Committee Summary for House Municipal and County Government (01/30/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB272 00:11:29.360 - 8:40:05 AM	Public Hearing	exempting certain agricultural practices from municipal noise regulation.	Comtois, Barbara(R)[B+]2025
HB149 00:42:48.079 - 9:11:24 AM	Public Hearing	relative to warrant article approvals at ballot referenda form of town meeting.	Sellers, John(R)[A-]2025
HB230 01:19:40.239 - 9:48:16 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the adoption of public health ordinances by municipalities.	Harvey-Bolia, Juliet(R)[A-]2025
HB339 01:43:52.320 - 10:12:28 AM	Public Hearing	relative to municipal master plans.	Bixby, Peter(D)[F]2025
HB407 01:47:01.880 - 10:15:37 AM	Public Hearing	setting a minimum threshold for the adoption of town and school budget and spending items for towns using a ballot to select such methods during town meeting.	Berry, Ross(R)[A+]2025
HB432 03:34:53.880 - 12:03:29 PM	Public Hearing	relative to recovery houses.	Gibbs, Merryl(D)[D-]2025
HB447 05:21:32.400 - 1:50:08 PM	Public Hearing	relative to property tax exemptions for disabled veterans.	Creighton, James(R)[B+]2025
HB139 05:53:51.920 - 2:22:27 PM	Executive Session	relative to the official designation of holidays by municipalities and educational institutions.	Horrigan, Timothy(D)[F]2025
HB346 05:58:31.520 - 2:27:07 PM	Executive Session	relative to licensure fees for race tracks.	Vose, Michael(R)[A-]2025
HB165 06:05:54.520 - 2:34:30 PM	Executive Session	relative to the maximum amount of disaster relief funding provided to municipalities after a natural disaster.	Aron, Judy(R)[A-]2025
HB173 06:10:18.080 - 2:38:54 PM	Executive Session	relative to maintaining the purpose of a petitioned warrant article.	Sellers, John(R)[A-]2025
HB348 2025-0154h 06:28:41.000 - 2:57:17 PM	Executive Session	relative to eligibility for local assistance.	Rhodes, Jennifer(R)[B+]2025
HB453 07:03:25.760 - 3:32:01 PM	Executive Session	prohibiting municipalities from banning use of grounds maintenance and snow and ice removal equipment with internal combustion engines.	Walsh, Thomas(R)[B-]2025
HB488 07:15:41.200 - 3:44:17 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
Unclear 07:18:17.000 - 3:46:53 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

HB272: Representative Aaron Support00:11:29.360 - 8:40:05 AM; Representative Aaron, as a co-sponsor, introduced HB272 in the absence of the prime sponsor. The bill proposes a technical change to existing statute by striking the words 'quiet hours' to support farmers and their work schedules. This amendment aims to allow farmers to perform necessary work at any time of day, thereby supporting agricultural operations more effectively. Representative Aaron expressed hope for the committee's support of this technical change.
HB272: Jason Stock, New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association Support00:14:12.959 - 8:42:48 AM; Jason Stock, the executive director of the New Hampshire Timberland Owners Association, expressed support for HB272, highlighting its importance in clarifying exemptions for noise ordinances. He explained that forestry, considered an agricultural operation in New Hampshire, is crucial to the state's economy and that the bill would help manage the timing of forest operations, especially during critical periods like mud season. Stock emphasized the seasonal nature of the forestry business and the necessity of operating outside traditional hours to comply with road restrictions and avoid damaging infrastructure. He provided context on the widespread nature of timber sales across the state, reinforcing the bill's relevance.
HB272: Robert Johnson Information Only00:23:25.799 - 8:52:01 AM; Robert Johnson was called to testify but the transcript ends before his testimony begins, thus no summary or sentiment can be provided.
HB272: Rob Johnson, New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation's Policy Director Support00:23:29.799 - 8:52:05 AM; Rob Johnson, representing the New Hampshire Farm Bureau Federation, expressed support for House Bill 272, emphasizing its role as a clarification of previous legislation (House Bill 252 from 2023). He detailed how the bill would affect agricultural operations, specifically in relation to noise ordinances. Johnson explained that activities such as the application of crop protectants like pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers often need to occur during specific times to be effective, which might conflict with noise ordinances. He highlighted the importance of timing for these applications, noting that they are often done early in the morning or evening when conditions are optimal. Additionally, he discussed the necessity of working on frozen ground in the spring to avoid creating ruts and the need to harvest crops at optimal times, which might extend into the night. Johnson also clarified that the transportation of products from the field to the farm is part of farming operations under RSA 21:34-a, but not the delivery to market.
HB149: Representative Sellers, Grafton District 10, Bristol/Bridgewater Support00:42:48.079 - 9:11:24 AM; Representative Sellers introduced House Bill 149, describing it as a measure to enhance voter choice by allowing both the original and amended versions of a warrant article to be voted on in a ballot referendum. He explained that this would give voters the opportunity to choose between the two versions, with the version receiving the higher percentage of 'yes' votes being adopted. Sellers highlighted that this would be particularly beneficial for absentee voters who cannot attend deliberative sessions. He addressed concerns about potential confusion among voters and clarified that in the case of a tie, the amended version would win, as specified in the bill.
HB149: Representative Murphy Information Only00:45:19.280 - 9:13:55 AM; Representative Murphy asked Representative Sellers about the procedure if multiple amendments were proposed to a single warrant article. Sellers clarified that only the final amended version would go forward to the voters.
HB149: Representative Grund Information Only00:45:54.760 - 9:14:30 AM; Representative Grund expressed concern about potential voter confusion if both the original and amended warrant articles were presented on the ballot. Representative Sellers responded that this approach would allow absentee voters to participate in the decision-making process, which is often not possible during deliberative sessions due to low attendance.
HB149: Representative Walker Information Only00:47:33.520 - 9:16:09 AM; Representative Walker questioned the potential for confusion with both versions of the warrant article on the ballot and raised an issue about the handling of a tie vote as described by Representative Sellers. Sellers clarified the tie vote procedure as outlined in the bill, referring to specific lines in the legislation.
HB149: Representative Sellers Information Only00:49:50.920 - 9:18:26 AM; Representative Sellers clarified that if both versions of a warrant article receive the same percentage of 'yes' votes, the amended version of the warrant article will be adopted. They also addressed a question about the focus on bold language in bills, noting that new paragraphs appear in regular type, which is relevant to understanding the bill.
HB149: Representative Majority Information Only00:50:36.880 - 9:19:12 AM; Representative Majority inquired about the impact of the bill on default budgets. They discussed the process in SB2 towns, where the official budget is sent to the public hearing or deliberative session, and expressed confusion over whether the default budget would still be viable if both budgets are on the ballot.
HB149: Representative Kazin Information Only00:54:27.079 - 9:23:03 AM; Representative Kazin asked if the bill would remove motions to stop reconsideration of warrant articles in SB2 towns during deliberative sessions. It was clarified that reconsideration is not off the table at the deliberative session or town meeting once the article goes on the ballot for the March meeting.
HB149: Representative Gerard Information Only00:55:34.799 - 9:24:10 AM; Representative Gerard attempted to clarify the issue raised by Representative Majority about default budgets. They pointed out that if both warrant articles are approved, the one with the higher approval would be adopted, suggesting that the default budget would still be in play if both failed.
