The Senate Election Law & Municipal Affairs Committee now has in its possession two bills that would impose sweeping statewide zoning mandates on municipalities. Both have had hearings, and we have written about both, but we want to emphasize the importance of opposing both bills. 

Short-term and vacation rentals.  The first bill, SB 458, would require municipalities to allow short-term and vacation rentals of single- and two-family dwellings, regardless of where they are located. (The bill as introduced applies to one-to-four-family dwellings, but an amendment offered by the sponsor would change it to just single- and two-family dwellings.) As we reported in last week's Bulletin, the only support for this bill at the committee hearing came from the Association of Realtors and a trade association that represents companies like Airbnb and Expedia, which stand to profit handsomely at the expense of local residents. No property owner testified about any problem with municipal regulations. 

As we also explained last week, municipalities that are facing a demand for short-term rentals are working hard to balance that demand against the concerns of neighbors and the general public by drafting ordinances that make reasonable accommodations for short-term rentals. In other words, the issue is already being addressed where it should be, at the municipal level. Of 234 municipalities in the state, we know of only one (and it is not a popular vacation destination) that has prohibited short-term rentals. Cities and towns do not need the heavy hand of the legislature to force a solution to a problem that does not exist. 

Tiny houses. The second bill, SB 482, would require every municipality to allow “tiny houses” as a matter of right in every zoning district where single-family dwellings are permitted. This is a mandate that no other form of housing enjoys—not manufactured homes, not workforce housing, not accessory dwelling units. 

As we stated in last week's Bulletin, we have nothing against tiny houses, but there is no evidence of a significant demand for them in New Hampshire. At the hearing this week, the bill was promoted as a solution to the affordable housing problem—and yet neither New Hampshire Housing nor any other affordable housing organization spoke in support of the bill. Further, several supporters of the bill talked about their desire to own “tiny houses on wheels” so they can move and take their houses with them. We question the wisdom of making rules to accommodate a small group of people who are then going to pack up and leave. 

Notably, of the people who spoke in support of the bill, not one mentioned having made any effort to change their municipality’s zoning ordinance to accommodate tiny houses. In fact, one of the proponents, a resident of South Hampton, was asked during the hearing whether she thought the town would support a zoning change to allow tiny houses. She replied that from talking to residents, she thought they would support such a change. 

What, then, is the problem? If you want to change your town’s zoning, the place to start is the town’s planning board and the town meeting, not the New Hampshire Senate. Traditionally, most legislators support the idea, and we agree, that local problems should be addressed locally, and statewide legislation should be a last resort. Here, as with the short-term rental bill, it is being used as a first resort. If these bills succeed, what is to stop any resident (or non-resident) from running to the legislature for a state-mandated fix for every minor zoning complaint? 

The committee could be voting on these bills as early as next Wednesday, February 19. Please, please, please contact members of the Election Law & Municipal Affairs Committee, and your own senator, and ask them to respect local authority by opposing SB 458 and SB 482.

On Wednesday the House Judiciary Committee heard HB 1226, which would effectively prohibit municipalities from installing surveillance cameras that point at roads and sidewalks, with a $1,000 penalty plus attorney fees for a violation. NHMA opposed the bill. 

The existing surveillance statute, RSA 236:130, prohibits “surveillance” on public ways, defined as “the act of determining the ownership of a motor vehicle or the identity of a motor vehicle's occupants  . . . through the use of a camera or other imaging device. . . that . . . can be used to determine the ownership of a motor vehicle or the identity of a motor vehicle' s occupants.” While the existing statute prohibits the act of determining ownership or identity, HB 1226 would prohibit the use, for any purpose, of a camera merely because it is capable of determining ownership or identity. 

There are several exceptions in the existing law, and although the bill would leave those exceptions in place, many of them would be rendered useless. For example, under current law, a municipality may use its lawfully installed cameras to determine the ownership of a motor vehicle or the identity of its occupants on a case-by-case basis in the investigation of a particular crime. Under the language of this bill, to have that exception apply, a municipality would have to be able to predict that a specific crime was going to occur in the future before it would be allowed to install the cameras. 

