Committee Summary for House Municipal and County Government (04/07/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB42 00:04:53.919 - 9:03:09 AM	Public Hearing	relative to notice of death affidavits.	Gray, James(R)[B-]2025
SB217 00:17:43.039 - 9:15:59 AM	Public Hearing	relative to public notice of historic tax rates and tax impacts of proposed projects.	Sullivan, Victoria(R)[A-]2025
SB78 00:53:54.640 - 9:52:10 AM	Public Hearing	relative to the zoning board of adjustments appeal period.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025
SB105 01:17:36.640 - 10:15:52 AM	Public Hearing	enabling towns to adopt budget caps.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025

SB42: James Gray, Senator from Senate District 6 (Alton, Gilmanton, Rochester, Strafford) Support00:04:53.919 - 9:03:09 AM; Senator Gray introduced Senate Bill 42, explaining that it was a request from municipal officials to address issues related to transfer on death deeds. He noted that the current system lacks a mechanism to notify relevant parties when a property owner passes away, which complicates sending out tax bills and other necessary actions. The bill proposes adding a paragraph to the existing law that would require the submission of a death affidavit, ensuring that the transfer on death deed is recognized as current and that tax bills are sent to the correct recipient. This change aims to save time and money by avoiding probate processes.
SB42: Representative Walker Information Only00:06:26.639 - 9:04:42 AM; Representative Walker asked Senator Gray about the mechanism for notifying relevant parties of a death under the proposed bill. Senator Gray responded that the existing RSA 563D already outlines the criteria, but it lacks a notification process back to individuals, which the new bill aims to address.
SB42: Representative Stavis Information Only00:07:38.479 - 9:05:54 AM; Representative Stavis inquired about the revocation process under the existing statute RSA 563D, section 20. Senator Gray clarified that the bill does not affect the revocability of transfer on death deeds but focuses solely on ensuring that the government and relevant parties are notified of a death to facilitate proper tax billing and other actions.
SB42: Kate Han Information Only00:09:35.680 - 9:07:51 AM; Kate Han was recognized to speak but the transcript cuts off before her testimony is provided.
SB42: Representative from the New Hampshire Association of Counties Support00:09:39.279 - 9:07:55 AM; The speaker, pinch-hitting for Register Baraby from Strafford County and Register Stacy from Rockingham County, supported the bill. They explained that the bill involves a minor technical change to allow the county register of deeds to notify the tax assessor when a death on a deed on death is filed. This change is purely for notification purposes and does not alter the process around the deed itself. The speaker mentioned forgetting their letter but promised to email it to the committee after the hearing.
SB42: Representative Gilman Information Only00:10:58.360 - 9:09:14 AM; Representative Gilman reported the voting results for Senate Bill 42, indicating three votes in support, one opposed, and one neutral on the remote sign-in, and two in support on the in-person sign-in.
SB217: Declan Donahue, Legislative Aid for Senator Victoria Sullivan Support00:17:43.039 - 9:15:59 AM; Declan Donahue introduced Senate Bill 217 on behalf of Senator Victoria Sullivan. The bill requires every town to post the previous 10 years' tax rates on their official town website and social media, and to post the year-over-year tax impact of certain proposed building projects per $1,000 of equalized valuation. This includes county, local and state education, town and municipal, and precinct taxes. The historical tax data is available on the Department of Treasury website.
SB217: Senator Victoria Sullivan, representing Senate District 18 (Manchester Wards 5 through 9 and the town of Litchfield) Support00:19:10.880 - 9:17:26 AM; Senator Sullivan supported the bill, emphasizing its simplicity and the availability of the required information on the Department of Treasury website. She highlighted the bill's purpose during budget season, aiming to increase transparency and public understanding of property tax structures, including the components from county, local and state education, and municipal taxes.
SB217: Representative from Northampton Information Only00:20:24.799 - 9:18:40 AM; The representative from Northampton, which has an incorporated village named Little Boar's Head District, inquired whether this village, incorporated in 1905, needed to be included in the list specified in the bill, as it is not a precinct. The Senator responded by offering to work on an amendment to include both incorporated and unincorporated towns. The representative explained how the tax rate for Little Boar's Head District is set and integrated into the overall tax process of Northampton.
SB217: Representative Frock Information Only00:21:52.159 - 9:20:08 AM; Representative Frock sought clarification on the necessity of placing tax information on the homepage of municipal websites, expressing understanding of the rationale for public accessibility but questioning the specific placement. The Senator explained that the homepage is where people commonly look for town information, suggesting it as the most accessible location for tax data.
