Committee Summary for House Ways and Means (02/05/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB650 00:07:28.520 - 9:04:14 AM	Public Hearing	removing references to repealed funds and relative to state park and robotics education funds.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A]2025
HB650 00:19:34.840 - 9:16:20 AM	Executive Session	removing references to repealed funds and relative to state park and robotics education funds.	McGuire, Dan(R)[A]2025
HB585 00:36:26.560 - 9:33:12 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the property tax exemption for religious organizations.	Janigian, John(R)[B+]2025
HB688 01:15:54.600 - 10:12:40 AM	Public Hearing	authorizing municipalities to tax charitable gaming facilities based on their enterprise value.	Ohm, Bill(R)[B+]2025
HB737 03:07:28.399 - 12:04:14 PM	Public Hearing	(New Title) creating local options for games of chance, authorizing keno throughout the state, and changing charitable gaming license fees and reporting requirements.	Boyd, Bill(R)[C]2025
HB635 04:06:36.920 - 1:03:22 PM	Public Hearing	relative to taxing non-profit entities who settle illegal immigrants as for-profit entities.	Corcoran, Travis(R)[A-]2025
HB635 05:17:42.200 - 2:14:28 PM	Executive Session	relative to taxing non-profit entities who settle illegal immigrants as for-profit entities.	Corcoran, Travis(R)[A-]2025

HB650: Dan McGuire, Town of Epsom Support00:07:28.520 - 9:04:14 AM; Dan Maguire, representing the town of Epsom and chair of the Joint Committee on Dedicated Funds, spoke in support of HB650. He explained that the committee reviews the state's dedicated funds on a five-year cycle, examining 20% of the funds each year to ensure they are current and functioning properly. This year, the committee identified several changes needed, including the repeal of two funds that were still listed in RSA 6:12 but had already been repealed, and the creation of two bills, one of which is HB650. HB650 addresses the remaining cleanup of dedicated funds, including the robotics fund, which receives $750,000 annually for high school grants but has been growing due to underutilization. The bill proposes a cap of $1 million on the fund, with excess funds returning to the general fund. Another change involves the Canon Mountain winter activities fund, which will be separated from the main parks fund for better accounting. Maguire emphasized that these changes are just this side of housekeeping, as they involve policy decisions like the robotics fund cap.
HB650: Aly Official, City of Lebanon Information Only00:15:25.959 - 9:12:11 AM; Aly Official from Lebanon spoke to provide more context on the state parks fund policy issue. He mentioned that the fund needs a cleanup as it includes activities from both the Winter Ski Area, including the Tramway, and other parks within the system. He highlighted the difficulty in raising funds for the parks since the removal of the historic houses maintenance fund, which allowed for visitor chores and general fund contributions. He noted that individual parks now rely on donation boxes, which only benefit the specific park where the donation is made, leading to maintenance issues. He also touched on the robotics fund, explaining that it was initially set up to establish robotics teams in schools but has faced challenges due to a lack of interested or capable schools, leading to a reduction in the allocated funds.
HB650: Representative Aly Support00:19:34.840 - 9:16:20 AM; Representative Aly moved to pass House Bill 650 FN. He explained that the bill removes references to already repealed funds and separates the state parks funds into two: the Canaan Mountain Ski Area fund and the fund for the rest of the state parks. Additionally, it removes the non-lapsing status of the robotics education fund but allows up to a million dollars to accumulate before any remainder lapses.
HB650: Representative Elberger Support00:20:31.640 - 9:17:17 AM; Representative Elberger seconded the motion to pass House Bill 650 FN.
HB650: Unnamed Speaker Support00:20:31.640 - 9:17:17 AM; An unnamed speaker expressed appreciation for the committee's work and found it fascinating.
HB650: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:21:29.360 - 9:18:15 AM; The speaker, likely a committee chair or clerk, initiated the voting process for House Bill 650. They confirmed the bill's title and the motion to vote on it as 'ought to pass'. They proceeded to call the roll for voting.
HB650: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:22:24.679 - 9:19:10 AM; The speaker continued the roll call for voting on HB650, with representatives responding with their votes. Some representatives were noted as not present during the vote.
HB650: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:23:14.120 - 9:20:00 AM; The speaker concluded the roll call and confirmed the vote count, noting 16 votes in favor and zero opposed with four representatives missing. They discussed the fiscal note's implications and confirmed that the bill could go on the consent calendar.
HB650: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:23:59.520 - 9:20:45 AM; The speaker officially placed HB650 on the consent calendar and closed the executive session for the bill. They also mentioned the time and the schedule for the next public hearing.
HB650: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:25:46.640 - 9:22:32 AM; The speaker expressed concern about the last bill scheduled for the day but did not provide further details on the topic.
HB650: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:26:34.520 - 9:23:20 AM; The speaker mentioned a general concern about safety, possibly in relation to the last bill, but the context was unclear due to fragmented speech.
