WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 11
REGULAR CALENDAR
JUDICIARY
HB 514, relative to entry on private land. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. J. Brandon Giuda for Judiciary: This bill addresses a growing problem in New Hampshire, namely officials and others trespassing on private property to gather information about the property without landowner permission. The bill clarifies and upholds the natural right guaranteed by Article 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution to exclude others from one’s property, while also addressing the realities of our modern society by allowing a small number of exemptions to avoid conflicts with existing laws. Specifically, the bill prohibits any person from entering private property to gather information without written permission from the property owner or a lawfully issued warrant. The bill also prohibits the use of any information gathered in violation of the requirements set forth in this bill. Finally, the bill provides remedies to landowners whose rights have been violated by allowing them to recover their legal expenses, and also allows courts to fine individuals who knowingly violate this law. Vote 12-4.
LABOR, INDUSTRIAL AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES
HB 494-FN, relative to tipped employees who deal card and table games at games of chance venues. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. William J Infantine for the Majority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: This bill will include tipped employees who deal cards and table games at games of chance venues under RSA 279:21. This RSA currently allows tipped employees of a restaurant, hotel, motel, inn, or cabin who receive more than $30 a month in tips directly from the customer to receive a base rate from the employer of not less than 45% of the applicable minimum wage. This bill simply adds these dealers to what is currently in law for the employees who work in the industry listed above. Vote 8-7.
Rep. Jack B Flanagan for the Minority of Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: This bill allows card and game room dealers to be converted from minimum wage employees to tipped wage employees, a $4.00 per hour reduction in pay. The minority feels that since tips are not guaranteed in games of chance, the employees are not the same as traditional tip waged employees. Additionally, with the number of workers in the state of New Hampshire that may receive tips of some sort, we are setting a dangerous precedent on reducing the wages of other employees in other industries.
HB 582, relative to communication between employers and employees during bargaining negotiations. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Gary L Daniels for Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services: This bill as amended, injects into the collective bargaining process an opportunity for the negotiator for each party to talk directly to the board of the public employer or to the employees, respectively. The benefit to the negotiating parties is that legal costs may be reduced if this direct communication breaks impasse and enables the parties to reach agreement without having to go through mediation and fact finding. Vote 11-4.
MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT
HB 293-FN, relative to phasing out and repealing the exemption for water and air pollution control facilities from local property taxation. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. John A Burt for the Majority of Municipal and County Government: This bill would be a new tax on businesses in NH. State of New Hampshire Department of Resources and Economic Development (DRED) said it best and they also oppose this bill, “nearly every state in the U.S. exempts pollution control facilities from local property taxation-to implement this measure in NH will put our state at a competitive disadvantage as we seek to recruit new companies to the state.” Virginia just expanded their laws a year ago on water and air pollution controls to draw business to the state. DRED also said, “in short, the moderate financial gains to be achieved through this legislation would be more than offset by the potential loss of business and the perception that NH offers a less than optimal business atmosphere.” Vote 9-7.
Rep. Betsey L Patten for the Minority of Municipal and County Government: The original bill proposed to phase out the exemption from local property taxes for the appraised value of water and air pollution control facilities as determined by Department of Environmental Services over a five-year period, and repeals the exemption on March 31, 2016. The amendment changes the baseline of “wholly or partly” for the purpose of pollution control to “solely” for the purpose for pollution control. The amendment then goes on to grandfather all existing exemptions and includes water-to-energy facilities into the exemption. In addition, the amendment allows for a public hearing at the request of a municipality to be held by the department of environmental services. The minority of the committee feels that the amendment is a fairer way to address the issue of one municipality’s taxpayers paying for the exemption of the pollution control facilities that benefits the whole state.
RESOURCES, RECREATION AND DEVELOPMENT
HB 221, establishing a procedure for leasing state parks. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. David H Russell for the Majority of Resources, Recreation and Development: This bill simply provides a “road map” for the commissioner of the department of resources and economic development to use in the consideration of any lease proposal. It makes the state park system advisory council (RSA 216-A:3-k) the “lease evaluation committee” to assist the commission in working out the details of a lease. This committee shall prepare a report to the commissioner, who will still have final authority to recommend a proposed lease to the governor and council. The committee has been working on this issue for three years. Vote 8-7.
