Committee Summary for House Municipal and County Government (02/04/2025)

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
HB689 00:08:54.640 - 8:37:40 AM	Public Hearing	enabling municipalities to adopt a volunteer incentive property tax credit.	Hemingway, Wayne(R)
HB766 00:37:01.319 - 9:05:47 AM	Public Hearing	enabling municipalities to adopt an exemption from the local education property tax for certain elderly residents.	McMahon, Charles(R)[A-]2024
HB625 01:13:15.760 - 9:42:01 AM	Public Hearing	relative to enabling municipalities to levy payments against non-profits at a percentage of their assessed property values.	Bolton, Bill(D)[CT]2024
HB147 01:56:42.880 - 10:25:28 AM	Public Hearing	relative to clarifying tax exemptions for properties used by religious, educational, and charitable organizations.	Mooney, Maureen(R)[B+]2024
HB426 2025-141H 02:29:29.760 - 10:58:15 AM	Public Hearing	relative to property tax exemptions for charitable organizations for the prior tax year.	MacDonald, John(R)[B+]2024
HB617 03:34:51.279 - 12:03:37 PM	Public Hearing	relative to the homestead right.	Litchfield, Melissa(R)[A-]2022
HB425 04:01:28.399 - 12:30:14 PM	Public Hearing	allowing tax-exempt entities to keep their tax-exempt status while renting facilities or property to entities that share their mission.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B-]2024
HB421 04:21:46.159 - 12:50:32 PM	Public Hearing	relative to notice of tax exempt-status filing procedures by town officials or offices.	Pearson, Mark(R)[B-]2024
HB782 04:52:49.280 - 1:21:35 PM	Public Hearing	expanding property tax exemptions for certain elderly and disabled persons; raising public awareness regarding tax credits and exemptions; and requiring an annual report regarding the efficacy of the low and moderate income homeowners property tax relief program.	Manohar, Sanjeev(D)
HB458 05:12:06.920 - 1:40:52 PM	Public Hearing	limiting local assistance to U.S. citizens or permanent legal residents.	Roy, Terry(R)[B]2024
Unclear 05:24:14.718 - 1:53:00 PM	General Working Session	Unclear

HB689: Representative Hemingway Support00:08:54.640 - 8:37:40 AM; Representative Hemingway introduced House Bill 689, which aims to enable municipalities to offer a volunteer incentive property tax credit specifically targeting elderly individuals and veterans. The bill would allow these groups to earn a tax credit by volunteering in community services such as community centers, area beautification, and event planning. Hemingway highlighted the benefits for both the community, which would receive needed help, and the volunteers, who would gain social interaction and a sense of community pride. She mentioned that the tax credit would be up to $1500 and could help municipalities reduce part-time employee expenses. She also noted that similar programs exist in other states like Massachusetts, Maine, New York, Oregon, and Pennsylvania. Hemingway expressed openness to amendments, such as increasing the hourly rate from the proposed $7.25.
HB689: Representative Walker Information Only00:11:27.399 - 8:40:13 AM; Representative Walker asked about the administrative burden of tracking volunteer hours for the proposed tax credit. They questioned who would handle the record-keeping within municipalities and expressed concern about the proposed hourly rate of $7.25 being too low, suggesting a potential amendment to increase it.
HB689: Representative Gilman Information Only00:12:48.040 - 8:41:34 AM; Representative Gilman raised a concern about the need for an amendment due to the bill's reference to RSA 72:39-c, which had previously been found inexpedient to legislate in another bill, HB1110. They clarified that the reference in HB689 was to a statute, not directly to the other bill.
HB689: Representative Grundt Information Only00:14:16.360 - 8:43:02 AM; Representative Grundt discussed the potential administrative burden on smaller towns, using Amherst as an example, where volunteer activities like garden clubs and trail maintenance are not centrally tracked. They questioned how towns unprepared for such tracking would manage the additional workload.
HB689: Representative Frock Information Only00:15:21.320 - 8:44:07 AM; Representative Frock asked if the proposed tax credit would be in addition to or instead of existing tax exemptions for veterans and if the bill could extend to volunteers serving on town committees and boards. Hemingway clarified that the credit would be additional and not applicable to elected or appointed positions on committees and boards, as those roles are filled by choice and application.
HB689: Representative Colby Information Only00:17:35.480 - 8:46:21 AM; Representative Colby inquired about the implications of classifying volunteers as employees under HB689, specifically regarding insurance costs and training requirements. They questioned whether there would be additional costs to municipalities or specific training needed for volunteers. The response indicated that any additional costs would likely be covered under existing comprehensive or injury insurance, suggesting no significant increase in costs.
HB689: Representative Elward Information Only00:19:04.520 - 8:47:50 AM; Representative Elward asked if volunteers considered as employees under the bill would receive a 1099 form from the town. The response clarified that volunteers would not receive a 1099 since they are not paid but receive a tax abatement or incentive, which does not meet the threshold for issuing a 1099.
HB689: Representative Majori Information Only00:20:26.240 - 8:49:12 AM; Representative Majori expressed confusion about why volunteers need to be classified as employees and inquired if this classification was suggested by the Office of Legislative Services. The response indicated that the language was not originally proposed by the bill's sponsor but was added later, emphasizing that it's more about recognition and liability coverage than actual employment status.
HB689: Representative Gilman Information Only00:21:42.720 - 8:50:28 AM; Representative Gilman corrected a previous reference to a different bill (HB101) and asked about the handling of personal information that volunteers might access. The response was that there is no reference to personal information in the bill.
