e Business & Industry Association of New Hampshire has a new look—and a renewed commitment to what we’ve always stood for:
Our refreshed identity reflects how we work: connected, collaborative, and commi ed to moving the state forward.
Whether you’re a longtime member, a public o cial, or just ge ing to know us—this next chapter is for you. Let’s shape New Hampshire’s future, together.
Learn more at biaofnh.com.
As we reflect on the 2025 legislative session, I’m proud to share with you the Business & Industry Association’s 2025 Legislative Report, a comprehensive overview of our policy work and advocacy on behalf of New Hampshire’s business community. This report not only highlights the progress we’ve made over the past year but also offers a glimpse into our long-term efforts to ensure New Hampshire remains an economically competitive and vibrant state to live, work, and do business.
New Hampshire offers many advantages, but we face pressing challenges as well. Chief among them is the affordability of housing. In June 2025, the median home price in New Hampshire hit an all-time high of $565,000, up from $300,000 just six years ago. This rapid rise, outpacing national trends, poses a serious threat to our ability to attract and retain the workforce we need, particularly as we contend with the distinction of having the oldest workforce in the nation.
While more pro-housing reforms were enacted in 2025 than in any previous year, more remains to be done if we are to make meaningful progress on housing affordability and workforce sustainability. As we’ve seen in states across the nation that have begun making meaningful progress on their own housing shortages, increasing the supply of housing is the most effective way to improve affordability and ensure New Hampshire can attract and retain the talent businesses need. We’ve taken important steps forward, but there’s still more to do.
This session also brought significant changes to our policy team. With the retirement of longtime BIA Senior Vice President Dave Juvet, we welcomed Natch Greyes in December as Vice President of Public Policy. Then, in March, DJ Burke joined the team as Manager of Public Policy and Advocacy. Despite these transitions, our team delivered notable policy victories on housing, technology policy, regulatory reform and beyond.
Compiling our annual legislative scorecard was more complex this year. Of nearly 400 bills we tracked, only about 50 received roll call votes. Of those, just 14 aligned with BIA policy positions. While this limited data made it difficult to present a complete picture, we remain committed to transparency and accountability in highlighting where lawmakers stand on the issues that matter most to New Hampshire employers.
Thank you for your continued partnership and support. Together, we’re shaping a stronger economic future for the Granite State.
Sincerely,
Michael Skelton, President and CEO Business & Industry Association of New Hampshire
Single-Family Home Median Price
June 2025: $566,250
June 2020: $330,000
Housing Price Increase, 2020 – 2025
NH: 71.6%
US: 47%
Cost of Childcare, NH
Infant: $17,364
4-Year-Old: $14,437
NH Ranks 14th for most expensive childcare
GDP Per Capita 2025
NH: $68,488, 17th among states
US: $68,522
Average Hourly Earnings, Private Non-Farm Payrolls
NH: $35.18
US: $36.44
Median Age, 2023
NH: 43.4 years old, 2nd oldest US: 38.7 years old
Percentage of Workers 55+
NH: 30%, Oldest in the nation
Percentage Growth, 2020 – 2024
NH: 2.2%
US: 2.6%
BY MICHAEL SKELTON President and CEO
While there was drama and uncertainty up until the final moment, the 2025 legislative session ended with a compromise state budget that avoided a summer-long stalemate and the need for a continuing funding resolution. The 2025 session also resulted in a handful of key policy wins for the business community. Those wins are worth recounting, but first, let’s unpack the state budget.
The final state budget represents a compromise between competing priorities and outlooks, as the Governor and Senate Republicans favored more optimistic revenue projections while House Republicans adopted significantly lower estimates. In either case, budget writers went into the session knowing that significant cuts would have to be made, and many ideas were floated throughout the session about where those cuts would cause the least amount of damage to state services and the state’s economy. Major cuts were made across several state agencies, but many smaller state entities that work directly with businesses, such as the Housing Appeals Board and Human Rights Commission, were preserved, while larger departments will have to adapt to align with new state funding priorities. For example, after the increase in state fees and the Governor’s push for a more efficient permitting process, the Department of
Environmental Services is expected to place greater emphasis on permitting and housing development than in the past. The budget preserves funding for tourism promotion, a key priority of the business community. However, the final funding levels for the University System of New Hampshire, while improved from the dramatic cuts proposed by the House earlier in the budget process, are cause for significant concern and the state’s talent and workforce pipeline.
Shifting from the budget to the housing policy front, the legislature began the year by passing HB 399, creating a commission to study zoning enabling act. That commission will begin meeting later this summer and will be considering the parameters around the ability of municipalities that opt-in to zoning to control land uses. As the session progressed, the legislature continued to pass pro-housing legislation including HB 577, expanding the accessory dwelling unit (ADU) law to allow detached ADUs, HB 631, allowing residential development in commercial zones, SB 284, making further changes to parking requirements, and a handful of other pieces of legislation. Additionally, the legislature retained SB 84, a bill aimed at reducing minimum lot size requirements. In the wake of similar legislation passing in states such as Texas and Montana, the legislature may choose to revisit SB 84 in 2026. While these actions represent meaningful progress, much work remains. With median home prices nearing $600,000 and the nation’s oldest workforce, New Hampshire must continue to pursue solutions that make
housing more attainable—both to attract younger workers and to ensure long-term economic vitality.
