Committee Summary for Senate Commerce (03/11/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB26 0835s 00:06:06.759 - 9:04:12 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to the definition of deposits as they pertain to land sales and escrow of deposits.	Pearl, Howard (R)[C+]2024
SB55 00:09:41.279 - 9:07:47 AM	Executive Session	providing temporary exemptions from the land use change tax for qualifying housing projects.	Lang, Timothy(R)[C+]2024
SB85 0413s 00:12:58.920 - 9:11:04 AM	Executive Session	relative to chartered bank lending limits.	Pearl, Howard (R)[C+]2024
SB90 0610s 00:13:48.199 - 9:11:54 AM	Executive Session	allowing high-density residential development on land zoned for commercial use.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB163 00:19:57.039 - 9:18:03 AM	Executive Session	prohibiting local moratoria and limitations on building permits.	Pearl, Howard (R)[C+]2024
SB165 00:21:26.279 - 9:19:32 AM	Executive Session	relative to the audit requirements for consumer cooperative associations.	Avard, Kevin(R)[C+]2024
SB166 00:22:46.159 - 9:20:52 AM	Executive Session	relative to notice required prior to sale of a manufactured housing unit located in a resident-owned community.	Reardon, Tara(D)
SB167 replace all amendment 00:23:58.039 - 9:22:04 AM	Executive Session	relative to consumers' cooperative associations annual audit requirements.	Reardon, Tara(D)
SB169 00:30:31.880 - 9:28:37 AM	Executive Session	requiring employers to provide certain information regarding cost sharing to employees receiving workers' compensation benefits.	Rosenwald, Cindy(D)[CT]2024
SB71 00:31:46.559 - 9:29:52 AM	Executive Session	relative to cooperation with federal immigration authorities.	Gannon, Bill(R)[C+]2024
SB175 00:58:03.359 - 9:56:09 AM	Executive Session	relative to the use of covenants by municipalities.	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
SB170 872s 01:02:18.920 - 10:00:24 AM	Public Hearing	(New Title) relative to development and related requirements in cities, towns, and municipalities.	Perkins Kwoka, Rebecca(D)[D-]2024
SB170 0872s 01:42:46.599 - 10:40:52 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) relative to development and related requirements in cities, towns, and municipalities.	Perkins Kwoka, Rebecca(D)[D-]2024

SB26 0835s: Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association Support00:06:06.759 - 9:04:12 AM; Matt Mayberry spoke in support of the amendment to Senate Bill 26. He explained that the amendment, which came from the Builders Association, involves changes to the escrow process for change orders. The amendment was developed in collaboration with the Attorney General's office, though some minor changes were made by OLS. The intent of the amendment remains the same, which is to have a third party hold upgrade charges until the developer confirms the order, at which point they can be paid. Mayberry requested the committee to accept the amendment as submitted by OLS, noting that further minor changes might be needed from the Attorney General's office.
SB26 0835s: Unnamed Committee Member Information Only00:07:12.720 - 9:05:18 AM; An unnamed committee member asked Matt Mayberry if the amendment would require the Attorney General's office's involvement for the parties to make the deal on their own during a project. Mayberry responded that the Attorney General's office would need to approve the subdivision, and at that point, they could include a line about accepting upgrades for items like kitchen cabinets and flooring.
SB26 0835s: Committee Chair Vote00:08:23.520 - 9:06:29 AM; The Committee Chair called for a motion on the underlying bill, Senate Bill 26, and the amendment 0835s. A motion to approve the amendment was made and seconded, and it passed unanimously. Subsequently, a motion to pass Senate Bill 26 as amended was also made, seconded, and passed unanimously. The bill was then moved to consent.
SB55: Unnamed Committee Member Oppose00:09:41.279 - 9:07:47 AM; An unnamed committee member moved to find Senate Bill 55 inexpedient to legislate. They argued that while they support many housing bills, they could not endorse this particular bill because it mandates a one-size-fits-all approach, ignoring the unique needs of communities. They highlighted that housing policies should be considered as a package, not in isolation, and mentioned existing programs like Invest New Hampshire and the Housing Champions initiative. They also pointed out technical difficulties with the bill, including its violation of RSA 674:17 and its conflict with existing law, which undermines the master plan process. They concluded that the bill's cost would fall on taxpayers and questioned its effectiveness in addressing housing needs, especially for affordable or workforce housing.
SB55: Committee Chair Vote00:12:13.040 - 9:10:19 AM; The Committee Chair called for a vote on the motion to find Senate Bill 55 inexpedient to legislate. The motion was seconded, and after no further discussion, it passed unanimously. The bill was then moved to consent.