HB689: Representative Grund Information Only00:22:52.520 - 8:51:38 AM; Representative Grund questioned at what point a volunteer's role might cross into being considered an employee, using the example of a volunteer using a city vehicle. The response was that volunteers would not typically operate city vehicles due to higher liability and that any such scenario might require moving the volunteer to a part-time or full-time position.
HB689: Representative Walker Information Only00:24:05.679 - 8:52:51 AM; Representative Walker asked about the timing of receiving a tax credit for volunteer work, specifically if one could sign up before April 1 but delay the work until later in the year. The response clarified that the tax credit is based on actual hours worked and would not be granted until the work is performed.
HB689: Representative Colby Information Only00:25:19.279 - 8:54:05 AM; Representative Colby sought clarification on the distinction between employees and volunteers under the bill. They asked if municipal employee policies such as background checks and drug testing would apply to volunteers if they were treated as employees. This question was aimed at understanding the potential administrative implications of the bill.
HB689: Representative Walker Information Only00:26:04.880 - 8:54:50 AM; In response to Representative Colby's question, Representative Walker explained that most volunteer positions under the bill would not require the same checks and training as municipal employees. They mentioned examples like helping at a community center or park events, suggesting these roles would not typically need such scrutiny.
HB689: Representative Murphy Information Only00:26:38.640 - 8:55:24 AM; Representative Murphy raised concerns about the bill potentially being a form of bartering and inquired about its IRS implications. They questioned if the property tax discount received could be considered a charitable donation for tax purposes, suggesting a need for consultation with a tax attorney due to the complexity of tax laws and deductions.
HB689: Representative Colby Information Only00:27:55.399 - 8:56:41 AM; Representative Colby sought further clarification on the bill's text, specifically regarding the total property tax credit limit of $1500 and its interaction with other existing credits or exemptions. They were confused about whether the bill allowed for the $1500 to be in addition to other credits, such as a veterans credit, or if it was a cap inclusive of all credits.
HB689: Representative Walker Information Only00:28:49.240 - 8:57:35 AM; Representative Walker clarified that the $1500 tax credit under the bill is in addition to any existing credits, such as a veterans credit. They confirmed that if a municipality offers a $750 veterans credit, a qualifying individual could receive the full $1500 from the bill plus the $750, making a total of $2250 in credits.
HB689: Jim Misho, Chief Assessor, Town of Hudson Oppose00:29:49.919 - 8:58:35 AM; Jim Misho, the Chief Assessor from Hudson, testified against the bill, highlighting its administrative and fiscal challenges. He explained that the bill's allowance for numerous variations of tax credits would be unmanageable for local software systems used for mass appraisal and tax collection. He also raised concerns about the bill's potential to deplete existing volunteer committees, the significant fiscal impact it could have on communities, and referenced past legislative attempts to introduce similar bills that failed. He suggested that the bill needed more clarity and possibly amendments to address these issues.
HB689: Representative Gilman Information Only00:35:12.240 - 9:03:58 AM; Representative Gilman reported the results of the blue sheets, indicating one neutral position in person and online testimony showing three in support and seven in opposition to the bill.
HB766: Representative McMahon Support00:37:01.319 - 9:05:47 AM; Representative McMahon introduced HB766, emphasizing the goal of allowing elderly residents to remain in their homes by reducing the burden of the local education property tax. They highlighted the challenges faced by elderly residents due to rising costs and the lack of affordable housing options in smaller towns. The bill proposes an exemption for residents over 70 who have lived in their home for 30 years and have assets under $750,000, aiming to slow down the rate of population turnover and reduce the need for costly assisted living or nursing home facilities.
HB766: Representative Walker Oppose00:42:28.040 - 9:11:14 AM; Representative Walker challenged the fairness of the proposal, citing a scenario where an elderly person who once benefited from others paying for their children's education now seeks an exemption. They argued that this could be seen as unfair to others who have paid into the system without seeking exemptions. Representative McMahon responded by emphasizing the higher costs associated with elderly residents moving to nursing homes, which are also covered by taxes, and the need to help seniors stay in their homes to manage these costs more effectively.
HB766: Representative Majority Information Only00:45:06.800 - 9:13:52 AM; Representative Majority asked if the legislation was modeled after the STAR program in New York, which allowed his father to defer $7,000 in taxes. The response was that the bill was not modeled after any other state's program but was developed based on local knowledge and needs in New Hampshire.
HB766: Representative Guri, Hamstead Information Only00:46:11.200 - 9:14:57 AM; Representative Guri questioned the 30-year limit in the bill, suggesting it might be fairer if the legislation required individuals to live in the same town for 30 years rather than the same house. The response emphasized that the bill's goal is to keep people in their homes, and amendments could be considered to address such concerns.
HB766: Representative Grund Information Only00:49:01.319 - 9:17:47 AM; Representative Grund inquired about the potential for elderly homeowners to have family members living with them who benefit from local schools without contributing to taxes. The response clarified that towns could set additional rules to address such scenarios, and that residency checks are part of local governance.
HB766: Representative Dolan Information Only00:51:36.000 - 9:20:22 AM; Representative Dolan raised concerns about the potential unintended consequence of shifting tax burdens to younger community members amidst a housing crisis. The response acknowledged the issue but noted that towns have the autonomy to manage economic development and zoning to offset such impacts, with the tax savings being minimal.
HB766: Representative Colby, Windham Information Only00:54:18.760 - 9:23:04 AM; Representative Colby provided demographic data on Windham's elderly population and questioned the anticipated growth in elderly exemptions. The response highlighted that the bill targets a specific demographic (those over 70 and in their homes for 30 years), and noted the challenge in accounting for seasonal residents.
