Committee Summary for House Municipal and County Government (04/28/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB225 00:00:45.440 - 8:32:41 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the employment of military spouses in the event of involuntary deployment of service member.	Creighton, James(R)[B]2024
SB42 01:51:58.800 - 10:23:54 AM	Executive Session	relative to notice of death affidavits.	Gray, James(R)[C+]2024
SB217 01:55:52.679 - 10:27:48 AM	Executive Session	relative to public notice of historic tax rates and tax impacts of proposed projects.	Sullivan, Victoria(R)
SB78 2025-1713H 02:04:27.679 - 10:36:23 AM	Executive Session	relative to the zoning board of adjustments appeal period.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB105 2025-1626H 02:11:04.159 - 10:43:00 AM	Executive Session	enabling towns to adopt budget caps.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB225 02:28:38.319 - 11:00:34 AM	Executive Session	requiring public notice before re-assessment of property values for local tax purposes.	Avard, Kevin(R)[C+]2024

HB225: Senator Kevin Avard, District 12 Support00:00:45.440 - 8:32:41 AM; Senator Avard, the prime sponsor of HB225, introduced the bill, emphasizing the need for extended notification periods before property reassessments. He shared a personal experience where he received only a seven-day notice to challenge a reassessment, which he found insufficient, especially considering his recent health issues and the possibility of being away from home. He highlighted that the reassessment was conducted by a company from Hudson, Massachusetts, without any physical visit to the property. The original bill proposed a 90-day notice period, which was amended by the Senate to 45 days, aiming to provide more time for property owners to challenge reassessments. He stressed the importance of fairness and transparency in the notification process.
HB225: Representative Walker Information Only00:04:30.800 - 8:36:26 AM; Representative Walker sought clarification on the process of challenging a property reassessment as mentioned in the notice. He expressed confusion about the seven-day challenge period mentioned in the notice, as he understood that property owners could file for an abatement until April of the next year. He noted that his town also experienced significant property tax increases due to reassessments, highlighting the impact on local residents.
HB225: Representative Majori Information Only00:06:18.880 - 8:38:14 AM; Representative Majori clarified that the bill does not propose changes to the appeal process but aims to establish a notification process before the assessment. This question helped to focus the discussion on the bill's primary intent, which is to improve the notification timeline rather than altering the appeal mechanism.
HB225: Representative Colby Information Only00:07:34.800 - 8:39:30 AM; Representative Colby inquired about the rationale behind mandating specific notification methods in the bill, as opposed to the previous option allowing municipalities to choose their method. He noted that Nashua had opted for individual notifications, and he sought understanding on why the bill now required all municipalities to follow a mandated approach. He referenced the amended version of the bill, which specifies multiple mandatory notification methods.
HB225: Representative Walker Oppose00:09:39.440 - 8:41:35 AM; Representative Walker raised concerns about the additional workload and expenses for municipalities due to the mandated notification methods in the amended bill. He mentioned that Rochester typically uses its website for notifications and would now be required to undertake additional efforts such as newspaper notices and mailings, which would significantly increase costs for the municipality and its taxpayers.
HB225: Representative Stavis Information Only00:10:12.480 - 8:42:08 AM; Representative Stavis asked the speaker if the additional costs associated with the bill would be considered new taxes on municipalities. The speaker clarified that these costs are the responsibility of the municipalities to notify their residents, not new taxes.
HB225: Representative Colby Cole Information Only00:11:32.320 - 8:43:28 AM; Representative Colby Cole inquired about the average cumulative cost of the data collection process for printing and mailing notifications directly to taxpayers in municipalities of 10,000 or more, as well as the voluntary costs incurred by NSHA. The speaker did not have specific cost information available.
HB225: Representative Freeman Information Only00:12:49.880 - 8:44:45 AM; Representative Freeman asked about the frequency of property tax bills sent out annually in cities, towns, and municipalities in the state, and whether mailing notices to property owners up for reassessment would be beneficial. The speaker noted that the frequency of assessments varies by municipality, and suggested that including notices with property tax bills could be beneficial.
HB225: Representative Majori Information Only00:13:58.320 - 8:45:54 AM; Representative Majori asked if the BTLA (Board of Tax and Land Appeals) had any objections or comments on the bill. The speaker was unaware of any objections from the BTLA.
