Committee Summary for House Municipal and County Government (04/07/2026)

Member	Member	Member
Pauer, Diane(Chairman)(R)[A]2025	Bjelobrk, Marie Louise(Clerk)(R)[B+]2025	MacDonald, John(V Chairman)(R)[B+]2025
Fracht, David(D)[D-]2025	Guthrie, Joseph(R)[C]2025	Harvey, Cathryn(D)[F]2025
Gilman, Julie(D)[D-]2025	Grund, Stephanie(D)[F]2025	Stavis, Laurel(D)[CT]2025
Karasinski, Sly(R)[B]2025	Maggiore, Jim(D)[CT]2025	Dolan, Tom(R)[B]2025
Aylward, Deborah(R)[B+]2025	Walker, David(R)[B+]2025	Colby, Eleana (D)[F]2025
Girard, Dale(D)[C-]2025	Franz, Linda(R)[B]2025	Murphy, Denis(R)[B+]2025

Bill/Time	Type	Title	Sponsor
SB439	Public Hearing	relative to municipal data center zoning.	Altschiller, Debra(D)[CT]2025
SB643	Public Hearing	(New Title) requiring municipalities to hold a public hearing and conduct a roll call vote when seeking to override a tax or spending cap.	Avard, Kevin(R)[B]2025
SB508	Public Hearing	relative to the zoning board of adjustments appeal period.	Murphy, Keith(R)[A]2025
SB653	Public Hearing	enabling counties to change the dates of their biennial budgets.	Lang, Timothy(R)[B-]2025
SB495	Public Hearing	increasing the limit for transfers of appropriations in Carroll County.	McConkey, Mark(R)[B]2025
SB585	Public Hearing	relative to audits for communications districts.	McConkey, Mark(R)[B]2025
SB440	Public Hearing	relative to the adoption of energy efficient and clean energy districts by municipalities.	Innis, Daniel(R)[B]2025
SB435	Public Hearing	relative to the zoning board of adjustment variance criteria.	Abbas, Daryl(R)[B-]2025

SB439: Information Only 00:05:41.205 - 10:01:22 AM; The chair opens the public hearing on Senate Bill 439 and introduces the prime sponsor, Senator Altshuler, to present the bill.
SB439: Support 00:07:12.115 - 10:02:53 AM; Senator Altshuler introduces SB 439, emphasizing the need for municipalities to have effective tools to manage data center development. She criticizes the Senate amendment for weakening the original bill by increasing the exemption threshold from 10% to 25% of floor area, removing utility capacity confirmation, noise protections, design standards, landscape buffers, setbacks, sidewalks, architectural variations, and transit buffer zones. She highlights the projected surge in data center electricity consumption and risks to the grid without safeguards, citing examples from other states where inadequate regulation leads to health impacts like noise-induced hearing loss and cost burdens on ratepayers. Altshuler argues that protective regulations encourage responsible development rather than deterring it, referencing successful community engagements in Virginia and Arizona. She urges restoring the original provisions, particularly utility confirmation and noise standards, to uphold local control while welcoming investment.
SB439: Information Only 00:17:51.004 - 10:13:32 AM; Representative Grund questions Senator Altshuler about water usage and potential contamination by data centers, noting concerns for residents on wells, and asks if the original bill addressed water issues.
SB439: Support 00:17:51.004 - 10:13:32 AM; In response to Representative Grund's question, Senator Altshuler notes that water was not directly addressed in the original bill but is likely covered under existing zoning RSAs for commercial and industrial districts. She explains that the bill focuses on creating special zoning provisions and defers to general zoning for water matters.
SB439: Support 00:19:19.227 - 10:15:00 AM; Senator Altshuler continued her testimony by addressing questions on zoning for data centers in industrial or commercial areas, emphasizing that water issues are covered under existing zoning before reaching planning boards. She discussed residential areas within commercial zones, noise impacts, and regional effects on rivers and water bodies. She explained that the original bill addresses regional impact indirectly through requirements for energy planning two years in advance to avoid ratepayer burdens, noise studies by qualified engineers limiting increases to 5% at residential boundaries, and standards for mechanical equipment. She advocated for a regulatory framework to prevent lawsuits and build community consensus, noting towns are not required to adopt it. On definitions, she clarified that data centers are facilities primarily for data storage, processing, etc., excluding those where over 25% of floor area is for company-specific data storage. She highlighted Virginia as a model with a comprehensive framework reducing lawsuits, contrasted with states like Tennessee struggling without one. She stressed the need for state-level tools for local control to manage energy, noise, and other stressors from this new business type. Responding to concerns about patchwork local ordinances, she supported a basic state framework while allowing local variations. She addressed Oregon's moratorium and suggested balancing local control with tools like the original bill's parameters, plus a potential study committee, to avoid delays and opposition seen in other places like Granberry. On railroads, she noted setbacks needed due to dangerous cargo and fire risks from data centers. She expressed opposition to the Senate-amended version, preferring an amendment closer to the original to provide meaningful framework.
