Committee Summary for House Municipal and County Government (01/13/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
Unclear 00:14:07.120 - 9:13:08 AM	General Working Session	Unclear
HB84 01:01:37.319 - 10:00:38 AM	Public Hearing	allowing municipalities to collect fees for certain recreational vehicles located on campground properties.	Faulkner, Barry(D)[CT]2024
HB86 FN 01:27:20.880 - 10:26:21 AM	Public Hearing	increasing the cost of service for notice of civil forfeiture of unlicensed dogs to the rate for certified mail.	St. Clair, Charlie(D)[D-]2024
HB99 01:56:18.440 - 10:55:19 AM	Public Hearing	relative to a waiver from property taxes for disabled veterans.	Moffett, Michael(R)[A-]2024
HB101 03:08:17.479 - 12:07:18 PM	Public Hearing	relative to exempting certain elderly homeowners from paying property taxes.	Belcher, Mike(R)[A]2024
HB110 03:38:04.120 - 12:37:05 PM	Public Hearing	authorizing counties to establish revolving fund accounts.	Trottier, Douglas(R)[B-]2024
HB78 04:01:59.239 - 1:01:00 PM	Public Hearing	requiring a person to have a domicile in the district from which they serve as county commissioner.	Turcotte, Len(R)[A]2024
Unclear 04:33:18.278 - 1:32:19 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

Unclear: Representative Diane Power, Hillsboro County District 36, representing Brookline, Mason, and Greenville Information Only00:14:07.120 - 9:13:08 AM; Representative Diane Power, the chair of the Municipal and County Government Committee, introduced herself and shared her background. She has a Bachelor of Science degree in electrical engineering from Worcester Polytechnic Institute and is a retired digital design engineer and technical instructor. She has lived in New Hampshire for 37 years and is serving her third term in the house, having previously served as vice chairman. Her local government experience includes serving on a Cooperative School District budget committee and volunteering in various roles in her town. She chose this committee due to her interest in municipal law.
Unclear: Representative John McDonald Information Only00:15:38.040 - 9:14:39 AM; Representative John McDonald, the vice chairman, introduced himself. He has been a member of the legislature since 2018 and has served on this committee throughout that time. He holds a bachelor's degree in criminal justice and a law degree from Massachusetts School of Law. After a 30-year career with the New Hampshire State Police, he retired and has since represented clients in China and Vietnam. He has been on the Wolfeboro budget committee for 35 years and looks forward to working with the committee.
Unclear: Representative Marie Bell, Grafton County Information Only00:17:05.799 - 9:16:06 AM; Representative Marie Bell, the clerk, introduced herself. This is her first term in the house and on this committee, which was one of her top three choices. She has a doctorate in physical therapy and runs a private practice in North Haverhill. She is involved with the Grafton County executive committee and aims to contribute to the community that has supported her practice.
Unclear: Representative Laurel Stavis, Grafton County District 313, representing Lebanon Information Only00:18:00.240 - 9:17:01 AM; Representative Laurel Stavis, the ranking member, introduced herself. She represents the city of Lebanon, which has a significant population increase during the day due to the presence of Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center. She has been in the legislature since 2018 and believes this committee is the best in the house. She has served on the Lebanon planning board and is currently on the West Lebanon revitalization advisory committee. She has a degree in music from the New England Conservatory of Music and has worked in administrative roles in higher education.
Unclear: Jim Majori, representing Northampton, Rockingham 23 Information Only00:19:26.000 - 9:18:27 AM; Jim Majori introduced himself as a long-term member of the select board in Northampton, emphasizing his extensive involvement in local government, including roles on the budget committee, planning board, Heritage commission, and Water Commission. He expressed enthusiasm for the Municipal and County Government Committee, praising its effectiveness and cordiality. Majori highlighted the committee's impact on everyday community life and expressed eagerness to continue working together.
Unclear: Tom Dolan, representing Londonderry Information Only00:20:59.320 - 9:20:00 AM; Tom Dolan introduced himself, mentioning his fourth term in the legislature and previous service on the Town Council in Londonderry. He shared his background as a West Point graduate and his service to the country, along with a graduate degree from Pepperdine University. Dolan expressed his familiarity with current emergencies in California and his eagerness to work with the committee, which he considers the best.
Unclear: Joe Guthrie, representing Hampstead, Rockingham 15 Information Only00:22:15.919 - 9:21:16 AM; Joe Guthrie introduced himself, noting his long history in local government, starting from a young age in Massachusetts and continuing in New Hampshire. He shared his experiences as a selectman and his current position, humorously asking for patience due to his age. Guthrie emphasized the committee's impact on local government and welcomed new members, expressing his gladness to be part of the group.
Unclear: Deborah Elward, representing an unspecified town Information Only00:24:43.080 - 9:23:44 AM; Deborah Elward introduced herself, mentioning her move from Washington DC to New Hampshire in 2006 and her transition to a rural lifestyle. She highlighted her past as a private investigator specializing in missing children and her experience on the Private Security Services Advisory Board in Virginia. Elward chose not to serve locally to be more effective as a citizen activist and is serving her second term on the committee, expressing excitement to work with new members.
Unclear: Dennis Murphy, representing Winchester, Cheshire 11 Information Only00:26:34.799 - 9:25:35 AM; Dennis Murphy introduced himself as a new member representing Winchester, mentioning his educational background in plastics and his career as a plastics process engineer. He shared his role as town moderator since 2014 and his long-term residence in New Hampshire, expressing gratitude for the opportunity to serve on the committee.