HB149: Representative Murphy Oppose00:56:16.200 - 9:24:52 AM; Representative Murphy raised concerns about the bill imposing unfunded mandates on towns, specifically mentioning the costs associated with accessible voting machines. They questioned how towns would manage these additional expenses given the already stretched election budgets.
HB149: Representative Gilman Information Only00:57:40.319 - 9:26:16 AM; Representative Gilman addressed concerns about absentee ballots and the potential disenfranchisement of voters at the deliberative session. They questioned whether the bill would discount the vote taken at the deliberative session if both original and amended articles were put on the ballot.
HB149: Representative Elward Information Only01:00:03.799 - 9:28:39 AM; Representative Elward raised a concern about the capacity of venues in small towns to hold all voters for deliberative sessions and public hearings. They noted that in their town, the venue could not accommodate all voters, suggesting that this might be a common issue across the state.
HB149: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose01:01:29.760 - 9:30:05 AM; Brody Dees from the New Hampshire Municipal Association expressed opposition to HB149. He argued that the bill would create confusion at the point of deliberative sessions, which are the first sessions of town meetings. He emphasized that voters should have the right to amend warrant articles during these sessions without the complication of competing articles. Dees also raised concerns about the bill introducing a form of ranked choice voting for warrant articles, which would require significant education for both election officials and voters. He highlighted the potential confusion if two budgets were passed after an amendment, suggesting that the current system, which allows amendments in the first session followed by a vote in the second, is more straightforward and reflective of traditional town meeting practices.
HB149: Colby Information Only01:03:17.240 - 9:31:53 AM; Colby discussed the potential impact of HB149 on voter engagement, suggesting that an increase in the number of pages on the official ballot from eight to twelve or fourteen would not necessarily decrease voter engagement. He noted that voters who attend deliberative sessions and vote on the official warrant tend to be the same dedicated group, motivated by specific issues like budgets or warrant articles. He argued that the bill would not affect voter participation but would make the system more convoluted and confusing, potentially mirroring traditional town meetings less effectively.
HB149: Murphy Information Only01:05:16.279 - 9:33:52 AM; Representative Murphy initially lost their train of thought but later raised a question regarding the legal language of warrant articles. They were concerned about what would happen if an amendment to a warrant article did not include the appropriate legal language, potentially leading to confusion between a legal and an illegal warrant article.
HB149: Grunt Information Only01:06:02.640 - 9:34:38 AM; Representative Grunt followed up on the issue of legal language in warrant articles, highlighting the potential for confusion if an amendment made during the deliberative session was not legally worded correctly. They pointed out the challenges this could present, especially with petition warrant articles where the intent might change, leading to competing articles with different intents and potentially undermining the deliberative session's purpose.
HB149: Murphy Information Only01:07:25.039 - 9:36:01 AM; Representative Murphy asked about the cost and logistics of educating election workers should HB149 pass. They questioned whether the New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) would work with the Secretary of State's office to provide this education. Brody Dees responded that the task would be monumental and suggested that this was another reason to vote against the bill, due to the extensive changes it would impose on the traditional town meeting process.
HB149: Majori Information Only01:08:31.000 - 9:37:07 AM; Representative Majori inquired about the process on election day if there were significant rewrites to warrant articles, specifically whether a voter could ask an election official for clarification without it being considered electioneering. Brody Dees responded that there are limitations on what election officials can discuss about the warrant and suggested that discussing competing warrant articles could potentially be seen as electioneering, further complicating the process.
HB149: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:10:34.880 - 9:39:10 AM; The speaker addressed a question regarding the legality of warrant articles after modification during a deliberative session. They explained that if a warrant article is modified to be illegal, the governing body faces a challenge in deciding whether to implement it. They highlighted that municipalities typically consult legal counsel to interpret and decide on the implementation of such articles. The purpose of the deliberative session is to deliberate and clarify these issues, often with legal counsel present to ensure the legality of the language used in the warrant article.
HB149: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:12:25.520 - 9:41:01 AM; The speaker continued discussing the process following the amendment of a warrant article at a deliberative session. They noted that select boards or other governing bodies might need to re-certify their opinion on the amended article. Typically, this happens after the deliberative session, where the governing body may hold a public meeting to re-address the warrant articles, potentially providing new recommendations on amended articles. They also mentioned the ambiguity around public hearing requirements for these amended articles.
HB149: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:14:01.760 - 9:42:37 AM; The speaker responded to a question about the role of legal counsel in reviewing warrant articles before they are placed on the warrant. They confirmed that municipalities and school districts usually have their legal counsel review the language to ensure legality. However, they pointed out the issue with petitioned warrant articles, using an example from Wolfeboro where an article to repeal the police commission was not legally written. They discussed the potential for conflicting legal and illegal articles if amendments are made during deliberative sessions.
HB149: Representative Murphy Information Only01:15:46.560 - 9:44:22 AM; Representative Murphy inquired about the handling of illegal petition warrant articles on ballots. They were unsure about the specific practices, suggesting it might vary by municipality and that they would need to consult legal counsel to provide a definitive answer.
HB230: Representative Juliet Harvey Bolia, Belknap District 3 Support01:19:40.239 - 9:48:16 AM; Representative Juliet Harvey Bolia introduced House Bill 230, which aims to clarify and limit the scope of municipal public health ordinances. She referenced the origin of the bill stemming from mask mandates post-2021, but emphasized that the bill addresses broader issues related to public health regulations. She provided a history of the bill's iterations since 2021, noting its passage in the House each year. The bill targets RSA 147:1, aiming to limit municipal regulations to nuisances and similar issues, explicitly excluding broader public health mandates without public hearings. She cited examples from Handover and other towns where the law was used to enact mask mandates and limit gatherings, expressing concerns over the lack of public hearings and redress mechanisms. She proposed amendments to the bill to further narrow its scope if necessary.
HB230: Representative Majori Information Only01:30:11.480 - 9:58:47 AM; Representative Majori asked for clarification on the proposed changes to RSA 147:1, specifically questioning how the term 'similar' in the context of nuisances might expand the scope of what municipalities can regulate. Representative Harvey Bolia responded, acknowledging the concern and indicating willingness to amend the bill to limit it strictly to nuisances if that would clarify the intent and gain support.
HB230: Representative Stavis Information Only01:31:55.440 - 10:00:31 AM; Representative Stavis questioned the specificity of the language in the bill, asking why more specific language was not presented if desired. The response indicated that the presented language was a compromise to satisfy the Senate, though the House had passed more strict versions previously. The speaker was open to amendments based on committee feedback.
HB230: Wayne Whitford, President of the New Hampshire Health Officers Association Oppose01:33:21.159 - 10:01:57 AM; Wayne Whitford testified that the current language of the bill under section 147-151 is adequate and does not need changes. He sees no advantage to altering the particular sentence in question and thus opposes the bill.
HB230: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose01:34:25.520 - 10:03:01 AM; Brody Dees expressed opposition to House Bill 230, citing its vague language, particularly the term 'other similar threats to Public Health,' which he believes could be broadly interpreted and difficult for municipalities and health officers to apply. He prefers the existing language that clearly relates regulations to public health.
HB230: Representative Stavis Information Only01:35:46.840 - 10:04:22 AM; Representative Stavis asked if the New Hampshire Municipal Association had guidance on the term 'similar' used in the bill, noting its lack of clear legal meaning. Brody Dees responded that there was no specific legal guidance on the term 'similar,' but it could vary in meaning depending on the context of different statutes. He also mentioned that while the bill was not intended solely for mask mandates, its current language might still allow for such interpretations, which could be confusing for municipalities and health officers.
