Committee Summary for House Municipal and County Government (01/23/2026)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB1417 00:10:06.720 - 8:09:03 AM	Public Hearing	enabling municipalities, cities, and towns to adopt a land value tax system and making an appropriation therefor.	Sweeney, Joe(R)[A]2025
HB1385 00:31:52.000 - 8:30:49 AM	Public Hearing	prohibiting the use of negative property tax rates in certain municipalities.	Markell, Jay(R)[B]2025
HB1134 00:54:52.880 - 8:53:49 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the town meeting form of local governance.	Pauer, Diane(R)[A]2025
HB1427 01:22:33.520 - 9:21:30 AM	Public Hearing	limiting the authority of a municipality, county, or school district to issue bonds.	McFarlane, Donald(R)[A]2025
HB1224 02:45:04.960 - 10:44:01 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the default budget for official ballot town meetings.	Dunn, Ron(R)[A]2025
HB1575 03:15:43.040 - 11:14:40 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the determination of the default budget by the budget committee.	Boehm, Ralph(R)[B]2025
HB1649 03:52:42.080 - 11:51:39 AM	Public Hearing	prohibiting certain tax dollars from being donated to non-profit organizations.	Ball, Lorie(R)[B+]2025
HB1355 04:57:38.798 - 12:56:35 PM	Public Hearing	relative to eliminating the default budget from the official ballot referenda.	Noble, Kristin(R)[A+]2025
HB1505 05:47:36.400 - 1:46:33 PM	Public Hearing	requiring municipalities, towns, and cities to submit documentation to the department of revenue administration proving they are in compliance with local budget and tax caps.	Pauer, Diane(R)[A]2025
HB1711 06:27:14.798 - 2:26:11 PM	Public Hearing	relative to governmental land uses.	Fracht, David(D)[D-]2025
HB1131 06:46:17.440 - 2:45:14 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the official ballot referendum form of town meetings.	Pauer, Diane(R)[A]2025

HB1417: Representative Karazinski Information Only00:10:06.720 - 8:09:03 AM; Representative Karazinski introduced the bill, explaining that it enables municipalities, cities, and towns to adopt a land value tax system and appropriates money to the Department of Revenue Administration to help implement such systems.
HB1417: Jennifer Ramsey, Tax Policy Counsel, and Adam Denor, Director of Municipal and Property Division, Department of Revenue Administration Information Only00:10:41.200 - 8:09:38 AM; Jennifer Ramsey and Adam Denor provided fiscal and implementation details on the bill. They explained that the bill allows towns to set different tax rates for land value versus improvement value, but clarification is needed on whether towns or the department sets these rates. They highlighted implementation challenges, including an effective date no earlier than tax year 2028, and costs exceeding the $1 placeholder appropriation, estimating over a million dollars for upgrading the municipal tax rate setting portal to the revenue information management system. They noted that current systems cannot handle the changes without significant overhaul. During Q&A, they addressed questions on costs to municipalities (potentially high due to 259 taxing districts needing software updates), lack of existing training materials (requiring new creation at additional cost), potential for inconsistent valuations leading to litigation, one-time nature of state implementation costs, unawareness of other states with similar systems, municipal capacity for separating land and improvement values, the bill creating parallel tax systems for local and statewide purposes like SWEPT, complexity in tax rate setting if left to towns (departing from current department role), impacts on tax burden distribution, effects on land values (higher rates if tax base reduced), assessment of large undeveloped parcels (no major difference without improvements), and confirmed the bill is enabling legislation with no policy position taken by DRA.
HB1385: Representative Jay Markell, Rockingham County District 18 (Atkinson, NH) Support00:31:52.000 - 8:30:49 AM; Representative Markell introduced HB 1385, explaining it was prompted by the Rand case involving the negative SWEP tax. He noted his background as an attorney and lack of expertise in finance but highlighted the Supreme Court's ruling that the negative SWEP tax violated Part II, Article 5 of the NH Constitution by allowing jurisdictions like Hails Landing to set negative rates, effectively escaping their fair share of school funding contributions. He argued the legislative intent of the SWEP tax, aimed at raising funds for the education trust fund since 1999, was not to permit such avoidance strategies. Markell urged the committee to outlaw the DRA's practice of setting negative SWEP taxes to ensure equitable apportionment, especially amid pending school funding debates. During Q&A, he addressed questions on the prevalence, unintended consequences, relation to the Conval decision, and scope, emphasizing it's a narrow fix to plug a hole in tax fairness without broader delegation issues.