Unclear: Linda France, Wentworth, Grafton 6 Information Only00:27:12.799 - 9:26:13 AM; Linda France introduced herself as a representative from Wentworth, Grafton district 6, which includes Wentworth, Rumney, and Orford. She mentioned her background in accounting, administration, and finance from Massachusetts, and that she retired to New Hampshire in 2014. After retirement, she volunteered as an administrator for her town for two years, gaining experience in municipal government which led her to choose this committee. She expressed her enthusiasm to work with the committee.
Unclear: David Walker, Rochester Information Only00:28:07.640 - 9:27:08 AM; David Walker introduced himself as a lifelong resident of New Hampshire, living in Rochester for 38 to 40 years. He mentioned his retirement from Pratt & Whitney aircraft as an engineering supervisor and his extensive experience in local government, having served on the Rochester city council since 1995 and as mayor in 2003. He expressed his interest in municipal government as the reason for joining the committee.
Unclear: Sly Kosinski, Swanzey, Cheshire 10 Information Only00:28:49.039 - 9:27:50 AM; Sly Kosinski introduced himself as a resident of Swanzey, serving his third term as a selectman and representing Cheshire district 10, which includes Richmond and Swanzey. He has worked as the superintendent of the North Swanzey Water and Fire Precinct, a former Fire Chief, and assistant moderator in his town. He mentioned his interest in municipal and county government as one of his top choices for committee selection.
Unclear: Julie Gilman, Exeter, Rockingham 11 Information Only00:29:49.279 - 9:28:50 AM; Julie Gilman introduced herself as a representative from Exeter, Rockingham district 11, where she was born and raised. She is serving her fifth term and finishing her 18th year on the Exeter select board. She has worked with various boards and committees, including the planning board, zoning board, and economic development, and contributed to the town's master plan update. She holds a degree in architecture from the Rhode Island School of Design and is eager to work with the committee.
Unclear: David Frock, Enfield, Grafton 16 Information Only00:30:39.320 - 9:29:40 AM; David Frock introduced himself as a representative from Enfield, Grafton district 16, where he has lived since 2009. He is currently serving on the Enfield planning board, which he has chaired for six to seven years, and co-chaired the Master Planning Taskforce to update the town's master plan. He has 25 years of experience on land use boards in New Hampshire and Vermont and is interested in maintaining local control in New Hampshire. He has a degree in Psychology from Western Reserve University and a background in professional communication, including multi-image production and large format printing.
Unclear: Elena Colby, Bow and Hopkinton Information Only00:33:29.440 - 9:32:30 AM; Elena Colby introduced herself as a first-term representative from Bow and Hopkinton, having lived in Bow for 21 years. She is serving her first term on the Bow select board as Vice Chair and is a certified New Hampshire Public Supervisor. She sits on various committees including Hazard Mitigation, Heritage, and Budget. Her background is in automotive management, and she has a passion for local government, having served in various community roles such as PTO president and baseball coach.
Unclear: Dylan Germana, Cheshire 2 and Keene Information Only00:34:10.918 - 9:33:11 AM; Dylan Germana introduced himself as a representative from Cheshire district 2 and Keene, where he has lived for 18 of his 21 years. He is a market leader for Jersey Mike's, overseeing stores in New Hampshire, and is serving his first term on the Keene School Board.
Unclear: Dale Gerard, Sullivan 6, Claremont and Cornish Information Only00:34:41.440 - 9:33:42 AM; Dale Gerard introduced himself as a representative from Sullivan district 6, covering Claremont and Cornish. He holds an Associate's degree in business and a paramedic certificate. A lifelong resident of New Hampshire, he is serving his first term as a state representative. He has also served three terms as a city councilor and is currently in his second term as mayor. He became involved in local government through the airport advisory and planning board, and the Claremont Development Authority.
Unclear: Stephanie Grund, Hillsboro 34, Amherst Information Only00:35:23.680 - 9:34:24 AM; Representative Grund introduced herself, mentioning her educational background from Case Western Reserve University and her professional experience in public accounting. She shared her move to New Hampshire 20 years ago and her first term as a representative. Additionally, she highlighted her involvement as a volunteer for Girl Scouts, in schools, and as the chair of the SAU school board, where she works closely with Selectmen on various community issues including zoning and planning.
Unclear: Jamie Wyman, Committee Assistant Information Only00:36:10.040 - 9:35:11 AM; Jamie Wyman introduced herself as the nonpartisan committee assistant for the Municipal committee and other committees on the same hallway. She explained her responsibilities include sending scheduling notices, maintaining permanent records of bills, and ensuring all committee-related information is accurately listed and available for public review. She also mentioned that committee members could contact her for any needed documents or information.
Unclear: Chair Information Only00:39:40.720 - 9:38:41 AM; The chair provided an overview of the committee orientation, discussing committee meeting notices, the schedule, and the responsibilities of committee members. They emphasized the importance of decorum, explaining rules about electronic devices, sidebar conversations, and the procedure for public hearings and executive sessions. The chair also outlined the process for committee reports, amendments, and anticipated bills, and requested members' contact information for effective communication.
Unclear: Representative Thocker, Swanzey Support00:57:30.359 - 9:56:31 AM; Representative Thocker introduced House Bill 84, which proposes allowing municipalities to collect a fixed fee instead of real estate property taxes from unregistered recreational vehicles (RVs) located on campground properties. He explained the current law's inefficiencies, particularly in tracking and taxing RVs used as seasonal homes, and how the proposed fee, up to $200 annually, would simplify the process and potentially be less than the taxes currently paid.