SB439: Information Only 00:44:03.093 - 10:39:44 AM; Representative Damon introduced herself to the committee.
SB439: Oppose 00:45:33.952 - 10:41:14 AM; Representative Damon, a co-sponsor of the original legislation, expresses shared concerns with Senator Altshuler that the amended version of SB 439 fails to provide any safety net or protective measures for municipalities regarding data centers. She prefers the original language, possibly with further amendments based on discussion, and requests her name be removed from the amended version. She emphasizes the need for New Hampshire to proactively address data center concerns to ensure safe and productive development that benefits residents, rather than waiting for potential harms. She highlights the significant impacts of data centers, including large land footprints, staggering electricity demands, millions of gallons of water for cooling, and constant noise affecting the environment and human wellbeing. Damon stresses that water impacts were inadequately addressed in both versions and must be included, given persistent droughts that could affect existing wells and municipal supplies. She advocates for oversight ensuring data centers do not adversely impact community water requirements. Regarding power needs, she notes the increased infrastructure demands and suggests statutes allowing municipalities or counties to require developers to fund upgrades, preventing burdens on residential electric costs. Damon summarizes that responsible legislation should enable thoughtful regulation with transparency on impacts and responsibilities. She urges the committee to oppose the amended version, review the original, consider amendments for regional impacts and water concerns, and move forward promptly.
SB439: Oppose 00:56:45.000 - 10:52:26 AM; Brody Deshaies from the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposes Senate Bill 439 as amended by the Senate, noting the original bill's technical flaws and different intent to regulate data centers through zoning and establish minimum state standards where permitted locally. He argues the original was redundant since municipalities already control permitting, location, and regulation via local zoning. The amended version reverses this by mandating data centers as permitted by right in zones allowing commercial or industrial uses, greatly expanding potential locations. Deshaies notes no municipalities currently permit data centers, but many allow commercial/industrial uses, including mixed-use with residential after HB 631, leading to incompatible mandates like data centers in buildings with residential above. He highlights negative environmental impacts, resource overconsumption, and quality-of-life effects near residential areas. Deshaies recommends local officials decide on risks and permitting based on sustainable land areas. The bill's placement of the data center definition in RSA 674 is confusing, better suited to commerce chapters, and it misapplies planning board operations by requiring rulemaking authority unlike state procedures. Water can be addressed via site plan review (adopted by half of municipalities) or DES regulations, and utilities may deny hookups for overconsumption. He suggests the original bill should have been interim studied or led to a study commission; the current version needs significant work and opposes mandating data centers statewide, given unpopularity, utility capacity issues, and economic development gaps.
SB439: Oppose 01:05:06.181 - 11:00:47 AM; Deshaies continues responding to committee questions on SB 439. He explains that under the bill, data centers would be permitted by right in zones allowing commercial or industrial uses, subject to other local regulations like setbacks and dimensional controls, but without needing a conditional use permit or variance. He notes potential environmental and public welfare impacts. Regarding municipalities without site plan regulations, he states data centers could still proceed if zoned appropriately, but water capacity is regulated separately by DES and local utilities. He emphasizes the hyper-local nature of the issue and why local control is preferable, as most areas would not realistically permit such uses. On non-public agreements for infrastructure upgrades, he agrees data centers have statewide and regional impacts on costs beyond just land use, including utility rates, and supports a state framework possibly through a commission involving stakeholders to respect local controls. Addressing the interaction with HB 631 mandating residential uses in commercial zones, he warns that allowing data centers by right could conflict with housing goals by straining infrastructure like water systems, limiting mixed-use development potential. On whether the amendment creates an unfunded mandate, he says it may impose costs but technically does not violate constitutional provisions.