HB225: Representative Walker Oppose00:15:08.040 - 8:47:04 AM; Representative Walker expressed concerns about the bill, stating that the notification changes would impose a burden on municipalities and taxpayers. He referenced a specific reassessment in the city of Nashua, which was ordered by the BTLA, as an example of an unusual situation, and argued that it should not influence legislation affecting all municipalities.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:16:27.680 - 8:48:23 AM; The speaker was asked to clarify the content of the notice required by the bill, specifically whether it would detail changes in property valuation or simply inform about re-evaluations and direct property owners to check online. The speaker could not provide specific details at the time but mentioned that the notice would provide 45 days for property owners to challenge changes, compared to the previous 7 days.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:18:32.240 - 8:50:28 AM; The speaker discussed the recent notice they received, which was related to personal property and gave them 7 days to challenge the valuation. They expressed support for the bill's intent to increase the notification period to 45 days, emphasizing the importance of broader notification methods beyond just mail.
HB225: Representative Majori Information Only00:19:50.039 - 8:51:46 AM; Representative Majori asked about the timing of notices in relation to revaluations, specifically for communities like Northampton that conduct revaluations every five years. The speaker agreed that notices should ideally be sent before revaluations occur, to better inform the public and allow for more time to respond to changes.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:21:34.880 - 8:53:30 AM; The speaker clarified that they received notification of property reassessment by mail, not through the city's website or social media. They mentioned that they did not check the website daily and were not aware of any notifications via email or social media. The speaker noted that local discussions arose after receiving the mailed notification.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:22:41.520 - 8:54:37 AM; The speaker confirmed that the only notification received about the property reassessment was by mail, and they do not visit the city's website daily. They discussed the clarity of the bill's language regarding individual notices to property owners.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:23:56.880 - 8:55:52 AM; The speaker, a former attorney, discussed the need for clarity in the bill's text regarding individual notices to property owners. They suggested amending the bill to specify that notices should be both individual and public.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Support00:25:07.279 - 8:57:03 AM; The speaker supported the idea of notifying taxpayers in a timely manner about reassessments and government spending. They proposed extending the notification period from 7 days to 45 days, highlighting the costs associated with mailing notices and the importance of public awareness.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:26:17.279 - 8:58:13 AM; The speaker confirmed that the notification would only be sent to those property owners who were reassessed, not to all property owners in the municipality. They clarified that reassessments in Nashua occur every five years.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:27:08.400 - 8:59:04 AM; The speaker discussed the confusion about who receives reassessment notifications, confirming that only those reassessed would be notified. They also mentioned that Nashua had two assessments within five years.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:28:48.320 - 9:00:44 AM; The speaker questioned the effectiveness of newspaper notices for property reassessments, especially since the reassessments were conducted without site visits, using algorithms instead. They emphasized receiving a mailed notification with a short response period of seven days and advocated for a 45-day notification period.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:30:01.120 - 9:01:57 AM; The speaker agreed with the need for clarity in public notices and questioned the utility of advertising reassessments in newspapers and on social media if property owners are unaware of their specific reassessment status.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:30:47.679 - 9:02:43 AM; The speaker discussed the process of property re-evaluation notifications, mentioning that in their instance, the notification was received through the mail with a seven-day window to challenge it. They highlighted the confusion around the term 'notice' in the bill, suggesting that it could be interpreted in different ways, such as individual notices to property owners versus general public notices. They expressed concern that the bill's wording might be confusing and suggested potential revisions.
HB225: Representative Colby Information Only00:34:06.480 - 9:06:02 AM; Representative Colby inquired about the funding process for property reassessments in Nashua, questioning how the city raises funds for reassessments and whether the process differs from other communities where it is typically included in the warrant.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:35:25.960 - 9:07:21 AM; The speaker responded to Representative Colby's question, explaining that in Nashua, the funds for reassessments are raised through the aldermen, and the notification of reassessment came unexpectedly through the mail.
HB225: Representative Elward Information Only00:36:17.280 - 9:08:13 AM; Representative Elward followed up on Representative Colby's comments, confirming that not all voters are property owners and vice versa, highlighting the distinction between the two groups.
HB225: Representative Grund Information Only00:36:17.280 - 9:08:13 AM; Representative Grund asked about the decision-making process behind the seven-day notification period in Nashua, questioning whether it was a decision made by the city or another entity. They also inquired if anyone had challenged the seven-day period with the city.