HB766: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:58:36.640 - 9:27:22 AM; The speaker asked for clarification on section six of the bill, specifically regarding the eligibility of property owners who build and move into an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and whether this would disqualify them from the tax exemption if their children moved into the main residence. The response confirmed that moving into an ADU would indeed affect their eligibility under the current bill language.
HB766: Unnamed Speaker Information Only00:59:43.920 - 9:28:29 AM; The speaker inquired about the application process for the tax exemption under the bill, asking if it was automatic or required an application. The response clarified that an application is required, which would be reviewed for compliance by the town's assessor.
HB766: Representative Gilman Information Only01:00:27.119 - 9:29:13 AM; Representative Gilman asked about the interaction between the bill and school attendance records, particularly in cases where a family with children living in the home for 30 years might be affected. The response indicated that it would involve a discussion between the town's assessor and the school's attendance records, but it was emphasized that this is part of the assessor's job and not an additional burden. Further clarification was given that the select board would set rules regarding eligibility, particularly in cases involving family members.
HB766: Jim Misho, Chief Assessor, Town of Hudson Oppose01:02:25.039 - 9:31:11 AM; Jim Misho testified against the bill, citing administrative issues. He explained that the local education tax, which the bill aims to exempt, is unknown until the tax bills are issued, making the proposed exemption impossible to administer as written. He also raised concerns about the bill's clarity regarding whether the exemption would be in addition to existing exemptions, and highlighted the high asset limit set by the bill, which he noted is not means-tested and could be problematic given the varying socioeconomic conditions across the state.
HB766: Wayne Morris, Windham Support01:05:45.839 - 9:34:31 AM; Wayne Morris expressed support for HB766, emphasizing its importance in allowing senior citizens who have lived in their communities for over 30 years to remain in their homes. He shared personal experiences of paying school taxes for over 45 years and discussed the impact of increasing tax burdens on the elderly. Morris argued that the bill helps stabilize the community's tax base by keeping elderly residents in their homes, preventing a cycle where new families with children increase the school tax burden. He stressed the need for such measures to support an aging population that still requires municipal services.
HB766: Wayne Morris, Windham Information Only01:05:45.839 - 9:34:31 AM; Wayne Morris from Windham was finishing his speech at 01:05:45.839. The content of his testimony is not provided in the transcript snippet.
HB625: William Bolton, Representative of Grafton House District 8 (Holderness, Ashland, Plymouth), Vice Chair of the Plymouth Select Board, Executive Director of Transport Central Support01:13:15.760 - 9:42:01 AM; William Bolton introduced House Bill 625 as an enabling legislation aimed at reducing property tax burdens in cities and towns with a significant presence of nonprofit agencies, such as Plymouth. He highlighted that 53% of Plymouth's taxable property is owned by nonprofits, which leaves the cost of town services to be covered by the remaining 47% of property owners. Bolton mentioned that the bill was inspired by a request at a Plymouth Town Meeting to seek payments in lieu of taxes from nonprofits to lessen the property tax impact on local property owners. He noted that other towns like Keene, Concord, Hanover, and Berlin also have significant nonprofit property ownership, and this bill would allow municipalities to decide whether to enact such payments. The bill proposes that nonprofits pay 25% of the municipal rate of the property tax on their property, with provisions for exemptions based on regional or local benefits and financial adequacy. Bolton urged the committee to pass HB 625.
HB625: Tom Blonsky, Catholic Charities New Hampshire Oppose01:20:06.520 - 9:48:52 AM; Tom Blonsky from Catholic Charities New Hampshire opposed HB 625, stating that the organization provides a wide range of social services and healthcare to the poor and vulnerable across New Hampshire. He argued that taxing nonprofits would force them to cut services or raise fees, which would disproportionately affect those in need, likening it to a regressive tax. Blonsky responded to a question about how their services offset costs to municipalities by explaining that they often receive referrals for assistance from city and town welfare departments, which can help municipalities manage their resources more effectively.
HB625: Peter Saliba, Mayu Program Oppose01:22:26.920 - 9:51:12 AM; Peter Saliba from the Mayu Program, established in 1969, opposed HB 625. He described the program's mission to help at-risk boys in New Hampshire and highlighted that taxing their 39 acres of land at 25% would result in a $32,000 tax liability, potentially forcing them to cut services or staff, impacting 42 boys from their program. Saliba emphasized the program's close collaboration with state agencies and its unique role in the state.
HB625: Kathleen Reen, CEO of the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits Oppose01:25:42.639 - 9:54:28 AM; Kathleen Reen from the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits expressed strong concerns about HB 625, emphasizing the vital role nonprofits play in providing services that are often handled by government in other states. She noted the economic and community benefits provided by nonprofits and highlighted that most New Hampshire nonprofits are small, with 70% having budgets under $100,000, making the proposed tax potentially devastating. Reen also mentioned that current statutes already allow for voluntary payments in lieu of taxes, suggesting that HB 625 is unnecessary and urged the committee to vote it inexpedient to legislate.
HB625: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Support01:28:36.080 - 9:57:22 AM; Brody Dees from the New Hampshire Municipal Association supported HB 625, describing it as a local option that allows voters to decide whether nonprofits should pay 25% of their assessed property tax. He emphasized that the bill still permits governing bodies to fully exempt nonprofits if they choose, providing flexibility and local control. Dees acknowledged the valuable services provided by nonprofits but stressed the financial burden on municipalities when a significant portion of land is tax-exempt. He suggested a technical amendment to ensure the bill does not overrule existing voluntary payment options under RSA 72:23.
