existing businesses with historic horse racing licenses. She mentioned that there are 14 such licenses in the state, with 11 currently operational and five more in the application process. She emphasized the significant investments made by these operators and the potential financial loss if the bill were to pass, which could affect both the state's revenue and the charities that benefit from historic horse racing.
HB668: An Fera, New Hampshire Soccer Association Oppose02:45:23.920 - 10:43:54 AM; An Fera, representing the New Hampshire Soccer Association, opposed the bill, stressing the importance of charitable gaming funds for their programs. The association uses these funds to offer scholarships and reduce financial barriers for children, particularly those with disabilities, to participate in soccer. The potential loss of these funds due to the bill would significantly impact the association's ability to support children's physical and mental well-being.
HB668: Edwin Smith, Former Legislator Oppose02:46:10.800 - 10:44:41 AM; Edwin Smith, a former legislator, spoke in opposition to the bill, discussing the benefits of charitable gaming for two organizations he assists: the Spofford Lake Association and the Hinsdale Lions Club. He detailed the environmental and recreational efforts of the Spofford Lake Association and the community support provided by the Hinsdale Lions Club, emphasizing the importance of charitable gaming funds for these initiatives.
HB668: Michelle Ali, CEO of Webster House Children's Home, Manchester, NH Oppose02:51:04.239 - 10:49:35 AM; Michelle Ali opposed the bill, highlighting the critical role of charitable gaming funds for the Webster House Children's Home. She explained that these funds help bridge the funding gap for providing essential care to at-risk youth. Losing these funds would impact the home's ability to offer comprehensive support and could force the elimination of beneficial initiatives for the children.
HB668: Susan Howland, Vice President of Community Relations and Development, Mental Health Center of Greater Manchester Oppose02:54:07.720 - 10:52:38 AM; Susan Howland expressed strong opposition to the bill, emphasizing the importance of charitable gaming funds for the Mental Health Center of Greater Manchester. She explained that these funds are crucial for supporting mental health and substance misuse services, especially given the challenges faced by community mental health centers. The potential loss of these funds would exacerbate inequalities in care access.
HB668: Amy Hollingworth, New Hampshire Musculoskeletal Institute Oppose02:56:42.720 - 10:55:13 AM; Amy Hollingworth opposed the bill, stressing the importance of charitable gaming revenue for the New Hampshire Musculoskeletal Institute's Save Sports Network. This program provides free athletic healthcare to Manchester public school athletes. She argued that passing the bill would reduce essential funding, leading to fewer services and increased health risks for student athletes.
HB668: Representative Aly, City of Lebanon Support02:58:20.239 - 10:56:51 AM; Representative Aly supported the bill, expressing concerns about the negative impacts of gambling on communities. She cited examples from Lebanon and Littleton, where casinos were established without community consent, leading to problems such as addiction and theft. She argued that towns should have the right to vote on whether they want such establishments, highlighting the lack of effective measures to address gambling addiction in the state.
HB230 2025-2778h: Representative Majori Information Only04:08:11.640 - 12:06:42 PM; Representative Majori proposed Amendment 2025-2778h to House Bill 230, discussing the need for guardrails within RSA 147:1 to define the scope of health officers' actions regarding public health ordinances. The amendment aims to balance the need for health officers to perform their duties effectively while ensuring they do not overstep their bounds. Representative Majori highlighted ongoing discussions with the bill's sponsor, Representative Harvey Bolia, about future adjustments to give health officers more latitude. The amendment was unanimously passed with a vote of 18 to 0, and subsequently, the committee voted 18 to 0 to recommend 'ought to pass as amended' on HB230.
HB689: Representative FR Information Only04:14:33.720 - 12:13:04 PM; Representative FR moved for 'inexpedient to legislate' on House Bill 689, which was seconded by Representative Gerard. No further discussion was held, and the motion passed unanimously with a vote of 18 to 0, recommending that HB689 be deemed inexpedient to legislate.
HB766: Representative Walker Information Only04:18:08.560 - 12:16:39 PM; Representative Walker moved for 'inexpedient to legislate' on House Bill 766, which was seconded. The motion passed with a vote of 17 to 1, recommending that HB766 be deemed inexpedient to legislate.
