Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session on Senate Bill 72, a parental rights in education measure, and considered an amendment offered by Representative Raymond. Raymond explained that his changes were intended to narrow the bill so it would not force schools to act as “surveillance operatives” for parents, especially regarding older students, and to avoid requiring teachers to disclose private family matters such as a student’s sexual orientation or pronouns. He also struck the bill’s “clear and convincing” standard and replaced it with a lower “evidence” standard, arguing teachers should have some basis for concern but not a burden equivalent to terminating parental rights. He said the amendment was meant to preserve due process, avoid weaponizing the bill in civil disputes, and reduce the risk of lawsuits. Members then debated the scope of the bill and amendment. Supporters said schools should not withhold information about a child’s health, school environment, behavior, bullying, self-harm, or criminal conduct, and argued that parents have a right to know about serious issues such as mental health concerns, sexual assault, drug use, or other misconduct. Several members emphasized that teachers do not diagnose mental illness, but should report observable concerns and involve school administrators or counselors when necessary. Opponents argued the bill would chill communication between students and trusted adults at school, especially for children from dysfunctional or unsafe homes, and said it could force outing of gay or trans students and increase the risk of harm or self-harm. One member cited the Department of Education’s trusted-adult approach and said teachers are not covered by formal confidentiality rules in the same way as lawyers or doctors. The discussion included examples and hypotheticals about bullying, sexual assault, drug use, self-harm, gender dysphoria, and whether a teacher would have to tell parents if a student used different pronouns or a nickname. Raymond and supporters said the bill would require disclosure of serious safety concerns but not compel teachers to diagnose or pry into private matters. Opponents argued the bill’s language still sweeps too broadly and could force disclosure in situations where a student fears abuse or being kicked out at home. The transcript does not show a final vote on the amendment or bill in the excerpt provided.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Education Funding Committee met in executive session on a bill concerning school meal access and reimbursement. The bill would address local school districts’ responsibility to provide meals during school hours, reimburse schools for meals served at no cost, and make an appropriation. The committee first moved to retain the bill, with supporters saying it was complex, had uncertain fiscal impacts, and should be considered alongside other related meals bills. Opponents argued the committee already had enough information, that the bill served a small number of students at relatively low cost, and that delaying action would harm children who need food to learn. The committee also heard from Tim Roar, a Keene school business administrator and co-designer of the bill, who explained that the proposal was intended to be an opt-in program for districts, with rulemaking to set participation requirements. He said the bill was meant to target aid to students between 175% and 200% of poverty, reduce bad meal debt, and avoid spending taxpayer money on families who could afford to pay. He estimated the state cost at about $250,000 in year one, with local taxpayer costs around $8,500 for Keene, and said some districts already have systems for online applications while others do not. Committee members questioned him about meal debt, online application software costs, and how districts handle students who reach debt limits. Roar said districts still feed students who are hungry, but use other resources and family outreach when meal debt is capped, and he argued that parents should be responsible for providing lunch when they can afford it. Other members pushed back, saying they had seen students go hungry and that teachers sometimes pay for lunches themselves. One member noted the bill would increase eligibility, make it easier to apply, strengthen personal responsibility, and was not a mandate. The discussion ended without a recorded final vote in the excerpt, though the retain motion remained the central action under debate.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 291, which would update religious land-use and property tax exemption rules for church-owned parsonages, parish houses, and similar properties. Senator Tim Lang, speaking for the sponsor, said the bill was intended to address situations where former parsonages are no longer occupied by clergy and are instead used for church-related purposes such as housing staff, religious education, or congregate living tied to ministry, including addiction recovery. He emphasized that the bill was not meant to create commercial rental housing and that it also preserves reasonable zoning and environmental regulations. Committee members pressed the sponsor on how the bill would be applied, especially the meaning of “religious purposes,” the six-unit limit, the “same lot” language, and whether churches could use the exemption to rent units for revenue. The sponsor said the six-unit cap was added to prevent large-scale commercial rental use, that congregate housing would be limited and defined, and that the bill was meant to cover uses like substance abuse recovery, homes for unwed mothers, and religious education, but not apartments converted for ordinary rental. He also said churches would still file annual exemption paperwork and towns could challenge claims they believed were commercial. Questions also raised concerns about whether the bill treated religious and nonreligious housing trusts differently; the sponsor responded that the bill was aimed at church-owned property used in pursuit of a religious mission. Several witnesses testified in support. Representative Mark Pearson, an active clergyman, said the bill would not remove additional property from the tax rolls because clergy housing allowances typically lead clergy to buy taxable homes elsewhere, while the church-owned parsonage remains exempt. Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire supported the bill as a modest expansion that could help create more attainable housing by allowing better use of existing religious land and structures, though he noted his organization would support even broader use. The hearing ended without a vote or final action, and the chair closed questions after the testimony.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The public hearing focused on Senate Bill 153, a proposal to speed up Department of Transportation driveway/entrance permitting for larger residential developments, generally 20 units or more. Senator Mark McConkey, the prime sponsor, said long permit delays can stall financing and housing construction, and explained that the bill creates a second, expedited permitting lane funded by a per-door fee. He said the original 90-day mandate was replaced with a more workable process developed with DOT and the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association, and noted that the fiscal note had been removed. Committee members asked about the fee structure, timing, whether the bill applied to 20 doors/units, and whether it affected income-restricted housing; McConkey said it does not include income-based incentives and does not change zoning or local planning requirements, only the DOT permit timeline. Industry witnesses strongly supported the bill. Matt Mayberry of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association said the proposal is a public-private partnership the industry requested, that time delays can jeopardize financing, and that builders are willing to pay for faster review as long as safety remains the top priority. Joshua Reap of Associated Builders and Contractors gave similar support, saying DOT bottlenecks have long slowed projects and that the bill would help move approved developments forward without burdening taxpayers. Questions from members focused on whether the expedited lane would pressure DOT to approve unsafe projects, whether consultants would already be vetted, and how the process would work alongside local approvals; witnesses said DOT would still retain final sign-off and that the process would be transparent and safety-focused. Alan Hanscom of DOT then explained the department’s role in more detail. He said the bill would require DOT to issue permits within 60 business days after approval of the traffic impact study for qualifying residential projects, and would create a $120 per-unit fee to fund a dedicated liaison position and software upgrades. He said the applicant would also pay for third-party consultant engineer review under DOT oversight, with the consultant costs passed through at no DOT markup and any unused funds returned to the applicant. Hanscom said DOT has been working with the sponsor and builders to clarify the process and improve transparency, and estimated the fee would support a position that coordinates between applicants, districts, consultants, and DOT bureaus to reduce dead time in the review process.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee took up Senate Bill 19, which was described as repealing an archaic requirement that hotel keepers post rental-rate notices in rooms. Most of the discussion focused on an amendment addressing whether hotels may refuse rentals to people under 21. Supporters argued the bill’s purpose was to clean up outdated, unenforceable laws and that the amendment would clarify the age-discrimination issue by allowing businesses to set and consistently apply their own policies, such as 21-and-under thresholds, to avoid problems like underage drinking, property damage, and liability. A representative from the New Hampshire Lodging and Restaurant Association said the current language is unclear because it does not define the age threshold, creating uncertainty about whether a hotel could be compelled to rent to very young minors. Several members emphasized that owners should be able to set policies for their properties, including age-based rental restrictions, so long as they are clear and consistently applied. One member said the amendment should be more explicit about policy and thresholds, while another noted a future bill might further tighten the language. The discussion also touched on vacation rentals, deposits, and the practical differences between hotels and other rental properties. The amendment was approved by the subcommittee, and the bill was then moved as amended. In the later executive session, the committee voted 11-0 to adopt amendment 1689, then voted 11-0 ought to pass as amended, and finally voted unanimously to place the bill on the consent calendar.