HB225: Representative Walker Information Only00:37:23.680 - 9:09:19 AM; Representative Walker asked about the consequences of missing the 45-day challenge period proposed in the bill, expressing concern about what happens if property owners cannot meet the deadline, using an example from Rochester where delays in assessments affected tax bill issuance.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Support00:38:18.520 - 9:10:14 AM; The speaker expressed support for extending the notification period to 45 days, emphasizing the need for adequate time for property owners to challenge their assessments. They criticized the seven-day notice given in Nashua as unfair and advocated for better notification for taxpayers across the state.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:39:31.839 - 9:11:27 AM; The speaker discussed the reasons behind the seven-day notice in Nashua, stating they were unaware of the rationale and suggested that the mayor or aldermen should be asked. They reiterated the need for a longer notification period to allow property owners sufficient time to challenge their assessments.
HB225: Representative Guthrie Information Only00:45:04.920 - 9:17:00 AM; Representative Guthrie asked about the process following the seven-day period, specifically whether there was a mechanism for extending the challenge period or if it was automatically denied after seven days. The response indicated that while the challenge period might end, property owners could still seek an abatement later.
HB225: Representative Majority Information Only00:46:07.520 - 9:18:03 AM; Representative Majority questioned the effective date of the bill, asking why it was set for 2026 rather than being immediate. The response indicated openness to an immediate effective date but uncertainty about the original decision for the delay.
HB225: Representative Frock Information Only00:47:22.040 - 9:19:18 AM; Representative Frock asked if the seven-day notification period was specific to Nashua or if other municipalities in New Hampshire had similar experiences.
HB225: Unknown Speaker from Hudson Information Only00:48:13.839 - 9:20:09 AM; The speaker discussed the issue of tax notifications, specifically mentioning Hudson and Nashua. They noted that the issue of not receiving notifications before a tax bill was known to have occurred in Nashua and expressed concern about it potentially happening in other areas. They suggested that the problem should be addressed at the state level to prevent it from occurring in other towns.
HB225: Representative Elward Information Only00:49:15.359 - 9:21:11 AM; Representative Elward brought up a case from their district where a property owner received a tax bill without prior notification of revaluation. They questioned whether all municipalities send out such notifications, indicating that this might not be a universal practice.
HB225: Unknown Speaker Information Only00:50:19.760 - 9:22:15 AM; The speaker shared that a property owner learned they could challenge an assessment before filing for an abatement. They also mentioned that in some towns, property owners do not receive notifications of reassessments, and they can challenge the reassessment before going to file for an abatement.
HB225: Representative from Nashua Information Only00:51:19.280 - 9:23:15 AM; The representative from Nashua discussed their personal experience with the 7-day notification issue. They were unable to address it due to being on vacation when the notification arrived. They did not seek advice from city officials at the time.
HB225: Representative Gilman from Exeter Information Only00:52:04.000 - 9:24:00 AM; Representative Gilman from Exeter discussed the issue of the 7-day deadline for notifications, which is not a practice in their town. They questioned the potential cost to their town of mailing out notices of valuation changes and suggested that such notices could be included with tax bills to minimize additional expenses.
HB225: Senator Avard Information Only00:53:28.359 - 9:25:24 AM; Senator Avard responded to questions regarding the 45-day period specified in the bill, indicating that he had originally proposed 90 days but could accept 30 days. This was in response to queries about why 45 days was chosen over other durations.
HB225: Representative M from Nashua Oppose00:55:05.839 - 9:27:01 AM; Representative M, a resident and rental property owner in Nashua, expressed opposition to the bill due to the surprise revaluation of properties in Nashua, which occurred on a two-year cycle instead of the usual five-year cycle. He highlighted that the revaluation led to disproportionate tax burdens on residential properties compared to commercial properties, especially post-COVID. He argued for a regular five-year schedule to ensure fairness and adequate time for property owners to prepare and challenge assessments, mentioning his personal experience with a short notice period and an ineffective appeal process.
HB225: Representative Stavis Information Only00:59:03.520 - 9:30:59 AM; Representative Stavis questioned why the revaluation issue did not arise in 2022 if Nashua had decided to re-evaluate properties every two years. Representative M clarified that the re-evaluation was not set to be every two years but was done at the discretion of the city, which seemed to coincide with a sharp increase in residential property values.
