Committee Summary for House Executive Departments and Administration (01/30/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB622 00:00:56.480 - 9:01:42 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the definition of "part-time” for purposes of employment of a retired member of the New Hampshire retirement system.	Trottier, Douglas(R)[IN]2025
HB622 00:03:16.480 - 9:04:02 AM	Executive Session	relative to the definition of "part-time” for purposes of employment of a retired member of the New Hampshire retirement system.	Trottier, Douglas(R)[IN]2025
HB349 00:05:42.319 - 9:06:28 AM	Executive Session	relative to the practice of optometry and authorization to perform ophthalmic laser procedures.	Kofalt, Jim(R)[A+]2025
HB244 00:08:56.440 - 9:09:42 AM	Executive Session	updating and recodifying the municipal enforcement of the building and fire code.	McGuire, Carol(R)[A+]2025
HB534 00:31:43.039 - 9:32:29 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the calculation of average final compensation under the retirement system.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B]2025
HB534 00:33:16.320 - 9:34:02 AM	Executive Session	relative to the calculation of average final compensation under the retirement system.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B]2025
HB233 0163H 00:35:43.480 - 9:36:29 AM	Executive Session	(New Title) requiring meetings of the New Hampshire vaccine association to be audio and video recorded and published on its website within 48 hours.	Comtois, Barbara(R)[B+]2025
HB536 01:14:54.000 - 10:15:40 AM	Public Hearing	relative to a cost of living adjustment in the state retirement system.	Grote, Jaci(D)[CT]2025
HB536 01:24:05.719 - 10:24:51 AM	Public Hearing	relative to a cost of living adjustment in the state retirement system.	Grote, Jaci(D)[CT]2025
HB637 03:15:05.439 - 12:15:51 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the reduction in the calculation of state retirement annuities at age 65 for certain group I retirement system members.	Luneau, David(D)[CT]2025
HB581 03:59:32.399 - 1:00:18 PM	Public Hearing	establishing a state retirement plan group for new state employee members of the retirement system.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A]2025

HB622: Representative Douglas Traer, Belknap County District 8, representing Belmont, Tilton, and Sanbornton Oppose00:00:56.480 - 9:01:42 AM; Representative Traer introduced House Bill 622 but after further research, he expressed concerns and requested the committee to vote 'inexpedient to legislate' (ITL) on the bill. He mentioned that the bill has too many issues to be effectively addressed.
HB622: Mr. C and Miss Crion Information Only00:02:28.280 - 9:03:14 AM; Mr. C and Miss Crion were prepared to testify but chose not to after hearing the sponsor's request to ITL the bill, citing too many issues as the reason.
HB622: Representative Schmidt Information Only00:03:16.480 - 9:04:02 AM; Representative Schmidt moved to ITL House Bill 622, which was seconded by Representative Leon. The motion was based on the sponsor's request due to the bill's numerous issues.
HB622: Committee Members Information Only00:04:02.840 - 9:04:48 AM; The committee voted unanimously to ITL House Bill 622, with 14 votes in favor. The decision was placed on the consent calendar.
HB349: Representative L Information Only00:05:42.319 - 9:06:28 AM; Representative L moved to retain House Bill 349, the ophthalmologic laser bill, to allow more time for ophthalmologists and optometrists to provide further information on training standards. The motion was seconded and supported due to the need for more data from the professionals involved.
HB349: Representative Schmidt Information Only00:06:30.639 - 9:07:16 AM; Representative Schmidt agreed with the motion to retain, stating that the issue should be resolved by the professionals and not by the legislature.
HB349: Committee Members Information Only00:07:19.400 - 9:08:05 AM; The committee voted unanimously to retain House Bill 349, with 13 votes in favor. The bill will be held over the summer pending further information.
HB244: Committee Members Information Only00:08:56.440 - 9:09:42 AM; The committee discussed retaining House Bill 244, which involves recodifying the municipal enforcement of building and fire codes. The motion to retain was seconded and supported, emphasizing the need for careful scrutiny to avoid unanticipated effects. The committee voted unanimously to retain, with 13 votes in favor.
HB534: Representative Steve Pearson, Rockingham District 13, representing Derry Oppose00:31:43.039 - 9:32:29 AM; Representative Pearson introduced House Bill 534 at the request of the prime sponsor, who was unable to attend due to a funeral. After learning about the processing and the misunderstanding of the current situation, Pearson requested that the bill be killed and ITL, as it does not achieve its intended purpose.
HB534: Representative Pearson Information Only00:33:16.320 - 9:34:02 AM; Representative Pearson moved to ITL House Bill 534 due to technical problems and misunderstandings about its operation. The motion was seconded by Representative Lon and passed unanimously with 13 votes in favor, and placed on the consent calendar.