Rep. Thomas J Howard for the Minority of Resources, Recreation and Development: This bill was opposed by the newly appointed director of parks. He appeared before the committee and asked that he be allowed time to evaluate the needs of his department and the ramifications of the bill. In addition, the leadership of the state parks advisory council, which is given additional responsibility in the bill, has expressed opposition to the bill. They are presently working on their own version of a leasing procedure.
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND ENERGY
HB 123, prohibiting an electric utility from disconnecting service from a residence or building in which a person is using life-sustaining medical equipment. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. James Garrity on behalf of former Rep. Sean C Cox for Science, Technology and Energy: This bill was filed in response to a tragic incident which happened in Salem, NH last year. The committee held on to this bill while waiting for the public utilities commission (PUC) to finish writing more strict rules regarding utility disconnection. In September, the committee received a report and briefing from the PUC detailing PUC Rule 1200, medical emergency protections. We were satisfied that the new, approved rules greatly strengthen protections for consumers and clarify policies and procedures which must be followed by utilities and the PUC. As a result of the PUC actions, this bill is longer needed. Vote 9-2.
HB 311-FN, relative to solar renewable energy. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Frank R Holden for Science, Technology and Energy: The purpose of this bill is to refine certain portions of the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) law. The changes are to make it easier for small renewable generators to qualify for renewable energy credits (RECs). Under the current law, it is difficult for smaller renewable generators to qualify for RECs and much of this currently installed renewable generation is not being counted towards the RPS goals. This results in the suppliers having to pay for non-compliance with the RPS law. Additionally, this bill transfers the obligation of compliance with RPS from the suppliers to the distribution utilities. It also makes changes that will keep more REC payments in state. The majority of the committee believes that, while these changes may be improvements, the bill only addresses a small portion of the RPS law and the concepts should be considered as part of a major re-write of the RPS in 2012. Vote 6-4.
HB 388-FN, requiring providers of prepaid wireless services and voice over internet protocol services to pay surcharges for deposit in the enhanced 911 system fund. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Frank R Holden for Science, Technology and Energy: Presently land line and post pay cellular telephone customers pay $0.57 per month fee for enhanced 911 service. Other types of phone service such as voice over internet protocol (VoIP) or pre-pay cellular, while being able to benefit from 911 service, do not pay the fee. It is estimated that 20% of phone lines in New Hampshire fall into the latter category and do not pay the fee for 911 service. This bill as amended will require providers of pre-pay cellular and VoIP telephone service to contribute to the 911 system. It also changes the fee to $0.47 per month for all categories of telephone service. The majority of the committee believes that reducing the fee for the 80% of customers that are paying for 911 and requiring the providers of other types of phone service to pay their fair share will result in level funding for the New Hampshire enhanced 911 system. Vote 7-3.
HB 543-FN, relative to biomass combined heat and electricity facilities. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Laurence M Rappaport for Science, Technology and Energy: This bill amends the current renewable portfolio standard (RPS) (RSA 362-F) to add biomass combined heat and electricity facilities as eligible for renewable energy credits (RECs). It also defines “useful thermal energy”, and establishes a thermal to electric conversion factor which would be used to establish total megawatt hours of output. The majority feels that this is an interesting concept, but because it is a significant addition to the current RPS, it needs to be considered in the context of a major re-write of the RPS statute in 2012. We prefer to keep this bill alive as a backstop measure in case the RPS re-write becomes stalled. Vote 6-4.
HB 649, relative to the Northern Pass Project to construct and operate transmission lines from the Canadian border to a proposed terminal in Franklin, New Hampshire. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Laurence M Rappaport for Science, Technology and Energy: The committee feels that it's important to keep alive the spirit of HB-648 should that bill be defeated by the Senate. HB-649 reflects much of that bill. We want to keep this bill in our possession in order to keep the concept alive in summer of 2012. The committee feels that protecting individual property rights is more important than promoting corporate development rights. Vote 8-2.
TRANSPORTATION
HB 342, relative to boat operation rules. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. John A Hikel for Transportation: This bill will clarify who gets certified mail notification relative to changes on water restrictions. Vote 10-1.