HB225: Representative Dolan Information Only00:59:50.880 - 9:31:46 AM; Representative Dolan discussed the benefits of more frequent property re-evaluations in times of rapid property value increases, suggesting that this could better serve constituents. He asked if Nashua's aldermen had the power to change the frequency of assessments. Representative M agreed that a more frequent but pre-established schedule would be beneficial, criticizing the current arbitrary adjustments.
HB225: Representative Majori Information Only01:02:07.520 - 9:34:03 AM; Representative Majori inquired about feedback from other Nashua representatives regarding the revaluation issue. Representative M mentioned that during his campaign, he received significant feedback from constituents about the surprise revaluation and the lack of time to appeal.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:03:17.160 - 9:35:13 AM; The speaker discussed the necessity of having comparables run to determine fair market value for property tax abatement. They mentioned the possibility of hiring an assessor or an attorney, noting that these professionals might not be available within the seven-day period typically allowed for appeals. The speaker also shared their personal experience of reviewing assessor cards and neighboring units to appeal their assessment without success.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:04:40.319 - 9:36:36 AM; The speaker received a very restrictive notice about their property assessment, which simply stated the new assessment value and provided a seven-day window to call a phone number if they disagreed. They mentioned that this notice was straightforward but lacked detailed information.
HB225: Representative M Information Only01:06:00.160 - 9:37:56 AM; Representative M clarified the content of the notice they received, which was a simple one-page document stating the new assessment value and providing a contact number for disputes. They emphasized the lack of detailed information in the notice.
HB225: Representative Grund Information Only01:06:00.160 - 9:37:56 AM; Representative Grund inquired if the speaker had spoken to any officials in Nashua to understand the reasons behind the surprise valuation and the seven-day notice period. The speaker replied that they had not.
HB225: Representative Frock Information Only01:06:00.160 - 9:37:56 AM; Representative Frock mentioned that their question would be repetitive of Representative Grund's previous question, indicating a focus on the seven-day notice period.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Oppose01:07:17.680 - 9:39:13 AM; The speaker, a co-sponsor of the bill, expressed opposition to reducing the notification period from 90 days to 45 days as amended by the Senate. They argued that 90 days was a more suitable timeframe to prepare for tax bills and advocated for the original 90-day notice.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:08:36.960 - 9:40:32 AM; The speaker discussed the importance of not being surprised by quick property reassessments and advocated for a notification system that would allow time for preparation. They mentioned that the current system and the proposed bill might not address this issue adequately.
HB225: Representative Walker Information Only01:09:46.719 - 9:41:42 AM; Representative Walker asked about the timing of the notification, which the speaker confirmed was in October. They discussed the frequency of reassessments and the impact of a snap reassessment on property tax bills, noting differences in valuation increases between residential and commercial properties.
HB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:10:20.880 - 9:42:16 AM; The speaker clarified that the snap reassessment was court-ordered due to issues with the assessing company. They acknowledged the challenges faced by Nashua in the assessment process.
HB225: Representative Stavis Information Only01:11:27.679 - 9:43:23 AM; Representative Stavis asked about the bill's provisions to address the differences in valuation percentages between residential and commercial properties. The speaker responded that a longer notification period would allow time to appeal to city officials and ensure proper assessments.
HB225: Representative Colby Information Only01:12:48.520 - 9:44:44 AM; Representative Colby inquired if the New Hampshire Association of Assessing Officials was consulted about the changes proposed in the bill. The speaker acknowledged the difficulty in finding competent assessors in Nashua and supported the idea of using unbiased third-party assessors for fair market value assessments.
HB225: Representative Frock Information Only01:13:25.679 - 9:45:21 AM; Representative Frock inquired about historical data on property value increases in Nashua, specifically questioning if different types of residences and commercial/industrial properties increase at similar rates over a five-year reassessment cycle. The response indicated that only data from the last two years was reviewed, noting that economic booms and busts, as well as interest rates, affect property values differently.
HB225: Representative Information Only01:15:54.480 - 9:47:50 AM; The speaker discussed the timeline for property re-evaluation in Nashua, mentioning that a court order necessitated the re-evaluation. They highlighted the need for a company to perform this task and the time required for the process, suggesting a longer statutory assessment period might improve due diligence.