HB625: Representative Stavis Information Only04:21:55.840 - 12:20:26 PM; Representative Stavis moved for 'inexpedient to legislate' on House Bill 625, highlighting the potential disruption to established pilot payment agreements between municipalities and nonprofits. The motion was seconded by Representative Murphy and passed unanimously with a vote of 18 to 0, recommending that HB625 be deemed inexpedient to legislate.
HB147: Vice Chairman McDonald Information Only04:24:26.680 - 12:22:57 PM; Vice Chairman McDonald moved for 'ought to pass' on House Bill 147, emphasizing the need for clearer tax exemptions for properties used by religious, educational, and charitable organizations. The motion was seconded by Representative Murphy and passed unanimously with a vote of 18 to 0, recommending that HB147 ought to pass.
HB147: Majori Oppose04:25:25.239 - 12:23:56 PM; Representative Majori expressed opposition to the ought to pass motion on HB147. He initially found the bill reasonable but learned of a similar bill in the Senate and concerns about the bill's language reverting to previously ambiguous language. He suggested retaining the bill to find better language to achieve the intended outcomes.
HB147: Stavis Oppose04:26:34.479 - 12:25:05 PM; Representative Stavis, a resident of Lebanon, New Hampshire, and neighboring Hanover, New Hampshire, agreed with retaining the bill rather than passing it. He mentioned the presence of educational and charitable nonprofit organizations in the area and the difficulty in ensuring their activities align with their missions, which he believes the bill would exacerbate.
HB147: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:27:21.800 - 12:25:52 PM; An unnamed speaker recalled that during the hearing, the prime sponsor had explained that the interpretation of the current statute was not being applied correctly, prompting the need for clarification through this bill.
HB426 2025-0141: McDonald Support04:30:37.560 - 12:29:08 PM; Representative McDonald supported the adoption of Amendment 2025-0141 to HB426, stating that it resulted from conversations with the view of land and tax appeal and improved the enforcement of the bill.
HB426 2025-0141: Majori Oppose04:32:11.600 - 12:30:42 PM; Representative Majori opposed the amendment, acknowledging that it corrected incorrect dates but felt that the language in the amendment did not achieve what the prime sponsor intended. He raised concerns about the lack of a time limit for requesting adjustments, potentially disrupting deadlines.
HB426 2025-0141: Unnamed Speaker Support04:34:28.480 - 12:32:59 PM; An unnamed speaker supported the amendment, arguing that it gives nonprofits the opportunity to explain their situation to the board of selectmen regarding late tax payments for the 2024 tax year, without guaranteeing they won't have to pay taxes.
HB426 2025-0141: Grund Oppose04:36:53.039 - 12:35:24 PM; Representative Grund expressed concern about setting a precedent for annual requests and the constitutionality of retrospective laws, citing New Hampshire Constitution Part One, Article 23.
HB426 2025-0141: McDonald Support04:37:38.561 - 12:36:09 PM; Representative McDonald responded to concerns about retrospective laws, citing New Hampshire court cases (Norton vs. Patton and State vs. Belo) to argue that the bill does not create new obligations, impose new duties, or attach new disabilities in respect to past transactions.
HB426 2025-0141: Dolan Information Only04:39:13.160 - 12:37:44 PM; Representative Dolan sought clarification on whether the bill was a one-time look back to 2024, which was confirmed by Representative McDonald.
HB617 2025-D437H: Murphy Support04:43:38.560 - 12:42:09 PM; Representative Murphy moved to accept Amendment 2025-D437H and to pass HB617 as amended but did not speak to the motion at the time.
HB617 2025-D437H: Majori Support04:44:42.760 - 12:43:13 PM; Representative Majori supported the amendment as it addressed the question of allowing trusts to claim the exemption, which was raised during the committee hearing.
HB617 2025-D437H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:45:29.840 - 12:44:00 PM; An unnamed speaker reiterated that the amendment was necessary because the provision for trusts was inadvertently dropped from the original bill during the LSR process.
HB617 2025-D437H: Majori Oppose04:47:12.360 - 12:45:43 PM; Representative Majori, while supportive of the amendment, opposed the bill as amended. He noted that testimony, including from the prime sponsor, suggested that the million-dollar threshold was too high and should be closer to half a million dollars.