Defensively, there were smaller policy fires everywhere of potential impact to the state’s business climate and economic competitiveness. Privacy advocates filed broad legislation that would have undermined the comprehensive data privacy law passed last year. Adding additional restrictions only a year after the 2024 privacy bill was not only unnecessary but would have significantly harmed the state’s business climate if passed. Efforts were also made to undermine portions of the Universal Commercial Code (U.C.C.). If successful, that would have setback the ability of New Hampshire businesses to obtain financial investment and compete in the broader U.S. market. Various bills were filed that would have impacted the labor laws in a way that would have added administrative burden and cost to businesses. Solid waste disposal regulations saw efforts to increase those costs. Defeating and holding back these various anti-business measures underscores the critical role of the BIA and our allies in advancing key legislative priorities and ensuring the business community’s voice and interests are well represented at the State House.
Looking ahead, the 2026 session promises to bring renewed focus on housing policy and its intersection with workforce development, as well as new legislative attention on the state’s childcare sector. These areas are critical for the legislature to address if New Hampshire is to stay competitive for businesses. Without action, we risk falling behind other states that are aggressively adopting policy reforms in an effort to attract and retain workers. Without bold steps to lower housing costs and expand access to childcare, New Hampshire risks losing ground in this nationwide race to strengthen economic competitiveness and attract jobs, talent and investment.
Assist efforts to develop New Hampshire’s future workforce by attracting and retaining new talent.
Improve housing options for New Hampshire workers and remove barriers to increasing housing supply.
Advocate for an all-energy-resources approach to achieve a cost-effective and resilient resource mix led by market-based approaches.
Support, incentives and pro-growth policies to attract and retain businesses in burgeoning economic sectors such as life sciences, next generation manufacturing, and high-tech.
Oppose government overreach that infringes on decision-making that should be the purview of private sector employees.
Support science-based environmental policies, legislation and administrative rules that balance economic development with the long-term sustainability of the state’s resources.
Advocate for the state’s continued development and maintenance of vital infrastructure to support economic growth.
Protect the New Hampshire Advantage of business-friendly regulatory and tax policies that foster economic growth.
Support government action to reduce the high cost of health care coverage that reduces employers’ ability to grow and makes it more difficult for workers to afford health insurance.
For full details of BIA’s public policy priorities, visit biaofnh.com/priorities.
BY NATCH GREYES
Vice president of public policy
The 2025 legislative session saw the legislative tides shift when it came to housing policy. Perhaps most durable was the widespread discussion that the housing problem would not be solved in one legislative session. In response, the BIA convened partner organizations from across the state and organized the New Hampshire Housing Supply Coalition. Recognizing that the growth and competitiveness of New Hampshire’s economy is dependent on the availability of a dynamic and skilled workforce, and that the most significant barrier to attracting and retaining the workforce the state’s economy needs is the supply and affordability of housing, the Coalition has come together to find solutions to that problem.
The Housing Supply Coalition has identified three “buckets” of reforms, where various policy levers will help increase the supply of housing available to Granite Staters. Those buckets include: land use reform, regulatory and permitting reform, and program
and funding support. Going into a tough budget year, we understood that program and funding support would be the most difficult set of policy objectives to achieve, and that assessment proved correct.
We were pleased, however, to learn that one of Governor Ayotte’s priorities was speeding up the state permitting process, and we were happy to support the Governor’s efforts. One key development was the legislature’s adoption of SB 74, which will require that all state departments responsible for permitting programs related to real property, stationary structures, infrastructure, or facilities submit an annual report detailing their permitting activities. This crucial first step will help guide further reforms to permitted processes.
Additionally, there were some great successes in the land use regulation bucket this year. Legislation that had long languished, such as the detached accessory dwelling unit (“grandma apartment”) bill (HB 577), made it to the governor’s desk with little debate among legislators. Other good ideas, such as restoring the ability of downtown developers to build mixed residential and commercial development (HB 631) – just like they
could before the widespread adoption of local rules that quashed that ability – also made it to Governor Ayotte. We were extraordinarily pleased that the Governor supported all of those land use reforms.
Some promising policy options, such as the Starter Homes Act (SB 84), were held over for further discussion. In states that have passed such measures in a manner to make them effective at providing opportunities for the type of development that they seek, such as Montana and Texas, the legislature did quite a bit of work to determine how to preserve local character while enabling growth. The BIA looks forward to working with legislators as they navigate that challenge.
As we move into the fall, the BIA is already thinking about the 2026 legislative session. As we continue to hear from business leaders about the urgent need to address the housing crisis, the BIA is already taking action to position itself to help coordinate legislative efforts, provide legislative leaders objective, non-partisan, economically-sound research into the effects of pulling different policy levers, and combat misinformation about the effects of policy changes on our local communities.
BY NATCH GREYES
Vice president of public policy
President Trump has stated that increasing American manufacturing output is a priority for his administration. To that end, the administration has taken actions on the national and international stage to encourage manufacturing in the United States. With more than 10% of New Hampshire’s workforce already in the manufacturing sector, New Hampshire should be well positioned to capitalize on the administration’s efforts, but state energy policy has been a major roadblock for manufacturers for years.
