Those following the remote attendance bills this year know that the last surviving bill, SB 250, was recommended as Inexpedient to Legislate on a 3-2 vote out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Although the prospects of allowing greater remote attendance for municipal boards looked dim, the Senate adopted a replace-all amendment, 2023-1040s, on a voice. The amendment was carefully crafted by one of the original bill’s cosponsors and addressed a number of concerns raised during the committee hearing. A subsequent voice vote passed the amended bill. 

NHMA supported the original language of SB 250 and continues to support the amended SB 250. We are hopeful that the House will consider the carefully crafted language aimed at ensuring that the privilege of remote attendance is not abused. Importantly, the bill clarifies that: 

In-person attendance at meetings is expected. Attendance of a member other than in person shall be not more than occasional and shall not be allowed for successive meetings by the chair without justification. Attendance in person is not reasonably practical when, in the opinion of the chair, the member is away from the location of the meeting for a legitimate reason, including but not limited to, work, medical reasons, weather conditions, or childcare. Except for a medical reason, a legitimate reason shall not include a member who is absent from the state or plans to be absent from the state for 28 or more consecutive days. 

We believe that the language proposed by SB 250 carefully balances the interests of municipal boards in allowing members to occasionally attend meetings remotely with the need to ensure that government should be open, accessible, accountable and responsive.

This week, the House Finance Committee recommended as Ought to Pass two significant bills that would positively affect the New Hampshire Retirement System (NHRS) and our members. HB 50, as amended, would appropriate $50 million in fiscal year 2024 for the purpose of reducing the retirement system’s unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) determined under RSA 100-A:16, II. The intent is to pay down the UAAL on a more aggressive schedule, resulting in lowered future employer contribution rates and promoting a financially sustainable defined benefit plan. 

We have received preliminary data from NHRS which demonstrates the compounding impact of HB 50 as amended. Using the most recent 2021 actuarial data and applying $50 million to the UAAL in 2024, NHRS estimates that the impact of this legislation would have been a 0.13 percent reduction in the aggregate 2024-2025 employer rates. Over a 20-year period, a $50 million dollar payment applied in FY 2024 could have a compounded savings impact of $105 million as demonstrated in the graph below. 

The committee also recommended as Ought to Pass HB 555, which would require that the state transfer 75 percent of the biennial surplus to NHRS to reduce the retirement system’s unfunded actuarial accrued liability (UAAL) determined under RSA 100-A:16, II to the extent the state’s surplus meets or exceeds certain financial conditions. This bill would implement a funding policy that aggressively pays down the unfunded liability to the benefit of the overall retirement system and provides a new level relief on employer contribution rates over the long term.

For fiscal year 2022, NHRS reported an unfunded liability of $5.69 billion in the actuarial valuation. Current actuarial valuations estimate that the unfunded liability accounts for more than 75 percent of current employer rates which is borne solely by the participating employers. NHMA supports legislation that promotes a solvent, fiscally healthy, and financially sustainable defined benefit plan that both employees and employers can rely on to provide retirement benefits for the foreseeable future.

Although reducing the UAAL will benefit all employers in the NHRS, it is important to remember that these projections do not account for other factors that may affect the UAAL—such as return on investments, changes in economic or demographic assumptions, and any new or expanded legislative changes to NHRS benefits. In fact, on that last point, and as we explained in last week’s Bulletin, several costly retirement-related bills will go to the House floor in the coming weeks. Please contact your representatives and ask them to support HB 50 and HB 555, enacting policy that promotes a secure, solvent, fiscally healthy, and financially sustainable retirement system benefits for the foreseeable future, and to oppose any new or expanded benefits that increase current or future employer contribution costs unless the state terminally funds them through the budget process.

This past week, most New Hampshire towns were scheduled to hold their town meetings. But—in what is becoming its own sort of tradition—the state experienced another second-Tuesday-in March snowstorm, with some spots getting as much as 40 inches of snow. For those towns that went forward with their meetings, we hope all went well—flashlights and snowmobile rides included—and for those who postponed, we were pleased to see local officials working together to make these local decisions for their communities. As far as we’ve heard, the first significant use of SB 104 (Chapter Law 192:1, 2019), relative to postponing town elections and meetings, went smoothly this week. For those that didn’t visit the secretary of state’s website, the secretary posted the language of the statute on the homepage along with a list of towns that postponed. Those towns include: 

Acworth, Alstead, Alton, Amherst, Andover, Antrim, Barrington, Bedford, Bennington,  Bow, Bradford, Brookline, Charlestown, Chester, Chesterfield, Deerfield, Deering, Durham, Effingham, Farmington, Francestown, Gilford, Gilmanton, Goffstown, Grantham, Greenfield, Greenville, Hancock, Harrisville, Hart's Location, Hillsborough, Hollis, Hooksett, Hopkinton, Hudson, Jaffrey, Langdon, Lee, Lempster,  Lyme, Lyndeborough, Madbury, Marlborough, Marlow, Mason, Milford, Milton, Mont Vernon, Nelson, New Boston, New Ipswich, New London, Newbury, Northwood, Nottingham, Raymond, Rindge,  Salisbury, Sharon, South Hampton, Springfield, Sullivan, Sutton, Tamworth, Temple, Wakefield, Walpole, Warner, Washington, Westmoreland, Wilmot,  Wilton,  Winchester, and Windsor. 

The good news is that, although power restoration is ongoing, the weather looks good for the foreseeable future, and we are hopeful that this year’s postponed town meetings will occur without further issue.