HB625: Brody Dees, New Hampshire Municipal Association Information Only01:28:36.080 - 9:57:22 AM; Brody Dees continued to discuss the implications of HB625, focusing on the potential for municipalities to adopt clear criteria in ordinances or bylaws for determining property tax exemptions. He expressed a belief that governing bodies would avoid favoritism due to potential legal repercussions and emphasized the need for negotiations on Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) to ensure that all organizations contribute fairly to municipal services.
HB625: Representative Colby Information Only01:32:09.560 - 10:00:55 AM; Representative Colby asked Brody Dees if the bill could encourage optional negotiations and potentially lead to cherry-picking among organizations for tax exemptions. Dees responded by expressing confidence in the state's governing bodies to avoid such biases, suggesting that clear criteria in local ordinances or bylaws would prevent such issues.
HB625: Representative Majori Information Only01:34:10.840 - 10:02:56 AM; Representative Majori inquired about the existing provisions in RSA 72:23 that allow municipalities to negotiate voluntary payments in lieu of taxes. Dees confirmed these provisions but noted that they lack the criteria that HB625 would enforce, which would require organizations to negotiate based on their use of municipal services.
HB625: Representative Grundt Information Only01:35:43.679 - 10:04:29 AM; Representative Grundt sought clarification on the types of organizations that would fall under the bill's provisions, referencing various groups like literary and scientific institutions. Dees confirmed that these organizations would be subject to a 25% municipal tax rate, not including school or village taxes, and stressed the importance of bylaws and ordinances to tailor exemptions based on public interest.
HB625: Representative Elward Information Only01:38:50.080 - 10:07:36 AM; Representative Elward questioned the process by which a town would adopt the provisions of the bill, specifically regarding the adoption of ordinances or bylaws. Dees explained that the legislative body would vote to require the governing body to adopt such ordinances, suggesting a need for clarity in the bill regarding which governing body would oversee this process.
HB625: Representative Gilman Information Only01:40:41.159 - 10:09:27 AM; Representative Gilman asked whether local bylaws and regulations could override existing court cases concerning nonprofit tax obligations. Dees clarified that the bill would apply to land currently used for charitable or nonprofit purposes and would require negotiations for a 25% PILOT, but it would not override existing court decisions related to land not used for such purposes.
HB625: Henry Veu, New Hampshire Alliance of YMCAs Oppose01:42:39.199 - 10:11:25 AM; Henry Veu testified against HB625, highlighting the YMCAs' role in raising funds for community scholarships. He argued that being subject to the bill would reduce the financial support available for these services, thus negatively impacting the community.
HB625: Ben Saul, Visions for Creative Housing, Marlow Information Only01:42:39.199 - 10:11:25 AM; Ben Saul, representing Visions for Creative Housing from Marlow, was recognized to speak but the transcript snippet ends before his testimony begins.
HB625: Speaker from Solutions, Enfield, Hanover, and Lebanon Oppose01:43:56.800 - 10:12:42 AM; The speaker represents Solutions, an organization that provides supported housing for 35 individuals across Enfield, Hanover, and Lebanon. These individuals have developmental and physical disabilities and are medically complex. The organization's funding comes from rent payments based on the residents' SSI benefits, Medicaid, and fundraising, which accounts for about 12% of operational spending. The speaker highlighted the narrow margins they operate on and expressed concerns that additional taxes could pose an existential threat to their operations, potentially forcing them to reduce services, close, or fundraise just to cover taxes. They also mentioned the difficulty small organizations face in negotiating with municipalities, lacking the resources like lobbyists that larger entities might have.
HB625: Ben Bradley, New Hampshire Hospital Association Oppose01:45:44.280 - 10:14:30 AM; Ben Bradley, representing all 26 of New Hampshire's community hospitals and specialty hospitals, expressed opposition to HB625. He highlighted concerns about the legislation's impact on nonprofits' relationships with local municipalities. Bradley explained that 22 of New Hampshire's 26 community hospitals are nonprofit and exempt from property taxes under RSA 72. However, some have made voluntary payments in lieu of taxes (PILOTs) through local arrangements. He emphasized the hospitals' significant community benefits, including over $668 million in 2022, and their economic contributions, supporting 43,000 jobs. Bradley argued that decisions about PILOTs should remain local and not be mandated by state legislation.
HB625: Matt Ley, Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests Oppose01:49:37.199 - 10:18:23 AM; Matt Ley, representing the Society for the Protection of New Hampshire Forests, opposed HB625. He noted that their organization owns and conserves land across New Hampshire, paying taxes at the current use rate. They also have a property in Bethlehem where they've entered into a PILOT agreement for buildings. Ley spoke not only about the forest society but also as a member of the broader nonprofit community. He recommended the committee review a 2019 brief by the Nonprofit Center on the impacts and benefits of nonprofits in New Hampshire.
HB625: Maurice Wible, Front Door Agency, Nashua Oppose01:51:44.040 - 10:20:30 AM; Maurice Wible, CEO of the Front Door Agency in Nashua, opposed HB625. He highlighted the agency's 38-year history of providing holistic support to break the cycle of poverty, including transformational housing for single mothers, permanent supportive housing, and a housing stability program. Wible explained that their properties offer affordable housing at below-market rates, with losses subsidized by fundraising. He warned that taxing nonprofits would reduce affordable housing inventory at a time when demand is increasing and federal funding might be cut, arguing that it's unfair and would have severe consequences for those the agency serves.