HB1385: Eric Power, Town of Brookline Support00:49:43.359 - 8:48:40 AM; Eric Power, a planning board member from Brookline in his sixth year, testified in favor of HB 1385. He confirmed negative tax rates occur, citing DRA data showing 11 in 2025 and 23 in 2024, mostly in unincorporated municipalities. He explained the mechanism where municipalities offset the statewide SWEP tax for education by applying negative rates to municipal portions, effectively shifting funds. Power advocated for a zero floor on tax rates to prevent this, arguing it aligns with the Rand decision and ensures fairness without significant financial impact, as negatives resemble giving money back.
HB1134: Representative Diane Power, Hillsborough County District 36 (Brookline, Mason, Greenville) Support00:54:52.880 - 8:53:49 AM; Representative Diane Power introduced HB 1134 as a procedural clarification for applying tax and budget cap laws, prompted by inquiries from legislators and officials. The bill addresses accumulation of appropriations from warrant articles to determine cap overrides: in traditional town meetings, they accumulate in the order taken up, triggering a secret ballot for three-fifths override if exceeding the cap; in SB2 or charter towns, they accumulate by ballot order post-deliberative session, with post-ballot review by moderator and clerk. It mandates secret paper ballots for yes/no votes on such articles and corrects SB2 approval thresholds to include three-fifths votes where required. An amendment references new RSA 40:11 allowing primary petitioners to speak on warrant articles. Power emphasized it promotes consistency, transparency, and accountability without altering existing practices, urging an ought to pass recommendation with amendment. During Q&A, she addressed concerns about governing bodies manipulating ballot order, affirming it doesn't change current statutes, and clarified it doesn't remove moderator discretion on meeting flow.
HB1134: Representative Diane Power, Hillsborough County District 36 (Brookline, Mason, Greenville) Support01:03:43.440 - 9:02:40 AM; Representative Power addresses questions about the bill, assuring that it does not force a ballot vote prematurely or allow moderators to call questions before debate, emphasizing professional conduct and established meeting rules. She clarifies that the bill affirms existing laws requiring yes/no ballots for certain warrant articles, preventing ambiguous voting like blank or torn ballots, and notes that ballots are preprinted with clear yes/no options to discern voter intent.
HB1134: Brody Deas, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose01:12:01.440 - 9:10:58 AM; Brody Deas opposes HB 1134, citing concerns that it formalizes DRA practices but limits traditional meetings' ability to reconsider and adjust warrant articles after overappropriation under the 10% limit, potentially forcing cuts or killings of articles. He notes it may also restrict SB2 towns' ability to amend articles with contingency language at deliberative sessions. He requests added flexibility for reconsiderations or contingencies to maintain legislative body control.
HB1134: Eric Power, Brookline Support01:15:25.040 - 9:14:22 AM; Eric Power supports the bill, drawing from his experience on the Hollis Brookline Cooperative School Board, planning board, and town meetings in SB2 and traditional formats. He explains the bill clarifies existing law on tax and budget caps, emphasizing the importance of warrant article order and voter decisions. He argues it doesn't prevent reconsiderations, adds needed three-fifths override clarity, and mandates clear yes/no ballots to avoid past ambiguities like the turf field lawsuit. He recommends passage with the amendment for HB228 compatibility.
HB1427: Representative McFarland, Prime Sponsor Support01:22:33.520 - 9:21:30 AM; Representative McFarland introduces HB 1427FN, the Shield Act, arguing it promotes fiscal restraint by limiting bonding to emergencies, extraordinary circumstances, or voter-approved cases, while encouraging capital reserve funds for planning. He dismisses fiscal note concerns, noting no actual costs, exemptions for critical infrastructure, and protections against bad faith. The bill ensures transparency, voter control, and intergenerational fairness without prohibiting necessary investments, urging ought to pass.
HB1427: Representative McFarland (Prime Sponsor) Information Only01:32:47.840 - 9:31:44 AM; Representative McFarland continues responding to committee questions on HB 1427FN, clarifying that schools are encompassed under provisions for emergencies, public safety, water, etc., but building an entirely new school is not typical and requires voter approval in exceptional cases. He explains that replacing an existing school should be foreseeable and planned for, not bonded emergently. He notes an introductory period allowing bonding for several years before full restrictions. He addresses cities' representative government, suggesting review of language nuances. On the bond limit, 'entity' refers to municipality, county, or school district. He acknowledges differing opinions on delays to projects from bonding limits. He discusses due process under existing statutes like RSA 3139 for fraudulent intent, emphasizing distinction between good faith service and abuse. He believes the voter threshold encourages participation. Safeguards against bad faith are included, but public hearings ensure transparency. Taxpayers include those who pay even if credited back. The arbiter for emergencies is defined in the bill, not the statement of purpose. He argues the bill promotes planning, not prohibiting new builds, and counters examples of school projects by suggesting voter approval, reserves, or matching funds as alternatives. He stresses fiscal prudence over burdening future generations with large bonds.
