Committee Summary for Senate Ways and Means (04/23/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
Unclear 00:01:14.640 - 8:29:35 AM	General Working Session	Unclear
HB696 00:41:42.880 - 9:10:03 AM	Public Hearing	exempting electricity generators from the utility property tax and including them under the statewide education property tax, and relative to communications services tax revenues.	Vose, Michael(R)[A]2024
HB302 00:53:52.079 - 9:22:13 AM	Public Hearing	relative to enabling the state treasury to invest in precious metals and digital assets.	Ammon, Keith(R)[A+]2024
HB302 01:21:36.760 - 9:49:57 AM	Executive Session	relative to enabling the state treasury to invest in precious metals and digital assets.	Ammon, Keith(R)[A+]2024

Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (likely a financial officer or treasurer) Information Only00:01:14.640 - 8:29:35 AM; The speaker provided an overview of the state's financial situation, focusing on interest earned over the past decade, with particular emphasis on the benefits from ARPA funds in FY23 and FY24. They revised the interest income estimate for FY25 from $80 million to $90 million due to sustained higher interest rates. The speaker also discussed the potential impact of decreasing cash balances on future interest estimates and the implications of economic conditions and spending adjustments.
Unclear: Chris (likely a financial officer) Information Only00:02:16.720 - 8:30:37 AM; Chris explained the composition of the 'other' revenue category, which includes about 200 different revenue sources. He highlighted that the Department of Administrative Services collects and reports this data, with significant contributions from abandoned property and interest. Chris also mentioned that a comprehensive document was emailed to the committee, detailing revenue estimates and comparisons between the Governor's and House's projections.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (likely a committee member) Information Only00:05:46.000 - 8:34:07 AM; The speaker asked about the impact of the House budget's decision to take half of the rainy day fund on the interest estimates for FY27. The response indicated that the estimates were left unchanged due to various assumptions, including the potential for sustained high interest rates and a strategy to invest in long-term assets.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (likely a committee member) Information Only00:06:47.600 - 8:35:08 AM; The speaker clarified the impact of the increased revenue estimate for FY25 on the rainy day fund, noting that it would result in $10 million less being taken from the fund for the current biennium's shortfall, thus starting the new biennium with $10 million more. It was noted that this change has not yet been incorporated into the House budget.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (likely a financial officer) Information Only00:07:42.400 - 8:36:03 AM; The speaker discussed the remaining $375.5 million of ARPA funds that need to be expended, explaining that agencies are currently spending these funds through contracts. If the funds are not spent, they must be returned to the federal government without financial penalties, though the preference is to spend the funds rather than return them.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (likely a committee member) Information Only00:08:37.360 - 8:36:58 AM; The speaker recounted a 'mad dash' at the end of the previous year to reallocate ARPA funds that were allocated but not spent, to avoid returning them to the federal government. This involved validating project plans and reallocating funds to other projects before the December 31st deadline.
Unclear: Joseph Malikica, Chairman of the Liquor Commission, with CFO Tina Deers Information Only00:10:20.560 - 8:38:41 AM; Joseph Malikica provided an overview of the Liquor Commission's operations, including the three-tier system's role in product tracking, competition from Total Wine, and the impact of cannabis on alcohol sales. He discussed declining alcohol sales in the U.S., industry trends, and the commission's efforts in store rehabilitation, e-commerce, and out-of-state wine shipping. He also highlighted the enforcement division's role in licensing and education, and the financial impact of proposed changes in HB2, such as eliminating the enforcement division and altering fund transfers.