HB230: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:38:33.719 - 10:07:09 AM; The speaker inquired about the requirement for a public hearing when changing ordinances in their town, specifically referencing RSA 147. They expressed confusion over whether the requirement for a public hearing applies universally to all towns and cities or just locally. They also asked about the use of the term 'regulations' in the ordinance versus the title 'Health ordinances.' The speaker mentioned they would need to review the statute to confirm the public hearing requirement.
HB230: Unknown Speaker Information Only01:39:19.159 - 10:07:55 AM; The speaker questioned the definition of terms in New Hampshire law, specifically whether undefined terms in statutes or bills revert to definitions from the Webster dictionary from the 1960s. They expressed uncertainty and suggested consulting legal counsel for clarity. The speaker also discussed the term 'similar' in the context of the bill, indicating that the term's broad interpretation could lead to non-uniformity in public health regulations, which they believe the bill aims to address.
HB230: Representative Gilman Information Only01:41:37.000 - 10:10:13 AM; Representative Gilman reported on the online testimony regarding HB230, stating that 123 individuals supported the bill while seven opposed it. They also mentioned that the blue sheet had two entries opposing the bill.
HB339: Representative Laurel Davis, Lebanon Support01:43:52.320 - 10:12:28 AM; Representative Laurel Davis from Lebanon introduced HB339, which aims to expand the scope of municipal master plans to include the preservation of agricultural land and the promotion of food production enterprises. She mentioned that the bill also allows for the inclusion of other relevant topics in the master plan.
HB339: Representative Gilman Information Only01:44:39.440 - 10:13:15 AM; Representative Gilman reported on the online testimony for HB339, stating that six individuals supported the bill while two opposed it. They also noted that the blue sheet had two entries in support of the bill.
HB407: Representative Barry Support01:47:01.880 - 10:15:37 AM; Representative Barry introduced HB407, which proposes setting a minimum threshold for the adoption of town and school budgets and spending items in towns that use ballots during town meetings. He argued that low voter turnout in local elections, often in the single digits, results in a small minority making decisions that affect a larger majority. The bill requires a majority vote of those present, but also mandates that at least 15% of registered voters must vote in favor for a measure to pass. Barry discussed the imbalance in voter participation, using the example of teacher unions versus individual taxpayers, and emphasized the importance of ensuring democratic outcomes in local governance. He suggested that setting such a threshold could encourage greater voter turnout and participation.
HB407: Representative Stavis Information Only01:54:28.239 - 10:23:04 AM; Representative Stavis questioned Representative Barry about the implications of HB407, specifically whether a turnout of 14% would render a vote illegitimate and potentially disenfranchise voters. Representative Barry responded by clarifying that very low turnout could lead to an oligarchic decision-making process and that the threshold is intended to encourage broader participation to ensure more democratic outcomes. He cited a case in Concord where a minority decision was later overturned by a larger voter turnout, illustrating that thresholds are used in New Hampshire law to ensure democratic processes yield democratic outcomes.
HB407: Representative Dolan from Weare Information Only01:56:40.599 - 10:25:16 AM; Representative Dolan discussed the implications of default budgets in municipal governance, particularly in relation to the proposed school budget in Weare. He noted that the proposed school budget in the first year was lower than the default budget, but subsequent years could see an increase due to transportation contracts. He emphasized the need for restraint on property taxes and acknowledged the complexity of budget outcomes.
HB407: Representative Colby Information Only01:58:28.760 - 10:27:04 AM; Representative Colby raised questions about the process following the failure of collective bargaining agreements on ballots, specifically what happens if less than 15% of voters participate in a special meeting. The response indicated that the current bill does not address this scenario directly, focusing instead on town votes. The concept was presented as a starting point for further discussion and potential future legislation.
HB407: Representative Guthrie Information Only01:59:31.000 - 10:28:07 AM; Representative Guthrie inquired about the right of individuals not to vote and the implications of low voter turnout on municipal decisions. The response highlighted the lack of voter engagement due to the complexity and variability of town election processes across New Hampshire. The speaker aimed to increase voter participation by addressing the lack of understanding and proposed other bills to demystify the process.
HB407: Representative Gilman Information Only02:03:46.360 - 10:32:22 AM; Representative Gilman sought clarification on the outcomes of budgets if only a small percentage of voters turn out. The response was that if turnout is below the threshold, the spending article would fail, and the budget would revert to default. The speaker expressed an intention to refine the legislation based on committee feedback.
HB407: Representative France Information Only02:04:45.719 - 10:33:21 AM; Representative France asked about the application of default budgets in small towns without SB2. The response indicated a belief that such towns do have default budgets, though the speaker deferred to the committee's expertise on the matter. The discussion also touched on the implications of low voter turnout in small towns and the need for a budget to be in place.
HB407: Representative Grund Information Only02:06:57.040 - 10:35:33 AM; Representative Grund raised a concern about whether the bill could inadvertently incentivize people not to vote if they want spending measures to fail. He noted that the bill's design aims to prevent this by requiring a 15% voter turnout for passage, explaining that staying home does not help those who wish to oppose spending measures. He highlighted that the bill encourages participation by necessitating a majority of the 15% to vote 'yes' for the measure to pass, and even those who want to vote 'no' need to show up to impact the outcome.
HB407: Representative Murphy Information Only02:08:40.920 - 10:37:16 AM; Representative Murphy asked about the inclusion of petition warrant articles with monetary involvement in the bill. The response clarified that such articles are included under the bill's requirement of 15% voter turnout and a majority vote in favor to pass. The representative expressed willingness to continue the discussion but mentioned time constraints due to work obligations.
HB407: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose02:09:26.079 - 10:38:02 AM; Brody Dees from the New Hampshire Municipal Association expressed opposition to HB407. He argued that imposing a quorum requirement on SB2 towns, which traditionally do not have such requirements, contradicts historical legislative practices and community expectations. Dees highlighted that lack of voter turnout does not necessarily indicate opposition but rather a lack of interest or other commitments. He pointed out technical issues with the bill, such as the potential inability to pass default budgets or collective bargaining agreements if the 15% threshold isn't met, and the ambiguous definition of 'registered voters' in the context of the bill. He concluded by suggesting that the bill might push communities back to traditional town meetings, contrary to the purpose of SB2, which was to encourage participation.
HB407: Representative Colby Information Only02:14:05.840 - 10:42:41 AM; Representative Colby posed a hypothetical question about whether a municipality would have to forego a grant if the 15% voter turnout threshold was not met. The response confirmed that under the bill, failure to meet the 15% threshold would result in the failure of the warrant article, including those tied to grants, potentially halting municipal functions.
HB407: Representative Davis Information Only02:15:52.719 - 10:44:28 AM; Representative Davis inquired whether the bill would go to a second committee, to which the response was that it had not been determined as they were still in the hearing process.
HB407: Representative Majori Information Only02:16:13.639 - 10:44:49 AM; Representative Majori asked for clarification on whether a bond that passed with a three-fifths majority but did not meet the 15% turnout requirement would still fail. The response affirmed that under the bill, both the 15% turnout and the three-fifths majority must be met for the bond to pass, emphasizing the difficulty communities might face in passing such measures.