More concerning, under the proposed change, any municipality that currently has surveillance cameras on its buildings would have to ensure that the cameras are angled such that any footage of the road or sidewalk is “incidental” to the monitoring of the building. Of course, many municipalities have cameras on their police departments, town halls, public works buildings, recreation buildings, etc., for security purposes, and many of those cameras are aimed directly at the street, for good reason. If there is a burglary or other incident, it’s more useful to have footage of the vehicle dropping the bad guy off in front of the building than just footage of someone in a mask rifling through filing cabinets inside the building. 

Please encourage members of the Judiciary Committee and your own representatives to oppose HB 1226.

On Wednesday the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee voted 11 to 8 to recommend Ought to Pass on amendment 2020-0499h to HB 1684, dealing with a property assessed clean energy (PACE) program for commercial property.   As introduced, the bill established a state loan program for energy conservation and improvement projects involving the Public Utilities Commission, the State Treasury, and the Department of Revenue Administration.   Subsequent to the public hearing (at which NHMA did not testify since this was a state-administered program), the bill was amended to remove all state involvement and to place the authorization of private investments for clean energy efficiency projects into RSA 53-F, the current statute authorizing the establishment of municipal PACE districts and financing. 

RSA 53-F is enabling legislation that was enacted in 2010 and authorizes a financing arrangement for clean energy efficiency projects by tying into the municipal property tax billing, collection, and lien process. While there may be a handful (or less) of municipalities that have established a PACE district, we are not aware of any clean energy efficiency projects that have been financed in those districts pursuant to RSA 53-F.  The amendment to HB 1684 seeks to allow private investments (loans) to eligible commercial and multi-unit residential (five dwelling units or more) clean energy efficiency projects, with the financing of those projects repaid by special assessments on property tax, water, or sewer bills.  The special assessment creates a municipal lien that runs with the property, not with the property owner.  The municipal collection, lien, and deeding provisions of RSA 80 would apply to these special assessments. 

Our concern with RSA 53-F in the past, and more so with the changes proposed in the amendment to HB 1684, is the considerable amount of responsibility, liability, and risk placed on municipalities. While most municipal officials would likely support investment in clean energy projects in their communities, we are concerned with the mechanics of doing so under this legislation.  

We have been told that if the amendment to HB 1684 passes the House, it will then go to a second House committee – the Municipal and County Government Committee – for a public hearing.  We will keep you posted on legislative activity with HB 1684.

On Thursday Governor Sununu presented his State of the State address to a joint session of the House and Senate. In his initial remarks he commented on the record turnout for New Hampshire’s first-in-the-nation primary, acknowledging and crediting “our city and town officials, moderators, clerks and supervisors of the checklist” for a successful primary. 

The governor highlighted several accomplishments during the past year, including the strength of the state’s economy and workforce; property tax relief and education funding provided in the 2020-2021 budget; creating the most accurate, science-based drinking water standards in the country; advancements in dealing with mental health and addiction issues; addressing issues important to seniors and veterans; and more.  The full text of the governor’s State of the State address is available here.  

Thursday, February 13, 2020 

SB 287-FN, requiring the commissioner of the department of environmental services to revise rules relative to perfluorinated chemical contamination in drinking water.  Passed with Amendment. 

SB 305-FN, relative to the establishment of an election information portal. Interim Study. 

SB 422, relative to changes of registration of voters at primary elections.  Passed with Amendment. 

SB 475, enabling municipalities to adopt a property tax credit for densely-built workforce housing.   Passed with Amendment. 

SB 485, relative to the disqualification of certain persons from performing duties as an election official.  Passed. 

SB 488, relative to public inspection of absentee ballot lists.  Inexpedient to Legislate. 

SB 489, relative to the absentee ballot application process.  Inexpedient to Legislate. 

SB 496-FN, relative to municipal water pollution control.  Passed with Amendment; referred to F-S. 

SB 543-FN, relative to group II retirement system status for certain department of corrections officials. Passed. 

SB 560-L, relative to placing Keno on a warrant.  Inexpedient to Legislate. 

SB 563, relative to authorizing the issuance of bonds or notes by a municipality.  Passed. 

SB 616, establishing a committee to study the meals and rooms tax distribution formula.  Inexpedient to Legislate. 

SB 617-FN, relative to a voluntary additional charge in the registry of deeds used to support the land and community heritage investment program (LCHIP), and establishing a committee to study the economic impact of land conservation and to review the LCHIP surcharge to the land and community heritage investment program.  Inexpedient to Legislate. 

SB 659-FN, relative to agricultural and farm motor vehicle plates. Passed with Amendment.