Committee Summary for House Municipal and County Government (01/23/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB139 00:08:33.039 - 8:37:37 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the official designation of holidays by municipalities and educational institutions.	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[F]2025
HB346 00:31:11.760 - 9:00:15 AM	Public Hearing	relative to licensure fees for race tracks.	Vose, Michael(R)[A-]2025
HB165 00:58:20.280 - 9:27:24 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the maximum amount of disaster relief funding provided to municipalities after a natural disaster.	Aron, Judy(R)[A-]2025
HB173 01:11:53.000 - 9:40:57 AM	Public Hearing	relative to maintaining the purpose of a petitioned warrant article.	Sellers, John(R)[A-]2025
HB348 01:51:06.960 - 10:20:10 AM	Public Hearing	relative to eligibility for local assistance.	Rhodes, Jennifer(R)[B+]2025
HB453 03:33:43.040 - 12:02:47 PM	Public Hearing	prohibiting municipalities from banning use of grounds maintenance and snow and ice removal equipment with internal combustion engines.	Walsh, Thomas(R)[B-]2025
HB488 03:52:50.800 - 12:21:54 PM	Public Hearing	(Second New Title) relative to limiting conflicts of interest and concentrations of power for municipal board and committee members.	Spilsbury, Walter(R)[A-]2025
HB488 05:16:04.280 - 1:45:08 PM	Executive Session	(Second New Title) relative to limiting conflicts of interest and concentrations of power for municipal board and committee members.	Spilsbury, Walter(R)[A-]2025
HB84 05:22:22.440 - 1:51:26 PM	Executive Session	allowing municipalities to collect fees for certain recreational vehicles located on campground properties.	Faulkner, Barry(D)[D-]2025
HB86 2025-0036h 05:29:14.520 - 1:58:18 PM	Executive Session	increasing the cost of service for notice of civil forfeiture of unlicensed dogs to the rate for certified mail.	St. Clair, Charlie(D)[D-]2025
HB92 2025-0062h 05:36:33.120 - 2:05:37 PM	Executive Session	(New Title) requiring recusal of members of zoning boards of adjustment and planning boards in certain circumstances.	Alexander, Joe(R)[A+]2025
HB99 2025-0045h 05:55:10.240 - 2:24:14 PM	Executive Session	relative to a waiver from property taxes for disabled veterans.	Moffett, Michael(R)[B+]2025
HB101 06:08:36.160 - 2:37:40 PM	Executive Session	relative to exempting certain elderly homeowners from paying property taxes.	Belcher, Mike(R)[B+]2025
HB110 2025-0057h 06:14:03.080 - 2:43:07 PM	Executive Session	authorizing counties to establish revolving fund accounts.	Trottier, Douglas(R)[IN]2025
HB78 2025-034h 06:40:57.120 - 3:10:01 PM	Executive Session	requiring a person to have a domicile in the district from which they serve as county commissioner.	Turcotte, Len(R)[B]2025

HB139: Representative Timothy Horgan, Strafford County District 10, Durham Support00:08:33.039 - 8:37:37 AM; Representative Horgan introduced HB139, emphasizing the need for local control over holiday designations. He argued that current laws restricting municipalities and school districts from celebrating special days conflicting with official holidays are an overreach. Horgan mentioned that several communities, including his own, prefer to observe Indigenous People's Day instead of Columbus Day, citing Columbus as a controversial figure. He believes municipalities should be free to observe any holidays they choose, possibly even celebrating multiple occasions on the same day or renaming holidays without disrespecting other groups.
HB139: Mike Dagel, resident of Portsmouth, New Hampshire Oppose00:12:24.720 - 8:41:28 AM; Mike Dagel opposed HB139, referencing the bipartisan House Bill 1014 passed in 2024, which aimed to make holiday naming uniform across the state. He argued that traditional holidays have deep cultural and historical significance, fostering unity and preserving cultural heritage. Dagel believes changing traditional holiday names would cause confusion without benefit and stressed the importance of maintaining these names to ensure future generations understand their origins. He also noted that municipalities and schools can still observe additional holidays but must use the state-specified names for those on the RSA 288.15 list.
HB139: Representative Al Holland, Strafford 20, Durham, Lee, Madbury, Dover Ward 4 Support00:18:41.080 - 8:47:45 AM; Representative Holland supported HB139, sharing his experience on the Durham Town Council and Oyster River School Board when they changed Columbus Day to Indigenous People's Day. This decision followed community questioning of a historical painting depicting the Oyster River raid in 1690, which was significant to the local history. Holland argued that the bill would restore local control over holiday designations, which was disrupted by recent legislation attempting to enforce uniform holiday names across the state. He emphasized that no other holiday dates have been changed by municipalities except for Indigenous People's Day.
HB139: Representative Susan Pelli, Rockingham District 19, Hampton Falls and Kensington Oppose00:23:34.720 - 8:52:38 AM; Representative Pelli opposed HB139, arguing that it removes the requirement for educational institutions and municipalities to use the legal title of holidays in communications. She highlighted that holidays reflect shared history and should be honored using their legal names to avoid confusion. Pelli pointed out the established process for changing legal holidays and encouraged using it. She requested an expedient to legislate against the bill, emphasizing the importance of maintaining unified holiday traditions.
HB346: Representative V Information Only00:31:11.760 - 9:00:15 AM; Representative V introduced HB346, which is relative to lure fees for racetracks. The introduction was brief, and further details were to be provided by subsequent speakers.
HB346: Jake Roger Information Only00:31:11.760 - 9:00:15 AM; Jake Roger was scheduled to provide public testimony on HB346 but the transcript does not include his statement, indicating that it was to follow Representative V's introduction.
HB346: Representative Michael Vose, Rockingham District 5, Epping Support00:31:18.799 - 9:00:22 AM; Representative Vose introduced House Bill 346 FN, which aims to increase the fee that municipalities can assess on racetracks for licensing. He explained that the current fee of up to $100 was set in 1970 and should be adjusted to account for inflation, suggesting a new fee of $500. He justified the need for licensing racetracks due to public safety and health concerns associated with their operations. He mentioned that the town of Epping has two racetracks, the New England Dragway and the Star Speedway, and highlighted the significant impact these facilities have on the town, especially during national events.
HB346: Jake Roger, Town Administrator, Epping Support00:34:41.320 - 9:03:45 AM; Jake Roger, Epping's Town Administrator, supported the bill on behalf of the town's governing body, the select board. He corrected that Epping now has three racetracks, including the newly added MX 101 motocross track, which contributed to the need for increased fees. He detailed the extensive work involved in licensing each track, including inspections by town planners, fire prevention officers, health inspectors, and coordination by the police and executive secretary. He calculated the total cost of issuing one license at approximately $698, highlighting the significant financial burden on taxpayers due to the current fee structure. Roger also mentioned ongoing changes to racetrack bylaws due to the increased number of tracks and offered to share a detailed breakdown of staff involvement and costs with the committee.