HB407: Representative Stavis Information Only02:18:19.760 - 10:46:55 AM; Representative Stavis raised a question regarding the quorum requirement under HB407. They inquired about the implications if a town meeting does not meet the required 15% voter turnout for a quorum. The response clarified that the town meeting could proceed throughout the voting day, but if the quorum is not met by the end of the day, the election would effectively not have happened. This could lead to complications, such as the need for a special meeting, which also has its own quorum requirements. Stavis expressed concern over the lack of provisions in the statute to address failed articles if the quorum is not met, suggesting that a special meeting would be necessary, which could incur additional costs and further quorum issues.
HB407: Representative Murphy Information Only02:20:45.920 - 10:49:21 AM; Representative Murphy asked about the consequences of failing to meet the quorum requirement specifically for Article One, which pertains to the election of town officers. They noted that if the quorum is not met, the elections would be null and void, and the town would face the additional cost of holding a second election. The response clarified that the issue raised by Murphy was not directly related to spending items, which is the focus of the bill, thus not applicable in this context.
HB407: Representative Gilman Information Only02:22:22.160 - 10:50:58 AM; Representative Gilman reported the results of the online and in-person voting on HB407. The online vote showed two votes in support and 30 in opposition, while the in-person vote recorded three in opposition and one in support.
HB432: Representative Merill Gibbs, Marac District 23, Concord Support03:34:53.880 - 12:03:29 PM; Representative Merill Gibbs introduced House Bill 432, sponsored by New Futures, an organization focused on health advocacy in New Hampshire. The bill aims to ensure that recovery houses are treated similarly to other residential housing by municipalities and zoning boards. Gibbs highlighted the critical role of recovery housing in supporting individuals with substance misuse, citing data that links access to recovery housing with positive outcomes such as decreased substance abuse and reduced incarceration rates. They noted the current shortage of recovery housing across the state, particularly in Rockingham and Coos counties, and stressed that while the bill won't solve the housing shortage, it will help by clarifying that recovery houses should be zoned and regulated like other multi-unit residential facilities under the federal Fair Housing Act. This clarification is expected to support the development of recovery housing and help communities meet the needs of individuals in recovery.
HB432: Representative Gerard Information Only03:40:03.920 - 12:08:39 PM; Representative Gerard inquired about the certification process for recovery houses as outlined in HB432, specifically questioning the one-year timeframe mentioned in the bill. They expressed concern that this duration might allow for non-legitimate operations to open and close before certification, thus avoiding compliance. Representative Gibbs responded that others, including Jake Barry from New Futures and representatives from recovery houses, would be better equipped to answer this technical question.
HB432: Representative Priest, District 17, Hillsborough County, Manchester Support03:41:37.520 - 12:10:13 PM; Representative Priest expressed support for HB432, emphasizing the need for recovery houses in New Hampshire. He highlighted the personal stories of constituents from Ward 2 in Manchester who have family members struggling with substance abuse. He noted the challenge faced by individuals after leaving treatment facilities due to the lack of safe environments for continued recovery. He mentioned the current availability of only 1,300 recovery beds against a need for 15,000 more. He stressed that while the bill does not solve the housing crisis, it would help address a significant obstacle for communities and those with substance abuse issues, urging the committee to approve the bill.
HB432: Representative Majori Information Only03:43:59.159 - 12:12:35 PM; Representative Majori asked Representative Priest about the use of the word 'primarily' in the definition of a recovery house within the bill, questioning if it introduced ambiguity. Representative Priest acknowledged the question but deferred to Jake Barry for a more detailed response.
HB432: Representative Hope Damon, Sullivan District 8, Acworth, Langdon, Lempster, Goshen, Washington, Springfield, Sunapee, Cornish, Claremont Support03:44:58.760 - 12:13:34 PM; Representative Hope Damon, a co-sponsor of HB432, strongly supported the bill. She shared her experience from working in addiction treatment and stressed that recovery houses are essential for individuals who have achieved recovery and need a supportive environment to maintain it. She emphasized that these houses are not medical facilities but places where individuals can live, work, and participate in community life while staying substance-free. She highlighted the importance of having recovery houses within the community to support recovery and urged the committee to consider the bill seriously.
HB432: Representative Elward Information Only03:47:22.159 - 12:15:58 PM; Representative Elward inquired about who ensures that individuals in recovery houses remain substance-free. Representative Damon acknowledged the question but deferred to experts behind her for a detailed response.
HB432: Representative Majori Information Only03:47:55.880 - 12:16:31 PM; Representative Majori asked if recovery houses could be classified as businesses, to which Representative Damon responded that they are typically not for-profit, although she was not fully qualified to answer regarding their tax category.
HB432: Vice Chairman McDonald Information Only03:48:42.680 - 12:17:18 PM; Vice Chairman McDonald asked about the removal of the terms 'safe and healthy' from the bill's text, to which Representative Damon explained that these terms were vague compared to 'substance-free,' which is more clearly defined.
HB432: Representative FR Information Only03:49:13.760 - 12:17:49 PM; Representative FR inquired about the funding and payment for residents in recovery houses, asking if individuals paid rent out of pocket or if funding came from sources like Medicaid. Representative Damon deferred to experts for a detailed response, mentioning she was not aware of Medicaid funding for recovery houses but acknowledged the complexity of funding arrangements.
HB432: Joe Scully, Concord Oppose03:51:08.199 - 12:19:44 PM; Joe Scully from Concord expressed concerns about the lack of regulations for sober living houses in New Hampshire. He shared a personal experience where a property owner, Momentum Properties, was granted a zoning exception in Concord after legal threats, despite already operating the house as a sober living facility. Scully highlighted issues such as increased police activity, criminal threats, and inappropriate behavior from residents of the house. He argued that without proper rules, bad actors are abusing the system, which negatively impacts both the residents of the sober living houses and the surrounding neighborhoods. He suggested that removing zoning processes could worsen the situation.
HB432: Connor Nurel Support04:00:41.040 - 12:29:17 PM; Connor Nurel, who traveled from New York, shared his positive experience with sober living houses, crediting them for his sobriety of nearly three years. He emphasized the importance of sober living houses in the recovery process and noted the lack of such facilities in certain counties in New Hampshire like Nashua and Manchester. Nurel advocated for processes to expedite the establishment of sober living houses in areas where they are needed, stating his willingness to support such initiatives.
HB432: Elward Support04:02:10.359 - 12:30:46 PM; Elward spoke in support of sober living houses, emphasizing their role in the recovery process. He explained that while he does not know the exact success rate, the success percentage increases as individuals progress through detox, residential care, and PHP (Partial Hospitalization Program). He stressed the importance of sober living as a crucial step for long-term recovery, sharing his personal experience of building a supportive network and upgrading his life through sober living. He suggested that without sober living houses, individuals struggling with addiction would end up on the streets, negatively impacting communities. He advocated for the allocation of sober living houses to help get people off the streets and into recovery.
HB432: Grund Information Only04:03:51.600 - 12:32:27 PM; Grund, acknowledging the speaker's three years of sobriety, asked for details about the operations inside a sober house. The response clarified that while there's no legal requirement for a house manager, most sober houses in New Hampshire have them. The process involves more than just allowing people off the street; it includes steps and guides. Sober houses typically have regular drug testing, recovery coaches, and meetings, both in-house and within the community, such as in Nashua. This structure helps integrate individuals into a supportive recovery environment.
