Written by Andrew Horn of Amherst, NH
 |
Executive Summary of 10 Notable Bills/Resolutions:
HB 625 (Nonprofit Taxes): This highly controversial bill (21 support, 457 oppose) would allow municipalities to levy payments against nonprofits, potentially impacting essential services.
HB 588 (Historic Horse Racing Revenue): This bill (2 support, 293 oppose) redirects a significant portion of revenue from historic horse racing from charities to the state lottery, sparking strong opposition from nonprofits.
HB 531 (Charitable Gaming Limits): Another controversial bill (7 support, 381 oppose) aims to cap charitable gaming revenue for individual organizations, raising concerns about funding for vital services.
HB 458 (Local Assistance for Citizens): This bill (9 support, 130 oppose) limits local assistance to US citizens and permanent legal residents, raising questions about support for vulnerable immigrant populations.
HB 542 (Unemployment Benefits): This bill (44 support, 12 oppose) updates unemployment compensation amounts, which is notable given the current economic climate.
HB 726 (Minimum Wage Increase): With broad support (186 support, 12 oppose), this bill proposes a significant increase to New Hampshire's minimum wage.
HB 578 (Turnpike Sound Barriers): This bill (53 support, 2 oppose) highlights the local impact of infrastructure projects, addressing noise pollution concerns along the Everett Turnpike.
SB 213 (Absentee Voting Changes): This bill (no online testimony available) proposes changes to absentee voting requirements, which is always a sensitive topic in elections.
SB 100 (Discrimination in Education): This bill (no online testimony available), which removes disciplinary action against teachers for teaching deemed as discrimination from the state board of education, sparked a debate about accountability in education.
HB 617 (Homestead Right): This bill (3 support, 2 oppose) proposes a significant increase to the homestead exemption, aiming to protect homeowners from financial hardship.
Contents
Quick Summaries - Part 2 of 2
In-Depth Analyses - Part 2 of 2
Quick Summaries - Part 2 of 2
House Labor, Industrial And Rehabilitative Services
HB 542-FN: Increases unemployment compensation. 3 sponsors, Democratic. 44 for, 12 against (79% support).
HB 442: Prohibits subminimum wages for tipped workers. 10 sponsors, Democratic. 142 for, 9 against (94% support).
HB 726-FN: Raises minimum wage to $15 by 2028. 4 sponsors, Democratic. 186 for, 12 against (94% support).
HB 744-FN: Increases workers' compensation benefits. 1 sponsor, Democratic. 40 for, 5 against (89% support).
HB 378-FN: Requires payment for unused earned time. 3 sponsors, Bipartisan. 63 for, 11 against (85% support).
House Municipal And County Government
HB 689: Enables volunteer tax credit for seniors and veterans. 6 sponsors, Bipartisan. 2 for, 7 against (78% against).
HB 766: Enables local education tax exemption for some seniors. 6 sponsors, Republican. 1 for, 11 against (92% against).
HB 625: Allows towns to levy payments against nonprofits. 2 sponsors, Democratic. 21 for, 457 against (96% against).
HB 147: Clarifies tax exemptions for certain organizations. 10 sponsors, Lean Republican. 6 for, 9 against (60% against).
HB 426: Allows retroactive property tax exemptions for charities. 6 sponsors, Bipartisan. 5 for, 4 against (56% support).
HB 617: Increases homestead exemption to $1,000,000. 1 sponsor, Republican. 3 for, 2 against (60% support).
HB 425: Allows tax exemptions for rentals by religious organizations. 8 sponsors, Republican. 2 for, 9 against (82% against).
HB 421-FN: Requires notice of tax-exempt status filing procedures. 10 sponsors, Republican. 2 for, 6 against (75% against).
HB 782-FN: Expands property tax exemptions for elderly and disabled. 1 sponsor, Democratic. 1 for, 36 against (97% against).
HB 458-FN: Limits local assistance to U.S. citizens or permanent residents. 5 sponsors, Republican. 9 for, 130 against (94% against).
House Public Works And Highways
HB 561: Requires municipal approval for state road transfers. 12 sponsors, Bipartisan. 61 for, 6 against (91% support).
HB 578-FN: Mandates sound barriers along the F.E. Everett Turnpike. 9 sponsors, Bipartisan. 53 for, 2 against (96% support).
HB 713-FN: Requires mile markers on Route 112. 3 sponsors, Democratic. 1 for, 2 against (67% against).
HB 745: Names Keene bridge after Charles Redfern. 3 sponsors, Democratic. 12 for, 1 against (92% support).
House Science, Technology And Energy
HB 537: Standardizes electric rates for some condominiums. 4 sponsors, Democratic. 4 for, 1 against (80% support).
HB 539: Requires residential electric rates for certain condominiums. 3 sponsors, Democratic. 5 for, 1 against (83% support).
HB 680-FN: Standardizes HOA electricity billing. 4 sponsors, Democratic. 3 for, 1 against (75% support).
HB 654-FN: Allows small customer-generators in group net metering. 6 sponsors, Democratic. 7 for, 1 against (88% support).
HB 541: Establishes committee to study infrastructure resilience. 9 sponsors, Lean Republican. 3 for, 24 against (89% against).
SB 4: Establishes C-PACER program. 2 sponsors, Bipartisan.
House Transportation
HB 305: Allows traffic enforcement cameras. 3 sponsors, Democratic. 4 for, 8 against (67% against).
HB 368: Prohibits smoking in vehicles with children under 16. 1 sponsor, Democratic. 8 for, 4 against (67% support).
HB 390-FN: Adds retired fire apparatus to antique vehicle exemptions. 5 sponsors, Republican. 1 for, 2 against (67% against).
HB 419: Requires headlights with windshield wipers. 3 sponsors, Democratic. 6 for, 4 against (60% support).
HB 414-FN: Prohibits license suspension for unpaid towing fees. 2 sponsors, Bipartisan. 10 for, 1 against (91% support).
HB 439-FN: Eliminates license suspension for non-driving violations. 3 sponsors, Democratic. 21 for, 2 against (91% support).
House Ways And Means
HB 530-FN: Increases transfer to affordable housing fund. 3 sponsors, Democratic. 65 for, 12 against (84% support).
HB 531-FN: Sets limits on charitable gaming revenue. 1 sponsor, Democratic. 7 for, 381 against (98% against).
HB 588-FN: Changes distribution of historic horse racing revenue. 3 sponsors, Democratic. 2 for, 293 against (99% against).
HB 591-FN: Expands keno gaming hours on weekends. 5 sponsors, Republican. 1 for, 1 against (50% support).
Senate Commerce
SB 280-FN: Requires agreements for food delivery services. 6 sponsors, Bipartisan.
SB 89: Enables non-citizens to deliver alcohol. 8 sponsors, Lean Republican.
SB 79-FN: Enables self-pour automated systems. 9 sponsors, Republican.
SB 80-FN: Consolidates e-cigarette licensing under liquor commission. 3 sponsors, Bipartisan.
SB 87-FN: Revises liquor license requirements for events and salons. 5 sponsors, Lean Republican.
Senate Education
SB 99-FN: Revises regional career and technical education agreements. 15 sponsors, Bipartisan.
SB 100-FN: Repeals disciplinary action for teaching discrimination. 6 sponsors, Republican.
SB 102-FN: Requires online information about type 1 diabetes. 11 sponsors, Lean Republican.
SB 206-FN: Requires cell phone use policies in schools. 7 sponsors, Lean Republican.
Senate Election Law And Municipal Affairs
SB 103-FN-L: Requires minimum polling stations. 6 sponsors, Republican.
SB 104-FN: Requires machine count verification. 2 sponsors, Republican.
SB 212: Changes "votes" to "ballots" in election law. 2 sponsors, Republican.
SB 213-FN: Revises absentee voting rules. 1 sponsor, Republican.
Senate Energy And Natural Resources
SB 108-FN: Transfers PUC responsibilities to Department of Energy. 14 sponsors, Lean Republican.
SB 109-FN: Changes terrain alteration permit requirements for endangered species. 6 sponsors, Republican.
SB 110-FN: Raises terrain alteration permitting threshold. 3 sponsors, Republican.
Senate Finance
SB 115-FN: Appropriates funds for regional drinking water infrastructure. 12 sponsors, Lean Republican.
SB 116-FN: Appropriates funds for Pillsbury Lake water system. 2 sponsors, Republican.
SB 240-FN-A: Appropriates funds for water projects. 13 sponsors, Bipartisan.
SB 239-FN: Requires general fund cover Fish and Game costs. 7 sponsors, Lean Democratic.
Senate Judiciary
SB 58-FN: Expands venue options in criminal cases. 11 sponsors, Lean Republican.
SB 48-FN: Alters competency to stand trial requirements. 2 sponsors, Bipartisan.
SB 141-FN: Extends petition time for new trial. 12 sponsors, Lean Republican.
SB 289-FN: Regulates body-worn camera footage use. 8 sponsors, Republican.
Senate Transportation
SB 150-FN: Defines and regulates EV charging stations. 8 sponsors, Lean Democratic.
SB 151-FN: Increases handicapped parking fines. 8 sponsors, Republican.
SB 152-FN: Establishes noise barrier fund from toll credits. 5 sponsors, Republican.
SB 155-FN: Authorizes toll credit use for local projects. 10 sponsors, Bipartisan.
SB 156: Allows electronic motor vehicle title transfers. 10 sponsors, Lean Republican.
In-Depth Analyses - Part 2 of 2
House Labor, Industrial And Rehabilitative Services
HB 542-FN
AN ACT relative to weekly benefit amounts for unemployment compensation.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Mark MacKenzie (D), Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D), Sen. Pat Long (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Unemployment Compensation; Weekly Benefit Amount; Maximum Total Amount of Benefits. RSA 282-A:25 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
282-A:25 Weekly Benefit Amount for Total Unemployment and Maximum Total Amount of Benefits Payable During any Benefit Year. The maximum weekly benefit amount and maximum benefits payable to an eligible individual, whose benefit year begins on or after the effective date of this section, shall be determined by the individual's annual earnings. In each of 2 calendar quarters, the individual must have earned not less than $1,400, as follows:
Summary:
This bill updates the weekly benefit amount for total unemployment and the maximum total amount of benefits payable during any benefit year, aligning them with an individual's annual earnings.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that unemployment benefits keep pace with inflation, preventing financial hardship for unemployed individuals. By updating benefit amounts, it provides a modest but necessary increase to help meet basic living needs, reducing the risk of homelessness and supporting economic stability. Legal aid experts with decades of experience assisting low-income residents affirm that current benefit levels are insufficient, and this adjustment is a responsible step toward improving financial security for unemployed New Hampshire residents.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill increases unemployment benefits, which may place a financial strain on the state's unemployment insurance system.
Online Testimony
Currently, 44 people support and 12 people oppose the bill. 79% support of 56 people
Support
Common sense demands that compenstation maintain pace with inflation. As such, unemployment benefits need to be raised. I REQUEST THIS BE PART OF THE RECORD.
I am a retired legal aid lawyer and know from representing New Hampshire low income folks for over 35 years that the weekly and annual unemployment benefit amount does not adequately meet unemployed individuals and/or their families basic living needs. Updating income figures is a modest step to protect unemployed New Hampshire residents and their families.
Times are changing and an increasing the amounts available for unemployment is appropriate to prevent homelessness.
We should be helping NH residents get the support they need to thrive and get back on track!
Opposition
I oppose this bill too! From the looks of it I’m gonna be on this page for a hot minute.
—Josephine Southwick, of Nashua
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 210-211 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 442
AN ACT relative to prohibiting payment of subminimum wages.
10 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Kristina Schultz (D), Rep. George Sykes (D), Rep. Suzanne Vail (D), Rep. Christine Seibert (D), Rep. Cassandra Levesque (D), Rep. Jodi Newell (D), Rep. Amy Malone (D), Sen. Suzanne Prentiss (D), Sen. Debra Altschiller (D), Sen. Pat Long (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Minimum Wage Law; Hourly Rate. The introductory paragraph of RSA 279:21 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
279:21 Minimum Hourly Rate. Unless otherwise provided by statute, no person, firm, or corporation shall employ any employee paid by the employer at an hourly rate lower than that set forth in the federal minimum wage law, as amended, subject to the following exceptions:
Summary:
This bill prohibits employers from paying tipped workers a base wage lower than the standard minimum wage if they earn more than $30 per month in tips.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that all workers, including those in tipped positions, receive at least the state or federal minimum wage, reducing financial insecurity and improving the quality of life for thousands of Granite Staters. With rising inflation and a growing cost of living, workers in the service industry cannot survive on subminimum wages and should not be dependent on customer generosity to make ends meet. Additionally, businesses should be responsible for paying fair wages rather than relying on customers to subsidize their payroll.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could increase labor costs for restaurants and other tipped industries, potentially leading to higher menu prices, reduced hiring, or even business closures.
Online Testimony
Currently, 142 people support and 9 people oppose the bill. 94% support of 151 people
Support
NH needs to support our workers and have more bills like this one! Workers need livable wages.
In a world characterized by inflation, the cost of living is becoming even more severe. Increasingly, service workers cannot survive off of a substandard minimum wage. To increase the quality of life of thousands of Granite Staters, all must receive at least the state/ federal minimum wage. Hence, HB442 must be passed.
While $7.25 is not a living wage, it is a step in the right direction.
ALL workers should make a liveable wage INCLUDING those who work a tipped job. Tips should be additional to what a worker is paid, not an excuse to allow people to work for less.
People are done paying restaurant owners’ payroll for them. ... Payroll is part of the cost of doing business, if a restaurant can’t pay their own employees like most of the other states in this country, they can close.
It is ridiculous that some folks are paid less than the minimum wage. ... If the employer wants to claim that the business cant afford the increase then the business may not be a going concern or there is too much income being siphoned off in other ways.
This is an important bill to set a higher floor for our most underpaid workers. And, as a former English Major, it delights me to see that "sub-minimum," which is such a misnomer, will become the linguistically accurate "minimum." Minimum means lowest, after all.
My name is Karen and I vote in Bristol. I SUPPORT this bill for the reason that we should not be making it more difficult for people to earn a living. The minimum wage is NOT a livable wage..
No one can live on $7.25 an hour even if they work two jobs. We need to ensure people are paid a living wage.
Increasing the minimum wage is the most important step the legislature can take. ... In fact employers may benefit with workers remaining longer at their job because they can afford to meet their basic living expense.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 210-211 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 726-FN
AN ACT relative to the state minimum hourly rate.
4 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Kathy Staub (D), Rep. Kristina Schultz (D), Rep. Christine Seibert (D), Rep. Donald Bouchard (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Minimum Hourly Rate. Amend the introductory paragraph of RSA 279:21 to read as follows:
279:21 Minimum Hourly Rate. Unless otherwise provided by statute, no person, firm, or corporation shall employ any employee at an hourly rate lower thanthat set forth inthe federal minimum wage law, as amended, or the following minimum hourly rate, whichever is higher:
$10.00 per hour effective September 1, 2025.
$12.50 per hour effective January 1, 2026.
$14.00 per hour effective January 1, 2027.
$15.00 per hour effective January 1, 2028.
Summary:
This bill increases New Hampshire's minimum hourly wage to $10.00 in September 2025, rising to $15.00 by January 2028, and raises the base rate for tipped employees to 50% of the minimum hourly rate.
Argument For:
This bill addresses the inadequacy of New Hampshire's current minimum wage, which has remained stagnant for over a decade while the cost of living has significantly increased. Raising the minimum wage will improve the financial well-being of low-income workers, stimulate local economies through increased consumer spending, and enhance New Hampshire's competitiveness with neighboring states offering higher minimum wages. It's a necessary step to ensure a living wage for essential workers and reduce poverty.
Argument Against:
This bill's mandated increase to the minimum wage could harm businesses, particularly small businesses, by increasing their labor costs and potentially leading to job losses or reduced hiring. Maintaining the federal minimum wage could benefit certain employers in New Hampshire.
Online Testimony
Currently, 186 people support and 12 people oppose the bill. 94% support of 198 people
Support
As a citizen of NH, as a US Navy veteran, and as a retired teacher, I am ashamed that NH's state government has failed to raise the minimum wage in NH from $7.25 an hour. Even if most workers are receiving more than the minimum, even if there are only 10 working people who aren't, then lets support these folks and ensure that they may have a little more money to pay their rent, their food bills, and their healthcare.
—William Thomas, of Manchester
Please support this bill. Working individuals need this; we all know inflation is rising FAR faster than wages. We as a state are leaving ourselves behind.
—Erica Sgrignuoli, of Rochester
$15 isn’t enough for the actual cost of living. It’d be better at $30-$25. But it’s a start and a bare minimum. NH is losing labor and young folks due to the low minimum wage.
—Giana Gelsey, of Madbury who is, An Elected Official
The New Hampshire State Commission on Aging supports raising New Hampshire's minimum wage out of respect for the direct care workforce and ancillary support workers who support long term services and supports in our communities and in other long term care settings.
It is unconscionable that we have suppressed the minimum wage for so many years. … When people cannot themselves pay for basic needs, who do you think pays for them, whether in the short term or over the long term?
Raising the minimum wage is a good thing to help encourage spending in the community. Lifting up the lower income demographics will help people be more comfortable with day-to-day spending and long term future planning. The cost of living has gone up at an increasingly troubling rate, while average income and especially minimum wage has barely moved in 15 years.
I think we all know $7.25 isn't livable - this modest increase would help.
NH needs to pay more so we can compete with Massachusetts when it comes to wages. All surrounding states pay better, making NH a less attractive option for workers. This bill will make NH a better choice for the people.
It is past time to raise the minimum wage in NH. No one who works 40 hours per week - considered honest effort- should be unable to afford a place to live, food, and transportation. That is the reality in NH though. We should be ashamed. NH is better than this.
The federal minimum wage is obscene. Anyone who works a 40 hour week at minimum wage should be able to live and pay bills and drive a car with that wage. We need to make NH affordable and relevant.
—Kathleen Mazziott, of Alstead
Opposition
No. Keep the federal minimum wage. Having a low state minimum wage benefits employers in my county under RSA 162-Q.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 210-211 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 744-FN
AN ACT relative to workers' compensation indemnity benefits percentage.
Bill text (PDF) - Docket Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Mark MacKenzie (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Workers' Compensation; Compensation for Temporary Total Disability. Amend RSA 281-A:28, II to read as follows:
II. If an employee's average weekly wage is over 30 percent of the state's average weekly wage, weekly compensation shall be [60] 66 2/3 percent of that employee's average weekly wage or 30 percent of the state's average weekly wage, whichever is greater, but in no event shall weekly compensation exceed 150 percent of the state's average weekly wage rounded off to the nearest dollar as the commissioner determines for the year in which the injury occurred.
Summary:
This bill increases the weekly compensation rate for workers receiving temporary total or permanent partial disability benefits from 60% to 66 2/3% of their average weekly wage.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that injured workers are not financially devastated by workplace injuries, especially as workplace safety regulations are being weakened. Workers should not be forced into homelessness or poverty due to injuries sustained while generating profit for their employers. Increasing workers' compensation is a necessary step to maintain a fair and functional system that protects workers in dangerous jobs.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill increases costs for the state and employers, potentially leading to higher insurance premiums and financial strain on businesses and government budgets.
Online Testimony
Currently, 40 people support and 5 people oppose the bill. 89% support of 45 people
Support
The gap between the rich and poor in this country has reached a disgraceful and unsustainable level. Do something about it!! You could be one of these people who work but don't make enough money in your next life!!
You can’t expect people to work dangerous jobs if they’re going to end up homeless if they get injured on the job. That’s unreasonable and people have realized the system doesn’t help them even when they do everything they are supposed to do, people aren’t going to be doing this anymore.
NH needs to continue to be better for our residents. This bill will allow for that to be possible.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 3:00 p.m. in Room 210-211 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 378-FN
AN ACT relative to an employee's unused earned time.
3 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Michael Cahill (D), Rep. Mark Pearson (R), Rep. Stephen Pearson (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Day's Work; Days of Rest; Unused Earned Time. Amend RSA 275 by inserting after section 35 the following new section:
275:35-a Unused Earned Time.
I. An employer that employs 15 or more employees and offers paid earned time to such employees shall comply with the following:
…
(d) RSA 275:43, V-a.
II. For the purpose of this section, the terms "earned time," "vacation" or "vacation time," and "paid time off" have the same meaning .
2 New Paragraph; Protective Legislation; Wages. Amend RSA 275:43 by inserting after paragraph V the following new paragraph:
V-a. Notwithstanding RSA 275:43, V, if an employee is separated from an employer, as defined in RSA 275:35-a, I, because the employer’s business closed, changed ownership or because their employment ended with no reasonable assurance of the employee being able to return to said employer, unused paid time off such as vacation, holiday, and personal time, but not sick days, whether earned by accrual or awarded in some other manner shall be considered wages pursuant to RSA 275:42, III and due upon separation from employment pursuant to RSA 275:44.
Summary:
This bill requires employers with 15 or more employees to compensate workers for accrued but unused paid time off upon separation from employment, except for sick days.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that workers receive fair compensation for the paid time off they have earned, preventing employers from effectively withholding wages. By guaranteeing that unused earned time is paid out, this legislation supports workers' financial stability and strengthens labor protections in New Hampshire. Additionally, ensuring strong worker protections can improve the state's ability to attract and retain employees.
Argument Against:
This bill increases financial burdens on employers, particularly those who may already be struggling with operational costs, by requiring payouts for unused time off upon termination. The financial impact on institutions like the University System of New Hampshire and the Community College System of New Hampshire is estimated to be between $110,000 and $300,000 annually, creating potential budgetary challenges.