HB346: Representative Gerard Information Only00:38:04.839 - 9:07:08 AM; Representative Gerard inquired about other types of businesses in Epping that require similar licensing processes. Jake Roger mentioned the large assembly permit, which also involves a fee and a similar but quicker process compared to racetrack licensing.
HB346: Representative Gilman Information Only00:39:40.359 - 9:08:44 AM; Representative Gilman asked about the difference in licensing fees between town events like Halloween celebrations and private events like those at the New England Dragway. Jake Roger acknowledged the differences but emphasized the public health and safety concerns both types of events necessitate, noting the significantly larger scale of racetrack events.
HB346: Representative Frock Information Only00:40:37.839 - 9:09:41 AM; Representative Frock asked about the frequency and nature of changes to emergency and other plans related to racetrack operations. Jake Roger responded that changes are minor and mostly involve discussions and minor document adjustments. He also mentioned that he would need to research the licensing requirements for food vendors at these events.
HB346: Majori Information Only00:42:10.480 - 9:11:14 AM; Majori raised a concern about the use of hard numbers in bills, specifically questioning if it would be more appropriate to use actual costs rather than a fixed number for fees. He suggested this approach could prevent the need to revisit legislation frequently. He also inquired about the possibility of adjusting fees based on inflation or similar measures, rather than allowing municipalities to set their own fees which could lead to inconsistencies across different towns.
HB346: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:42:56.960 - 9:12:00 AM; The unidentified speaker responded to Majori's query by expressing trust in the committee's judgment on setting statutory fees but cautioned against allowing municipalities to set their own fees due to potential disparities. They suggested that while a hard number in the statute is not necessary, the fee could be adjusted annually based on inflation or other indices.
HB346: Unidentified Speaker Information Only00:43:47.880 - 9:12:51 AM; The speaker addressed a question about whether municipalities publish their fee schedules, clarifying that while there's no statutory requirement, their town posts all ordinances, including fees, on their website for public access.
HB346: Ben Bzowski, Owner and Operator of Hudson Speedway, Lee USA Speedway, and Clont Motorsports Park Oppose00:44:56.040 - 9:14:00 AM; Ben Bzowski expressed shock and opposition to the proposed bill, highlighting the exponential rise in operational costs for racetracks since 1970, including food, police, fire, and ambulance services. He detailed the restrictive operating hours imposed by towns, specifically mentioning Hudson Speedway's limited schedule, and argued that increasing the fee from $500 to a higher amount would be burdensome given these restrictions. He also mentioned the operational challenges at Lee USA Speedway, emphasizing the high costs associated with safety requirements and the limited number of events they can host annually.
HB346: Representative Stavis Information Only00:47:33.960 - 9:16:37 AM; Representative Stavis acknowledged Ben Bzowski's testimony and complimented his public speaking. He questioned whether Bzowski understood that towns' costs have also increased, to which Bzowski agreed but reiterated the restrictive operating hours that limit his ability to offset increased costs.
HB346: Representative Frock Information Only00:48:51.920 - 9:17:55 AM; Representative Frock inquired if Bzowski charges admission to his racetracks and if the admission price has remained constant since 1972. Bzowski confirmed charging admission but did not specify historical prices, mentioning that Hudson Speedway has always charged $15 for entry.
HB346: Mr. Bzowski Information Only00:49:26.960 - 9:18:30 AM; Mr. Bzowski provided information regarding the frequency and duration of inspections by local fire and police departments at three different racetrack facilities. He stated that inspections occur annually, with Hudson taking about an hour, Lee taking about two hours, and he was unsure about Claremont but estimated no more than an hour and a half.
HB346: Ronald Jro, R&B Motorsports, Wentworth Information Only00:50:58.799 - 9:20:02 AM; Ronald Jro, representing R&B Motorsports in Wentworth, New Hampshire, spoke about the impact of racetracks on local communities, particularly focusing on the economic benefits from events like those at New England Dragway in Epping and the Nascar event in Loudon. He mentioned that while racetracks can cause noise and traffic issues, they also bring significant business to local establishments. Jro suggested that licensing fees should be regulated by the towns to foster cooperation between racetrack operators and local authorities. He also compared racetracks to other facilities like horse farms that should be similarly regulated. He advocated for continued discussion on the bill to gather more public input.
HB346: Representative Stavis Information Only00:55:14.680 - 9:24:18 AM; Representative Stavis asked Ronald Jro if he would be comfortable with amending the statewide law to reflect actual costs rather than a fixed number for racetrack licensing fees. Jro responded that he preferred a fixed number as it has been since 1970.
HB165: Representative Judy Aaron, Alstead, Goshen, Langdon, Lempster, and Washington Support00:58:20.280 - 9:27:24 AM; Representative Judy Aaron introduced HB165, aimed at increasing the maximum amount of disaster relief funding from $25,000 back to $100,000 for municipalities after natural disasters. She argued that the current amount is insufficient for effective disaster relief, citing her experience with flooding in her district in 2021 and 2023. Aaron also mentioned that the bill corrects language as suggested by Homeland Security and Emergency Management to clarify the scope of the disaster relief funding. She highlighted the ineffectiveness of previous disaster relief bills due to delays in rule implementation and urged the committee to act swiftly to prepare for future disasters.
HB165: Representative Colby Information Only01:02:02.119 - 9:31:06 AM; Representative Colby inquired whether municipalities are required to have a FEMA or Homeland Security approved Hazard Mitigation Plan to qualify for disaster relief grants under HB165. Representative Aaron responded that she does not believe such a requirement exists in the current statutes, though many municipalities, including hers, have such plans.
HB165: Representative Aaron, Alworth Support01:02:59.839 - 9:32:03 AM; Representative Aaron from Alworth spoke in support of the bill, emphasizing the challenges small communities face during disasters. He noted that $25,000 is insufficient for significant road repairs after floods, and highlighted the town's reliance on contingency funds, Road and Bridge funds, and community donations. He mentioned the use of municipal mutual aid, though its effectiveness is limited when neighboring towns are also affected. He also mentioned receiving some state assistance in the form of signage and barriers but stressed that an infusion of cash from the state could greatly help towns recover from disasters.