HB 455-FN, authorizing optional enhanced drivers' licenses and optional enhanced non-drivers' picture identification cards. MAJORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE. MINORITY: OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Kyle D Jones for the Majority of Transportation: This bill would create an optional REAL ID like license that would have a digital photo, a magnetic strip and a RFID chip attached to it. There were some privacy concerns addressed where the State of New Hampshire would have to share people’s personal information with DHS (department of homeland security) if they got this license. While the sponsor did a very fine job trying to address our concerns the majority of committee felt that this bill is unnecessary because people can already get a passport if they wanted to go out of the country, and not needed because this would be opening Pandora’s Box with the Federal Government. Vote 6-5.
Rep. Raymond G Gagnon for the Minority of Transportation: The enhanced driver’s license has been developed between the department of homeland security and individual states to provide a lower cost and convenient alternative travel document for U.S. citizen residents of state that choose to issue such a document. This document is accepted as proper identification for surface travel between the U.S. and Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda. HB 455 will allow New Hampshire citizens to choose this type of travel document instead of a full passport or passport card if appropriate for their out of country travel needs. The enhancement option for a New Hampshire driver’s license will cost an additional $30.00 and is projected to bring over 400 thousand dollars in revenue to New Hampshire. The RFID chip within the enhanced driver’s license acts as a pointer. It is randomly assigned an encrypted number that is read by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection computer sensors at the border entry station. The computer will receive only the following personal data: Name, DOB, gender, citizenship and a photo image. This is no different than what had been required in the past. HB 455 provides a cost saving option forNew Hampshire residents who travel, especially between New Hampshire and Canada.
WAYS AND MEANS
CACR 13, relating to prohibiting any new tax on personal income. Providing that no new tax on personal income shall be levied by the state of New Hampshire. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Keith Murphy for the Majority of Ways and Means: It is rare that this body considers any bill, resolution, or amendment so clear and concise that it may be reprinted in full here, but CACR 13 makes that possible. It simply says, "No new tax shall be levied, directly or indirectly, upon a person’s income, from whatever source it is derived." The language is very carefully chosen to forbid only new taxes on individual income. Existing taxes on income, such as the interest and dividends tax, will be unaffected unless first repealed. The goal of the amendment is to acknowledge that the income earned by the citizens of our state is theirs and theirs alone, through their hard work and risk and savings. Granite Staters of every profession and income level work hard to feed their families, to save for their children’s education, to keep their businesses afloat, to donate to their favored charities, to pay for their rents, their mortgages, their utilities, their medicines, and a multitude of other expenses, and it would be an incredible injustice for the state to demand some portion of that money. As a group, New Hampshire legislators have always known it was wrong to confiscate earnings, and the labor it represents, from our constituents. That's why to date we've remained one of nine states without a general income tax, but we must provide the people the opportunity to safeguard their paychecks from future legislators who may fall for the same temptations that have overcome the legislators of the other 41. Opponents claim that we must not tie the hands of future legislatures, but in reality that is exactly why constitutions and their incorporated amendments exist: to restrict governments from infringing upon the rights of the people. The majority of the committee believes that passing CACR 13 onto the voters for consideration is not only morally just, it would go far to cement the New Hampshire Advantage by sending a strong message to entrepreneurs, small business owners, and working people of all classes that our state will respect your right to keep your earnings. Vote 15-5.