HB617 2025-D437H: Stavis Oppose04:48:35.040 - 12:47:06 PM; Representative Stavis expressed concerns about undefined terms in the bill, specifically the term 'housing cooperative,' which he could not find defined in existing law. He supported the amendment but could not support the bill due to these unresolved questions.
HB617 2025-D437H: Grund Oppose04:49:20.638 - 12:47:51 PM; Representative Grund opposed the bill, citing concerns about the impact on homeowners associations (HOAs) and the lack of clarity regarding how much land in an HOA could be affected by the bill.
HB617 2025-D437H: Stavis Oppose04:50:05.878 - 12:48:36 PM; Representative Stavis further elaborated on the potential negative impact of the bill on HOAs, noting that a judgment against one homeowner could affect the entire association due to shared ownership of common land.
HB617 2025-D437H: Chair Information Only04:53:39.798 - 12:52:10 PM; The Chair expressed concerns about the additional language in the amendment to HB617. They noted that the purpose was to simplify and clarify, but the language added to section B of RSA 7223 introduces vague terms like 'similar Mission' and 'similar residential real estate'. These terms are overly broad and poorly defined, leading to significant ambiguity. Section C complicates matters by imposing excessive requirements on organizations and municipal assessors, who are not certified public accountants, to evaluate financials. This could lead to disputes and place unreasonable burdens on assessors, potentially resulting in confusion and unequal application across jurisdictions.
HB617 2025-D437H: Davis Information Only04:55:17.280 - 12:53:48 PM; Representative Davis highlighted a contradiction in section C of the bill. They pointed out that line 11 mentions an organization renting no more than one church parsonage or similar residential real estate and one worship building, but line 17 states that an organization shall not claim more than one exemption under this subparagraph. This contradiction makes the bill confusing and hard to understand.
HB425: Chair Information Only04:56:02.958 - 12:54:33 PM; The Chair announced the vote on HB425. The motion to pass the bill as 'ought to pass' was put to a vote, resulting in a 10-8 decision in favor. Representative France will write the majority report, and Representative Colby will write the minority report.
HB421 2025-354h: Majori Support04:58:52.480 - 12:57:23 PM; Representative Majori moved to recommend amendment 2025-354h to HB421 FN. They explained that the amendment was crafted after consultations with the bill's sponsor and an assessor from the town of Hudson. The amendment aims to facilitate cooperation between municipalities and tax-exempt organizations to ensure proper forms are sent and received on time, preventing the issues faced with House Bill 1055 last year. The amendment also ensures neither party is penalized for delays in mail delivery, and it references the relevant statute for the forms, allowing flexibility if forms change.
HB421 2025-354h: Walker Oppose05:01:13.798 - 12:59:44 PM; Representative Walker opposed the amendment, arguing that requiring assessing offices to send out mailers would impose an undue burden on their budget and time. They also questioned the necessity of annual paperwork submissions, suggesting that a biennial or five-year cycle might be more reasonable.
HB421 2025-354h: Majori Information Only05:02:46.878 - 1:01:17 PM; In response to Representative Walker, Representative Majori agreed that annual reviews can be burdensome and suggested further examination of the issue. They acknowledged the burden on municipalities to send out mail but felt it necessary for the time being.
HB421 2025-354h: Chair Information Only05:03:33.040 - 1:02:04 PM; The Chair announced the vote on the amendment to HB421 FN, which passed with a vote of 15-3. A subsequent motion to pass the bill with the amendment was put to a vote, resulting in a 16-2 decision in favor. The bill will be placed on the consent calendar, and Representative Majori will write the report. There will be no minority report.
HB458: Kazinski Information Only05:08:50.840 - 1:07:21 PM; Representative Kazinski moved to retain HB458 FN, stating that the bill requires further work before proceeding.
HB458: Dolan Support05:09:54.080 - 1:08:25 PM; Representative Dolan supported the motion to retain, noting that the absence of the sponsor and co-sponsors put the committee at a disadvantage. While they usually would consider an Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) motion in such cases, they supported the retain motion due to leadership's decision.
HB458: Stavis Support05:10:33.878 - 1:09:04 PM; Representative Stavis supported the retain motion but emphasized the disadvantage faced by the committee and the public when sponsors do not appear to present their bills. They suggested a future discussion on handling such situations and expressed concern over the lack of opportunity for public engagement.