Unclear: Representative Dolan Information Only01:00:12.720 - 9:59:13 AM; Representative Dolan asked Representative Thocker about the proposed fee structure for the RVs under House Bill 84. Representative Thocker clarified that municipalities could choose to impose a fee up to $200 annually or continue collecting real estate taxes, and this fee would generally be less than the taxes based on the vehicle's original sales price and depreciation.
HB84: Representative Stavis, Sponsor Information Only01:01:37.319 - 10:00:38 AM; Representative Stavis inquired about the rationale behind setting the fee at a maximum of $200 for the bill. He mentioned that the fee was discussed with assessors and is intended to reflect the time spent by Swansea on collecting the tax, rather than the amount collected. The fee is roughly equivalent to what one might pay in property taxes for an RV valued at $8,000, although the method of valuation and taxation of RVs by assessors remains problematic as they are more accustomed to valuing buildings and land.
HB84: Jeremy Sprint, New Hampshire Campground Owners Association Oppose01:03:45.440 - 10:02:46 AM; Jeremy Sprint, representing the New Hampshire Campground Owners Association, expressed opposition to the amendment to HB84. He highlighted the complexity and ambiguity in the amendment's language, which could lead to confusion over whether the fee is meant to supplement or replace existing taxes. Sprint noted the lack of consultation with the association prior to the amendment's introduction, leading to ongoing confusion and conflict over the existing RSA. He provided examples of problematic enforcement by municipalities, including liens on campsites and misapplication of RSAs. Sprint criticized the amendment for unfairly burdening campground owners with tax collection and suggested removing recreational vehicles from the section of the law entirely.
HB84: Michael Branley, Town Administrator for Swansea Support01:08:39.120 - 10:07:40 AM; Michael Branley, the Town Administrator for Swansea, supported HB84, citing the town's experience with taxing unregistered RVs in campgrounds as real estate. He explained that the costs of assessing and collecting these taxes far outweigh the revenue generated, with the town only retaining a small fraction of the collected amount. Branley discussed the challenges of taxing RVs, including the lack of a deed to lien, leading to difficulties in enforcement. He endorsed HB84's proposal to replace the tax with a fee on campgrounds, which would simplify collection and eliminate many of the current issues. He indicated openness to other solutions that address the problem.
HB84: Representative Walker, Rochester Information Only01:12:29.520 - 10:11:30 AM; Representative Walker from Rochester asked if Swansea's campgrounds had RVs with permanent additions like enclosed porches, which could qualify as real estate. Michael Branley responded that their focus was primarily on the RVs themselves and not on such improvements, though he offered to check with the assessor.
HB84: Richard Sullivan, Harbor Hill Campground, Meredith Oppose01:13:48.280 - 10:12:49 AM; Richard Sullivan, representing Harbor Hill Campground in Meredith, opposed HB84, arguing that it unfairly targets campgrounds compared to other property owners. He recounted his experience since 2013 when the Department of Revenue Administration began enforcing the taxation of unregistered RVs and trailers. Sullivan highlighted the inconsistency in how the law is applied, noting that while his campground is assessed annually, other properties in Meredith with similar structures are not taxed as frequently or at all. He criticized the enforcement of the bill as unfair and suggested a more equitable approach to taxation that includes all relevant structures across the town.
HB84: Brody Dees, Hampshire Municipal Association Support01:17:21.199 - 10:16:22 AM; Brody Dees, representing the Hampshire Municipal Association, supports House Bill 84. He explained that the bill was requested by the town of Swansea and a few others to address the financial challenges they face in assessing and collecting taxes on unregistered RVs. The current system results in financial losses or minimal profits for towns, as they struggle to assess these RVs within a tight timeline. Dees emphasized that the bill aims to streamline the process, making it more workable and fair for towns to collect the revenue they are entitled to under state law. He expressed hope that this bill would allow campgrounds to collect fees from individuals who do not register their RVs, which could then be included in property tax bills, simplifying the process for communities.
HB84: Dave Bankus, Wolfeboro, Treasurer of the New Hampshire Campground Association Oppose01:19:59.159 - 10:19:00 AM; Dave Bankus, from Wolfeboro and the Treasurer of the New Hampshire Campground Association, initially supported the idea of a $200 fee for his wife's assessor work but opposed it upon realizing it was an additional charge, not a replacement for existing taxes. He expressed confusion about the bill's intent after the sponsor clarified it was in lieu of taxation. Bankus shared historical context about RV taxation, highlighting the challenges and inequities in taxing RVs as real estate, particularly when compared to similar items outside of campgrounds that are not taxed. He cited examples where campgrounds had to pay for tax liens on RVs that had left without notice, illustrating the practical and fairness issues with the current system. Bankus concluded that while he could support the bill if it were in lieu of the current tax system, he remains opposed if it adds to the existing tax burden.
HB86 FN: Representative St Clair, Laconia Support01:27:20.880 - 10:26:21 AM; Representative St Clair, the prime sponsor of House Bill 86, introduced the bill aimed at adjusting the cost of service for civil forfeiture notices of unlicensed dogs to match the rate of certified mail. He highlighted the issue in Laconia and statewide where the cost of mailing notices has increased, yet the fee for sending these notices has not, resulting in a subsidy by taxpayers for those who do not register their dogs. He mentioned that the city clerk from Laconia would provide further details.