HB650: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:27:51.840 - 9:24:37 AM; The speaker continued discussing safety concerns, mentioning motorcycles and accidents, which might relate to the last bill's content, but this was not explicitly stated.
HB650: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:28:44.519 - 9:25:30 AM; The speaker reiterated that the discussion was about HB650 and mentioned reading police reports about accidents, possibly in relation to the bill's content.
HB585: Representative John Janigian, Rockingham District 25, Salem Support00:36:26.560 - 9:33:12 AM; Representative Janigian introduced HB585, aiming to address property tax issues faced by small religious organizations, particularly churches. He highlighted the problem of parsonages becoming taxable when not used by a pastor, using his church, the Ararat Armenian Congregational Church in Salem, as an example. The bill seeks to exempt one parsonage and the main worship building from property taxes, provided the income from renting these spaces is used for specific church-related purposes like paying the pastor, maintenance, or standard church programs. The legislation is intended to help small religious organizations without allowing larger ones to exploit the exemption.
HB585: Representative Opal Information Only00:41:25.760 - 9:38:11 AM; Representative Opal raised concerns about the definition of 'standard religious programs' within the context of HB585, citing a situation in Canaan where a parsonage used by a music director was taxed. He questioned whether there was any existing statute or court precedent that could clarify this term, suggesting further research might be necessary to ensure the bill's language is robust and not open to interpretation.
HB585: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:43:48.520 - 9:40:34 AM; An unnamed speaker asked about the fiscal impact of HB585 and the definition of a 'regularly recognized and constituted denomination.' The speaker questioned who determines what constitutes a recognized religious organization, using a hypothetical scenario of worshipping an oak tree to illustrate potential issues. The response indicated that existing governance on religious organizations would apply similarly to such cases.
HB585: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:45:17.599 - 9:42:03 AM; Another unnamed speaker, who has experience as a church elder, discussed how church operations are typically documented through bylaws and itineraries, suggesting that federal law might recognize these as indicators of an ongoing, functioning church. This was in response to questions about how a church's regular operations are defined and recognized.
HB585: Unnamed Speaker from Balon Information Only00:46:24.800 - 9:43:10 AM; The speaker from Balon addressed the issue of tax assessments on church properties, specifically questioning the due diligence process of Salem's assessor in determining taxable parts of church properties. They mentioned that the assessor's decision to tax church property outside a certain radius (around 200 feet, though not certain) sparked a broader discussion on taxing church properties. This led to a process to reverse the tax decision in Salem. The speaker also mentioned an upcoming bill regarding payment in lieu of taxes for nonprofits, from which churches are exempt.
HB585: Unnamed Speaker from Grafton Information Only00:48:50.640 - 9:45:36 AM; The speaker from Grafton shared an anecdote about a contested church property in their town, indicating past disputes over tax exemptions for church properties. They suggested that the committee should research past handling of such cases and involve the municipal and county committee due to its local implications.
HB585: Unnamed Speaker from an organization Information Only00:49:39.799 - 9:46:25 AM; The speaker raised concerns about the application of exemptions under the bill, particularly how it would apply to larger religious organizations with multiple churches. They suggested that the bill might need adjustments to prevent large organizations from exploiting exemptions meant for smaller entities.
HB585: Betty Gay from Salem Support00:53:16.799 - 9:50:02 AM; Betty Gay, a former representative and church member from Salem, supported the bill by discussing the recent trend of taxing church properties. She recounted how a temporary assessor in Salem strictly interpreted tax laws to increase taxable areas of church properties, leading to disputes. She highlighted cases where churches were taxed on land considered part of their religious use, like wetlands and trees. She argued that the bill would help churches manage their properties without the burden of taxes, especially when the income from these properties supports church activities and ministers.
HB585: Bry Dees from the New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose00:59:15.760 - 9:56:01 AM; Bry Dees from the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed HB585, arguing against the expansion of tax exemptions that mandate municipalities. He explained that the bill would affect properties potentially used commercially or outside religious doctrines. Dees mentioned a state-wide movement among assessors to strictly apply tax exemptions following a decision by the New Hampshire Board of Tax and Land Appeals. He noted the complexity due to a similar bill (HB425) heard by another committee, and criticized the bill for vague terms like 'standard religious programs' and for adding reporting requirements. He also clarified that properties not actively used for religious or charitable purposes should be taxable according to current law.
HB585: Representative BS Information Only01:08:13.240 - 10:04:59 AM; Representative BS raised concerns about the Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) and their involvement in property taxation assessments, particularly questioning whether they are adequately informed about federal laws before making decisions. They suggested that the BTLA's actions might be seen as a 'witch hunt' against religious institutions but were corrected by another representative who clarified the BTLA's role as quasi-judicial.