As our manufacturing members have repeatedly stated, high energy costs are their number one challenge when considering whether to expand in New Hampshire. As the BIA’s policies state, New Hampshire’s electricity costs for industrial users in June 2024 were 90% higher than the U.S. average and commercial user costs were 47% higher, putting New Hampshire at risk of losing companies to less expensive regions of the country.
This year, Senator Lang of Sanbornton sponsored SB 106 on behalf of the BIA. SB 106 was carefully crafted to expand opportunities for large energy users, namely manufacturers and warehouses, to control some of their energy costs. Unfortunately, the House was unwilling to support the BIA’s effort to capitalize on the
federal administration’s efforts and increase the attractiveness of New Hampshire as a place for manufacturers to establish, expand, or relocate.
SB 106 was a targeted piece of legislation that defined a subset of potential energy producers as “industrial hosts” and allowed those industrial hosts to operate under policy already enacted for municipalities, with a few tweaks. In short, large energy users would be able to utilize the benefits of net metering policy for installations of energy generation technologies that produced more than one but less than five megawatts of capacity. Although the bill would have only required that at least onethird of the energy produced was used onsite, the reality is that the businesses actively seeking this expansion were likely to consume virtually all their energy generation on site.
Although the bill passed both the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee and Senate Finance Committee unanimously and the entire Senate on a voice vote multiple times, SB 106 stalled in the House. After a lengthy hearing which saw significant support for the bill, the Science, Technology and Energy Committee retained SB 106.
The Senate included the language of the bill in the budget trailer bill (HB 2), but the House was unwilling to agree to inclusion of the language, and it was ultimately removed from the budget before passage.
that features business information, news, insights and
Harvard Pilgrim proudly supports the BIA Legislative Report & Scorecard.
BY NATCH GREYES Vice president of public policy
The legislature considered a number of bills that would have substantially reconfigured the regulatory landscape as it relates to solid waste management, but, ultimately, little changed. Nevertheless, legislators have made clear their intentions to file additional legislation next year.
we can make a difference.
By delivering access to high-quality health plans, coverage and services, we can improve health and wellness of our communities. Together,
harvardpilgrim.org
Solid waste regulation has been a contentious issue in the legislature for years. The crux of the issue for many legislators is that they don’t like that New Hampshirebased landfills accept solid waste from out-of-state. Legislation is largely derivative of that basic premise with much of the focus this year being on attempting to stop new landfills from being constructed and, to some extent, curtail the expansion of existing landfills.
Highlights this year included:
• HB 171, proposing a moratorium on new landfills;
• HB 215, requiring a landfill permit applicant to submit a report listing potential harms and benefits of the project (effectively negating the existing landfill siting rules approved in December 2024 and requiring more onerous rules to be crafted);
• HB 566, requiring permit applications for new landfills to contain a detailed plan for leachate management;
• The Solid Waste Site Evaluation Committee (SWEC), which was both originally proposed in the Governor’s budget proposal and later contemplated as a separate, non-germane amendment to SB 302.
The brief summary of these bills is that they either outright stopped the construction of new landfills in New Hampshire or effectively stopped the construction of new landfills in New Hampshire by creating new requirements for landfill permittees to meet.
The BIA’s concern, of course, is cost. In line with basic economic theory, the fewer locations to dispose of materials, the less competition for those materials. That means higher costs as demand outpaces supply. As additional regulatory burdens are imposed on existing facilities, there are additional costs of compliance, costs which, naturally, will be passed on to the end user.
In New Hampshire, with our vibrant economy, those costs are largely borne by businesses.
BY DJ BURKE Manager of Public Policy & Advocacy
Throughout the 2025 legislative session the Business and Industry Association (BIA) focused on advocating for a balanced, innovation-friendly approach to emerging technology policy. While the rapid evolution of artificial intelligence (AI), data security, and digital tools presents exciting opportunities for growth in our state, it also raises questions about regulation and accountability— questions that must be handled with care to avoid stifling innovation or creating unnecessary legal risk.
Two notable bills, SB 263 and HB 143, sought to create a private right of action related to the use of AI. While in some ways well-intentioned, both proposals would have opened the door to costly and unpredictable litigation against businesses, large and small. The BIA opposed these bills because they were unnecessary and duplicative, especially in light of the comprehensive New Hampshire Data Privacy Act, enacted in 2024 with bipartisan support.
The 2024 data privacy law already established strong consumer protections, clear compliance standards for
businesses, and a state-enforced regulatory framework. Importantly, it avoided the pitfalls of creating a broad private right of action, which in other states has led to legal uncertainty and increased operational costs for employers without demonstrable improvements in consumer outcomes.
As the 2025 session demonstrated, lawmakers must continue to approach technology policy with thoughtfulness and restraint. Adding layers of liability or conflicting legislation could undermine business confidence or deter investment in emerging technologies. New Hampshire remains wellpositioned to be a leader in responsible innovation provided that future policies remain clear, consistent, and aligned with the practical realities faced by employers.