HB86 FN: Katie Gargano, City Clerk, Laconia Support01:29:30.520 - 10:28:31 AM; Katie Gargano, the city clerk of Laconia, supported House Bill 86, explaining that the city shares an animal control officer with two other communities and had to send 300 notices last year, incurring a cost of $964 while only being able to collect $7 per letter, resulting in a significant loss. She emphasized the need for the bill to cover the municipality's increasing expenses for sending notices as required by law.
HB86 FN: Tina Guilford, Town Clerk, Derry Support01:32:21.960 - 10:31:22 AM; Tina Guilford, the town clerk of Derry, supported House Bill 86, sharing similar issues with Laconia. She mentioned that Derry licenses over 7,000 dogs annually and had to send out over 1,200 civil forfeiture letters in 2024, a process that takes several days and results in significant costs not covered by the current fee structure. Guilford argued that the bill is a simple solution that would ensure those who fail to license their dogs bear the cost, rather than the taxpayers.
HB86 FN: Tammy Bakey, Town Clerk and Tax Collector, Kingston Support01:34:13.080 - 10:33:14 AM; Tammy Bakey, representing the New Hampshire City and Town Clerks Association and Kingston, supported House Bill 86. She highlighted the financial impact on small towns like Kingston, where the cost of mailing civil forfeiture notices exceeds the amount clerks can recoup. Bakey respectfully asked for support in amending the RSA to reflect the actual cost of mailing.
HB86 FN: Daniel Healey, City Clerk, Nashua Support01:36:04.360 - 10:35:05 AM; Daniel Healey, the city clerk of Nashua, supported House Bill 86, noting that Nashua licenses about 10,500 dogs annually and had to send about 2,000 civil forfeiture notices last year. He emphasized the significant cost to the city and the unanimous support from clerks across the state for the bill, which he sees as a straightforward solution to an ongoing issue.
HB86 FN: Representative Joe Alexander, Gooffstown Support01:38:20.880 - 10:37:21 AM; Representative Joe Alexander, the prime sponsor of the bill, discussed the purpose of HB86, which aims to address potential separation of powers issues at the local level. He highlighted that under the current law, individuals can serve on both the Planning and Zoning Boards simultaneously, which could lead to conflicts of interest when decisions are appealed from one board to another. Alexander argued for a statewide policy to prevent this overlap, suggesting that appeals should be heard by entirely new committees to ensure fairness and impartiality. He mentioned that the last time a similar bill was considered was in 1993 and noted that the issue still persists in some municipalities. He expressed hope that the committee would view the bill favorably and mentioned a constituent present to testify.
HB86 FN: Representative Dolan Information Only01:40:10.159 - 10:39:11 AM; Representative Dolan inquired about the applicability of the bill to appointed positions on the Planning and Zoning Boards, asking if the bill's restrictions would extend to non-elected members. Alexander confirmed that the bill applies to both elected and appointed members.
HB86 FN: Representative Frock Information Only01:40:46.760 - 10:39:47 AM; Representative Frock asked if requiring recusal from a hearing on the second board could serve the same purpose as the bill. Alexander responded that it could, but emphasized existing mechanisms in the RSA that already prevent serving on multiple boards in certain scenarios, suggesting that a consistent policy for Planning and Zoning Boards would be beneficial.
HB86 FN: Representative Elward Information Only01:41:45.520 - 10:40:46 AM; Representative Elward expressed confusion over the bill's language, particularly regarding the definition of local land use boards. Alexander clarified that the bill aims to prevent any two members from serving on two different boards simultaneously, including Conservation Commissions, and believed the language was clear.
HB86 FN: Unnamed Speaker Information Only01:43:41.440 - 10:42:42 AM; An unnamed speaker sought clarification on the scope of local land use boards as defined in the bill, asking Alexander to list them. Alexander named three: Planning Board, Zoning Board, and Conservation Commissions, and reiterated that the bill's intent was to ensure separation of powers.
HB86 FN: Representative Gilman Information Only01:44:32.320 - 10:43:33 AM; Representative Gilman, who has served on a zoning board, asked if the bill might affect towns struggling to find volunteers for these positions. Alexander acknowledged the difficulty but stressed that the separation of powers issue was more critical, suggesting that mechanisms exist to appoint members in such cases. He also connected the issue to the broader housing crisis, emphasizing the importance of impartial decision-making.
HB86 FN: Unnamed Speaker (Follow-up to Gilman) Information Only01:46:26.960 - 10:45:27 AM; A follow-up question was posed regarding the potential benefits of having a member from one board explain decisions to another, citing examples like the HDC and Heritage Commission. Alexander acknowledged the point but maintained that the bill's intent was to ensure separation of powers, leaving the decision in the committee's hands.
HB86 FN: Unnamed Speaker (Follow-up to Gilman) Information Only01:46:26.960 - 10:45:27 AM; The speaker concluded their testimony regarding the role of a representative on a board, suggesting that whether the member should be a voting member is up to the discretion of the board. They mentioned the validity of having a representative on the board.
HB86 FN: Representative Elward Information Only01:47:01.159 - 10:46:02 AM; Representative Elward questioned the impact of the proposed law on existing board members serving on multiple boards. They asked about the automatic resignation of members and the potential lack of quorum. The response indicated that the Municipal Association would notify towns of changes, and appointed members could fill vacancies until the next town election.
HB86 FN: Mr. Phil Juro Oppose01:49:01.440 - 10:48:02 AM; Mr. Juro expressed opposition to the bill, citing personal experiences with town politics and zoning ordinances. He discussed issues with sign ordinances and the recusal of board members, arguing that there was a conflict of interest when the same individuals were involved in both creating and enforcing ordinances. He emphasized the need for separation of powers and criticized the judicial handling of his case, suggesting that the current system allows for abuse of power.