HB173: Representative John Sellers, Grafton District 10, Bristol and Bridgewater Support01:11:53.000 - 9:40:57 AM; Representative John Sellers introduced HB173, expressing support for the bill which aims to prevent amendments to petitioned warrant articles that change their purpose. He explained that the bill specifically addresses the issue where petition articles, intended for a direct vote by the community, are sometimes amended to become studies, thus altering their original intent. He provided examples from his district where this occurred, underscoring the importance of maintaining the original purpose of such articles as presented by the petitioners.
HB173: Representative Guthrie, Hamstead Support01:15:20.239 - 9:44:24 AM; Representative Guthrie from Hamstead expressed support for HB173, noting his surprise that the protection of petition articles from amendments wasn't already in legislation. As a former selectman, he believed petition articles were sacred and should not be altered. He co-sponsored the bill to clarify this rule, emphasizing the need for public awareness about the rules governing petition articles.
HB173: Representative Gilman, Exeter Information Only01:17:50.719 - 9:46:54 AM; Representative Gilman from Exeter sought clarification on the bill's implications, using an example from his town regarding a tax cap petition article. He asked whether changing the purpose of such an article to a study would fall under changing the subject matter or the purpose. Representative Sellers clarified that altering the purpose to a study would indeed change the intent of the petition, which is to bring the issue directly to voters for approval or rejection.
HB173: Murphy, Town Moderator Information Only01:20:37.360 - 9:49:41 AM; Murphy, a town moderator, expressed confusion about allowing changes to the intent of warrant articles during town meetings. He stated that he would not permit such changes as they alter the original intent of the article, referencing a situation where a warrant article's intent was changed to a study instead of a direct vote. He sought clarification on whether the intent of warrant articles can be changed and suggested that such changes should be prohibited.
HB173: Grund Information Only01:21:43.679 - 9:50:47 AM; Grund discussed a situation in their district where a proposed tax cap's purpose was debated, questioning whether it could be considered a dollar amount or a purpose. They highlighted the ambiguity when the tax cap was amended, suggesting that clarification on changing the purpose could be problematic. Grund sought further insight on distinguishing between the tax cap's purpose and amount.
HB173: Majori Information Only01:23:13.440 - 9:52:17 AM; Majori, an English major, expressed confusion about the use of 'intent' versus 'purpose' in the context of the bill. They acknowledged the subtle difference between the words and asked for clarification on which term should be used, reflecting on the New Hampshire Municipal Association's previous discussions on the matter.
HB173: Stavis Information Only01:24:28.400 - 9:53:32 AM; Stavis asked about the possibility of amending the bill to include both 'purpose' and 'intent'. They clarified that the current bill only mentions 'purpose' and sought the speaker's opinion on amending the bill to include 'intent' as well.
HB173: Colby Information Only01:25:11.560 - 9:54:15 AM; Colby raised concerns about the timing of the bill's effective date, noting that many SB2 communities hold their deliberative sessions later in the year. They suggested extending the effective date to July 1, 2025, to allow more time for communities to understand the new language. The speaker agreed that this could be a good approach to avoid confusion during upcoming elections.
HB173: Gilman, Exeter Information Only01:26:45.800 - 9:55:49 AM; Gilman asked for clarification on whether changing the color of police cars from one specific color to another would be considered a change in purpose or subject matter. They used an example of a warrant article to change police car color to purple, questioning if this would be allowed under the bill's current language. The speaker responded that such a change would still fall under the subject matter but altering it to a study would change the intent.
HB173: Walker Information Only01:29:06.800 - 9:58:10 AM; Walker, unfamiliar with town processes, asked if there are different types of warrant articles and suggested that the bill might be better targeted at preventing amendments to petitioned warrant articles. They proposed that this would protect the intent of articles submitted by the public. The speaker was uncertain about the feasibility of this approach.
HB173: Murphy, Town Moderator Information Only01:30:41.320 - 9:59:45 AM; Murphy reiterated his stance on not permitting amendments that change the intent of warrant articles, using the example of changing a warrant article to a study. He emphasized that such changes should not be allowed and expressed his frustration at seeing this happen. The chair reminded him that the time was for questions and answers, not comments.
HB173: Brian Lewis, Alexandria Support01:32:09.480 - 10:01:13 AM; Brian Lewis expressed support for HB173, sharing his experiences at town meetings where special interest groups have influenced the process. He described how these groups attempt to change warrant articles into study groups, which he believes subverts the will of the electorate. Lewis argued that the bill is necessary to prevent such manipulation, emphasizing the importance of allowing the electorate to vote on warrant articles as originally submitted. He also mentioned the negative impact on students witnessing these tactics, suggesting it sends the wrong message about civic participation.
HB173: Representative Dolan Information Only01:34:33.159 - 10:03:37 AM; Representative Dolan questioned the necessity of the bill, suggesting that existing local authorities, including the moderator and town attorney, should be sufficient to prevent the hijacking of town meetings. He asked if local expertise could handle such issues without the need for new legislation. Lewis responded that while local expertise is valuable, explicit legal prohibition is needed to stop the ongoing manipulation of warrant articles.
HB173: Representative Stavis Information Only01:36:27.239 - 10:05:31 AM; Representative Stavis inquired about the specific special interest groups and their tactics mentioned by Lewis. Lewis explained that these groups aim to defeat warrant articles by converting them into study groups, which prevents the original article from being voted on as intended. Stavis then asked if prohibiting amendments to petition warrant articles could solve the issue, to which Lewis replied that amendments changing the dollar amount but not the intent should be allowed, but not those that prevent the electorate from voting on the original proposal.
HB173: Representative Murphy Information Only01:39:21.000 - 10:08:25 AM; Representative Murphy questioned whether the special interest groups influencing town meetings are voters or non-voters. Lewis responded that sometimes non-voters, including minors, are allowed to speak and even attempt to modify warrant articles, which he believes is inappropriate since they are not qualified to vote on these matters.
HB173: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose01:40:35.520 - 10:09:39 AM; Brody Dees from the New Hampshire Municipal Association spoke in opposition to HB173. He argued that all warrant articles, whether petitioned or from the governing body, should be treated equally at deliberative sessions. He expressed concerns that differentiating the treatment of warrant articles could lead to confusion and diminish the power of the public body to amend or adjust articles to ensure they are legal and workable within existing legislative frameworks. Dees highlighted the importance of allowing flexibility for governing bodies and public bodies to amend articles, similar to how the legislature can amend bills. He cited past issues where amendments were used to nullify petitioned articles and emphasized the need for changes to make articles legal and implementable, noting that not all petitioners are legally versed. He also discussed the challenges in defining 'purpose' versus 'intent' in relation to amendments, suggesting that the current language provides necessary flexibility to respect the process and will of the voters.