The future of AI legislation remains uncertain. At one point during the 2025 session, a provision establishing a ten-year moratorium on state-level AI regulation was included in the federal omnibus One Big Beautiful Bill, but it was ultimately removed before final passage. It is unclear whether similar efforts will emerge again at the federal level. The BIA will continue to monitor these developments and advocate for a regulatory approach that fosters innovation, encourages growth, and creates the best possible environment for success for New Hampshire’s businesses.
BBY NATCH GREYES
Vice president of public policy
efore the 2025 session began, policymakers, pundits, and practically everyone else agreed that it would be a hard budget year. Consequently, there was significant political pressure to find revenue sources in order to avoid significant cuts to state-funded programs. Although alternative revenue was via video lottery terminals (VLTs) and increases to fees (some of which do apply to businesses), there was also a significant push to institute the first income tax in the state’s history, albeit one branded as a sales tax by proponents.
That bill, HB 123, sought to tax income obtained from the sale of carbon credits. No such tax currently exists, and quibbles about whether to
classify the new tax as an income or a sales tax are irrelevant.
The BIA’s legislative policies are clear: no new income tax and no new sales tax. Period.
Despite the BIA’s and our allies’ efforts, the House Municipal and County Government Committee recommended HB 123 out of committee with an amendment on an 18-0 vote. That meant the bill went on the consent calendar and would have passed the entire House without debate or discussion, but for the BIA’s efforts to alert House members that they were about to pass a new tax.
In response to the BIA’s call-to-action among House members, Representative Kuttab of Windham and nine other representatives asked that HB 123 be removed from the consent calendar. While a valiant effort was made on the House floor to defeat the new tax, 61 Republicans joined 136 Democrats to pass the tax. (129 Republicans and 27 Democrats voted against it.)
As HB 123 sought to raise new revenues, it was initially referred to
House Ways and Means, but the Chair waived the referral per House Rule 47(f), sending the bill to the Senate. Once in the Senate, four of the five senators on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee agreed with the BIA and our allies that a better alternative was to study the issue of revenues relative to this industry. While HB 123 is a small issue in the grand scheme of things, the undercurrent of support for new taxes among our traditional House allies is concerning. The BIA’s mandate is to protect the New Hampshire Advantage of business-friendly regulatory and tax policies that foster economic growth. That means lowering barriers for business and preventing the erection of new barriers that would impede the ability of the market to function. State policies that distort the market undermine the New Hampshire Advantage by disincentivizing investment in our state and undermine the ability of business owners to respond to regional, national, and international market trends.
(TPLF) is a multibillion-dollar global industry that sees the use of litigation as an investment tool.
In short, hedge funds, sovereign wealth funds and foreign interests, and other financiers invest in litigation by paying money to a plaintiff or his/her counsel in exchange for a contingent interest in any proceeds from the lawsuit. There are no uniform disclosure requirements for TPLF agreements in civil litigation. As a consequence, neither the court nor the opposing parties typically know whether TPLF is at play in a given case, much less whether it raises any particular legal or ethical issues. This year, Rep. Brian Cole sought to change that by requiring disclosure of TPLF agreements as part of HB 733. While HB 733 did not make it over the finish line, the discussion about TPLF has put legislators on notice that it is at play in some lawsuits, including some stemming from the Youth Development Center (YDC) cases. We expect that future legislative efforts will be made to ensure that the existence of financing agreements will be disclosed in lawsuits.
As your local partner in growth, Unitil provides energy for life : gas and electricity to keep the communities we serve vibrant and thriving. We work hard with our local businesses to make sure their energy needs are met while providing meaningful tools to ensure the energy is used wisely.
The BIA team’s legislative connections led to an early victory for New Hampshire employers. After a presentation of Momnibus 2.0 by senators Ricciardi and Prentiss at a BIA HR/Health Care/Workforce Development Policy Committee Meeting, the BIA convened a Momnibus Task Force that helped the senators refine the bill as it related to employers. Negotiations led to the final language which was incorporated into HB 2 as part of the budget process. Employers with 20 or more employees should be aware that New Hampshire law now grants those employees unpaid leave from work for up to a total of 25 hours to attend the employee’s own medical appointments for childbirth, postpartum care or the employee’s child’s pediatric medical appointments within the first year of the child’s birth or adoption. The law also contemplates how vacation and sick time are factored into that leave, as well as what happens if both parents have the same employer, and how the time is accounted for as well as scheduled.
At Unitil, we know New Hampshire’s strength comes from its diverse and growing businesses, and we look forward to growing alongside of you as partners in prosperity.
Visit us online at unitil.com
BIA recognizes these legislators for their commitment to pro-economic growth policies and solutions during the 2025 session.
Rep. Katelyn Kuttab was first in line to prevent new taxes from being imposed on businesses when the BIA brought the problem of HB 123 to the attention of the House. A staunch opponent of new taxes, her efforts ensured that a new tax was not passed by the legislature this year.
Rep. Brian Cole, Vice Chairman of the House Housing Committee, not only was a critical voice on housing legislation, but he was also the architect of HB 733, third-party litigation funding disclosure. Although that bill stalled in the Senate, Rep. Cole’s effort brought attention to the issue.