HB585: Representative ORS Information Only01:09:27.799 - 10:06:13 AM; Representative ORS responded to Representative BS, clarifying that the BTLA's role is to interpret statutes in a quasi-judicial capacity, similar to a superior court, and not to enact laws. They emphasized that any vagueness in the statutes should be addressed by the legislature to ensure uniform interpretation.
HB585: Representative Bolton Information Only01:10:21.880 - 10:07:07 AM; Representative Bolton inquired about the tax status of other nonprofits, such as hospitals and universities, and their land usage. It was explained that land used for charitable purposes by hospitals is tax-exempt, but additional land not used for that purpose is taxable. They also mentioned that certain unique classifications exist for entities like granges.
HB585: Bry Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Information Only01:11:20.280 - 10:08:06 AM; Bry Dees suggested that the Department of Revenue Administration should provide legal guidance on the complex interplay between federal statutes and local assessments, rather than the Municipal Association, which represents municipalities' interests. They offered to provide written testimony on a related bill but deferred to the Department for comprehensive guidance.
HB688: Representative Bill M, Nashua, Hillsboro 10 Information Only01:15:54.600 - 10:12:40 AM; Representative Bill M discussed the conversion of a former Sears store in Nashua into a casino and the potential impact on property taxes. He noted that the current assessed value of the property is around $16 million, and with Nashua's tax rate, it would generate approximately $300,000 in property taxes. He expressed concern that the assessor might not change the assessment despite the change in use to a casino. He referenced a study on the community costs of casinos, including crime, to underline his concerns about the new use of the building.
HB688: Unnamed Speaker, Nashua Information Only01:18:57.520 - 10:15:43 AM; The speaker presented data from a study on the impact of casinos on community crime and costs. The study showed that while crime rates in casino counties are initially low and there are economic benefits in the first year, crime rates, including robbery, aggravated assault, and burglary, increase significantly after three to four years. The speaker estimated that the cost per adult in casino-hosting communities was $75 in 1996, which, adjusted for inflation, would be about $150 in 2025. For Nashua, with approximately 1,000 residents and 71% adults, this would equate to a $9 million expense. The speaker suggested that host cities should receive mitigation funds, similar to previous bills, which proposed 3% of gross slot machine revenue to host communities, 1% to adjacent communities, and 1% to the host county. The current bill, however, lacks such provisions as it focuses on historic horse racing rather than full casino operations.
HB688: Unnamed Speaker, Nashua Information Only01:20:27.000 - 10:17:13 AM; The speaker continued discussing the financial implications of hosting a casino in Nashua, proposing a temporary solution in the absence of a comprehensive casino bill. This solution includes an enterprise tax on casino properties, potentially up to twice the assessed property value, which could generate an additional $600,000 in taxes for the city, totaling $1 million when combined with standard real estate taxes. This amount is considered minimal compared to what could be received under a casino bill that allocates 3% of gross revenue to host cities.
HB688: Unnamed Speaker, Nashua Information Only01:22:30.520 - 10:19:16 AM; The speaker concluded their testimony by reiterating the need for some form of mitigation for host cities and towns, emphasizing the proposed enterprise tax as a Band-Aid solution until a full casino bill could be enacted. They offered to answer questions but none were asked.
HB688: Representative Susan Elmy, Lebanon Information Only01:23:18.560 - 10:20:04 AM; Representative Elmy provided information unrelated to the bill's main subject but relevant to its placement in the state's RSA under section 72:1, which pertains to a former resident tax. She explained that this tax, which required every adult in New Hampshire to pay $10 to their local government to vote, was deemed unconstitutional likely by the U.S. Supreme Court, though remnants of the statute remain. She co-sponsored the bill due to her experience with the costs associated with allowing major casinos in the state, which she believes are now too numerous.
HB688: Representative Susan Elmy, Lebanon Information Only01:23:18.560 - 10:20:04 AM; Representative Elmy concluded her remarks on the bill, suggesting that section 71a should be entirely replaced rather than amended. She expressed concerns about the resident tax, which she claimed has been unconstitutional and uncollected since the 1980s. She compared the proposed tax to previous legislative efforts on casino taxes, noting that those bills required more payments to the hosting cities or towns and counties.
HB688: Representative, unspecified Information Only01:26:15.520 - 10:23:01 AM; The representative proposed that section 71a should be replaced rather than amended and discussed the unconstitutional and uncollected resident tax. They compared the proposed tax to previous casino tax bills, which required more payments to the hosting cities or towns and counties.
HB688: Former State Rep Pat Brami Oppose01:27:25.719 - 10:24:11 AM; Former State Rep Pat Brami expressed strong opposition to the proposed bill, highlighting its creation of a new 'Enterprise tax' specifically for charitable gaming facilities. He pointed out that the tax would be excessively high, potentially taxing facilities at twice their assessed value, which he described as unrealistic and unfair. Brami argued that the tax targets only casinos and charitable gaming facilities, which he believes is discriminatory and could face legal challenges. He referenced past legislative efforts to increase taxes on similar facilities, which were rejected, and noted that current regulations and fees for these facilities are already sufficient. He also mentioned a commission's decision against increasing fees for these facilities, suggesting that the proposed tax is unnecessary and unjustified.
