Committee Summary for House Ways and Means (04/07/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB63 00:06:23.120 - 9:03:39 AM	Public Hearing	relative to funding for the division of travel and tourism.	Lang, Timothy(R)[C+]2024
SB51 00:53:33.520 - 9:50:49 AM	Public Hearing	relative to decal fees and the statewide public boat access program.	Watters, David(D)[CT]2024
SB107 01:23:12.320 - 10:20:28 AM	Public Hearing	enabling the state treasurer to invest certain fish and game funds.	Lang, Timothy(R)[C+]2024
SB107 01:28:14.159 - 10:25:30 AM	Public Hearing	enabling the state treasurer to invest certain fish and game funds.	Lang, Timothy(R)[C+]2024
SB51 01:36:38.719 - 10:33:54 AM	Executive Session	relative to decal fees and the statewide public boat access program.	Watters, David(D)[CT]2024
SB107 01:41:11.080 - 10:38:27 AM	Executive Session	enabling the state treasurer to invest certain fish and game funds.	Lang, Timothy(R)[C+]2024

SB63: Senator Tim Lang, District 2, Lakes Region Support00:06:23.120 - 9:03:39 AM; Senator Lang introduced SB63 as a correction bill aimed at adjusting the distribution of rooms and meals tax revenue. He explained that the current law, as interpreted by the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA), allocates 30% of the revenue to towns first, then 3.15% to the Department of Travel and Tourism. This bill seeks to reverse this order, ensuring that the marketing funds for tourism are taken out first, followed by the split between the state and towns. This change is intended to correct an unintentional error in the previous legislation and ensure that the marketing budget for the state remains robust, which is crucial for business growth and state promotion.
SB63: Representative Elme Information Only00:08:42.479 - 9:05:58 AM; Representative Elme expressed confusion about the bill's impact, particularly regarding the interpretation of the law by DRA. He questioned the order of deductions and the allocation of funds, indicating a need for further clarification from DRA to understand the bill's effect on the distribution of funds.
SB63: Representative Balmy Information Only00:09:28.720 - 9:06:44 AM; Representative Balmy sought clarification on how DRA interprets the current law and how SB63 would change this. He noted that the bill was crafted with DRA's assistance to ensure clarity in reversing the order of fund allocation, prioritizing tourism marketing funds before splitting the remainder between the state and towns.
SB63: Representative Shambridge Information Only00:11:41.440 - 9:08:57 AM; Representative Shambridge inquired about the potential increase in funding for tourism due to the bill. Senator Lang responded that he did not have the specific numbers but emphasized the importance of the bill in maintaining adequate funding for tourism marketing.
SB63: Representative Sworth Information Only00:12:15.440 - 9:09:31 AM; Representative Sworth asked if the bill could be affected by other legislative actions, specifically HB2. Senator Lang, also serving on the Senate Finance Committee, assured that the bills would be aligned during the legislative process.
SB63: Jessica Keeler, President of Ski New Hampshire Support00:13:35.920 - 9:10:51 AM; Jessica Keeler, representing Ski New Hampshire and other tourism associations, strongly supports SB63 for its benefits to the hospitality and tourism sectors. She explained that the bill would not affect the current year's tourism budget but would impact future fiscal years. Keeler highlighted the importance of the 3.15% allocation to the promotional budget, which was part of an agreement in 2009 when the meals and rooms tax was increased. She noted a legislative error in 2019 that affected the allocation formula, but the promotional budget has been funded as intended since 2009. Keeler emphasized the success of the promotional budget in increasing tourism and tax revenues, and the importance of the joint promotional program, which could be at risk without the bill's passage.
SB63: Representative Elme Support00:18:16.160 - 9:15:32 AM; Representative Elme expressed support for the bill, mentioning their involvement in the 2009 negotiations and subsequent efforts to maintain the promotional budget allocation. They stressed the importance of ensuring the bill is correctly implemented to prevent future misinterpretations.
SB63: Representative Opel Information Only00:18:23.760 - 9:15:39 AM; Representative Opel sought clarification on whether the 3.15% allocation had been funded as expected despite changes in the allocation formula. Keeler confirmed that the budget had been created with the spirit of the 2009 agreement in mind.