HB99: Representative Mike Moffett, Merrimack District 4, representing Londonderry, Loudon, and Canterbury Support01:56:18.440 - 10:55:19 AM; Representative Moffett introduced HB99, which proposes to change the maximum disabled veterans tax credit from $700 to 100% of the local property tax. He explained that this is enabling legislation, allowing municipalities to optionally adopt the tax credit to help veterans like Mr. Jones in Anytown, who might otherwise be forced to leave their home due to financial hardship. Moffett highlighted the need for documentation of a veteran's total disability status through VA certification and discussed potential concerns about the impact on other grants, suggesting these concerns might be unfounded.
HB99: Representative Walker Information Only02:01:20.719 - 11:00:21 AM; Representative Walker sought clarification on how the tax credit would be applied if adopted by a town, questioning whether it would be a blanket policy or individualized. Representative Moffett responded that it would be preferable for communities to have a mechanism to address different circumstances, but he was unsure of the exact implementation. It was later clarified that if the bill became law, it would appear on the town warrant and be voted upon, applying to all eligible veterans if passed.
HB99: Representative Dolan Information Only02:03:46.719 - 11:02:47 AM; Representative Dolan asked a question about the proposed change in the bill, seeking clarification on whether the community has the option to vote to increase the tax credit amount from $700 up to a percentage of the tax value, possibly up to 100%, but with the discretion to choose a lower percentage based on financial analysis.
HB99: Representative MAF Information Only02:04:48.199 - 11:03:49 AM; Representative MAF responded to Representative Dolan's question, confirming that the bill allows municipalities the discretion to increase the tax credit to any percentage up to 100%, not necessarily requiring a blanket 100% across the community. They discussed the variability in property valuations and how this could affect the tax credit amounts for different individuals.
HB99: Representative Colby Information Only02:06:38.760 - 11:05:39 AM; Representative Colby inquired about the impact of the proposed change on RSA 72:35 and how it would affect the veterans exemption in RSA 72:36 for certain disabled veterans. The response was that the exact details were not immediately clear but could be found readily.
HB99: Representative France Information Only02:07:31.400 - 11:06:32 AM; Representative France asked if the town could adopt a specific percentage for the tax credit, such as 70%, and whether it would apply uniformly to all totally disabled veterans. The response was that the bill specifically applies to 100% disabled veterans, but the town's discretion in setting a percentage less than 100% was unclear.
HB99: Representative Stavis Information Only02:09:17.400 - 11:08:18 AM; Representative Stavis questioned whether the existing conditions for veterans to receive a tax credit under current law would still apply with the new bill. The response was that the bill did not restate all conditions, assuming they remain the same as in the current statute.
HB99: Representative Majori Information Only02:10:37.000 - 11:09:38 AM; Representative Majori asked if the Assessing Association was contacted about the bill and whether they were present to testify. The response was that the association was not contacted, and no representatives were present.
HB99: Madam Chair Information Only02:11:30.559 - 11:10:31 AM; The Madam Chair asked why the bill was necessary given existing RSA 72:36a, which already provides a 100% exemption for certain disabled veterans. The response was that the bill was intended to cover a perceived gap in existing law, though the exact nature of this gap was unclear.
HB99: Representative Gilman Information Only02:16:17.880 - 11:15:18 AM; Representative Gilman followed up on the Madam Chair's question about the potential conflict between RSA 72:36 and the new bill, specifically regarding special home adaptations. The response deferred to Representative Sudor, who was expected to address this issue in detail.
HB99: Representative John Sudor Information Only02:17:30.398 - 11:16:31 AM; Representative Sudor was introduced to speak next, with a request to keep remarks brief due to time constraints. He was expected to address the specific issues related to the bill's impact on existing RSA and the perceived gaps it was meant to fill.
HB99: Representative from the town of Mason Support02:18:03.240 - 11:17:04 AM; The representative emphasized the importance of addressing veterans' issues, particularly regarding their understanding of benefits and exemptions. They shared a personal commitment to helping veterans navigate the complexities of the law and benefits. They explained that their town, Mason, addresses each request for a VA exemption on an individual basis, as each veteran's situation is unique. They also clarified misunderstandings about certain housing grants (S and SHA) and how the VA hospital in Manchester can assist with home modifications. They stressed the need for clearer language in the law to ensure veterans can access necessary support without unnecessary restrictions.
HB99: Mora Ryan, US Army Retired, Veteran Advocate Support02:24:05.000 - 11:23:06 AM; Mora Ryan, a retired US Army veteran and advocate, spoke in favor of the bill, highlighting the challenges veterans face in obtaining sufficient support for tax credits. They pointed out that the cost of VA compensation and pension has not kept pace with inflation, making it difficult for many 100% disabled veterans to remain in their homes. Ryan supported the bill's provision allowing towns to offer a 100% property tax exemption to these veterans. They also discussed the limitations of certain grants and the need for flexibility in the law to accommodate different veterans' needs.
HB99: Adam Devan, Department of Revenue Administration Information Only02:30:27.040 - 11:29:28 AM; Adam Devan from the Department of Revenue Administration provided technical information about the bill. He explained that a percentage credit between 1 and 100% is not feasible for tax rate calculations due to the need to know the exact credit amount at the time of calculation. He suggested that the bill should be amended to reference a full property tax exemption rather than a credit. Devan also clarified the distinction between different statutes related to veterans' disabilities and exemptions.