Rep. Mary R Cooney for the Minority of Ways and Means: This bill may look like it prohibits only a personal income tax, but its actual language freezes our entire tax system in time, with devastating consequences to the state’s economy and government. Businesses invent new forms over time, and consumers change their habits. In the past, we have adapted our taxes to this changing world, to avoid taxing any one form of business more than others. In 1970, the BPT was created to replace myriad smaller taxes and sparked an economic miracle in our state. In 1993, the BET was added after a lawsuit by larger businesses, which successfully claimed that it was unfair that they alone bore the cost of supporting the state while partnership groups and smaller businesses were exempt. In this very voting session, the Ways and Means Committee is recommending a measure, SB 168, which would probably be deemed a new tax on some people’s personal income by the justices if the affected parties sued using this amendment. If this passes, any future adaptation to changing economic reality will be unconstitutional, because the actual wording of the amendment prohibits any change levying any new tax on any person’s income, from whatever source derived, directly or indirectly levied. All taxes are levied at least indirectly on people’s income. This would leave us with a dwindling set of state-level taxes that would be highly unfair in their application across different businesses and individuals. History tells us that the overall revenues would decline relative to the cost of essential services: infrastructure, public safety, education and the general welfare. The only options left to pay for these will be increasing existing business taxes, the interest and dividends tax, the real estate transfer tax, and most especially, the property tax. Because this amendment is worded so vaguely, it would generate numerous expensive legal challenges. This amendment guarantees ever-increasing property taxes, vanishing businesses, and fleeing citizens. It will return us to the time 50 years ago when New Hampshire had the worst economy in New England.
HB 242-FN-A, increasing the net operating loss carryover under the business profits tax. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Frank V Sapareto for Ways and Means: This bill allows a net operating loss carry over for ten years with a $10 million cap on loss. This law has already been passed in HB 2. This law has no fiscal impact on the current budget. The committee amendment changes the effective date to January 1, 2013. The committee feels this bill is necessary to helpNew Hampshire business in a difficult economy. Vote 16-5.
HB 564, relative to the adoption of forms by the department of revenue administration for the filing of taxes. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Norman L Major for the Majority of Ways and Means: This bill requires that tax forms developed or approved by the department of revenue administration shall be adopted pursuant to RSA 541-A, the administrative procedure act, and repeals the exemption from RSA 541-A for such forms. The bill was amended to apply only to business tax forms developed or approved by the department which relates to the business profits tax under RSA 77-A, the business enterprise tax under RSA 77-E, and the taxation of incomes under RSA77 (Interest and Dividends tax). The amendment also removes the requirement mandating taxes to be remitted by electronic funds transfer, if prior year taxes were over $100,000 dollars, and also removes the up to $5,000 dollars penalty for not remitting the taxes by electronic funds transfer. The cost to the department for processing taxes by checks is less than ten dollars a check. There are less than 150 business taxpayers required to utilize electronic funds transfers still remitting there taxes by checks. The business taxes and the interest and dividends taxes affect the vast majority of our taxpayers and should be subjected to the highest level of transparency and accountability whenever changes to their structure or associated tax forms are contemplated. Therefore, the committee recommends changes be established through the joint legislative committee on administrative rules (JLCAR). Also, the committee felt the mandate relative to electronic funds transfer and the up-to 5,000 dollar fine for not transferring funds electronically are not necessary. Vote 16-5.
Rep. Susan W Almy for the Minority of Ways and Means: This bill would require all business tax and interest and dividends tax forms to go to JLCAR for approval. This was done until 1996 when the legislature ended the practice; we were and are the only state that requires outside approval for tax agency forms. The reason it is not done is that the process often takes so much time that changes in state or federal law or rules affecting the forms can only be implemented a tax year later. This not only delays the will of the legislature; whenever it involves a federal change, businesses require two sets of books and calculations to pay their taxes. The more closely we are tied to a federal tax, the more likely there will be a permanent time lag – more work for accountants and more expense for business. For the last two years, the department of revenue administration has been working closely with accountants and businesses to simplify forms and evaluate changes. Many other forms are being made more transparent and easier to complete. While JLCAR has several new emergency procedures that will make it quicker to process the department forms, they all require reaffirmation by going through the full process within six months. The first time that JLCAR refuses to agree with a final form six months after the forms had been sent out and the commercial tax software changed to conform, it is very likely that there will be major confusion in the business world. Do they revert to the old form? Do they not pay at all? What if they based business decisions on the legislative policy embedded in the new form, and now find themselves reversed? There are ways to institutionalize the existing advisory council of accountants and external comment process, a system which is working. The recommended JLCAR process will be bad for business.