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee met for its third discussion on special education aid under retained bill 742, with the chair noting that no action would be taken at the meeting. The chair reviewed prior hearings on Medicaid and local special education funding shortfalls, saying the committee was trying to understand why districts are facing proration of special education aid and how to reduce unfunded costs. He raised a series of questions for the Department of Education about the Nessus system, eligibility and ineligibility, invoices and vouchers, audit procedures, reimbursement rates, out-of-state placements, and who enters data at the district level. Rebecca Fdet, director of special education services at the Department of Education, explained that Nessus is the statewide special education information system and that every child in special education must be entered into it. She said most districts use it to develop IEPs and track services, while six districts use it only as a data reporting tool. She described which fields are required, how the system connects IEP development to the financial section, and how districts submit invoices when seeking special education aid, court-ordered placement payments, or episode-of-treatment placements. She said the department reviews invoices against the IEP, pays only for allowable services, and uses a cap that notifies districts when they reach the annual limit. Members asked about who submits the information, how districts decide when to seek aid, and how costs are calculated for individual or group services. Fdet said the district, usually an administrative assistant in the SAU office, submits the documentation electronically, and districts decide when to track students for aid based on their own circumstances. She said reimbursement is based on actual costs tied to the IEP, with group services split among students, and that the department does not generally set rates for local services. The only rate-setting she described was for approved private special education providers, which submit annual cost spreadsheets for tuition rates. She also said out-of-state providers must be approved by their own state, and the department checks licensure and certification through monitoring and investigations if concerns arise. The department also described its monitoring process, called Program Approval and General Supervision Monitoring, or PAGS. Fdet said districts are reviewed on a six-year cycle, with more intensive review for districts needing assistance or intervention and fewer file requests for districts meeting requirements. She said the department can review up to 65 data points on an IEP and that districts must submit special education aid paperwork by July 31, with superintendent verification due by August 15. The meeting ended with continued questions about procurement, audit procedures, and how the department handles out-of-district and out-of-state placements.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first handled roll call and approved the prior meeting minutes. Members discussed attendance and substitutions, then moved to the DHS commissioner’s update, which focused on New Hampshire’s Medicaid 1115 waiver and the new community re-entry initiative for people leaving correctional facilities. The presenter explained that the waiver lets the state cover certain services not normally covered under Medicaid, including substance use disorder treatment, serious mental illness services, adult dental benefits, and the new community re-entry component. She also noted that a separate youth re-entry component is federally required, with youth defined up to age 21 and foster-care-related coverage extending to age 26. The update described how the adult re-entry program works for incarcerated individuals with behavioral health needs, providing up to 45 days of pre-release services, care coordination with managed care organizations and DOC staff, telemedicine assessments, discharge prescriptions, insurance cards, and connections to community mental health, primary care, and substance use providers. For youth, the program includes more intensive case management, 30 days of pre-release services, and 30 days of post-release care coordination, with a stronger emphasis on screening, diagnosis, and holistic assessment. The presenter said New Hampshire received the adult waiver in July 2024, has implemented the program in state correctional facilities, and is beginning work at the youth center. Members and the presenter discussed why the program is structured as a waiver rather than a standard Medicaid benefit, with the explanation that CMS is allowing this as a newer policy area and that states generally pursue waivers for certain services. The chair and others emphasized the need for real cost and outcome data, and the presenter said an independent evaluator and evaluation plan are required under the 1115 waiver. Early results cited included 30 adults enrolled so far, 10 released, five youth enrolled with one released, and anecdotal early successes such as housing, employment, and better continuity of medication and treatment. The committee did not take any additional votes or formal actions beyond approving the minutes.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 94, which would prohibit municipal amendments to the state building code and move New Hampshire toward a more uniform statewide code. Senator McConi and several supporters, including the Josiah Barlo Center for Public Policy, the State Fire Marshal, the Associated General Contractors of New Hampshire, and the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association, argued that local variations create confusion, raise housing costs, and make compliance harder for builders operating in multiple towns. The Fire Marshal said the goal is a single state building and fire code with only limited administrative amendments at the local level, not technical changes, and noted that municipalities could still seek exceptions through the Building Code Review Board if needed. The chair explained that a similar House bill was already moving forward with fire code and administrative amendment language, and