Online Testimony
Currently, 63 people support and 11 people oppose the bill. 85% support of 74 people
Support
Workers should not be penalized for any reason if they do not use earned time. Earned time is a workers earned time. Do not take it away. I support this bill.
—Kathleen Malsbenden, of Newmarket
Having good laws for workers will increase prospects for NH residents.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 4:00 p.m. in Room 210-211 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
House Municipal And County Government
HB 689
AN ACT enabling municipalities to adopt a volunteer incentive property tax credit.
6 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Wayne Hemingway (R), Rep. John Cloutier (D), Rep. Judy Aron (R), Rep. Hope Damon (D), Rep. Dale Girard (D), Rep. Michael Aron (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Persons and Property Liable to Taxation; Property Taxes; Veteran and Elderly Volunteer Incentive Tax Credit. Amend RSA 72 by inserting after section 39-b the following new section:
72:39-c Veteran and Elderly Volunteer Incentive Tax Credit.
I. A city or town may adopt or rescind a veteran and elderly volunteer incentive tax credit granted under this section pursuant to RSA 72:27-a.
II. The veteran and elderly volunteer incentive tax credit, upon adoption by a city or town, shall be an amount no more than $7.25 per hour of volunteer service. No resident shall receive a total property tax credit greater than $1,500. The tax credit for volunteer work shall be subtracted each year from the property tax on the resident's residential real estate, as defined in RSA 72:29. Any credit provided shall be in addition to any exemption, credit, or abatement to which any such person is otherwise entitled.
III. The following persons shall qualify for the veteran and elderly volunteer incentive tax credit if they are:
(a) A resident of this state who is a veteran, as defined in RSA 21:50, and served not less than 90 days on active service in the armed forces of the United States, and continues to serve or was honorably discharged or an officer who continues to serve or was honorably separated from service; or the spouse or surviving spouse of such resident, provided that training for active duty by a member of the national guard or reserve shall be included as service under this subparagraph;
(b) A resident of this state who was terminated from the armed forces because of service-connected disability; or the surviving spouse of such resident;
(c) The surviving spouse of any resident who suffered a service-connected death; or
(d) A resident of this state who is either at least 65 years old or eligible under Title II or Title XVI of the federal Social Security Act for benefits for the disabled; and
(e) Has resided in this state for at least one year preceding April 1 in the year in which the credit is claimed; and
(f) Is living in the home.
Summary:
This bill allows municipalities to adopt a property tax credit of up to $1,500 for veterans and elderly residents who perform volunteer work, calculated at a rate of no more than $7.25 per hour.
Potential Argument For:
This bill encourages community engagement by providing an incentive for veterans and elderly residents to volunteer, strengthening local support networks while offering financial relief to those on fixed incomes.
Argument Against:
This bill creates an administrative burden for municipalities by requiring them to track and verify volunteer hours, potentially requiring additional staffing. It also shifts the property tax burden onto younger residents and non-veterans, increasing costs for those already struggling with affordability.
Online Testimony
Currently, 2 people support and 7 people oppose the bill. 78% oppose of 9 people
Opposition
This bill is well-meaning, but it would be very time consuming for municipalities to administer. It also shifts the tax burden onto those who don't qualify (younger people and non-veterans), further increasing the property tax rate for all property owners.
While I generally support veteran's credits and exemptions for the elderly and or disabled individuals, I don't see being a veteran or an elderly individual should qualify you for volunteer incentive. … Who is going to verify hours volunteered? Does the town have to pay an employee to track hours, verify hours? … How are young families suppose to afford local property taxes if an ever growing share of the property tax burden is shifted to them.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 766
AN ACT enabling municipalities to adopt an exemption from the local education property tax for certain elderly residents.
6 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Charles McMahon (R), Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R), Rep. Julius Soti (R), Rep. Bob Lynn (R), Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R), Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Local Education Property Tax Exemption; Persons 70 Years of Age and Older. Amend RSA 72 by inserting after section 39-b the following new section:
72:39-c Local Education Property Tax Exemption for Persons 70 Years of Age and Older.
I. A resident taxpayer who is liable for property taxes for property owned and used as his or her residential real estate, as defined in RSA 72:29, shall be eligible for a tax exemption equal to the portion of the property tax designated for local education if:
(a) The owner:
(1) Is 70 years of age or older;
(2) Is living in the home;
(3) Has resided in the property for at least 30 years; and
(4) Owns, on December 31 in the calendar year preceding said April 1, net assets not in excess of $750,000, excluding the value of the person's actual residence and the land upon which it is located up to the greater of 2 acres or the minimum single family residential lot size specified in the local zoning ordinance; and
(b) The property is:
(1) Owned by the resident;
(2) Owned by a resident jointly or in common with the resident's spouse, either of whom meets the requirements for the exemption claimed;
(3) Owned by a resident jointly or in common with a person not the resident's spouse, if the resident meets the applicable requirements for the exemption claimed; or
(4) Owned by a resident, or the resident's spouse, either of whom meets the requirements for the exemption claimed, and when they have been married to each other for at least 5 consecutive years.
II. A town or city may adopt or rescind the property tax exemption established under this section by the procedure in RSA 72:27-a.
Summary:
This bill enables municipalities to adopt an exemption from the local education property tax for certain elderly residents who meet age, residency, and asset criteria.
Potential Argument For:
This bill provides financial relief to long-term elderly homeowners who may be living on fixed incomes, helping them afford to stay in their homes without the burden of rising education property taxes.
Argument Against:
This bill shifts the tax burden onto those who do not qualify, increasing property tax rates for other residents, including working families and younger homeowners. Existing optional elderly exemptions already assist lower-income elderly homeowners, and expanding exemptions adds administrative costs for municipalities.
Online Testimony
Currently, 1 people support and 11 people oppose the bill. 92% oppose of 12 people
Opposition
As a resident, who does not have children and will never have children, this bill poses a problem. I will continue to my taxes happily as is my NH resident duty. I believe in the education system, and they need tax payer support. Just because you're elderly, does not make you exempt. Just because I am childless, does not make me exempt.
—Jennifer Suitter, of Merrimack
This bill shifts the tax burden onto those who don't qualify and increases the property tax rate for all property owners. Existing optional elderly exemptions are adequate to assist lower-income property owners. There are also added costs for towns in administering expanded exemption programs.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 625
AN ACT relative to enabling municipalities to levy payments against non-profits at a percentage of their assessed property values.
2 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Bill Bolton (D), Rep. Thomas Schamberg (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
2 New Section; Payments in Lieu of Taxation by Organizations Exempt From Property Taxes. Amend RSA 72 by inserting after section 43-h the following new section:
72:43-i Payments in Lieu of Taxation by Organizations Exempt From Property Taxes.
I. Notwithstanding the provisions of this chapter, or any other law to the contrary, in a city or town that votes to adopt this section pursuant to RSA 72:27-a, a non-profit organization established under RSA 292 that is exempt from taxation under this chapter shall make payments in lieu of taxation on all real and personal property owned by the organization in the city or town equal to 25 percent of the municipal rate of the property tax that would be paid if the property were not exempt from taxation.
II. Any city or town that adopts this section shall adopt an ordinance or bylaw to provide for agreements between the municipality and organizations that may provide for exemptions from payment, consideration of community benefits as payment and administration of payment.
III. Houses of public worship, parish houses, church parsonages occupied by their pastors, convents, monasteries, buildings and the lands appertaining to them owned, used and occupied directly for religious training or for other religious purposes by any regularly recognized and constituted denomination, creed or sect, organized, incorporated or legally doing business in this state and the personal property used by them for the purposes for which they are established shall be not required to make payments under paragraph I.
IV. Any town, city, or municipality may adopt, modify, or rescind the provisions of this section in the manner provided in RSA 72:27-a.
Summary: This bill allows towns to require tax‐exempt nonprofit organizations to make payments in lieu of taxes equal to 25 percent of the municipal property tax rate that would otherwise apply to their properties.
Argument For: This bill promotes fiscal equity by ensuring that nonprofits, which benefit from municipal services, contribute a modest share to local revenue, thereby easing the tax burden on full-paying residents. It gives towns a flexible tool to negotiate payments that can help offset lost tax revenue while preserving the vital services nonprofits provide.
Argument Against: This bill would impose an additional financial burden on nonprofits, potentially forcing them to reduce or eliminate essential programs such as childcare, homeless services, and food pantries. It risks undermining the very purpose of tax exemption by jeopardizing the financial sustainability of organizations that rely on limited budgets to serve vulnerable populations.
Online Testimony
Currently, 21 people support and 457 people oppose the bill. 96% oppose of 478 people
Support
For far too long the Town of Plymouth has had non-profits in this community. ... We have a hospital and a medical center that continues to buy up taxable property to put on the non profit roles while making plenty of money to pay something towards taxes.
People in many communities, especially seniors, are being forced to sell their homes because they can't pay the high property taxes. The state is primarily responsible for this situation, because it is last in the nation for state financial support of local schools. This bill will allow towns the give desperate homeowners a bit of property tax relief.
—Sallie Fellows, of Holderness who is, An Elected Official
People in many communities, especially seniors, are being forced to sell their homes because they can't pay the high property taxes. ... This bill will allow towns the give desperate homeowners a bit of property tax relief.
I support this bill as long as it includes religious organizations and their non-profit status properties. ... A reasonable and sustainable property tax would be a reasonable expectation.
—Valerie Scarborough, of Plymouth
53% non profits is too many to have residents, especially retirees, foot the bill for them. We need help!
I agree with Bill Bolton that non profits should make payment to towns in lieu of taxes
The impact of non-profits on the Plymouth community has created an injustice. ... This bill would allow for Plymouth and many other small communities like us to recoup some of their investments or lessen the financial burden caused by the demands of people visiting these organizations.
I support the idea that non-profits should be required to make PILOT payments. ... If the STATE feels that some class of properties should be universally exempt then the State should be reimbursing the local municipality for the lost tax revenue.
—Michael Borden, of Greenfield who is, An Elected Official
HB 625 provides a practical and fair mechanism to ensure that all entities benefiting from town services contribute their fair share. ... This bill represents an important opportunity to create a more equitable and sustainable financial future for Plymouth.
—Sir Michael Bouchard, of Plymouth
As a Plymouth resident, some towns are over-burdened with nonprofit property owners, as is Plymouth with 52% non-profit. This bill gives a town the option of requiring those organizations to give the town a “Payment in Lieu of Taxes” or PILOT. Please pass this bill to provide us equity and fairness.
—Christopher Long, of Plymouth
Opposition
As a homeowner in Meredith and a board member of a nonprofit that protects the health of one of our precious lakes, I am opposed to HB 625. Healthy lakes allow us to attract out-of-state visitors and support our local economies, My nonprofit does all its work with volunteers and through grants or donations. Nonprofits should not be taxed. We provide a lot of public good on a shoestring budget.
Non-profits are already struggling to meet the needs of our communities. Additional taxes on properties would result in many non-profits needing to close programs. This would be extremely consequential to the health and well being of our constituents.
Many nonprofits, including ours, already participate in GILOT (Gift in Lieu of Taxes) agreements. ... This change would be detrimental to our organization and could have serious financial consequences for our residents.
THIS IS INSANE! ... If nonprofits are not supported by this legislature then the state will be paying for more services to the public not less because the nonprofits won't be able to do the work and YOU will have to do it.
Nonprofits rely upon these revenues to provide critical services to our community.
This bill poses a significant threat to the property tax-exempt status of nonprofit organizations in NH. We should be doing everything we can to support nonprofit organizations, as they provide so many beneficial services to the residents of NH.
—Joe Watts, of Portsmouth, Rye
Nonprofits perform imperative functions to assist people across all sectors, especially those who are most at risk. We are partners to municipalities, managing essential functions to keep our communities healthy. This bill would be disastrous to New Hampshire’s citizens, especially those most vulnerable.
This bill would be detrimental to the organization I work for and would have serious financial consequences for the seniors who live at our nonprofit continuing care retirement community and would impact the care and services they rely on.
—Becky Chase-Hamilton, of Concord
I am writing to express my strong opposition to HB625. ... This bill effectively asks our nonprofits to solve municipal budget challenges at the expense of their vital missions.
The changes proposed in this bill would cause undue financial hardship on our local Historical Society.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:30 a.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 147
AN ACT relative to clarifying tax exemptions for properties used by religious, educational, and charitable organizations.
10 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Maureen Mooney (R), Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R), Rep. David Preece (D), Rep. Mark Pearson (R), Rep. Bob Lynn (R), Rep. Brian Labrie (R), Rep. Julie Miles (R), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Ruth Ward (R), Sen. Daryl Abbas (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
2 Persons and Property Liable to Taxation; Real Estate and Personal Property Tax Exemption. RSA 72:23, III-V are repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
III. Houses of public worship, parish houses, church parsonages occupied by their pastors, convents, monasteries, buildings and the lands on the same lot owned, used and occupied for religious training or for other religious purposes by any regularly recognized and constituted denomination, creed or sect, organized, incorporated or legally doing business in this state and the personal property used by them for the purposes for which they are established. The entire building and lot on which religious activities are taking place shall be exempt from taxation under this section.
Summary:
This bill clarifies that all lots and buildings used for religious, educational, and charitable purposes are fully exempt from property taxes, removing previous language that required land to be “directly” used for such purposes.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that religious, educational, and charitable organizations are not burdened with unnecessary legal disputes over their tax-exempt status, allowing them to direct funds toward their core missions instead of litigation. Nonprofits providing essential services, such as food assistance, senior care, and transitional housing, already contribute significantly to their communities, and additional taxation would force them to cut services or raise fees, disproportionately impacting the most vulnerable. By simplifying the law, this bill prevents municipalities from inconsistently interpreting exemptions and eliminates what is effectively a regressive tax on organizations serving the public good.
Argument Against:
This bill removes critical oversight by eliminating the requirement that land be "directly used" for religious, educational, or charitable purposes, potentially creating tax loopholes where large, underutilized properties remain exempt. Many organizations, particularly in rural areas, own significant amounts of excess land, which could be repurposed or sold, yet under this bill, those lands would still remain tax-free. Without stricter criteria, the bill may disproportionately benefit wealthier institutions with large land holdings, shifting the tax burden onto smaller property owners and local taxpayers.
Online Testimony
Currently, 6 people support and 9 people oppose the bill. 60% oppose of 15 people
Support
Looking to support this bill and to clarify tax exemptions for properties used by religious, educational, and charitable organizations.
—Kristen Collins, of Portsmouth
I work for a large state-wide nonprofit human services organization that provides a huge array of social services and healthcare services to the poor and vulnerable across NH. ... We receive referrals from CAPs and city/town welfare departments and annual provide just shy of $24 million in free or reduced-cost services to our clients. ... This would be akin to instituting a regressive tax where the ones who need our services the most are the same ones who would be most severely affected.
—Thomas Blonski, of Manchester
Opposition
There are many charitable, religious and educational properties that own considerable excess land that is not used toward the purpose of the organization, especially in rural areas. ... There are organizations that own hundreds of acres with small developed building sites, yet they are legally on the same parcel of land. ... The bill should not pass in its current form.
The broad language might allow organizations to exploit exemptions for land or buildings that are only minimally used for qualifying purposes, creating loopholes where large tracts of underutilized property remain tax-free. ... Without clear criteria, it may be difficult to ensure that exempt properties are genuinely serving the public good. ... The bill may unintentionally favor wealthier organizations that own larger properties, granting them significant tax breaks while small property owners continue to bear full tax obligations.
—Charles Lockwood, of East Kingston
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 11:10 a.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 426
AN ACT relative to property tax exemptions for charitable organizations for the prior tax year.
6 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. John MacDonald (R), Rep. Karel Crawford (R), Rep. Rosemarie Rung (D), Rep. Jim Maggiore (D), Rep. Bob Lynn (R), Rep. Katy Peternel (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Property Tax Exemption for Charitable Organizations; Late Application. Any charitable organization, otherwise qualified to receive a property tax exemption under RSA 72:23 for the tax year ending December 31, 2024, but for the failure to file a timely application pursuant to RSA 72:23, VI, shall be granted the exemption retroactively if they satisfy to the selectmen that they were prevented by accident, mistake, or misfortune from filing an application on or before June 1, 2024. In such case RSA 72:23, VI as amended by 2024, 183:1 (HB 1055) shall form the basis for an abatement under RSA 76:16, for the tax year ending December 31, 2024.
Summary:
This bill allows charitable organizations that missed the deadline to apply for a property tax exemption in 2024 due to accident, mistake, or misfortune to receive the exemption retroactively, forming the basis for a property tax abatement.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that charitable organizations, which provide essential community services, are not unfairly penalized for missing an administrative deadline due to circumstances beyond their control. By granting local select boards the authority to retroactively approve exemptions, the bill maintains fairness in tax administration, aligning nonprofit organizations' rights with those of individuals and businesses that can correct tax-related errors. Additionally, it prevents unnecessary financial strain on organizations that rely on limited resources to fulfill their missions.
Argument Against:
This bill retroactively modifies tax law, potentially forcing municipalities to grant abatements for the prior year, which could impose an unexpected financial burden on taxpayers. While allowing for future exemptions due to accident or misfortune may be reasonable, applying these changes retroactively undermines the stability of tax policy and could set a precedent for other taxpayers seeking similar retroactive relief.
Online Testimony
Currently, 5 people support and 4 people oppose the bill. 56% support of 9 people
Support
I am in support of HB 426 that will allow Select Boards to grant an exemption retroactively to charitable organizations for failure to file a timely statement of financial conditions if the failure was due to accident, mistake, or misfortune. … HB 426 will give the Select Board the authority to grant these charitable organization an exemption for 2024.
—Linda T Murray, of Wolfeboro who is, An Elected Official
Looking to support this bill relative to property tax exemptions for charitable organizations for the prior tax year.
—Kristen Collins, of Portsmouth
House Bill 426 recognizes that mistakes and misfortunes happen—a missed deadline should not mean that a nonprofit loses a critical exemption for an entire tax year. … It ensures that exemptions are granted only when justified while preventing unnecessary financial strain on organizations that are already working hard to meet community needs.
—Charles Lockwood, of East Kingston
Opposition
I am open to modify 72:23 to allow for a possible accident and misfortune going forward. … This opens the doors to every disgruntled tax payer who failed to comply with their applicable law to seek retroactive changes to existing laws.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 617
AN ACT relative to the homestead right.
1 sponsor, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Melissa Litchfield (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 The Homestead Right; Amount. Amend RSA 480:1 to read as follows:
480:1 Amount.
I. Every personis entitled to [$120,000] $1,000,000 worth of his or her homestead, or of his or her interest therein, as a homestead. The homestead right created by this chapter shall exist in manufactured housing, as defined by RSA 674:31, which is owned and occupied as a dwelling by the same person but shall not exist in the land upon which the manufactured housing is situated if that land is not also owned by the owner of the manufactured housing. The homestead right shall also apply to the person's ownership interest in any mobile home, housing cooperative, and condominium, so long as the property is occupied as a dwelling.
II. In order to claim this exemption, the residence must have been continuously used as a primary residence for the previous 12 months. However, proceeds from the sale of a qualifying residence, and such new residence, shall also be protected if reinvested within 6 months in a new primary residence.
III. Notwithstanding paragraph I, only one homestead exemption, totaling not more than $1,000,000, may be held or claimed by a married couple or a single person under this section.
IV. Notwithstanding paragraph I, the full market value of the property may be claimed as a homestead right if the debt for which attachment or levy is sought resulted from unpaid medical bills or other debts directly resulting from terminal or catastrophic injury or illness.
Summary:
This bill increases the homestead exemption to $1,000,000, expands eligibility to include mobile homes, housing cooperatives, and condominiums, and introduces new exemptions, including protections for proceeds from home sales and full exemptions for debts from catastrophic medical expenses.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that New Hampshire residents have a homestead exemption that reflects the rising cost of real estate, providing homeowners with meaningful protection from financial hardship. Massachusetts recently increased its exemption for similar reasons, and New Hampshire should follow suit to prevent residents from losing their homes due to outdated legal caps. By safeguarding primary residences against adverse judgments, this bill strengthens financial security for homeowners and their families.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill significantly increases the homestead exemption, which could limit creditors' ability to collect debts, potentially leading to higher lending risks and costs.
Online Testimony
Currently, 3 people support and 2 people oppose the bill. 60% support of 5 people
Support
I am writing in support of HB617. The current homestead exemption caps are far too low to reflect the cost of living and real estate in NH, and an upward adjustment that actually allows NH citizens to protect their home from an adverse judgment is important. Recognizing the gap between the homestead exemption cap and real estate prices, Massachusetts increased their exemption in 2024. New Hampshire should follow suit and similarly increase the exemption to an amount that provides adequate protection.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 425
AN ACT allowing tax-exempt entities to keep their tax-exempt status while renting facilities or property to entities that share their mission.
8 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Mark Pearson (R), Rep. Debra DeSimone (R), Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R), Rep. John Janigian (R), Rep. Paul Terry (R), Rep. Jose Cambrils (R), Rep. Bill Boyd (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Taxation; Persons and Property Liable to Taxation; Real Estate and Personal Property Tax Exemption. Amend RSA 72:23 to read as follows:
III. …
(b) A religious organization that rents any church parsonage or similar residential real estate to another organization that shares a similar mission or goal shall be exempt from taxation on those properties.