HB432: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose04:05:37.399 - 12:34:13 PM; Brody Dees, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association, expressed opposition to HB432, specifically Section 2, due to concerns over zoning mandates. He highlighted potential safety and health issues that could arise from exemptions for recovery houses, questioning the definition and transient nature of these homes. He was particularly worried about changes in zoning laws that might prevent municipalities from considering health and safety in zoning decisions, and the lack of site plan review and certification requirements for recovery houses, which are crucial for ensuring compliance with local health and safety standards.
HB432: Representative Stavis Information Only04:10:26.560 - 12:39:02 PM; Representative Stavis sought clarification on the term 'non-transient' mentioned in the bill, asking how it relates to tax laws governing temporary housing. Brody Dees responded that he was unaware of the term's specific location in the RSA or its taxation implications, suggesting further investigation might be necessary to understand its impact on property tax assessments.
HB432: Derek Puka Support04:11:59.600 - 12:40:35 PM; Derek Puka, in support of HB432, shared his personal journey of recovery, highlighting the transformative role of sober living in his life. Having celebrated five years of sobriety, he described how sober living provided him with the structure and community he lacked, enabling him to transition from resident to house manager and operations director within sober living communities in Manchester. He acknowledged the existence of bad actors but emphasized the success stories and the importance of sober living in addressing the housing crisis for those with substance use disorders. He credited sober living for his achievements, including homeownership and full custody of his children.
HB432: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:17:22.239 - 12:45:58 PM; The speaker responded to a question about their length of stay in different sober living situations. They explained that they had moved between different homes within the sober living community over a period of 19 months, progressing from a regular resident to a floor manager position. The discussion was redirected by the chair to focus on the impact of the new language in the bill rather than personal recovery stories.
HB432: Adam Aop Support04:19:43.159 - 12:48:19 PM; Adam Aop shared his personal experience with sober living since 2017, emphasizing its importance in preventing recidivism and reducing costs associated with incarceration. He mentioned moving up within the sober living community and now works for Rise Above sober living, which has been certified and has helped many achieve long-term sobriety. He supports the bill and is open to questions.
HB432: Adam Molton, New Hampshire Coalition of Recovery Residences Support04:22:06.359 - 12:50:42 PM; Adam Molton, representing the New Hampshire Coalition of Recovery Residences, provided a detailed testimony in support of the bill. He explained the challenges faced by recovery housing operators due to unclear zoning guidelines and the financial and operational risks involved. He highlighted the lack of recovery housing options, particularly for women in the northern half of the state, and discussed the economic impact of substance use disorder. Molton emphasized that the bill incentivizes certification and does not protect uncertified 'bad actors', aligning with ethical recovery housing operators.
HB432: Anina Hansen, Jaffrey Support04:31:13.399 - 12:59:49 PM; Anina Hansen, a resident of Jaffrey and in recovery from alcoholism, spoke in favor of HB432. She shared a personal story about her partner, Phil, who benefited from sober housing and later founded his own recovery homes. She stressed the importance of a safe environment in early recovery and the life-saving impact of sober houses. Hansen also mentioned Phil's advocacy work and her own sobriety, urging the committee to support the bill to make it easier for recovery houses to open.
HB432: Kevin Oofin, Boston Support04:36:42.000 - 1:05:18 PM; Kevin Oofin, from Boston, spoke in support of the bill based on his personal experience with sober living. He highlighted the standards and requirements of sober living homes and expressed his belief in their structured environment as crucial for recovery. He mentioned his current role as a case manager and his hope to have recovering individuals as neighbors in the future.
HB432: Aeron Thorvaldson, Council of State Government Justice Center Support04:38:58.599 - 1:07:34 PM; Aeron Thorvaldson from the Council of State Government Justice Center testified in support of HB432. They discussed their work in New Hampshire studying the high utilizer population, emphasizing the importance of recovery housing in reducing recidivism and supporting those with substance use disorders. Thorvaldson highlighted the bill's provisions on zoning and certification, aligning with federal protections and best practices for supporting recovery housing.
HB432: Unknown Information Only04:42:37.638 - 1:11:13 PM; The speaker asked a question regarding the capacity of a four-bedroom home in terms of residents, specifically whether it could accommodate four or eight residents. The question was directed to the previous speaker, Aeron Thorvaldson, but he was unable to provide an answer on the matter.
HB432: Unknown Information Only04:43:00.718 - 1:11:36 PM; The speaker inquired about a Department of Correction study mentioned by a previous speaker, which reported a 43% recidivism rate among individuals in substance recovery. The question was about the percentage of these individuals involved in the criminal justice system versus those who are not. The speaker was unable to provide the requested statistics at the time but offered to research and provide the information later.
HB432: Unknown Information Only04:44:01.160 - 1:12:37 PM; The speaker asked if sober houses typically have paid staff and whether they are classified as businesses under New Hampshire law. The response confirmed that, based on the speaker's experience, sober houses usually have paid staff, but the speaker was unable to comment on their classification as businesses under New Hampshire law.
HB432: Jake Barry, New Futures Support04:44:52.638 - 1:13:28 PM; Jake Barry from New Futures expressed strong support for HB432. He emphasized the importance of data showing that neighborhoods with access to recovery housing experience lower rates of substance use, drug-related crimes, and incarceration, enhancing the health and well-being of both individuals and communities. He clarified that the bill applies only to certified recovery homes, which adhere to national standards for operations, health, safety, and social well-being. Barry provided background on the bill's origin, mentioning a collaborative effort in 2023 with various stakeholders to address the lack of clarity about recovery housing in local zoning and emergency regulations. The crafted language clarifies that recovery houses are residential, not medical facilities, aligning with existing state and federal definitions. The bill was developed with input from numerous stakeholders and has strong support from recovery housing operators, substance use providers, and municipal leaders. It aims to provide guidance to cities and towns to support the development of recovery houses and help avoid fair housing litigation. Barry noted the bill's previous passage in the House with bipartisan support and expressed hope for similar support this year.
HB432: Jake Barry, New Futures Support04:44:52.638 - 1:13:28 PM; Jake Barry, representing New Futures, discussed the enforcement of the certification requirement outlined in HB432. He explained that certifying entities in the state conduct inspections and issue certifications, often working with municipalities to enforce these standards. Barry noted that the one-year timeline for certification is designed to balance the need for recovery houses to be operational before undergoing certification, ensuring they have sufficient time to meet the standards without abusing the process. He also mentioned that failure to achieve certification within the year would result in local regulators and zoning officials stepping in to enforce local zoning codes.
HB432: Representative Grund Information Only04:50:01.920 - 1:18:37 PM; Representative Grund asked about the process of certification for recovery houses, particularly concerning health and safety standards. Jake Barry responded by explaining that the certification standards cover similar health and welfare areas as site plan reviews. He emphasized that recovery houses would be held to the same zoning requirements and regulations as any other multi-family or similar use buildings, aligning with the intent of the bill to ensure equal treatment under federal fair housing regulations.
HB432: Representative Stavis Information Only04:51:22.600 - 1:19:58 PM; Representative Stavis inquired about the alignment of fire codes with the bill's zoning language, specifically referencing a 2018 bill that mandated sprinklers in recovery facilities. Jake Barry responded by acknowledging the complexity of the issue and the existing fire safety standards for multi-use facilities. He noted that recovery houses would be held to the same fire and safety codes as other similar facilities, emphasizing that the bill seeks no additional requirements beyond those.