HB233 0163H: Representative Pearson Information Only00:35:43.480 - 9:36:29 AM; Representative Pearson introduced Amendment 0163H to House Bill 233, explaining that it removes a burdensome requirement for an organization to answer unrelated questions and post minutes. The amendment was supported as it aligns with modern technology preferences and was seconded by Representative Lon.
HB233 0163H: Representative BL Support00:37:48.520 - 9:38:34 AM; Representative BL supported the amendment, emphasizing the importance of transparency in the operations of the New Hampshire Vaccine Association, which directly impacts residents' lives. The amendment was seen as a way to enhance public understanding of policies.
HB233 0163H: Representative G Oppose00:38:34.040 - 9:39:20 AM; Representative G opposed the amendment, arguing that video recordings are not official records and that the requirement for minutes should still apply. Additionally, they expressed concern about targeting a specific 501c3 organization and suggested broader application if transparency is the goal.
HB233 0163H: Representative Citech Support00:40:06.240 - 9:40:52 AM; Representative Citech supported the amendment, stating that the legislature can define video recordings as official records. However, they planned to vote against the bill itself, as they believed it inappropriately targets a non-public body.
HB233 0163H: Committee Members Information Only00:40:53.079 - 9:41:39 AM; The committee voted 8 to 5 to adopt Amendment 0163H to House Bill 233. Following this, Representative Pearson moved to pass the bill as amended, which passed with a vote of 7 to 6. A Minority Report was requested.
HB536: Representative Scitec Information Only01:14:54.000 - 10:15:40 AM; Representative Scitec announced a conflict of interest regarding House Bill 536, which involves a cost of living adjustment (COLA) that would affect them personally. They chose to recuse themselves from voting on the bill but would take notes during the hearing.
HB536: Representative Jacki Groda, representing Rye and Greenland Support01:17:07.280 - 10:17:53 AM; Representative Groda, the prime sponsor, introduced House Bill 536, which proposes a 1.5% COLA for retirees up to $50,000, and 1.5% for the first $50,000 for those earning more. Groda emphasized the small amount of the COLA compared to household cost increases and highlighted that the bill addresses policy, not financial, aspects, as it would go to the Finance Committee next. They supported the bill to help retirees cope with inflation.
HB536: Mark Kavanaugh, Deputy Counsel and Compliance Officer for the New Hampshire Retirement System, and Diana Kryon, Hearings Examiner Information Only01:21:02.120 - 10:21:48 AM; Mark Kavanaugh and Diana Kryon from the New Hampshire Retirement System provided information on the financial implications of House Bill 536. They noted that the bill would result in annual expenditures starting in 2028, with costs to the state and political subdivisions. They clarified that the bill's funding would increase the unfunded actuarial liability by $1.7 million, as it does not provide an outside source of funds.
HB536: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:24:05.719 - 10:24:51 AM; The speaker questions the fiscal impact of the bill, specifically focusing on the costs to political subdivisions and the unfunded costs to the state. They express concern about the financial burden on municipalities due to inflation and inquire about the timing of rate changes and the increase in employer contributions to the retirement system.
HB536: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:24:51.560 - 10:25:37 AM; The speaker continues the discussion on the fiscal note, clarifying the net impact on payroll for different member groups within the retirement system. They provide details on the percentage increase for political subdivisions, employees, teachers, police, and fire personnel.
HB536: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:25:39.280 - 10:26:25 AM; The speaker asks about the reasons behind the higher pension costs for police and fire personnel, suggesting it could be due to larger pensions or longer life expectancy post-retirement. They receive clarification on the benefit caps and the smaller subset of police and fire personnel contributing to higher costs.
HB536: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:26:24.800 - 10:27:10 AM; The speaker discusses the cost of providing cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) over a 20-year period versus an immediate payment. They clarify the present value cost and how it would be invested to cover future payments, addressing confusion over the figures.
HB536: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:27:57.159 - 10:28:43 AM; The speaker seeks to understand the financial impact of the bill on the pension system's ultimate zero date. They are informed that while the bill increases the unfunded liability, it does not affect the 2039 deadline but would be reflected in employer rates starting in 2028.
HB536: Unidentified Speaker Information Only01:30:56.600 - 10:31:42 AM; The speaker inquires about the impact of the bill on the 2039 goal or deadline for the pension system. They are told that the bill would not affect the deadline but would influence employer rates through a separate layer of amortization over 20 years.