SB217: Representative Information Only00:22:52.880 - 9:21:08 AM; The representative asked if a link on the homepage to the tax information would satisfy the requirement of the bill. The Senator responded negatively, emphasizing the importance of having the graph directly visible on the homepage for better public understanding and accessibility.
SB217: Representative Colby Information Only00:23:38.000 - 9:21:54 AM; Representative Colby raised concerns about the potential cluttering of the homepage with the tax graph and the challenges of managing similar content on social media platforms. The Senator suggested that the placement on the homepage should be managed by town or city employees responsible for website updates, who would best determine the layout for accessibility.
SB217: Representative Gerard Information Only00:25:12.799 - 9:23:28 AM; Representative Gerard asked if the bill would also require municipalities to include information about reappraisal years on the tax graphs, to clarify sudden changes in tax rates. The Senator confirmed that the graph should reflect such changes and emphasized the importance of public understanding of how their taxes are allocated, particularly towards local education.
SB217: Representative Walker from Rochester Information Only00:25:58.320 - 9:24:14 AM; Representative Walker from Rochester expressed concerns about the homepage becoming cluttered with multiple tax graphs, suggesting that a link to a separate page might be more effective. The Senator reiterated the importance of having the information directly visible on the homepage for public accessibility and suggested that web designers could find suitable placement for the graphs.
SB217: Representative Gilman Information Only00:29:39.200 - 9:27:55 AM; Representative Gilman asked a question regarding how different types of property (residential, commercial, manufactured housing, etc.) are appraised at different rates during revaluations and how this would be represented on a graph as proposed in the bill. The response clarified that the bill aims to provide a simple graph of tax dollar allocation from the Department of Treasury website, not detailed breakdowns, suggesting that more specific inquiries could be made through a 91A request to the town.
SB217: Representative Grund Information Only00:30:50.000 - 9:29:06 AM; Representative Grund inquired about the timing of posting summaries of proposed taxpayer-funded building projects on town websites, as mentioned in the bill. The response indicated that the timing would be when the project is proposed, and if numbers change, they should be updated to maintain transparency. Grund expressed concerns about the accuracy of tax impact estimates due to changing bond rates and funding methods, to which it was clarified that the bill aims for transparency and not to trap anyone with the information provided.
SB217: Representative Stavis Oppose00:33:22.799 - 9:31:38 AM; Representative Stavis raised concerns about the section of the bill that requires posting the average estimated tax impact of projects, arguing that such forecasts are mere guesses and could be seen as a form of electioneering. The response defended the inclusion of this information as crucial for informed voting, not as electioneering, emphasizing the importance of transparency for taxpayers.
SB217: Representative Majori from Northampton Information Only00:35:16.720 - 9:33:32 AM; Representative Majori from Northampton asked why the bill does not include capital improvement projects like fire engines and police vehicles, given that their town has completed its building projects. The response was that towns are free to add more information to their websites, but the bill focuses on readily available data from the Department of Treasury to ease the burden on towns and cities.
SB217: Representative Murphy Information Only00:36:31.119 - 9:34:47 AM; Representative Murphy asked about the frequency of updates on the Department of Treasury website, to which the response was that updates are done yearly. They also inquired about the choice of using the historical tax rate for transparency in the bill, to which the response was that it was chosen for its availability and to minimize the burden on towns and cities while still providing transparency for taxpayers.
SB217: Eric Power from Brookline Support00:38:00.480 - 9:36:16 AM; Eric Power from Brookline expressed support for the bill, emphasizing its importance for transparency and helping taxpayers understand their taxes. He suggested that showing tax rates for the past 10 years is beneficial but proposed using a tax effort metric as a more useful indicator of spending trends. He explained that tax effort reflects spending minus revenues and could be more informative than tax rates, which fluctuate with re-evaluations and market changes. Power also discussed the availability of data on the Department of Revenue site and suggested ways to display the graph on the website to meet the bill's intent without cluttering the page. He addressed the inclusion of precinct taxes, suggesting they might be related to village districts, and supported the idea of posting information about proposed projects before budget hearings. He recommended a threshold of $100,000 for projects to be publicized, including estimated tax impacts and project durations. Power concluded by suggesting the bill could be improved with amendments but supported its passage.