HB625: Sheets Information Only01:55:10.040 - 10:23:56 AM; Sheets reported the remote sign-in results for HB625, indicating 22 in support and 534 opposed. Additionally, the blue sheet showed 3 in support, 4 neutral, and 8 against the bill. Sheets then closed the public hearing on HB625.
HB147: Representative Maureen Mooney, Merrimack, Hillsborough County District 12 Support01:56:42.880 - 10:25:28 AM; Representative Mooney introduced HB147, emphasizing the bill's purpose to clarify tax exemptions for properties used by religious, educational, and charitable organizations. She highlighted the ambiguity of the term 'appertaining' and how HB147 proposes to replace it with more specific language such as 'on the same lot' and 'the entire building and lot'. Mooney distributed copies of her testimony, which included a detailed explanation of the changes proposed by the bill. She urged the committee to recommend the bill to pass, stressing the importance of clear verbiage in the relevant sections of the law.
HB147: Representative Gilman Information Only02:01:38.679 - 10:30:24 AM; Representative Gilman asked Representative Mooney how HB147 would apply to museums and their properties. Mooney responded that the bill is relevant to religious, educational, and charitable organizations, suggesting that museums might be covered if classified as such but was unsure without that classification.
HB147: Representative Majori Information Only02:02:55.760 - 10:31:41 AM; Representative Majori questioned the potential ambiguity in the phrase 'for the purposes for which they were established' on line 25 of the bill. Representative Mooney clarified that this is existing law, and her bill aims to clarify it further with additional sentences, though she had no opinion on whether the phrase could be eliminated.
HB147: Father Rory Trainer, Associate Pastor, St Peter Parish in Auburn and St John the Baptist Parish in Suncook, representing the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester Support02:04:30.079 - 10:33:16 AM; Father Trainer supported HB147, highlighting the Catholic Church's role in providing assistance to the vulnerable and its challenges with the ambiguity of current tax exemption laws. He cited an example where a wooded area of a cemetery was taxed and mentioned additional examples in the written testimony. He argued that clearer laws would help maintain the Church's service level and reduce uncertainty for small organizations. Father Trainer read a statement from the Chancellor of the Diocese, Meredith P. Cook, which reiterated support for HB147, citing various examples of tax-related challenges faced by the Church and the need for clarity in the law to continue serving the community effectively.
HB147: Jim Misho, Chief Assessor, Town of Hudson Information Only02:09:56.480 - 10:38:42 AM; Jim Misho, the Chief Assessor for the Town of Hudson, provided technical insights on HB147, emphasizing that his comments were neither in support nor opposition. He discussed the legislative history of RSA 72:23, noting that there are over 10 bills in the current session related to this statute. Misho highlighted that the arrival of these bills stems from reactions to recent legal decisions and compliance efforts. He pointed out that the language proposed in HB147 reverts to the language from 30 years ago, which was intended to close loopholes and protect against abuse. He expressed concerns about the potential problematic scenarios the bill could create, such as the entire Mall of New Hampshire being exempt if used partially for charitable purposes. He also mentioned existing avenues to address non-compliance and suggested forming a study commission to address these issues more comprehensively.
HB147: Gretchen Wade Support02:15:04.960 - 10:43:50 AM; Gretchen Wade supported HB147, emphasizing the need for clarity and consistency in tax exemptions for different types of organizations. She noted the ambiguity in the current statute, which has led to litigation over the past three decades. Wade highlighted that the bill would put municipalities, charitable, educational, and religious organizations on the same playing field, particularly regarding the taxation of unburied persons areas in cemeteries. She urged the committee to support the bill to prevent unnecessary legal battles and to ensure fairness and clarity in tax policy.
HB147: Brody Dees, representing the New Hampshire Municipal Association Oppose02:17:05.760 - 10:45:51 AM; Brody Dees opposed HB147, citing concerns about the ambiguity in the bill's language, particularly regarding the exemption of entire buildings and lots where religious activities take place. He noted that this could lead to confusion and potential misuse, such as wedding venues claiming tax exemptions. Dees also expressed concern about the potential tax burden shift to other property taxpayers if large portions of land owned by nonprofits are exempted, even if not used for their stated purposes. He supported the comprehensive testimony of Jim Misho and urged the committee to consider these issues.
HB147: Representative Julie Miles, Town of Marlow Support02:20:05.040 - 10:48:51 AM; Representative Julie Miles, co-sponsor of HB147, supported the bill, emphasizing its importance for fairness, clarity, and good governance in municipalities. She argued that the bill would help towns avoid costly legal challenges and provide consistency in how properties are taxed. Miles highlighted the strain that unclear tax policies can have on communities and urged the committee to support the bill to prevent unnecessary conflicts and ensure that organizations can focus on their work rather than litigation.
HB147: Michael Tierney, Attorney, Manchester Support02:23:05.200 - 10:51:51 AM; Michael Tierney, an attorney from Manchester, supported HB147, noting his experience representing various entities affected by the statute. He discussed the changes in interpretation of the statute over the last two years, particularly regarding the term 'appurtenant thereto,' which he argued adds unnecessary complexity and litigation. Tierney provided an example of a religious-run school facing a tax bill for a wooded buffer, arguing for equal treatment across all types of tax-exempt entities. He suggested that the bill would streamline and equalize the application of tax exemptions, saving time and resources for all parties involved.