HB536: Arthur Bodry, New Hampshire State Permanent Firefighters Retirement Association, Manchester Support01:32:24.719 - 10:33:10 AM; Arthur Bodry, a retired captain from the Manchester Fire Department and former member of the Board of Trustees of the New Hampshire Retirement System, speaks in favor of HB536. He highlights the lack of COLAs since 2019 and compares it to the 38.6% increase in the CPI over the same period. He explains the historical context of COLAs in the system and emphasizes the importance of such adjustments, especially for group two members who do not receive Social Security.
HB536: Richard Gulla, State Employees Association Support01:36:08.320 - 10:36:54 AM; Richard Gulla, representing the State Employees Association, supports HB536, which provides a 1.5% COLA to retirees. He emphasizes the necessity of this adjustment due to the rising cost of living and inflation, particularly affecting older Americans with higher medical costs. Gulla discusses the historical funding of COLAs through the special account and urges the committee to pass the bill to ensure retirement security for public servants.
HB536: Brian Will, President of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire Support01:41:05.920 - 10:41:51 AM; Brian Will spoke in support of House Bill 536, emphasizing the philosophical reasons behind their support. He highlighted that firefighters, both active and retired, have felt the economic squeeze due to inflation and the lack of steady cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs). He pointed out that many firefighters do not contribute to or receive Social Security from their positions, making retirement more challenging. Will also noted that approximately 80% of retirees stay in New Hampshire, contributing to the local economy. He cited a study by the National Institute of Retirement Security, which found that for every dollar contributed to the retirement system, there's a significant economic impact in New Hampshire. He urged the committee to consider the fairness of the current retirement policy and requested their support to advance the bill to the floor and subsequently to the finance committee.
HB536: Diane Shu, Former Committee Member Support01:44:52.280 - 10:45:38 AM; Diane Shu, who previously served on the committee and was the prime sponsor of a COLA bill passed in 2019, spoke in support of House Bill 536. She noted that the current bill, like the one passed in 2019, excludes retirees who have been retired for over five years from receiving a COLA. Shu emphasized that those excluded in 2019 have now been without a COLA for over 10 years. She mentioned the positive impact of the 2019 bill on public retirees and current state employees, citing retention difficulties due to insufficient retirement benefits. Shu also highlighted that most retirees spend their retirement in New Hampshire, thereby contributing to the local economy.
HB536: Karen Irwin, Hopkinton Support01:48:17.400 - 10:49:03 AM; Karen Irwin from Hopkinton expressed support for House Bill 536, noting her experience as a state retiree. She emphasized the importance of considering the policy behind the bill rather than just the financial aspects. Irwin suggested using some of the retirement system's gains to create a COLA fund, instead of just paying out a lump sum. She stressed the need to move forward with a solution that could benefit the 45,300 retirees and not just be deterred by the large financial numbers involved.
HB637: Dave Luno, Representative from Merrimack County District 9 Support03:15:05.439 - 12:15:51 PM; Dave Luno introduced House Bill 637, which addresses the calculation of state retirement annuities. He explained that three years ago, a bipartisan bill corrected an issue where group one members' pensions were reduced by 10% upon reaching a certain age. However, this correction did not include a small group of retirees who had retired before the change but had not yet reached their full Social Security age. Luno emphasized that this is a closed group, and he hopes the committee will consider the policy implications of the bill.
HB637: Karen Irwin, Representing Herself Support03:19:57.880 - 12:20:43 PM; Karen Irwin, who worked with Dave Luno on this bill, testified about her personal situation as one of the affected retirees. She explained that the bill aims to eliminate a 10% reduction in pensions for those who retired before July 1, 2023, but had not yet reached their full Social Security age. Irwin detailed the financial impact on her and others, including the potential need to take Social Security early, which would result in permanent financial losses. She requested the committee's support to move the bill forward to the finance committee for further consideration.
HB637: Retirement System Representative Information Only03:30:12.199 - 12:30:58 PM; The Retirement System representative provided a neutral stance on House Bill 637. They clarified how member accounts work within the retirement system, explaining that contributions are placed into an account that earns interest and is used to fund part of the retiree's pension. They detailed that upon retirement, the member's account is used to fund their pension until it is exhausted, typically within five to seven years. The representative highlighted that the member account remains separate for potential distribution to beneficiaries if the retiree passes away before the account is depleted.
HB637: Representative Leon Information Only03:36:35.279 - 12:37:21 PM; Representative Leon sought clarification on whether passing the bill would completely close the retirement system for certain groups. They were reassured that the bill was intended to cover individuals between old and new benchmarks, and going forward, there would be a single benchmark, indicating no future bills would be needed for other groups.