HB225: Brody Ducha's, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose01:17:06.199 - 9:49:02 AM; Brody Ducha's expressed opposition to the bill, citing concerns about the time period for assessments. He referenced comments from the Senate hearing by Jim Misho of the New Hampshire Assessors Officials Association, explaining why the 90-day assessment period was reduced to 45 days and the challenges with the current timeline, including assessor shortages and the necessity of conducting assessments post-April 1.
HB225: Representative Stavis Information Only01:18:37.040 - 9:50:33 AM; Representative Stavis asked if extending the notification period for assessments could influence the tax structure between commercial and residential properties. The response clarified that market dynamics, not notification periods, drive property value changes, citing the example of Wolfeboro where the residential market demand has outpaced commercial.
HB225: Representative Walker Information Only01:19:31.120 - 9:51:27 AM; Representative Walker inquired about communities that notify taxpayers of impending assessments. It was mentioned that the town of Hudson provides a 60-day advance notice, but there's no statutory requirement for such notifications or estimates in the current bill.
HB225: Representative Gilman Information Only01:20:33.880 - 9:52:29 AM; Representative Gilman discussed the reporting of blue sheets, clarifying that the House's electronic blue sheets should be referenced for House bills, despite the Senate's different procedures.
SB42: Representative Stavis Support01:51:58.800 - 10:23:54 AM; Representative Stavis moved to pass Senate Bill 42, describing it as a common sense measure to help prevent probate, potentially saving residents money by not requiring them to hire attorneys during difficult times.
SB42: Committee Vote01:54:54.400 - 10:26:50 AM; The committee voted on Senate Bill 42 with a unanimous vote of 18 to 0 in favor of the motion to pass the bill. The recommendation is 'ought to pass' and the bill will be placed on the House consent calendar. Representative Stavis will write the committee report.
SB217: Representative Walker Oppose01:55:52.679 - 10:27:48 AM; Representative Walker moved to find Senate Bill 217 inexpedient to legislate, arguing that while the bill is well-intentioned, it places a heavy burden on municipal offices by requiring a lot of information to be displayed on the website, making it cumbersome and awkward for voters to access.
SB217: Representative Gilman Information Only01:57:17.920 - 10:29:13 AM; Representative Gilman noted that there were 12 supporters and 80 opponents of the bill electronically. They also raised concerns about the lack of definition for 'chart' in the bill, questioning whether it refers to a bar chart, pie chart, or Venn diagram.
SB217: Representative (Unnamed) Information Only01:58:06.800 - 10:30:02 AM; An unnamed representative expressed understanding and support for the intent of the bill to provide voters with historic spending data to be better informed. However, they found the bill's drafting insufficient and mentioned an amendment they drafted, which was not supported by the committee.
SB217: Representative Grund Oppose02:00:52.080 - 10:32:48 AM; Representative Grund expressed concerns about the bill's approach to breaking down types of taxes and the lack of explanation behind the numbers. They also criticized the bill's handling of proposed projects, noting that not all projects appear as separate warrant articles and may be included in the operating budget, thus not reflecting a clear tax impact.
SB217: Committee Vote02:03:14.560 - 10:35:10 AM; The committee voted on Senate Bill 217 with a vote of 17 to 1 in favor of the motion to find the bill inexpedient to legislate. The recommendation will go on the consent calendar and the committee report will be written by Representative Walker.
SB78 2025-1713H: Representative Jamanna Support02:04:27.679 - 10:36:23 AM; Representative Jamanna moved to adopt amendment 2025-1713H on Senate Bill 78, which addresses changing the filing period from 30 days.
SB78 2025-1713H: Representative Jamanna Support02:05:27.679 - 10:37:23 AM; Representative Jamanna supported the amendment to extend the period for going to the board of adjustments to 45 days, stating that the previous 30-day period could be challenging for smaller municipalities and that 45 days is a reasonable middle ground to ensure timely completion of necessary actions across all municipalities.
SB78 2025-1713H: Representative Elward Support02:06:40.239 - 10:38:36 AM; Representative Elward supported the 45-day language, explaining that courts have defined a reasonable amount of time as 30 days, but this amendment considers the time needed by applicants or appellants, which could involve hiring an attorney, and thus supports the longer timeframe.