HB101: Representative Belcher, Carroll County District 4, Wakefield Support03:08:17.479 - 12:07:18 PM; Representative Belcher introduced House Bill 101, which aims to exempt certain elderly homeowners from property taxes. The bill targets homeowners aged 72 and above who have been continuous New Hampshire residents for 10 years and have owned their property for at least two years. The exemption applies to the first $530,000 of the home's value, aligning with the median home price at the time of the bill's creation. Belcher expressed concerns about the financial health of seniors, pointing out that real inflation significantly impacts their fixed incomes, making it difficult to afford property taxes. The bill is designed to provide relief to long-term residents without drastically reducing town revenues. It also addresses concerns about shifting tax burdens to younger families, suggesting that the focus should be on reducing government spending. Additionally, Belcher noted that the bill could encourage families to care for elderly parents at home, potentially reducing costs associated with nursing homes.
HB101: Representative Stavis Information Only03:13:17.520 - 12:12:18 PM; Representative Stavis questioned the applicability of the bill to elderly individuals who are still working and have substantial net worth. Representative Belcher responded that the bill does not discriminate based on employment status or net worth but focuses on age and residency criteria.
HB101: Representative Elwood Information Only03:14:21.359 - 12:13:22 PM; Representative Elwood inquired about the average lifespan of Americans. Representative Belcher mentioned that while he did not have the exact figure for Americans, he had researched that the average lifespan for New Hampshire residents is around 76 to 77 years.
HB101: Representative Frock Information Only03:15:04.439 - 12:14:05 PM; Representative Frock asked if the bill addresses the portion of rent that goes to property taxes for renters. Representative Belcher clarified that the bill only applies to property owners and does not address renters, as it would be complex to include them in such legislation.
HB101: Representative Major Information Only03:16:08.800 - 12:15:09 PM; Representative Major inquired about the definition of 'residents' in the bill, noting existing definitions in RSA 216 and 654. They were curious about the rationale behind creating a new definition specific to this bill. The response clarified that the new definition was intended to apply only to this bill and was crafted to address confusion in existing law, specifically to exempt only the residential portion of properties from valuation.
HB101: Representative Gilman Information Only03:17:15.279 - 12:16:16 PM; Representative Gilman followed up on Representative Major's question about the exclusion of attached dwelling units from the definition of residents. They expressed concern that this could affect elderly individuals wanting to live separately from their families, suggesting that accessory dwelling units might be a solution. The response clarified that the bill aims to exempt only commercial or non-residential dwelling units.
HB101: Representative Dolan Information Only03:18:17.160 - 12:17:18 PM; Representative Dolan raised concerns about potential exploitation of the proposed tax exemption by having elderly family members move in to benefit from the exemption. They suggested amending the bill to require the elderly to have lived at the address for over 10 years instead of just in the state. The response explained that the bill aims to incentivize family care for the elderly and includes a 2-year ownership requirement for the exemption, addressing potential gaming of the system.
HB101: Representative Walker Information Only03:21:55.160 - 12:20:56 PM; Representative Walker questioned the ambiguity of the term 'homeowner' in the context of the bill, particularly regarding properties held in trusts or transferred to family members with lifetime tenancy. The response clarified that the bill intentionally did not address trusts, as they are already used for tax purposes, and aimed to support average elderly homeowners.
HB101: Representative Stavis Information Only03:22:32.800 - 12:21:33 PM; Representative Stavis questioned the choice of age 72 as the threshold for the elderly exemption, suggesting it seemed arbitrary. The response noted that the age was chosen after extensive research to balance the goal of allowing elderly individuals to stay in their homes with the impact on local revenues.
HB101: Representative Colby Information Only03:23:47.160 - 12:22:48 PM; Representative Colby discussed the current statewide exemption for the elderly amounting to $1.1 billion in 2023 and asked about projections for the increase in this amount given the demographic trends of an aging population. The response acknowledged the complexity of predicting increases, noting that many eligible might already be receiving exemptions under current laws.
HB101: Representative Murphy Information Only03:24:50.600 - 12:23:51 PM; Representative Murphy asked if the bill included exemptions for early onset Alzheimer's or other types of dementia. The response clarified that the bill does not target disabilities, as those exemptions already exist in law, and reiterated that the bill proposes a universal age-based exemption, with flexibility on the exact age threshold.
HB101: Representative Guthrie Information Only03:25:47.359 - 12:24:48 PM; Representative Guthrie asked a question regarding the absence of financial requirements for an abatement in the bill. The question was clarified by stating that the bill aims to create a blanket exemption based on age and length of residency, not a means-tested tax exemption.
HB101: Michael Branley Information Only03:27:05.760 - 12:26:06 PM; Michael Branley from the town of Swansea was scheduled to testify but was not present at the hearing.
HB101: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) Oppose03:27:05.760 - 12:26:06 PM; Brody Dees from NHMA expressed opposition to the bill, highlighting concerns about the potential tax burden shift and the lack of means testing. He noted that the exemption could affect a broad group of taxpayers, leading to a significant shift in tax burden to those not qualifying for the exemption. He also mentioned ambiguities in the bill's language that could complicate its implementation by assessors and the potential for increased reporting requirements. Dees emphasized that while it's a local option, the complexity and potential impact on taxpayers are significant reasons for opposition.