HB432: Representative Elward Information Only04:53:04.680 - 1:21:40 PM; Representative Elward raised concerns about the language in the bill, specifically the term 'operator' and its responsibilities regarding certification and notification to local governing bodies. Jake Barry agreed that there might be an inconsistency in the language that could be addressed. He also clarified that in some cases, the operator might be the owner of the building, while in others, they might rent or lease the property, similar to other multi-family operations.
HB432: Representative Gerard Information Only04:54:56.000 - 1:23:32 PM; Representative Gerard asked about the standards required for a recovery house to start applying for certification and whether a certain number of residents must be present. Jake Barry deferred this question to operators with more direct experience, indicating his limited knowledge on the specific operational details.
HB432: Luke Hassel Information Only04:55:49.120 - 1:24:25 PM; Luke Hassel thanked the committee for the opportunity to speak but did not provide further testimony in the provided transcript snippet.
HB432: Luke Hassel, Boscawn, New Hampshire Support04:55:56.480 - 1:24:32 PM; Luke Hassel shared his personal experience with recovery homes, emphasizing their importance in his recovery journey. He began his recovery in June 2016 at the Homestead in Boscawen, New Hampshire, where he found stability and support. Hassel highlighted the role of the Homestead in his transformation into a productive member of society, crediting the facility's owner, Christine Pette, her family, and the community at the home. He mentioned the New Hampshire Corporation's role in certifying recovery homes since 2019 and noted a 60% success rate for stays between 9 to 18 months. Hassel acknowledged potential concerns about the demographic served by recovery homes but stressed that thoughtful and caring approaches can address these issues. He strongly urged the committee to support HB432, believing it would greatly benefit the recovery community.
HB432: Chris Shot, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Support05:00:08.160 - 1:28:44 PM; Chris Shot, the Fair Housing Director at New Hampshire Legal Assistance, spoke in favor of HB432, emphasizing the bill's role in clarifying zoning for recovery houses. He discussed the benefits of recovery housing for clients and highlighted the potential for municipalities to avoid costly Fair Housing Act litigation related to zoning decisions. Shot explained that substance abuse disorder is considered a disability under the Fair Housing Act, thus recovery homes are protected. He cited examples of litigation in Ashland and Manchester, New Hampshire, as well as in Massachusetts, to illustrate the risks municipalities face. Shot argued that HB432 would help municipalities by reducing confusion and avoiding litigation expenses, ultimately benefiting taxpayers and supporting recovery homes.
HB432: Matthew Plush, Wolfeboro, White Horse Recovery Support05:05:56.160 - 1:34:32 PM; Matthew Plush, Executive Director at White Horse Recovery in Wolfeboro, supported HB432, discussing the challenges of providing long-term addiction housing. He described White Horse Recovery's services and the critical role of stable housing in successful recovery. Plush shared his experience attempting to open a recovery house and the varying zoning requirements he encountered. He emphasized the importance of treating recovery homes similarly to single-family homes under federal law to avoid litigation. Plush argued that HB432 would help municipalities comply with federal law and support recovery efforts by clarifying zoning for recovery houses.
HB432: Unknown Speaker Information Only05:13:09.878 - 1:41:45 PM; The speaker inquired about the certification process for recovery houses, specifically asking about the requirement for the house to be operational before applying for certification. They mentioned that it might take two to three months to bring people into the house after starting operations. The speaker also highlighted that one of the certification requirements is maintaining a drug and alcohol-free environment in the house. They addressed the 'not in my backyard' (NIMBY) concern, clarifying that the residents are in recovery, not active addiction.
HB432: Jonathan Garrison, New Hampshire Coalition of Recovery Residences Support05:14:42.798 - 1:43:18 PM; Jonathan Garrison expressed strong support for the bill, emphasizing his personal connection to recovery and his professional involvement in the recovery residence industry. He discussed experiencing discrimination due to NIMBYism and praised the bill for providing a solution by involving multiple stakeholders including a certification body, municipalities, and fire marshals. He stressed the importance of the bill in defining recovery houses as non-transient residential uses, not businesses, and highlighted its role in ensuring houses operate safely and ethically.
HB432: Representative Gerard Information Only05:17:30.638 - 1:46:06 PM; Representative Gerard asked for clarification on whether the bill requires fire codes to be met before anyone can move into the recovery house, following the 30-day notice period. The response confirmed that this was the case.
HB432: Representative Gilman Information Only05:18:00.680 - 1:46:36 PM; Representative Gilman inquired about Jonathan Garrison's experience with resistance to turning single-family homes into recovery houses. Garrison confirmed experiencing resistance but clarified that he had not been pushed out or refused.
HB432: Representative Gilman Information Only05:19:06.120 - 1:47:42 PM; Representative Gilman reported the results of the online and paper blue sheets, indicating strong support for the bill with 110 online votes in support and 6 in opposition, and 2 votes in support and 1 in opposition on the paper sheets.
HB447: Representative Kraton, County Government Support05:21:32.400 - 1:50:08 PM; Representative Kraton introduced HB447, which aims to update RSA 72:36a to include a category of disabled veterans previously excluded from the tax exemption. The bill does not change the disability requirements or rules for administering the law but expands the eligibility to include veterans whose homes were modified by the VA, addressing a gap in the current legislation.
HB447: Representative Gilman Information Only05:23:06.200 - 1:51:42 PM; Representative Gilman asked for clarification on whether the issue fixed by the bill pertains to exemptions for modifications provided by the Veterans Administration versus those recommended by the VA Hospital. The response confirmed that the bill addresses both scenarios, ensuring that veterans are not excluded based on who modified their homes.
HB447: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:23:51.840 - 1:52:27 PM; The speaker sought clarification on the bill's language regarding ADA-compliant homes and whether it implies veterans could install ramps for mobility issues. It was confirmed that the bill allows for such modifications but veterans must still qualify under the current law.
HB447: Unnamed Speaker Information Only05:25:27.000 - 1:54:03 PM; The speaker asked for specific details on the qualifications mentioned in the bill, referencing RSA 72:295 and RSA 21:50. It was clarified that the eligibility for veterans is detailed in RSA 21:50, and the law was last changed the previous year.
HB447: Representative Colby Information Only05:26:50.638 - 1:55:26 PM; Representative Colby inquired about the financial impact of expanding the eligibility to include ADA-compliant homes or modifications through the VA system. The response indicated that no estimates were available.
HB447: Representative John Suder, District 36, representing Mason, Brookline, and Greenville Support05:27:53.638 - 1:56:29 PM; Representative Suder supported HB447, explaining that many homes have ADA-compliant features and that the VA conducts home evaluations to recommend specific modifications for veterans' disabilities. He emphasized that the bill would ensure veterans with severe disabilities are not excluded from tax exemptions based on the source of home modifications. He clarified that veterans must still meet the medical requirements of being 100% disabled and unemployable.
HB447: M Melinda Sims, Advocacy Coordinator for United Spinal Association New Hampshire Chapter, Disabled Veteran Oppose05:35:18.400 - 2:03:54 PM; M Melinda Sims opposed HB447 due to technical concerns with its current language. While supporting tax relief for disabled veterans, she highlighted that the bill's expansion of eligibility criteria to include ADA-compliant homes and VA hospital system modifications could inadvertently include veterans with lower disability ratings. She recommended maintaining the severe disability qualification while allowing for additional modification options. She would support the bill if amended accordingly.