HB173: Representative Majory Information Only01:45:03.880 - 10:14:07 AM; Representative Majory asked a clarifying question about the nature of deliberative sessions regarding petition warrant articles. He inquired whether these sessions were open to the public and if only voting members could debate the articles. It was confirmed that while the meetings are open to the public, only duly registered residents can vote on or amend the warrant articles.
HB173: Representative Dolan Information Only01:46:05.599 - 10:15:09 AM; Representative Dolan asked if it was legally permissible under the New Hampshire Municipal Association's view for a town meeting to amend a warrant article to zero. Brody Dees responded that while it is not their position per se, legally, the public body could potentially amend an article to a zero amount or a nominal amount like $1, effectively nullifying it.
HB173: Representative Stavis Information Only01:47:19.520 - 10:16:23 AM; Representative Stavis inquired about the New Hampshire Municipal Association's position on public meeting laws and the concept of 'special interest' or 'outside interest' groups. Brody Dees clarified that legally, anyone can attend public meetings, but only duly registered voters can participate in votes at deliberative sessions, thus there is no official position on special or outside interests.
HB173: Representative France Information Only01:48:15.159 - 10:17:19 AM; Representative France asked if an outside interest could propose an amendment, despite not being able to vote. Brody Dees explained that only members of the public body who are duly registered to vote can bring forward amendments, which must be seconded by another registered voter.
HB173: Representative Gilman Information Only01:49:33.360 - 10:18:37 AM; Representative Gilman provided a summary of the public hearing's sign-in sheet, noting one in-person support, two in-person oppositions, five remote supports, and two remote oppositions for HB173. This concluded the public hearing on the bill.
HB348: Unnamed Representative Support01:51:06.960 - 10:20:10 AM; The speaker introduces House Bill 348, aimed at ensuring that beneficiaries of local welfare funds live in the town providing the assistance. They mention having met with advocates and agreed to wording changes that will be incorporated as amendments, which they will submit to the chairwoman. The representative emphasizes the importance of local control over welfare budgets, which they believe have grown excessively. They propose that welfare assistance should be limited to town residents, suggesting specific criteria for residency such as car registration, a signed lease, or a utility bill. They also mention an oversight in not including government-issued ID as a form of proof, which they plan to correct. The speaker acknowledges the need for special considerations for non-residents in cases of domestic violence or human trafficking but stresses that such decisions should be left to the local governing body. They express concern over the confusion created by Senate Bill 110 regarding welfare assistance between towns and share an anecdote about a landlord exploiting the welfare system. The representative concludes by affirming their commitment to submit the proposed amendments and answer questions.
HB348: Representative Colby Information Only02:01:19.639 - 10:30:23 AM; Representative Colby questions the bill's impact on victims of domestic and sexual violence, who often flee without documentation necessary to prove residency. They ask how such individuals could access assistance without car registration, a lease, or a utility bill. The response from the unnamed representative indicates that coalitions and advocates help these individuals establish residency, possibly in a safe house or apartment, and that this assistance might bypass the need for local welfare offices.
HB348: Representative Guthrie Oppose02:04:13.920 - 10:33:17 AM; Representative Guthrie challenges the necessity of local welfare if other resources exist and questions the impact of the proposed 90-day residency requirement on the number of people served. The unnamed representative disagrees, stating that the bill does not aim to abolish local welfare but to ensure that assistance is given to residents of the town providing the funds. They mention a plethora of services available under RSA 165 and stress that the bill's intent is to clarify residency requirements.
HB348: Representative Grund Information Only02:05:58.239 - 10:35:02 AM; Representative Grund inquires about the implications of the residency requirement for families facing immediate homelessness, who might move quickly. The unnamed representative clarifies that the residency requirement might change to 30 days and that towns could choose to provide assistance despite the guidelines if adopted by the governing body. They also mention changes in neighboring states and express concern about potential exploitation of New Hampshire's welfare system by residents of those states.
HB348: Representative Gilman Information Only02:09:07.679 - 10:38:11 AM; Representative Gilman asks about the adequacy of existing communication and coordination between municipalities under RSA 165:1-c:5. The unnamed representative explains that Senate Bill 110 has created confusion about what municipalities can ask of each other regarding welfare assistance, and they plan to address this with their bill.
HB348: Stavis Information Only02:10:07.679 - 10:39:11 AM; Stavis raised a question about RSA 165 section 2 B, which mentions disqualification for certain property transfers that would bar people from other states like Maine, Massachusetts, or Vermont from receiving welfare assistance. He sought clarification on whether the prime sponsor was familiar with this section and its implications on the bill's hypothetical scenarios.
HB348: Majiori Information Only02:11:27.960 - 10:40:31 AM; Majiori inquired if the new definition of 'Resident' in the bill could create a situation where an individual might be considered two different types of residents under different sections of the law. He was concerned about potential confusion and problems this might cause for individuals transitioning between definitions of residency.
HB348: Gilman Information Only02:12:40.559 - 10:41:44 AM; Gilman discussed the flexibility of welfare budgets in towns and questioned whether towns with tight budgets could seek assistance from other towns. He referenced the current law's provision for communication and coordination of assistance, suggesting it might allow for inter-town support when budgets are strained.
HB348: Holly Stevens, Nami New Hampshire Oppose02:19:13.679 - 10:48:17 AM; Holly Stevens, representing Nami New Hampshire, spoke in opposition to HB348, highlighting its potential severe unintended consequences on individuals with mental illness. She provided examples of individuals discharged from treatment facilities or jails without a place to go for local assistance if the bill were to pass. Stevens stressed the importance of considering vulnerable populations and the potential for increased re-incarceration or hospitalization due to lack of medication access.
HB348: Mike York, Swansea Republican Committee, Swansea Planning Board, Swansea Fire Station Advisory Board Support02:23:05.920 - 10:52:09 AM; Mike York, representing various positions in Swansea, strongly supports HB348, which would allow municipalities to establish a residency requirement for local welfare assistance. He argues that municipalities bear the full cost of welfare with no state support and that Swansea has been handling low-income housing well but faces challenges with increased population and associated costs like schools, police, and fire services. He mentions that property taxes have risen significantly and stresses the need for relief, which he believes this bill could help provide by ensuring that only residents receive assistance. He is open to exceptions to prevent people from falling through the cracks and volunteered his services to the town as a way of giving back.
HB348: Rebecca Sky, New Hampshire State Commission on Aging Oppose02:27:17.319 - 10:56:21 AM; Rebecca Sky, from the New Hampshire State Commission on Aging, opposes HB348. She cites Supreme Court cases indicating that residency requirements for welfare assistance are unconstitutional as they penalize individuals for exercising their right to travel and fail to provide equal protection. She expressed concern over the increasing poverty and homelessness among older adults, highlighting statistics on poverty rates and homelessness in New Hampshire. She provided visual aids to demonstrate the demographic shifts and poverty rates in the state, urging the committee to consider the impact of the bill on vulnerable populations.