SB217: Representative Jamanna Information Only00:44:25.119 - 9:42:41 AM; Representative Jamanna raised concerns about the 10-year aspect of the bill, suggesting that historical data might be misleading due to changes in economic conditions, such as those caused by COVID and tariffs. They questioned whether this could confuse taxpayers. In response, Eric Power argued that historical data provides valuable context and that taxpayers can differentiate between past trends and future projects, emphasizing the importance of both for informed decision-making.
SB217: Representative Grund Information Only00:46:49.520 - 9:45:05 AM; Representative Grund asked about the value of providing context behind tax rates, suggesting that just showing numbers without explanation might not be helpful. Eric Power agreed, stating that while tax rates are useful, tax effort and total appropriations provide more comprehensive information. He suggested that tax effort is a more consumable metric for the average taxpayer and could encourage further inquiry into spending trends, aiding in more informed voting decisions.
SB217: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:50:05.359 - 9:48:21 AM; The speaker asked the chair about the potential complexity of a graph related to tax effort versus tax rate if the bill is not amended. They inquired about the chair's opinion on the level of detail that should be included in the graph, such as revaluation, default budget, and bond issues, and how these might affect the graph's readability.
SB217: Chair Information Only00:50:52.880 - 9:49:08 AM; The chair responded that if the bill is not amended, the graph must include a minimum of four or five lines or bars representing tax effort over ten years. Additional details like revaluation could be added at the discretion of the town or city, but the chair emphasized keeping the graph as minimal yet informative as possible to avoid overcrowding.
SB217: Representative Gilman Information Only00:52:37.280 - 9:50:53 AM; Representative Gilman reported the results of the remote sign-in and written blue sheets for Senate Bill 217, indicating nine in support, 41 opposed, and two neutral on the remote sign-in, and one opposed and two in support on the written blue sheet.
SB78: Senator Murphy Support00:53:54.640 - 9:52:10 AM; Senator Murphy introduced Senate Bill 78, explaining that it aims to standardize a 30-day appeal period for the zoning board of adjustment, which is already a common practice in most towns. He argued that this change would provide certainty and predictability for developers, potentially aiding in addressing the housing problem in the state.
SB78: Representative Colby Oppose00:55:41.520 - 9:53:57 AM; Representative Colby expressed support for the concept but raised concerns about mandating a 30-day appeal period, citing difficulties in some towns like Plaistow, NH, in meeting quorum requirements due to local regulations. He questioned the lack of alternative options for towns facing such challenges.
SB78: Senator Murphy Information Only00:56:30.079 - 9:54:46 AM; In response to Representative Colby, Senator Murphy defended the 30-day period as standard practice and suggested that towns like Plaistow might need to reconsider their local decisions if they struggle with quorum. He was open to considering amendments but emphasized the bill's intent to provide predictability for developers.
SB78: Representative Grund Oppose00:57:28.160 - 9:55:44 AM; Representative Grund, from Amherst, NH, shared a local example where a 30-day appeal period led to an unfavorable outcome for a resident trying to address a septic tank issue near wetlands. He questioned whether an alternative wording could be used to allow for good faith efforts to resolve issues before the appeal period expires.
SB78: Senator Murphy Information Only00:59:00.000 - 9:57:16 AM; Senator Murphy responded to Representative Grund by suggesting that perhaps a clause could be added to allow for extensions if new information arises during the appeal period. He reiterated his goal of providing predictability for developers but was open to adjustments that could address concerns raised.
SB78: Representative Walker, Rochester Information Only01:00:08.720 - 9:58:24 AM; Representative Walker from Rochester mentioned that the city already operates under a 30-day appeal period for zoning decisions, indicating that the proposed 30-day window in the bill would not affect their current practices. They noted that this timeframe seems to be standard across most of the state.
SB78: Jim Geyser, Sandwich Oppose01:01:42.960 - 9:59:58 AM; Jim Geyser, a long-time resident and member of the Sandwich Board of Adjustment, opposed the bill. He shared his experience with the 30-day appeal period, which his board initially used but found problematic as it did not always treat people fairly and caused issues. Geyser explained that changing to a 'reasonable period of time' as per state law resolved these issues. He highlighted specific cases where the 30-day limit would have prevented necessary action, such as when a building permit was issued incorrectly or when a well was placed too close to a property line, affecting future development. He urged the committee to trust local zoning boards to determine what is reasonable.