HB458: Chair Information Only05:11:20.280 - 1:09:51 PM; The Chair announced the vote on the motion to retain HB458 FN, which passed with a vote of 13-5. No reports are required for retained bills at this time.
HB782: Gilman Oppose05:14:22.280 - 1:12:53 PM; Representative Gilman moved for an Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on HB782 FN. They cited several issues with the bill, including the tying of the exemption amount to the CPI, which they felt took away the public's power to set these amounts. They also mentioned the binding of future selectmen to the CPI index and criticized the vague requirements for printing and posting notices.
HB782: Representative Stavis Information Only05:15:44.120 - 1:14:15 PM; Representative Stavis raised a question about the definition of 'efficacy' in the context of the bill, expressing confusion over whether it refers to the quantity of tax exemptions granted, the benefit to recipients, or another metric. He highlighted the importance of understanding this term for evaluating the value of the tool provided by the bill.
HB782: Representative Gilman Information Only05:16:31.160 - 1:15:02 PM; Representative Gilman acknowledged the question about the definition of 'efficacy' and admitted that the term was important but had slipped his mind during his earlier comments. He noted the absence of the prime sponsor to clarify this term.
HB547: Representative Grund Support05:19:09.480 - 1:17:40 PM; Representative Grund moved to pass HB547 FN, explaining that the bill addresses the reimbursement of funds to counties for nursing homes during the COVID era. He noted a change in federal funding from a 50/50 split to 56.2%, with the state retaining the difference instead of passing it to the counties. He argued that this money is owed to the counties and would affect their tax rates, thus supporting an 'ought to pass' recommendation.
Unclear: Chair Information Only05:21:51.878 - 1:20:22 PM; The Chair provided updates and announcements about future legislative sessions and hearings. They mentioned a House session scheduled for Thursday, February 20th, and requested members to hold Thursday, February 27th, open for hearings. The Chair also discussed tentative plans for hearings and executive sessions on Monday, March 3rd, and emphasized the need to pencil in these dates due to resource sharing and scheduling uncertainties. The Chair addressed confusion over dates and reiterated the importance of clear communication regarding scheduled versus tentative meetings.
Unclear: Representative Majority Information Only05:22:39.040 - 1:21:10 PM; Representative Majority clarified the scheduling details, correcting the date for the hearings from February 26th to February 27th. They emphasized the difference between scheduled and tentative dates, explaining that 'please hold' means to pencil in the date, while 'scheduled' means it is officially noticed.
Unclear: Representative Gilman Information Only05:24:56.040 - 1:23:27 PM; Representative Gilman requested a repeat of the March date for hearings and executive sessions, indicating confusion over the previously mentioned dates. The Chair clarified that the date to pencil in is Monday, March 3rd.
Unclear: Representative Dolan Information Only05:26:30.440 - 1:25:01 PM; Representative Dolan confirmed the start time for the hearings on February 27th, noting that it would be either 9:00 or 9:30 AM due to the number of bills to be discussed.
Unclear: Representative Stavis Information Only05:27:31.600 - 1:26:02 PM; Representative Stavis inquired about the status of six bills and a non-germane amendment that needed a hearing. The Chair responded with a detailed plan for upcoming hearings and executive sessions, mentioning that five bills would be heard on March 3rd, followed by an executive session, and another executive session planned for March 10th.
Unclear: Representative Murphy Information Only05:29:05.160 - 1:27:36 PM; Representative Murphy reminded the committee not to schedule a meeting on March 11th due to it being election day, and he would not be available. The Chair acknowledged this and confirmed that the next executive session would be scheduled for March 10th instead.

Pauer, Diane(Chairman)(R)[A]2024	Bjelobrk, Marie Louise(Clerk)(R)	MacDonald, John(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2024
Germana, Dylan(D)	Fracht, David(D)[F]2024	Guthrie, Joseph(R)[B-]2024
Gilman, Julie(D)[CT]2024	Grund, Stephanie(D)	Stavis, Laurel(D)[CT]2024
Karasinski, Sly(R)	Maggiore, Jim(D)[CT]2024	Dolan, Tom(R)[B+]2024
Aylward, Deborah(R)[A-]2024	Walker, David(R)	Colby, Eleana (D)
Girard, Dale(D)	Franz, Linda(R)	Murphy, Denis(R)