HB1427: Representative Maguire (Committee Member) Information Only01:46:16.480 - 9:45:13 AM; Representative Maguire shares a personal experience from 15-20 years ago in a cooperative school district facing growth and an outdated building used as a middle school. A study commission considered renovation versus a new, more energy-efficient build, with the new build being cheaper but voters chose renovation due to town politics. He questions if the bill would prohibit the fiscally responsible new build option, forcing long-term saving via capital reserves instead of bonding, potentially leading to higher costs through renovation.
HB1427: Representative Dan McGuire, Epsom Support01:58:59.119 - 9:57:56 AM; Representative Maguire strongly supports the bill, emphasizing that savings are more beneficial than commonly thought because they generate earnings that outpace inflation, leading to greater overall value. He contrasts this with borrowing, which adds interest costs, making projects more expensive. He uses the example of transistor growth from one to over a trillion in 80 years to illustrate the power of savings and productivity. He discusses the state's pension debt, noting that without it, pension costs would be 10% lower, allowing for raises, more employees, or tax reductions without extra taxpayer burden. He argues the bill appropriately encourages savings over borrowing. He distributed materials on historical wisdom about debt and mentions another bill from his committee. During Q&A, he defends the bill's voter participation requirement for broad agreement on debt, argues against easy debt burdens that allow voters to leave, suggests communities should not need separate reserve accounts for each project like individuals don't, and clarifies the bill allows bonding with matching grants.
HB1427: Representative Mary Murphy, Hillsboro District 27 (Deering and Francestown) Support02:17:33.679 - 10:16:30 AM; Representative Murphy supports the bill, highlighting high property taxes as a major taxpayer concern. She notes low attendance at town meetings for capital projects and explains that the bill promotes fiscal responsibility by requiring a supermajority vote for bonds, ensuring they address true needs rather than wants. She interprets the bill's language on page two, line four, to allow bonding for school repairs or replacements as essential infrastructure. She emphasizes that capital expenditures significantly impact local taxes and the bill protects current and future residents from burdensome debt.
HB1427: Eric Power, Brookline, Planning Board Member Support02:21:38.240 - 10:20:35 AM; Eric Power, a fiscal conservative, supports the bill but suggests amendments for broader acceptance. He provides historical context on voting thresholds for bonds, noting the shift from two-thirds to three-fifths majorities. He proposes requiring a two-thirds majority for ballot votes unless a charter specifies three-fifths, and suggests official ballot voting for traditional meetings to increase turnout and fairness. He argues this raises the bar for fiscal responsibility without overriding charters, and addresses nuances like city and county applications, maintaining two-thirds votes for legislative bodies.
HB1427: Chris Coats, Cheshire County Administrator, and Cheryl Trombley, Cheshire County Finance Director Oppose02:30:22.080 - 10:29:19 AM; Representing Cheshire County, they oppose the bill despite sharing its values of prudence and fiscal responsibility. They argue the bill implies a lack of discipline in local governments, which is unfounded, as counties operate under strict statutory controls like RSA Chapter 33, debt limits, public hearings, and two-thirds delegation votes. The bill would prohibit most bonding after 2027, threatening compliance with mandates for facilities like nursing homes and jails. They highlight that bonding aligns debt with asset life, benefiting future generations, and note impracticalities like requiring 22,000 voter approvals in Cheshire County. Existing laws already ensure transparency and limit misuse.
HB1427: Brody Ducha, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose02:37:53.840 - 10:36:50 AM; The NHMA opposes HB 1427, viewing it as an extreme limitation on municipal bonding for infrastructure unless in emergencies or for essential replacements posing imminent threats. It prohibits new projects and mandates 10-year bonds, increasing annual costs. They question the relevance of cited RSAs and note municipalities cannot unilaterally declare emergencies without court approval. The bill unfairly holds municipalities to stricter standards than the state, hindering proactive infrastructure planning and funding via bonds, which are essential tools for large projects.
HB1224: Representative Ron Dunn, Londonderry Support02:45:04.960 - 10:44:01 AM; As prime sponsor, Representative Dunn introduces the bill to reform default budget calculations by eliminating unfilled positions used to fund other areas, promoting transparency and preventing inefficiency. He argues that voters approve specific budgets, not slush funds, and this addresses issues like using vacant position funds for overspending. The bill exempts public safety positions and is a step toward fixing the complicated default budget system, though it does not solve all problems.
HB1224: Brody Ducha, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose02:55:28.240 - 10:54:25 AM; The NHMA opposes HB 1224, similar to vetoed HB 475, for creating administrative burdens and interfering with management. It requires reducing budgets for vacant positions over a year (except actively recruited public safety roles), but 'actively recruited' is ambiguous. This strains services amid hiring challenges, prohibits post-budget salary increases in defaults, and complicates line item transfers, contradicting RSA 32:10. Implementation would be confusing, especially tracking transfers, and it limits flexibility for evolving needs like equipment repairs.