SB63: Representative Opel Information Only00:19:12.360 - 9:16:28 AM; Representative Opel inquired about any discussions regarding the 2009 agreement when the meals and rooms tax rate was reduced in 2021. Keeler was not aware of any changes to the formula at that time.
SB63: Representative Information Only00:19:52.480 - 9:17:08 AM; A representative expressed concern about the potential impact on tourism if the bill isn't passed and if there are cuts to the tourism budget. Keeler confirmed significant concern about budget cuts, noting that other states have seen decreased tourism and tax revenues following such cuts. She mentioned ongoing analysis of other states' experiences and the need for a specific analysis for New Hampshire.
SB63: Representative Brier Information Only00:23:41.440 - 9:20:57 AM; Representative Brier asked about the evidence supporting the claim that every dollar spent on tourism brings in $15. Keeler explained that this figure comes from a data company hired by the state to analyze the return on investment in tourism advertising over the last seven years.
SB63: Representative Elme Information Only00:25:13.600 - 9:22:29 AM; Representative Elme mentioned that Plymouth State has been conducting analyses on tourism's economic impact since before 2009, with the return on investment growing from $8 to $15 in recent years. Keeler confirmed the growth in tourism, especially post-pandemic, and directed to the travel stats data for more information.
SB63: Mike Summers, President and CEO of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association Support00:26:08.880 - 9:23:24 AM; Mike Summers expressed strong support for SB63, emphasizing its role in correcting the 2021 scenario related to the rooms and meals tax. He argued against the notion that the state should not be involved in marketing, highlighting the importance of state-level marketing to attract visitors from broader regions. Summers also noted the significant market share gain in tourism during the COVID-19 period and the need to continue marketing efforts. He raised concerns about projections for the rooms and meals tax and the impact of proposed budget cuts on these projections.
SB63: Mike Summers, President and CEO of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association Oppose00:26:08.880 - 9:23:24 AM; Mike Summers expressed concerns about the current state of the hospitality industry in New Hampshire, particularly in relation to the proposed budget cuts. He highlighted that despite appearances of prosperity due to the rooms and meals tax, the industry is struggling with declining hotel occupancy rates over the past 12 to 18 months. He noted that rate increases have been used to mask these declines, but as rates are now also decreasing to boost occupancy, the industry faces a 'perfect storm'. Summers argued that the industry lacks the profits to cover budget shortfalls, especially as many businesses are still recovering from debts incurred during the pandemic. He also mentioned observing an increase in business closures within the industry, expressing pessimism about the next few years.
SB63: Representative Elme Information Only00:33:03.399 - 9:30:19 AM; Representative Elme discussed the struggles of small enterprises, particularly those not associated with large ski areas, noting that some survive through community donations. He questioned whether the current economic climate is appropriate for cutting revenue generators like the travel and tourism budget.
SB63: Mike Summers, President and CEO of the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association Oppose00:33:50.679 - 9:31:06 AM; In response to Representative Elme, Mike Summers argued for an increase in investment in travel and tourism, citing the need to support small businesses amidst declining visitation from Canada and general reductions in hotel occupancy. He emphasized the importance of state promotion in driving tourism, which benefits various sectors including lodging, dining, tax-free shopping, and state-run sales. Summers also warned that lowering the rooms and meals tax could impact projections in these categories.
SB63: Representative Mallaloy Information Only00:35:25.520 - 9:32:41 AM; Representative Mallaloy inquired about the trend of declining occupancy rates, asking if it was specific to New Hampshire or a broader New England trend. Mike Summers responded that while U.S. numbers showed growth, New England was flat, and New Hampshire experienced a slow erosion of occupancy rates, which was a concern.
SB63: Representative Shimmer Information Only00:36:05.680 - 9:33:21 AM; Representative Shimmer asked if the analysis provided by Mike Summers was also presented to the finance committee. Summers confirmed that they were not invited to speak to the finance committee.