HB348: Michael Branley, Town Administrator, Swansea Support02:31:21.920 - 11:00:25 AM; Michael Branley, the Town Administrator of Swansea, supports the intent behind HB348, emphasizing the need for welfare reform. He states that the current system is broken and local welfare officials are frustrated by the statutes and lack of resources. He believes that if the state does not provide municipalities with the necessary resources or flexibility, bills like HB348 are necessary. He also addressed a question about whether the bill would reduce costs or just delay them, suggesting it would ensure that costs are borne by the community where the individual had previously resided, potentially spreading the financial burden more evenly across the state.
HB348: Steve Tower, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose02:32:55.880 - 11:01:59 AM; Steve Tower, from New Hampshire Legal Assistance, opposes HB348. He explains the historical context of the welfare statute, pointing out that the current language has been in place since colonial times to prevent individuals from being denied assistance due to residency disputes. He argues that removing the clause about residency would be detrimental and that the proposed durational residency requirement is unconstitutional based on numerous court cases. He expresses concern about the potential for towns to face expensive federal litigation if they enact such requirements and suggests working on alternative solutions to address the costs to towns without violating constitutional rights.
HB348: Kristen Reynolds, Swansea Information Only02:40:32.120 - 11:09:36 AM; Kristen Reynolds, a resident of Swansea, shares her observations from Portland, Oregon, where she moved from in 2022. She describes the significant homeless population there and how it was exacerbated by people being bused in from other areas. She expresses concern about a similar situation potentially developing in New Hampshire and mentions the slow progression of such issues, indicating that while it may not seem possible now, it could happen in the future.
HB348: Nick Taylor, Housing Action New Hampshire Oppose02:42:45.560 - 11:11:49 AM; Nick Taylor, representing Housing Action New Hampshire, spoke in opposition to HB348. He highlighted the housing shortage in New Hampshire, mentioning record low vacancy rates and high costs contributing to increased homelessness. Taylor referenced a report from the Coalition to End Homelessness showing a 50% increase in homelessness from 2022 to 2023. He argued that the bill would delay the incurrence of costs, shifting the burden to soup kitchens, faith-based organizations, shelters, and municipal services, which are already at capacity. He believes this would not reduce the burden on local welfare departments but would instead exacerbate the severity and frequency of homelessness.
HB348: Jennifer Chisum, New Hampshire Coalition to End Homelessness Oppose02:45:11.399 - 11:14:15 AM; Jennifer Chisum, the executive director of the New Hampshire Coalition to End Homelessness, opposed HB348. She emphasized the growing issue of homelessness in New Hampshire, citing a significant increase in chronic homelessness and unsheltered individuals since 2019. Chisum argued that the bill's proposed waiting period for accessing welfare support could be life-threatening, particularly during urgent needs such as emergency shelter in extreme weather. She shared her experiences as a social worker, illustrating the immediate needs of individuals in crisis, including victims of domestic violence and those requiring medication support.
HB348: Judith Jones, New Futures Oppose02:50:03.080 - 11:19:07 AM; Judith Jones from New Futures opposed HB348, highlighting its potential negative impacts on health and well-being across various age groups. She explained that local welfare is crucial for individuals who have experienced disruptive life events such as job loss or health crises. Jones stressed that the bill's residency requirement would deny critical assistance to those in need, particularly those transitioning from mental health or substance use treatment, and could increase the likelihood of relapse. She also discussed the effects on families and children, noting the potential for increased food insecurity and housing instability leading to adverse childhood experiences.
HB348: Todd Marsh, New Hampshire Local Welfare Administrators Association, Rochester Oppose02:55:20.200 - 11:24:24 AM; Todd Marsh, representing the New Hampshire Local Welfare Administrators Association and as the welfare director for Rochester, opposed the initial version of HB348. He described the association's role in supporting municipalities and the importance of continuous improvement in welfare policies. Marsh discussed the impracticality of the 90-day residency requirement, suggesting that 30 days with safeguards for urgent needs would be more workable. He emphasized the need for a balance and the potential for further work sessions to refine the bill's language and intent.
HB348: Freeman Toth, Community Action Program of Belknap and Merrimack Counties Information Only03:01:31.960 - 11:30:35 AM; Freeman Toth from the Community Action Program of Belknap and Merrimack Counties provided information on the potential unintended consequences of HB348. As a nonpartisan organization, Toth did not take a position on the bill but highlighted the importance of considering the impacts on the communities they serve.
HB348: Freeman Toth, Community Action Program of Belknap and Merrimack Counties Oppose03:02:14.960 - 11:31:18 AM; Freeman Toth, who manages the homeless Outreach and housing stability department for the Belknap-Merrimack Community Action Program, spoke about the challenges faced by the homeless population in the region. He mentioned that local control over welfare and homeless prevention mechanisms has been ineffective, leading to insufficient shelter availability per capita. Toth criticized the 90-day element in the bill, arguing that it would exclude many vulnerable community members, including the elderly and families living in vehicles. He pointed out the overcrowding in domestic violence and cold weather shelters and the restrictive screening processes that prevent many from accessing shelter. Toth also highlighted the strain on homeless prevention funds, noting that he ran out of money to prevent homelessness in October of the previous year due to high demand and lack of additional funding. He stressed that local welfare is currently the safety net and that people are dying due to inadequate resources. As a lifelong resident of New Hampshire and a former homeless college student, Toth advocated for easier access to help and opposed the bill for making it more restrictive.
HB348: Steve Bogur, State Representative for Belknap County District 5, City Councilor in Laconia for Ward 5 Oppose03:05:25.239 - 11:34:29 AM; Steve Bogur, a state representative and city councilor, expressed opposition to HB348, arguing from his dual perspective in state and local government. He discussed the situation in Laconia, which serves as a central hub for Belknap County services, including mental health and homeless shelters. Bogur highlighted the increasing costs associated with welfare services in Laconia, noting a significant rise in the budget from $40,000 to nearly $200,000 over the past few years. He argued that these costs are passed onto property tax owners, which in turn leads to rent increases and further homelessness. Bogur suggested that the state should take on the responsibility of welfare to prevent the burden from falling on local municipalities and exacerbating the cycle of homelessness. He emphasized the need for short-term help for locals rather than supporting a transient population that moves between towns to take advantage of different welfare systems.