HB688: Representative Shamberg Information Only01:34:41.199 - 10:31:27 AM; Representative Shamberg sought clarification on the bill's language, specifically questioning whether the proposed tax applied to the entire property of the gaming facilities, including the machines inside. He read out the relevant section of the bill to ensure understanding, focusing on the definition and application of the tax to facilities with 100 or more machines.
HB688: Representative Duet Information Only01:37:06.639 - 10:33:52 AM; Representative Duet inquired about past legislative efforts to introduce casino gaming in New Hampshire and the associated local revenue components. He was informed by Pat Brami about the repeated failures of such bills in the legislature and the lack of support for them, emphasizing the newness of the proposed tax and its potential implications.
HB688: Representative Yul Information Only01:39:34.480 - 10:36:20 AM; Representative Yul discusses the implications of the proposed tax on enterprises, noting that it could set a precedent for localities to tax businesses at will. They express concerns about the constitutionality of the bill and ask for comments to be sent to them for further action. They also discuss the potential impact of the tax on large charitable gaming organizations, suggesting that these organizations might adjust their payout percentages on gaming machines to counteract the tax's financial impact, thereby indirectly affecting the services provided by these charities.
HB688: Representative Elberger Information Only01:43:35.320 - 10:40:21 AM; Representative Elberger raises concerns about the fairness of allowing municipalities to pick and choose which businesses to tax, comparing it to the current system where casinos have the authority to allocate gaming dates to charities, effectively blocking municipalities. They reference a previous bill that attempted to give municipalities control over gaming dates but failed due to high demand from charities. They question the consistency of allowing casinos to choose charities while opposing municipalities' ability to select businesses for taxation.
HB688: Alicia Preston, New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association Oppose01:48:30.119 - 10:45:16 AM; Alicia Preston, representing the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association, opposes the bill, arguing that it unfairly targets the charitable gaming industry for taxation by municipalities. She compares the operational costs and municipal services required by charitable gaming facilities to other entertainment venues, stating that the former require less municipal support. She also highlights the financial contributions of these facilities to municipalities through property taxes and improvements made to the facilities, which increase their tax contributions. She stresses that these facilities do not contribute to the local school system as they do not house children.
HB688: Representative Duet Information Only01:49:21.800 - 10:46:07 AM; Representative Duet inquires about the existing taxes paid by charitable gaming facilities, such as business enterprise tax and business profit tax, and the taxes that contribute to charities and state revenue, emphasizing the financial responsibilities these facilities already have.
HB688: Representative Opal Information Only01:50:19.560 - 10:47:05 AM; Representative Opal seeks clarification on the stance against allowing municipalities to tax one industry differently from others, to which the response is that while the state can implement varied taxation across industries, municipalities should not have such power. This highlights a distinction between state and municipal authority over taxation.
HB688: Lauren O'Sullivan, Department of Revenue Information Only01:51:41.119 - 10:48:27 AM; Lauren O'Sullivan, a Senior Financial Analyst at the Department of Revenue, provided clarification and interpretation of HB688. She noted that the Department does not take a position on the bill but highlighted concerns about undefined terms within the bill, specifically the term 'assess property value'. She suggested that this term needs clarification as it could be interpreted in multiple ways, such as referring to the Enterprise property value or the tax liability for property. Additionally, she pointed out that the bill's language implies an opt-out system for the Enterprise tax, which might need amendment to clarify whether it's meant to be an opt-in or opt-out system. She also mentioned a lack of rule-making authority in the bill necessary for assessing machines at casinos and offered to provide further information on tax revenues generated by casinos if requested.
HB737: Jerry Stringham, State Representative from Lincoln, Woodstock, Easton, and Livermore Support03:07:28.399 - 12:04:14 PM; Representative Jerry Stringham introduced HB737 on behalf of Representative Boyd, emphasizing that it is a local option zoning bill rather than a gambling bill. He explained that the bill aims to give municipalities control over the establishment of game centers with historic horse racing machines, which are similar to slot machines. The bill allows local communities to vote on whether to allow such facilities, similar to existing local options for Keno. Stringham noted the bill's history, mentioning that a similar bill had passed the House with significant support in the previous term but failed in the committee of conference. He stressed the importance of local control due to the potential economic and social impacts of casinos on communities, including risks of addiction. He mentioned ongoing discussions about extending the period before an exit vote can be held from two years to five to ten years.
