New Hampshire House Bill HB115

New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/6/25
• Refer: 1/6/25
• Report Pass: 3/5/25
• Report DNP: 3/5/25
• Refer: 3/13/25
• Report Pass: 4/2/25
• Report DNP: 4/2/25
• Engrossed: 4/11/25
• Refer: 4/11/25
• Report Pass: 5/19/25
• Enrolled: 7/7/25
• Vetoed: 7/17/25

Caption

Making temporary appropriations for the expenses and encumbrances of the state of New Hampshire.

Summary

HB 115, as amended by the Senate, is a temporary appropriations measure for the State of New Hampshire. It authorizes state agencies and entities that received operating-budget appropriations for fiscal year 2025 to continue obligating funds after July 1, 2025, at a rate not exceeding 45 percent of their FY 2025 appropriations, for the same purposes, until a new operating budget is enacted or, at the latest, January 1, 2026. The bill also allows related payroll adjustments, treats enactment as acceptance of necessary federal funds, and permits limited fund transfers and warrant draws under the temporary authority. The bill functions as a stopgap budget to keep state government operating during a budget gap. It suspends inconsistent provisions of RSA 9 for the duration of the temporary appropriations period and provides indemnification for officials handling public funds during the transition. In practical terms, it preserves spending authority for agencies, special funds, and federal matching funds while preventing expenditures above the temporary cap unless specifically authorized through the governor, council, and fiscal committee process. The bill’s impact on state law is significant because it temporarily overrides normal budget and expenditure rules and creates a legally recognized interim budget under RSA 9. It affects all state agencies and entities funded in the FY 2025 operating budget, as well as fiscal oversight bodies such as the governor and council and the fiscal committee. It also establishes that any spending under this act will be charged against later-enacted appropriations for the same purposes and periods. The general sentiment reflected in the voting history suggests the bill was necessary but contentious. It ultimately advanced with majority support, including a 196-167 concurrence vote on June 26, 2025, indicating enough agreement to keep state operations funded while a full budget was pending. At the same time, repeated failed floor amendments and close votes show that members disagreed over the details of the temporary spending authority and the scope of the stopgap approach. The main point of contention appears to have been how much discretion and spending flexibility the temporary budget should provide, and whether the 45 percent cap and related emergency exceptions were appropriate. The close amendment votes suggest some legislators wanted to alter the bill’s terms before passage, while others supported the measure as a necessary bridge to avoid disruption in state operations.

Impact

HB 115 temporarily amends the state’s budget and expenditure framework by authorizing limited appropriations and suspending inconsistent provisions of RSA 9 during the period it is in effect. It affects state agencies, special funds, federal fund acceptance and matching requirements, and the authority of the governor, council, and fiscal committee over transfers and emergency spending. The bill is a stopgap measure that preserves government operations until a full operating budget is enacted, but no later than January 1, 2026.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been viewed as a necessary interim funding measure, but one that drew meaningful disagreement over its terms. The final concurrence vote suggests enough support to keep the state funded, while the repeated failed amendment votes indicate that members were divided on the structure and limits of the temporary appropriations. Overall, the sentiment was pragmatic but cautious, with support for avoiding a shutdown balanced against concerns about the scope of spending authority.

Contention

The primary contention centered on the level of temporary spending authority and the mechanics of the stopgap budget, including the 45 percent expenditure cap, emergency exceptions, and the role of the governor, council, and fiscal committee in authorizing additional spending. The close and repeated amendment votes suggest some legislators sought to revise those terms, while others preferred to preserve the bill as a narrow bridge to a full budget. The disagreement was procedural and fiscal rather than ideological, focused on how to manage state operations during the budget gap.