Host to 24 events across the state annually attracting 1,800 business, political, and opinion leaders, with a full schedule of conferences, forums, networking events, tournaments, and roundtables. find an upcoming event
Senator Keith Murphy led the effort during the 2025 session to increase the availability and affordability of housing in New Hampshire. He was the prime sponsor of many housing bills, including the senate version of the ‘Starter Homes Act,’ parking reform, single-stair architecture, and a number of other reforms that will make building easier and less costly. Senator Murphy was the prime sponsor of more housing legislation than any other legislator this session.
Senator Tim Lang was the prime sponsor of SB 106, which would have allowed industrial hosts, such as manufacturers and warehousing facilities, to benefit from solar arrays and other energy generation sources producing energy in excess of 1 megawatt but less than 5 megawatts. Although SB 106 did not become law, Senator Lang’s efforts drew attention to the longstanding problem of state policy not addressing high energy costs for businesses.
Rep. Joe Alexander, Chair of the House Housing Committee, sponsored several key housing bills, including HB 577, legalizing detached accessory dwelling units, and HB 631, legalizing mixed use development. Rep. Alexander’s leadership in the House on housing issues ensured that progress was made this session to set policy that will help ease the housing shortage.
Senator Rebecca Perkins-Kwoka was a critical supporter of pro-housing supply legislation during the 2025 session as well. She was prime sponsor of several housing bills and her efforts led to a number of key victories. Senator Perkins-Kwoka has been a longtime supporter of housing legislation, and her efforts have kept legislative attention on the issue.
Rep. David Paige, Ranking Member of the House Housing Committee, helped shepherd a number of key housing bills through the House, and co-sponsored a number of amendments alongside Rep. Alexander to improve pro-housing legislation.
SB 84: Relative to zoning procedures concerning residential housing.
This bill would have prevented municipal lot size restrictions from being smaller than 2-acres, in the case of a lot being serviced by well and septic, and ½ acre, in the case of a lot being serviced by public water and sewer. It did not override state permitting requirements or other municipal restrictions which may cause larger lot sizes. BIA supported this legislation as a reasonable approach to increasing starter home development throughout the state.
13 yeas – 11 nays – 1 absence
Final Result: The Senate passed the bill, but it was retained in the House.
SB 176: relative to the state minimum hourly rate.
This bill would phase in an increase in the state minimum wage eventually capping out at $15 an hour. BIA opposed this legislation because of the impacts it would have on New Hampshire’s small business community, the “ripple” it would create throughout the wage spectrum, and because we believe any increase in the minimum wage should happen at the federal level. The Senate voted to kill the bill in an “inexpedient to legislate” motion. A yea vote is consistent with BIA’s opposition.
16 yeas – 8 nays
SB 227: relative to site setbacks for landfills.
This bill would have mandated specific tests and setbacks for applicants seeking a landfill permit that would have had the effect of preventing new landfills from being opened. BIA opposed this legislation because it was an effort to make New Hampshire’s environmental regulations and statutes more restrictive than federal environmental regulations without a clear, science-based justification, resulting in a limitation of opportunities to dispose of solid waste and, eventual increase in disposal costs. The Senate voted to table the bill. A yea vote is consistent with BIA’s opposition.
15 yeas – 9 nays
HB 221: relative to assessment of cost effectiveness of the systems benefit charge.
This bill would have amended the assessment process for the cost effectiveness of system benefit charges. BIA opposed this legislation because it would have created program instability for utilities that implement the programs, contractors who conduct energy efficiency work, and customers who avail themselves of the programs. The House vote was on a motion to “table.” A yea vote is consistent with BIA’s opposition.
151 yeas – 193 nays
Final Result: The Senate rereferred the bill to committee.
HB 682: relative to the office of offshore wind industry, the offshore and port development commission, and the office of energy innovation.
This bill effectively eliminates offshore wind as a possible future energy generation. BIA opposed this legislation as BIA supports an ‘all of the above’ energy policy that allows the market to determine what is viable for future energy generation. The House vote was on a motion of “ought to pass.” A nay vote is consistent with BIA’s opposition.
206 yeas – 163 nays
Final Result: The House and Senate passed the legislation.
HB 123: relative to yield taxes on property enrolled or registered for the purpose of generating carbon offset credits.
This bill would have imposed a new tax on income derived from the sale of carbon offset credits. BIA opposes new income and sales taxes. The House vote was on whether to pass the bill as amended. A nay vote is consistent with BIA’s position.
197 yeas – 158 nays
Final Result: The Senate amended the bill substantially, eliminating the creation of a new tax. This amended version was concurred to by the House.
HB 631: permitting residential building in commercial zoning.
This bill allows residential development on commercially zoned land. BIA supported this legislation as a key opportunity to increase the supply of housing, particularly housing that married commercial and residential uses on the same lot. The House voted on a motion to “indefinitely postpone” the legislation, which would have killed the bill. A nay vote is consistent with BIA’s support of the legislation.
128 yeas – 211 nays
Final Result: The Senate passed the bill without amendment on a voice vote.
SB 284: relative to authority for municipalities to regulate mandatory on-site parking requirements.
This bill modifies the existing parking regulations to state that municipalities cannot require more than one residential parking space per unit. BIA supported this legislation as removing an important barrier to lower residential development costs by imposing unnecessary mandates on developers to build parking that would remain unused by occupants. The House voted to pass the bill with amendment.