Unclear: Tina Deers, CFO of the Liquor Commission Information Only00:19:42.480 - 8:48:03 AM; Tina Deers discussed the financial implications of sections in HB2 related to the Liquor Commission, including the potential elimination of the enforcement division and changes to fund transfers. She emphasized the importance of the enforcement division for public safety and the potential revenue impact of the proposed changes. She also provided a breakdown of customer types and sales categories, as well as net profit trends over the last decade.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker (likely a committee member) Information Only00:24:48.760 - 8:53:09 AM; The speaker asked about the projected transfer to the Granite Advantage program, questioning whether it was based on current enrollment numbers and how it relates to insurance premium tax. The response clarified that the transfer calculation was adjusted following changes to how funds were deposited into the program.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:25:36.000 - 8:53:57 AM; The speaker discussed changes in revenue transfers from the liquor commission fund. Previously, funds were transferred from the alcohol commission fund, but now they are directly taken from the liquor commission and deposited into the Department of Health and Human Services. This change is based on the statute that allows for adjustments according to usage trends in the Medicaid Advantage system. The speaker mentioned that the insurance department automatically transfers funds related to Medicaid expansion to HHS to cover the gap between 90% and 100% of costs, and noted that legislative changes have affected the net revenue to the general fund.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:26:41.039 - 8:55:02 AM; The speaker continued discussing the financial impact of the Medicaid program, noting that the state is responsible for 10% of the costs. They explained that the insurance premium tax and transfers from the liquor commission, along with other minor revenue sources, contribute to covering this expense. The speaker highlighted that legislative changes in the budget cycle have increased the transfer amounts from the liquor commission to other entities, reducing the net revenue to the general fund. They also mentioned that RSA 126A allows the commissioner of health and human services to request additional funds from the liquor commission if there is a shortfall.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:28:01.440 - 8:56:22 AM; The speaker further detailed the changes in the transfer of funds from the liquor commission to the alcohol commission and the Medicaid expansion program. They noted that the legislature changed the transfer mechanism in the last budget cycle, which now includes an upfront transfer to cover potential shortfalls. They emphasized that the current statute still allows for additional requests if needed, but the Department of Health and Human Services has not yet identified any additional needs.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:29:09.279 - 8:57:30 AM; The speaker presented a breakdown of the transfers to the general fund, highlighting that annually, about 81% goes to the general fund, 9% to the alcohol abuse prevention and treatment fund, and 10% to the Medicaid expansion program. They showed how these transfers would affect the general fund if discontinued and mentioned charitable contributions made by the liquor commission to nonprofits.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:30:03.919 - 8:58:24 AM; The speaker discussed revenue projections based on current law and showed a spreadsheet indicating liquor revenue transfers to the general fund. They noted that the projections for future years remain consistent with previous estimates and mentioned that no significant changes in trends were observed since January.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:31:12.799 - 8:59:33 AM; The speaker responded to a question about discrepancies in revenue estimates provided to the governor's office. They explained that the governor's estimates were based on earlier trends before a decline in global trends was observed, which led to a revision in the numbers provided to the legislature.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:32:07.360 - 9:00:28 AM; The speaker clarified the differences between previous and current revenue estimates, attributing the changes to revised trends and increased sales in the restaurant industry. They emphasized that the earlier estimates were before the transfer to HHS was considered.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:33:24.559 - 9:01:45 AM; The speaker discussed the impact of the enforcement division on liquor commission revenue, stating that the division brings in about $18 million annually. They noted that HB2 aims to save $3 million by eliminating the enforcement division, which would result in a net loss of revenue. They also mentioned the costs associated with layoffs and bumping rights for affected employees.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:34:25.760 - 9:02:46 AM; The speaker discussed decisions regarding the location of liquor stores, mentioning new and relocated outlets in Derry, Nashua, and Keene. They explained that these decisions are based on community justification and sales data, with the final decision resting with senior staff and the speaker.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:35:38.240 - 9:03:59 AM; The speaker further elaborated on the impact of the enforcement division on revenue, noting that the division processes beer taxes and licenses. They argued that removing the sworn personnel would lead to delays in processing licenses, affecting sales and ultimately reducing revenue. They compared the situation to other regulatory bodies and mentioned the House's assumption that there would be no revenue loss from removing enforcement officers.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:39:48.000 - 9:08:09 AM; The speaker concluded the discussion on revenue projections, mentioning upcoming presentations from various industry representatives on taxes and revenue. They also mentioned the need to align received letters with a revenue worksheet.
Unclear: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:40:48.000 - 9:09:09 AM; The speaker briefly explained the beer tax, stating it is based on a price per gallon, last raised in 1994.
HB696: Jordan Ulery, Vice Chair of Ways and Means, House Support00:41:42.880 - 9:10:03 AM; Jordan Ulery introduced House Bill 696, which aims to reclassify electric generators from public utilities to private businesses. This reclassification would subject them to business enterprise and profits taxes instead of utility property taxes. The bill also addresses the expiration of PILOT (Payments in Lieu of Taxes) programs by 2031 and introduces a standard form for assessing property taxes on these facilities. Ulery mentioned that the change would reduce consumer rates and increase property tax revenue for host communities. The bill is the result of a three-year study commission and passed the House with bipartisan support.