members agreed that retaining SB 94 would avoid conflicting bills. The committee then voted to retain SB 94 by roll call, 13-0, with no minority report. The committee then took up Senate Bill 30, which would designate the Virginia opossum as New Hampshire’s state marsupial. Senator Fenton presented the bill as a light-hearted measure inspired by Chesterfield School fourth graders, who had submitted written testimony and supported the idea. Members discussed the bill in a humorous but mostly supportive way, with one member objecting that it trivialized the legislature, while others said it could help engage students in the legislative process. The committee voted ought to pass on SB 30, 11-2, and agreed to place it on consent with no minority report. Later, the committee opened a hearing on Senate Bill 95, concerning youth camp cabins and state fire/building codes. Senator McConi said the bill would exempt new residential cabins in youth recreation camps from sprinkler requirements and allow them to omit electrical, mechanical, or plumbing systems, while requiring any such systems that are present to comply with state code. He said the measure was intended to resolve recurring interpretation problems that have caused expense and uncertainty for camp owners, and he praised work with the Fire Marshal’s office to reach a workable compromise. Representative Schmidt asked about cabin sizes and whether larger cabins with multiple occupants would still be safe; the senator explained that camps typically use counselors, drills, and supervision, and that the people behind him could answer more detailed questions. The transcript cuts off before the hearing concludes or any vote is taken on SB 95.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 102, which would make informational materials about type 1 diabetes available on the Department of Education website. Senator Ward said the bill is intended to help parents, teachers, and school staff recognize early symptoms such as thirst, frequent urination, fatigue, and weight loss so children can be referred for care before they develop diabetic ketoacidosis. He noted that a newer blood test can identify some children at risk earlier than in the past. Members asked how people would be directed to the website, and Ward said the information would be posted online and also distributed in handouts, with school personnel helping spread awareness. He emphasized the bill is informational only and not a diagnostic or treatment tool. Several supporters testified in favor, including representatives from the Dartmouth Diabetes Link and students with type 1 diabetes who described delayed diagnoses, emergency hospitalizations, and the difficulty of having symptoms misunderstood as stress, athletics, or normal teenage changes. They said the bill could help parents, teachers, and peers recognize warning signs earlier and reduce the risk of life-threatening ketoacidosis. One witness noted that New Hampshire ranks high in childhood type 1 diabetes, and another said even a single person seeing the information could make a difference. A retired diabetes educator and state representative also testified in support. The hearing on SB 102 was then closed. The committee then opened the hearing on Senate Bill 211, which would require school sports teams to be designated as male, female, or co-ed, bar biological males from female-designated teams and locker rooms, and create a cause of action for violations. Senator Avard said the bill responds to constituent concerns and is meant to protect fairness, safety, and privacy for biological females. In questioning, he said girls could still play on boys’ teams, but boys could not play on girls’ teams, and he said he would be open to changes. Opponents, including an attorney from LGBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, argued the bill is substantially the same as a law passed the previous year that was already challenged in federal court and found likely unconstitutional under equal protection and Title IX; they urged the committee to mark it inexpedient to legislate. The transcript cuts off before any committee vote or further action on SB 211.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee discussed House Bill 185, which would amend RSA 3109 to add timelines for OPLC’s complaint review and investigation process. Members reviewed the existing five-year limitation period for misconduct complaints and noted that the bill would add a 30-day deadline for the office to make a recommendation to the board and a 90-day deadline to complete investigations. Some members raised concerns that the new deadlines could conflict with the existing statute of limitations, create pressure to dismiss cases too quickly, and potentially undermine the separation between OPLC’s investigative role and the boards’ adjudicatory role established by House Bill 655. Nicholas Fry, OPLC general counsel, testified that the agency’s fiscal note originally assumed it would need roughly double its staff to meet the proposed deadlines, though a later amendment reduced that estimate somewhat. He said OPLC would still need additional personnel, including investigatory paralegals and a physician investigator for the Board of Medicine, to meet the timeframes. He also explained OPLC’s current complaint and hearing procedures, including new consumer-friendly correspondence, website guidance, and efforts by the enforcement division to improve transparency and communication with complainants and licensees. Bob Quinn of the New Hampshire Association of Realtors testified in support of the bill’s basic goal of speeding up intake and investigation, saying the 30-day intake/review period was reasonable and that the bill would not change OPLC’s role in that first step. He argued, however, that the investigation step is where delays occur, especially for lower-priority complaints, and that some cases have remained unresolved for years. Committee members also questioned how the added staffing costs would be paid, with discussion of whether they would come from license fees or the general fund. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 47, sponsored by Sen. Regina Birdsell at the request of the Insurance Department. The bill would codify the department’s interpretation that a birth mother’s health insurance is the primary coverage for a newborn, unless the mother has no insurance or coverage under an employer-sponsored plan. Birdsell and Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the measure is a clarification of existing practice and intended to protect vulnerable newborns; a question from Rep. Miles clarified that if a young woman is on her parents’ policy, the newborn would generally be covered under that family coverage. The hearing on SB 47 was then closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 121, introduced by Grant Bosi for Sen. Kevin Avard, which would require insurers to notify the Insurance Department when they stop writing an entire line of business or, in some cases, Medicare Advantage plans. Commissioner Benton Court said the bill arose from disruption in the Medicare Advantage market, where consumers, brokers, and the department were confused by carriers changing or ending offerings; he said the department wanted a simple notification requirement so it could better advise consumers. Members discussed network adequacy, county-based service areas, and the fact that the bill would make notice a condition of licensure, with possible fines or license action for noncompliance. Witness Paula Rogers of AHIP said her group supported the bill if amended, and the department indicated it would support a change from a 120-day notice period to 90 days to align with state rules; the committee planned to work on an amendment in subcommittee. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 247, introduced by Rep. Brian Cole, which would prohibit network exclusion of pharmacies that refuse to dispense prescriptions when PBM reimbursement is below acquisition cost. Cole argued the bill is meant to stop pharmacies from being forced to sell drugs at a loss, describing PBMs as middlemen and saying the measure is a compromise that protects local pharmacies. Members questioned whether consumers would pay more and whether pharmacies voluntarily enter PBM contracts; Cole responded that the bill would let pharmacies refuse unprofitable fills while consumers could still obtain the drug through mail order or other channels. He also said the issue has changed over time because the practice now affects a much larger share of generics and is concentrated among a few PBMs. The hearing remained open as questions continued, with no vote taken in the excerpt.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 47, sponsored by Senator Regina Birdsell at the request of the Insurance Department. The bill would clarify that a birth mother’s health insurance is the primary policy for a newborn’s care unless the mother has no coverage or no employer-sponsored coverage. Birdsell and Insurance Commissioner DJ Benton Court said the measure simply codifies the department’s long-standing interpretation of existing law. Representative Miles asked whether the coverage would extend to a grandchild if a young woman on her parents’ plan had a baby, and Birdsell said it would. The hearing on SB 47 was then closed. The committee next heard Senate Bill 121, introduced by Grant Bosi for Senator Kevin Avard. The bill requires insurers to notify the Insurance Department when they stop writing an entire line of business or, in some cases, when they change Medicare Advantage offerings. Benton Court said the bill was prompted by disruption in the Medicare Advantage market, where consumers and the department were confused by carriers exiting, changing plans, or narrowing offerings. He said the department does not regulate Medicare Advantage itself, but does license the carriers, and the notice requirement would help the department advise consumers; he also said noncompliance could affect a carrier’s license and could lead to fines. Members discussed the notice period, and the department and AHIP indicated support for changing it from 120 days to 90 days to align with federal timing. The hearing was closed with plans to work on an amendment in subcommittee. Finally, the committee heard Senate Bill 247, introduced by Representative Brian Cole, which would prohibit network exclusion for pharmacies that refuse to dispense prescriptions when PBM reimbursement is below acquisition cost. Cole said the bill is meant to stop pharmacies from being forced to sell at a loss. Members questioned whether pharmacies voluntarily enter PBM contracts, whether the bill would raise consumer prices, and whether it would mainly affect independent pharmacies. Cole and others said the issue has changed over time because PBMs now control a much larger share of the market, and that the bill would let pharmacies refuse loss-making fills and direct patients to mail order instead. The discussion also noted that the bill excludes Medicare and Medicaid and that the current proposal does not create a middle-ground option for patients to pay a premium at the counter.