HB737: Bromy, State Representative Support03:12:09.279 - 12:08:55 PM; Representative Bromy expressed support for HB737, which aims to introduce a local option for municipalities to decide on the allowance of charitable gaming within their communities. He highlighted that the bill would grandfather existing facilities and those with applications under consideration. Bromy mentioned a previous attempt by the legislature to establish an opt-out provision for charitable gaming, which failed in a conference committee. He supports the bill but prefers an opt-in approach, similar to other lottery products, as he believes it aligns better with existing statutes. He referenced the Keno bill and the Lottery's executive director's experiences with Portsmouth, illustrating the preference for opt-in options. Bromy also addressed concerns about the bill potentially limiting competition and impacting charity revenues, noting that similar restrictions are already in place for other businesses like tattoo parlors and adult shops. He discussed the zoning restrictions in towns like Salem and Hudson, and emphasized the importance of not interfering with existing facilities.
HB737: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:24:22.080 - 12:21:08 PM; The speaker, whose name was not clearly stated, raised concerns about the potential impact of the bill on competition and charity revenue. They used the analogy of New York taxi cab medallions to illustrate how such restrictions could artificially inflate the value of licenses, limiting participation to wealthier entities. They questioned whether the legislation would have a similar effect on charitable gaming operations, potentially reducing the ability of charities to generate needed revenue. The speaker also noted the precedent of opt-in and opt-out options in other industries and questioned the bundling of different types of games of chance within the same licensing structure, suggesting it could force communities to accept both less and more damaging forms of gambling.
HB737: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:26:08.760 - 12:22:54 PM; Another speaker, whose name was not clearly identified, discussed the specifics of the bill's text, particularly sections C and D on page one, lines 17 to 22, which require two questions to be asked regarding the prohibition of games of chance. They pointed out the difference between poker parlors and casinos, noting that poker parlors were seen as less problematic in their community until the introduction of historic horse racing machines. They expressed confusion over whether the bill's language addressed these differences adequately, suggesting that the bill might force communities to ban all games of chance rather than allowing them to choose between less and more damaging forms of gambling.
HB737: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:28:52.880 - 12:25:38 PM; The final speaker, whose name was not clearly provided, clarified that all games of chance, including poker, must be banned under the bill, despite the legalization of poker about ten years ago. They noted that certain table games like craps and roulette are less common due to high operational costs. They also mentioned the difference in public perception and legal status between traditional table games and slot machine equivalents like historic horse racing machines, which are considered more damaging. The speaker agreed that some games require more staff, affecting their viability in smaller venues, and emphasized that these are local decisions to be made.
HB737: Opal Information Only03:29:59.680 - 12:26:45 PM; Opal expressed curiosity about the preference for an opt-in versus an opt-out provision in the bill. They questioned the difference between the two, noting that under an opt-out system, gaming would be legal until a town votes against it, while under an opt-in system, it would be illegal unless a town votes in favor. Opal sought to understand the rationale behind the preference for opt-in, and the response highlighted consistency with other lottery regulations and the concern that towns might miss the opportunity to vote on such establishments, potentially leading to unwanted gaming locations.
HB737: Representative Om Information Only03:31:44.239 - 12:28:30 PM; Representative Om raised concerns about the grandfathering of existing gaming facilities, specifically mentioning the Nasua casino. They questioned whether there would be any ability for a town to opt out if a gaming device is already in place, citing the example of the Nash facility in Nasua. The discussion clarified that current facilities are grandfathered, but there might be nuances if facilities merge or if new licenses are applied for, though it was not certain if the bill's language would cover such scenarios.
HB737: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:34:01.640 - 12:30:47 PM; The speaker discussed the historical context of gaming legislation, particularly around the addition of historic horse racing machines to existing facilities. They explained that the logic at the time was to consider the addition of games to existing facilities, not the creation of new facilities. This was supported by the legislature's passage of the bill, indicating acceptance of this rationale.
HB737: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:35:19.439 - 12:32:05 PM; The speaker further elaborated on the evolution of charitable gaming in the state, mentioning the transition from Lucky Seven machines to more advanced gaming devices. They clarified the distinction between Class 2 and Class 3 gaming, noting that the shift to Class 3 devices, like historic horse racing machines, represented a significant change. They argued that cities and towns should have the ability to opt out of new Class 3 gaming devices, though this might not apply to existing facilities.
HB737: Unnamed Speaker Information Only03:39:58.560 - 12:36:44 PM; The speaker addressed questions about the renewal of casino licenses, stating that licenses are renewed annually and must be in good standing. They emphasized the importance of regulatory oversight to ensure compliance and prevent misconduct, highlighting the state's use of national firms to evaluate their gaming regulations, which received a positive review.