HB426 2025-141H: Representative John T. McDonald, District 6, Wolfeboro Support02:29:29.760 - 10:58:15 AM; Representative McDonald introduced HB426, which he believes will support nonprofit organizations across New Hampshire. He explained that the bill, along with the proposed amendment 2025-141H, aims to assist nonprofits by allowing them to justify late filings due to accident, mistake, or misfortune. He referenced a previous bill he introduced that was signed into law, effective April 2025, which allowed boards of selectmen to accept late filings under certain conditions. McDonald used an example of a nonprofit's filing being considered late due to postal delays to illustrate the need for this bill. He emphasized that the bill acts as a bridge for nonprofits required to file between June 1, 2024, and April 2025, enabling them to appeal late filings to the board of selectmen, and if necessary, to the superior court or the Bureau of Land and Taxes.
HB426 2025-141H: Representative Elward Information Only02:33:46.640 - 11:02:32 AM; Representative Elward asked Representative McDonald about the classification of a hypothetical postal delay situation under the bill's provision of accident, mistake, or misfortune. McDonald responded that he would categorize it as misfortune, citing personal experiences with mail delays.
HB426 2025-141H: Representative Walker Information Only02:34:24.960 - 11:03:10 AM; Representative Walker inquired about the root cause of the filing issues, suggesting it might be due to the confusion between the two filings required in April and June. McDonald clarified that the issue was addressed by the Supreme Court case and his bill introduces the accident, misfortune provision to the law.
HB426 2025-141H: Representative France Information Only02:35:40.279 - 11:04:26 AM; Representative France asked about the time limits for late filings under the bill. McDonald explained that the decision on whether a late filing is acceptable would be up to the board of selectmen, and if not satisfied, the nonprofit could appeal to the superior court or the Bureau of Land and Taxes.
HB426 2025-141H: Andy Moo, Chairman of the Board, Wright Museum, Wolfeboro Support02:36:22.160 - 11:05:08 AM; Andy Moo shared his experience with the Wright Museum in Wolfeboro, which faced a severe penalty due to a late filing caused by a family medical issue and staffing challenges. He emphasized the museum's importance to the local economy and supported HB426 as a necessary measure to prevent similar situations for other nonprofits.
HB426 2025-141H: Jim Misho, Chief Assessor, Town of Hudson Oppose02:38:32.840 - 11:07:18 AM; Jim Misho expressed concerns about the constitutionality of HB426, citing the New Hampshire Constitution's prohibition on retrospective laws. He argued that the bill attempts to apply a law retroactively, which could conflict with decisions already made by the BTLA and set problematic precedents for other deadlines and laws. He questioned the feasibility of accepting late filings after tax rates have been set and raised issues about the legal interpretation of 'good cause' in the context of the bill.
HB426 2025-141H: Salvatore Prio, Executive Director, Capital Center for the Arts, Concord Support02:41:43.200 - 11:10:29 AM; Salvatore Prio testified in support of HB426, which would allow nonprofit organizations to receive property tax exemptions retroactively. He highlighted the importance of the Capital Center for the Arts in Concord as a cultural institution that has been a cornerstone of New Hampshire's creative economy for over 30 years. He emphasized the impact of the organization on the community, hosting thousands of performances, educational programs, and community events annually. Prio discussed a situation where their property tax exemption form was filed late due to extenuating circumstances, resulting in a significant tax bill of $150,000. He argued that allowing retroactive exemptions would provide financial flexibility to nonprofits and recognize their vital role in communities. He also mentioned the economic contributions of arts and culture in New Hampshire, urging support for the bill to ensure nonprofits can continue their missions.
HB617: Representative Melissa Lichfield, Brentwood, Danville, and Fremont Support03:34:51.279 - 12:03:37 PM; Representative Melissa Lichfield introduced HB617, which aims to increase the homestead exemption to protect homeowners from losing their homes due to debts or lawsuits. She mentioned that the current law covers up to $120,000, which hasn't kept up with the market value of homes. Lichfield proposed an amendment to raise the exemption to between $500,000 and $1 million, citing the median home value in New Hampshire. She explained that the bill includes protections for mortgages and home equity loans but aims to safeguard homes from lawsuits like car accidents where insurance money might not be sufficient. Lichfield also shared a case from her constituent's attorney about how increasing the homestead exemption could prevent homeowners from being forced into unfavorable settlements due to threats against their homes.
HB617: Representative Henry Garon, Hillsborough 29th Support03:42:08.000 - 12:10:54 PM; Representative Henry Garon expressed support for HB617, emphasizing the importance of protecting taxpayers and homeowners from frivolous litigation. He advocated for maintaining the proposed $1 million exemption, arguing it aligns with the mean household value in New Hampshire. Garon suggested including family trusts in the amendment and removing the provision on domestic support obligations, citing instances where such lawsuits have led to foreclosures and homelessness, negatively impacting the ability to fulfill support obligations.
HB617: Representative McFarland, Grafton 18 Support03:43:54.960 - 12:12:40 PM; Representative McFarland supported HB617, stating that the adjustment in the homestead exemption value is overdue and warranted. He believed the bill strikes a balance between protecting homeowners and allowing creditors to recover owed debts. McFarland addressed concerns about the bill's language, asserting it does not lead to the negative outcomes some have suggested, and urged the committee to support the legislation.
HB617: Attorney Charles Russell, Concord Support03:45:55.120 - 12:14:41 PM; Attorney Charles Russell supported HB617, drawing from his extensive legal experience to argue for an increase in the homestead exemption. He discussed a recent Supreme Court case that highlighted the need for legislative changes to ensure both spouses can claim the homestead right, regardless of whether their name is on the deed. Russell suggested separating provisions for manufactured housing from general residential property to clarify the law. He proposed extending the time for reinvesting proceeds from six to twelve months due to current housing market difficulties. Russell also recommended specifying 'property taxes' in the bill and addressing issues with mortgage waivers and sheriff sales to ensure the homestead right takes precedence over other debts. He emphasized the need to at least raise the exemption to $500,000 if not $1 million.