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee first took up Senate Bill 268, a bill related to biological sex and related classifications. Members opposing the bill argued it was unnecessary, poorly drafted, and a personal attack on a small group of people, while supporters said it was needed to protect girls and women and to avoid repeated floor debate on a measure they viewed as proper. Several members also discussed the bill’s definition of biological sex, the lack of guidance on what information could be required to make determinations, and concerns about unintended consequences. The committee voted on a motion to retain the bill and approved it by a 10-8 roll call vote, with the bill retained. The committee then moved to Senate Bill 189, described by supporters as a housekeeping measure requested by the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Human Services concerning fetal death records. Supporters said the bill was narrow, time-sensitive, and ready to pass, while opponents argued it needed further work and that the committee should not use retention to reopen the bill for broader changes. Some members said they wanted to add or explore additional provisions related to fetal death reporting, while others objected that such changes were outside the bill’s scope and poor procedure. After debate, the committee voted to retain Senate Bill 189 as well.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee work session focused on SB 148 and competing amendments dealing with forfeiture and civil recovery in murder cases. Members compared the “Lynn” and “Burge” amendments and narrowed the remaining disputes to two issues: whether the bill should apply only to first-degree murder or also to second-degree murder and related federal offenses, and whether any civil action could be brought before criminal charges or conviction. The group concluded that the pre-conviction approach created serious practical and constitutional problems, including Fifth Amendment concerns and uncertainty over how a civil case would proceed while a criminal investigation was pending. The discussion then shifted toward limiting the bill to post-conviction remedies. Members agreed that the Department of Justice pre-charge stay language should be removed, that the bill should not try to define “victim” in a way that included the person convicted of the murder, and that the definition should be revised to mean the estate of the victim or the victim’s immediate family, excluding the convicted person. They also agreed to delete language about “after right to appeal has been exhausted,” to correct a typo on page one, and to remove a section dealing with pre-conviction probate-style procedures and third-party notice issues. The committee also discussed how to handle third parties such as insurers, publishers, and innocent purchasers. Members concluded that third parties acting in good faith should not be liable if they make payments or transfer property without notice, but if they receive notice they should not disburse funds. They noted that existing post-conviction civil recovery language already allows victims to sue within three years, making the earlier pre-conviction mechanism unnecessary. The meeting ended with the members saying they had reached a deal on the revised language and would bring the updated amendment forward for further processing.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow New Hampshire state-chartered credit unions to choose, by member vote, to compensate their board members. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, does not require compensation, and is intended to align New Hampshire with other states that already permit this. He argued that credit union board service now requires more time and expertise, and that compensation could help attract stronger candidates and improve governance. Representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank testified in support. They said the change would not create salaries, but could cover modest compensation or reimbursements such as daycare, education, cybersecurity, or accounting training. They emphasized that credit unions remain nonprofit and member-driven, that board members must be credit union members and elected by members, and that any compensation decision would be made by the membership at an annual meeting or through the credit union’s voting process. Witnesses also said the bill would help with recruitment and retention, especially as credit union operations have become more complex and digital, and noted that similar authority exists in 16 other states, including Rhode Island. Committee members asked about the historical reason credit unions were excluded, the amount and structure of compensation, whether there would be a cap, and how voting would work. Witnesses said the bill does not set a statutory maximum, but in practice the amount would be disclosed to members and set through the vote; they also described St. Mary’s Bank’s ballot process and said proxy or ballot procedures depend on each credit union’s bylaws. One witness noted that federally chartered credit unions are subject to different limits. After testimony and questions, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25 and then moved on to Senate Bill 26.