HB1224: Eric Power, Brookline Support03:08:27.359 - 11:07:24 AM; Eric Power supports the bill, addressing the vetoed HB 475's public safety concerns by exempting those positions. He explains default budgets as barebones continuations when voters reject proposed budgets, closing loopholes like vacant positions and one-time transfers. It incorporates elements from prior bills for actual salaries/benefits and eliminates contingencies from defaults, encouraging better proposed budgets. Minor amendments could clarify overtime/contracting uses, making defaults true continuations and incentivizing voter-approved budgets.
HB1575: Representative John Bowers, Selectman, School Board, Budget Committee Member Support03:15:43.040 - 11:14:40 AM; With 22 years as a selectman, school board, and budget committee member, Representative Bowers sponsors the bill to add accountability to default budgets, which lack oversight and verification. He notes defaults have become unreliable, sometimes higher than proposed budgets, leading to voter distrust and close votes. The bill requires the governing body to prove the default to the budget committee, who can modify it if needed, using a simple columnar presentation. This ensures accuracy without time issues, addressing past Senate-killed reforms and issues like unremoved retired debt.
HB1575: Representative John Bowers Support03:15:43.040 - 11:14:40 AM; Continued answering questions from committee members regarding HB 1575. Explained that the bill allows budget committees to review and correct default budgets, addressing issues like the problematic word 'create' in existing law. Discussed how defaults often mirror proposed budgets too closely, leading to biased outcomes, and provided examples like discrepancies in teachers' stipends versus actual spending. Emphasized the need for credibility in default budgets and how the bill provides transparency without unintended bias.
HB1575: Mr. Reus (Norm Royce) Support03:31:20.560 - 11:30:17 AM; Testified as a budget committee member in his town, supporting the bill for providing transparency to the default budget process. Explained that budget committees spend extensive time reviewing budgets line by line, but currently receive only a total number for the default, lacking detail. Noted that defaults are often the only approved budget in his town due to tax frustrations, and the bill would allow line-level review to ensure accuracy. Responded to questions by stating the process doesn't currently include requesting default details, but the bill improves it without discomfort over potential changes or disputes.
HB1575: Eric Power Support03:37:30.800 - 11:36:27 AM; Former cooperative school board member and resident, supporting the bill to allow budget committees to review and correct default budgets. Highlighted interpretive issues in default budgets, sharing a personal example of fighting incorrect inclusions like built-in raises for expired contracts. Suggested an amendment to make budget committee involvement mandatory under RSA 40:14-B, emphasizing defaults as the largest warrant item needing accuracy. Argued for another set of eyes to ensure bare-bones budgets, benefiting voters. Clarified he was testifying as a resident, not representing the School Board Governance Association.
HB1575: Brody Ducha, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose03:41:31.279 - 11:40:28 AM; Opposed HB 1575 for adding burdensome requirements to default budget posting in SB2 towns, creating tight timelines between January finalization and February deliberative sessions. Noted potential confusion from budget committee changes post-public posting, already reviewed by finance directors and DRA. Suggested RSA 40:14-B already enables voters to delegate default authority to budget committees. Raised ambiguity for towns without statutory budget committees, where advisory boards or governing bodies handle budgeting. Responded to amendment ideas by noting flexibility in existing law but needing to review language for timing and authority issues.
HB1649: Representative Lorie Ball Support03:52:42.080 - 11:51:39 AM; Prime sponsor introduced HB 1649 to address lack of accountability in donating public funds to nonprofits via warrant articles, without contracts or reporting. Emphasized her strong support for nonprofits but stressed taxpayer dollars require transparency and verification of use within the town. Clarified the bill distinguishes donations from contracted services or grants, preserving local control while ensuring fiduciary responsibility. Responded to questions by suggesting towns embed nonprofit funding as line items for oversight, allowing competitive bidding, and admitted ambiguities in language regarding cities and budgets, recommending amendments to focus on warrant articles.
HB1649: Colleen Harky, Gilmanton Support04:18:38.880 - 12:17:35 PM; Certified Fundraising Executive testified in support, arguing the bill protects taxpayers treated as compulsory donors without private sector protections like balance sheets or results proof. Cited local example of Gilmanton Library Association requesting $35,000 (37% of budget) without full financial disclosure. Stressed unvetted donations create dependency, crowding out private philanthropy and leading to mission failure if funding stops. Advocated for transparent contracts over donations to build resilient nonprofits, responding to questions on contracts by noting they should be based on anticipated needs, population, and demand, adjustable via actuals.
