From time immemorial, every few years there has been a bill that seeks to cripple the ability of local governments to express their opinions to the legislature. This year’s effort appears in HB 1033, which is scheduled for a hearing next Wednesday, January 19, at 9:30 a.m., in LOB Rooms 301-303, before the House Legislative Administration Committee. The bill states that “no recipient of a grant or appropriation of state, county, municipal, school district, or village district funds may use the funds to lobby or attempt to influence legislation, participate in political activity, or contribute funds to any entity engaged in these activities.” Any recipient of such a grant or appropriation would have to segregate the funds in such a manner that they are “physically and financially separate from any other funds that may be used for . . . these purposes.”

These bills are typically directed at NHMA and the New Hampshire School Boards Association, but they also sweep up numerous other organizations—the Association of Counties, the Police Chiefs Association, the Association of Assessing Officials, the Water Works Association, and the City and Town Clerks Association, to name just a few. 

Do municipal officials not have free speech rights? In past years, supporters of these efforts have acknowledged that perhaps local officials should be allowed to testify at legislative hearings, but they should not be permitted to spend taxpayer funds on lobbyists. But why should this be a state decision? Every municipal legislative body—in most cases, the town meeting—has the opportunity to decide how it will spend its money. Most political subdivisions have decided that it is more cost effective to contribute to organizations that speak on their behalf, rather than pay to send elected officials to the legislature every week. 

HB 1033 is essentially the same as HB 1560 from 2014, HB 233 from 2017, and SB 158 from 2020. Each of those bills received an overwhelming committee recommendation of Inexpedient to Legislate (17-0 in 2014, 13-1 in 2017, and 5-0 in 2020) and died a quiet death on the House or Senate floor. Unfortunately, in the current House we expect less of a consensus. Please consider attending the hearing to speak against this bill; alternatively, register your opposition using the House Remote Sign In Sheet, or contact members of the Legislative Administration Committee and ask them to vote to kill HB 1033.

On Thursday, January 20, at 3:30 p.m. in LOB Room 206-208, the House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on HB 1195, requiring that “all meetings of a public body open to the public” governed by the Right-to-Know Law include a minimum 15-minute “public comment period” at the beginning of the meeting. There are no exceptions, but the chair may determine the length of time for each speaker (and whether the comment period needs be longer than 15 minutes). 

The thousands of municipal boards across the state already have public comment periods, and tailor those periods to the kinds of attendance that they see. Some, such as cemetery trustees, are extraordinarily unlikely to see a living person appear before them, whereas others, such as select boards, can see anywhere from nobody to dozens of interested speakers, depending on the meeting agenda. Local officials understand the importance of public input and how to best facilitate it in their own communities. Many boards have long-established rules of procedure that ensure that they can hear from the public during one or more comment periods. Forcing a one-size-fits-all mandate on all boards for all meetings doesn’t make sense, and doesn’t allow boards to take into account different types of meetings. Take, for example, a board that must convene for the sole purpose of conducting a nonpublic session on a serious personnel-related matter. The board would be required to allow 15 minutes of public comment before they proceed. Why? Because all nonpublic sessions start in a public meeting, and this bill applies to all public meetings, with no exceptions.  

We also note that the Right-to-Know Law applies to all public bodies, including both houses of the legislature and all of their committees. 

We urge local officials to oppose HB 1195 by testifying at the hearing or contacting the Judiciary Committee via the online option to express their opinion on this bill.

On Thursday, January 20, at 1:45 p.m. in LOB Room 206-208, the House Judiciary Committee will hear testimony on HB 1021, prohibiting zoning ordinances and site plan review regulations from prohibiting, regulating, or restricting the use of land or structures for religious purposes. The bill does provide an exception for “non-discretionary narrow, objective and definite regulations concerning the height of structures, yard sizes, lot area, setbacks, open space and building coverage requirements as long as said requirements are applicable to all uses regardless of the religious or non-religious nature of the use of the property and do not substantially burden religious exercise.” 