HB696: Molly Connors, New England Power Generators Association Support00:46:53.520 - 9:15:14 AM; Molly Connors supported House Bill 696, stating that it aligns with the recommendations of a legislative commission to treat power plants as manufacturing facilities rather than utilities. She highlighted the inefficiencies and litigation costs associated with the current dual assessment process for power generators. Connors emphasized that the bill would streamline the assessment process by subjecting generators to the statewide education property tax instead of utility property taxes, effective from 2027. She also noted that the bill would not affect the current biennial budget.
HB696: Malamino, Grand Estate Hydropower Association Support00:51:50.880 - 9:20:11 AM; Malamino supported House Bill 696, representing small hydro power generators. They echoed the sentiment that power generators should be treated and taxed like other local businesses, criticizing the current dual assessment process as burdensome. They supported the bill as a consensus outcome of the study commission and hoped for its passage to relieve small businesses of the duplicative tax burden.
HB302: Keith Ammon, Representative, Hillsborough District 42 Support00:53:52.079 - 9:22:13 AM; Keith Ammon introduced House Bill 302, which would enable the state treasurer to invest in digital assets and precious metals to counteract inflation. He explained that current statutes restrict the treasurer to very safe assets that do not beat inflation. The bill defines guidelines for safely securing these assets and limits the investment to 5% of the funds. Ammon noted that the bill passed the House with bipartisan support and mentioned similar legislation in Texas. He emphasized that the bill is enabling and does not mandate investment.
HB302: Keith Ammon, Representative, Hillsborough District 42 Support00:53:52.079 - 9:22:13 AM; Representative Keith Ammon discussed the collaboration with the treasurer on the bill, mentioning two meetings to simplify the amendment. He emphasized the treasurer's input and the lack of hard resistance to the bill. Ammon highlighted the importance of protecting taxpayer dollars' purchasing power against inflation, suggesting that the proposed assets could serve as hedges against inflation.
HB302: Senator P Information Only01:01:03.720 - 9:29:24 AM; Senator P expressed concerns about the bill being enabling legislation, focusing on the capitalization threshold of $500 billion for digital assets, which limits the options to mainly Bitcoin and Ethereum. He questioned the implications of this threshold, to which it was explained that the threshold is an average over the previous year to ensure stability and prevent speculative investments.
HB302: Senator Roswell Information Only01:03:34.520 - 9:31:55 AM; Senator Roswell questioned the difference between the $500 billion threshold for digital assets and the $2 billion capitalization requirement for banks holding public deposits. The response clarified that the $500 billion is a market capitalization threshold for digital assets, not related to the investment amount, and discussed potential roles for state-chartered banks as custodians for digital assets.
HB302: Ryan Hail, Vice President of Government Relations, New Hampshire Bankers Association Information Only01:05:17.000 - 9:33:38 AM; Ryan Hail from the New Hampshire Bankers Association provided testimony, not taking a formal position on HB302 but offering considerations. He mentioned the federal review of the digital asset sector and suggested aligning state investment policy with emerging federal standards. Hail also discussed the impact of reallocating public funds into digital assets on local economies and suggested safeguards like collateralization requirements if the bill moves forward.
HB302: Representative Tom Shamberg, House Ways and Means Committee Oppose01:13:04.800 - 9:41:25 AM; Representative Tom Shamberg expressed his view that HB302 is unnecessary, as the state treasurer already has the authority to invest in precious metals under current law, guided by outside consultants.
HB302: Unnamed Speaker Oppose01:13:55.600 - 9:42:16 AM; The speaker, part of the minority in the committee, expressed opposition to the bill, arguing that the state treasurer is already an expert in managing state investments and that the 5% cap on investments in digital assets and precious metals could be limiting. They believe that the current law allows the treasurer the flexibility needed to make suitable investments without the proposed restrictions.
HB302: Senator Roswell Information Only01:15:24.719 - 9:43:45 AM; Senator Roswell asked if the state treasurer currently has the authority to invest in Bitcoin. The response indicated that the treasurer follows advice from consultants and does not face percentage limits on investments, suggesting that the bill's proposed 5% cap would be a new restriction.
HB302: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:16:49.600 - 9:45:10 AM; The speaker discussed the intent behind the 5% cap in the bill, aiming to limit risk while allowing potential growth in digital asset investments. They mentioned concerns about the state losing significant funds if the treasurer invested heavily in assets like Bitcoin, which could tank.