HB637: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:37:23.000 - 12:38:09 PM; An unnamed speaker raised a question about the impact of the bill on individuals who reached full retirement age before the bill's effective date. The response was that the speaker could not provide an answer offhand but would make a note to obtain an answer later.
HB637: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:38:12.520 - 12:38:58 PM; Another question was raised about the accuracy of the fiscal note associated with the bill, confirming that the amount was nominal due to the small number of affected individuals.
HB581: Representative Dan McGuire, Epsom Support03:59:32.399 - 1:00:18 PM; Representative Maguire, representing Epsom, supported the bill, highlighting the drawbacks of the current defined benefit pension plan and advocating for a switch to a defined contribution plan. He explained that defined contribution plans are simpler, portable, and better suited to modern employment patterns where individuals change jobs frequently. He argued that the current system does not serve the majority of state employees who do not reach the 10-year vesting period, and it leads to significant pension debt. The bill is a small step to introduce a defined contribution system for new Group One state employees, which he believes will help with hiring and better align with inflation adjustments.
HB581: Mark Kavanaugh, Deputy Counsel and Compliance Officer, New Hampshire Retirement System Information Only04:24:22.600 - 1:25:08 PM; Mark Kavanaugh, representing the New Hampshire Retirement System, provided information on the financial implications of the bill. He highlighted that the employer's contribution would increase under the new plan due to the difference between the normal cost and the proposed 5% contribution rate. He also mentioned long-term risks such as the need to adjust investment strategies for a closed group and potential changes in contribution calculations. Kavanaugh clarified that the bill's language on unfunded actuarial liability was ambiguous and needed clarification.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:37:07.639 - 1:37:53 PM; The speaker expressed concerns about the financial sustainability of the New Hampshire Retirement System, particularly focusing on the implications of a closed group of state employees (Group One) and the potential need for increased contributions or better investment performance to cover pension costs. They discussed the actuarial adjustments required to manage the unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) and the challenges of predicting future contributions and investment returns. The speaker also mentioned the importance of investment earnings in funding the pension system and the complications that arise when a group is closed to new members.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:43:30.320 - 1:44:16 PM; The speaker inquired about the contributions to the UAAL by Group Three members and the technical issues surrounding compensation and tracking. They suggested that these issues could be resolved in a subcommittee setting. The discussion also touched on the annualized return on the retirement system's investments and the difficulty in predicting future investment returns.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:46:37.798 - 1:47:23 PM; The speaker asked about the impact of the UAAL on a closed group and whether the system's assets would be sufficient to cover pensions until the last retiree. They discussed the economic concerns related to a closed group, including the need for safe, liquid investments and the inherited UAAL from previous years.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:48:11.878 - 1:48:57 PM; The speaker questioned the vesting rules and whether employees of the New Hampshire Retirement System are members of the system. They clarified that age vesting allows for retirement after three years of service upon reaching age 65. The discussion also touched on the difficulty of determining UAAL for specific positions and the challenges faced when trying to withdraw from the system.
HB581: Richard Gulla, President of the State Employees Association Oppose04:52:56.878 - 1:53:42 PM; Richard Gulla, representing over 10,000 public employees and retirees, opposed HB581. He argued that the bill, which proposes a defined contribution plan for new state employees, is detrimental to retention and recruitment. Gulla highlighted the lack of new relevant information to support the change and criticized the exclusion of teachers, firefighters, and police officers from the bill. He pointed out the risks associated with defined contribution plans, including inflation, investment, and outliving funds, and provided examples of the volatility of the stock market. Gulla emphasized the importance of the current defined benefit plan as a recruitment tool and urged the committee to reject the bill, citing the consistent opposition from both Republican and Democrat legislators over the past 24 years.
HB581: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:59:15.638 - 2:00:01 PM; The speaker asked about the investment strategy of the defined benefit plan and whether it is also subject to market volatility. They also inquired about the experiences of Alaska with a similar plan, noting that Alaska faced hiring difficulties and is attempting to reverse the change due to increased costs.
HB581: Karen Irwin, Retired State Employee from Hopkinton Oppose05:01:28.760 - 2:02:14 PM; Karen Irwin, a retired state employee from Hopkinton, opposed HB581. She emphasized the importance of the New Hampshire Retirement System's defined benefit plan, which has been in place for over 50 years and benefits a large number of active members and retirees. Irwin expressed concerns about the bill's impact on state employees, particularly the reduced employer contributions and the lack of health insurance coverage. She highlighted the risks and uncertainties associated with the proposed defined contribution plan and the potential negative effects on employees who leave and return to state employment. Irwin urged the committee to maintain the current system, which she believes is working well and is a significant benefit for state employees.
