Many readers are familiar with the saga of the housing appeals board, which the legislature created last year, but with a delayed effective date of July 1, 2020. We won’t rehash the sordid history of last year’s bill, but if you want a brief summary, you can find it in last year's Legislative Bulletin #26. 

The housing appeals board will be a three-person board, appointed by the supreme court, that will hear appeals from local land use board decisions on applications dealing with housing development. Appellants will have a choice of taking their appeals either to the board or to the superior court. The idea is to have a forum that will decide appeals more quickly, and possibly (but not likely) less expensively. 

NHMA never took a position on the housing appeals board legislation, although we did suggest several changes that were adopted. However, very late in the process—too late, in fact—we began hearing from some of our members who were very much opposed to the idea. More than a few legislators, primarily House members, were also upset with the way the Senate forced the legislation through the process without giving the House an opportunity to hear the bill. 

There are now two bills that would disband the housing appeals board before it is ever established, and both are scheduled for hearings next week. SB 735 would simply repeal the statute that establishes the board. SB 721 would do the same, but it also would substitute an expedited superior court review for planning board appeals. For all appeals from a planning board decision, the court would be required to hold a hearing on the merits within 90 days after receiving the petition, and to issue a decision within 60 days after the hearing. 

We continue to hear from our members about this issue, and there is almost uniform opposition to the housing appeals board. We still believe an expedited review is not a bad idea, but we are persuaded that the review should be performed by the superior court, not a newly created board. Municipal officials have more confidence in a judge, and—although this is not really our issue—the state could create one more judge position for much less than what the housing appeals board would cost. 

SB 721 comes closer to accomplishing the objective, although we believe it needs some work. (The bill provides an expedited process for all planning board appeals, but a zoning board appeal would be expedited only if it involves denial of an accessory dwelling unit application. We’re not sure why; and the process for such appeals is a bit irregular.) We will offer comments on both bills at the hearings. 

Both bills will be heard by the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, January 28, in State House Room 100. The hearing on SB 735 is scheduled for 9:55 a.m., and SB 721 is scheduled for 10:15 a.m. If you have an opinion on this issue, please attend the hearing or contact members of the committee (and us).

On Tuesday the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee heard testimony on SB 496, an NHMA policy bill that provides state funding toward the costs of compliance with new water quality standards regarding perfluorochemicals, generally referred to as PFAS. The bill as drafted would require the state to pay 40 percent of the incremental costs associated with capital projects needed for PFAS compliance and costs for disposal of contaminated PFAS media. Several municipal officials testified on the bill, explaining the estimated impact these costs will have on utility rate payers and property taxpayers. It was evident that many senators support some form of assistance to municipalities in addressing PFAS contaminations in drinking water and wastewater. 

Additionally, SB 641, which establishes a PFAS fund and enables the Department of Environmental Services to make grants, loans, contracts, and reimbursements from the fund for projects related to PFAS remediation, has a hearing scheduled on Tuesday, January 28, at 1:45 p.m. in the Senate Finance Committee, State House Room 103.  Finally, HB 1603 had a work session this week to amend the language of that bill by incorporating provisions addressed in the Senate bills dealing with the same subject.  We expect to see a draft amendment on HB 1603 early next week.  

With multiple PFAS bills—SB 496 and SB 641 in the Senate and HB 1603 in the House—we are encouraged by the legislative attention this important issue has received thus far this session. 

House and Senate committees next week will hear a slew of bills that would establish, amend, or study exemptions from local property taxes and, in one case, from the timber tax. There are such bills ever year, but the number this year seems unusually large. The following bills will have hearings in the House Municipal & County Government Committee on Tuesday, January 28, in LOB Room 301: 

• 9:30 a.m. – HB 1154 would allow (not require) a municipality to exclude retirement savings held in IRAs or other qualified pension plans from the determination of net assets for purposes of the exemptions for the disabled, hearing impaired, and elderly. The income from such plans, however, would continue to be included as income for the applicant. 

• 10:00 a.m. – HB 1155 would exempt from the timber tax the first 10,000 board feet of logs cut from a person’s residential property if the timber cut is not for sale purposes. 

• 10:30 a.m. – HB 1197 would exempt all totally and permanently disabled veterans whose disabilities are service-connected (except those who were dishonorably discharged) from taxation on their homesteads. Currently the exemption is limited to anyone who is a double amputee, is paralyzed, or is seriously visually impaired and has a specially adapted homestead acquired with the assistance of the Veterans Administration. 

• 11:00 a.m. – HB 1510 would allow municipalities to adopt an optional tax exemption for accessory dwelling units (ADUs). The exemption would be for the amount by which the assessed value of the property with the ADU exceeds the value without it. To be eligible, the ADU must comply with municipal ordinances and regulations and must be registered with the municipality as a long-term rental leased to a non-family member. 

• 1:00 p.m. – HB 1125 would allow municipalities to adopt an optional tax exemption, in an amount to be determined by the municipality, for volunteer firefighters and volunteer emergency medical personnel. To qualify the person would have to be a resident of the state and engaged at any point during the taxable period as a volunteer firefighter or emergency medical personnel. 

• 1:30 p.m. – HB 1305 would require (not allow) a municipality to exclude income from a home-share arrangement (in which the applicant receives assistance with housework or other activities in exchange for reduced rent) from the determination of net assets for purposes of the exemptions for the disabled, hearing impaired, and elderly. (Note: This does not seem to make sense. We believe the intent may be to exclude that income from the net income limits, not from the net asset) 

The following bills will have hearings in the House Municipal & County Government Committee on Wednesday, January 29, also in LOB Room 301: 

• 9:30 a.m. – HB 1210 would grant a property tax exemption to every owner of residential property equipped with an energy storage system. The exemption would be for the value of “the first 1,000 mwh of electricity storage.” Note that this is not a local option—it is a mandated exemption that would apply in every municipality. 

• 10:30 a.m. – HB 1406 would make a minor change to the local option exemption for solar energy systems, requiring that the system must be used for heating or cooling, heating water for, or providing electricity for an on-site The current law merely refers to “a building.” 

• 11:00 a.m. – HB 1139 would establish a committee to study the eligibility criteria for property tax credits, exemptions, and deferrals available to individuals with limited income and the impact of such credits, exemptions, and deferrals on municipalities.