HB1649: Representative Jonah O'an Wheeler, Peterborough and Sharon Oppose04:30:00.720 - 12:28:57 PM; Opposed the bill, highlighting vital nonprofit services in his district like Avenue A and River Center, which provide essentials (diapers, wood, tax prep, shelter coordination) with minimal town funds. Argued these fill government gaps efficiently via public-private partnerships, avoiding bureaucracy. Stated the bill disrupts effective, low-cost aid, and fraud concerns should not penalize proven nonprofits doing essential work.
HB1649: Norm Royce, Northwood Oppose04:33:46.080 - 12:32:43 PM; Budget committee member and lake association board opposed the bill, noting small volunteer nonprofits lack skills for required contracts. Described current process where warrant articles for lake protection (e.g., invasive species) are reviewed by budget committees and voted on by residents, providing sufficient oversight. Argued town contributions are minor (<35%) and the process works without changes.
HB1649: Tom D. Roza, New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits Oppose04:36:33.520 - 12:35:30 PM; Principal testified in opposition, uploading written testimony for the committee to review, deferring to other nonprofits to speak due to time constraints.
HB1649: Andrea Lamro, New Hampshire Lakes Oppose04:36:33.520 - 12:35:30 PM; President opposed the bill, affirming lake associations' commitment to transparency but arguing competitive bidding and procurement don't apply to volunteer-led groups doing water testing or invasive species prevention. Noted multiple associations and conservation groups oppose for similar reasons, as current mechanisms suffice without added burdens.
HB1649: Andrea Lamro, New Hampshire Lakes Association Information Only04:38:05.438 - 12:37:02 PM; Responded to questions from Representative Gilman about whether her organization requires contracts with towns, stating it does not apply. Noted that towns can request more information if needed. Addressed Representative Stavis's question on competitive bidding for nonprofits, explaining from the lake association perspective, there is no such process as each lake typically has one association.
HB1649: Barbara Richter, New Hampshire Association of Conservation Commissions Oppose04:39:40.320 - 12:38:37 PM; Opposed HB 1649, urging a vote of Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL). Argued the bill would decrease government efficiency and increase local spending by limiting town appropriations to nonprofits. Highlighted NHACC's role in providing direct assistance to conservation commissions, planning boards, and town staff on spending funds, writing warrant articles, etc., at reasonable fees. Without this support, towns might hire more staff or consultants, leading to improper actions and potential lawsuits. Emphasized nonprofits' public benefits achieved with small funds and suggested reviewing the entire citizen petition warrant article process for transparency issues rather than targeting nonprofits.
HB1649: Michael Tabery, New Hampshire Community Action Association Information Only04:44:49.040 - 12:43:46 PM; Provided information on concerns with HB 1649 without taking a specific position. Described the five community action agencies serving all NH communities to reduce poverty, respond to urgent needs, and support vulnerable residents through services like energy assistance, nutrition, child development, housing, and crisis intervention. Stressed that local municipal support is crucial for leveraging larger state and federal grants, with existing oversight via budget committees, public hearings, and town votes. Noted that restricting funding could increase municipal welfare costs, as agencies handle initial referrals before town funds are used. Specifically mentioned the Belknap and Merrimack Counties program seeking town funding for meals on wheels and resource centers, preferring line items but following directives for warrants, and meeting with budget committees to share impacts. Appreciated the opportunity to inform deliberations.
HB1649: Brody Dea, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose04:49:00.798 - 12:47:57 PM; Opposed HB 1649, stating it would limit municipalities' authority to appropriate funds to local nonprofits with legislative body approval. Noted exemptions for bidding or 'clear public purpose' are vague and could spark disputes. Expressed concern that small nonprofits aiding needy residents would lose partnerships, reducing welfare budget pressures. Highlighted municipalities' ability to scrutinize appropriations via paperwork and reports ensuring funds benefit local residents. Explained petition warrant articles for nonprofits undergo the same budget process as others, including recommendations, amendments, and votes. Responded to a question confirming NHMA is a nonprofit but protected by a 1961 statute allowing municipal dues, unlike other nonprofits like fire chiefs or police associations that could be impacted, potentially silencing local voices.
HB1649: Representative Guthrie, Hampstead Oppose04:53:11.200 - 12:52:08 PM; As a representative from Hampstead, one of the targeted towns, opposed HB 1649 and urged ITL. Emphasized existing transparency in the process, as nonprofit funding requests go through normal warrant or budget procedures. Described Hampstead's practice of selecting three nonprofits to present to the board for scrutiny. Stated the sole criterion is that nonprofits provide services the town cannot, which is common across NH towns. Responded to a question on the committee's tradition of not passing bills affecting only one or two communities.