SB63: Representative Lawrence Information Only00:36:26.800 - 9:33:42 AM; Representative Lawrence sought clarification on Mike Summers' earlier mention of the rooms and meals tax being lowered. Summers explained that the tax was reduced from 9% to 8.5% in 2021 as part of a statutory revision, which he believed helped the industry from a promotional standpoint but was not significant enough to make a substantial impact. He stressed the importance of maintaining travel and tourism funding to attract visitors from distant markets, including Canada, New York, and Pennsylvania.
SB63: Unknown Information Only00:37:37.440 - 9:34:53 AM; The speaker expressed appreciation for the importance of marketing and the travel industry to New Hampshire, highlighting its significance in terms of revenue. However, they raised concerns about the impact of the bill on communities that receive funds from meals and rooms taxes. They hoped to hear from the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) regarding their estimates on the bill's effects.
SB63: Unknown Information Only00:38:23.920 - 9:35:39 AM; The speaker responded to the previous concerns by emphasizing the broader economic benefits of increased tourism, suggesting that the revenue generated from more visitors could outweigh the funds distributed to municipalities. They mentioned that the total amount of $3.5 to $4 million spread across all towns is relatively small compared to potential gains from increased tourism.
SB51: Senator David Waters, District 4 Support00:53:33.520 - 9:50:49 AM; Senator Waters introduced Senate Bill 51, noting an error in the posting of the bill as amended. He explained that the bill has two parts: the first part, requested by the Fish and Game Department, ensures that the $5 boat decal fee is directed solely to the fund for the state's boat ramp program. This is crucial for matching federal grants and reducing the need for bonding. The second part, requested by the Department of Environmental Services (DES), is housekeeping, clarifying the language from 'boat fee' to 'boat fee decal' for the lake restoration and preservation fund, which supports efforts against exotic aquatic plants like milfoil. The fees remain unchanged at $5 and $9.50 respectively.
SB51: Representative Spar Information Only00:57:28.720 - 9:54:44 AM; Representative Spar asked for clarification on whether two separate decal fees are required for boat owners, one for the state boat access fund and another for the lake restoration and preservation fund. They also inquired about the last time these fees were raised and whether they cover the costs of the boat ramps.
SB51: Senator David Waters, District 4 Support00:58:17.200 - 9:55:33 AM; Senator Waters responded to Representative Spar's questions, confirming that two decals are required for boat owners. He explained that the Fish and Game Department uses the funds to plan for future boat ramp projects, ensuring they have sufficient matching funds for grants and reducing the need for bonding. He noted the importance of these funds for Fish and Game's operations, which are largely self-funded.
SB51: Representative El Information Only00:59:04.480 - 9:56:20 AM; Representative El sought clarification on the lake restoration and preservation fund, mentioning the existing fund's role in combating exotic aquatic species like milfoil. They also discussed the potential for a special license plate to contribute to this fund and the unique funding situation of the Fish and Game Department.
SB51: Senator David Waters, District 4 Support01:00:38.319 - 9:57:54 AM; Senator Waters emphasized the importance of sustainable funding for Fish and Game's operations, noting the department's reliance on these small funds to perform its mission. He highlighted the public's willingness to pay these fees for the services provided by Fish and Game.
SB51: Representative M Information Only01:01:23.440 - 9:58:39 AM; Representative M shared an anecdote about a constituent's complaint about the poor condition of boat ramps, underscoring the importance of the boat ramp program. Senator Waters responded by affirming the public's right to access water bodies and the necessity of the boat ramp program despite challenges like ice damage and parking issues.
SB51: Representative Shimmer Information Only01:02:30.480 - 9:59:46 AM; Representative Shimmer inquired about the management of the collected funds, specifically whether they are kept in a cash account or invested before being requested by DES. Senator Waters noted that he would need to confirm this but assumed that the funds are managed similarly to other state funds.