HB101: Representative Majory Information Only03:33:32.640 - 12:32:33 PM; Representative Majory asked about the interaction between the proposed bill and the existing elderly tax exemption under RSA 72:39-a. Brody Dees responded that NHMA believes they would work together, although this might be better clarified by the Department of Revenue Administration.
HB110: Representative Douglas Traer, Belknap County District 8 Support03:38:04.120 - 12:37:05 PM; Representative Traer introduced HB110, which would allow counties to establish revolving fund accounts for special details or paid services. He explained that this would enable counties to manage budgets more effectively by reducing the need for large appropriations in certain lines, thus saving taxpayers money. The bill is not mandatory but provides counties with the option to participate. Traer highlighted the need for such a fund due to the increasing reliance on county law enforcement for services typically provided by state and local agencies, which can be delayed or denied under current funding constraints.
HB110: Representative Walker Information Only03:43:45.680 - 12:42:46 PM; Representative Walker asked about the management of funds in the proposed revolving fund, specifically if over-appropriated funds could be shifted to other projects or departments. Representative Traer clarified that the fund would maintain a set amount, with any surplus going to the general fund for appropriation by the Commissioners or delegation.
HB110: Representative Colby Information Only03:44:45.640 - 12:43:46 PM; Representative Colby inquired about the authorized agents who would expend the funds from the revolving account. Representative Traer explained that it would be the sheriff or a supervisor within the department who would authorize the expenditure, with the budget amount determined during the budget process by the Commissioners and delegation.
HB110: Representative Guthrie Information Only03:45:46.880 - 12:44:47 PM; Representative Guthrie questioned the mechanics of withdrawing funds from the revolving fund, expressing concern that it might function as a 'slush fund'. Representative Traer clarified that the fund would be a line item in the budget, used specifically for paying deputies for outside details, with reimbursement from private companies replenishing the fund up to an agreed maximum amount.
HB110: Representative Stavis Information Only03:48:30.000 - 12:47:31 PM; Representative Stavis inquired about the establishment of the fund mentioned in the bill, specifically asking how the fund gets established. They were informed that the county commission would need to vote to establish a revolving fund line during their budget process, with the amount agreed upon being reviewed by the county delegation.
HB110: Representative Grund Information Only03:49:34.439 - 12:48:35 PM; Representative Grund asked for clarification on who constitutes the legislative body mentioned in the bill, questioning whether it refers to the county delegation or the county commission. They noted that the legislative body would adopt the revolving fund, and the delegation would review the budget amount.
HB110: Representative France Information Only03:50:45.880 - 12:49:46 PM; Representative France sought confirmation on whether there would be only one initial deposit into the account from the county budget when establishing the account. It was affirmed that there would be one deposit, which would come from taxpayer funds.
HB110: Representative Gr Information Only03:51:41.840 - 12:50:42 PM; Representative Gr expressed concern about the possibility of transferring money out of the public safety fund to other accounts, like heating, and then reestablishing the fund with other revenue. They were told that such transfers would be up to the Commissioners, but the fund should maintain a certain amount, with any excess revenue going into the general fund.
HB110: Representative Stavis Information Only03:52:32.840 - 12:51:33 PM; Representative Stavis followed up on a previous question regarding the establishment of multiple revolving funds for different purposes. They were unsure about the possibility of moving funds between different revolving funds and requested further clarification on the matter.
HB110: Jim McIntyre, Belknap County Sheriff's Department Support03:54:06.040 - 12:53:07 PM; Jim McIntyre, Chief Deputy of the Belknap County Sheriff's Department, testified in support of the bill. He explained the operational issues with the current line item system for outside details, which often leads to overspending and requires additional budget requests. He supported the establishment of a revolving fund to manage these expenses more efficiently, starting with seed money and replenishing it with revenue from the details.
HB110: Representative Guthrie Information Only03:57:12.319 - 12:56:13 PM; Representative Guthrie questioned the operational challenges faced by the Sheriff's Department, particularly the lack of a process to recover overspent funds from the line item for outside details. They discussed the need for a law to rectify this issue and suggested that the bill could parallel the municipal use of revolving funds to improve accounting practices.
HB110: Representative Majori Information Only03:59:23.159 - 12:58:24 PM; Representative Majori sought clarification on the definition of 'volunteers acting outside of the ordinary detail' within the context of the bill. They were informed that this language pertains to outside detail duties where sheriff's deputies perform tasks such as serving writs and precepts from the court, which are voluntary duties outside of their regular job description.
HB110: Representative Gerard Information Only03:59:54.040 - 12:58:55 PM; Representative Gerard confirmed with the Sheriff that an $80,000 expenditure line in the budget would be matched by an $80,000 revenue line item, as the funds would be collected back. He expressed a desire for discussions on revenues and expenses to be conducted in parallel, noting that this is often not the case.
HB78: Representative Turot Support04:01:59.239 - 1:01:00 PM; Representative Turot introduced HB78, explaining it as a corrective measure to an oversight in a previous bill concerning the election of county commissioners by district in Strafford County. The previous bill districted Strafford County, but an individual was elected who lived outside their district. Turot explained that the new bill aims to clarify that commissioners must be domiciled in the district they represent, specifically addressing Strafford County. They mentioned an upcoming amendment by Senator Gray that would further clarify the bill, recommending its adoption. The bill includes provisions to ensure the current commissioner can continue serving until the next general election in 2026, despite the domicile issue.