(c) A religious organization that rents not more than one church parsonage or similar residential real estate, and/or not more than one worship building shall be exempt from taxation on those properties provided that the rental income, if any, is used for the religious leader’s compensation, for the maintenance of the worship building or parsonage, or the funding of standard religious programs. In this subparagraph, "religious organization" means a single house of worship, including but not limited to churches, synagogues, mosques, shrines, and temples. An organization shall not claim more than one exemption under this subparagraph.
Summary:
This bill grants property tax exemptions to religious organizations that rent certain properties, provided the rental income is used for religious leader compensation, maintenance of worship buildings or parsonages, or funding standard religious programs.
Potential Argument For:
This bill ensures that religious organizations can generate income to support their operations while maintaining their tax-exempt status, reinforcing their role in serving communities without undue financial burden.
Argument Against:
This bill creates an unfair advantage for religious organizations over other nonprofits that must pay taxes on revenue-generating properties, shifting the tax burden to homeowners and small businesses while also introducing vague language that could allow for potential abuse.
Online Testimony
Currently, 2 people support and 9 people oppose the bill. 82% oppose of 11 people
Opposition
Regardless of where the money goes, renting property turns the church into a profitable organization which should be subject to property taxes and any related business taxes. There is already enough leeway given to religious organizations with regards to exemptions. This one is a bridge too far.
Absolutely not. The churches in this country get far too many passes. If they want to be on our land, they need to pay taxes. They need to pay into the town they are occupying, consider it penance for all of the abuse they hide.
—Jennifer Suitter, of Merrimack
This is an unnecessary bill. Religious, charitable, and educational properties already may continue to qualify for a property tax exemption if they rent property to another qualifying entity. ... Municipalities would have to spend additional time and money babysitting both entities reviewing the "mission or goal" as well as the use of the property and the use of the rental income for qualifying purposes.
I am here to testify in opposition to House Bill 425. ... HB 425 creates an uneven playing field by allowing religious organizations to retain tax-exempt status while generating rental income, a privilege not extended to other nonprofits that also serve the public good. ... This risks eroding public trust in our tax system and diverting resources away from the community programs that tax exemptions are meant to support.
—Charles Lockwood, of East Kingston
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 421-FN
AN ACT relative to notice of tax exempt-status filing procedures by town officials or offices.
10 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Mark Pearson (R), Rep. Debra DeSimone (R), Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R), Rep. Maureen Mooney (R), Rep. John Janigian (R), Rep. Paul Terry (R), Rep. Jose Cambrils (R), Rep. Wayne MacDonald (R), Rep. Bill Boyd (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Paragraph; Taxation; Persons and Property Liable to Taxation; Real Estate and Personal Property Tax Exemption. Amend RSA 72:23 by inserting after paragraph VII the following new paragraph:
VIII. Cities and towns shall annually mail a form to all organizations or entities exempt from property taxation under this section informing such organizations or entities of their duties under paragraph VI of this section on or before April 1. The form shall note all documents that must be submitted to the city or town by the organization or entity to establish eligibility for any tax exemption under this section. If any organization or entity otherwise qualified to receive an exemption shall satisfy the selectmen that they did not receive notice of the form on or before April 1, the officials may receive the exemption application prescribed in paragraph VI at a later date and grant an exemption thereunder for that year; but no such application shall be received or exemption granted after the local tax rate has been approved for that year.
Summary:
This bill requires cities and towns to provide tax-exempt organizations with a mailed notice at least two months before the annual tax-exemption filing deadline, specifying the necessary documents for eligibility.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that tax-exempt organizations receive timely and clear notification of their filing requirements, reducing the risk of losing their exemption due to missed deadlines. While some municipalities may already send reminders, making it a uniform requirement enhances fairness and consistency across the state. By improving communication, this bill helps protect nonprofits and other qualifying entities from unnecessary financial burdens.
Argument Against:
This bill unnecessarily shifts the responsibility of tax-exemption filings onto municipalities, creating an unfunded mandate that could burden local governments, particularly in cities with a large number of tax-exempt organizations. The current process has been in place for years, and organizations seeking exemptions should be responsible for knowing and adhering to deadlines. Additionally, many municipalities already send notices as a courtesy, making a legislative mandate redundant and inefficient.
Online Testimony
Currently, 2 people support and 6 people oppose the bill. 75% oppose of 8 people
Support
https://www.billtrack50.com/billdetail/1772586 Looking to support this bill in relation to the notice of tax exempt-status filing procedures by town officials or offices.
—Kristen Collins, of Portsmouth
Opposition
This bill is unnecessary and puts part of the onus for annual property tax exemption filings onto municipalities. The property owner has the responsibility to timely file the required applications and there's no reason to change this procedure as it has been well-established and in place for years. Many towns already do send out reminder notices to these property owners, but making this mandatory is overreach by the legislature.
The requirements for RSA 72:23 have been in place for a good number of years. ... When you make it mandatory, especially for cities which may have dozens upon dozens of possible qualifying organizations, this is an unfunded mandate. ... Communities should not have to spend taxpayer money to educate them.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:50 p.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 782-FN
AN ACT expanding property tax exemptions for certain elderly and disabled persons; raising public awareness regarding tax credits and exemptions; and requiring an annual report regarding the efficacy of the low and moderate income homeowners property tax relief program.
Bill text (PDF) - Docket Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Sanjeev Manohar (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
6 Taxation; Persons and Property Liable to Taxation; Procedure for Adoption and Modification of Elderly Exemption. Amend RSA 72:39-b, II to read as follows:
II. … In addition, the taxpayer must have a net income in each applicable age group of not more than a dollar amount determined by the town or city of not less than $13,400 or, if married, a combined net income of not more than a dollar amount determined by the town or city of not less than $20,400; and own net assets not in excess of a dollar amount determined by the town or city of not less than [$35,000] $50,000, which shall be adjusted for inflation annually based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index, northeast region, excluding the value of the person's residence or, if married, combined net assets not in excess of a dollar amount determined by the town or city of not less than [$35,000] $50,000, which shall be adjusted for inflation annually based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index, northeast region, excluding the value of the residence. Under no circumstances shall the amounts of the exemption for any age category be less than $[5,000] $7,500, which shall be adjusted for inflation annually based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index, northeast region. The combined net asset amount for married persons shall apply to a surviving spouse until the sale or transfer of the property by the surviving spouse or until the remarriage of the surviving spouse.
…
8 Education; School Money; Low and Moderate Income Homeowners Property Tax Relief. Amend RSA 198:57, III(c) to read as follows:
(c) Realizes total household income of:
(1) [$37,000] $100,000 or less if a single person;
(2) [$47,000] $110,000 or less if a married person or head of a New Hampshire household.
…
10 Education; School Money; Low and Moderate Income Homeowners Property Tax Relief. Amend RSA 198:57, IV(d) to read as follows:
(d) Multiply the product of the calculation in subparagraph (c) by the following percentage as applicable to determine the amount of tax relief available to the claimant:
(1) If a single person and total household income is:
(A) less than [$23,100] $86,100, 100 percent;
(B) [$23,100] $86,100 but less than [$27,800] $90,800, 60 percent;
(C) [$27,800] $90,800 but less than [$32,400] $95,400, 40 percent; or
(D) [$32,400] $95,400 but less than or equal to [$37,000] $100,000, 20 percent.
(2) If a head of a New Hampshire household or a married person and total household income is:
(A) less than [$29,400] $92,400, 100 percent;
(B) [$29,400] $92,400 but less than [$35,300] $98,300, 60 percent;
(C) [$35,300] $98,300 but less than [$41,100] $104,100, 40 percent; or
(D) [$41,100] $104,100 but less than or equal to [$47,000] $110,000, 20 percent.
(3) The values in subparagraphs (1) and (2) shall be adjusted for inflation annually based upon the Bureau of Labor Statistics' consumer price index, northeast region.
…
14 Committee Established. There is established a committee to study capping property taxes at a certain percentage of annual household income, automatically providing tax relief for seniors and low-income seniors who qualify for the low and moderate income homeowners property tax relief program, and imposing an additional property tax on certain luxury residential properties.
…
16 Duties. The committee shall study the feasibility of, and any measures and legislation necessary, to:
I. Cap property tax liability at a certain percentage of annual household income.
II. Provide tax relief for seniors and low-income seniors by automatically enrolling certain qualifying residents in the low and moderate income homeowners property tax relief program.
III. Impose an additional residential property tax on luxury residential properties that are given a certain valuation..
…
18 Report. The committee shall report its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 1, 2025.
Summary:
This bill expands eligibility for property tax relief programs, increases exemption thresholds for elderly and disabled persons, mandates municipalities to provide clear instructions on tax relief applications, and establishes a committee to study additional property tax reform measures.
Potential Argument For:
This bill provides much-needed financial relief to elderly, disabled, and low- to moderate-income homeowners by making property tax exemptions more accessible and ensuring tax relief keeps pace with inflation.
Argument Against:
This bill infringes on local control by mandating municipalities to post specific tax relief information and altering exemption thresholds, limiting towns' ability to manage their own tax policies.
Online Testimony
Currently, 1 people support and 36 people oppose the bill. 97% oppose of 37 people
Opposition
I disagree with Bills that encroach on the right of towns to organize as we wish.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 2:10 p.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 458-FN
AN ACT limiting local assistance to U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents.
5 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Steven Smith (R), Rep. Thomas Walsh (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Howard Pearl (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Eligibility for Local Assistance; Citizenship or Legal Permanent Residence Required. Amend RSA 165:1, I to read as follows:
I. Whenever a [person] United States citizen, or legal permanent resident in any town is poor and unable to support himself or herself, [he] the person shall be relieved and maintained by the overseers of public welfare of such town, whether or not [he] the person has residence there. For the purposes of this chapter the term "residence" shall have the same definition as in RSA 21:6-a.
Summary:
This bill limits eligibility for local assistance to United States citizens and permanent legal residents, excluding all other individuals from receiving such aid.
Argument For:
This bill removes any legal entitlement to social benefits for undocumented immigrants, potentially serving as a disincentive for illegal immigration. By narrowing eligibility, municipalities may experience a reduction in welfare costs, easing the financial burden on local governments.
Argument Against:
This bill denies essential assistance to immigrants and asylum seekers, including those fleeing violence, risking public health and the well-being of families in need. Many legal immigrants, such as students, visa holders, and temporary workers, would be unfairly excluded, despite their contributions to the community. Withholding aid from struggling families and children is inhumane and contradicts American values of compassion and inclusion.
Online Testimony
Currently, 9 people support and 130 people oppose the bill. 94% oppose of 139 people
Support
Removing any legal entitlement to social benefits will have the potential of being a disincentive to illegal immigration.
Opposition
"I was a stranger and you took me in." We are a nation of immigrants. Please show some mercy to these people who are trying to escape violence.
No one can live on $7.25 an hour even if they work two jobs. We need to ensure people are paid a living wage.
So you like the idea of making hungry children even hungrier. Sorry to hear that. I think the hottest place in hell is reserved for people who don't care about hungry people. I should feel sorry for the people who vote for this horrible bill
Instead of persecuting families and children awaiting asylum hearings, how about expanding immigration court to meet the need so adults are authorize to work, filling jobs in a tight labor market and paying taxes? … There are many LEGAL immigrants who aren't permanent residents (like students, Visa holders, temporary workers, dreamers brought here as children) and there is no valid reason to deny their right to support themselves and then deny them any form of aid in a pinch.
—Julie Zimmer, of Peterborough
Denying immigrants and asylum seekers access to local assistance is unconscionable, evil, and poses risks to public health by deliberately risking access to the necessities of life. … More generally, migration should not be stigmatized. Everyone moves, from the country to the city, from city to city, state to state, country to country, for education, for work, for survival.
Immigrants are human beings and are part of our community, regardless of their citizenship status (or lack thereof). They deserve access to services afforded everyone else. I am strongly opposed to this bill.
Legal immigrants should be supported so that they can join the workforce and becoming contributing residents to the community.
This bill should not be passed. Withholding and prohibiting local assistance to immigrants would be a shameful way for NH lawmakers to treat our friends, helpers, and neighbors. Please stand up for what's right and vote against this bill.
Is this bill seeking to become the most cruel action the legislature can take this year? The sponsors need to read the Bible's account of the Good Samaritan.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 2:40 p.m. in Room 307 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
House Public Works And Highways
HB 561
AN ACT relative to the transfer of state-owned real property to municipalities.
12 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Nancy Murphy (D), Rep. Maureen Mooney (R), Rep. James Tierney (R), Rep. Rosemarie Rung (D), Rep. Wendy Thomas (D), Rep. Peter Petrigno (D), Rep. Judy Aron (R), Rep. Mike Bordes (R), Rep. Daniel Veilleux (D), Rep. Bill Boyd (R), Rep. Michael Aron (R), Sen. Donovan Fenton (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Disposal of Highway, Federal, or Turnpike Funded Real Estate. Amend RSA 4:39-c, I to read as follows:
I. … The state shall not dispose of class I or class II highway property if the highway is still in use by the public for motor vehicle travel and the selectmen of the town in which the highway is situate object to the discontinuance, reclassification, or reversion of the highway pursuant to RSA 230:57.
…
4 Discontinuance of Relocated Portions of Class I and Class II Highways; Reversion to Town. Amend RSA 230:57 to read as follows:
230:57 Reversion to Town. … The commissioner of transportation shall not discontinue, reclassify to a class V or class VI highway, or revert to the town, class I or class II highways if the highway is still in use by the public for motor vehicle travel and the selectmen of the town in which the highway is situate object to the discontinuance, reclassification, or reversion.
Summary:
This bill requires the State of New Hampshire to seek approval from municipal legislative bodies before transferring state-owned class I or II highways to local governments.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that towns are not forced to take on the financial and operational burden of maintaining state roads without their consent, preventing an unfunded mandate that could strain municipal budgets. Town roads often serve residents from multiple communities, meaning the financial responsibility should remain with the state rather than being suddenly shifted onto local taxpayers. By requiring municipal approval, this bill upholds New Hampshire’s tradition of local control and prevents unilateral decisions that could negatively impact infrastructure and public services.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could complicate the state's ability to manage its highway system efficiently by introducing additional bureaucratic hurdles to the transfer process.
Online Testimony
Currently, 61 people support and 6 people oppose the bill. 91% support of 67 people
Support
Towns should not be suddenly saddled with the maintenance and upkeep of a state road that happens to be within the town borders without the approval of the residents of said town. ... These state roads are used by many residents of New Hampshire, not just the residents of the town they happen to be in.
—Christopher Wright, of Merrimack
Transferring maintenance, snow removal, etc to the towns will be a hardship to those towns. ... It is not a road used only primarily for local travel. I am not in favor of shifting these costs from the state to the towns, which seems to be a trend.......
I support prohibiting the state from transferring roads to a town without the town’s consent.
Transferring of roads from state to towns should not be done without towns approval.
I support this bill, our town does not and can not support the expense of maintaining this state road
As a Merrimack resident, this would put a larger tax burden on individual homeowners. Property taxes have risen insanely over the past couple of years. Transferring roads without town approval would be a mistake, we should be able make that decision.
I am in support of HB561. Continental Boulevard should remain a state road. The maintenance costs to maintain Continental Boulevard, the paving costs ALONE, exceed the town's paving budget. The state should not pass off the maintenance of this road to the town of Merrimack.
This bill requires the State of New Hampshire to seek approval from municipal legislative bodies prior to transferring state-owned class I or II highways. ... HB 561 will give towns the local control that has been the hallmark of New Hampshire.
This ensures that towns aren’t forced to take on unexpected financial and operational burdens they may not be able to handle. ... This bill promotes collaboration between the State and towns, preventing unilateral decisions that could strain local budgets or result in poorly maintained roads.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 201 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 578-FN
AN ACT erecting a sound barrier along the F.E. Everett Turnpike.
9 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Bill Boyd (R), Rep. Maureen Mooney (R), Rep. Nancy Murphy (D), Rep. Rosemarie Rung (D), Rep. Wendy Thomas (D), Rep. Julie Miles (R), Rep. Adam Presa (R), Sen. David Watters (D), Sen. Tim McGough (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Installation of Sound Barriers. The department of transportation shall install sound barriers along the F.E. Everett Turnpike ("FEET") as follows: along the west side of the FEET southbound, southwest of Interchange 12, in the Town of Merrimack, encompassing the neighborhoods of Roundtree Drive, Davis Road, Vista Way, Ministerial Drive, Weston Road, and Kittridge Lane; and, on the west side of the turnpike southbound, northwest of Interchange 12, in the Town of Merrimack, including Back River Road, Bradford Drive, Belmont Drive, Raymond Drive, Small Lane, and Brookfield Drive.
Summary:
This bill requires the New Hampshire Department of Transportation to install sound barriers along specific segments of the F.E. Everett Turnpike in the town of Merrimack.
Argument For:
This bill addresses the severe noise pollution that has negatively impacted the quality of life for residents near the highway, making it difficult to sleep, converse, or enjoy their homes and yards. Testimony highlights that the situation has worsened over the years due to increased traffic and the removal of natural barriers like trees, and will further deteriorate with the planned highway expansion. Installing sound barriers would not only restore some peace for residents but also help protect property values and improve public health by reducing noise-related stress and hearing risks.
Argument Against:
This bill spends $7.2 million on a project benefiting a single town while other communities across the state face more pressing infrastructure needs, such as repairing flood-damaged roads. Critics argue that Merrimack, a relatively wealthy town, could raise the funds independently if residents see the barriers as necessary rather than using state transportation funds that should benefit the broader public.
Online Testimony
Currently, 53 people support and 2 people oppose the bill. 96% support of 55 people
Support
MY house one Davis Road backs up to the highway. The noise from the traffic is extremely loud. We cannot open our windows in the rear of our house due to the noise. It is.difficult to have a conversation outside. When construction starts trees will be cut down and the situation will be much worse.
—Kathleen Cavaliere, of Merrimack
The highway is just behind my back yard and now we can't sleep, watch TV or converse normally in the house with windows open. … Our quality of life in our home as well as home value will be impacted significantly without a sound barrier.
I live on Vista Way which is directly affected by the highway noise. The noise has made it impossible to use it yard. A neighbor had a sounds test done, it definitely feel into the noise putting category. A wall is a necessity for our neighborhood
—Samantha Webster, of Merrimack
Sound barriers need to be put up on the west side of the Everett turnpike. With the expansion of the highway the houses are so close and the noise level is unacceptable
As a resident of Roundtree Drive in Merrimack, NH, near Exit 12, I can personally attest to the overwhelming noise pollution from the Everett Turnpike. … This not only mitigates noise but also provides a crucial layer of protection against accidents, significantly reducing the state’s liability in the event of a tragedy.
I support the requirement that the state add sound barriers on the Everett Turnpike.
I am writing to express my deep frustration and concern over the impacts of the ongoing highway expansion project near my parents' home on Back River Road in Merrimack. … It won’t bring back the lost trees, but it would at least provide some relief from the constant highway noise that now overwhelms the area.
I live on Back River Rd. Since the trees, shrubs, grasses have all been removed as part of the turnpike expansion, the noise from the highway is much worse. … If this area qualifies for a barrier, we should as well.
—April McDonough, of Merrimack
I have been a resident of Merrimack for 20+ years and my home is on Kittridge lane. Although I do not live directly along side the highway, I do live about .2 miles away. I can honestly say, the sound from the highway has increased over the years due to increased traffic and trimming of trees. With the highway expanding, the sound will only increase. With the above said, I strongly support sound barriers.
—Kathleen McBride, of Merrimack
I am in support of this bill. The NH Department of Transportation should install sound barriers on the Everett Turnpike: west side southbound, southwest of Interchange 12, and on the west side southbound, northwest of Interchange 12.
Opposition
This bill has no public benefit but seeks to spend $7.2 million of our money. This is purely a creature comfort item for a single town. Meanwhile my town is still missing a road with several others still damaged from the summer's flooding and gets no help other than 75% from the feds. Merrimack is a pretty wealthy town, they can fund this on their own if they want it. Make up the shortages the old fashioned way with bake sales and car washes. It is a waste of my money here in northern NH.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:30 a.m. in Room 201 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 713-FN
AN ACT relative to mile markers along Route 112.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Jerry Stringham (D), Rep. Thomas Buco (D), Rep. Heather Baldwin (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Installation and Maintenance of Mile Markers. Amend RSA 21 by inserting after section L:2 the following new section:
21-L:2-a Installation and Maintenance of Mile Markers. The department of transportation shall install mile markers along the entire length of Route 112, also known as the Kancamagus Highway, from Lincoln to Conway. The mile markers shall be installed at intervals of one mile and shall be clearly visible and legible to motorists and emergency personnel. The department of transportation shall maintain the mile markers installed pursuant to this section, ensuring they remain in good condition and are replaced or repaired as necessary to maintain visibility and legibility.
Summary:
This bill requires the New Hampshire Department of Transportation to install and maintain mile markers along the entire length of Route 112, also known as the Kancamagus Highway, ensuring they are clearly visible and legible to motorists and emergency personnel.
Potential Argument For:
This bill improves safety and navigation along Route 112 by providing clear mile markers that assist motorists, emergency responders, and law enforcement in locating incidents and providing accurate directions.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill imposes a $287,600 cost over the biennium, funded by federal highway funds, which could delay other planned sign improvements, including the repair and upgrade of deficient overhead signs on interstate highways.