SB51: Garrett Grass Camp, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Support01:03:35.839 - 10:00:51 AM; Garrett Grass Camp, the boat access coordinator for the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department, spoke in support of SB51. He explained that the bill aims to align the boat access fund with other dedicated funds at the department, ensuring that the funds are used solely for their intended purposes. He highlighted the importance of the boat access program, which has been in place since 1983 and is funded by a $5 registration surcharge. Grass Camp emphasized the need to protect these funds, as they have been diverted in the past. He provided examples of recent boat ramp projects, including a new ramp in Alton Bay on Lake Winnipesaukee, a refurbishment in Claremont on the Connecticut River, and an upcoming improvement at Newfound Lake to enhance accessibility for people in wheelchairs. He stressed the economic and recreational value of maintaining these boat ramps for both residents and tourists.
SB51: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:07:57.200 - 10:05:13 AM; An unnamed speaker asked clarifying questions about the boat registration fee and decal system. They inquired if there were two decals and two fees, to which Grass Camp clarified that there is one decal covering multiple aspects including boat access, aquatic species protection, OHRV search and rescue, and possibly another. The speaker also asked about the possibility of increasing the fee annually by 3% to account for inflation and construction costs. Grass Camp expressed openness to working on increasing the fee but emphasized the priority of protecting the existing funds. He also discussed challenges in finding suitable locations for new boat ramps due to private shoreline ownership.
SB51: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:10:59.520 - 10:08:15 AM; Another unnamed speaker asked about boat ramp fees in other states. Grass Camp explained that each state has a different system, but all receive federal funds. He noted that New Hampshire's system relies solely on boat registration fees without general fund support, unlike some other states. He discussed the impracticality of charging fees at boat ramps due to staffing and vandalism issues, mentioning that even simple solutions like payment rangers or parking meters would likely be vandalized or circumvented.
SB51: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:15:53.199 - 10:13:09 AM; The speaker discussed the challenges of monitoring and protecting boat ramps due to the materials used (concrete and steel) and the lack of card collectors. They highlighted the difficulty in implementing drive-by checks by conservation officers due to staffing shortages and the large areas each officer must cover. The speaker also mentioned that while conservation officers do respond to incidents of vandalism or fights, constant monitoring is not feasible as boat ramps are open 24/7.
SB51: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:19:00.480 - 10:16:16 AM; The speaker explained the financial flow related to the bill, stating that money collected from boat registration at the DMV is transferred to the Department of Administrative Services, which holds it in a special account until it is drawn down by Fish and Game. They clarified that the decal mentioned in the bill is specifically for aquatic purposes and that the funds are non-lapsing.
SB51: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:20:09.560 - 10:17:25 AM; The speaker confirmed the process of how funds are managed, stating that the money from the DMV goes to Administrative Services, which then divides it into the appropriate funds. They also confirmed that these funds are non-lapsing and remain available until needed.
SB51: Representative Elme Information Only01:20:55.800 - 10:18:11 AM; Representative Elme pointed out that the bill lacks specific language required by the Treasurer's office to prevent the interest from being sent to general accounts. They mentioned consulting with the Treasurer, who confirmed the need for this language to ensure the interest remains in the special fund.
SB107: Senator Tim Lang, District 2, Lakes Region Support01:23:12.320 - 10:20:28 AM; Senator Lang introduced the bill as a housekeeping measure requested by the Fish and Game agency. The bill aims to allow the state treasurer to invest funds in the non-game species fund, enabling the fund to grow through interest. He explained that the bill adds a sentence to allow such investments and credits the interest back to the fund.
SB107: Representative Bors Information Only01:24:04.080 - 10:21:20 AM; Representative Bors inquired about the size of the non-game species fund, to which Senator Lang responded that he was unsure of the exact amount but noted it was significant enough to warrant investment.
SB107: Representative Shamberg Information Only01:24:16.239 - 10:21:32 AM; Representative Shamberg asked for clarification on what constitutes a non-game fund and whether a state grant requiring matching funds had been cut from the budget. Senator Lang explained that the non-game fund supports wildlife not hunted or trapped and was unaware of any budget cuts related to matching funds.
SB107: Representative Eling Information Only01:25:02.639 - 10:22:18 AM; Representative Eling discussed the need for the bill to allow the state treasurer to invest the funds more aggressively to maximize interest. They noted that currently, the funds might only be earning regular bank interest, and this bill would enable better returns.