HB302: Lauren Warner, Deputy Treasurer Information Only01:17:56.920 - 9:46:17 AM; Lauren Warner, the Deputy Treasurer, clarified that the bill would apply to state trust funds intended for long-term investments, not the state's rainy day fund or general funds. She mentioned that the bill is enabling, not mandatory, allowing the treasurer to consider digital assets as an investment option if deemed beneficial by the state's investment advisor.
HB302: Unnamed Speaker Support01:20:38.080 - 9:48:59 AM; The speaker supported the bill, noting that it was amended from a 10% to a 5% threshold for digital asset investments. They referenced BlackRock's recommendation of a 2% allocation to Bitcoin due to its uncorrelated nature with traditional markets, suggesting that a 5% allocation could be beneficial for portfolio risk management.
HB302: Senator Sullivan Support01:21:36.760 - 9:49:57 AM; Senator Sullivan moved to pass the bill, indicating support for the enabling legislation that would allow the state treasurer to invest in digital assets without mandating it.
HB302: Unnamed Senator Oppose01:22:33.280 - 9:50:54 AM; An unnamed senator expressed concerns about passing the bill too soon, citing ongoing federal developments with stablecoins and a need to understand the value of other trust funds that could be impacted. They preferred a motion to re-refer the bill for further consideration.
HB302: Unnamed Senator Support01:23:40.880 - 9:52:01 AM; Another senator supported the bill, viewing it as harmless enabling legislation that provides the treasurer with additional investment options without mandating their use. They highlighted the protective measures in the bill, such as the $500 billion market cap requirement for eligible assets and the 5% investment cap to mitigate risk.
HB302: Unnamed Senator Support01:24:39.040 - 9:53:00 AM; A senator expressed support for the bill despite concerns about cryptocurrency theft and market volatility. They acknowledged the enabling nature of the legislation and voted in favor of passing it.
HB302: Unnamed Senator Oppose01:24:39.040 - 9:53:00 AM; An unnamed senator opposed the bill, arguing that the treasurer already has the authority to invest in digital assets and that the bill unnecessarily picks winners and losers by only allowing Bitcoin to meet the criteria. They felt it was too early to pass such legislation.
HB302: Senator Sullivan Support01:26:04.320 - 9:54:25 AM; Senator Sullivan moved for a consent motion to pass the bill, indicating a desire to move forward with the legislation without further debate on the Senate floor.
HB302: Senator Lang Information Only01:26:49.679 - 9:55:10 AM; Senator Lang proposed changes to the bill, suggesting an increase in the homestead exemption from $250,000 to $350,000 for a single individual and up to $500,000 for a household. He emphasized the need to remove language specific to married couples to reflect modern societal norms. He also recommended textual changes to the bill to reflect these new figures and to clarify that multiple exemptions could be claimed as long as they do not exceed the total cap. These changes were proposed as amendments to an already adopted amendment.
HB302: Senator Sullivan Information Only01:31:31.880 - 9:59:52 AM; Senator Sullivan discussed the rationale behind the proposed homestead exemption adjustments, noting that individuals who have lived in their homes for many years typically have higher equity. He also clarified that owning a home with significant equity does not necessitate recusal from voting on this bill, as confirmed by the Senate's legal counsel.
HB302: Senator Roseall Information Only01:30:22.400 - 9:58:43 AM; Senator Roseall seconded the motion to amend the bill as per Senator Lang's suggestions, indicating support for the changes to the homestead exemption.
HB302: Unnamed Senator Information Only01:32:50.480 - 10:01:11 AM; An unnamed senator discussed how other states handle homestead exemptions, noting that some states consider the homestead itself as the entity entitled to the exemption, not the person.
HB302: Unnamed Senator Information Only01:34:01.840 - 10:02:22 AM; Another unnamed senator provided an update on bills HB696 and HB247. HB696 will be addressed next week with a proposed wipe and replace amendment to incorporate the Senate's position, which better accounts for pilot programs. HB247 is being held as a placeholder for potential future amendments related to similar issues already addressed in another bill.
HB302: Senator Rose Information Only01:34:58.400 - 10:03:19 AM; Senator Rose expressed skepticism about using HB247 to raise the beer tax but noted that the bill could be used for other urgent issues that might arise, indicating its use as a legislative tool for timely solutions.

Lang, Timothy(Chairman)(R)[C+]2024	Murphy, Keith(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2024	Rosenwald, Cindy(D)[CT]2024
Fenton, Donovan(D)[F]2024	Sullivan, Victoria(R)