Online Testimony
Currently, 1 people support and 2 people oppose the bill. 67% oppose of 3 people
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 201 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 745
AN ACT naming a bridge in the city of Keene after Charles Redfern.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Philip Jones (D), Rep. Nicholas Germana (D), Sen. Donovan Fenton (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 City of Keene; The Charles Redfern Bridge Named. Pursuant to RSA 4:43, the alternative use trail bridge over Route 101 in the city of Keene, otherwise known as South Bridge, is hereby named the Charles Redfern Bridge.
2 Signage. The cost of design, construction, maintenance, and installation of any signage, replacement signage, or other markers required under section 1 of this act shall not be a charge to the state. However, the design, construction, and installation of any signage or other markers required under this act shall be approved by the department of transportation.
Summary:
This bill names the alternative use trail bridge over Route 101 in Keene, currently known as South Bridge, as the Charles Redfern Bridge.
Argument For:
This bill appropriately honors Charles Redfern, who played a crucial role in developing Keene's rail trail network, expanding it from zero to 73 miles over three decades. Redfern’s dedication to fundraising, advocacy, and maintenance of the trail system has left a lasting impact on Keene and the surrounding region. Naming the bridge after him is a fitting tribute to his contributions to cycling, walking trails, and community connectivity.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill renames a public bridge, which may not be necessary or a priority for legislative action.
Online Testimony
Currently, 12 people support and 1 people oppose the bill. 92% support of 13 people
Support
The prosperity of Keene as well of the surrounding towns and region has been and will be greatly enhanced by this rail trail network. ... His dedication and relentless effort started the necessary fundraising, which only later evolved to a public-private partnership. ... His work continues today with his involvement in promoting, maintaining, financing, and improving the trails system.
—Edward Haas, of Keene who is An Elected Official
I support honoring Chuck Redfern by naming the South Bridge after him. Naming the bridge for Chuck is a great way to recognize all he has done for Keene, including establishing its many miles of scenic trail systems enjoyed for recreation and off-road transportation for cyclists and walkers. I look forward to the Ribbon Cutting Ceremony!
—Marianne Borowski, of Bartlett
Charles "Chuck' Redfern has worked for years with numerous local and state organizations to connect the downtown portion of the Keene rail trail to the rest of the Cheshire trail. This bridge over Rte. 101 is key.
His efforts have provided so much for his community of Keene in many ways including those that cycle and walk across the bridge that should bear his name! ... We all have benefitted from his hands-on efforts AND his moral support of the many projects he has been in over many years.
Chuck's a fabulous man. He's fought hard for a lot of this stuff, he deserves the credit and recognition. This is a great idea!
Chuck is always working hard to ensure our trails are connected and taken care of. He has long-since earned this honor.
For decades, Charles "Chuck" Redfern has been a positive and active force for promoting and fundraising for the bike and walking trails in and around Keene. ... His reputation as a benevolent force 'spans' the area. ... This bridge supports the bike and walking trail that many people use and enjoy, so naming it the Charles Redfern Bridge is particularly apropos.
—Raleigh Ormerod, of Keene who is, An Elected Official
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 11:30 a.m. in Room 201 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
House Science, Technology And Energy
HB 537
AN ACT relative to electric rates approved by the public utilities commission for residential condominium property.
4 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Zoe Manos (D), Rep. Thomas Cormen (D), Rep. Allison Knab (D), Sen. Debra Altschiller (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Condominium Instruments; Commercial Use. Amend RSA 356-B:16, I(e) to read as follows:
(e) A description or delineation of the limited common areas, if any, showing or designating the unit or units to which each is assigned and whether any commercial or business enterprises are permitted;
2 New Section; Public Utility Rates; Condominium Charges. Amend RSA 378 by inserting after section 6 the following new section:
378:6-a Condominium Charges. An electric rate schedule of a public utility filed with the commission shall ensure that condominium associations under RSA 356-B, which do not permit commercial or business enterprises, are charged the same electric rates as condominium residential units for domestic septic and well-pump electric usage.
Summary:
This bill requires that public utilities charge the same electric rates for certain condominium associations as they do for residential units and amends provisions related to rural electric cooperatives and condominium use for commercial enterprises.
Argument For:
This bill ensures that condominium associations, which do not permit commercial or business enterprises, are charged the same domestic electric rates for necessary utilities like septic and well-pump usage, alleviating unfair financial burdens imposed by commercial rates.
Argument Against:
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may create disparities in electric rates across different types of properties, potentially leading to complexities for utilities in implementing and monitoring the residential rate application for condominium associations.
Online Testimony
Currently, 4 people support and 1 people oppose the bill. 80% support of 5 people
Support
I am writing on behalf of Kirriemuir Condominium Association as well as the Stratham, NH Condominium Leadership Council.... Kirriemuir Condominium Association consists of 32 residential townhouse units serviced by shared wells and septic systems. ... Our Association currently pays a commercial electric rate on these utilities which are then passed on to our homeowners via our annual operating budget/condo fees. ... We do not believe this is appropriate, as these utilities are necessary for homeownership and are not being used for purposes other than domestic water and sewer. ... The commercial electric rate adds substantial costs to our annual operating budget that would otherwise be residential rates if we owned single family homes. Kirriemuir Condominium Association supports the approval of HB 537. ... We also support the approval of HB 539. ... We also support HB 680 amending RSA 378:7 such that the commission bill all residential units at domestic tariff rates even if the Association is paying the bills on behalf of each individual residential unit.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 302-304 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 539
AN ACT requiring electric utilities to use residential electric rates for certain types of residential condominiums.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Zoe Manos (D), Rep. Thomas Cormen (D), Sen. Debra Altschiller (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Condominium Instruments; Commercial Use. Amend RSA 356-B:16, I(e) to read as follows:
(e) A description or delineation of the limited common areas, if any, showing or designating the unit or units to which each is assigned, and whether any commercial or business enterprises are permitted;
2 Rates and Charges; Schedules; Commercial Electric Rates. Amend RSA 378:1 to read as follows:
378:1 Schedules. Every public utility shall file with the public utilities commission, and shall print and keep open to public inspection, schedules showing the rates, fares, charges and prices for any service rendered or to be rendered in accordance with the rules adopted by the commission pursuant to RSA 541-A; provided, however, that:
I. …
II. Residential electric rates for domestic consumption shall apply to the well pump and septic system of individual units within a condominium association under RSA 356-B that does not permit commercial or business enterprises.
Summary:
This bill mandates that residential electric rates for domestic use apply to the well pumps and septic systems of residential condominium units that do not allow commercial enterprises.
Argument For:
This bill addresses the inequity of condominium associations paying commercial electric rates for essential residential services like well pumps and septic systems. It ensures fair pricing for these necessary utilities, reducing costs for condominium owners. The bill aligns the billing with the actual domestic usage of electricity.
Argument Against:
Potential Argument Against: This bill may place an undue financial burden on electric utility companies by requiring them to differentiate billing based on the type of condominium association and usage of electricity.
Online Testimony
Currently, 5 people support and 1 people oppose the bill. 83% support of 6 people
Support
I am the secretary of the Board of Directors of The Vineyards at Stratham Condominium Association. Our over 55 community is composed of 76 separate homes, 62 of which share a septic system with a neighbor. That the electricity to run these septic systems is billed to our non profit, residential association at the commercial rate is clearly discriminatory to condominium owners. I urge you to correct this injustice.
I am writing on behalf of Kirriemuir Condominium Association as well as the Stratham, NH Condominium Leadership Council. ... Kirriemuir Condominium Association consists of 32 residential townhouse units serviced by shared wells and septic systems. ... Our Association currently pays a commercial electric rate on these utilities which are then passed on to our homeowners. ... This is consistent with many other condominium associations in New Hampshire. ... We do not believe this is appropriate, as these utilities are necessary for homeownership and are not being used for purposes other than domestic water and sewer. ... The commercial electric rate adds substantial costs to our annual operating budget. ... Kirriemuir Condominium Association supports the approval of HB 537. ... We also support the approval of HB 539. ... We also support HB 680.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 302-304 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 680-FN
AN ACT relative to standardizing homeowners associations' electricity billing for shared meter usage.
4 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Zoe Manos (D), Rep. Thomas Cormen (D), Rep. Allison Knab (D), Sen. Debra Altschiller (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Schedules. Amend RSA 378:1 to read as follows:
378:1 Schedules. … The commission shall ensure that all homeowners associations are billed at the residential electricity rate for all residential units, including those with shared meters.
2 Fixing of Rates by Commission. Amend RSA 378:7 to read as follows:
378:7 Fixing of Rates by Commission. … When fixing rates for electricity, the commission shall classify residential units in homeowners associations as residential customers and ensure that billing for all residential units is at residential rates, even if the homeowners association is the customer and even if shared meters are used.
Summary:
This bill standardizes homeowners associations' electricity billing by ensuring all residential units, including those with shared meters, are billed at the residential rate and establishes a chargeback system for shared meter usage.
Argument For:
This bill ensures fair electricity rates for homeowners in associations with shared meters. Currently, many associations are billed at commercial rates, increasing costs for residents and unfairly burdening them compared to those in single-family homes. This bill addresses this disparity by mandating residential rates for all residential units, regardless of shared meters.
Argument Against:
This bill may shift costs from homeowners' associations to the utility companies, potentially straining existing infrastructure and resources. The impact on the overall electricity market requires further study before implementation.
Online Testimony
Currently, 3 people support and 1 people oppose the bill. 75% support of 4 people
Support
I understand that tomorrow the Science, Technology, and Energy Committee will hold public hearings with regard to HB’s 537, 539 and HB 680... Kirriemuir Condominium Association consists of 32 residential townhouse units serviced by shared wells and septic systems... Our Association currently pays a commercial electric rate on these utilities which are then passed on to our homeowners via our annual operating budget/condo fees... We do not believe this is appropriate, as these utilities are necessary for homeownership and are not being used for purposes other than domestic water and sewer... The commercial electric rate adds substantial costs to our annual operating budget that would otherwise be residential rates if we owned single family homes... Kirriemuir Condominium Association supports the approval of HB 537... We also support the approval of HB 539... We also support HB 680 amending RSA 378:7 such that the commission bill all residential units at domestic tariff rates even if the Association is paying the bills on behalf of each individual residential unit.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 302-304 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 654-FN
AN ACT relative to allowing small customer-generators the ability to participate in group-net metering.
6 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Thomas Cormen (D), Rep. Chris Muns (D), Rep. Kat McGhee (D), Rep. Wendy Thomas (D), Rep. Lucius Parshall (D), Rep. Tony Caplan (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Limited Electrical Energy Producers Act; Net Energy Metering. Amend RSA 362-A:9, XIV(a) to read as follows:
XIV.(a)(1) A customer-generator may elect to become a group host for the purpose of reducing or otherwise controlling the energy costs of a group of customers [who are not customer-generators], except that a political subdivision, as defined in RSA 362-A:1-a, II-c, or the owner of a facility described in RSA 362-A:9, XX, that is a customer-generator, may participate as a group member. …
(2) The public utilities commission shall adopt rules to ensure that small customer-generators are allowed to participate as members of a group for net metering. Any current or future commission rules shall allow small customer-generators to be members of a group for net metering. Agencies other than the commission that adopt rules affecting group net metering must also ensure that small customer-generators are allowed to be members of a group for net metering. “Small customer-generator” means a customer-generator whose facility has a total maximum generating capacity of not more than 100 kilowatts alternating current.
Summary:
This bill amends RSA 362-A:9, XIV(a) to allow customer-generators to form net metering groups with any customer, including other customer-generators, and requires future commission rules to permit small customer-generators to participate in such groups.
Argument For:
This bill expands access to net metering, benefiting small-scale renewable energy producers. It promotes the growth of renewable energy sources by easing participation restrictions for small customer-generators in group net metering programs. This fosters collaboration and cost savings within communities.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could potentially increase administrative burdens on the Public Utilities Commission and utility companies due to the inclusion of more participants in net metering programs.
Online Testimony
Currently, 7 people support and 1 people oppose the bill. 88% support of 8 people
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 302-304 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 541
AN ACT establishing a committee to study energy and telecommunications infrastructure survivability and resiliency.
9 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Donald McFarlane (R), Rep. Michael Vose (R), Rep. Lex Berezhny (R), Rep. Jose Cambrils (R), Rep. JD Bernardy (R), Rep. Daniel Popovici-Muller (R), Rep. Jonah Wheeler (D), Rep. Matt Sabourin dit Choinière (R), Rep. Samuel Farrington (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Statement of Purpose. In light of the recent and continuing spate of public disclosures concerning significant nation-state physical and cyber threats, including both potential and realized threats, to our critical infrastructure, it is appropriate to establish a committee to study and consider what if any actions the legislature should take in order to ensure the survivability and resiliency of energy and telecommunications infrastructure.
2 Committee Established. There is established a committee to study energy and telecommunications infrastructure survivability and resiliency.
…
4 Duties.
I. The committee shall evaluate the current state of resiliency and survivability of New Hampshire’s critical telecommunications and energy utility infrastructure, particularly Internet, telephony, electric power, and natural gas services, against physical and cyber threats from malicious actors in the context of current known and anticipated threats and to propose actionable recommendations to enhance their resilience and survivability against physical and cyber security threats. The committee may solicit information and testimony from any agency or individual with experience or expertise deemed relevant to the study.
…
6 Report. The committee shall report its findings and any recommendations for proposed legislation to the speaker of the house of representatives, the president of the senate, the house clerk, the senate clerk, the governor, and the state library on or before November 1, 2025.
Summary:
This bill establishes a committee to study the survivability and resiliency of New Hampshire's energy and telecommunications infrastructure against physical and cyber threats.
Argument For:
This bill is crucial for ensuring the safety and security of New Hampshire's critical infrastructure. By studying the resiliency of energy and telecommunications systems against threats, the state can proactively develop strategies to mitigate potential disruptions. The committee's recommendations will help improve infrastructure survivability and protect essential services for residents and businesses.
Argument Against:
This bill's focus on "acts of God" as a threat is outdated and insufficient. The overwhelming scientific consensus points to the increasing severity of weather-related events due to climate change, and the bill needs to broaden its scope to address these emerging threats. Simply replacing "acts of God" with "natural disasters" isn't enough to accurately reflect the current situation and inform comprehensive solutions.
Online Testimony
Currently, 3 people support and 24 people oppose the bill. 89% oppose of 27 people
Opposition
Please amend HB541 to replace "acts of God" with "natural disasters," keeping in mind that many of the weather-related disasters that are happening lately are "unnatural" because this science is clear that we are seeing horrific floods, fires, storms, etc. due to earth-warming carbon pollution. I urge the committee to listen to the majority of scientists who study the weather on our planet.
—Paticia Beffa-Negrini, of Nelson
With the increasing severity of weather, and likelihood of fires and flooding due to climate change, please replace "acts of God" with "natural disasters".
—Russell Siggelkoe, of Moultonborough
Please amend HB 541 to replace "acts of God" with "natural disasters" and to study the increasingly severe weather events; and likelihood of drought, forest fires and flooding due to climate change.
—Abby Evankow, of Gorham who is An Elected Official
The current text only includes terrorism and "acts of God" as threats to study. The committee should amend the bill to change the reasons for this study to identify a more pragmatic set of threats: the increasing severity of weather, and likelihood of fires and flooding due to climate change etc. This should be a more practical bill and should Replace "acts of God" with "natural disasters".
STOP! Please amend the bill to change the reasons for this study to identify a more pragmatic set of threats: the increasing severity of weather, and likelihood of fires and flooding due to climate change. Replace "acts of God" with "natural disasters".
NOT acts of god - NATURAL DISASTERS - this is Global Warming that we (not god) is responsible for!!!
This bill needs to be amended to broaden the areas of study to include possible damage from climate change such as fires and flooding.
—Shirley Montgomery, of Hanover
The current text only includes terrorism and "acts of God" as threats to be studied. I suggest you add to the reasons for this study committee to identify other threats, such as the increasing severity of weather, and likelihood of fires and flooding due to climate change. Replace "acts of God" with "natural disasters".
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 302-304 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 4
AN ACT relative to commercial property assessed clean energy and resiliency (C-PACER).
2 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Tara Reardon (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Energy Efficiency and Clean Energy Districts; Definitions. RSA 53-F:1 is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
…
3 Authority. Amend RSA 53-F:3 to read as follows:
53-F:3 Authority. …
I. The authority is designated by the legislature to administer the program for all municipalities within the state. The authority is authorized to, at its direction, contract with a third party, whether private or governmental, to manage the day-to-day administration of the program. Anticipated expenses for the administration of the program shall be borne by the owners of eligible properties participating in the program.
II. A municipality which adopts this chapter shall thereafter be authorized to establish one or more energy efficiency and clean energy districts. A municipality, at its discretion, may establish the district within the entirety of its jurisdictional boundaries.
[II. Encourage private financing from individuals or institutions for qualifying improvements to eligible properties within the district and enter into agreements with those private lenders to administer the energy conservation and efficiency improvements or clean energy improvements program on their behalf, including evaluating eligible properties, supervising the improvements, arranging for the closing of the loans, collecting the special assessments, and assisting them with the exercise of their lienholder rights, provided that anticipated expenses for the administration of the program shall be borne by the owners of eligible properties participating in the program.]
III. A municipality may enter into an agreement with a property owner to impose a voluntary special assessment to repay the financing of qualified projects on commercial property located in a region.
III-a. An assessment may not be imposed to repay the financing of the purchase or installation of products or devices not permanently affixed to commercial property.
III-b. A municipality may enter into an agreement to impose a voluntary special assessment only after a project application is approved. The special assessment is created through a written contract between the municipality and with the recorded property owner of the commercial property or the property owner of a leasehold estate to be assessed.
III-c. Prior to entering into the written assessment contract, the property owner must receive and furnish to the program administrator a written statement, executed by each holder of a mortgage or deed of trust on the property securing indebtedness, consenting to the assessment and indicating that the assessment does not constitute an event of default under the mortgage or deed of trust.
III-d. To establish a C-PACER program under this chapter, the municipality shall take action in the following order, and adopt a resolution that includes:
(a) A finding that the financing of qualified projects through special assessments is a valid public purpose;
(b) A statement that the municipality intends to authorize direct financing between property owners and capital providers as the means to finance qualified projects;
(c) A statement that the municipality intends to authorize special assessments, entered into voluntarily by a property owner with the municipality by means of the written assessment contract, as the means to repay the financing for qualified projects available to property owners;
(d) A description of the types of qualified projects that may be subject to special assessments;
(e) A description of the boundaries of the region;
(f) That administration of the program shall be by the authority or its designee; and
(g) A statement identifying the appropriate municipal program official or department responsible for executing the appropriate documentation for the imposition of a special assessment.
III-e. The authority is authorized to impose fees and charges deemed necessary by the authority for the purposes of administering the program. To the degree collected from the property owner, the authority shall reimburse a municipality for actual expenses incurred by the municipality in the performance of the municipalities’ duties pursuant to this chapter.
Summary:
This bill replaces the energy efficiency and clean energy districts statute with a commercial property assessed clean energy and resiliency program, administered by the New Hampshire business finance authority or its designee, allowing municipalities to impose voluntary special assessments on commercial properties to finance qualifying improvements.
Potential Argument For:
This bill modernizes energy efficiency financing by establishing a C-PACER program, stimulating investment in clean energy and resiliency improvements on commercial properties while reducing risks for municipalities and taxpayers.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may shift financial risks to commercial property owners and may not provide sufficient safeguards to prevent the imposition of unfair assessments or the displacement of existing liens.
Online Testimony
Currently, 1 people support and 0 people oppose the bill. 100% support of 1 people
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 302-304 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
House Transportation
HB 305
AN ACT relative to speed and red-light cameras for traffic enforcement.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Philip Jones (D), Rep. Marc Plamondon (D), Rep. Terri O'Rorke (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Traffic Enforcement Cameras. Amend RSA 31 by inserting after section 103-a the following new section:
31:103-b. A municipality may install traffic enforcement cameras for use by any law enforcement agency in public locations it deems prudent. The camera systems shall be used for traffic enforcement only. The municipality shall bear the cost of installation and maintenance of a camera system and any property or items related to installation and maintenance. Municipalities shall work with the department of transportation and the department of safety to ensure installation of a camera system and related equipment are installed and utilized properly and in accordance with existing state and federal law governing their use. Municipalities shall be jointly and severally liable for any unlawful operation of any camera system and the recordings and data collection generated thereby, even if a law enforcement agency enters into an agreement with the municipality to operate or otherwise use the equipment. No municipality shall contract with a non-law enforcement agency to operate the cameras and related equipment, generate or access any data generated or recorded by any camera system, or to distribute or cause to be distributed any such data or recordings.
Summary:
This bill allows municipalities to install traffic enforcement cameras for use by law enforcement agencies, with the municipality responsible for costs and liability.
Argument For:
This bill enhances public safety by enabling municipalities to utilize traffic cameras to deter speeding and red-light violations. It addresses safety concerns that outweigh privacy concerns, offering cities an effective security measure.
Argument Against:
This bill infringes upon residents' privacy and could discourage tourism, and municipalities can address traffic issues through alternative methods such as increased police patrols. The potential negative economic impact outweighs the purported benefits.
Online Testimony
Currently, 4 people support and 8 people oppose the bill. 67% oppose of 12 people
Support
This is a safety matter that's of greater importance than any privacy concerns. NH needs to allow cities to offer this level of security in their communities.
Opposition
This seeks to remove one of the key advantages of living in New Hampshire. Absolutely not. If the municipality sees a problem at certain part of their town, they can have their PD consider directed patrolling of an area. One way to ensure I never spend a dime in your town is to install these anywhere.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:20 a.m. in Room 203 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 368
AN ACT prohibiting smoking and e-cigarettes in motor vehicles when a passenger is under 16 years of age.
Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Peter Schmidt (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Special Rules of the Road; Smoking Prohibited. Amend RSA 265 by inserting after section 107-a the following new section:
265:107-b Smoking Prohibited.
I. No person shall smoke tobacco products or e-cigarettes in a motor vehicle at any time when a child under the age of 16 is in the vehicle.
II. The fine for a violation of this section shall be $100, provided that a police officer may enforce the provisions of this section only as a secondary action when the police officer detains a driver of a motor vehicle for a suspected violation of another provision of Title XXI.
Summary:
This bill prohibits smoking tobacco products or e-cigarettes in a motor vehicle when a child under the age of 16 is present, imposing a $100 fine enforceable only as a secondary action during another traffic stop.
Argument For:
This bill protects children's health by preventing their exposure to secondhand smoke in vehicles. The testimony supports this by highlighting children's right to clean air and healthy lungs. It's a reasonable measure to safeguard children from the known health risks associated with secondhand smoke.
Argument Against:
This bill could be considered an infringement on the personal freedoms of smokers. The enforcement mechanism as a secondary offense only may prove impractical and ineffective, potentially leading to inconsistencies.
Online Testimony
Currently, 8 people support and 4 people oppose the bill. 67% support of 12 people
Support
Of course I support this, children have a right to not be inundated with secondhand smoke. I thought this was already law from the 90s.
Children have the right to have healthy lungs. If adults want to smoke, that is fine, but children deserve to have clean air
—Jennifer Suitter, of Merrimack
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:40 a.m. in Room 203 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 390-FN
AN ACT relative to adding retired fire apparatus (fire trucks) to antique vehicle exemptions.
5 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Stephen Pearson (R), Rep. Mark Proulx (R), Rep. Charles Foote (R), Sen. Regina Birdsell (R), Sen. Denise Ricciardi (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Antique Motor Vehicle, Farm Tractor, Retired Fire Apparatus, or Motorcycle. Amend RSA 259:4 to read as follows:
259:4 Antique Motor Vehicle, Farm Tractor, Retired Fire Apparatus, or Motorcycle. "Antique motor vehicle, farm tractor, retired fire apparatus, or motorcycle" shall mean any motor vehicle, including a truck regardless of its weight, over 25 years old, and in the case of a retired fire apparatus, over 20 years old, which is maintained for use in exhibitions, club activities, parades, and other functions of public interest, but not for use in commerce. For the purposes of this section, "maintained for use" shall mean a motor vehicle, retired fire apparatus, or motorcycle in its original condition or restored to original or better condition and not intended for daily use.
Summary:
This bill amends RSA 259:4, 266:73, 266:78-c, I, and 266:33 to include "retired fire apparatus" in the definition of antique vehicles, granting them exemptions and regulations similar to other antique vehicles.
Argument For:
This bill clarifies the legal status of retired fire apparatus, ensuring consistent treatment with other antique vehicles. It simplifies regulations and reduces ambiguity for owners and law enforcement. The bill promotes the preservation of fire apparatus history while maintaining public safety.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could potentially lead to safety concerns if retired fire apparatus, lacking modern safety features, are not properly maintained.
Online Testimony
Currently, 1 people support and 2 people oppose the bill. 67% oppose of 3 people
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 203 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 419
AN ACT requiring vehicle headlights to be on when windshield wipers are also on.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Philip Jones (D), Rep. Marc Plamondon (D), Rep. Erik Johnson (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Front Lights; Windshield Wipers. Amend RSA 266:31, I to read as follows:
I. Every motor vehicle driven during the period from 1/2 hour after sunset to 1/2 hour before sunrise, and whenever rain, snow, or fog shall interfere with the proper view of the road so that persons and vehicles on the way are not clearly discernible at a distance of 1,000 feet ahead, and whenever windshield wipers are active, shall display at least 2 lighted lamps on the front; provided, however, that one suitable lighted lamp on the front of a motorcycle shall be sufficient.
Summary:
This bill amends RSA 266:31, I to require that motor vehicle headlights be turned on whenever windshield wipers are in use, in addition to current requirements for nighttime driving and reduced visibility conditions.
Argument For:
This bill enhances road safety. When windshield wipers are activated, it indicates reduced visibility, and having headlights on improves the visibility of the vehicle to others, thus reducing the likelihood of accidents.
Argument Against:
Potential Argument Against: This bill may place an undue burden on drivers, requiring them to turn on their headlights even in conditions of light rain or mist where they may not otherwise be necessary.
Online Testimony
Currently, 6 people support and 4 people oppose the bill. 60% support of 10 people
Support
I believe in this wholeheartedly. If wipers are on, that means you have compromised visual field. Having your lights on and not just running lights, makes the roads safer.
—Jennifer Suitter, of Merrimack
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 11:20 a.m. in Room 203 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 414-FN
AN ACT prohibiting the division of motor vehicles from suspending a license on the basis of debt owed to a private entity related to the towing or storing of a motor vehicle.
2 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Ellen Read (D), Rep. Tom Mannion (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; License Suspension; Failure to Pay Fines and Fees. Amend RSA 263 by inserting after section 56-g the following new section:
263:56-h License Suspension Prohibited for Unpaid Towing or Storage Fees.
I. Under no circumstances shall the director suspend, revoke, or fail to renew a driver's license for failure to pay removal and storage fees for a vehicle towed or stored for any reason.
II. A person whose driver's license has been suspended for outstanding vehicle removal or storage fees and who is otherwise eligible to drive shall have their driver's license reinstated and shall not be required to pay a reinstatement fee. No later than 30 days after the effective date of this section, the division shall, without requiring a reinstatement fee, reinstate the driver's license or nonresident operating privilege. In cases where a driver's license was not renewed due to outstanding removal and storage fees, the person shall be immediately eligible for license renewal and shall pay the same renewal fee as a driver not under suspension, but not a separate reinstatement fee.
2 License Suspension Restricted. Amend RSA 263:57, I to read as follows:
I. Any justice of [a district or municipal court] the circuit court or of the superior court may suspend any license issued to any person, for a period not to exceed 30 days, after a conviction of an offense under the provisions of this title, after [due hearing] a hearing where the driver had reasonable notice of the possibility of license suspension prior to the hearing, for any cause not prohibited in RSA 263, which he or she may deem sufficient.
Summary:
This bill prohibits the New Hampshire Division of Motor Vehicles from suspending driver's licenses for failure to pay towing or storage fees.
Argument For:
This bill protects drivers from license suspension due to circumstances beyond their direct control, such as unexpected towing fees. It ensures that individuals' driving privileges are not jeopardized solely because of outstanding debt to private towing companies. This promotes fairness and prevents the disproportionate impact on low-income individuals.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could potentially reduce the incentive for drivers to pay their towing and storage fees, leading to increased unpaid debts owed to towing companies.
Online Testimony
Currently, 10 people support and 1 people oppose the bill. 91% support of 11 people
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 203 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 439-FN
AN ACT relative to non-driving related violations and driver's license suspension.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Daniel Veilleux (D), Rep. Laura Telerski (D), Rep. Buzz Scherr (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 License Suspension; Criteria for Suspension. Amend RSA 263:56-a, I(b) to read as follows:
(b) Fails to pay a fine or other penalty imposed in connection with a conviction of any offense which constitutes a moving violation under RSA 265:79, RSA 265-A:2, RSA 265-A:3, or RSA 270:29-b, and which a court has determined he or she is able to pay, or issues a bad check in payment of a fine or other penalty; or
…
3 Judicial Finding of Cause to Suspend License. Amend RSA 263:57, I to read as follows:
I. Any justice of a [district or municipal] circuit court or of the superior court may suspend [any license issued to any person] a person's driver's license, for a period not to exceed 30 days, [ after a conviction of an offense under the provisions of this title, after due hearing, for any cause which he may deem sufficient.] when such person has been convicted of an offense under the provisions of this title and license suspension is neither proscribed by RSA 263:56 and RSA 263:56-a nor specifically prescribed in any other statutory section, so long as the license holder had reasonable notice of the possibility of license suspension prior to the hearing and an opportunity at the hearing to present evidence to contest such suspension.
4 Repeal. The following are repealed:
I. RSA 263:56, I(f), relative to authority to suspend or revoke driver's license.
II. RSA 263:56, I(i), relative to authority to suspend or revoke driver's license.
III. RSA 263:56-a, I(a), relative to suspension or revocation for default, noncompliance, or nonpayment of fine.
IV. RSA 263:56-c, relative to suspension for default in another jurisdiction.
Summary:
This bill eliminates driver's license suspension in New Hampshire for reasons unrelated to motor vehicle offenses.
Argument For:
This bill prevents the disproportionate punishment of individuals facing financial hardship. Losing a driver's license for non-driving-related offenses can lead to job loss and further financial instability, hindering their ability to comply with court orders. Alternative enforcement methods should be explored to achieve compliance without such detrimental consequences.
Argument Against:
This bill could decrease state revenue from license restoration fees and potentially impact the Highway Fund. The loss of the ability to suspend licenses for non-driving offenses may reduce compliance with court orders, such as child support payments, impacting the effectiveness of enforcement.
Online Testimony
Currently, 21 people support and 2 people oppose the bill. 91% support of 23 people
Opposition
.Taking away someone’s drivers license for non driving offenses can greatly exacerbate an individual’s problems. For example, taking someone’s license for not paying child support can cause a person to lose their job for lack of means to get there. That cannot help to enable making those support payments. There has to be a better way to accomplish compliance.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:20 p.m. in Room 203 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
House Ways And Means
HB 530-FN
AN ACT increasing the amount of revenue transfered from the real estate transfer tax to the affordable housing fund.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Jessica LaMontagne (D), Rep. Ellen Read (D), Rep. Hope Damon (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Taxation; Tax on Transfer of Real Property; Distribution of Funds. Amend RSA 78-B:13, III to read as follows:
III. Annually, on or before October 1, the commissioner shall direct the state treasurer to transfer the sum of $10,000,000 [$5,000,000] from revenue collected pursuant to the tax imposed by RSA 78-B:1 to the affordable housing fund established in RSA 204-C:57.
Summary:
This bill increases the amount of money transferred annually from the real estate transfer tax to the affordable housing fund to $10,000,000.
Argument For:
This bill addresses the critical shortage of affordable housing in New Hampshire. Increasing funding for affordable housing can alleviate social problems and improve the lives of many New Hampshire residents. The reallocation of funds, rather than a tax increase, makes this a fiscally responsible approach to a significant societal need. The increased funding will help support vulnerable populations, such as those with developmental disabilities, in finding suitable housing.
Argument Against:
This bill diverts significant funds from the general fund and the education trust fund, potentially impacting essential state services and programs. The bill's supporters fail to adequately address concerns about the impact on other important state programs, such as the education trust fund, when funding is diverted to the affordable housing fund. Some opponents argue that the bill unfairly prioritizes support for real estate developers at the expense of other important state needs.
Online Testimony
Currently, 65 people support and 12 people oppose the bill. 84% support of 77 people
Support
Affordable housing is one of the biggest barriers to folks moving to NH
Affordable Housing is such a crisis in New Hampshire that worsens other social problems. The bill does not increase the amount of real estate transfer tax but rather reallocates $5 million dollars to help increase affordable housing. Increasing affordable housing may ultimately do more for New Hampshire than the loss of income to the general fund or education fund.
I support this bill to increase the amount of revenue transferred from the real estate transfer tax to the affordable housing fund.
—Kristen Collins, of Portsmouth
I am a single parent serving on the Board ... Housing Committee Chair for the non-profit Our Place NH ... We desperately need models for housing ... Please support HB530, as this bill will increase the amount of revenue transferred ... providing more funding for critically needed affordable housing in our State.
Opposition
I oppose this bill, as an annual $50,000 cap on charitable gaming revenues would negatively and significantly impact NH non-profit organizations' abilities to continue providing vital services to their constituents.
Stop gifting taxpayer treasury to multimillionaire developers. They need to risk their own money on selling their buildings. We are capitalism, not socialism.
Nonprofits rely upon these revenues to provide critical services for our communities. Taxing their property will severely restrict their operating budgets and force closure of vital services provided to all NH residents . These agencies are already facing financial challenges, adding one more will break their backs.
—Kathleen Turner, of Hampstead
I am writing today to urge you to vote no on HB625 ... This measure poses a significant threat to the property tax status of nonprofits in NH ... Balancing budgets by taxing nonprofits risks undermining essential services ... I urge you to vote no on HB625.
—Alexandra Ascani, of Barrington
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 531-FN
AN ACT setting annual limits on the amount of charitable gaming revenue which may be distributed to one charitable organization.
Bill text (PDF) - Docket Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Dick Ames (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Pari-Mutuel Pools, and Distribution of Tax Thereon; Tax. Amend RSA 284:23, I(d) to read as follows:
(d) … Each licensee that conducts wagering on historic horse races shall distribute 35 percent of the amount collected under this paragraph to charitable organizations with whom the licensee contracts on each licensed game date, provided that no licensee shall distribute more than $50,000 of said collected amount in any calendar year to any single charitable organization. Any excess above such collected amount shall be paid to the lottery commission for use according to the special fund established under RSA 284:21-j. …
2 Games of Chance, Facilities. Amend RSA 287-D:19, III(f) to read as follows:
(f) No charitable organization shall receive less than 35 percent of the gross revenues from any games of chance minus any prizes paid, provided that no licensee shall distribute more than $50,000 of said revenues minus any prizes paid in any calendar year to any single charitable organization. Any excess above such collected amount shall instead be paid to the lottery commission for use according to the special fund established under RSA 284:21-j.
Summary:
This bill limits charitable organization winnings from historic horse race wagering and games of chance to $50,000 annually, with excess revenue going to the lottery commission.
Argument For:
This bill ensures a fairer distribution of funds from historic horse race wagering and games of chance, making them more accessible to a wider range of charitable organizations. A cap prevents a small number of organizations from receiving a disproportionate share of the funds.
Argument Against:
This bill jeopardizes the funding of numerous charitable organizations that rely heavily on revenue from historic horse race wagering and games of chance to provide vital services to the community. Reducing their funding could lead to service cuts or program closures impacting many vulnerable populations.
Online Testimony
Currently, 7 people support and 381 people oppose the bill. 98% oppose of 388 people
Support
With such a shortage of affordable housing, this will incentive developers to include affordable housing in their plans.
I'm clearly in the minority here, supporting this bill, but it's because I support access to this funding by the NH nonprofit community and I think a cap on maximum payout to a single organization makes good sense. The funds should be accessible to more nonprofit organizations doing good work in NH. While I don't agree that excess funds should be handed to the Lottery Commission, I think the idea of a cap is smart as long as more nonprofits can take advantage of this program which is currently very imbalanced and benefits fewer organizations than it should.
Opposition
Non profit organizations have struggled since the pandemic and need the funds provided by the gaming partners.
have a family member who is a long-term member of the Krempels Brain Injury Center. ... I saw firsthand how KBIC changed the lives of so many and how many depend on this program to better their new lives after brain injury.
Rep. Ames' bill to cap non-profits' revenue from charitable gaming will negatively impact every non-profit in NH. ... The Lottery Commission will never accomplish the often life-saving, life-sustaining aid that NH nonprofits provide with those funds!. ... NH students and citizens will never get from the Lottery Commission the essential services that charitable gaming funds allow nonprofits to provide.
—Juanita Niemczyk, of Newmarket
Big Brothers Big Sisters of NH relies on this funding to support the health of the NH workforce. ... This bill would, if implemented, cut thousands of dollars from the budget BBBS budget, threatening access to these services.
—Kathrine Mansfield, of Danville
This is critical funding for nonprofits in NH, that provide a critical infrastructure of support for soo many in our state.
I am a combat veteran of the United States Navy. ... This organization is a tremendous resource to people who are underserved and often forgotten. ... Please do not cut these funds off from organizations like Krempels that rely on this funding.
Charities need to keep all the money they raise. Vital services need these funds to survive.
—Stephen Barker, of Springfield
I strongly oppose this bill. ... For the legislature to attempt to limit nonprofit capacity for doing good by legislation like this is shameful and short-sighted.
Non profits and charities must be protected as they provide essential services for education, domestic violence prevention and services to protect children, cancer patients and survivors, as well as animal rights groups.
—Andrea Goldsworthy, of Portsmouth
My name is Kathy Beebe and I am the Executive Director of HAVEN. ... HAVEN strongly opposes HB 531. ... Capping the amount of revenue that has been specifically dedicated for the nonprofit charitable sector would have a negative impact on HAVEN. ... I again ask you to please oppose HB531.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:30 a.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 588-FN
AN ACT relative to the distribution of revenues generated from historic horse racing pari-mutuel pools.
3 sponsors, Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Sallie Fellows (D), Rep. Jerry Stringham (D), Rep. Terry Spahr (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Pari-Mutuel Pools, and Distribution of Tax Thereon; Tax. Amend RSA 284:23, I(d) to read as follows:
(d) Each person, association, or corporation licensed to conduct historic horse race wagering shall collect a sum equal to 25 percent of revenues generated from historic horse race pari-mutuel pools after breakage and payment of winnings to patrons[. Each licensee that conducts wagering on historic horse races shall distribute 35 percent of the amount collected under this paragraph to charitable organizations with whom the licensee contracts on each licensed game date. Charitable organizations from within the executive council district where the licensee is located shall be given preference, and no charitable organization shall be eligible for more than 10 dates of revenue under this section, within a 12 month period. Each licensee operating historic horse racing machines must contract with 2 licensed charitable organizations for each game date. The remainder of the total amount collected by the licensee under this paragraph shall be paid] and pay it to the lottery commission for use according to the special fund established under RSA 284:21-j.
Summary:
This bill mandates that entities licensed for historic horse race wagering collect 25 percent of their revenue (after breakage and patron winnings) and remit it to the lottery commission.
Argument For:
This bill increases revenue for the state lottery commission, which can then be used to fund state programs and initiatives. The fiscal note projects an increase of approximately $12.5 million annually for the state's education trust fund. This additional revenue can help address pressing state needs without imposing new taxes.
Argument Against:
This bill diverts substantial funding from charitable organizations that rely on these funds to provide critical services to vulnerable populations. Numerous testimonies highlight the negative impact this will have on organizations providing essential services, such as support for brain injury survivors, children's wish granting, and aid to victims of domestic violence. The loss of this funding could force some nonprofits to reduce or cease operations altogether.
Online Testimony
Currently, 2 people support and 293 people oppose the bill. 99% oppose of 295 people
Support
I strongly recommend that this bill not be passed it would hert manny organization that are supported by these charitable organizations
Opposition
Many nonprofit organizations benefit greatly from the charitable giving program in NH. I do not support eliminating this program in any way.
Charitable gaming was put in place in New Hampshire to support charities. Nonprofits rely on these revenues to provide critical services to our community. The Lottery commission is already getting a fair share of the revenue to help on State level.
I work for a nonprofit and this limits our funding for programs and projects
Non-profits need this vital money and know how to utilize it better than the lottery commission.
I strongly oppose this bill. The bill decreases funding for non profit organizations that need the resources to provide critical services for New Hampshire residents.
—Tabitha Coykendall, of Plymouth
Charitable gaming was allowed in this state specifically for the purpose of supporting non-profits, which provide a lot of services that the state of NH does not. The Lottery Commission took in $631 million in sales last year. Chartiable gaming gave non-profits $9 million. How much more money does the Lottery need? This $9 million funds soup kitchens, shelters, Boys & Girls Clubs, arts organizations, and food pantries. You this money and you are going to eliminate services for the most vulnerable people in New Hampshire.
Charitable gaming was put in place to support charities and now you want to limit how much they receive.
Exeter Area GFWC’s most recent impact report ... highlights several important projects. ... We have increased our scholarships to 6 students. ... Each scholarship was for $2000... Our donations have doubled in amount and increased in number; 35 totaling $31895. ... We purposefully focused our search for small, yet worthy, organizations. ... Some that stand out are: Contributing to the purchase of an accessible van. ... Contributing to the NH Veterans’ Cemetery Women Veteran’s Monument. ... Scholarships for Campers. ... The Alzheimer’s Association. ... Without your partnership, we could not help as many people
—Amy Hammershoy, President Exeter Area GFWC
Just because this type of gambling has found a way around the rules does not mean it should be exempt from the expectation that gambling profits be distributed back into the community. ... I do not oppose an adults right to bet their own money. ... It would be far better if in good faith these establishments commit to donating a portion of what is likely to be large profits.
I oppose this bill as I am a Secretary for 2 NH 501C3. 'The Peach Project' donates 100% of proceeds to the NH Food Bank. "EHS Golf Boosters' uses all proceeds to benefit the Exeter High School Golf Team to fund uniforms, bags, bus travel, tee times etc. and is used solely to support the golf team.
—Jennifer Sessler, of Brentwood
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
HB 591-FN
AN ACT expanding hours for keno gaming on weekends.
5 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Rep. Brian Cole (R), Rep. Keith Ammon (R), Rep. Joe Alexander (R), Rep. Mike Ouellet (R), Rep. Lorie Ball (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Operation of Keno Games. Amend RSA 284:47, I to read as follows:
I. A licensee may operate keno games at its business during weekdays between the hours of 11 a.m. and 1 a.m., and on Saturdays and Sundays between the hours of 8 a.m. and 1 a.m.
Summary:
This bill expands permitted keno game operating hours on weekends to 8 a.m. to 1 a.m., while maintaining weekday hours of 11 a.m. to 1 a.m.