HB737: Dr. Debbie Warner, Littleton Support03:41:55.680 - 12:38:41 PM; Dr. Debbie Warner from Littleton expressed support for the bill, highlighting the community's reaction to a proposed casino. She discussed the local efforts to pass an ordinance against the casino, which was found to be ineffective. She detailed the legislative process, including working with lobbyists to pass an opt-in bill, which was later changed to an opt-out provision by the Senate. Warner emphasized the bipartisan support for the bill and suggested adjustments to the amendment, including extending the abandonment period to protect existing and future investments.
HB737: Alicia Preston, New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association Support03:50:49.000 - 12:47:35 PM; Alicia Preston from the New Hampshire Charitable Gaming Operators Association voiced support for the legislation. She mentioned minor tweaks to the bill requested by the association, indicating ongoing collaboration with the sponsor. Preston noted that these changes were minor and did not affect the bill's substance, expressing readiness to discuss details once the amendment is available.
HB737: Representative Elme Information Only03:53:56.760 - 12:50:42 PM; Representative Elme raised concerns about the traffic impact of a casino in Lebanon, specifically questioning whether the city could seek compensation if traffic issues arose. The response clarified that the bill does not address such local issues, and that the casino in question was grandfathered, suggesting that any recourse would need to be sought through existing local regulations.
HB635: Representative Corkran Support04:06:36.920 - 1:03:22 PM; Representative Corkran introduced HB635, which focuses on the criteria for granting nonprofit status in New Hampshire. The bill aims to address who qualifies for nonprofit status, emphasizing that it is not a right but a tool of public policy. Corkran highlighted the financial operations and funding sources of various NGOs involved in immigrant resettlement, suggesting that these organizations receive significant taxpayer money through grants and program revenues. The speaker criticized the New Hampshire Immigrant Rights Network for their stance on the bill, arguing that the bill does not prevent services to illegal aliens but rather adjusts the tax status of organizations engaged in their settlement. Corkran referenced a UNH report to illustrate the societal impacts of resettlement and used local news stories to argue against the benefits of increased diversity, citing a New York Times article on the negative effects of diversity on civic engagement.
HB635: Representative YY Information Only04:23:18.159 - 1:20:04 PM; Representative YY raised concerns about the definitions within the bill, pointing out contradictions and the lack of clarity in terms like 'engaged in' and 'attempting to engage in'. The representative also questioned the applicability of the discussion on illegal aliens to the bill's implementation. Additionally, YY highlighted potential constitutional issues, particularly in relation to religious organizations like St. Vincent de Paul, suggesting that the bill might infringe on religious freedoms by taxing services provided to all individuals, regardless of their legal status.
HB635: Representative Alme Oppose04:24:13.560 - 1:20:59 PM; Representative Alme criticized the bill for its lack of clarity and feasibility in terms like 'attempting to engage in' and 'intending to provide'. The representative questioned the practicality of enforcing the bill, particularly regarding the role of the Department of Revenue Administration in potentially acting as 'bounty hunters'. Alme also pointed out that the list provided by the New Hampshire Immigrant Rights Network included many individuals rather than organizations, suggesting a misrepresentation of the impact of the bill.
HB635: Unidentified Speaker Information Only04:26:27.119 - 1:23:13 PM; An unidentified speaker questioned Representative Corkran about the implications of the bill on organizations that might refuse services to legal residents based on perceived legal status. The speaker raised concerns about potential discrimination and whether similar consequences should apply to organizations denying services to legal residents without proper documentation. The discussion also touched on the enforcement mechanisms under the Immigration Nationality Act and whether the bill was necessary given existing federal laws.
HB635: Representative Elberger Information Only04:27:14.119 - 1:24:00 PM; Representative Elberger questioned the potential for racial discrimination under the bill, asking whether organizations denying services to legal residents based on skin color or perceived legal status should face similar consequences. The representative also inquired about the number of illegal immigrants resettled in the area and the enforcement of existing immigration laws, highlighting the complexity and potential unintended consequences of the bill.
HB635: Representative B Information Only04:30:01.720 - 1:26:47 PM; Representative B asked about the origins and racial identities of individuals from South Africa, seemingly to challenge assumptions about immigration and race. The representative also sought clarification on the number of illegal immigrants resettled in the area and the involvement of NGOs in providing services to them, questioning the practicality and necessity of the bill given existing federal mechanisms.
HB635: Representative Spar Oppose04:31:05.560 - 1:27:51 PM; Representative Spar raised concerns about the necessity of the bill given existing federal laws under the Immigration Nationality Act, which already criminalize harboring unauthorized individuals. The representative questioned whether the bill's focus on tax status was redundant and whether it appropriately addressed the issue of illegal immigration, suggesting that the bill might not be necessary or effective in achieving its intended goals.
HB635: Unknown Speaker Information Only04:33:49.118 - 1:30:35 PM; The speaker challenges the assertion made by Representative Spar regarding crime rates among immigrants. They mention having researched the topic extensively, including looking into the work of Alex Nashta from the KO Institute. The speaker argues that the commonly cited statistic about immigrants committing fewer crimes is flawed because it only considers incarceration rates, not the actual crime rates. They suggest that illegal immigrants might commit crimes at a higher rate than citizens but are less likely to be incarcerated due to not being caught or convicted.