HB447: Elward Information Only05:41:12.478 - 2:09:48 PM; Elward discussed concerns related to the eligibility criteria for veterans under HB447. They suggested that the bill should specify that veterans need to meet the requirements outlined in 38 USC Chapter 21 to be eligible for the Sasha grants. They highlighted the importance of the eligibility letter for proving 100% total and permanent disability status. Elward agreed to provide suggested legislative language to clarify the eligibility process and address concerns about who evaluates applications for the Sasha grants.
HB447: Brody Dees Information Only05:45:10.200 - 2:13:46 PM; Brody Dees, representing municipal and county government, briefly spoke about concerns from assessors regarding tracking upgrades or changes to homes for tax exemption purposes under HB447. He suggested a slight modification to the existing statute, 72:36-a, to clarify what documentation assessors should request to verify ADA compliance and modifications from the VA hospital system. Dees proposed working with Veterans Affairs and other stakeholders to determine the best paperwork for assessors.
HB139: Representative Majori Oppose05:53:51.920 - 2:22:27 PM; Representative Majori moved to recommend 'inexpedient to legislate' (ITL) on HB139, stating that there is no prohibition in current statutes against municipalities or educational institutions adding additional titles to holidays such as Columbus Day also being referred to as Indigenous People's Day. Therefore, they argued, the bill is unnecessary.
HB346: Representative Murphy Support05:58:31.520 - 2:27:07 PM; Representative Murphy moved to recommend 'ought to pass' (OTP) on HB346, explaining that the bill allows for an increase in lure fees at racetracks from $100 to up to $500, but it is not mandatory. The fee could be set at any amount, including as low as a dollar, at the discretion of the town.
HB346: Representative Information Only05:59:40.400 - 2:28:16 PM; The representative discusses the impact of racetracks on local communities, particularly referencing the town of Epping. They highlight that racetracks contribute positively to the local economy through taxes, with facilities in Epping paying significant amounts in both municipal and educational taxes. The representative argues against increasing fees for racetracks, suggesting that such an increase would be inappropriate given their positive impact on local communities.
HB165: Representative France Support06:05:54.520 - 2:34:30 PM; Representative France supports the motion to pass HB165, arguing that the current $25,000 limit for disaster relief funding is outdated and insufficient. They suggest that increasing the limit to $100,000 would be more reasonable and better cover the needs of municipalities post-disaster.
HB165: Representative Gerard Support06:06:39.680 - 2:35:15 PM; Representative Gerard supports the bill, emphasizing the importance of the language correction in the bill that ensures disaster relief grants do not affect other grants. They see this as a crucial aspect of the bill.
HB173: Representative Murphy Support06:10:18.080 - 2:38:54 PM; Representative Murphy supports the motion to pass HB173, stating that it would address issues with warrant articles by making the process clearer and more precise. They argue that while the dollar amount of a warrant article could still be changed, the purpose would remain intact, preventing broad changes.
HB173: Representative Majori Oppose06:11:00.958 - 2:39:36 PM; Representative Majori opposes the motion to pass HB173, expressing concern that the bill would create a second class of warrant articles, leading to confusion among voters. They believe the current statute is sufficient and does not need amendment.
HB173: Representative Stavis Oppose06:11:45.878 - 2:40:21 PM; Representative Stavis also opposes the motion to pass HB173, citing the vagueness of the term 'intent' in the bill. They argue that the bill could be interpreted in various ways and might complicate rather than clarify the process for voters.
HB173: Representative McDonald Information Only06:23:24.320 - 2:52:00 PM; Representative McDonald proposes to retain HB173, suggesting the formation of a subcommittee with members from both parties to further work on the bill. They believe additional work is needed to reach a satisfactory resolution.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Kosinski Support06:28:41.000 - 2:57:17 PM; Representative Kosinski proposes an amendment to HB348, amendment number 2025-0154h. The amendment addresses eligibility criteria for general assistance, including proof of residency and special considerations for non-residents fleeing domestic violence or similar situations. It also proposes emergency assistance for non-residents for up to 72 hours and introduces a monthly local assistance limit of not less than 50% of the federal poverty level. They argue this amendment responds to concerns raised during the public hearing and aims to protect taxpayers, citing increased local assistance costs in their town of Swanzey.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Frock Information Only06:31:25.840 - 3:00:01 PM; Representative Frock raised a concern about the amendment to HB348, specifically questioning the constitutionality of the residency requirement mentioned in lines 7 and 8 of the amendment. They noted that previous testimony indicated that the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled against such requirements in the context of welfare benefits, suggesting that the amendment might put towns at risk of violating the Constitution.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative (Unnamed) Information Only06:32:12.120 - 3:00:48 PM; The unnamed representative responded to Representative Frock's question by clarifying that the amendment aims to protect residents and taxpayers of the town. They explained that the amendment allows for special considerations for non-residents, such as those fleeing domestic violence or needing emergency assistance for up to 72 hours. They further stated that the amendment ensures funds are available to protect everyone under the law.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative (Unnamed) Information Only06:34:30.680 - 3:03:06 PM; The representative continued their explanation, addressing the concerns about the constitutionality of requiring residency versus proof of residency. They argued that asking for proof of residency, as stated in the amendment, is not unconstitutional and is different from requiring a specific duration of residency, which had been ruled against by the U.S. Supreme Court.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Colby Oppose06:37:29.280 - 3:06:05 PM; Representative Colby expressed opposition to the amendment, highlighting the potential for varied interpretations and the burden it might place on municipalities. They noted that the amendment could lead to different requirements across towns, possibly pushing non-residents to municipalities with more lenient policies, thus overburdening those communities financially.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Davis Oppose06:38:18.958 - 3:06:54 PM; Representative Davis opposed the amendment, stating that similar issues were resolved in the previous term with H RSA 165, which allowed cities like Lebanon, NH, to seek reimbursement from other towns for assistance provided to non-residents. They argued that the current amendment does not address a new problem and could complicate matters without a clear benefit.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Gilman Information Only06:39:59.080 - 3:08:35 PM; Representative Gilman raised a question about a specific case in their town where a minor was kicked out by their parents and had no residence. They inquired how such a case would be handled under the amendment, expressing concern about the clarity and applicability of the amendment to real-life situations.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Kazinski Information Only06:40:46.478 - 3:09:22 PM; Representative Kazinski responded to Gilman's question by explaining that under the amendment, special consideration could be provided to non-residents, including minors in emergency situations. They noted provisions for emergency assistance to non-residents for up to 72 hours and emphasized coordination with the town of origin.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative (Unnamed) Information Only06:41:49.680 - 3:10:25 PM; An unnamed representative commented that the amendment's provisions depend on municipal adoption, adding to the uncertainty about where a minor without a residence would seek help. They questioned the clarity of the amendment in addressing such cases.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Grundt Information Only06:42:34.080 - 3:11:10 PM; Representative Grundt expressed concerns about the complexity and ambiguity the amendment might introduce at the municipal level. They suggested that the committee should make a clearer decision to avoid further confusion.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Murphy Information Only06:43:37.840 - 3:12:13 PM; Representative Murphy stated that a minor being thrown out of their home could be considered a case of domestic violence, suggesting that the amendment should clearly address such situations.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Gilman Information Only06:43:37.840 - 3:12:13 PM; Representative Gilman sought clarification on the amendment's provision about a monthly local assistance limit of not less than 50% of the federal poverty level, questioning whether this was a decision left to the select board.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Gilman Information Only06:44:00.160 - 3:12:36 PM; Representative Gilman discussed the amendment's provision that local governing bodies must adopt written guidelines for general assistance, emphasizing that these guidelines would allow for a monthly local assistance limit not less than 50% of the federal poverty level, contrasting it with the current open-ended system limited only by the depletion of taxpayer funds.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Elward Information Only06:45:04.638 - 3:13:40 PM; Representative Elward inquired about the process for victims of domestic violence or similar situations to receive special consideration under the amendment, questioning whether proof like a police report would be necessary.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Kazinski Information Only06:45:43.240 - 3:14:19 PM; Representative Kazinski explained that currently, no proof is required for non-residents to claim special considerations due to reasons like domestic violence, and this would continue under the amendment. He also mentioned anecdotal evidence of fraudulent claims and the financial burden on his town due to housing costs for non-residents.