Argument For:
This bill will increase state revenue by extending keno game operating hours. The Lottery Commission projects significant additional revenue for the state's education trust fund. This increase in revenue will provide more resources for education without imposing additional taxes.
Argument Against:
This bill could negatively impact non-profit organizations by potentially increasing competition for limited charitable gaming revenue. The additional revenue may not fully offset any potential losses from competing fundraising efforts.
Online Testimony
Currently, 1 people support and 1 people oppose the bill. 50% support of 2 people
Opposition
Non profits should not be responsible for making up for the state's short fall of income. Non profits are for the good of your state, your constituents, your families. Interfering with their hard earned income stream is unfair. You have other options.
—Jane Gallagher Hooper, of Francestown
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 202-204 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
Senate Commerce
SB 280-FN
AN ACT requiring a food delivery service to enter into an agreement with a food service establishment or food retail store before offering delivery service from that restaurant.
6 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Denise Ricciardi (R), Rep. John Potucek (R), Sen. Suzanne Prentiss (D), Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D), Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Trade and Commerce; Food Delivery Platform. RSA 359-S is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
CHAPTER 359-S
FOOD DELIVERY PLATFORM
359-S:1 Food Delivery Platforms.
…
II. A food delivery platform shall not arrange for the delivery of an order from a food service establishment or retail food store without first obtaining an agreement with the food service establishment or retail food store expressly authorizing the food delivery platform to take orders and deliver meals prepared by the food service establishment or retail food store.
III. Any food delivery platform that violates this chapter shall be guilty of a violation and fined $100 for each delivery made without the agreement required in paragraph II.
Summary:
This bill requires food delivery platforms to obtain agreements from food service establishments and retail food stores before offering their delivery services.
Potential Argument For:
This bill protects food service establishments and retail food stores by ensuring they have a contractual agreement with delivery platforms, providing clarity and control over their services.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could increase regulatory burdens on food delivery platforms and potentially limit consumer access to convenient delivery options.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 100 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 89
AN ACT enabling non-citizens who are legally authorized to work in the United States to deliver alcohol.
8 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Denise Ricciardi (R), Rep. John Potucek (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Debra Altschiller (D), Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R), Sen. Tim McGough (R), Sen. Pat Long (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Employee Restrictions; Non-Citizens. Amend RSA 179:20, I to read as follows:
I. No person, except a citizen of the United States or [legal resident alien] legally authorized to work, shall be employed to sell or deliver any liquor or beverage.
Summary:
This bill amends RSA 179:20, I, to allow non-citizens who are legally authorized to work in the United States to deliver alcohol.
Potential Argument For:
This bill expands employment opportunities in the alcohol delivery industry. It removes an unnecessary barrier to employment for individuals legally permitted to work in the United States. This change promotes inclusivity and economic participation.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could potentially impact employment of citizens who might otherwise fill these roles.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:45 a.m. in Room 100 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 79-FN
AN ACT enabling the use of self-pour automated systems by liquor commission licensees.
9 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Rep. Jason Osborne (R), Rep. Michael Moffett (R), Rep. Ross Berry (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R), Sen. Tim McGough (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Self-Automated Pour Systems. Amend RSA 178 by inserting after section 22 the following new section:
178:22-a Self-Automated Pour Systems.
…
II. Automated systems may be used by a licensee under the following conditions:
(a) A licensee may offer self-service of beer, cider not exceeding 6 percent alcohol by volume, or wine from an automated system on the premises of the licensee.
(b) No licensee shall allow an automated system to be used by patrons without first providing notification to the liquor commission of the licensee's intent to use an automated system.
(c) The sale of the alcoholic beverage through the automated system shall be deemed to occur between the licensee and the patron.
(d) Every licensee offering a patron self-service through an automated system shall maintain constant video monitoring of the automated system at all times during which the licensee is open to the public. The licensee shall keep recorded footage from the video monitoring for at least 60 days and shall provide the footage, upon request, to the department or any authorized law enforcement agent.
(e) A licensee shall offer to a patron who prepays for an RFID device a prorated refund if the patron dose not serve himself or herself the full allowable amount of beer, cider, or wine from the automated system.
III. Automated systems shall have the following requirements: (a) The automated system shall only be accessible by an activated RFID device that an employee or patron receives from the licensee or the licensee's designee. Each time a patron activates or reactivates the RFID device, the automated system may dispense to the patron an amount up to the quantity limit. The full amount of the quantity limit need not be served at once. No more than the quantity limit shall be served per each activation of the RFID device.
(b) No beer, cider, or wine shall be sold, served, or dispensed from an automated system unless the brand name of the beer, cider or wine manufacturer's product corresponding to the container from the beverage is drawn is affixed or imprinted on a card, sign, plate, button, screen, or key of the dispensing spigot or nozzle. The automated system shall prohibit the intermixing of alcoholic beverages of different brands or labels while dispensing.
(c) The automated system shall not dispense from or utilize a container other than the original container as received from the manufacturer or wholesaler.
(d) No automated system shall allow beer, cider, or wine to flow through copper or lead tubing unless such tubing is isolated so that the alcoholic beverage does not come in direct contact with the copper or the lead.
(e) The automated system shall be located in the main portion of the barroom or permit premises in an area that is constantly monitored by the licensee and visible to the public.
IV. RFID devices shall have the following requirements:
(a) An RFID device shall be automatically deactivated and rendered unusable by a patron if it:
(1) No longer contains a volume credit or monetary credit; or
(2) Has been used to dispense the quantity limit.
(b) The automated system shall prohibit a patron from obtaining different types of alcoholic beverage during the same activation. For the purposes of this section the types of alcoholic beverage are beer, wine, and cider.
(c) The licensee shall maintain the ability to activate and deactivate all RFID devices at any time, and shall store the devices in a secure location that is not freely and readily accessible to patrons.
(d) Each RFID device shall only be used during the hours that the licensee is allowed to serve alcoholic beverages according to its license under this chapter. All RFID devices shall be deactivated upon the conclusion of legal service hours or when the premises closes, whichever occurs first.
Summary:
This bill defines and regulates self-pour automated beverage dispensing systems in licensed on-premises establishments, outlining operational requirements, safety protocols, and record-keeping procedures.
Potential Argument For:
This bill could increase efficiency and reduce labor costs for businesses by allowing for self-service alcohol dispensing, potentially leading to increased revenue and customer satisfaction.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill might raise concerns about increased underage drinking or overconsumption due to the ease of self-service alcohol dispensing, necessitating thorough monitoring and enforcement.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 100 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 80-FN
AN ACT consolidating licensing, auditing, and enforcement responsibilities for wholesale and retail e-cigarettes sales under the liquor commission.
3 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Rep. Susan Almy (D), Sen. Howard Pearl (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Notice to Liquor Commission. Amend RSA 78:23 to read as follows:
78:23 Notice to Liquor Commission. The commissioner shall provide notice to the liquor commission of any violation of this chapter by a retailer, [whose license has been suspended or revoked by the commission] wholesaler, or manufacturer.
2 Definitions; Tobacco Product. Amend RSA 126-K:2, XI to read as follows:
XI. "Tobacco product" means any product containing, made or derived from tobacco or nicotine that is intended for human consumption, including but not limited to cigarettes, electronic cigarettes, loose tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and cigars. Tobacco products shall not include premium cigars or any product that has been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration for sale as a tobacco cessation product and is being marketed and sold exclusively for such approved use. [or derived from tobacco including, but not limited to, cigarettes, smoking tobacco, cigars, chewing tobacco, snuff, pipe tobacco, smokeless tobacco, and smokeless cigarettes. "Tobacco product" shall not include drugs, devices, or combination products authorized for sale by the United States Food and Drug Administration, as those terms are defined in the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.]
…
5 Licenses; Manufacture, Wholesale Sales. Amend RSA 178:2, I to read as follows:
I. The commission may issue licenses to individuals, partnerships, limited liability companies and partnerships, or corporations but not to unincorporated associations, on applications duly made therefor for the manufacture, warehousing, sale, offer for sale, or solicitation of orders for sale of liquor or beverages and for the manufacture, wholesale sales, or retail sales of tobacco products or e-cigarettes within the state, subject to the limitations and restrictions imposed by this title. The commission shall keep a full record of all applications for licenses, of all recommendations for and remonstrances against the granting of licenses, and of the action taken on such applications.
6 Retail Tobacco Licenses. Amend RSA 178:19-a to read as follows:
178:19-a Retail Tobacco [License] Licenses.
…
VII. All retail tobacco licenses shall purchase their tobacco products from a licensed tobacco products wholesaler as defined in RSA 175:1, LXIV-f.
VIII. Each retailer shall keep complete and accurate records of all tobacco stamps purchased and all tobacco products manufactured, produced, imported, distributed, bought, and sold in this state. Complete records shall be safely preserved for 3 years to ensure permanency and accessibility for inspection by the liquor commission.
…
7 New Sections; Tobacco Products; Licenses. Amend RSA 178 by inserting after section 19-d the following new sections:
178:19-e Tobacco Products Manufacturer.
I. No tobacco products manufacturer shall engage in the business of selling or distributing tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, in this state, unless it is registered with the secretary of state, it has obtained a certificate of good standing from the department of revenue administration, and it is licensed as a tobacco products manufacturer in this state, as applicable.
II. The fees for tobacco products manufacturer licenses and license renewals shall be as determined in RSA 178:29, V-a(a) and (d):
III. Any tobacco products manufacturer of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, that ceases business operations requiring a license under this chapter during the license period shall inform the liquor commission in writing and relinquish its license to the liquor commission within 30 days after ceasing business operations.
IV. Each manufacturer shall keep complete and accurate records of all tobacco tamps purchased and all tobacco products manufactured, produced, imported, distributed, bought, and sold in this state. Complete records shall be safely preserved for 3 years to ensure permanency and accessibility for inspection by the liquor commission.
V. The commission shall adopt rules under RSA 541-A relative to this section.
178:19-f Tobacco Product Wholesaler.
I. No tobacco products wholesaler shall engage in the business of selling or distributing tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, in this state, unless it is registered with the secretary of state, it has obtained a certificate of good standing from the department of revenue administration, and it is licensed as a tobacco products wholesaler in this state, as applicable.
II. A wholesaler shall have a separate license for each location.
III. The fees for wholesaler licenses and license renewals shall be as determined in RSA 178:29, V-a(a) and (d):
IV. All wholesale tobacco licensees shall purchase their tobacco products from a licensed tobacco products manufacturer as defined in RSA 175:1 LXIV-f.
V. Any wholesaler of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes, that ceases business operations requiring a license under this chapter during the license period shall inform the liquor commission in writing and relinquish its license to the liquor commission within 30 days after ceasing business operations.
VI. Each wholesaler, shall keep complete and accurate records of all tobacco stamps purchased and all tobacco products manufactured, produced, imported, distributed, bought, and sold in this state. Complete records shall be safely preserved for 3 years to ensure permanency and accessibility for inspection by the liquor commission.
VII. The commission shall adopt rules under RSA 541-A relative to this section.
178:19-g Tobacco Product Seizure.
I. The commission with or without process may seize:
(a) Tobacco products taxed under RSA 78 that are possessed or controlled by a person for the purpose of selling or removing the tobacco products in violation of this chapter or RSA 78;
(b) Tobacco products that are removed, deposited, or concealed by a person intending to avoid payment of taxes imposed by RSA 78;
(c) An automobile, truck, boat, conveyance, or other type of vehicle used to remove or transport tobacco products by a person intending to avoid payment of taxes imposed by RSA 78; and
(d) Equipment, paraphernalia, or other tangible personal property used by a person intending to avoid payment of taxes imposed by RSA 78 found in the place where the tobacco products are found.
II. An item seized under this section is forfeited to the state and remains in the custody of the commission for disposition as provided by this section. The seized item is not subject to replevin.
III. The seizure, forfeiture, and sale of tobacco products or property under this section, with or without court action, is not a defense to criminal prosecution for an offense or from liability for a penalty under RSA 78 or this chapter.
8 Fees; Tobacco. RSA 178:29, V-a is repealed and reenacted to read as follows:
V-a. Annual tobacco licenses shall be as follows:
(a) Tobacco manufacturer, $100.
(b) Tobacco vending machine license, $35, plus $6 for each machine.
(c) Tobacco sampling license, $6.
(d) Tobacco product wholesaler, $250.
9 New Paragraphs; Penalties; Tobacco. Amend RSA 179:58 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraphs:
III. Any person who sells, offers for sale, or possesses with intent to sell in this state any tobacco products or e-cigarettes without the appropriate license, as provided in this title, shall be subject to criminal penalties as provided in RSA 21-J:39.
IV. Notwithstanding RSA 21-J:14, information regarding licenses issued pursuant to this chapter and RSA 126-K shall be public records.
Summary:
This bill transfers the licensing, auditing, and enforcement of wholesale and retail e-cigarette sales to the liquor commission, expanding its regulatory authority over tobacco products.
Potential Argument For:
This bill streamlines the regulation of e-cigarettes by consolidating oversight under a single agency, improving efficiency and enforcement.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may overburden the liquor commission with additional responsibilities, potentially hindering its ability to effectively regulate alcoholic beverages.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:15 a.m. in Room 100 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 87-FN
AN ACT relative to one day liquor license requirements and making salons and barber shops eligible for on-premise licenses.
5 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. David Watters (D), Rep. Carol McGuire (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R), Sen. Tim McGough (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Subparagraph; On-Premises Licenses; For-Profit Organizations. Amend RSA 178:22, V by inserting after subparagraph (l) the following new subparagraph:
(l-a) One Day Licenses for For-Profit Organizations.
(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of RSA 178:2, I, the commission may issue a limited license to any responsible individual representing a for-profit group or organization approved by the commission.
(2) Events held under this license shall be limited to 500 or less patrons. No more than 6 licenses shall be issued to any one entity in a calendar year.
(3) Such license shall authorize the licensee to sell, on premises approved by the commission, beverages, specialty beverages, and liquor on the approved premises.
(4) No license shall be issued under subparagraph (l-a)(1) unless the organization's representative obtains:
(A) Official approval of the chief of the local fire department as to the safety of the premises.
(B) Official approval of the local health department concerning sanitary accommodations.
(C) Official approval of the chief of police as to accessibility of the premises. Written statements from such officials shall accompany the application for the license. Such application shall be filed with the commission 15 days before the date on which the license is needed.
(5) No person under the age of 18 shall be allowed in those areas where beverages, specialty beverages, and liquor are served, unless accompanied by a parent, legal guardian, or adult spouse. The selectmen of the town in which such licenses are held may, at their discretion, assign police officers to the premises where liquor, beverages, or specialty beverages are being served.
(6) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the commission or its investigators may suspend without warning any license issued under subparagraph (l-a)(1) if, in their opinion, such sale of liquor, beverages, specialty beverages is contrary to the public interest.
2 Free Tastings. Amend RSA 179:44, II to read as follows:
II. Notwithstanding paragraph I, beverage manufacturers, liquor manufacturers, rectifiers, beverage vendors, brew pubs, wholesale distributors and their liquor or wine vendors, their liquor and wine representatives, domestic wine manufacturers, and on-premises and off-premises licensees may conduct beverage, liquor, or wine tasting, as applicable, on [licensed] premises approved by the commission. …
3 New Subparagraph; Barber; Salon; Spa. Amend RSA 178:22, V by inserting after subparagraph (v) the following new subparagraph:
(w) The commission may issue a cocktail lounge license to a business currently licensed through the office of professional licensure and certification as a barber, hair salon, or spa to serve alcoholic beverages and liquor to customers who are receiving services from said establishment. The service of alcoholic beverages and liquor shall be limited to the scheduled appointment time of the patron receiving services.
(1) The license under this chapter will authorize the holder to serve alcoholic beverages and liquor for free or for a fee. The licensee shall keep records of the alcohol type, quantity, and patron served. Such records shall be retained by the licensed facility and shall be made available to the commission upon request.
(2) For the purposes of this subparagraph, persons under the age of 18 years shall be allowed in the cocktail lounge without a parent, legal guardian, or adult spouse.
Summary:
This bill allows for-profit organizations to obtain one-day liquor licenses, permits free tastings at commission-approved premises, and enables barber shops, salons, and spas to obtain cocktail lounge licenses to serve alcohol to clients during appointments.
Potential Argument For:
This bill expands opportunities for businesses and organizations by allowing for-profit groups to host events with alcohol, increasing revenue potential. It streamlines the process for free tastings and adds convenience for clients by permitting alcohol service at select businesses.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could potentially lead to increased alcohol consumption and related issues such as drunk driving and underage drinking. The reduced regulatory oversight might compromise public safety and increase the risk of irresponsible alcohol service.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:30 a.m. in Room 100 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
Senate Education
SB 99-FN
AN ACT relative to regional career and technical education agreements.
15 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. David Watters (D), Rep. Rick Ladd (R), Rep. Glenn Cordelli (R), Rep. Patricia Cornell (D), Rep. Kristin Noble (R), Sen. Sharon Carson (R), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Cindy Rosenwald (D), Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D), Sen. Donovan Fenton (D), Sen. Debra Altschiller (D), Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R), Sen. Victoria Sullivan (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Regional Career and Technical Education Agreements. Amend RSA 188-E:1-a, III to read as follows:
III. … Students from sending districts shall have access to CTE programming on an equal basis as students from receiving districts. …
2 New Paragraph; Regional Career and Technical Education Agreements. Amend RSA 188-E:1-a by inserting after paragraph V the following new paragraph:
VI. Each RCTEA shall develop a CTE access program ("program") by January 1, 2026, to allow students from sending schools to enroll either part-time or full time in academic courses at the receiving school.
(a) Student eligible to participate in a receiving school program shall have been accepted and enrolled in one or more CTE class at the receiving school.
(b) Students seeking participation in the program shall be eligible for and have access to both sending and receiving RCTEA apportionment seats on the same basis as any other sending or receiving district student.
(c) Sending school students taking fewer than 3 non-CTE classes shall be considered part-time and shall be designated part-time program students.
(d) Students taking 3 or more non-CTE classes shall be considered full-time and shall be designated full time program students.
(e) Tuition for part-time program students and full-time program students shall be as follows:
(1) For part-time program students, sending schools shall pay to receiving schools an amount equal to not less than 80 percent of that district's average cost per pupil as determined by the department of education using the most recent available data as reported by the district to the department, divided by 5 times the number of credits that the part-time program student is enrolled in.
…
4 Tuition. Amend RSA 188-E:7, I to read as follows:
I. The department of education is authorized to pay from its regular budget tuition for full or part-time sending district students, attending programs at designated career and technical education centers or designated career and technical education programs at other comprehensive high schools, whose residence is in a district where the high school of normal attendance does not offer a similar career and technical education program, including students qualified to attend a receiving school under RSA 188-E:1-a, VI. Students attending a non-public school or chartered public school, the location of which is in closer proximity to a regional CTE center than the school to which their district of residence would send students for CTE, may enroll in the regional CTE center in closer proximity to the non-public school or chartered public school the student attends.
Summary:
This bill expands access to career and technical education (CTE) by requiring regional CTE agreements to include programs allowing full- and part-time enrollment for students from sending schools, and it clarifies tuition and transportation responsibilities.
Potential Argument For:
This bill improves educational equity by ensuring that students in sending districts have equal access to CTE programs, regardless of their school's location.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may impose significant unanticipated financial burdens on sending districts and the state due to the indeterminable costs associated with tuition, transportation, and program participation.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 101 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 100-FN
AN ACT relative to violations of the prohibition on teaching discrimination.
6 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. Regina Birdsell (R), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Howard Pearl (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Repeal. RSA 193:40, IV, relative to violations of the prohibition on teaching discrimination, is repealed.
Summary:
This bill repeals RSA 193:40, IV, which designates violations of the prohibition against teaching discrimination as violations of the educator code of conduct, thus removing disciplinary actions against educators for teaching deemed discriminatory from the state board of education's purview.
Potential Argument For:
This bill streamlines the educator code of conduct by removing a provision that adds an additional layer of disciplinary action for teaching discrimination, potentially reducing administrative burden. It simplifies the process of addressing such violations, allowing focus on other aspects of educator conduct.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill removes a crucial mechanism for holding educators accountable for discriminatory teaching practices.[1] Eliminating this specific provision within the educator code of conduct weakens protections against discrimination in the classroom and may embolden educators who engage in such behavior.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:15 a.m. in Room 101 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 102-FN
AN ACT making informational materials regarding type 1 diabetes available on the department of education website.
11 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Ruth Ward (R), Rep. Rick Ladd (R), Rep. Wayne MacDonald (R), Rep. Katelyn Kuttab (R), Rep. Hope Damon (D), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Suzanne Prentiss (D), Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. David Rochefort (R), Sen. Victoria Sullivan (R), Sen. Pat Long (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; School Health Services; Informational Materials Regarding Type 1 Diabetes. Amend RSA 200 by inserting after section 40-c the following new section:
200:40-d Informational Materials Regarding Type 1 Diabetes.
I. The department of education, in consultation with the department of health and human services, shall develop or identify existing informational materials on type 1 diabetes meeting the requirements of paragraph II. …
II. The informational materials may be in the form of links to existing related resources posted to the websites of any entities the department of education deems appropriate, but shall include, at minimum:
(a) A description of type 1 diabetes;
(b) A description of risk factors and warning signs associated with type 1 diabetes;
(c) A recommendation that the parents or guardians of students displaying warning signs associated with type 1 diabetes should consult with the student’s primary care provider to determine if screening for type 1 diabetes is appropriate;
(d) A description of the screening process for type 1 diabetes and the implications of test results; and
(e) A recommendation that, following a type 1 diagnosis, parents or guardians should consult with the student’s primary care provider to develop an appropriate treatment plan.