HB617: Representative Gilman Information Only03:53:08.960 - 12:21:54 PM; Representative Gilman reported on the results of the remote testimony and blue sheets for House Bill 617. There were four testimonies in support and six opposed. No testimonies were recorded on the blue sheet. The public hearing on House Bill 617 was subsequently closed.
HB425: Representative Mark Pearson, Concord Support04:01:28.399 - 12:30:14 PM; Representative Pearson introduced House Bill 425 and provided background on the issue. He discussed the historical relationship between towns and nonprofit organizations, including churches and fraternal organizations, which traditionally enjoyed tax exemptions due to their contributions to the community. A recent court case involving a charitable organization led to confusion and changes in how tax exemptions were handled, prompting a need for legislative clarification. Pearson highlighted the issue of churches renting out old rectories to fund housing allowances for clergy members living in the suburbs, a practice some towns began to tax. The bill aims to codify the traditional tax exemption for clergy residences and clarify the tax status for properties rented to organizations with similar missions, ensuring that such properties remain tax-exempt if used in line with the organization's stated mission.
HB425: Representative Colby Information Only04:08:30.520 - 12:37:16 PM; Representative Colby asked for clarification on whether the bill applies to single-family residences or multifamily properties like duplexes. Pearson responded that the bill covers whatever type of dwelling the religious organization traditionally used for their clergy, without distinguishing between types of properties.
HB425: Representative Majori Information Only04:09:43.399 - 12:38:29 PM; Representative Majori inquired about the necessity of the properties being contiguous lots. Pearson confirmed that the properties do not need to be contiguous, as long as they are owned by the same entity, citing examples of churches where the parsonage was located around the corner due to various reasons.
HB425: Representative Frock Information Only04:10:35.040 - 12:39:21 PM; Representative Frock sought clarification on whether the bill would make properties taxable if an organization with a similar mission sub-lets to tenants. Pearson explained that if the rental aligns with the organization's mission as recognized by the charitable trusts division, it would remain tax-exempt. Otherwise, it would be taxable.
HB425: Jim Misha, Chief Assessor of the Town of Hudson Oppose04:11:57.279 - 12:40:43 PM; Jim Misha expressed concerns about the clarity and necessity of the bill. He noted that much of the bill's language is already covered in existing law, specifically RSA 72:23, and argued that the bill introduces unnecessary ambiguity. Misha highlighted that if the intention is to add specificity to the law, new forms would need to be created to verify the use of rental income. He recommended a comprehensive review of all related bills to ensure coherent legislation and warned of potential unintended consequences if changes are made piecemeal.
HB425: Representative Majori Information Only04:15:29.840 - 12:44:15 PM; Representative Majori raised a question about the duplication of language between HB425 and HB585, wondering about the process if both bills advance. The response was that such situations are typically resolved in the Senate, but further inquiry was needed for a definitive answer.
HB421: Representative Pearson Support04:21:46.159 - 12:50:32 PM; Representative Pearson introduced House Bill 421, highlighting the challenges faced by nonprofit organizations in maintaining their tax-exempt status due to administrative oversights. He shared a personal anecdote about forgetting to submit required forms and receiving a reminder from the Secretary of State. Pearson emphasized the need for towns to notify nonprofits of filing deadlines to prevent unintentional lapses in tax-exempt status. He mentioned that the original bill did not fully reflect his intentions, but an amendment would clarify the requirements. Pearson stressed the importance of mutual accountability between nonprofits and municipalities, advocating for a friendly, reminder-based approach rather than punitive measures for missed deadlines.
HB421: Representative Elward Oppose04:27:45.159 - 12:56:31 PM; Representative Elward expressed concern over the proposed bill, suggesting that it places an undue burden on municipalities to remind organizations of their filing responsibilities. She highlighted her experience with a 501c3, which managed its filings well with the help of pro bono professionals. Elward questioned the fairness of requiring towns to send reminders, suggesting that organizations should manage their own deadlines using tools like calendars. She acknowledged Pearson's point but remained skeptical about shifting responsibility from organizations to towns.
HB421: Representative Colby Information Only04:32:00.720 - 1:00:46 PM; Representative Colby inquired about how municipalities become aware of new nonprofits in their area. Pearson explained that typically, nonprofits use legal assistance to notify the state and local authorities upon establishment. Colby expressed concerns about the accountability placed on municipalities, suggesting that certified mail might be necessary for notifications, which could incur additional costs. Pearson emphasized the importance of mutual goodwill and cooperation between towns and nonprofits, suggesting that the bill aims to foster this relationship.
HB421: Representative Grundt Information Only04:35:49.000 - 1:04:35 PM; Representative Grundt questioned the absence of a clause in the amendment that was present in the original bill, which stated that no exemption applications would be accepted after the local tax rate approval. Pearson explained that the amendment removed this clause to ensure that late notifications from towns would not penalize nonprofits. He stressed the need for flexibility and understanding, especially in cases where nonprofits miss deadlines due to lack of notification.
HB421: Representative Gilman Information Only04:37:34.080 - 1:06:20 PM; Representative Gilman asked about the fiscal note attached to both the original bill and the amendment. Pearson confirmed that the fiscal impact was minimal, likely just the cost of mailing notifications, which would not exceed $10,000. Gilman sought clarification on whether the fiscal note referred to state income tax or another measure, and Pearson confirmed it was related to mailing costs.