HB1355: Representative Jason Osborne, Rockingham 2 (Auburn, Candia, Deerfield) Support04:57:38.798 - 12:56:35 PM; Representative Osborne introduced HB 1355 on behalf of Representative Noble, explaining that it eliminates the default budget in SB2 towns to prevent fiscal creep and ensure voter consent. He cited the Bedford example where the default budget led to tax increases despite the operating budget not doing so. The bill requires a special meeting for a revised budget if the operating budget fails, and if that fails, a 10% cut from the prior year's budget to promote accountability and prioritize essential services.
HB1355: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose05:00:37.760 - 12:59:34 PM; Dees opposed HB 1355, arguing that eliminating the default budget imposes arbitrary 10% cuts that could prevent meeting contractual obligations and adds costs for additional meetings in SB2 towns. He noted the default budget ensures funding for prior approvals and that RSA 40:13:10 already allows special meetings for alternative budgets. He emphasized keeping the current process for SB2 towns.
HB1355: Eric Power, Brookline Support05:08:12.878 - 1:07:09 PM; Power supported HB 1355, describing it as simplifying the budget process by removing the default budget, requiring a proposed budget only, and triggering a second deliberative and balloting session if it fails, with a 10% cut if that also fails. He suggested amending to a continuation budget instead of 10% cut for palatability, noting similar processes in other states and referencing HB 613 for optional reductions. He argued it encourages fiscally responsible budgeting without tracking defaults.
HB1355: Representative Gilman Information Only05:13:05.520 - 1:12:02 PM; Representative Gilman reported remote testimony results: one in support and 140 opposed, with the blue sheet blank.
HB1505: Representative Diane Power, Hillsborough District 36 (Brookline, Mason, Greenville) Support05:47:36.400 - 1:46:33 PM; Representative Power introduced HB 1505, which requires towns and school districts with adopted caps to report compliance annually to DRA via MS forms, clarifies enforcement if caps are exceeded without a 3/5 override, and promotes transparency. She presented an amendment based on feedback from DRA, DOE, and public, simplifying warrant language, updating RSAs, and delaying effective date to April 1, 2027, for DRA portal updates at a one-time $75,000 cost. She urged ought to pass with amendment to respect voter-adopted caps.
HB1505: Representative [Unspecified] Information Only05:55:05.360 - 1:54:02 PM; The representative expresses confusion but states that cities must follow the law. They clarify that the reference to the budget committee on page one, line 14, applies only to political subdivisions that have one; if not, it wouldn't apply. They suggest possibly entertaining an amendment to expand the terminology to include ways and means or finance committees for clarity.
HB1505: Representative Grim Information Only05:56:58.798 - 1:55:55 PM; Representative Grim asks a follow-up question about whether the budget committee reference should be expanded to include ways and means or finance committees to make it clearer.
HB1505: Representative Major Information Only05:56:58.798 - 1:55:55 PM; Representative Major questions the amendment handed out, noting it's not a replace-all, and asks about the wording of the ballot question on page two, lines 8 through 22. They note that the section of law was amended last year, effective September 13, 2025, and inquire if this amendment fixes a deficiency in the recently enacted law.
HB1505: Bill Sponsor Information Only05:58:00.160 - 1:56:57 PM; The sponsor clarifies that the wording on page two regarding the question to adopt is the same as in the original bill. They explain that the bill was filed based on feedback from the Department of Education, DRA, and public members who were confused by the newly enacted school district and town budget cap laws when trying to propose adoption. The amendment provides necessary clarification.
HB1505: Representative Kobe Information Only05:59:09.120 - 1:58:06 PM; Representative Kobe questions the new paragraphs in the original bill on page one, asking how adding a new MS form for compliance with the tax cap improves accountability compared to the required audit.
HB1505: Bill Sponsor Information Only06:00:39.280 - 1:59:36 PM; The sponsor emphasizes the importance of following optional caps adopted by voters according to the law. They note inconsistencies in applying local tax caps across the state, based on past experiences and feedback from constituents. This led to previous clarifying legislation. The new MS form ensures consistent application, upholds legislative intent, respects voters, and provides better information for DRA tax rate calculations, ultimately affecting property taxes. It applies to voter-adopted local tax caps under RSA, school district budget caps, and town budget caps; for city charters, it pertains to the notion of a cap under those provisions.
HB1505: Representative Alwood Information Only06:03:20.000 - 2:02:17 PM; Representative Alwood asks which local budget and tax caps this applies to—only voter-adopted ones or also those imposed by state, statute, or charter.
HB1505: Unidentified Testifier Information Only06:04:49.920 - 2:03:46 PM; The testifier explains that the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA) would flag illegal appropriations and follow the existing process for MS-4 forms, similar to the 10% rule enforcement. They describe how DRA reviews voter-approved warrants and ensures compliance with statutory budget committees, making adjustments if the 10% rule is improperly applied.