Those few regulations which are allowed under this statute appear to have their language modeled on the 1993 federal “Religious Freedom Restoration Act” (which was later struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court). As such, those regulations would be subject to an analysis about whether they “substantially” burdened religious practices and, if so, whether there was a “compelling” governmental interest involved, and whether the “least restrictive” means of addressing that interest had been chosen. 

As the bill does not define “religious purposes,” it is unclear whether it would apply only to a project aimed at building a “church,” “mosque,” “synagogue,” etc. or whether subsidiary uses, such as schools, homeless shelters and soup kitchens, or other structures and uses ancillary to sincere religious beliefs about education or ministering to the poor would also be exempt from zoning regulations. Nor is it clear whether, for example, a minister who ordinarily leads prayer groups at his/her house can – by that action alone – qualify his/her property as one exempt from zoning since it is being used for “religious purposes.” 

Existing law already prohibits preferential treatment of one religion over another by the government, and zoning cases involving religious structures generally see the courts only uphold those regulations which treat religious uses as equal to comparable secular uses. As such, it is unclear what this bill would do, other than exempt “religious uses” from zoning requirements. 

Local officials are encouraged to contact the Judiciary Committee and urge them to vote to recommend HB 1021 as Inexpedient to Legislate.  

On Wednesday, January 19, at 9:30 a.m. in State House Room 100, the Senate Ways and Means Committee will hear testimony on SB 338, enabling a local option for municipalities to collect an occupancy fee from room rentals. The purpose of this option is to allow municipalities to pay for the increased cost of municipal services associated with the increase in tourism and transient traffic. 

This is how the local option fee would work: 

• The legislative body would vote to allow the fee, specifying the number of consecutive days the occupancy fee may apply, with a 184-day maximum.
• The legislative body would also determine the amount of the fee. The bill allows a daily charge of up to $2 per occupancy per 24-hour period, or as a percentage of the price of the occupancy, provided that the rate will not exceed $2 per occupancy per 24-hour period.
• The revenues collected from this fee would be deposited in a capital reserve fund, tourism support fund, revolving fund, or other special revenue fund, authorized by the municipality.  
• Funds received from this tax would not be considered part of the general fund accumulated surplus and can only be used for the purpose in this bill. 

As a local option, this bill would allow municipalities that see drastic increases in demands on municipal services due to tourism to offset the costs associated with providing those services to more than just municipal residents. From additional fire and police services to overuse of municipal parks and recreational facilities, this bill would create an additional revenue stream for towns that experience costs associated with the local tourism industry. 

Please contact members of the Senate Ways and Means Committee (click on “Email Entire Committee”) and urge them to support this bill. In addition, use the online Senate Remote Sign In Form to register your support of the bill.

A familiar bill returns to the legislature this year. On Thursday, January 20, at 1:00 p.m. in State House Room 100, the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee will hear SB 400, which makes various changes to the land use and zoning laws. Although not identical, this bill is substantially similar to HB 1629 and HB 1632 from 2020 and HB 586 from 2021. 

SB 400, among other things, 

• requires the Office of Planning and Development (OPD) to offer training to land use board members free of charge;
• requires municipalities to publish notice of land use fees;
• allows a court to require the posting of a bond and to award attorney's fees and costs to the prevailing party in an appeal to the superior court;
• expands the tax incrementing financing (TIF) district statute, RSA 162-K, to include acquisition of real property to construct workforce housing;
• requires land use boards to make specific written findings of fact to support their decisions; and
• creates a voluntary housing champion certification program, providing preferential access to state resources such as discretionary state infrastructure funds in exchange for achieving champion status. 

These are only some of the changes and additions SB 400 makes to existing law. We encourage municipal officials to carefully review the bill and share your comments or concerns with the committee members. You can also register your support or opposition to this bill using the Senate Remote Sign In Form.