HB 593-FN-A-L, relative to video lottery and table gaming. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Gary S Azarian for the Majority of Ways and Means: This bill is a bi-partisan pro business bill that will create jobs, grant tax relief, and provide the state with an additional revenue source. The citizen’s of the state overwhelmingly support the idea of expanded gaming. Today, New Hampshire residents spend roughly 80 million dollars a year gambling outside of the state. Expanded gaming will keep those dollars here and expand our economy by attracting residents from our neighboring states. The amendment to this bill provides for charitable gaming, provides 500K for each license application; provides 100K to the attorney general’s office for investigation of each application; provides for a 120 day time frame for due diligence which can be extended if needed; provides for two licenses at 50 million each; provides an equitable process by which any entity can submit an application for any location to include the north country; provides revenue to offset business taxes; provides revenue to the host community and abutting community; and makes provision to HHS for those in need. Massachusetts has passed gaming legislation. If we fail to act on this legislation, New Hampshire’s economy will be forever negatively impacted. The state will see a decrease in revenues from across a wide spectrum to include liquor, lottery and tourism. We will also be paying for those who may become addicted to gambling out of state with no additional revenue to offset the cost. This bill supports job creation, tax relief, and additional revenue sources. Vote 14-7.
Rep. David W Hess for the Minority of Ways and Means: As amended, this bill authorizes the exclusive licensing of two casinos in New Hampshire. As compensation for granting these monopolies (or duopolies if you’re a stickler for semantics), the State would receive a fixed, flat licensing fee. Thereafter, the licensee is entitled to renew its monopoly every five years, without limit, as long as it is “in good standing under this chapter.” Each such renewal, which can go on under this bill in perpetuity, carries an additional fee amounting to just $300,000 a year. If the licensee sells its license to a third party, the bill prohibits the State from collecting “any additional fee.” And the public “take” from these casinos is only 40% of net machine proceeds and 8% of table game proceeds. The amendment to this bill voted on by Ways and Means is almost a complete rewrite of the original bill. It was introduced for the first time in subcommittee. It has had no public hearing, and it was written almost entirely by the lawyer-lobbyists of the casino interests. Not surprisingly, therefore, it is a win-win-win for their gambling-interest clients, but it is a lose-lose-lose proposition for all of the rest of us. This bill is a Great Giveaway to the casino interests. The taxpayers of New Hampshire lose because the licensing fees are fixed at low, arbitrary amounts. Many other states today have adopted a competitive application process requiring a minimum license fee bid. In Massachusetts, the minimum bid will be at least $85 million. In Illinois it was $100 million for a relatively suburban location. In New York, it was $300 million. In both Illinois and New York, higher amounts were bid and collected by the states. No rationale or explanation has been given as to why $50 million was set as a fixed fee – as opposed to a minimum bid – in this bill, particularly since the market for any casinos in Southern New Hampshire overlap with those in Massachusetts – a market which Millennium has described as perhaps the most potentially-lucrative gambling market in the U.S. Why are the renewal fees so absurdly low? And why doesn’t the state get a share of any windfall profits a licensee will harvest if, as will almost certainly happen, it “flips” its license by selling it to a third party for considerably more than the $50 million it paid? The State of New Hampshire and host municipalities lose because the “take” from the casino operations is arbitrarily set at 40% for VLTs and 8% for table games. The original bill sent 49% of VLT proceeds to our public coffers. Pennsylvania collects 55% and has had no shortage of applicants for its casino licenses, including Millennium. Indeed, in just a few short years, Pennsylvania at 55% is raising the most revenue from gambling of any jurisdiction in the country. Third, New Hampshire jobs and the New Hampshire economy lose because this bill requires no minimum capital investment and no construction build-out time line. Indiana required a minimum of $100 million per casino; Ohio $300 million; andMassachusetts is considering $500 million. We are informed that revenues have a direct correlation with the quality of the gambling venue – and that such venues provide both more and better paying jobs in both construction and operation. Millennium has told us it plans to spend $450 million in Salem; Green Meadow is promoting a $300 million project in Hudson. Let’s require a minimum capital investment in the bill, instead of making this just another part of the Great Giveway. Further, the regulatory framework for effective oversight of this huge industry with incredible cash flows is not in place. In its May 18, 2010 report, the Governor’s Gaming Study Commission recommended: “New Hampshireneeds to review its regulation of gaming, with or without expansion of legalized gaming. To insure integrity and public confidence, this review should be completed and necessary changes implemented before any expansion is enacted.” That has not come about. And this bill imposes absurdly artificial and unreasonable time lines on the Lottery Commission to do just that – requiring it to adopt “interim rules” governing the licensing process for these casinos within 90 days of passage of the bill. And “interim rules” require no public hearing before adoption. Why the rush? Why does this bill circumvent sound public policy and transparency? Finally, there is no turning back if this bill passes. Once casinos are in place, they will be here forever. Many of us believe they will change the culture and tourism brand of New Hampshire forever – and not for the better. This bill is 36 pages long; the two bills under consideration in Massachusetts are 109 and 164 pages long. What are we missing? If we are to have casino gambling here in New Hampshire, let’s do it right. This bill doesn’t even come close.
