New Hampshire’s State House has been abuzz in early February 2026, with lawmakers and citizens alike grappling over a trio of bills that could reshape the state’s fiscal policy, environmental oversight, and campus safety regulations. Each proposal has ignited passionate debate, revealing deep divides over questions of government authority, local control, and the balance between economic growth and public wellbeing.
On February 7, a new analysis from the New Hampshire Fiscal Policy Institute (NHFPI) cast a skeptical light on House Bill 155, a measure to lower the state’s business enterprise tax (BET) rate from 0.55% to 0.50%. According to the NHFPI, if the bill were in effect today, it would slash $26 million from annual state revenues—a sum equivalent to half the aid New Hampshire provides towns and cities for maintaining roads and bridges. The study warned that the savings for most businesses would be modest, with the average BET-paying business saving about $565 per year, and smaller firms only about $336 on average. Nearly half of all BET filers, the report noted, don’t owe the tax at all, so they’d see no benefit from the cut.
Phil Sletten, the NHFPI’s research director and author of the study, elaborated in a news release: “The evidence shows that lowering the Business Enterprise Tax rate would reduce revenue for public services, while the vast majority of businesses would see savings that are too small to significantly change hiring or investment decisions.” He also explained, via email to The Sentinel, that when state budgets get tight, policymakers have often reduced aid to local governments, which in turn puts upward pressure on local property taxes—already among the nation’s highest. “Tighter state budgets raise the chances of such decisions, especially as the state will likely have fewer federal resources to run existing programs in the coming years following last year’s federal policy changes,” Sletten wrote.
Proponents of the bill, however, remain steadfast. Rep. Joe Sweeney, R-Salem, testified before the House Ways and Means Committee, “We know that when we lower taxes we allow businesses to keep more of their hard-earned money, which fuels investment, job creation and innovation. This is not just about cutting taxes, it is about creating opportunity. By reducing the BET rate, we are empowering businesses both large and small to expand, hire and invest in their communities.” Sweeney predicted critics would focus on revenue losses, but he emphasized the potential for growth: “When businesses thrive, the ripple effects are felt far and wide. Employees benefit from better wages and more job opportunities, local economies are invigorated and our tax base grows naturally, ensuring that the state has the resources it needs without burdening taxpayers. This is the virtuous cycle of growth that we know tax cuts unleash.”
Yet, a separate NHFPI analysis estimated that business tax cuts between 2016 and 2024 had already cost the state between $795 million and $1.17 billion in lost revenue. Rep. Susan Elberger, D-Nashua, countered Sweeney’s optimism at the hearing: “It may be true that state taxes are diminishing, but I can assure you that in Nashua, property taxes have been going up pretty consistently. What happens is that the state downshifts costs to people who are paying property taxes. I hear this from my colleagues around the state.”
Cheshire County Administrator Chris Coates voiced similar concerns, saying, “The state needs to see that the perfect storm is upon us and that we are taking on water faster than we can pump. Cheshire County continues to advocate for responsible and consistent state funding practices that meet statutory obligations without shifting costs onto local property taxpayers.”
The bill squeaked through the House on January 8 in a partisan 189-165 vote. If it passes both chambers, it will land on Governor Kelly Ayotte’s desk, with provisions set to take effect for taxable periods ending on or after December 31, 2027.
Meanwhile, the Senate is weighing another contentious measure—Senate Bill 593—which would give the state’s Department of Environmental Services (DES) sole authority to approve landfill expansions, stripping towns and cities of their ability to block such projects. The bill has drawn fierce opposition from environmental advocates and local officials, who argue it undermines local democracy and threatens progress on waste reduction.
Sen. Kevin Avard, the bill’s prime sponsor, insists the change is necessary to maintain affordable and adequate waste disposal across New Hampshire. “Expansion of existing landfills is the most efficient and environmentally responsible path,” Avard said on Tuesday. “This reduces environmental disturbance, avoids opening new sites, and leverages substantial prior investment.”
But for residents of Bethlehem, the stakes are personal. The bill is widely seen as tailored to benefit Casella Waste Systems’ landfill in their town, which is expected to reach full capacity by 2027. The landfill, operated by North Country Environmental Services (a Casella subsidiary), was recently fined $1.9 million—the largest penalty for solid waste violations in New Hampshire history—after years of operational breaches. Bethlehem’s 2011 contract with Casella stipulated no further expansions after the landfill reached its permitted capacity, but SB 593 could override that agreement.
Rich Southwell, a Bethlehem resident, called the bill “an enormous gift” to Casella at a legislative hearing. “This bill is being proposed just in time for them to escape from a contract that they desperately want out of,” he said. Wayne Morrison, president of the North Country Alliance for Balanced Change, warned, “Usurping local control, in our opinion, is an incredibly bad idea. It goes against, in my opinion, some core values of what it is to live in New Hampshire in a democratic society.” He also questioned, “Why in the world would we turn around and create an opportunity to help them expand in a facility when they’ve proven incapable of meeting our standards?”
Supporters like Natch Greyes, vice president of public policy at the Business and Industry Association of New Hampshire, see the bill as a way to “streamline government process,” arguing, “When there are two governments regulating one thing, we always urge the legislature to pick one; it generally works better because then we don’t have the possibility of conflicts in regulations and it makes things a little bit smoother.” According to a recent state report, New Hampshire landfilled about 1.7 million tons of waste in 2024—a 10% drop from 1.9 million tons in 2022—suggesting progress toward waste reduction goals.
Finally, the House also advanced House Bill 1793 on February 5, a measure that would allow students, staff, and visitors to carry weapons on college campuses receiving any government funding. The debate was emotionally charged, with both sides invoking the December 13, 2025, slaying of two Brown University students to underscore their positions. Outside the State House, Rep. Wayne Burton, D-Durham, engaged in a lively exchange with activists supporting the bill. The measure’s fate in the Senate remains uncertain, but its passage in the House marks a significant step in a larger national conversation about campus safety and Second Amendment rights.
As these bills move through New Hampshire’s legislature, the state finds itself at a crossroads, weighing the promises of economic growth, streamlined governance, and personal freedom against the risks of eroded local control, environmental harm, and increased burdens on property taxpayers. The coming weeks are sure to bring even more debate—and perhaps, some surprises.