HB453: Laurel Stavis, Representative for the city of Lebanon, Grafton 13 Information Only03:33:43.040 - 12:02:47 PM; Laurel Stavis introduced House Bill 453 on behalf of the prime sponsor, who was unable to attend. She stated that she had no opinion on the bill and simply introduced it, which prohibits municipalities from banning the use of grounds maintenance and snow and ice removal equipment powered by internal combustion engines.
HB488: David Frock, Representative for Grafton 16, Town of Enfield Information Only03:52:50.800 - 12:21:54 PM; David Frock introduced House Bill 488 on behalf of the prime sponsor, who was unable to attend. He explained that the bill is a rewrite of RSA 669:7, aimed at limiting conflicts of interest for municipal board and committee members. Frock clarified that this bill is broader in scope compared to HB 92, which deals specifically with conflicts on planning and zoning boards. He noted that HB 488 encompasses more boards and municipal employees and potential conflicts there. Frock answered questions from other representatives regarding the differences between the bills and the types of municipal boards covered.
HB488: Unidentified Speaker Information Only03:55:30.880 - 12:24:34 PM; The speaker inquired about the possibility of amending HB488 to incorporate elements of HB92, which deals with powers of planning and zoning boards. The speaker noted that such an amendment might be possible but not advisable due to the different sections of the RSAs involved. HB92 is found in sections 673 and 674, and the amendment aims to ensure that members of these boards understand the need to recuse themselves to avoid conflicts of interest.
HB488: Representative Heath Howard, Strafford and Barrington, Strafford District 4 Oppose03:56:59.680 - 12:26:03 PM; Representative Heath Howard expressed opposition to HB488 due to its potential impact on his town, Strafford, where one individual serves as both the town clerk and tax collector. He argued that finding qualified individuals for both roles is challenging. He proposed an amendment to remove the term 'if authorized as provided in RSA 41:45-' from the bill, suggesting this change would lessen the burden while still achieving the legislation's goal. He was open to questions on his proposed amendment.
HB488: Representative Guthrie Information Only03:58:16.640 - 12:27:20 PM; Representative Guthrie asked Representative Howard about the implications of part C of the bill, which prohibits full-time town employees or department heads from holding the office of selectman. Howard clarified that his opposition was specifically to part B of the bill, which affects town clerks and deputy clerks. He explained the proposed amendment to remove the requirement for town approval for a town clerk to also serve as a tax collector, as this would otherwise necessitate a vote at every town meeting.
HB488: Joan Dargy, President of the New Hampshire City and Town Clerks Association Oppose04:00:55.000 - 12:29:59 PM; Joan Dargy, representing the New Hampshire City and Town Clerks Association, opposed HB488. She argued that the bill's one-size-fits-all approach to resolving conflicts of interest in one town could create hardships in others. She cited examples where town clerks also serve as fire chiefs or town administrators, roles that would be prohibited under the bill. Dargy also noted the potential constitutional issues with the bill, as it might violate the New Hampshire Constitution's equal right to be elected into office. She offered to submit legal counsel's opinion and a letter from the Woodstock Select Board as evidence.
HB488: Chair Information Only05:16:04.280 - 1:45:08 PM; The chair announced the commencement of an executive session to consider seven bills, including HB488. The session's purpose was to vote on committee recommendations to be sent to the House floor. The chair noted the presence of several amendments and ensured committee members had the necessary documents.
HB84: Representative Maiori Oppose05:22:22.440 - 1:51:26 PM; Representative Maiori argued against House Bill 84, stating that existing mechanisms in RSA 82 allow municipalities to recoup unpaid taxes, making the bill unnecessary. They highlighted the impracticality of campground owners acting as tax collectors due to the lack of defined mechanisms for collection and distribution of funds back to the town. Maiori supported the motion for 'inexpedient to legislate' (ITL) on the grounds that the bill was not practical.
HB84: Representative Walker Oppose05:24:10.160 - 1:53:14 PM; Representative Walker expressed support for the ITL motion on House Bill 84, citing issues with the implementation of a $200 fee in place of real estate taxes for RVs in municipalities like Rochester. They pointed out the potential problems and gaps in the bill that could lead to inefficiencies and supported the motion to kill the bill.
HB86 2025-0036h: Representative Murphy Support05:29:14.520 - 1:58:18 PM; Representative Murphy proposed amendment number 2025-0036h to House Bill 86, suggesting that the cost of service for notice of civil forfeiture of unlicensed dogs be set at the US Postal Service rate for certified mail with return receipt. This amendment aims to eliminate the need to revisit the issue due to rising postal rates and to encourage more towns to comply with the service.
HB92 2025-0062h: Representative Frock, Enfield Support05:36:33.120 - 2:05:37 PM; Representative Frock, who chairs the planning board in Enfield, supported amendment number 2025-0062h to House Bill 92. He explained that the original bill sought to prevent individuals from serving on both the zoning and planning boards due to potential conflicts of interest in decision-making processes. The amendment, co-drafted with Representative Elward, proposes that individuals recuse themselves from zoning board appeals of their planning board decisions, allowing them to serve on both boards while addressing conflicts of interest.
HB92 2025-0062h: Representative Elward Oppose05:40:44.240 - 2:09:48 PM; Representative Elward, who co-drafted the amendment with Representative Frock, opposed it due to concerns raised by the New Hampshire Municipal Association. They pointed out that the amendment's language conflicts with other types of local land use boards and needs to specify the zoning board and planning board explicitly to be effective. Elward indicated they would not support the amendment in its current form.
HB92 2025-0062h: Representative Walker, Rochester Oppose05:42:21.840 - 2:11:25 PM; Representative Walker, with 15 years of experience on Rochester's planning board, opposed the amendment to House Bill 92. They emphasized the existing rule in Rochester preventing individuals from serving on both the planning and zoning boards due to conflicts of interest and poor optics when a member recuses themselves but remains on the board. Walker argued that the amendment does not sufficiently address these concerns.
HB92 2025-0062h: Representative Majori Information Only05:43:49.080 - 2:12:53 PM; Representative Majori, a co-sponsor of the underlying bill, expressed support for the overarching principle but questioned the language provided by OS. He raised concerns about the requirement for recusal from voting on matters previously decided by another board on which he serves as an alternate member, specifically citing his roles on the Heritage Commission and the planning board. He felt the language might not adequately address these situations and suggested it needed refinement.
HB92 2025-0062h: Representative Elward Information Only05:44:34.440 - 2:13:38 PM; Representative Elward responded to Representative Majori's concerns, agreeing that the language was problematic and referencing similar feedback from the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA).