HB 645-FN-A-L, eliminating various taxes and fees and tax and fee increases enacted in fiscal years 2007 through 2010. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. David W Hess for Ways and Means: This bill identifies all of the new taxes and fees, and increases in taxes and fees, enacted during the previous two legislative sessions (FY 2007 – 2010). It details the additional annual revenue generated by each such new or increased tax and fees, as such, constitutes a single, convenience source for measuring how the repeal of anyone or more of these tax and fee increases will impact state revenues. In this respect, it is an invaluable resource to review all state revenue sources, and is available to roll back one or more of these new or increased taxes and fees in the coming year and next biennium. Vote 16-4.
HB 646-FN-A-L, eliminating various taxes and fees and tax and fee increases enacted in fiscal years 2006 through 2010. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. David W Hess for Ways and Means: This bill is identical to HB 645 except that it extends its purview to FY 2006 as well as FY’s 2007 through 2010. The committee desires to retain this bill for Interim Study for the same reasons as HB 645. Vote 16-4.
SB 168-FN, conforming the interest and dividends tax to federal tax definitions. MAJORITY: OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT. MINORITY: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Gary S Azarian for the Majority of Ways and Means: Bringing our state tax definitions into conformity with federal law will significantly simplify tax preparation and predictability thereby reducing preparation costs to the taxpayer. The result would be treating all taxpayers equally regardless of the corporate form that they may be organized under. It also avoids the double taxation that owners of sub-chapter S corporations may experience under current law. The committee was advised that 95% of taxpayers, especially small business owners, will experience no significant change in tax liability with this statute. The DRA advised the committee that the state would receive additional interest and dividend taxes of approximately 22 million over current receipts. However, they also reported that if 10 of the largest 120 I and D taxpayers changed their domicile status, the state could actually lose 10 million dollars. Given the fact that there was no opposition to the bill by the public, the committee felt this to be an unlikely scenario. Vote 16-4.
Rep. Susan W Almy for the Minority of Ways and Means: Although this bill is good tax policy - it simplifies an antiquated structure, removes constitutional and economic conflicts that have been the source of several lawsuits and failed political attempts at solutions, and makes it easier for businesses to comply – it is not at this time good fiscal policy. The state is struggling to stay within its budget, and federal government cuts and global economic malaise threaten serious budgetary imbalance and further reduction of essential services to businesses and citizens. The department of revenue administration has done its best to estimate the impact, but does not have a way to measure the impact on those earning under a million dollars in I&D income. From those few mega-earners, they estimate we could lose up to $20 million in revenue. Accountants with large (not mega) clients tell us that the measure will be roughly revenue-neutral. An accountant with medium-level clients thinks we will lose a considerable amount. The department has been struggling to get underway a new computer system that will allow them to provide the information on the less-than-megas we need, but budget cuts have delayed it. Fiscally, we need to hold off on this bill until we can measure its impact and decide how the state can pay for it within the budget the legislature (or a future one) has set. To do otherwise is the same as spending the rent money on new clothing. The old rags can make do for a bit longer.