HB78: Representative Stavis Information Only04:07:44.080 - 1:06:45 PM; Representative Stavis asked for clarification on the domicile requirement within the bill, noting a discrepancy between the bill's text referring to the county and Representative Turot's testimony referring to the district. Turot clarified that the bill covers all county officials having a domicile in the county, with a more specific requirement for commissioners to be domiciled in their district.
HB78: Unnamed Representative Information Only04:09:37.760 - 1:08:38 PM; An unnamed representative asked about the process for filling a vacancy in the commissioner position in Strafford County, specifically whether it would be filled by the county delegation or by an election. Representative Turot responded that it would likely be filled by an election but suggested that Senator Gray's amendment might address this issue more clearly.
HB78: James Gray, Senator from District Six representing Alton, Gilmanton, Rochester, and Strafford Information Only04:12:07.080 - 1:11:08 PM; Senator Gray clarified that the document presented to the committee was not an amendment for their consideration but what he would submit in his committee if the bill passes. He emphasized the importance of maintaining a single domicile for voting purposes as per RSA 654:1, and suggested changes to lines 5 and 8 in the bill to reflect this. He also discussed the implications of a commissioner moving out of their district and the need for any replacement to live within the district. He mentioned a potential vacancy scenario and the importance of the domicile requirement in such cases. He expressed no objection to the committee incorporating his amendment into their bill before it moves to the Senate.
HB78: Kelly Penza, Representative from Strafford District 19, representing Rochester Wards 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6 Support04:20:17.880 - 1:19:18 PM; Representative Penza expressed support for the bill, noting that it addresses an oversight from previous legislation concerning domicile requirements for county commissioners. She discussed how the issue affected Strafford County, particularly in District 3, where a commissioner does not reside within the district they represent. She also mentioned a conflicting RSA regarding the appointment of a new commissioner and her intention to follow up on this issue.
HB78: Alvin C, Representative from Representative Alvin See, Merrimack County District 26, representing a float district with 8 towns Information Only04:24:30.960 - 1:23:31 PM; Representative C supported the amendment proposed by Senator Gray, emphasizing the importance of maintaining domicile within the district for the term of office. He suggested modifications to the bill, particularly regarding how vacancies should be filled to ensure the appointee resides in the district. He also proposed considering staggered implementation for Strafford County's three districts to address current non-conformity.
HB78: Susan Rice, resident of Rochester, New Hampshire Support04:26:47.319 - 1:25:48 PM; Susan Rice supported the bill and Senator Gray's amendment, noting her involvement in following the bill's progress and testifying at the Ballot Law Commission. She emphasized the need to bring Strafford County into conformance with other counties in New Hampshire regarding domicile requirements. She mentioned that the issue in District Two would be resolved by the 2026 election if the bill passes.
HB78: Brian Cherichello, former County Commissioner of Rockingham County and former State Representative Information Only04:27:57.920 - 1:26:58 PM; Brian Cherichello, while neutral on the bill, wanted to point out certain aspects related to it. However, the transcript cuts off before he could elaborate further on his points.
HB78: Brian Cherichello, former County Commissioner of Rockingham County and former State Representative Information Only04:28:43.800 - 1:27:44 PM; Brian Cherichello discussed the importance of the language in the bill, particularly focusing on the phrase 'at the time of his election.' He shared a personal experience from his time as a County Commissioner in Rockingham County where a commissioner moved to a different district after being elected but continued to serve due to the interpretation of the mentioned phrase. Cherichello argued that this situation was ethically wrong and highlighted the need for the committee to review and possibly amend the language to prevent similar occurrences. He also mentioned his previous attempt to address this issue with Representative Barbara Griffin, which was unsuccessful due to timing. He concluded by urging the committee to consider the implications of the language, even with Senator Gray's amendment that included the word 'maintain,' suggesting a deeper review to ensure clarity and fairness in representation.
HB78: Unnamed Speaker Information Only04:31:39.159 - 1:30:40 PM; The unnamed speaker, following Brian Cherichello's testimony, engaged in a dialogue about Senator Gray's amendment to HB78. The speaker expressed concerns over the term 'maintain' in the amendment, suggesting it might not fully address the issues raised by Cherichello. The speaker appreciated Representative Turot for sharing the amendment and emphasized the need for further review to ensure that the language does not allow elected officials to exploit technicalities, as happened in the case of the commissioner in Rockingham County. The speaker also noted Senator Gray's willingness to make further amendments if necessary.
Unclear: Chair Information Only04:33:18.278 - 1:32:19 PM; The Chair provided updates on future meeting schedules for the committee, clarifying dates and addressing potential conflicts due to holidays and other commitments. The Chair mentioned tentative plans to meet on Thursdays, specifically noting the weeks of January 19th, January 26th, and February 16th, and the last week of February during the school winter recess. The Chair also addressed a question from Representative France about handling county commitments, stating that the committee would not meet on a particular Monday due to the absence of several members, and suggested discussing executive session logistics offline.

Pauer, Diane(Chairman)(R)[A]2024	Bjelobrk, Marie Louise(Clerk)(R)	MacDonald, John(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2024
Germana, Dylan(D)	Fracht, David(D)[F]2024	Guthrie, Joseph(R)[B-]2024
Gilman, Julie(D)[CT]2024	Grund, Stephanie(D)	Stavis, Laurel(D)[CT]2024
Karasinski, Sly(R)	Maggiore, Jim(D)[CT]2024	Dolan, Tom(R)[B+]2024
Aylward, Deborah(R)[A-]2024	Walker, David(R)	Colby, Eleana (D)
Girard, Dale(D)	Franz, Linda(R)	Murphy, Denis(R)