197 yeas – 144 nays
Final Result: The Senate passed the bill without amendment on a voice vote.
HB 378: relative to an employee’s unused earned time.
This bill would have required employers to pay for all accrued but unused paid time off in the event of involuntary termination, including termination for cause due to misconduct. BIA opposed the bill as the scope of the proposal favored organized labor interests over those of business. The House voted to kill the bill in an “inexpedient to legislate” motion. A yea vote is consistent with BIA’s opposition.
193 yeas – 169 nays
HB 487: relative to providing employees with advance notice of the work schedule.
This bill would have mandated that employers provide hourly paid employees notice of the employee’s work schedule at least 7 days in advance of any pay period. BIA opposed this bill as having a negative impact on the ability of hospitality and tourism-adjacent industries to adjust based on market demands and the legislation’s focus on the pay period as the time for when changes are noticed, rather than the scheduled shift. The House voted to kill the bill in an “inexpedient to legislate” motion. A yea vote is consistent with BIA’s opposition.
196 yeas – 155 nays
Glen C. Aldrich
Susan W. Almy
Keith Michael Ammon
Aidan Ankarberg
F. Aron
Lino
J. Barton
Bay
H. Bean
6 R
Beaulier Grafton 1 R 71%
S. Belcher
Lynn Bennett
S. Berch
Berezhny
H. Bergeron
Bernardy
W. Bixby
G. Boehm
T. Bogert
R. Bolton
S. Booras
8
8
Bordes Belknap 5 R
Donald J. Bouchard
E. Boyd
Boyd
Tracy Anne Bricchi
Nicholas D. Bridle
24
Richard R. Brown Carroll 8 R
Pam Brown
R. Bryer
Thomas L. Buco
Budathoki
Claudine R. Burnham
1
2 R
Anita D. Burroughs Carroll 2 D
Wayne M. Burton
Michael D. Cahill
Tony M. Caplan
Manoj Chourasia
Suzanne L. Chretien
John R. Cloutier
Matthew Coker
Marie Colby Merrimack 9
Colcombe
D. Cole
11 D
Barbara Comtois Belknap 7 R
Travis James Corcoran
Glenn Cordelli
A. Crawford
L. Creighton
E.
Gary L. Daniels
Darby
P. Dargie
E. Davis
43 R 71%
11 D 57%
43 D
3 D
Arnold G. Davis Coos 2 R
Denise DeDe-Poulin Strafford 6 R 40%
Susan C. DeLemus Strafford 1 R 43%
Susan G. DeRoy Strafford 3 R 43%
Debra L. DeSimone Rockingham 18 R
Sayra Lynn DeVito
J. Devoid
Linda A. DiSilvestro
Dolan
Dolan
Donnelly
Fred G. Doucette
Drago
Drew
8 R
1 R
17 D 43%
16 R
9 D
25 R 57%
25 R
4 R
19 R
Margaret M. Drye Sullivan 7 R 43%
Russell Dumais Belknap 6 R
J. Dumont
Ron C. Dunn
Pierre M. Dupont
Sean C. Durkin
Karen E. Ebel
Michael A. Edgar
Edwards
Susan A. Elberger
Myles England
Keith Erf
Samuel G. Farrington
Faulkner
Jim L. Fedolfi
13 R
16 R
20 R
7
31 R
5 D
28 R
30 R
Sallie D. Fellows
Charles H. Foote
Mary J. Ford
N. Germana Cheshire 1 D 67%
R. Giasson
29 R 71%
Gibbs Merrimack 23 D 57%
Julie D. Gilman Rockingham 11 D 50%
R. Gilmore Strafford 16 D
R. Girard
6
L. Gonzalez Merrimack 3 R 33%
Ted Gorski
R. Gould
2 R 43%
2 R 29%
E. Granger Strafford 2 R 71%
C. Grant Sullivan 5 R 71%
C. Gregg
Griffin
Grill
Gaby M. Grossman
L. Grote
7 D
18
11 D
24 D 43%
Gruber Cheshire 16 D 43%
Grund
Joseph A. Guthrie
James H. Guzofski
A. Hakken-Phillips Grafton 12
C. Hall
Robley Hall Strafford 1
34 D 33%
9 D
Joseph Hamblen Carroll 3 R
Robert D. Harb
Michael D. Harrington
Linda C. Harriott-Gathright
Tim Hartnett
20
10
Cathryn A. Harvey Cheshire 6 D
Juliet Harvey-Bolia Belknap 3 R
Linda J. Haskins Rockingham 11 D
Karen A. Hegner
Wayne J. Hemingway
Christopher J. Herbert
Matthew S. Hicks Merrimack 24 D
Gregory G. Hill Merrimack 2 R
Timothy O. Horrigan Strafford 10 D
Heath Howard Strafford 4 D 57%
C. Howard
31 D 60%
Allan Howland Strafford 20 D 57%
John B. Hunt Cheshire 14 R 75%
Martin L. Jack
Jacobs
John C. Janigian
L. Jeudy
10 D 57%
15 D
25 R 67%
23 D 25%