Summary:
This bill directs the New Hampshire Department of Education, in consultation with the Department of Health and Human Services, to create and make available online informational materials about type 1 diabetes for parents and students, requiring local school districts to disseminate this information.
Potential Argument For:
This bill improves public health by providing readily accessible information about type 1 diabetes, enabling early detection and treatment. The readily available information will better equip parents to recognize warning signs, leading to earlier diagnosis and improved management of the disease. This proactive approach will contribute to better health outcomes for children in New Hampshire.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may place an undue administrative burden on already strained school districts, requiring them to disseminate information without providing funding or specific mechanisms for distribution.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 101 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 206-FN
AN ACT requiring public schools to adopt policies to limit the use of cell phones by students.
7 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Denise Ricciardi (R), Sen. Sharon Carson (R), Sen. Regina Birdsell (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. Donovan Fenton (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Paragraph; Cell Phone Use Policy. Amend RSA 189:1-a by inserting after paragraph IV the following new paragraph:
V. School boards shall develop and adopt a policy governing student cell phone use in schools. Such policy shall prohibit personal device use by students during the school day and be implemented school-wide, with approved exceptions determined by student medical, disability or language proficiency need. Such policy shall be developed in collaboration with any applicable local educator associations and school district parents and shall be reviewed and updated annually. School district policies shall not prohibit students with disabilities from using a device to support their learning as identified by their individualized education program (IEP), plan developed under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C 794, or when required to support emergent multilingual students with appropriate language access programs and services pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Summary:
This bill requires New Hampshire school districts to create and implement policies that regulate student cell phone use during school hours, with exceptions for medical, disability, or language-learning needs.
Potential Argument For:
This bill improves classroom learning and school safety by establishing consistent, school-wide policies regarding cell phone use.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill places an unnecessary administrative burden on school districts and may infringe upon students' rights to use assistive technology or communicate with family members.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:45 a.m. in Room 101 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
Senate Election Law And Municipal Affairs
SB 103-FN-L
AN ACT relative to the number of polling stations that are available for certain towns.
6 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Keith Murphy (R), Rep. Jason Osborne (R), Rep. Diane Pauer (R), Rep. Ross Berry (R), Sen. James Gray (R), Sen. Timothy Lang (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Presidential Elections. Amend RSA 658 by inserting after section 11 the following new section:
658:11-a Additional Polling Places; Presidential Elections. For general elections in which the office of president of the United States is decided, a town or city shall have a minimum of one polling place for every 20,000 registered voters appearing on the checklist as of January 1, 2026, unless a plan to accommodate more than 20,000 registered voters with one location has been submitted to and approved by the secretary of state.
Summary:
This bill requires towns and cities to have at least one polling place for every 20,000 registered voters in presidential elections, unless the secretary of state approves a plan for fewer locations.
Potential Argument For:
This bill improves voter access and reduces wait times by mandating sufficient polling places in presidential elections.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may impose undue financial burdens on smaller towns and cities that lack the resources to establish additional polling places.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:15 a.m. in Room 103 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 104-FN
AN ACT requiring the performance of a machine count at the request of 10 residents who have cast a ballot in the election.
2 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Rep. Jack Flanagan (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Counting and Tabulation to be Public. Amend RSA 659:63 to read as follows:
659:63 Counting and Tabulation to be Public. … A city, town or municipality which uses electronic ballot counting devices shall, at the request of 10 registered voters within that city, town, or municipality who submit a written request for 2 specific elections on the ballot to be verified before 10:00 a.m. on election day, perform a machine count verification before the election results are tabulated. The verification shall compare the physical ballots cast for 2 candidates in 2 different races counted by an electronic ballot counting device voting machine, to those reported on the machine results. If the verification results are found to deviate by plus or minus 0.2 percent from the machine count, all races on the ballot shall be hand counted.
Summary:
This bill amends RSA 659:63 to require a machine count verification at the request of 10 registered voters who submit a written request for two specific races before 10:00 a.m. on election day, comparing the physical ballots to the machine count results; if the deviation exceeds ±0.2 percent, all races will be hand-counted.
Potential Argument For:
This bill increases election transparency and accuracy by allowing for a machine count verification at the request of a small number of voters, ensuring the integrity of election results.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could impose unnecessary costs and delays in election result tabulation, potentially disrupting the electoral process without sufficient evidence of widespread machine counting inaccuracies.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:30 a.m. in Room 103 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 212
AN ACT changing references from "votes" to "ballots" in the laws regarding elections.
2 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. David Rochefort (R), Rep. Katherine Prudhomme-O'Brien (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Elections; Nominations; Number. Amend RSA 655:42, III to read as follows:
III. It shall require the names of registered voters equaling 3 percent of the total ballots [votes] cast at the previous state general election to nominate by nomination papers a political organization.
Summary:
This bill changes all instances of "votes" to "ballots" in election law statutes related to nominations, election procedures, recounts, and associated fees.
Potential Argument For:
This bill clarifies election law terminology by using the more precise term "ballots" instead of "votes," improving clarity and consistency throughout the statutes.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill makes a purely cosmetic change to the election law statutes, substituting "ballots" for "votes" without any substantive effect on the law's operation or outcome.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:45 a.m. in Room 103 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 213-FN
AN ACT relative to absentee voting.
1 sponsor, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. James Gray (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Absentee Voting; Application Forms. Amend RSA 657:4 to read as follows:
657:4 Application Form [Forms].
…
[Absence (Excluding Absence Due to Residence Outside the United States), Religious Observance, and Disability:
I hereby declare that] My Current Registration Status (check one):
_____ I am a duly qualified voter who is currently registered to vote in this town/ward (Requires proof of identity).
_____ I am registered in another New Hampshire town/ward but am not currently registered to vote in this town/ward where I am domiciled (Requires proof of identity and domicile). The town/ward where I am registered is _________________________________.
_____ I am not currently registered to vote in any New Hampshire town/ward and am absent from the town/city where I am domiciled and will be until after the next election, or I am unable to register in person due to a disability, and request that the forms necessary for absentee voter registration be sent to me with the absentee ballot (Requires proof of identity, citizenship, age, and domicile).
How I qualify to vote by absentee ballot (check one):
I [will be entitled] qualify to vote by absentee ballot because (check one):
_____ [I plan to] It is more likely than not that I will be absent on the day of the election from the city, town, or unincorporated place where I am domiciled.
…
_____ I am requesting a ballot for the presidential primary election and [I may be] it is more likely than not that I will be absent on the day of the election from the city, town, or unincorporated place where I am domiciled, but the date of the election has not been announced. …
…
_____ [I cannot] It is more likely than not that I will not be able to appear at my polling place any time during polling hours [at my polling place] because of an employment obligation. For the purposes of this application, the term "employment" shall include the care of children and infirm adults, with or without compensation.
For use only on the Monday immediately prior to the election: [I cannot] It is more likely than not that I will not be able to appear at my polling place on election day due to hazardous travel conditions because the National Weather Service has issued a winter storm warning, blizzard warning, or ice storm warning for election day applicable to my city, town, or unincorporated place and either (check one):
_____ [I am elderly or infirm or I have a physical disability, and] I would otherwise vote in person but I have concerns for my safety traveling in the storm.
Summary:
This bill alters the absentee voting standard to "It is more likely than not" that a voter will be absent and mandates proof of identity, citizenship, age, and domicile for absentee ballot applications.
Potential Argument For:
This bill strengthens election integrity by requiring verifiable proof of identity and a more stringent standard for absentee voting eligibility.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could disenfranchise eligible voters by imposing stricter requirements for absentee voting and potentially increasing the burden on voters.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 10:00 a.m. in Room 103 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
Senate Energy And Natural Resources
SB 108-FN
AN ACT relative to the department of energy.
14 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Rep. James Spillane (R), Rep. Michael Moffett (R), Rep. Jose Cambrils (R), Rep. Alvin See (R), Sen. David Watters (D), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Cindy Rosenwald (D), Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D), Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R), Sen. Tim McGough (R), Sen. Victoria Sullivan (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
…
2 Ratepayer Protection. Amend RSA 374-F:4-b, I to read as follows:
I. Within 60 days of the effective date of this section, the [commission] department of energy shall initiate a proceeding to develop rules to allow residential and small commercial customers to choose how they receive communication from competitive electric suppliers and to implement the provisions of this section. Where the [commission] department has adopted rules in conformity with this section, complaints to and proceedings before the [commission] department shall not be subject to RSA 541-A:29 or RSA 541-A:29-a.
3 Net Energy Metering. Amend RSA 362-A:9, I-II to read as follows:
I. Standard tariffs providing for net energy metering shall be made available to eligible customer-generators by each electric distribution utility in conformance with net metering rules adopted by the department and orders issued by the commission, [. Each net energy metering tariff shall be identical, with respect to rates, rate structure, and charges, to the tariff under which a customer-generator would otherwise take default generation supply service from the distribution utility. Such tariffs shall be available on a first-come, first-served basis within each electric utility service area under the jurisdiction of the commission until such time as the total rated generating capacity owned or operated by eligible customer-generators totals a number equal to 100 megawatts, with 50 megawatts of the 100 megawatts allocated to the 4 electric distribution utilities that were subject to the commission's jurisdiction in 2010 multiplied by each such utility's percentage share of the total 2010 annual coincident peak energy demand distributed by those 4 utilities, and 50 megawatts of the 100 megawatts allocated to the state's 3 investor-owned electric distribution utilities, multiplied by each such utility's percentage share of the total 2010 annual coincident peak energy demand distributed by those 3 utilities, all to be determined by the commission and to be utilized by eligible customer-generators located within each such utilities' service territory. Eighty percent of each utility's share of the 50 megawatts shall be apportioned to facilities with a total generating capacity of not more than 100 kilowatts and 20 percent to facilities with a total generating capacity in excess of 100 kilowatts, but no greater than one megawatt. The 50 megawatts of capacity shall be made available to eligible customer-generators] until such time as [commission approved] commission-approved alternative net metering tariffs approved by the commission become available. [No more than 4 megawatts of such total rated generating capacity shall be from a combined heat and power system as defined in RSA 362-A:1-a, I-d.]
I-a. [No person, owner, developer, installer of an eligible customer-generator facility, business organization, or any subsidiary thereof, shall reserve capacity space in the net metering interconnection queue of more than 20 percent of the total net metering utility-specific allocation pursuant to this section, and the creation of multiple business organizations, including a person, as defined in RSA 366:1, I, by the same shall not defeat this requirement. On a weekly basis each utility shall make public on its website its total net metering allocation, its reserved net metering capacity, and its installed and operating net metering capacity. For project applications of greater than 100 kilowatts, each utility net metering interconnection queue application shall include a certification of compliance with the 20 percent requirement, all persons involved in such an application shall sign the certification of compliance, and no application shall be processed where one or more persons involved in the application did not sign the certification of compliance.]
…
4 Certification of Assessment. Amend RSA 363-A:3 to read as follows:
363-A:3 Certification of Assessment. … Entities that conduct business in New Hampshire, are registered to conduct business with the New Hampshire secretary of state, or are registered with the department on July 1 of the new fiscal year shall be liable for their entire flat fee or all 4 quarterly payments, as applicable. …
5 Complaints. Amend RSA 365:1 to read as follows:
365:1 [Complaint Against Public Utilities] Complaints. Any person may make a formal complaint to the department of energy by petition setting forth in writing any thing or act claimed to have been done or to have been omitted by any [public utility] entity subject to the department's or commission's jurisdictions and in violation of any provision of [law], statute or rule, or of the terms and conditions of registration, tariff, community aggregation plan, franchises or charter, or of any order of the department or commission, provided such person has first made the same or a substantially similar complaint to the department’s consumer services division and exhausted all available remedies available through that division. RSA 541-A:29 and RSA 541-A:29-a shall not apply to informal or formal complaints filed with the department.
…
11 Repeal. RSA 362-A:9, VIII, relative to establishing time-based net energy metering tariffs and related methodologies, is repealed.
Summary:
This bill transfers regulatory and adjudicative responsibilities for telecommunications service provision, ratepayer communication preferences, net energy metering, assessments, complaints, investigations, and aggregation procedures from the Public Utilities Commission to the Department of Energy.
Potential Argument For:
This bill streamlines energy regulation by consolidating relevant responsibilities within the Department of Energy, improving efficiency and coordination.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could potentially shift regulatory expertise away from the Public Utilities Commission, which may lead to less effective oversight of energy providers.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:00 a.m. in Room 103 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 109-FN
AN ACT relative to alteration of terrain permits.
6 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Rep. James Spillane (R), Rep. Michael Moffett (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Howard Pearl (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Fish and Game; Endangered Species Conservation Act; Conservation Programs. Amend RSA 212-A:9, III to read as follows:
III. … [They] The other departments or agencies shall take such action as such other department or agency determines is reasonable and prudent to insure that actions authorized, funded, or carried out by them do not appreciably jeopardize the continued existence of such species or result in the destruction or modification of habitat of such species which is determined by the executive director to be critical, by requiring that all such action is designed to avoid and minimize harm to such species and habitat designated as critical. … The provisions of paragraph IV shall apply to any permit, approval, or other written authorization issued by any other state department or agency.
2 New Paragraph; Fish and Game; Endangered Species Conservation Act; Conservation Programs. Amend RSA 212-A:9 by inserting after paragraph III the following new paragraph:
IV.(a) An applicant for a permit, approval, or other written authorization from any other state department or agency shall submit a request for a consultation to the executive director if required by that state department or agency. The request for consultation shall include proposed conservation measures and the relevant application that was or will be provided to the state agency, including any attachments to the application required by the state department or agency.
(b) Upon receipt of a request for consultation, the executive director shall:
(1) Within 10 days of receipt of the request for consultation, issue to the applicant a written notice to confirm receipt of the request.
(2) Within 60 days of sending the written notice of confirmation, or such longer time as may be agreed upon in writing by the applicant, the executive director shall either:
(A) Determine that issuance of the requested permit, approval, or other written authorization as requested by the applicant including the applicant’s proposed conservation measures satisfies the requirements of paragraph III;
(B) Provide the applicant and the other department or agency with additional conservation measures necessary to ensure that issuance of the requested permit, approval, or other written authorization satisfies the requirements of paragraph III; or
(C) Notify the applicant and the other state department or agency that issuance of the proposed permit, approval, or other written authorization will not satisfy the requirements of paragraph III, including specific findings to support the decision.
(c) The executive director may request any additional information needed during its 60-day review as long as the consultation process does not exceed the 60-day timeframe or a written extension agreement.
(d) If the executive director fails to act within the 60-day time frame established in subparagraph (b)(2) or within any extended timeline agreed to in writing by the applicant, the applicant may submit a written request for a final response to the consultation process. Within 14 days of the date of receipt of such written request, the executive director shall comply with subparagraphs (b)(2)(A), (b)(2)(B), or (b)(2)(C).
(e) If the executive director does not comply with subparagraph (b) within the 14-day period established in subparagraph (d), issuance of the permit, approval, or other written authorization requested by the applicant shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements of paragraph III as long as the applicant follows the conservation measures it proposed as part of its request for consultation.
(f) No state agency shall include any recommendation from the executive director in a permit, approval, or authorization that exceeds its statutory authority.
3 Fish and Game; Endangered Species Conservation Act; Threatened and Endangered Species Compensatory Mitigation Fund. Amend RSA 212-A:16 to read as follows:
212-A:16 Threatened and Endangered Species Compensatory Mitigation Fund. … Such rules shall include provisions for when mitigation payments to the fund are required for impacts to threatened and endangered species or the habitats of threatened and endangered species, pursuant to RSA 206:33-g, II, and the calculation of those payments.
Summary:
This bill requires applicants for state permits to consult with the Fish and Game Department regarding endangered species, establishes a timeframe for this consultation, and creates a compensatory mitigation fund for endangered species conservation.
Potential Argument For:
This bill streamlines the permitting process for projects affecting endangered species while ensuring their protection through mandatory consultations and a dedicated mitigation fund.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may place an undue burden on state agencies and applicants due to strict timeframes for consultation and could lead to unforeseen costs without adequate funding mechanisms.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:20 a.m. in Room 103 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 110-FN
AN ACT relative to terrain permitting.
3 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Rep. Michael Moffett (R), Sen. Howard Pearl (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Terrain Alteration. Amend RSA 485-A:17, II(a) to read as follows:
II.(a) … Except for property subject to RSA 483-B:9, the fee for review of plans encompassing an area of at least [100,000] 200,000 square feet but less than [200,000] 300,000 square feet shall be $3,125. …
Summary:
This bill raises the threshold for terrain alteration permitting from 100,000 to 200,000 square feet, impacting associated fees and potentially reducing state revenue while increasing local costs for project reviews.
Potential Argument For:
This bill streamlines the permitting process for smaller terrain alteration projects, reducing the burden on the Department of Environmental Services and potentially freeing up resources for larger, more complex projects.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill shifts the cost of reviewing smaller terrain alteration projects to local municipalities, potentially increasing their financial burdens and potentially leading to less environmental oversight.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 9:40 a.m. in Room 103 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
Senate Finance
SB 115-FN
AN ACT making an appropriation for regional drinking water infrastructure.
12 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Daryl Abbas (R), Rep. Debra DeSimone (R), Rep. Fred Doucette (R), Rep. Jodi Nelson (R), Sen. Sharon Carson (R), Sen. David Watters (D), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Cindy Rosenwald (D), Sen. Donovan Fenton (D), Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Sen. Tim McGough (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Department of Environmental Services; Appropriation. The sum of $28,870,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026 is hereby appropriated to the department of environmental services for the purpose of funding regional drinking water infrastructure as part of Phase 2 of the Southern New Hampshire Regional Water Project to increase water supply by over 2 million gallons per day to multiple towns impacted by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance contamination and growing water demands. The infrastructure shall include all ancillary projects needed, including but not limited to booster pumping stations, pressure reducing stations, water storage tanks, water mains, and all associated design, land acquisition, and construction permits. This sum shall be nonlapsing. The governor is authorized to draw a warrant for said sum out of any money in the treasury not otherwise appropriated.
Summary:
This bill appropriates $28,870,000 to the Department of Environmental Services for regional drinking water infrastructure in Southern New Hampshire, addressing PFAS contamination and growing water demands.
Potential Argument For:
This bill ensures access to clean drinking water for multiple towns facing contamination and increasing water demands by funding crucial water infrastructure improvements.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may represent an inefficient use of taxpayer funds due to the large sum appropriated and the uncertain long-term financial impact on local governments.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:15 p.m. in Room 103 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 116-FN
AN ACT relative to the Pillsbury Lake Village District community water system, and making an appropriation therefor.
2 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Rep. Alvin See (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Appropriation.
I. The sum of $325,000 is hereby appropriated to the Pillsbury Lake Village District for the purpose of addressing loan costs associated with the following upgrades:
(a) Piping Upgrades: $155,000 to cover a loan used for upgrading the pipes under Concord Drive in Webster.
(b) Water Filtration Upgrade: $105,000 to cover a loan for upgrading the water filtration system.
(c) New Well Development: $65,000 to cover a loan for digging a new well, known as the Franklin-Pierce well, which requires less processing and will reduce overall costs.
Summary:
This bill appropriates $325,000 to the Pillsbury Lake Village District for loan costs related to upgrading pipes, the water filtration system, and developing a new well.
Potential Argument For:
This bill improves water infrastructure in the Pillsbury Lake Village District by funding essential upgrades to pipes, the water filtration system, and a new well, thus enhancing public health and safety.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill allocates taxpayer money to a specific village district, potentially neglecting other areas with equally pressing infrastructure needs.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:25 p.m. in Room 103 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 240-FN-A
AN ACT making an appropriation to the department of environmental services for eligible water projects.
13 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Denise Ricciardi (R), Rep. Thomas Buco (D), Rep. David Paige (D), Sen. David Watters (D), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Ruth Ward (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Donovan Fenton (D), Sen. Debra Altschiller (D), Sen. David Rochefort (R), Sen. Tara Reardon (D), Sen. Pat Long (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
?1 Department of Environmental Services; Appropriation. There is hereby appropriated to the department of environmental services the sum of $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026, and the sum of $15,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2027, which shall be non-lapsing, for the purpose of making payments to communities for projects for new awards and for making payments for projects that have previously been awarded state aid grant funding for eligible and completed wastewater infrastructure projects in the maintenance budget per RSA 486 as approved by the governor and executive council. Any remaining funds not used for making payments on existing grants may be used to award new grants.
Summary:
This bill appropriates $15,000,000 annually for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 to the Department of Environmental Services for wastewater infrastructure projects, funding both new and previously awarded grants.
Potential Argument For:
This bill invests in crucial wastewater infrastructure upgrades, improving public health and environmental protection while stimulating economic activity through grant funding to communities.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill commits significant recurring general fund expenditures with an uncertain return on investment and potential for inefficient use of funds.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:40 p.m. in Room 103 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 239-FN
AN ACT requiring the general fund to cover the costs of the fish and game department retirement contributions and technology services.