SB107: Representative Elmy Information Only01:25:48.960 - 10:23:04 AM; Representative Elmy confirmed that the state treasurer had previously indicated the need for specific language in the bill to ensure that interest earned on the fund remains within it. They suggested that an email to the treasurer could clarify further questions about the fund's management.
SB107: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:27:23.199 - 10:24:39 AM; The speaker provided additional context on the non-game species fund, noting that it supports wildlife not typically hunted or trapped and receives some matching funds from the state, though the amount has decreased.
SB107: Mike Manhand, New Hampshire Fish and Game Department Support01:28:14.159 - 10:25:30 AM; Mike Manhand from the New Hampshire Fish and Game Department spoke in strong support of Senate Bill 107. He explained that the non-game program, which focuses on species not hunted, fished, or trapped, covers about 80% of species in the state, including invertebrates. The program's funding is unique as it relies heavily on private donations, matched by a general fund contribution set in statute at $100,000. This bill aims to allow donors to contribute to the fund with the interest returning to the program, which is crucial for managing costs and attracting federal funds that require matching funds.
SB51: Representative Alme Vote01:36:38.719 - 10:33:54 AM; Representative Alme moved for an 'ought to pass' on Senate Bill 51 as amended by the Senate. The bill aims to correct a technical issue allowing the state treasurer to include a specific fund from the boat decal program as non-lapsing, which would enable the use of interest from the fund for lake restoration and preservation methods.
SB51: Clerk Information Only01:39:31.199 - 10:36:47 AM; The clerk conducted a roll call vote on Senate Bill 51, resulting in a unanimous vote of 15 to 0 with 5 members absent. The bill was recommended to pass and placed on consent.
SB107: Representative Alme Vote01:41:11.080 - 10:38:27 AM; Representative Alme moved for an 'ought to pass' on Senate Bill 107. The bill would allow the state treasurer to invest funds in the non-game species account, which has been collecting interest without investment for decades. This change is expected to increase income to cover inflation.
SB107: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:43:03.920 - 10:40:19 AM; The speaker inquired about voting on amendment 0557, which adds an effective date to the original bill. The chairman clarified that the Senate had already amended the bill, so the committee's motion would be 'Ought to Pass' (OTP) as it stands, without further amendment from their committee.
SB107: Clerk Information Only01:43:38.080 - 10:40:54 AM; The clerk called the roll for a vote on Senate Bill 107, as amended by the Senate with amendment 0557s. The bill concerns the state treasurer's ability to invest certain fish and game funds. The vote resulted in 15 yes votes with 5 members absent, passing the OTP motion.
SB107: Representative Elme Information Only01:44:34.719 - 10:41:50 AM; Representative Elme discussed the implications of the bill's fiscal note, noting that since it's an OTP and not an ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate), it would not go to the finance committee but would need to be presented.
SB107: Chairman Information Only01:45:20.239 - 10:42:36 AM; The chairman concluded the executive session on SB107, mentioned the next meeting scheduled for Tuesday, April 15th, and noted that the bill would not go on consent due to its fiscal note.
SB107: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:46:06.080 - 10:43:22 AM; The speaker asked for clarification on how to refer to a Senate bill that has been amended by the Senate, questioning whether it should be considered as amended or just as a Senate bill. The chairman confirmed that since there was no committee amendment, the OTP motion was appropriate.

Janigian, John(Chairman)(R)[B+]2024	Ohm, Bill(Clerk)(R)[B]2018	Ulery, Jordan(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2024
Almy, Susan(D)[CT]2024	Oppel, Thomas(D)	Smith, Steven(R)[B+]2024
Malloy, Dennis(D)[CT]2024	Schamberg, Thomas(D)[CT]2024	Southworth, Thomas(D)[CT]2024
Tierney, James(R)[B-]2024	Cole, Brian(R)[B-]2024	Aures, Cyril(R)[A]2024
Bolton, Bill(D)[CT]2024	Elberger, Susan(D)[D-]2024	Smith, Geoffrey(D)[D-]2024
Soti, Julius(R)[A+]2024	Spahr, Terry(D)	Bryer, Scott(R)
Murphy, Mary(R)	Ford, Mary(R)