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened discussion on SP 170 and worked through the bill section by section, focusing first on housing discrimination language and then on land-use and development provisions. On the housing section, members discussed adding “school enrollment status” or a similar term as a protected class to prevent municipalities from steering students into specific zones, especially in Durham. Some members questioned whether “status” was too vague and suggested “enrollment status” or “school enrollment status” for clarity. Public testimony raised concerns that adding a new protected class could have broader implications beyond this bill and could affect municipal zoning authority, while supporters argued the language was needed to prevent discrimination against students in housing access. The committee then heard testimony on provisions limiting municipal authority over septic test pits and well-siting requirements. DEES officials and a builder testified that state standards are already protective of groundwater and surface water and that some local requirements are more stringent than the state’s, adding cost and delay to housing projects. Supporters said uniform state standards would make housing development faster and more predictable. Opponents warned that local rules can protect aquifers, wellhead areas, and drinking water in specific communities, and that removing municipal flexibility could weaken those protections. The subcommittee appeared comfortable keeping these sections, though members discussed whether to clarify the language and whether some local review authority should remain. The meeting also covered road-length limits, caps on the number of lots on dead-end roads, and subdivision design rules. Members generally supported prohibiting municipalities from using maximum road length or lot caps to block development, with one amendment suggested to allow such limits where adequate water and sewer capacity is lacking. The committee also discussed allowing utilities and infrastructure such as septic systems, wells, electric systems, drainage structures, and shared leach fields to be placed in subdivision open space or perimeter buffers when those areas are not protected wetlands or shoreland. Finally, the committee reviewed a provision requiring municipalities to stamp and accept plan changes within three days after initial review, with members explaining that the goal is to prevent repeated, incremental changes from dragging out the approval process. No final votes were taken in the portion of the meeting provided, but members indicated general comfort with several sections as amended or clarified.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first held a public hearing on Senate Bill 25, which would allow state-chartered credit unions to compensate board members if the membership approves it. Prime sponsor Senator Dan Innis said the bill is enabling only, intended to help credit unions recruit and retain qualified directors and align New Hampshire with other states that already allow such compensation. Credit union representatives from the Cooperative Credit Union Association and St. Mary’s Bank supported the bill, saying board service has become more complex because of cybersecurity, asset-liability management, and other regulatory demands, and that compensation could be modest and take forms such as meeting fees or educational reimbursement. In response to committee questions, they said compensation would be set by the membership, disclosed in advance, and subject to bylaws and internal policies; they also noted that board members must be credit union members and that voting procedures vary by institution, with some using mailed ballots rather than proxy voting. Members raised questions about why credit union boards were historically excluded, what kinds of compensation were contemplated, whether there would be a cap, and how voting and confidentiality would work. Testimony explained that the historical rationale was the nonprofit, volunteer mission of credit unions, but witnesses argued that the modern environment and competition for talent justify a change. They also said the bill would not mandate compensation and would not create a salary structure comparable to banks, but would allow members to approve modest compensation or reimbursements. After no further testimony, the chair closed the public hearing on Senate Bill 25. The committee then opened a public hearing on Senate Bill 26, sponsored by Senator Howard Pearl, concerning the definition of deposits in land sales and escrowed accounts. Pearl said the bill would clarify that buyer funds for upgrades and luxury items in new-home construction are not treated as refundable deposits that must be held in escrow, arguing that the current Attorney General interpretation raises builder costs, increases home prices, and can limit buyer choices. He said the proposal would allow those upgrade funds to be paid directly to builders for construction, with signed disclosures making clear that the buyer requested the items and bears the risk if financing falls through. The hearing on Senate Bill 26 had just begun when the transcript ended.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee on SB 170 opened with the Pledge of Allegiance and then worked through the bill section by section, focusing first on a housing-related provision that would prohibit municipalities from requiring occupants to be related by blood or marriage. The chair proposed adding “school enrollment status” as a protected class to prevent towns from limiting where students may live, especially in Durham. Members debated whether that phrase was too vague and whether “educational status,” “enrollment status,” or “school enrollment status” was the best wording. Public testimony raised concerns that adding a new protected class could have broader implications under the state’s anti-discrimination law and could also affect municipal zoning authority, while supporters argued the bill was aimed at preventing local rules that restrict student housing and group living arrangements. The subcommittee did not take a final vote on that language during the discussion. The committee then turned to land-use and subdivision provisions. The Department of Environmental Services testified that its test-pit and related land-development rules are already protective of groundwater and surface water, and that municipalities