HB421: Jim Misho, Town of Hudson Oppose04:38:54.160 - 1:07:40 PM; Jim Misho from Hudson opposed the bill, stating that it requires municipalities to send forms to all exempt organizations without clear guidelines on which organizations should receive them. He pointed out that the bill's language could be interpreted to include governmental organizations, which he believed was not the intent. Misho also criticized the short timeframe proposed for sending and returning forms, suggesting that Hudson sends reminders well in advance. He emphasized the importance of following legal deadlines and questioned the practicality of forgiving missed deadlines.
HB421: Betty Gay, Salem Support04:45:26.120 - 1:14:12 PM; Betty Gay from Salem supported the bill, sharing an example from her town where new leaders of churches and other organizations were unaware of required forms, leading to unexpected tax bills. She highlighted the financial burden on these organizations and the need for timely notifications from towns to prevent such issues. Gay emphasized that proper notification could have avoided these problems and supported the bill's aim to require towns to send reminders.
HB782: Jim Majory, representing Rockingham 23, Northampton Support04:52:49.280 - 1:21:35 PM; Jim Majory introduced House Bill 782 FN, which aims to expand property tax exemptions for elderly and disabled persons, increase public awareness about tax credits and exemptions, and require an annual report on the effectiveness of property tax relief programs for low and moderate income homeowners. He expressed readiness to answer questions thoroughly about the bill.
HB782: Jim Misho, Chief Assessor, Hudson Information Only04:53:45.440 - 1:22:31 PM; Jim Misho provided detailed testimony on HB782. He noted that existing RSA 76:11 already requires municipalities to notify residents about property tax relief programs via tax bills and other media. He discussed the optional nature of the disabled exemption, mentioning that 111 communities have adopted it with varying asset limits. He raised concerns about tying exemption amounts to an automatic CPI index, suggesting it might bypass voter choice. He also mentioned sections of the bill related to state programs and a study commission but offered no comments on those. In response to questions from representatives Colby, Guthrie, and Gilman, he clarified issues around the automatic adjustment of exemption amounts based on inflation and the legal constraints under current law.
HB782: Amount Representative Majori Information Only05:00:57.840 - 1:29:43 PM; Representative Majori inquired if the bill would bind future select boards, suggesting that it might override local authorities' ability to adjust exemption amounts. This indicates a concern about the bill's impact on local governance and flexibility in tax policy.
HB458: Deborah Elward, Representative, Marac District 5 (Andover, Danbury, Hill, Salisbury, Webster) Information Only05:12:06.920 - 1:40:52 PM; Representative Elward introduced House Bill 458, which aims to limit local assistance to only US citizens or permanent legal residents. She did not provide further commentary or answer questions, indicating her role was primarily to present the bill.
HB458: Steven Tower, Attorney, New Hampshire Legal Assistance Oppose05:12:58.080 - 1:41:44 PM; Attorney Tower expressed concerns about HB458, highlighting that existing federal law already restricts most immigrants, particularly undocumented immigrants, from accessing state benefits. He noted that the bill does not include required federal exceptions such as asylum seekers and refugees for the first five years, and military service members, which are necessary for compliance with federal law. He suggested that the bill should be more specific about which immigrants it aims to exclude rather than listing all federal exceptions. He also mentioned categories of individuals that states may deny benefits to but suggested including them for humanitarian reasons, such as victims of human trafficking or serious crimes. Tower offered to answer questions but admitted limited expertise in immigration law.
HB458: Bill Gillet, Director of Public Policy and Advocacy, The International Institute of New England, Manchester Oppose05:20:48.878 - 1:49:34 PM; Bill Gillet opposed HB458, emphasizing the legal and humanitarian reasons why certain immigrants should remain eligible for local assistance. He highlighted that refugees and asylees are lawfully admitted, authorized to work and live in the US, and are on a path to citizenship. Gillet pointed out the thorough vetting process for refugees and the rarity of their need for assistance, arguing that they should not be excluded from programs designed to support the needy. He offered his expertise in immigration for any questions from the committee.
HB458: Representative Gilman Information Only05:23:13.718 - 1:51:59 PM; Representative Gilman reported on the online and paper testimony received for House Bill 458. The online testimony indicated 14 supporters and 173 opposers of the bill, with one of the opposers specifically mentioning a desire for clean air. The paper testimony showed one person opposed to the bill.
Unclear: Chair Information Only05:24:14.718 - 1:53:00 PM; The chair concluded the publicly noticed business and made several announcements regarding future sessions and meetings. A reminder was given about the house session scheduled for Thursday, February 6th at 10:00 a.m., with additional dates to be held open for possible future sessions. Plans were mentioned to meet on Monday, February 10th for hearings and an executive session, and on Tuesday, February 25th for hearings only. The chair also announced the formation of a subcommittee for House Bill 432 to study recovery houses, consisting of three Republicans and two Democrats, with Representative McDonald appointed as the chair of the subcommittee.
Unclear: Unnamed Representative Information Only05:25:44.718 - 1:54:30 PM; An unnamed representative asked about the reporting timeline for the subcommittee on House Bill 432. The chair clarified that the subcommittee would conduct further inquiry and present their findings to the entire committee during an executive session before the bill's deadline.
Unclear: Representative Gilman Information Only05:26:59.080 - 1:55:45 PM; Representative Gilman requested a repeat of the meeting dates mentioned by the chair, which were then reiterated as planned for Monday, February 10th for hearings and an executive session, and Tuesday, February 25th for hearings only, subject to room availability and to meet house deadlines.

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)