HB581: Greg Moore Information Only05:08:26.440 - 2:09:12 PM; Greg Moore thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak but did not provide further testimony in the provided snippet.
HB581: Greg Moore, Americans for Prosperity Support05:08:41.958 - 2:09:27 PM; Greg Moore, a Regional Director with Americans for Prosperity, testified in support of House Bill 581. He highlighted that the current New Hampshire retirement system has a low vesting rate, mentioning his own decision not to join the system when he became a state employee in 2003. Moore argued that the proposed legislation would better meet the needs of younger workers who frequently change jobs, citing studies that show Millennials and Gen Z workers change jobs every 18 to 15 months respectively. He suggested that the bill would allow workers to take their retirement benefits with them when they leave their jobs. Moore also pointed out that the bill does not currently allow unvested workers to switch to the new system, which he believes should be considered. He responded to a question about his non-participation in the retirement system, explaining that as an unclassified and legislative employee, he was not required to join.
HB581: Arthur Bodri, New Hampshire State Permanent Firefighters Retirement Association Oppose05:12:08.160 - 2:12:54 PM; Arthur Bodri, a retired captain from the Manchester Fire Department and former member of the Board of Trustees for the New Hampshire Retirement System, spoke in opposition to House Bill 581. He argued that the bill would not involve the New Hampshire Retirement System in administering the new defined contribution plan for Group Three employees, as it would be managed by the Department of Administrative Services and a third-party administrator. Bodri expressed concern that this would create a new administrative department, and that the contributions made by members and employers under the proposed plan are lower than recommended by previous testimonies from TIAA-CREF, which suggested a 12% total contribution rate. He also highlighted the lack of provisions for accidental disability or death benefits in the bill, which would require additional insurance costs. Bodri referenced studies of other states that switched to defined contribution plans and faced increased pension debt and retirement insecurity. He urged the committee to vote ITL (Inexpedient to Legislate) on the bill, asserting that the current system is not broken and should be allowed to continue. In response to questions, Bodri clarified that the states studied had switched to DC plans, and discussed the implications of past legislative changes to the retirement system, which he believes contributed to the current funding issues.
HB581: Bob Blazel Information Only05:24:48.840 - 2:25:34 PM; Bob Blazel began to speak but the transcript snippet ends before his testimony is provided.
HB581: Bob Blazel, State Employees Association Oppose05:24:53.240 - 2:25:39 PM; Bob Blazel, representing the State Employees Association, testified against HB581, emphasizing that switching to a Defined Contribution (DC) plan, as proposed by the bill, has been detrimental in other states like Alaska, Kentucky, Michigan, Oklahoma, and West Virginia. He highlighted increased costs, negative cash flows, and higher employee turnover as results of such a switch. Blazel criticized the notion that defined benefit plans operate on guesswork, citing the New Hampshire Retirement System's investment committee's successful management with an average return rate of 7.9% over the last decade. He also pointed out that the bill, which failed to get a favorable committee recommendation and was retained without public collaboration, was later defeated as a floor amendment. He argued that the current system, which includes both defined benefits and deferred compensation, is more beneficial for state employees and taxpayers, aiding in retention and protecting taxpayer dollars.
HB581: Tony Luckus, Hudson, New Hampshire Support05:33:18.920 - 2:34:04 PM; Tony Luckus, from Hudson, New Hampshire, and a former committee member, spoke in support of HB581. He argued that moving to a defined contribution plan would prevent future legislative mismanagement of retirement funds. Luckus addressed concerns about retirement healthcare, stating that under the bill and its amendment, group one and group three employees would be treated the same. He suggested that the state contribution rate could be adjusted if needed. He countered arguments about the closed nature of the current system by comparing it to Social Security and highlighted the long-term benefits of defined contribution plans over defined benefit plans, using his personal experience as an example. He also noted that moving away from a defined benefit plan could improve the state's credit rating, potentially saving money in the long run.

Layon, Erica(Chairman)(R)[A+]2025	Sytek, John(Clerk)(R)[B-]2025	Slottje, Jeremy(V Chairman)(R)[A+]2025
Schmidt, Peter(D)[F]2025	Thibault, James(R)[A]2025	Howard, Heath(D)[F]2025
Sellers, John(R)[A-]2025	de Vries, Erica(D)[CT]2025	Dargie, Paul(D)[F]2025
Davis, Fred(D)[D-]2025	Bailey, Glenn(R)[A+]2025	Kelley, Diane(R)[A-]2025
Pearson, Stephen(R)[B-]2025	Grote, Jaci(D)[CT]2025	Long, Patrick(D)[D]2025
DeRoy, Susan(R)[A-]2025