HB92 2025-0062h: Vice Chair Information Only05:45:22.400 - 2:14:26 PM; The Vice Chair referenced RSA 672:7, explaining that land use boards include various commissions and boards under RSA 673, established by the local legislative body. This was in response to the discussion about the applicability of the bill's language to different boards.
HB92 2025-0062h: Representative Frock Information Only05:46:08.840 - 2:15:12 PM; Representative Frock inquired about the appropriateness of a motion to table at that point in the session, indicating a procedural question rather than a position on the bill itself.
HB92 2025-0062h: Chair Information Only05:48:26.000 - 2:17:30 PM; The Chair conducted a vote on amendment 2025-0062h to House Bill 92. The amendment failed with a vote of 5 to 13. Subsequently, a motion for Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) was proposed and then withdrawn to allow time for further amendment work. The session was recessed to allow members to work on a potential new amendment.
HB99 2025-0045h: Chair Information Only05:55:10.240 - 2:24:14 PM; The Chair opened the executive session on House Bill 99 and introduced amendment 2025-0045h, which adjusts the maximum allowable amount of the optional disabled veterans tax credit from $4,000 to $5,000. The amendment also clarifies language to include 'permanent and total disability' and prevents stacking of tax credits. The amendment was accepted unanimously with a vote of 18 to 0.
HB99 2025-0045h: Representative Majori Support06:05:59.958 - 2:35:03 PM; Representative Majori expressed support for the amendment to House Bill 99, mentioning that the prime sponsor was thrilled with the increase in the tax credit for veterans and the way the increase was calculated.
HB99 2025-0045h: Chair Information Only06:06:46.760 - 2:35:50 PM; The Chair conducted a vote on the motion to pass House Bill 99 as amended. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 18 to 0, and the committee recommendation was set to go on the consent calendar.
HB101: Representative Stavis Oppose06:08:36.160 - 2:37:40 PM; Representative Stavis moved for Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL) on House Bill 101, arguing that the bill lacks means testing and would allow even wealthy elderly homeowners to avoid property taxes. He cited past similar bills and recommended rejection on both technical and philosophical grounds.
HB101: Representative Guthrie Information Only06:10:31.200 - 2:39:35 PM; Representative Guthrie commented on the sentiment in some communities to support elderly homeowners but noted that the bill was poorly written. He mentioned that his town has already implemented measures to assist low-income seniors and emphasized the need for parameters in such legislation.
HB101: Chair Information Only06:12:07.638 - 2:41:11 PM; The Chair conducted a vote on the ITL motion for House Bill 101. The motion passed unanimously with a vote of 18 to 0, and the committee recommendation was set to go on the consent calendar.
HB110 2025-0057h: Chair Information Only06:14:03.080 - 2:43:07 PM; The Chair opened the executive session on House Bill 110 and introduced amendment 2025-0057h, which aims to establish a County public safety revolving fund. The amendment specifies that the county delegation is the legislative body, narrows the fund's purpose to public safety, and mandates that funds be deposited into the revolving fund with excess going to the general fund. The amendment also requires the County Treasurer to have custody of the fund's monies.
HB110 2025-0057h: Representative Frock Information Only06:21:46.240 - 2:50:50 PM; Representative Frock raised a question about the language in Roman numeral 4 of the amendment, which mentions the establishment of a County public safety revolving fund for other purposes. He sought clarification on how this would interact with the fund established by the amendment.
HB110 2025-0057h: Representative Frock Information Only06:23:27.760 - 2:52:31 PM; Representative Frock expressed confusion regarding the language in lines 14 through 17 of the amendment. He questioned how funds could be deposited for a specific purpose in a revolving fund and then have excess funds returned to the general fund. He also sought clarification on the accumulation of money within the fund from year to year, questioning how it aligns with the purpose of a revolving fund.
HB110 2025-0057h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only06:24:14.360 - 2:53:18 PM; The speaker clarified that payments for services rendered would go into the revolving fund, with any excess above what was specified by the county delegation going to the general fund. They further explained that money in the revolving fund can accumulate until it exceeds the established amount, at which point it would be considered excess.
HB110 2025-0057h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only06:25:00.440 - 2:54:04 PM; The speaker reiterated the explanation about the funds going into the revolving fund and excess going to the general fund. They noted that the accumulation of money in the fund is not considered excess until it exceeds the amount specified by the county delegation.
HB110 2025-0057h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only06:25:49.080 - 2:54:53 PM; The speaker expressed ongoing confusion about how the amendment allows for the accumulation of funds in the revolving fund while also sending excess funds to the general fund, which they believed contradicted the purpose of a revolving fund.
HB110 2025-0057h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only06:26:37.718 - 2:55:41 PM; The speaker mentioned spending considerable time with the prime sponsor and stakeholders to clarify the language in the amendment. They expressed confidence in the setup despite not being a financial expert, having grilled the prime sponsor for understanding.
HB110 2025-0057h: Representative Stavis Oppose06:27:39.798 - 2:56:43 PM; Representative Stavis moved to find the bill inexpedient to legislate (ITL). They expressed the need to dispose of the amendment and sought further discussion on it.
HB110 2025-0057h: Representative Gerard Oppose06:28:38.478 - 2:57:42 PM; Representative Gerard shared concerns about the amendment, particularly regarding the depositing of any other revenues into the revolving fund, which they felt could affect the county budget. They also questioned the accumulation of money in the fund, suggesting it should roll over instead, and highlighted the initial seed money's impact on the tax rate.
HB110 2025-0057h: Unnamed Speaker Support06:29:24.558 - 2:58:28 PM; The speaker responded to concerns by explaining that seed money would indeed come from a line item but emphasized that a revolving fund is a reasonable budgetary tool to accept payment for services rendered and to manage these funds appropriately. They argued that the current system might lead to over-budgeting and over-taxation.
HB110 2025-0057h: Unnamed Speaker Support06:30:55.360 - 2:59:59 PM; The speaker discussed the practical use of a revolving fund in their town, emphasizing its utility for unpredictable Public Safety details. They explained that while seed money is necessary initially, the fund should eventually self-sustain, reducing the need for yearly seed money and ensuring that excess funds return to the general fund.
HB110 2025-0057h: Representative Davis Oppose06:32:43.440 - 3:01:47 PM; Representative Davis supported the intent of the bill but expressed concern about the committee's ability to draft it correctly without accounting expertise. They worried that minor errors could lead to significant issues and emphasized the need for accounting experts to ensure the bill's effectiveness and safety.
HB110 2025-0057h: Representative Grund Information Only06:34:16.760 - 3:03:20 PM; Representative Grund sought clarification on the approval process for moving money within the fund, specifically questioning whether the County Commissioners need to go through an approval process. The response confirmed that the legislative body (county delegation) would authorize the fund, and the Commissioners would act as a check and balance.