7 sponsors, Lean Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. David Watters (D), Rep. Cathryn Harvey (D), Rep. Kate Murray (D), Rep. Will Darby (D), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Donovan Fenton (D), Sen. Debra Altschiller (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Fish and Game; Retirement; Information Technology. The following class lines for the accounting units in the fish and game department for retirement contributions and information technology shall be funded with an appropriate amount from the general fund:
Account 03-75-75-750520-2110, class 064 Fish and Game Department Retirement Pension Bene-Health Insurance
Account 03-75-75-750020-2162, class 27 Fish and Game Department Office of Information Technology
Summary:
This bill mandates that the general fund cover the Fish and Game Department's retirement contributions and information technology costs.
Potential Argument For:
This bill ensures stable funding for crucial Fish and Game Department operations by shifting the financial burden to the general fund.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could strain the general fund by imposing unforeseen costs associated with the Fish and Game Department's retirement and technology needs.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:55 p.m. in Room 103 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
Senate Judiciary
SB 58-FN
AN ACT relative to venue in criminal cases.
11 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Rep. Brian Seaworth (R), Rep. Michael Moffett (R), Rep. Cyril Aures (R), Rep. Clayton Wood (R), Sen. David Watters (D), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R), Sen. David Rochefort (R), Sen. Tara Reardon (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Venue; Parts of Offense in More Than One County. Amend RSA 602:1 to read as follows:
602:1 Parts of Offense in More Than One County, etc. Offenders shall be prosecuted and tried in the county or judicial district thereof in which the offense was committed. But if any person is feloniously stricken, wounded or poisoned in one county or judicial district thereof and dies thereof in another, or if parts of an offense are committed or different elements of the offense occur in more than one county or judicial district thereof, the offense shall be deemed to have been committed, the offender may be prosecuted, and the trial may be had in either county or judicial district thereof.
Summary:
This bill expands criminal venue to include any county or judicial district where an element of the crime occurred, even if all elements didn't occur in the same location.
Potential Argument For:
This bill improves the efficiency and fairness of the justice system by allowing prosecution in the most convenient location for witnesses and evidence.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could increase prosecution costs by necessitating travel for witnesses and evidence to a potentially less convenient location.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 100 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 48-FN
AN ACT relative to competency to stand trial for certain offenses.
2 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Pat Long (D), Rep. Mark Pearson (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Finding. The general court hereby finds that it is imperative that the state improve the efficiency of the competency restoration process in New Hampshire by deeming some violation and class B misdemeanor offenses ineligible for restoration, at the court’s discretion, as recommended by the committee to study restoration of competency as created under RSA 135:49.
2 Competency Hearing; Commitment for Treatment. Amend RSA 135:17-a, I to read as follows:
I. If, after hearing, the district court or superior court determines that the defendant is not competent to stand trial, the court shall order treatment for the restoration of competency unless it determines, by clear and convincing evidence, that there is no reasonable likelihood that the defendant can be restored to competency through appropriate treatment within 12 months, or unless the court exercises its discretion to dismiss the case pursuant to paragraph I-a. If the court finds, by clear and convincing evidence, that the defendant cannot be restored to competency within 12 months, the case against the defendant shall be dismissed without prejudice and the court shall proceed as provided in paragraph V.
I-a.(a) When a defendant is found not competent to stand trial and is charged solely with violation or class B misdemeanor offenses, except any misdemeanor that involves an act of violence or threat of violence as those terms are defined in RSA 625:9, VII, or a misdemeanor under RSA 633:3-a, RSA 639:3, RSA 644:4, or RSA 644:9, the court may dismiss the charges with prejudice.
(b) A motion to dismiss charges under this paragraph may be made by the prosecution, the defendant, or the court. All dismissals shall be made at the court’s discretion and shall consider the best interest of the defendant, the public, and any alleged victims.
(c) If charges are dismissed, the prosecution, the defendant, or the court may raise the issue of the defendant’s dangerousness. If the issue of dangerousness is raised, the court may order an evaluation to determine the appropriateness of involuntary treatment pursuant to RSA 135-C, as provided in paragraph V.
Summary:
This bill allows courts to dismiss, at their discretion, certain class B misdemeanor and violation-level offenses against defendants found incompetent, without pursuing competency restoration.
Potential Argument For:
This bill improves the efficiency of the competency restoration process by allowing for dismissal of less serious charges when restoration is unlikely.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could lead to the dismissal of cases involving even minor offenses, potentially hindering accountability for wrongdoing and impacting public safety.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:15 p.m. in Room 100 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 141-FN
AN ACT extending the time to petition for a new trial in certain cases.
12 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Rep. Kenneth Weyler (R), Rep. Aboul Khan (R), Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Lilli Walsh (R), Rep. Buzz Scherr (D), Sen. David Watters (D), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Cindy Rosenwald (D), Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R), Sen. David Rochefort (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Trials; Time. Amend RSA 526:4 to read as follows:
526:4 Time.
I. A new trial shall not be granted unless the petition is filed within [three] 3 years after the rendition of the judgment complained of, or the failure of the suit.
II. The time limit in paragraph I shall not apply if:
(a) The petitioner seeks a new trial in a criminal case that resulted in a conviction of a felony or a class A misdemeanor;
(b) The petitioner is either incarcerated, subject to the terms of a sentence, or subject to collateral consequences of the sentence; and
(c) The petition alleges that newly discovered evidence exists.
Summary:
This bill amends RSA 526:4 to create an exception to the three-year timeframe for filing a petition for a new trial in criminal cases involving felony or Class A misdemeanor convictions where the petitioner is incarcerated, subject to sentencing terms or collateral consequences, and alleges newly discovered evidence.
Potential Argument For:
This bill ensures fairness and justice by allowing incarcerated individuals with newly discovered evidence to petition for a new trial, even if the three-year limit has passed.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could potentially lead to an increase in litigation and strain on the judicial system by extending the timeframe for challenging convictions.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 100 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
SB 289-FN
AN ACT relative to use and preservation of body-worn camera recordings in certain matters.
8 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Rep. Kimberly Rice (R), Rep. JD Bernardy (R), Rep. Lilli Walsh (R), Rep. Susan Porcelli (R), Rep. Sheri Minor (R), Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. Victoria Sullivan (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Use of Body-Worn Camera Recordings in Criminal, Juvenile Delinquency, and Administrative Proceedings. Amend RSA 105-D by inserting after section 3 the following new section:
105-D:4 Use of Body-Worn Camera Recordings in Criminal, Juvenile Delinquency, and Administrative Proceedings.
I. Notwithstanding the provisions of RSA 105-D:2, all data, images, and video captured, recorded, or otherwise produced by body-worn camera equipment may be copied by a law enforcement agency or prosecutor to provide discovery in criminal, juvenile delinquency, or administrative proceedings subject to the following limitations:
(a) The parties in a criminal, juvenile delinquency, or administrative proceeding may utilize BWC recordings to create exhibits for use in said hearings subject to the relevant rules of evidence and rulings by the court.
(b) No party shall further copy or distribute BWC recordings without a court order, except for the sole purpose of having an expert or other professional consultant provide analysis for the purposes of evaluating or preparing for the case. Any such expert or professional consultant is bound by the limitations of this section.
(c) BWC recordings shall only be accessed for case-related purposes.
(d) The parties and any expert or professional consultant shall destroy all copies of BWC recordings created pursuant to this section in their possession upon the close of the case.
(e) For cases that are resolved through trial or adjudication, the law enforcement agency that created the BWC recordings shall maintain the original BWC recording until the defendant or juvenile has completed all the terms and conditions of the sentence or disposition. The parties shall be allowed to access the original BWC recordings for purposes of evaluating, initiating, or litigating post- conviction remedies.
(f) As used in this section, the term "close of the case" means the expiration of the appeal period following the final conclusion of the case in the trial court. A case shall not be considered closed during an appeal or during post-conviction litigation.
II. Any person who knowingly violates the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor.
Summary:
This bill adds procedures to govern the preservation and use of body-worn camera footage in criminal, juvenile delinquency, and administrative proceedings, including limitations on copying and distribution, requirements for destruction of copies, and provisions for maintaining original recordings for post-conviction remedies.
Potential Argument For:
This bill ensures the responsible use of body-worn camera footage while protecting the rights of all parties involved in legal proceedings.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may create unnecessary bureaucratic hurdles and limitations on access to crucial evidence in legal proceedings.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:45 p.m. in Room 100 in the State House and streaming on YouTube.
Senate Transportation
SB 150-FN
AN ACT defining electric vehicle charging station and charging a fee for annual testing by the division of weights and measures.
8 sponsors, Lean Democratic
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. David Watters (D), Rep. Carol McGuire (R), Rep. George Sykes (D), Sen. Cindy Rosenwald (D), Sen. Rebecca Perkins Kwoka (D), Sen. Donovan Fenton (D), Sen. Debra Altschiller (D), Sen. Pat Long (D)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Paragraph; Agriculture, Horticulture and Animal Husbandry; Standards for Weights and Measures; Definitions. Amend RSA 438:1 by inserting after paragraph XV the following new paragraph:
XVI. "Electric? vehicle charging station" or "charging station" means any level of ?electric ?vehicle supply equipment, which means a device or system designed and used specifically to transfer electrical energy to an electric vehicle, either as charge transferred via physical or wireless connection, by loading a fully charged battery, or by other means, that is designed and built in compliance with the requirements of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44, as amended, and is approved by the National Type Evaluation Program, and delivers? electricity from a source outside an ?electric? vehicle into a plug-in? electric? vehicle.
2 New Paragraph; Agriculture, Horticulture and Animal Husbandry; Standards for Weights and Measures; Fee for Licensing Commercial Devices. Amend RSA 438:10-a by inserting after paragraph XVI the following new paragraph:
XVII. Electric Vehicle Charging Meter, $175 per meter to include annual testing by means of a weights and measures official.
3 Registered Service Technician; Duties. Amend RSA 438:14-a to read as follows:
438:14-a Registered Service Technician. A registered service technician who tests, adjusts, repairs, certifies, rejects, adds, removes, or replaces [installs, services, repairs, reconditions, tests, or calibrates] a commercial weighing or measuring device shall state certify [seal] said device in a manner approved by the commissioner, except that electric vehicle charging stations shall only be state certified by a weights and measures official. This certification [seal] shall authorize the device owner to use a licensed device unless rejected pursuant to RSA 438:14.
4 Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food; Positions Created. There is created within the department of agriculture, markets, and food the classified full-time position of registered electric vehicle service technician, who shall be under the direction of the commissioner of the department of agriculture, markets, and food pursuant to RSA 426:6-b. The certifier shall be responsible for certifying electric vehicle charging stations in this state in accordance with RSA 4438:10-a and RSA 438:14-a.
5 Agricultural Products Regulatory Fund; Withdrawal. The commissioner shall withdraw $413,301 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2026 from the agricultural products regulatory fund established in RSA 435:20 to cover the costs associated with establishing the position of registered electric vehicle charging station service technician. Such funds shall be non-lapsing. For 2 years after such withdrawal completed, if needed, the commissioner may continue to withdraw additional funds from the agricultural products regulatory fund to cover such costs.
Summary:
This bill defines electric vehicle charging stations, charges a fee for their annual testing, authorizes the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food to fund testing and certification, and creates a registered electric vehicle service technician position within the department to handle certification.
Potential Argument For:
This bill improves electric vehicle infrastructure safety and consumer protection by mandating annual testing and certification of charging stations.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill may impose unnecessary costs on businesses and consumers through annual testing fees and may create bureaucratic inefficiencies by placing the responsibility for EV charging station testing and certification with the Department of Agriculture, Markets, and Food.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 101 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 151-FN
AN ACT relative to accessible parking permit verification and fraud prevention.
8 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Daryl Abbas (R), Rep. Sandra Panek (R), Rep. Jeffrey Tenczar (R), Sen. Kevin Avard (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. David Rochefort (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Parking Place; Walking Disability; Fines. Amend RSA 265:69, I(j)-(m) to read as follows:
(j) … Notwithstanding the provisions of title LXII or any other provision of law, a person who violates the provisions of this subparagraph shall be fined a minimum of [$250] $500 plus penalty assessment of which [20] 50 percent is payable to the town or city where the violation occurred;
…
(m) In or overlapping into any access aisle. Notwithstanding the provisions of title LXII or any other provision of law, a person who violates the provisions of this subparagraph shall be fined a minimum of [$50] $100 for a first offense and a minimum of [$100] $200 for each subsequent offense.
2 Enforcement; Walking Disability Designated Spaces and Aisles; Fine. Amend RSA 265:69-a, II to read as follows:
II. Upon receipt of testimony under paragraph I by the appropriate law enforcement agency, such agency shall fine the violator a minimum of [$250] $500 plus penalty assessment pursuant to RSA 265:69, I(j).
3 Walking Disability; Parking Privileges; Fines. Amend RSA 265:74 to read as follows:
265:74 Parking Privileges for Persons With Walking Disability.
I. …
II. Notwithstanding the provisions of any local ordinance which has been adopted to regulate parking in places designated for persons with walking disabilities, any person who is convicted under this section shall be guilty of a violation and fined [$250] $500 plus penalty assessment of which [20] 50 percent is payable to the town or city where the violation occurred.
III. A person shall display a hanging windshield placard in such a manner that it may be viewed from the front and rear of the vehicle by hanging it from the front windshield rearview mirror of a vehicle when utilizing a parking space reserved for persons with disabilities. When there is no rearview mirror, the placard shall be visibly displayed on the dashboard. A motor vehicle operator who fails to comply with the terms of this paragraph shall be fined $100 plus penalty assessment of which 50 percent is payable to the town or city where the violation occurred.
4 New Paragraph; Design of Hanging Windshield Placard. Amend RSA 261:88 by inserting after paragraph VI the following new paragraph:
VI-a. A hanging windshield placard issued under this section shall bear on one side the applicant's driver's license or non-driver identification card number, identical photograph to that on the driver's license or non-driver identification card, and a warning that the applicant must have the license or identification card with them at all times while using the placard.
Summary:
This bill increases fines for parking violations in handicapped spaces, requires handicapped parking placards to include driver's license information, and mandates placard display for drivers with disabilities.
Potential Argument For:
This bill enhances enforcement of handicapped parking regulations, improving accessibility for disabled individuals by increasing fines and requiring better identification on placards.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill places an unnecessary burden on drivers with disabilities by increasing fines and requiring additional information on their placards, potentially without significantly improving enforcement.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:15 p.m. in Room 101 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 152-FN
AN ACT authorizing the sale of toll credits to fund a newly established noise barrier construction fund for the design and construction of noise barrier projects.
5 sponsors, Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Denise Ricciardi (R), Sen. Regina Birdsell (R), Sen. James Gray (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 New Section; Noise Barrier Construction Fund. Amend RSA 228 by inserting after section 228:12-a the following new section:
228:12-b Noise Barrier Construction Fund.
I. Provided there are sufficient turnpike toll credits for the state match for the federal apportionment totals for 5 years based on the current federal fiscal year and the preceding 4 federal fiscal years, the commissioner is authorized in his or her discretion to sell up to $10,000,000 per year in turnpike toll credits in compliance with federal rules and regulations and turnpike covenants, said sale being subject to the approval of the fiscal committee of the general court and the joint legislative capital project overview committee.
II. The revenue from the sale of the turnpike toll credits shall be deposited into a restricted fund to be established and known as the noise barrier construction fund, said revenue to be nonlapsing and continually appropriated to the department of transportation. Expenditures from the noise barrier construction fund made by the commissioner being subject to the approval of the fiscal committee of the general court and the joint legislative capital project overview committee.
III. The commissioner is authorized to use said revenue for the design and construction of noise barrier projects that meet the Type II noise barrier criteria set forth in the department’s Policy and Procedural Guidelines for the Assessment and Abatement of Highway Traffic Noise for Type I & Type II Projects, as updated and amended. The commissioner may consider additional authorized adjustment factors for the determination of eligibility after consultation with an affected community concerning impacts to the community.
2 New Subparagraph; Dedicated Account; Noise Barrier Construction Fund. Amend RSA 6:12, I(b) by inserting after subparagraph (399) the following new subparagraph:
(400) Moneys in the noise barrier construction fund, established in RSA 228:12-b.
Summary:
This bill authorizes the sale of up to $10,000,000 per year in turnpike toll credits to fund a noise barrier construction fund, subject to the availability of sufficient credits and approval from the fiscal committee and the joint legislative capital project overview committee.
Potential Argument For:
This bill provides dedicated funding for the construction of noise barriers, improving the quality of life for communities impacted by highway noise.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill relies on the sale of turnpike toll credits, a revenue source with an uncertain market and potential for insufficient funds to support the program.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:30 p.m. in Room 101 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 155-FN
AN ACT relative to highway toll credits.
10 sponsors, Bipartisan
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Tara Reardon (D), Rep. Mary Jane Wallner (D), Rep. Connie Lane (D), Rep. Matthew Hicks (D), Rep. Tracy Bricchi (D), Sen. David Watters (D), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Sen. Tim McGough (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Administration of Transportation Laws; Use of Toll Credits. Amend RSA 228:12-a to read as follows:
228:12-a Use of Toll Credits. … Any municipal, county, or non-profit managed project eligible for assistance under Title 23 may use toll credits as a match for any such assistance, where it is allowed by the federal government, without department or legislative approval.
Summary:
This bill allows the use of toll credits to match federal highway funds for municipal, county, and non-profit projects, requiring legislative approval for other uses.
Potential Argument For:
This bill increases funding opportunities for vital transportation projects at the municipal, county, and non-profit levels by utilizing existing toll credits.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill could reduce the available balance of toll credits and federal funds for other transportation projects.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 1:45 p.m. in Room 101 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.
SB 156
AN ACT allowing the division of motor vehicles to contract with a third-party vendor to facilitate the secure transfer of title applications and information.
10 sponsors, Lean Republican
Sponsor(s): (Prime) Sen. Denise Ricciardi (R), Sen. Regina Birdsell (R), Sen. Bill Gannon (R), Sen. Daniel Innis (R), Sen. Cindy Rosenwald (D), Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. Donovan Fenton (D), Sen. Howard Pearl (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R), Sen. Tim McGough (R)
Selected quote(s) from the bill:
1 Certificate of Title; Copy Types. Amend RSA 259:9, II to read as follows:
II. As used in the certificate of title and anti-theft laws, a physical or electronic certificate of title issued by the division.
…
3 New Paragraph; Electronic Lien and Title Hub; Authority. Amend RSA 260:14 by inserting after paragraph III-d the following new paragraph:
III-e. The ELT hub and ELT service providers are authorized to receive and deliver motor vehicle and title information, including but not limited to VIN, title number, make, model, year, owner’s name, owner’s address, and lienholder information, solely to enable secure communication of motor vehicle and title information among the division, New Hampshire licensed retail vehicle dealers, and financial institutions having an interest in motor vehicles titled within the state. Any records received under this paragraph shall not be used for purposes other than for the issuance of titles and for the perfection, transfer, and release of security interests in motor vehicles titled within the state and shall not be further transferred or otherwise made available to a person or entity that is not authorized under this paragraph. Notwithstanding the provisions of RSA 260:14, XIV, the ELT hub shall be responsible for ensuring its own and all ELT service providers’ compliance with this section and with the security requirements of the ELT hub’s contract with the department, and the commissioner, upon determining that the ELT hub or an ELT service provider has violated any provisions of this section may issue a written order prohibiting the ELT hub or the violating ELT service provider, or both, from receiving motor vehicle records commencing 10 business days following the issuance of the order and lasting no longer than 5 years, unless the commissioner is satisfied that procedures are in place and will be enforced to ensure compliance with this chapter.
4 Delivery of Certificate. Amend RSA 261:9 to read as follows:
261:9 [Mailing] Delivery of Certificate. The certificate of title shall be mailedto the first lienholder named in it or, if none, to the owner. In the event the lien has been satisfied by a dealer, the dealer becomes the owner and the state is authorized to mail the title to the dealer.
5 Delivery of New Title. Amend RSA 261:21, I to read as follows:
I. The department, upon receipt of a properly assigned certificate of title, with an application for a new certificate of title, the required fee and any other documents required by law, shall issue a new certificate of title in the name of the transferee as owner and mail or deliver it to the first lienholder named in it or, if none, to the owner.
6 Security Interest; Delivery of Title. Amend RSA 261:25, IV to read as follows:
IV. Upon receipt of the certificate of title, the application and the required fee, the department shall either endorse the certificate or issue a new certificate containing the name and address of the new lienholder, and mail or deliver the certificate to the first lienholder named in it.
7 New Paragraph; Release of Security Interest; Notification of Release. Amend RSA 261:27 by inserting after paragraph II the following new paragraph:
III. Upon the satisfaction of a security interest in a vehicle for which the certificate of title is in an electronic format, the lienholder whose security interest is satisfied shall within 10 days after the demand, notify the department of the release of security interest. The departments shall mail or deliver a certificate of title, free of security interest to the owner.
Summary:
This bill allows the Division of Motor Vehicles to contract with a third-party vendor to electronically manage title transfers between the division, municipal agents, and car dealerships, updating the definition of certificate of title to include electronic formats and establishing procedures for electronic lien and title transactions.
Potential Argument For:
This bill streamlines the motor vehicle titling process, improving efficiency and reducing costs for both the state and its citizens.
Potential Argument Against:
This bill introduces potential security risks and privacy concerns associated with the electronic transfer of sensitive personal and financial information.
Hearing: Tuesday, Feb 04 at 2:00 p.m. in Room 101 in the Legislative Office Building and streaming on YouTube.Grandparent visitation, Absentee voting, Absentee restrictions, Education funding, Education tax, Landfill setbacks, Environmental rights, Accessory dwellings, Nonprofit taxes, Gaming revenue