SB78: Eric Power, Brookline Support01:05:37.280 - 10:03:53 AM; Eric Power from Brookline, speaking as an individual but with experience on the Brookline Planning Board, supported the bill. He argued that a 30-day appeal period provides a useful timeline for planning and development, especially important in the context of New Hampshire's housing crisis. Power suggested that a longer, undefined period could slow down development projects, and while he acknowledged the need for some flexibility, he believed that 30 days is a common and effective practice across the state.
SB78: Sarah Holland, New Hampshire Association of Realtors Support01:08:07.880 - 10:06:23 AM; Sarah Holland, representing the New Hampshire Association of Realtors, supported Senate Bill 78. She explained that the current law's 'reasonable time' for appeals creates uncertainty for property owners wanting to proceed with construction. Holland cited a Supreme Court case from 1990 where a 55-day appeal was deemed unreasonable, yet no clear standard was set. She argued that SB78's 30-day appeal period would provide clarity and efficiency, benefiting applicants, abutters, and town officials. Holland clarified that the bill does not affect the time the ZBA has to consider an appeal, only the submission period, and emphasized the importance of this change for reducing legal and financial burdens on property owners and towns.
SB78: Keith Murphy, District 16 Support01:13:10.080 - 10:11:26 AM; Senator Keith Murphy spoke in support of SB78, emphasizing that the bill extends the same rights and powers to towns as those enjoyed by city residents, specifically regarding the ability to implement tax caps. He highlighted that the bill accounts for population growth and inflation annually and includes a provision for rescinding the tax cap if the town later decides to do so. He expressed hope for favorable consideration of the bill and was open to questions.
SB78: Representative Colby Information Only01:13:55.440 - 10:12:11 AM; Representative Colby asked a question regarding the existing abilities of towns to implement tax caps under RSA 325C and 325B, and how SB78 would work in conjunction with these statutes. He sought clarification on whether any of these statutes would be rescinded by the bill.
SB78: Senator Murphy Information Only01:14:43.760 - 10:12:59 AM; In response to Representative Colby, Senator Murphy clarified that school boards and school districts have the power to implement tax caps, but towns do not have this ability in the same fashion as proposed by SB78. He acknowledged the possibility of existing statutes allowing for similar measures but was not aware of them.
SB78: Representative Majori Information Only01:14:58.159 - 10:13:14 AM; Representative Majori asked for clarification on whether the bill referred to a tax cap or a budget cap, to which Senator Murphy confirmed it was a budget cap as per the bill's text.
SB78: Representative Grund Information Only01:15:17.440 - 10:13:33 AM; Representative Grund inquired about the definition of 'current per resident expenditure' as mentioned in the bill. Senator Murphy explained that it is calculated by dividing the budget by the population, and this figure is used to cap spending in subsequent years, adjusted for inflation and population growth.
SB78: Eric Power Information Only01:16:56.400 - 10:15:12 AM; Eric Power was recognized to speak but the transcript ends before his testimony is provided.
SB105: Eric Power, Brooklyn Support01:17:36.640 - 10:15:52 AM; Eric Power from Brooklyn supports SB105, which proposes a town budget cap similar to existing school district budget caps. He explains that while towns currently have local tax caps, they lack a budget cap, which this bill aims to introduce. The budget cap would limit total appropriations unless overridden by a three-fifths majority vote, unlike the simple majority required for local tax caps. Power provided an example using his town, Brooklyn, to illustrate how the budget cap would work, showing that in most years, the town's actual appropriations exceeded what would have been allowed under the proposed cap. He argues that this cap would act as a guardrail against significant budget spikes and give towns the tool to manage spending more effectively.
SB105: Representative Gilman Information Only01:23:05.199 - 10:21:21 AM; Representative Gilman asked Eric Power about the significant spike in appropriations in 2024, seeking clarity on what caused it. Power explained that the spike was due to extra spending on a fire truck and higher legal expenses, suggesting that a budget cap might have required a supermajority to pass such spending, potentially leading to more scrutiny and control over discretionary spending.
SB105: Representative Grund Information Only01:24:40.239 - 10:22:56 AM; Representative Grund questioned Eric Power about the inclusivity of the budget cap, confirming that it would cover not just the operating budget but also special warrant articles. Power affirmed that the budget cap would include all appropriations in the warrant, and explained that exceeding the cap would require a supermajority, aiming to align town budget increases with inflation and population growth.

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