HB635: Unknown Speaker Information Only04:36:45.320 - 1:33:31 PM; The speaker questions the data presented on crime rates among illegal immigrants and challenges the source of the information. They emphasize that the focus of the bill is not on deporting people or coordinating with ICE but on deciding which corporations should receive nonprofit status in New Hampshire.
HB635: Representative Donald McFarlin from Orange Support04:37:43.840 - 1:34:29 PM; Representative McFarlin supports House Bill 635, stating that the intent of the bill is strong despite some troubling language. He argues that the rationale behind tax benefits for nonprofits is to encourage activities that benefit society. He distinguishes between immigrants and illegal aliens, claiming that illegal aliens commit crimes at a higher rate and that supporting organizations that aid them is not in New Hampshire's interest. He suggests that the bill could be amended to clarify its language and encourages its passage.
HB635: Nathan DWI from Manchester Support04:44:56.480 - 1:41:42 PM; Nathan DWI supports HB635, expressing concern about spending money on nonprofits that facilitate illegal immigration. He believes that the funds should be used for New Hampshire citizens and legal residents, especially considering other state needs like school funding.
HB635: Justin Valentini from Concord Support04:46:30.718 - 1:43:16 PM; Justin Valentini supports HB635, comparing the use of illegal immigrants for labor to modern-day slavery and historical exploitation. He criticizes nonprofits for profiting from the resettlement of illegal immigrants, suggesting that these organizations are driven by profit rather than altruism. He emphasizes the bill's role in stopping taxpayer funding of what he calls a structure of human trafficking and profit, advocating for a future free from exploitation.
HB635: Justin Valentini, Concord Support04:46:30.718 - 1:43:16 PM; Justin Valentini from Concord expressed support for HB635, emphasizing the importance of actions reflecting values of equality, respect, and opportunity for all. He was questioned about his knowledge of the organizations involved in resettlement, particularly about potential financial incentives and conflicts of interest. He acknowledged that these organizations are paid through salaries and have an incentive to resettle more people, funded by both taxpayers and private donations.
HB635: John Dman, Pum Support04:51:17.600 - 1:48:03 PM; John Dman, a resident of Pum, expressed strong support for HB635, focusing on the tax status of companies involved in resettlement in New Hampshire. He highlighted a lack of transparency regarding the management of the program, questioning the role of the Refugee Affairs Division and the business model of NGOs. Dman argued that these organizations should not retain tax-exempt status and emphasized the long-term costs to the state, including the shift of individuals to social welfare programs after initial resettlement.
HB635: Dlav Slos, Salzburg Support04:56:41.440 - 1:53:27 PM; Dlav Slos from Salzburg supported HB635, questioning why organizations involved in resettlement are tax-exempt despite being profitable. He connected the issue to local budget deficits, rising property taxes, and increased population, expressing concern over the financial strain on local communities and seniors due to immigration.
HB635: Tyler Richardson Support04:58:47.760 - 1:55:33 PM; Tyler Richardson, a longtime resident of New Hampshire, supported HB635, stating that the state should not incentivize companies that contribute to increased use of social services and state funding. He praised the previous speaker's points and highlighted the existing financial constraints.
HB635: Matt Leair, Stratum Oppose04:59:32.958 - 1:56:18 PM; Matt Leair from Stratum opposed tax-exempt status for corporations involved in what he described as human trafficking, directly relating it to HB635. His testimony was brief and focused solely on his opposition to the tax status of these organizations.
HB635: Jeremy Kaufman, East Manchester Oppose05:00:33.200 - 1:57:19 PM; Jeremy Kaufman from East Manchester opposed HB635, sharing his subjective experience of the impact of resettlement on his community. He recounted a personal story from a park cleanup to illustrate the negative changes he perceived in the city's character due to the influx of migrants and asylum seekers. Kaufman questioned the value of tax deductions for organizations facilitating resettlement and urged talking to residents directly affected by these changes.
HB635: Stephen Daves, Deerfield Support05:02:18.680 - 1:59:04 PM; Stephen Daves expressed support for the bill, arguing that it is inappropriate to encourage tax exemptions for committing felonies. He emphasized the importance of following the naturalization process as outlined in the Constitution and opposed the idea of granting tax-exempt status to organizations that facilitate illegal immigration.
HB635: Ben Hartin, Penacook Support05:03:14.280 - 2:00:00 PM; Ben Hartin, a resident of Penacook, supported the bill by sharing his experiences living in various cities across the U.S. He chose New Hampshire to raise his family due to concerns over issues like illegal immigration and the breakdown of the rule of law in other places. He opposed the state subsidizing organizations that aid illegal immigrants.