BILLS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR
CHILDREN AND FAMILY LAW
HB 415, relative to access to abuse and neglect investigation records pending a child custody dispute. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Marjorie A Porter for Children and Family Law: This bill would allow a non-accused parent access to third party records (police reports, counseling records) in the possession of DCYF within the context of a parental rights and responsibilities proceeding; under current law, a non-accused parent may petition the court for such records. The committee worked with DCYF to develop language to allow the non-accused parent automatic access to third party records; however, the committee is concerned with the unintended consequences of such a provision, particularly in the area of medical or psychiatric records. The committee notes that the non-accused parent is not without remedy under current law; rather, that he or she must petition the court to do so. The committee further notes that the person involved in the underlying abuse and neglect case which gave rise to this bill would not be remedied by the proposed solution, as he was an accused parent who would have access to the third party records under current law. For these reasons, the committee recommends ITL for this bill. Vote 12-1.
HB 587, relative to grounds for divorce for persons with minor children. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Patricia T Lovejoy for Children and Family Law: This bill permits no fault divorce based on irreconcilable differences only if the parties do not have minor children. The number of divorces in NH to parties with minor children has been steadily declining over the last 10 years from 3,218 in 2001 to 2,335 in 2010, a drop of 27.4%. The vast majority of all divorces are based on irreconcilable differences – the average for the last 10 years is 98.7%. This bill would force parents to “blame” one another in order to obtain a divorce or to force couples with minor children to remain married even though the marriage may be irretrievably broken. The committee was concerned about the negative consequences that could arise from the implementation of this bill, most notably being the effect on children of forcing one parent to be labeled “the bad parent”, or conversely, the effects of trauma on the child of continuing to live in a household with two parents who do not want to be together. The committee believes that the bill creates a formula for conflict which might serve as a disincentive to marriage; the committee notes recent studies which employ a number of metrics that confirm that children of unwed parents do not fare as well as those of married parents, thus the bill would encourage poorer outcomes for children. The committee was also concerned about the effect a divorce for fault would have on the awarding of alimony – evidence of fault can affect alimony according to RSA 458:19, IV (b). This bill did not have a fiscal note but information from the courts suggests that there would be a fiscal impact. The average divorce trial in a divorce for cause lasted 364 minutes and incurred $661 in judge costs. Extrapolating only the cost of the judge time for the average number of cases would amount to $160,900 per year. The committee supports the goal of strengthening marriages for the sake of all involved especially the minor children but we believe the unintended consequences of this bill are not in the best interest of children. Vote 16-0.
COMMERCE AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS
HB 241, relative to insurance coverage. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Matt J Quandt for Commerce and Consumer Affairs: The bill allows consumers and insurance carriers to create a free market option in health insurance. The committee believes that this bill needs more study in how it affects the states consumer protection negotiations and insurance business practices. Vote 13-0.
HB 244, restricting the collection of biometric data by state agencies and private entities. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Frederick C Rice for Commerce and Consumer Affairs: The intent of this bill is laudable, but it presents numerous potential problems in terms of definitions, specific exemptions, and applicability. Additional work is needed to clarify these issues so that they will stand up to intense scrutiny when implemented. Vote 15-1.
HB 263-FN, relative to the lifetime Medicaid limit. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Donald H Flanders for Commerce and Consumer Affairs: This bill as amended changes the current law of 60 months limiting payments for the family assistance program by decreasing the number of months to a consecutive 36 month period, and a lifetime limit of 36 months. This will bring New Hampshire in line with other states. The amendment also includes a grandfathering clause of 60 months for persons currently receiving assistance from this program prior to the effective date of this act. Vote 14-1.
HB 324, relative to lawful commerce in goods and services sold, made, and retained in the state of New Hampshire. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Donna C Mauro for Commerce and Consumer Affairs: This bill exempts goods and services sold, made, and retained in New Hampshire from federal law and regulation. The committee is interested in finding a manufacturer who is interested in implementing this law so the committee decided to keep this bill. Vote 13-0.
HB 440-FN, requiring that New Hampshire join the lawsuit challenging federal health care reform legislation, and repealing the authority for state implementation of federal health care reform. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Chris F Nevins for Commerce and Consumer Affairs: After much deliberation, the committee is convinced that the House position is the correct one. While the list of problems with the affordable care act are lengthy it is not the committee’s intention to argue these issues, but only to confirm the house position to join the lawsuit challenging federal health care. Vote 13-2.