Erik R. Johnson Strafford 11 D 57%
Philip M. Jones Cheshire 3 D 20%
Louis C. Juris
7 D 43%
Thomas L. Kaczynski Strafford 5 R 57%
Sly Karasinski Cheshire 10 R 33%
Phyllis M. Katsakiores Rockingham 13 R 33%
E. Kelley
Eileen S. Kelly
Catherine M. Kenny
Kerwin
Steven Kesselring
Aboul B. Khan
32 R 57%
8 D
13 R 29%
40 D 50%
18 R 71%
30 R 43%
Seth King Coos 4 R 29%
Lee Ann Kluger
Knab
Jim A. Kofalt
E. Korzen
Katelyn T. Kuttab
6 D 57%
12 D
32 R 71%
7 R 29%
17 R 50%
Jessica Finn LaMontagne Strafford 17 D 57%
Brian H. Labrie
2 R 71% NO
Rick M. Ladd Grafton 5 R
Connie Boyles Lane
16 D
John H. Larochelle Strafford 19 D 50%
Richard W. Lascelles
Erica J. Layon
Daniel J. LeClerc
Nicole M. Leapley
John A. Leavitt
R. Leishman
Cassandra N. Levesque
Melissa A. Litchfield
R. Lloyd
Patrick N. Long
14 R 29%
13 R
34 D
22 D 50%
10 R
4 D
8
26
Darrell A. Louis Grafton 1 R
David C. Love
Peter Lovett
13 R
8
Janet Marie Lucas Grafton 7
David C. Lundgren
David J. Luneau
16
9
Matthew Lunney Belknap 2 R
Bob J. Lynn
17 R
John T. MacDonald
James R. MacKay
Mark S. MacKenzie
L. Malone
Mandelbaum
Tom D. Mannion
D. Markell
G. Mattson
R. Mazur
R. McAleer
E. McDonnell
S. McFarlane
McGhee
McGrath
Dan McGuire
M. McGuire
McLean
Charles E. McMahon
Peter L. Mehegan
R. Melvin
James Meuse
Julie Miles
Seth B. Miller
David E. Milz
Laurence A. Miner
16 R
25 R 67%
35 D 43%
40 R 0%
14 R 57%
27 R 57%
15 R 57%
17 R 60%
12 R 43%
20 R 43%
37 D 57%
12 R
21
13 R 50%
7 R 43% NO
Sheri Minor Belknap 5 R
Michael I. Moffett Merrimack 4 R 57%
Maureen C. Mooney Hillsborough 12 R 57%
Pete Morency Coos 5 R 43%
Bryan Morse Merrimack 3 R
Jonathan Morton Hillsborough 39 R
Russell Muirhead Grafton 12 D
Chris Muns
Nancy A. Murphy
Michael P. Murphy Coos 6 R
Mary Murphy
27 R
Denis Vincent Murphy Cheshire 11 R
Megan A. Murray
Alissandra Murray
Kate Rushford Murray
Brian G. Nadeau
37 D
20 D
22 D
4 R
David J. Nagel Belknap 6 R
Rich M. Nalevanko Cheshire 9 R
Jodi L. Nelson Rockingham 13 R
Jodi K. Newell
A. Newman
James Newsom
Kristin Noble
M. Notter
O’Rorke
H. Ohm
4 D
L. Panek
Paquette
Parshall
Pauer
R. Payeur
C. Pearson
A. Pearson
Pearson
Raymond C. Peeples
Kristine Perez
12 D
14 R 43%
16 R 43%
Katy Peternel Carroll 6 R 67%
Peter Petrigno
Pitaro
W. Plamondon
Raymond S. Plante
Ploszaj
Yury Polozov
Popovici-Muller
Susan M. Porcelli
C.M. Post
Kelley L. Potenza
John Michael Potucek
David John Preece
Adam Joseph Presa
L. Proulx
Andrew J. Prout
Katherine J. PrudhommeO’Brien
James R. Qualey
Heather Raymond
Raynolds
Ellen D. Read
Sherri L. Reinfurt
11 R
27 R
1
10 R 71%
17 R
19 R
19 R 60%
13 R
17
12 R
15 R
13 R
13 R
18 R
5
39
10 D
29 R
Jennifer M. Rhodes Cheshire 17 R 50%
Representative
Kimberly A. Rice
38 R 25%
Beth S. Richards Merrimack 17 D 80%
Ellen B. Rockmore Grafton 12 D 57%
James Leon Roesener Merrimack 22 D
Skip A. Rollins
A. Rombeau
Terry W. Roy
Rung
Linda V. Ryan
Matt R. Sabourin dit Choinière
Santosh Salvi
Gregory M. Sargent
3 R
2 D
31 R 67%
12 D 57%
4 D 57%
30 R 43%
9 D 17%
7 D
Thomas C. Schamberg Merrimack 6 D 43%
Scherr Rockingham 26 D 29%
Peter B. Schmidt Strafford 14 D 20%
John Schneller
2 R 43%
Kris Schultz Merrimack 29 D 57%
Kevin J. Scully
8 R 71%
Seaworth Merrimack 12 R 43%
Alvin B. See Merrimack 26 R 57%
Christine Seibert
Sheila C. Seidel
21 D 57%
29 R 33%
Donald Evan Selby Rockingham 9 R 50%
Loren Selig Strafford 10 D 50%
John Sellers Grafton 10 R 50%
L. Sheehan
H. Simpson
Shane A. Sirois
Slottje
Marjorie K. Smith
43 R 43%
33 D 57%
32 R 57%
13 R
10 D 57%
Steven D. Smith Sullivan 3 R 50%
Jonathan H. Smith Carroll 5 R
Smith
21 D
Jim Snodgrass Merrimack 28 D 67%
Catherine M. Sofikitis Hillsborough 7 D 33%
Carrie Sorensen
Julius F. Soti
Timothy A. Soucy
Thomas L. Southworth
Spahr
Spier
James A. Spillane
Spilsbury