SB78 2025-1713H: Committee Vote Vote02:07:27.119 - 10:39:23 AM; The committee voted unanimously to accept amendment 2025-1713H to Senate Bill 78 with a vote of 18 to 0.
SB78 2025-1713H: Representative Jamanna Support02:08:10.480 - 10:40:06 AM; Representative Jamanna moved for Senate Bill 78 to pass as amended, which was seconded by Representative Walker. No further comments were made on the motion.
SB78 2025-1713H: Committee Vote Vote02:08:50.719 - 10:40:46 AM; The committee voted unanimously to pass Senate Bill 78 as amended with a vote of 18 to 0. The bill will proceed to the House consent calendar, and Representative Jamanna will write the report.
SB78 2025-1713H: Committee Vote Information Only02:08:50.719 - 10:40:46 AM; The committee concluded their discussion on SB78 and amendment 2025-1713H.
SB105 2025-1626H: Chair Information Only02:11:04.159 - 10:43:00 AM; The Chair opened the executive session on Senate Bill 105 and called for a motion to adopt amendment number 2025-1626H, which was seconded by Representative Murphy.
SB105 2025-1626H: Representative Murphy Information Only02:11:54.760 - 10:43:50 AM; Representative Murphy spoke in support of the amendment to Senate Bill 105, explaining that it mirrors legislation passed the previous year for school district budget caps. The amendment includes reordering of paragraphs for clarification, specifically changes in subparagraphs A and B, and renumbering for further clarity.
SB105 2025-1626H: Representative Information Only02:13:39.239 - 10:45:35 AM; The speaker discussed additional changes in the amendment, including changing the inflation index from January 1st to October 1st to better align with the budgeting season.
SB105 2025-1626H: Representative Information Only02:14:24.639 - 10:46:20 AM; The speaker continued discussing the amendment, mentioning renumbering and reorganization under Roman numeral three, and the deletion of section 5A due to misinterpretation and confusion.
SB105 2025-1626H: Representative Information Only02:15:28.639 - 10:47:24 AM; The speaker concluded the discussion on the amendment, noting further clarifications and corrections, including the addition of the municipal cost index as an option and corrections of scribner's errors.
SB105 2025-1626H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:16:52.558 - 10:48:48 AM; The speaker discusses the amendment 2025-1626H to SB105, which includes a new paragraph under Roman numeral 6. This paragraph allows for changes to an existing tax cap and updates references, clarifying that a budget cap can be changed without resending it, following the same procedure used for changing the methodology or formula of the budget cap.
SB105 2025-1626H: Representative Colby Oppose02:17:39.398 - 10:49:35 AM; Representative Colby expresses concerns about the amendment and the underlying bill. She highlights issues with using data from the Bureau of Economic Affairs for population measurement, noting that the data is outdated and comes with disclaimers against its use for accounting population changes. She also discusses potential budget cuts affecting the department responsible for updating these figures. Additionally, she criticizes the choice of inflationary indices for communities, suggesting it could lead to significant financial errors, using the example of a potential $900,000 mistake in Londonderry. She also objects to the stripping of power from constituents to amend warrant articles, arguing it goes against recommendations from the Government Finance Officers Association, which advises using different inflation factors for different expenditure categories.
SB105 2025-1626H: Representative Grund Oppose02:21:03.120 - 10:52:59 AM; Representative Grund supports Representative Colby's concerns and clarifies that while the wording of warrant articles might not be amendable, the amounts and percentages are. She strongly opposes removing the legislative body's ability to amend warrant articles during deliberative sessions or town meetings.
SB105 2025-1626H: Vote Vote02:22:12.280 - 10:54:08 AM; A vote is taken on amendment 2025-1626H to Senate Bill 105, resulting in its acceptance by a vote of 10 to 8.
SB105 2025-1626H: Vice Chairman McDonald Support02:23:00.080 - 10:54:56 AM; Vice Chairman McDonald moves to pass SB105 as amended. The motion is seconded by Representative Walker, and McDonald believes all points have been covered in the discussion.
SB105 2025-1626H: Unnamed Speaker Oppose02:24:15.600 - 10:56:11 AM; The speaker expressed opposition to the bill, noting that even with the amended language, the bill remains unpopular based on electronic submissions showing 13 in support and 127 in opposition. They intend to vote against it.