HB 445-FN, relative to the regulation of electronic tracking devices. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Jennifer R Coffey for Commerce and Consumer Affairs: Per the request of the prime sponsor and with the support of the full committee present to vote the bill is recommended for Interim Study for further review due to many issues raised in multiple meetings throughout the year. Vote 14-0.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY
HB 138-FN, relative to the cold case homicide unit. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. Larry G Gagne for Criminal Justice and Public Safety: This bill repeals the session law inserted by HB 690-FN, Chapter 269, of the 2009 legislative session establishing the cold case homicide unit with a prospective repeal date of July 1, 2013, and establishes the cold case homicide unit and a non-lapsing cold case homicide unit fund within the department of justice. This bill repeals the sunset provision in the original bill and allows the cold case unit to continue for as long as funding allows. Vote 16-1.
JUDICIARY
HB 574, relative to the taking of private property during a state of emergency. OUGHT TO PASS.
Rep. J. Brandon Giuda for Judiciary: The bill repeals the law enacted after September 11, 2001 that allows the government to take private property from citizens during a state of emergency, including such things as food, fuel, vehicles, bedding, medicines, medical supplies, etc. This law represents a tremendous over-reach of government power that contravenes the natural right of citizens to acquire, possess and protect property as guaranteed in Article 2 of the New Hampshire Constitution. This law was passed over the objection of the past-director of the office of emergency management who properly testified that this law represented a major improper transfer of power away from elected leadership to appointed officials. The committee believes that the constitution encourages personal responsibility and as such, believes that citizens who properly prepare for emergencies should not be placed in an inferior position because others, including government officials, have failed to properly anticipate a need. Vote 16-0.
MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY GOVERNMENT
HB 121, establishing a committee to study eligibility for property tax exemptions for the permanently and totally disabled. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. James P Belanger for Municipal and County Government: Current statute provides for a municipally approved tax exemption on property taxes based on financial status and disability as determined by the social security system. It is moot on disabled who are not on the social security system. This bill, as amended, uses the social security criteria to determine disability for those who are not on social security. Municipal approval is still required and the financial criteria remain the same. This simply corrects an injustice to those who were not on the social security system during their employment, and allows them to apply for the tax exemption with proof of disability using the social security system criteria. Vote 16-0.
SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION FUNDING REFORM
HCR 26, declaring that the Claremont case's mandates that the legislative and executive branches define an adequate education, determine its cost, fund its entire cost with state taxes, and ensure its delivery through accountability, are not binding on the legislative and executive branches. REFER FOR INTERIM STUDY.
Rep. Laura J Gandia for the Special Committee on Education Funding Reform: While the majority of the committee echoes the sentiments contained in HCR 26 such as the constitutionality of the Claremont decision, the doctrine of separation of powers, the importance of local control, etc., the committee believes that there other pieces of pending legislation that address the issues raised in HCR 26. Therefore, the committee recommends that this bill be referred for interim study. Vote 14-1.
STATE FEDERAL RELATIONS AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
HCR 2, in support of the Arizona immigration law. OUGHT TO PASS WITH AMENDMENT.
Rep. Lucien A Vita for State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs: This resolution expresses New Hampshire’s support of the legislation enacted by the State of Arizona in its efforts to reduce the number of illegal aliens in Arizona and to relieve the financial burden of incarceration, education and medical treatment being born by the citizens of Arizona. In so doing, the security and safety of the citizens of Arizona will be increased. Vote 10-0.
TRANSPORTATION
HB 354, relative to licensure requirements for retail vehicle dealers. INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE.
Rep. Richard W Hinch for Transportation: This bill provides that certain established place of business requirements shall not apply to retail vehicle dealers who do not have a general distinguishing number. The committee was unanimous in its belief that the changes that this bill seeks to reverse came about after a long study commission; therefore HB 354 is unnecessary. The changes made by HB 354 would allow individuals to be dealers with no normal business hours, no physical structure and no signage. This makes it very difficult for consumers to resolve vehicle issues and complaints. This bill would reverse the ability of smaller dealers to obtain a dealer plate, thus hurting small business in New Hampshire. Vote 10-0.
No comments:
Post a Comment