Charlie G. St. Clair
Kathy Staub
Stavis
John Joseph Stone
21
12
M. Stringham Grafton 3
John W. Suiter
Brian M. Sullivan
Jared Sullivan Grafton 2
Representative
James Summers
Dale Swanson
Joe Sweeney
20 R 33%
5 D 33%
25 R 71% NO
George E. Sykes Grafton 14 D
John J. Sytek Rockingham 25 R 29%
R. Taylor Carroll 8 R
Laura Damphousse Telerski
Tellez
11 D 57%
40 D 67%
Jeffrey Tenczar Hillsborough 1 R 43%
Paul A. Terry Belknap 7 R 83%
Dick H. Thackston Cheshire 12 R
James R. Thibault Merrimack 25 R 60%
Douglas W. Thomas
16 R
Ellen N. Thomas Hillsborough 12 D 50%
James W. Tierney Coos 1 R 29%
Travis J. Toner Belknap 4 R 43%
Richard P. Tripp
13 R 20%
Douglas R. Trottier Belknap 8 R 0%
Paul D. Tudor
1 R 67%
Len P. Turcotte Strafford 4 R 33%
Eric S. Turer Rockingham 6 D 57%
Jordan G. Ulery
Suzanne M. Vail
13 R 71%
6 D 71%
Brian L. Valerino Coos 5 R 29%
Mark A. Vallone
J. Vandecasteele
5 D 20%
25 R
Peter R. Varney Belknap 7 R 0%
Daniel T. Veilleux
Kevin G. Verville
Michael Vose
34 D 50%
2 R 50%
5 R 67%
Wade Strafford 15 D 50%
David E. Walker
G. Wall
19 R 43%
11 D
Mary Jane Wallner Merrimack 19 D 50%
Thomas C. Walsh Merrimack 10 R
Lilli M. Walsh
Gerald W.R. Ward
Warden
Lucy McVitty Weber
Toni Weinstein
15
39 R 60%
5
10
Kenneth L. Weyler Rockingham 14 R
Jonah Orion Wheeler
33 D
Robert J. Wherry Hillsborough 13 R
Matthew B. Wilhelm
21 D
Vicki A. Wilson Rockingham 9 R
Clayton D. Wood
Stephen L .Woodcock Carroll 1
Gary L. Woods
Erica R. de Vries
13 R
30
29 D
MICHAEL
President & CEO
603-224-5388 X111 mskelton@biaofnh.com
CHRISTINE DUCHARME Vice President of Operations & Finance
603-224-5388 X105 cducharme@biaofnh.com
DJ BURKE
Manager of Public Policy & Advocacy
603-224-5388 X112 dburke@biaofnh.com
NATCH
Vice President of Public Policy
603-224-5388 X115 ngreyes@biaofnh.com
ANGELA KING
Director of Marketing
603-224-5388 X114 aking@biaofnh.com
LORA
Vice President of Events & Membership
603-224-5388 X101 lmcmahon@biaofnh.com
MEAGAN PARISEAU Manager of Programs & Member Relations
603-224-5388 X102 mpariseau@biaofnh.com
Our programming informs and connects hundreds of NH’s top business leaders through workshops, forums, seminars, webinars and select memberonly events. And our Annual Dinner is the state’s largest business networking event. REGISTER NOW FOR AN UPCOMING PROGRAM!
NH’s statewide chamber of commerce and leading nonpartisan business advocate.
BIA is the unifying voice of business, championing a competitive business climate and prosperous economic future for New Hampshire.
100,000+ $5 billion+ 35% 74% 400+ of BIA member companies employ 50 or fewer employees. of BIA member companies employ 500 or fewer employees. 55% 90%
➤1913: Group of manufacturers concerned about current legislation, government intervention and regulation form the New Hampshire Manufacturers’ Association.
➤1970: Organization changes name to Business and Industry Association to reflect its diverse membership, but remains the manufacturing association for New Hampshire and state affiliate for the National Association of Manufacturing.
People employed throughout New Hampshire by BIA member firms, representing one in seven jobs.
Member firms’ annual contribution to New Hampshire’s economy. of BIA member companies employ 10 or fewer employees. of BIA member companies employ 100 or fewer employees.
Employers represented by BIA.
Variety of industries: Manufacturing • High-tech • Software • Professional services • Financial services • Health care • Public utilities • Hospitality and tourism • Higher education • Insurance • Nonprofits
BUSINESS COMMUNITY
BIA collaborates with 45+ regional and local chambers of commerce and dozens of trade associations on shared policy priorities and legislative issues.