HB110 2025-0057h: Unnamed Speaker Information Only06:35:45.080 - 3:04:49 PM; The speaker inquired about whether the Association of Counties was consulted regarding the amendment to HB110 and if they had taken a position. It was clarified that the Association of Counties was at the table with other stakeholders.
HB78 2025-034h: Chairperson Information Only06:40:57.120 - 3:10:01 PM; The chairperson opened the executive session on House Bill 78 and presented an amendment for acceptance by the committee, explaining its necessity due to a previous Senate amendment. The amendment clarifies residency requirements for County Commissioners, using language inspired by the New Hampshire Constitution and specifying that a person must be an inhabitant who resides actually and permanently in the county at the time of election.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Colby Information Only06:44:17.040 - 3:13:21 PM; Representative Colby expressed concern about the amendment's language, specifically the phrase 'at the time of his or her election,' questioning whether it allows a candidate to register and move to the county upon winning the election. The chairperson responded that the intent is to establish domicile, which might be covered by Secretary of State paperwork.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Murphy Oppose06:45:57.320 - 3:15:01 PM; Representative Murphy raised concerns about the timing of establishing residency, stating that candidates must have residency established by the time they file in June, not at the time of the election in November. The chairperson clarified that eligibility to file requires established residency, making the election timing irrelevant if a candidate is ineligible to file.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Majority Information Only06:47:23.718 - 3:16:27 PM; Representative Majority highlighted the ambiguity the amendment aims to fix, particularly in Strafford County, where candidates file and run in different districts. They noted that the language could be interpreted as allowing a candidate to file in one district and move to another before the election, potentially perpetuating the current problem.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Gilman Information Only06:48:32.280 - 3:17:36 PM; Representative Gilman recalled that the original bill was intended to address issues with the districting of Strafford County following a change from at-large to district-based elections. They agreed that residency should be established at the time of candidacy registration due to the changing district lines.
HB78 2025-034h: Chairperson Information Only06:50:11.280 - 3:19:15 PM; The chairperson directed members to review the amendment, the Senate amendment, and the original language of the bill. They explained that the amendment was offered to align with the Senate amendment's intent but with different terminology, specifically preferring the term 'inhabitant' over 'domicile.'
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Elward Information Only06:50:58.000 - 3:20:02 PM; Representative Elward added to the discussion by questioning the practicality of moving in anticipation of winning an election, as filing for candidacy does not guarantee a win.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Kosinski Information Only06:51:44.920 - 3:20:48 PM; Representative Kosinski shared information found online about the eligibility requirements for a County Commissioner in New Hampshire, which includes residency in the district for at least 30 days, supporting the discussion about Secretary of State eligibility requirements.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Davis Information Only06:52:22.878 - 3:21:26 PM; Representative Davis inquired about the possibility of adopting the Senate amendment as a House amendment, to which the chairperson responded that it was not possible due to the amendment's origin from the Senate. The chairperson further explained the preference for the term 'inhabitant' over 'domicile' in the amendment.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Murphy Information Only06:53:25.160 - 3:22:29 PM; Representative Murphy humorously remarked on the issue of 'plagiarism' in preferring to put a personal touch on amendments, indicating a light-hearted approach to the ongoing discussion.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Stavis Information Only06:53:48.000 - 3:22:52 PM; Representative Stavis expressed a general disapproval of plagiarism and questioned the necessity of specific language in the amendment, particularly the phrase 'at the time of his or her election' on line six. They sought clarification on the amendment's focus, indicating it might be unnecessarily detailed given that the language in question is already in statute.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Frock Information Only06:55:50.280 - 3:24:54 PM; Representative Frock questioned the purpose of the amendment, suggesting it muddies the waters since the original bill as introduced is already current law and only minor changes were proposed. They highlighted the simplicity of the original bill and questioned the need for the amendment.
HB78 2025-034h: Chair Information Only06:56:37.080 - 3:25:41 PM; The Chair responded to Representative Frock's concerns by explaining the voting process on the amendment. They clarified that if the amendment was not accepted, the committee would revert to the bill as filed. The Chair then proceeded to call a vote on the amendment, which passed with a vote of 12-6. Following this, a motion to pass the bill as amended was made and also passed with a vote of 13-5. The Chair announced the committee's recommendation as 'ought to pass as amended' and closed the executive session on HB78.
HB78 2025-034h: Chair Information Only07:01:45.558 - 3:30:49 PM; The Chair provided scheduling updates for future hearings and executive sessions, emphasizing the need to avoid meeting during the last week of February to give members a break. They also discussed the process for submitting amendments, urging members to coordinate and submit requests to OSS in a timely manner to allow at least 48 hours for review before an executive session. The Chair clarified a misunderstanding about amendment submission deadlines and emphasized the importance of timely distribution of amendments to committee members. Additionally, the Chair outlined the process for submitting committee reports and encouraged members to reach out with questions.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Stavis Information Only07:08:47.000 - 3:37:51 PM; Representative Stavis asked if new committee members were familiar with the House Committee Services (HCS) process, and offered to explain it. They described HCS's location and how to request document printing through legislative email.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Frock Information Only07:09:35.320 - 3:38:39 PM; Representative Frock raised concerns about the scheduling of executive sessions right after public hearings, pointing out that it leaves insufficient time to produce amendments, specifically referencing the upcoming session on January 30th.
HB78 2025-034h: Representative Majori Information Only07:10:24.760 - 3:39:28 PM; Representative Majori expressed gratitude to the Chair and the clerk for their work, particularly acknowledging the challenges of navigating through the session with many members and opinions.
HB78 2025-034h: Chair Information Only07:11:11.520 - 3:40:15 PM; The Chair acknowledged the comments and thanked the members for their patience and cooperation during the session. They also expressed appreciation for the efforts of everyone involved and concluded by adjourning the Municipal and County Government Committee for the day.

Pauer, Diane(Chairman)(R)[A]2025	Bjelobrk, Marie Louise(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	MacDonald, John(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Germana, Dylan(D)[D-]2025	Fracht, David(D)[D-]2025	Guthrie, Joseph(R)[C]2025
Gilman, Julie(D)[D-]2025	Grund, Stephanie(D)[F]2025	Stavis, Laurel(D)[CT]2025
Karasinski, Sly(R)[B]2025	Maggiore, Jim(D)[CT]2025	Dolan, Tom(R)[B]2025
Aylward, Deborah(R)[B+]2025	Walker, David(R)[B+]2025	Colby, Eleana (D)[F]2025
Girard, Dale(D)[C-]2025	Franz, Linda(R)[B]2025	Murphy, Denis(R)[B+]2025