sometimes impose stricter setbacks or other requirements locally. Builders and housing advocates argued that more stringent local requirements for test pits, well siting, and related approvals add time and cost and can impede housing development, while some municipal concerns were raised about aquifer and wellhead protection overlay districts and local groundwater safeguards. Public testimony also supported making state standards uniform across municipalities, though one speaker noted that local and state review processes can differ and that the bill could simplify approvals. The subcommittee also discussed a road-length provision, with one member supporting limits on municipal caps that could impede development and another suggesting a possible water-and-sewer-capacity qualifier. Additional sections were explained as allowing utilities and infrastructure to be placed in subdivision open spaces or perimeter buffers, and requiring municipalities to act quickly on plan changes after initial review. The chair indicated support for several of the sections as drafted, and the discussion ended with the committee moving through the remaining provisions without recorded final votes in the transcript.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The hearing began with SB 12, which would let certain veterans who already qualify for a disabled veteran license plate use that VA disability determination to obtain a walking disability placard without having to undergo a second physical or submit additional proof. Senator Waters, the prime sponsor, said the bill was prompted by a constituent and would reduce redundant paperwork. Melinda Sims of United Spinal and Leo Pacquin of the State Veterans Advisory Committee both supported the bill, saying veterans already go through an extensive VA certification process and should not have to repeat it for the state. A DMV representative said the department had no known objection and explained that the change would let the placard travel with the veteran in another vehicle. The hearing on SB 12 was then closed. The committee then took up SB 40, which would allow safe boater education certificates to be completed and tested online, rather than requiring an in-person final exam. Representative Coker and Senator Tim Lang described the bill as a cleanup measure to make a COVID-era online process permanent and said it would improve convenience and keep more revenue in New Hampshire. Tom Praol, representing the vendor, said the state lost significant revenue when the online option ended and argued that online proctoring can verify identity and prevent cheating. The New Hampshire Marine Trades Association supported the bill, saying it would help boaters learn New Hampshire-specific laws and keep dollars in-state. The Department of Safety Marine Patrol was neutral: Captain Tim Dunlvy said the current system includes classroom and online coursework followed by an in-person proctored final exam, and he raised concerns about safety, exam integrity, and lower scores in computer-only testing, while noting New Hampshire’s strong boating safety record. Committee members asked about reciprocity, proctoring methods, costs, and crash data, but no vote was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up SB 63, which concerns funding for the division of travel and tourism and its relationship to the meals-and-rooms tax calculation. Members asked for confirmation that the bill would not affect municipal distributions under RSA 78-A:26. Jennifer Ramsey of the Department of Revenue Administration explained that the amendment does not change meals-and-rooms distributions, but instead corrects the calculation for the travel and tourism appropriation by adding back the municipal fund transfer before applying the 3.15% floor. Chris Shay of the Office of the Attorney General agreed with that explanation. The committee also discussed the complexity of the meals-and-rooms statutes and the possibility of a future cleanup effort. The committee then voted 19-0 to recommend SB 63 ought to pass; it will not go on consent because it has a fiscal note. The committee next considered SB 60, relative to advanced deposit account wagering. Rep. Murphy moved ought to pass, explaining that the bill would regulate advanced deposit wagering on horse racing and impose a 1.25% revenue share on wagers from New Hampshire residents, generating roughly a quarter-million dollars in new lottery revenue in the first year. The motion passed 19-0, and the bill will not go on consent because of its fiscal note. The committee then voted 19-0 to recommend SB 147 ITL, with members noting that live racing facilities are in decline and the market is shrinking. SB 160, which updates raffle ticket pricing and prize limits for bingo-related gaming, also passed ought to pass 19-0 and will not go on consent. The committee then took up SB 73, which revises coverall bingo rules and increases prize limits. An amendment, 2025-1470H, was offered to raise the total prize amount to $5,000; members supported it as a reasonable compromise, and the amendment was adopted unanimously. The bill as amended then passed ought to pass 19-0, again with a fiscal note preventing consent placement. After those votes, the committee moved into a work session on SB 83, where members began discussing the bill’s video lottery terminal provisions, including the meaning of “maximum wager,” the absence of a cumulative betting cap, and concerns that the bill combines several distinct policy changes—tax treatment, VLT rules, renaming, and a self-exclusion database—into one measure. No vote was taken on SB 83 during the work session, and members indicated they would continue discussion later after reviewing side-by-side materials.