HB635: Kyle McCroy, Dover Support05:04:23.080 - 2:01:09 PM; Kyle McCroy from Dover expressed opposition to using tax dollars or tax-exempt statuses to support human trafficking or illegal immigration. He argued that the state has other pressing financial needs and should not be funding such activities.
HB635: Rick Menard, Building Community in New Hampshire, Manchester Oppose05:05:26.600 - 2:02:12 PM; Rick Menard, representing Building Community in New Hampshire from Manchester, opposed the bill. He clarified misunderstandings about refugee resettlement, noting it is a federal program managed by the U.S. State Department and HHS. He emphasized that his organization works legally with refugees and does not engage in human trafficking or support illegal immigration. Menard argued that the bill was based on misconceptions and urged its rejection, stating it would not significantly impact New Hampshire financially.
HB635: Travis Corkran, Prime Sponsor of the Bill Information Only05:09:12.080 - 2:05:58 PM; Travis Corkran, the prime sponsor of the bill, thanked the previous testimony for clarifying that NGOs can check the legal status of immigrants they serve.
HB635: Jennifer Ram, Tax Policy Council, Department of Revenue Administration Information Only05:10:19.680 - 2:07:05 PM; Jennifer Ram from the Department of Revenue Administration provided technical analysis regarding the bill. She discussed the implications of the bill's language on business taxes and the use of IRS data. Ram explained that the state could not independently collect data beyond what the IRS provides, and there would be no additional cost to administer the statute. She also discussed how the DRA would handle complaints about NGOs supporting illegal immigrants and the potential for removing tax-exempt status based on the bill's criteria.
HB635: Representative ORS Information Only05:15:34.480 - 2:12:20 PM; Representative ORS inquired about the revenue estimates for the upcoming year, asking whether they were above or below plan. They were informed that no plan had been established for future years, but the current fiscal year's revenue was coming in below plan. They asked if taxing certain organizations could help with the deficit, to which it was explained that the effective date of the bill would be after the upcoming fiscal year, but it could potentially increase revenue. Representative ORS then requested further investigation into whether these organizations should be taxed, but the response was unclear on the feasibility of determining taxation.
HB635: Unnamed Speaker 1 Information Only05:17:42.200 - 2:14:28 PM; The speaker mentioned that HB635 is one of the bills they might have a work session on to come to a conclusion. They also provided a schedule for the upcoming committee meetings, stating that they would meet for three days the following week and possibly one or two days the week after, with no meetings scheduled during the vacation week at the end of February into early March.
HB635: Unnamed Speaker 2 Information Only05:18:47.958 - 2:15:33 PM; The speaker discussed the possibility of retaining HB635 due to its complexity and the need for further examination. They suggested that retaining the bill could allow for more detailed analysis over the winter and spring, with a potential report out in November. They also mentioned an upcoming executive session for four bills, including HB635, and the possibility of combining a work session with the executive session.
HB635: Unnamed Speaker 3 Information Only05:19:36.240 - 2:16:22 PM; The speaker outlined the schedule for revenue estimates presentations and discussions, including sessions with Dr. on Monday and further work on Tuesday. They also discussed the timing of the executive session for HB635, suggesting that it could be combined with a work session if a conclusion can be reached, or the bill could be retained for further consideration.
HB635: Unnamed Speaker 4 Information Only05:22:01.040 - 2:18:47 PM; The speaker suggested conducting a straw poll to decide whether to retain HB635 or recommend it as inexpedient to legislate (ITL). They mentioned the need for further examination and potential rewriting of the bill, and the requirement to report out by March 6th. A straw poll was conducted, with a majority favoring retention of the bill.
HB635: Unnamed Speaker 5 Information Only05:23:15.798 - 2:20:01 PM; The speaker acknowledged the results of the straw poll, noting that the decision on HB635 would be made the following Tuesday. They concluded the meeting and reminded everyone of the upcoming schedule.

Janigian, John(Chairman)(R)[B+]2025	Ohm, Bill(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	Ulery, Jordan(V Chairman)(R)[A-]2025
Almy, Susan(D)[F]2025	Oppel, Thomas(D)[F]2025	Smith, Steven(R)[B]2025
Malloy, Dennis(D)[CT]2025	Schamberg, Thomas(D)[CT]2025	Southworth, Thomas(D)[F]2025
Tierney, James(R)[B]2025	Cole, Brian(R)[A-]2025	Aures, Cyril(R)[B+]2025
Bolton, Bill(D)[F]2025	Elberger, Susan(D)[F]2025	Smith, Geoffrey(D)[D-]2025
Soti, Julius(R)[A+]2025	Spahr, Terry(D)[D-]2025	Bryer, Scott(R)[B]2025
Murphy, Mary(R)[B+]2025	Ford, Mary(R)[B+]2025