SB85 0413s: Unnamed Committee Member Support00:12:58.920 - 9:11:04 AM; An unnamed committee member moved to pass Senate Bill 85, which changes the lending limits for banks to align with federal requirements. They also moved to pass Amendment 0413s, which clarifies certain aspects of the bill. The motions were seconded, and both the amendment and the bill passed unanimously. The bill was then moved to consent.
SB90 0610s: Senator Murphy Support00:13:48.199 - 9:11:54 AM; Senator Murphy moved to pass Senate Bill 90, which redefines commercially zoned land to include retail uses, offices, medical offices, and technology parks. He also moved to pass Amendment 0610s. The motions were seconded, and the committee recalled testimony from the town of Newington expressing uncertainty about wanting commercial development. Both the amendment and the bill passed unanimously.
SB90 0610s: Senator Rardy Oppose00:15:24.480 - 9:13:30 AM; Senator Rardy expressed concerns about the bill, stating that it takes away local control and could lead to a future crisis by replacing commercially zoned areas with residential units. He argued for enabling legislation rather than mandates, which he believes would impose significant costs on taxpayers.
SB90 0610s: Senator Information Only00:15:58.560 - 9:14:04 AM; The senator appreciated the work done on the bill but expressed concern about the speed of deregulation bills. He suggested re-referring the bill to allow more time for review and discussion with municipalities to find a balanced approach.
SB90 0610s: Senator Information Only00:16:56.639 - 9:15:02 AM; The senator agreed with the importance of the bill, citing the need for people to live near their workplaces, especially for those without cars. He supported re-referring the bill to improve it further.
SB90 0610s: Senator Support00:17:45.840 - 9:15:51 AM; The senator supported the bill, using the analogy of planting a fruit tree to emphasize the importance of acting now to allow residential units in commercial spaces. He argued that this would help build vibrant communities and reduce traffic issues caused by strict zoning.
SB90 0610s: Senator Murphy Support00:18:56.320 - 9:17:02 AM; Senator Murphy reiterated that the bill does not force communities to do anything but allows builders and individuals to meet the demand for residential units near workplaces. He criticized past planning practices for causing community division and traffic problems, advocating for mixed-use developments to foster vibrant communities.
SB163: Senator Support00:19:57.039 - 9:18:03 AM; The senator moved to pass the bill, which was seconded by Senator Murphy. There was no opposition, and the bill passed with a vote of 4 to 2.
SB165: Senator Support00:21:26.279 - 9:19:32 AM; The senator moved to pass the bill, which was seconded. There was no discussion, and the bill passed unanimously and was moved to consent.
SB166: Senator Rardy Support00:22:46.159 - 9:20:52 AM; Senator Rardy moved to pass the bill, which was seconded by Senator MCU. There was no discussion, and the bill passed unanimously and was moved to consent.
SB167 replace all amendment: Senator Fenton Support00:23:58.039 - 9:22:04 AM; Senator Fenton introduced a replace all amendment to address a loophole in a previous bill concerning town reimbursements for transient individuals. The amendment sets a minimum standard for housing assistance in local welfare guidelines to reflect actual housing costs.
SB167 replace all amendment: Senator Information Only00:25:03.480 - 9:23:09 AM; The senator raised concerns about the language in the amendment, specifically about the actual cost versus the rate of hotels and motels. He worried about potential abuse by hoteliers inflating rates and suggested clarifying the language to prevent this.
SB167 replace all amendment: Senator Information Only00:26:01.960 - 9:24:07 AM; The senator acknowledged the good intention of the amendment but expressed concerns about the language, suggesting it be changed to reflect the 'actual rate' rather than 'actual cost' to prevent potential abuse.
SB167 replace all amendment: Senator Oppose00:28:15.519 - 9:26:21 AM; The senator could not support the amendment despite understanding its intent, due to disagreements on the language and potential for abuse.
SB167 replace all amendment: Senator Information Only00:29:17.480 - 9:27:23 AM; The senator suggested taking the bill back to clarify the section to prevent potential abuse, indicating a willingness to revisit the issue after crossover.
SB167 replace all amendment: Senator Information Only00:30:31.880 - 9:28:37 AM; The senator moved to recommend the bill as inexpedient to legislate (ITL), which was seconded and passed unanimously, then moved to consent.
SB169: Senator Support00:30:31.880 - 9:28:37 AM; The senator moved to pass the bill, which was seconded. There was no discussion, and the bill passed unanimously and was moved to consent.
SB71: Senator Rardy Support00:31:46.559 - 9:29:52 AM; Senator Rardy moved to pass the bill, which was seconded by himself. There was no discussion, and the bill passed unanimously and was moved to consent.