HB1505: Representative Grind Information Only06:06:08.480 - 2:05:05 PM; Representative Grind asks about the appeals process for deletions of appropriations exceeding the cap under RSA 21-J:34. The testifier notes that a DRA representative will address this and explains that MS forms verify if the proper vote threshold was achieved for exceeding appropriations.
HB1505: Unidentified Testifier Information Only06:06:55.200 - 2:05:52 PM; The testifier defers to Mr. Canoyer for details on the appeals process, acknowledging it as a detailed matter.
HB1505: Bruce Caner, Supervisor of Municipal Bureau, Department of Revenue Administration Information Only06:08:22.638 - 2:07:19 PM; Bruce Caner explains that if an appropriation fails to gain the necessary supermajority, it is disallowed, striking it from the tax rate calculation. He notes that entities can request review of evidence, such as vote counts, and there is a 10-day appeal period under RSA 21-J after the tax rate is set. He mentions no history of errors in the six towns and two school districts with local caps. Regarding cities, he suggests section headers may inadvertently include them, but the bill applies to Chapter 32 (towns and school districts), not city charters. On administrative burden, he states the bill uses the tax portal to minimize paperwork, and calculations are already required locally.
HB1505: Representative Major Information Only06:09:56.240 - 2:08:53 PM; Representative Major inquires about the prevalence of errors in tax cap compliance among the six towns, eight school districts, and incorporated places, questioning what the bill is fixing.
HB1505: Representative Davis Information Only06:11:06.240 - 2:10:03 PM; Representative Davis asks about implications for cities if they are mentioned in headers but not covered by the bill's statutes.
HB1505: Bruce Caner Information Only06:12:20.400 - 2:11:17 PM; Bruce Caner responds that he is unsure of implications for cities, as the bill targets Chapter 32 for towns and school districts, while cities operate under their charters approved by voters and state agencies. He suggests consulting legislative services on whether city mentions are necessary.
HB1505: Representative Alwood Information Only06:13:41.600 - 2:12:38 PM; Representative Alwood asks how small towns are protected from administrative burdens created by the bill.
HB1505: Bruce Caner Information Only06:15:02.558 - 2:13:59 PM; Bruce Caner explains that the intellectual burden of calculations already exists locally, and the bill facilitates reporting through the tax portal to reduce paperwork, providing a record for verification.
HB1505: Representative Colby Information Only06:15:02.558 - 2:13:59 PM; Representative Colby questions why the compliance check couldn't be handled through existing municipal audits instead of this bill, seeking to understand if it simplifies the process.
HB1505: Bruce Caner Information Only06:15:02.558 - 2:13:59 PM; Bruce Caner notes that municipal audits (non-CPA reports or CPA statements) occur long after voting and DRA review of appropriations, making them too late for timely compliance enforcement; audits could only note discrepancies afterward.
HB1505: DRA Representative (name not specified) Information Only06:16:24.240 - 2:15:21 PM; The speaker explains the enforcement mechanism in HB 1505-FN, referencing the 10% rule under RSA 32:18 that allows DRA to review appropriations. If appropriations exceed the limit, DRA can disallow the excess as early as late March or early April. They use a LIFO (last in, first out) approach for disallowance based on historical precedent, but exceptions may apply to avoid impacting critical services like water and sewer operations to prevent public safety issues.
HB1505: DRA Representative (name not specified) Information Only06:17:14.480 - 2:16:11 PM; In response to Representative Stevens' philosophical question about the state's interest in controlling municipal budgets adopted by local voters, the speaker clarifies that DRA's role is to ensure accurate tax rates per statute. The bill applies this oversight to verify that appropriation votes and other laws are followed to maintain correct tax rates, not just mathematically but legally.
HB1505: Eric Power, Brookline Support06:20:04.000 - 2:19:01 PM; Eric Power, from Brookline and former cooperative school board member active in municipal and school district government, supports HB 1505-FN for adding an enforcement mechanism to local tax caps adopted by six towns and two school districts. He shares experiences in Brookline School District where the board initially ignored the cap, requiring residents to chase calculations, and later interpreted rules differently without recourse. He notes that court action would be counterproductive, and enforcement by DRA would ensure compliance, provide guidance, and clarify applicability only to adopting entities. He praises the bill's low administrative burden, potential to simplify processes via DRA forms, and mentions helpful prior bills like HB 1105, HB 200, and HB 374. He recommends passage with the amendment.