HB348 2025-0154h: Chairperson Information Only06:48:02.798 - 3:16:38 PM; The Chairperson highlighted that lines 12 through 14 of the amendment were added in response to public hearing feedback expressing concerns that the original bill would negatively impact victims of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, or human trafficking, aiming to protect these groups.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Grund Oppose06:48:52.280 - 3:17:28 PM; Representative Grund expressed concern that the amendment would not stop payouts or budget overruns when more people require assistance than budgeted, suggesting it redefines welfare rules beyond the original bill's scope.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Stavis Oppose06:49:38.878 - 3:18:14 PM; Representative Stavis raised concerns about the amendment's 72-hour provision for non-residents, particularly questioning what happens during holidays when contacting a person's town of origin could be delayed. He also expressed pride in the existing RSA 165, emphasizing its importance in helping the neediest, and opposed changes to it.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Kazinski Support06:50:06.760 - 3:18:42 PM; Representative Kazinski defended the 72-hour limit in the amendment, stating it should be sufficient to find shelter or contact the town of origin, even during holidays, and emphasized that the town of origin should handle long-term care.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Stavis Oppose06:51:38.040 - 3:20:14 PM; Representative Stavis reaffirmed opposition to the amendment, valuing the state's commitment to helping the neediest as enshrined in RSA 165 and resisting changes that could undermine this principle.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Gerard Information Only06:52:13.200 - 3:20:49 PM; Representative Gerard expressed appreciation for the amendment's intent but raised concerns about its potential to make communities indefinitely responsible for non-residents, especially those living in temporary accommodations like hotels. He referenced the financial impact on his community and others like Keene due to over-budget situations caused by such cases.
HB348 2025-0154h: Chairperson Information Only06:53:44.280 - 3:22:20 PM; The Chairperson added that lines 15 through 17 of the amendment were included to address concerns raised during public hearings about the immediate needs of newcomers in emergency situations, aiming to provide temporary assistance without restricting access.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Information Only06:54:03.680 - 3:22:39 PM; The speaker pointed out that in the amendment, lines 12 through 14, the provision dealing with victims of domestic violence, stalking, sexual assault, or human trafficking uses 'may' instead of 'shall'. This means that a town could potentially draft guidelines that allow victims to seek assistance in another town rather than providing help locally.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative Colby Information Only06:54:56.440 - 3:23:32 PM; Representative Colby highlighted that the amendment continues to use 'may' for special consideration to non-residents, allowing the governing body to authorize local assistance at their discretion. This could lead to varying applications of the law across different municipalities. They also noted that the current statute already allows for such variations, as the guidelines are minimum and municipalities can add their own rules.
HB348 2025-0154h: Chairperson Information Only06:56:42.080 - 3:25:18 PM; The chairperson noted the time and suggested moving to a vote on the amendment after sufficient debate. A roll call vote was conducted, resulting in a tie of 9-9, leading to the failure of the amendment.
HB348 2025-0154h: Representative McDonald Information Only06:59:08.638 - 3:27:44 PM; Following the failure of the amendment, Representative McDonald proposed retaining the bill, which was seconded by Representative Kosinski. A subsequent vote to retain the bill passed with a majority of 15-3.
HB453: Representative Burke Support07:03:25.760 - 3:32:01 PM; Representative Burke proposed an ought to pass motion on HB453, highlighting the necessity of the bill to protect the use of gas-powered equipment for grounds maintenance and snow removal. They emphasized the high cost of relying solely on electricity, especially in rural areas, and the importance of this safeguard for farmers and off-grid residents.
HB453: Representative Dolan Oppose07:04:37.478 - 3:33:13 PM; Representative Dolan opposed the bill, arguing that it would force municipalities to incur high costs to recapitalize equipment, thereby increasing local government expenses.
HB453: Representative Magori Oppose07:05:12.080 - 3:33:48 PM; Representative Magori cited a precedent of voting bills inexpedient to legislate when the sponsor is absent, and expressed inability to support the ought to pass motion due to lack of clarity and normal process.
HB453: Representative Guthrie Oppose07:05:43.440 - 3:34:19 PM; Representative Guthrie agreed with the previous speakers, stating that local communities should not need state intervention to implement such regulations.
HB453: Chairperson Information Only07:06:30.200 - 3:35:06 PM; The chairperson clarified that the absence of the prime sponsor was not their fault and that written testimony was provided. They supported the bill for protecting individual property owners and businesses from overreaching municipal regulations. A vote was taken on the ought to pass motion, resulting in a tie of 9-9, leading to the failure of the motion.
HB453: Representative McDonald Information Only07:09:02.120 - 3:37:38 PM; Representative McDonald sought clarification on the implications of HB453, specifically questioning whether the bill would allow municipalities to ban gas-powered lawn equipment, such as lawnmowers and chainsaws, in favor of electric tools. The response confirmed that such restrictions would be permissible under the bill.
HB453: Representative Elward Information Only07:09:49.398 - 3:38:25 PM; Representative Elward asked if the bill would extend to tractors and ATVs used for snow removal on private roads, indicating a concern over the breadth of equipment that might be affected by the legislation.
HB453: Representative Majori Information Only07:10:42.840 - 3:39:18 PM; Representative Majori expressed frustration over the lack of clarity on the bill, noting that the committee was unable to ask the sponsor direct questions. This highlighted the need for more information before making a decision on the bill.
HB453: Representative Murphy Information Only07:11:31.958 - 3:40:07 PM; Representative Murphy inquired if it would be possible to make another motion while one was still on the floor, specifically suggesting a motion to retain the bill to allow for more discussion with the sponsor.
HB453: Chairperson Information Only07:12:39.160 - 3:41:15 PM; The chairperson managed the voting process on the motion to declare HB453 inexpedient to legislate (ITL), which failed with a vote of 9-9. Subsequently, a motion to retain the bill was proposed and seconded, passing with a vote of 12-6. This indicates a desire to revisit the bill with more information.
HB488: Representative Dolan Information Only07:15:41.200 - 3:44:17 PM; Representative Dolan moved to retain HB488 due to the absence of a sponsor and the immediate need for amendments to progress the bill. This motion was seconded by Representative Elward and passed unanimously, indicating a consensus to further refine the bill.
Unclear: Chairperson Information Only07:18:17.000 - 3:46:53 PM; The chairperson provided updates and announcements regarding future committee meetings and schedules. They highlighted the extensive planning done for the committee's schedule and thanked members for their prompt submission of committee reports. The chairperson also mentioned upcoming deadlines and the need for the committee to meet frequently to handle their workload.

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