SB105 2025-1626H: Representative Gilman Information Only02:24:15.600 - 10:56:11 AM; Representative Gilman clarified that the bill is enabling legislation, which if passed, would become an optional fiscal tool for towns. It would require a three-fifths supermajority to adopt, emphasizing that the bill itself is not about imposing tax or budget caps but about providing a tool for towns to use if they choose.
SB105 2025-1626H: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:25:42.240 - 10:57:38 AM; The speaker reiterated that the bill is modeled after the existing fiscal tool for school district budget caps and would apply similarly to towns. They then moved to a vote on the motion to pass the bill with the amendment.
SB105 2025-1626H: Clerk Vote02:26:30.960 - 10:58:26 AM; The clerk conducted a roll call vote on the motion to pass Senate Bill 105 with the amendment. The vote resulted in 10 in favor and 8 opposed, with the motion passing. The committee's recommendation is to pass the bill with the amendment. The majority report will be written by an unnamed representative, and the minority report by Representative Colby.
SB225: Representative Walker Oppose02:28:38.319 - 11:00:34 AM; Representative Walker moved to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL), citing the bill's vagueness and cumbersome nature. They noted that the bill's requirement for all methods of advertisement could be problematic and mentioned that only Hudson provides notice for assessments, while Rochester uses simpler methods without issues.
SB225: Representative Freeman Oppose02:29:18.280 - 11:01:14 AM; Representative Freeman, although a guest in the committee, supported the spirit of the bill but felt it was not suitable for statewide application due to unique circumstances in Nashua. They suggested addressing the root causes of the issues rather than the effects and recommended against passing the bill in its current form.
SB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:30:29.920 - 11:02:25 AM; The speaker mentioned drafting an amendment to the bill to address the need for notice but felt that after the hearing, the amendment did not meet the necessary requirements. They expressed conflict over supporting the bill's intent but felt the amendment would not fulfill the needs based on the testimony heard.
SB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:32:16.319 - 11:04:12 AM; The speaker suggested that the sponsors of the bill should reconsider and refine the language of the bill to better meet the objectives without overburdening municipalities. They recommended further investigation and clearer, more precise language.
SB225: Representative Davis Oppose02:33:06.240 - 11:05:02 AM; Representative Davis expressed concern over the lack of consultation with Nashua city officials in the drafting of the bill. They highlighted a policy of not supporting legislation that targets a single municipality, suggesting that the bill is an example of attempting to solve a local issue with state-wide law. They appreciated the intent but felt more consultation and research were needed.
SB225: Unnamed Speaker Information Only02:34:20.560 - 11:06:16 AM; The speaker emphasized the importance of fully understanding the problem before drafting legislation, noting that their amendment was based on their interpretation of the bill, and stressed the need for precise and appropriate legislative responses.
SB225: Representative Dolan Oppose02:34:58.960 - 11:06:54 AM; Representative Dolan viewed the issue as a local problem that should be addressed by Nashua city officials themselves, within their authority, rather than seeking a state-level solution.
SB225: Various Representatives Vote02:36:25.680 - 11:08:21 AM; The committee voted unanimously in favor of the motion to find Senate Bill 225 inexpedient to legislate, with a vote of 18 to 0. The recommendation will proceed to the House consent calendar, and Representative Walker will write the committee report.
SB225: Chair Information Only02:37:02.439 - 11:08:58 AM; The Chair announced the closure of the executive session on SB225 and shared upcoming schedule changes, including a house session on May 1st and the upcoming closure of the legislative office building for HVAC replacement and maintenance from July through October 2026. The committee will move to One Granite Place during this period. Members were reminded to remove personal items by May 22nd and to be aware of upcoming house sessions and retained bills to be addressed in the fall.
SB225: Representative Murphy Information Only02:40:10.319 - 11:12:06 AM; Representative Murphy inquired about handling game tags and play tags during the move, and was informed that they would be packed and moved to One Granite Place.
SB225: Representative Davis Information Only02:40:10.319 - 11:12:06 AM; Representative Davis expressed appreciation for the leadership and work of the committee, acknowledging the Chair, Vice Chair, and Clerk for their roles in making the committee effective and a privilege to serve on.
SB225: Representative Stavis Information Only02:41:28.080 - 11:13:24 AM; Representative Stavis echoed the appreciation for the committee's leadership and extended it to all members, emphasizing the collaborative effort that makes the committee successful.

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)