SB71: Senator Apprentice Information Only00:32:19.360 - 9:30:25 AM; Senator Apprentice introduced the discussion on SB71, which deals with non-compete rights for advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs). He mentioned that the bill was proposed to address an oversight in existing legislation that failed to include APRNs in the prohibition of non-compete clauses that was already applied to other nurses.
SB71: Senator M Oppose00:33:36.320 - 9:31:42 AM; Senator M expressed concerns about the bill, suggesting that it might need further examination. He questioned the existence of similar protections for registered nurses (RNs) and indicated he would vote against the 'ought to pass' motion due to several reasons, including doubts about the current state of non-compete clauses for RNs in private practice.
SB71: Angela Bole Information Only00:34:31.879 - 9:32:37 AM; Angela Bole, the director, clarified that the bill was recommended by the National Association of Advanced Practice Nurses and was intended to address an oversight in the statute that already included protections for nurses but not specifically for APRNs. She confirmed that the bill was a housekeeping measure to correct this oversight.
SB71: Senator MCU Oppose00:35:41.520 - 9:33:47 AM; Senator MCU raised concerns about the potential impact of the bill on healthcare institutions that invest in the training of APRNs. He argued that such institutions should be entitled to some return on their investment, especially given the transient nature of the workforce and the importance of continuity in patient care. He suggested a re-referral of the bill to further examine these issues.
SB71: Senator MCU Information Only00:36:47.880 - 9:34:53 AM; Senator MCU continued discussing the implications of the bill, suggesting potential amendments that could address the concerns about educational investment and non-compete clauses. He proposed that if an employer contributes to an APRN's education, a non-compete clause could be enforceable for a limited time, or the APRN could be required to reimburse the educational costs if they leave early.
SB71: Senator MCU Information Only00:38:54.040 - 9:37:00 AM; Senator MCU further elaborated on the differences between APRNs and RNs, highlighting the significant investment required for APRN training and their ability to practice independently. He expressed concerns about the potential conflict between the bill and existing employer agreements regarding educational reimbursement and non-compete clauses.
SB71: Senator MCU Information Only00:40:10.960 - 9:38:16 AM; Senator MCU discussed the possibility of a committee amendment to address the concerns raised. He suggested that if the bill were re-referred, it could be amended on the Senate floor to include provisions that protect both the employer's investment and the patient-provider relationship.
SB71: Senator MCU Information Only00:41:20.440 - 9:39:26 AM; Senator MCU concluded the discussion by supporting a re-referral of the bill to allow for further examination and potential amendments. He emphasized the importance of finding a solution that balances the needs of healthcare providers and patients.
SB71: Senator MCU Information Only00:42:14.920 - 9:40:20 AM; Senator MCU confirmed his support for re-referring the bill, hoping that the prime sponsor could bring a floor amendment to address the issues discussed. The committee voted to re-refer the bill, not placing it on consent, to allow for further consideration.
SB71: Senator Murphy Information Only00:51:49.480 - 9:49:55 AM; Senator Murphy moved to reconsider the vote on Senate Bill 90, which was followed by a motion to re-refer the bill. The committee voted to re-refer Senate Bill 90, allowing for potential amendments on the Senate floor.
SB71: Senator Murphy Information Only00:53:13.160 - 9:51:19 AM; Senator Murphy moved to re-refer Senate Bill 173, which deals with residential property subject to housing covenants under the low-income tax credit. The committee voted to re-refer the bill and place it on consent.
SB71: Senator Shardy Oppose00:54:07.520 - 9:52:13 AM; Senator Shardy opposed Senate Bill 174, which deals with the number of bedrooms in developments. He argued that the legislation conflicts with responsible municipal planning, particularly concerning wastewater management and ensuring adequate municipal services.
SB71: Senator P Oppose00:54:51.119 - 9:52:57 AM; Senator P expressed concerns about the rapid pace of deregulation at the local level related to housing, suggesting that it might lead to litigation due to conflicting themes in various bills. He mentioned a preference for re-referral of the bill rather than passing it, citing the need for a more comprehensive approach to address the housing crisis.
SB71: Senator R Information Only00:55:53.480 - 9:53:59 AM; Senator R emphasized the importance of considering wastewater management in larger developments. They pointed out that the number of bedrooms in a unit, rather than the entire development, determines wastewater and water capacity, suggesting that current regulations are sufficient in this regard.
SB71: Senator Murphy Support00:56:59.520 - 9:55:05 AM; Senator Murphy argued in favor of the bill, highlighting the urgency of addressing the housing crisis. He criticized local planning boards for creating obstacles for home builders and supported the bill as a means to eliminate such barriers, specifically mentioning the issue of bedroom definitions and their impact on school spending.