HB1711: Representative David Frack, Grafton 16, Town of Enfield Support06:27:14.798 - 2:26:11 PM; Representative David Frack introduces HB 1711 at the request of the New Hampshire Municipal Association to clarify RSA 674:54(I) through (IIB) on governmental use definitions, as affirmed by recent court cases. Key changes include: affirming authorized agents, contractors, and subcontractors as legitimate government entities for land use; replacing 'substantial change in use' and 'substantial new use' with 'change in use' and 'new use' to eliminate discretion; expanding notification requirements to include changes in use beyond construction; making advisory public hearings before planning boards or governing bodies mandatory (increasing time from 30 to 45 days); and authorizing municipalities to request documentation proving agency representation and required certifications/insurance. The bill updates definitions, enhances transparency via mandatory hearings, and allows verification of credentials for government-related activities.
HB1711: Representative Deborah Elward, Merrimack District 5 Support06:31:28.080 - 2:30:25 PM; As a co-sponsor, Representative Elward supports HB 1711, which clarifies roles and expectations for governmental entities in municipal land use activities. She explains that the bill defines authorized agents to ensure municipalities know who is acting on behalf of governmental entities and that they are properly authorized and licensed when required. It improves communication, reduces disputes, and allows governmental projects to proceed smoothly by setting clear expectations from the outset. The bill is a procedural clarification.
HB1711: Eric Power, Brookline Planning Board Support06:32:50.240 - 2:31:47 PM; Eric Power, serving on the Brookline Planning Board, supports HB 1711 as a common-sense bill. He appreciates that it addresses the gray area of change of use directly, providing clarity on proposed land activities. He notes the relaxation of the notice requirement to 45 days is helpful due to planning board meeting schedules and calendar shifts. Defining authorized agents aids planning and select boards in authorizing activities. He recommends ought to pass.
HB1711: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Support06:34:43.600 - 2:33:40 PM; Brody Dees from NHMA supports HB 1711, which they helped draft with stakeholders. The bill clarifies governmental land use exemptions, ensuring organizations claiming exemptions must verify they qualify, preventing misuse in residential zones. He flags that the bill changes 'substantial change or new use' to any change of use, potentially requiring more planning board input; NHMA is neutral on retaining 'substantial' but suggests consideration. The bill addresses issues where uncertified entities claimed exemptions for non-governmental activities.
HB1131: Representative Diane Power, Hillsborough District 36 (Brookline, Mason, Greenville) Support06:46:17.440 - 2:45:14 PM; Representative Power introduces HB 1131 to restore the original process for adopting SB2 by placing the question on the official ballot, as intended in 1995. The 2019 amendment removed this, requiring in-person votes at town meetings, creating barriers for working residents, families, seniors, and disabled voters, effectively suppressing participation. This leads to low turnout, minority control over budgets and taxes, and makes SB2 adoption nearly impossible, with only two successes since 2019 despite dozens of attempts. The bill restores access, aligns with other governance changes like charters, maintains the three-fifths majority, and promotes fairness and legislative intent.
HB1131: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose06:54:57.840 - 2:53:54 PM; NHMA opposes HB 1131 as drafted, arguing that adopting SB2 should follow the existing town's government procedures, like warrant articles at traditional town meetings with debate. Placing it on the official ballot would mimic SB2 processes prematurely ('cart before the horse'). They note the three-fifths threshold and ballot vote for substantive changes but prefer consistency with the current form. Dees acknowledges more participation opportunities in SB2 but emphasizes local voters deciding after hearing discussions at meetings.
HB1131: Eric Power, Brookline Support07:03:26.160 - 3:02:23 PM; Eric Power supports HB 1131, citing 1995 origins of SB2 to address participation barriers in traditional meetings for elderly, handicapped, and families. As a retired Air Force colonel, he felt disenfranchised missing meetings. SB2 allows private voting and fact-checking. It was designed as a simple charter alternative under official ballot, but the 2019 change hinders adoption, as seen in his district where proposals are tabled late in meetings. Current law requires public hearings, ensuring discussion. The bill restores accessibility without needing complex charter commissions, preventing disenfranchisement.

Pauer, Diane(Chairman)(R)[A]2025	Bjelobrk, Marie Louise(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	MacDonald, John(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Germana, Dylan(D)[D-]2025	Fracht, David(D)[D-]2025	Guthrie, Joseph(R)[C]2025
Gilman, Julie(D)[D-]2025	Grund, Stephanie(D)[F]2025	Stavis, Laurel(D)[CT]2025
Karasinski, Sly(R)[B]2025	Maggiore, Jim(D)[CT]2025	Dolan, Tom(R)[B]2025
Aylward, Deborah(R)[B+]2025	Walker, David(R)[B+]2025	Colby, Eleana (D)[F]2025
Girard, Dale(D)[C-]2025	Franz, Linda(R)[B]2025	Murphy, Denis(R)[B+]2025