SB175: Senator Murphy Information Only00:58:03.359 - 9:56:09 AM; Senator Murphy mentioned having an amendment for SB175 but was unsure about the committee's appetite for it. He proposed a motion to re-refer the bill, which was seconded and passed without further discussion.
SB170 872s: Senator Murphy Support01:02:18.920 - 10:00:24 AM; Senator Murphy presented Amendment 872s to SB170, detailing its provisions aimed at addressing the housing crisis. He highlighted sections that prevent municipalities from mandating familial relationships among housing occupants, standardize septic and well testing requirements, remove limits on road lengths if compliant with fire codes, allow utilities in open spaces, ensure municipalities accept plan changes after initial review, limit the impact of rare species sightings on development, and restrict excessive road setback requirements. He suggested the amendment be considered to help alleviate the housing crisis, proposing a severable approach to its sections.
SB170 872s: Senator F Information Only01:08:24.198 - 10:06:30 AM; Senator F raised a concern about the effective date of the amendment, suggesting it might be too soon for municipalities to adapt. Senator Murphy agreed to push the effective date to January 1st, 2026.
SB170 872s: Senator Reen Information Only01:09:27.839 - 10:07:33 AM; Senator Reen suggested adding a time limit of three days for municipalities to accept changes to plans after initial review, to which Senator Murphy agreed.
SB170 872s: Bry Information Only01:09:27.839 - 10:07:33 AM; Bry sought clarification on whether the public hearing was for Amendment 0807s or 872s, noting that 872s was not publicly posted four days in advance as required for non-germane amendments.
SB170 872s: Mr. T Oppose01:10:06.840 - 10:08:12 AM; Mr. T expressed opposition to SB170, focusing on technical issues with the bill's sections. He highlighted discrepancies in soil charts used for test pitting and well siting, suggesting that municipalities should consider charts from organizations like the Society for Soil Scientists of Northern New England. He also discussed the potential problems with dead-end roads, such as emergency access issues, and criticized the bill's language for not addressing access management and connectivity requirements clearly. Additionally, he raised concerns about the impact of the bill on local infrastructure capacity and zoning ordinances, particularly regarding the number of housing lots on dead-end roads and the regulation of congregate housing. He argued that the bill could undermine local control and lead to unworkable planning and development requirements.
SB170 872s: Mike Marshand, Supervisor of the Non-Game Endangered Wildlife Program at the New Hampshire Fish and Game Information Only01:26:36.280 - 10:24:42 AM; Mike Marshand provided information regarding the amendment to SB170 concerning wildlife resources and the state review process. He expressed concerns about the proposed amendment that would limit reviews to a 5-year period, stating that it would substantially reduce protections for species. He recommended removing this amendment, as it could eliminate the majority of their reviews. He also discussed the standard look-back period for wildlife records, suggesting 20 years as a national standard.
SB170 872s: Meredith Hatfield, The Nature Conservancy Oppose01:33:55.480 - 10:32:01 AM; Meredith Hatfield opposed the sections of SB170 related to wildlife reviews and agricultural zones. She supported striking the section on wildlife reviews, emphasizing the importance of protecting species and working with developers on conservation approaches. She also raised concerns about the impact of the bill on agricultural zones and wetlands, suggesting that these sections need more consideration due to their potential negative effects on new homeowners and agricultural activities.
SB170 872s: Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association Support01:37:36.760 - 10:35:42 AM; Matt Mayberry strongly supported SB170, describing it as a game-changer for cutting through red tape while maintaining public health and safety. He highlighted the bill's potential to prevent towns from imposing stricter septic and well regulations than those set by New Hampshire DES, remove limits on dead-end road lengths, and eliminate caps on housing lots on dead-end roads. He also criticized restrictions on unrelated residents living together as discriminatory and supported the amendment to require final recommendations within three days to prevent delays. He urged the committee to pass the majority of the bill, emphasizing its importance for addressing housing issues.
SB170 0872s: Committee Members Vote01:42:46.599 - 10:40:52 AM; The committee discussed and voted on SB170 and its amendment 0872s. They agreed to pass the bill with amendments, including changing the effective date to July 1, 2026, deleting redundant sections, and addressing concerns about wildlife reviews and wetlands. The committee also considered suggestions to ensure the bill's passage, such as striking certain lines and adjusting the language regarding lot line setbacks. The bill was ultimately passed with these amendments and moved to consent.

Innis, Daniel(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Ricciardi, Denise(V Chairman)(R)[C-]2024	Murphy, Keith(R)[B+]2024
Fenton, Donovan(D)[F]2024	McGough, Tim(R)	Reardon, Tara(D)