SB439: Oppose 01:15:33.563 - 11:11:14 AM; Weston testifies in opposition to SB 439, representing NECTA whose members include Comcast, Breezeline, and Charter Communications serving nearly 485,000 customers in New Hampshire. She expresses concern that the broad definition of 'data center' could inadvertently include essential communications infrastructure like headends (up to 10,000 sq ft) and hubs (100-200 sq ft) used by ISPs to deliver broadband, even in residential zones. These facilities are vital for broadband deployment and do not consume significant water or energy like large data centers. She suggests narrowing the definition, citing examples from Oregon (20 MW threshold) and Minnesota (100 MW). She highlights New Hampshire's progress toward 100% broadband coverage with $200 million in BEAD funding and warns against impeding this. She requests inexpedient to legislate or amendments for a more precise definition and offers to work with the committee.
SB643: Support 01:22:48.226 - 11:18:29 AM; Avard, the prime sponsor, introduces SB 643 as a measure for transparency and accountability in overriding local tax or spending caps. The bill requires at least 30 days' notice before a vote, a public hearing of at least 60 minutes for public input, and a roll call vote, without altering municipalities' authority to override. It targets cities and towns with council forms of government that have adopted caps, ensuring open processes so taxpayers can express opinions and see how officials vote. He emphasizes respecting voters' intent for caps, preventing quiet overrides, promoting better budgeting, and enhancing local control by giving citizens more voice. The bill applies to communities like Nashua, Franklin, Manchester, Rochester, possibly Salem, Somersworth, and Dover. In response to questions, he clarifies it provides more notice than current 10-day requirements, allows limiting individual speeches within the 60-minute hearing, and focuses on larger populations needing greater transparency.
SB643: Support 01:31:40.245 - 11:27:21 AM; Senator Avard responds to questions about the relevance of including board members' names on public records even if they are no longer on the board, emphasizing accountability and track records for future elections. He discusses the Department of Revenue Administration's (DRA) capability to produce statements on tax bills with roll call votes, noting towns can manage this. He addresses concerns about costs for adding information to tax bills in systems like Munis, stating it's the first he's heard of such issues. Avard clarifies that roll call votes provide clear accountability compared to voice votes, especially in cases like Nashua where compliance with RSA 91-A may be lacking. He highlights the bill's 30-day notice and 60-minute public input requirements for greater transparency, countering concerns about non-compliance by stressing the tangible benefits for taxpayers to hold officials accountable.
SB643: Support 01:32:45.805 - 11:28:26 AM; Representative Walker from Rochester explains that the bill does not significantly change requirements for cities like Rochester, Dover, Somersworth, and possibly Lebanon, which already have tax caps in their charters. He supports the bill's provisions for roll call votes and 60-day notice to enhance transparency, allowing the public to know who voted to override tax caps. He notes that in Rochester, overrides are rare and public interest is high, with long lines at hearings. However, he raises concerns about the feasibility of adding vote information to tax bills due to software limitations in Munis, which could be costly to update. Walker agrees that meeting minutes exist but emphasizes roll call votes for clarity over voice votes.
SB643: Oppose 01:44:10.400 - 11:39:51 AM; Brody Deshaies represents the New Hampshire Municipal Association and opposes the bill. He clarifies that RSA 91-A:2 does not require roll call votes for every vote, only when there is remote participation to ensure clarity. He states that remote participation is optional for public bodies, and no municipalities are currently violating the statute, with guidance from the AG's office post-COVID. Deshaies notes the bill's public comment period implies municipal residents but allows broader participation as meetings are public. He points out the bill would require an additional public hearing on budget overrides beyond existing budget hearings. Regarding the 60-minute minimum, he interprets it as requiring at least that duration, even if public comment exhausts earlier, potentially leading to silence until the time is met. He addresses concerns about non-residents dominating comment periods, noting governing bodies can manage but cannot prohibit speakers.
SB508: Support 01:52:31.947 - 11:48:12 AM; Senator Murphy introduced SB 508, explaining that Section 1 requires all grounds for appeal to be stated in the initial notice to the zoning board of adjustment from an abutter or department. Section 2 limits planning boards to one round of revisions unless the submitted revisions fail to address specific comments or conditions from the initial review, aiming to speed up the housing and building approval process, reduce back-and-forth delays that can extend for months, and save time and money for applicants. He emphasized that this gives towns and planning boards 'one bite at the apple' to facilitate faster development.
SB508: Oppose 02:02:42.065 - 11:58:23 AM; Mr. Deshaies opposed SB 508 primarily due to Section 2, arguing it mandates municipalities to stamp and accept revised plans within 10 days, preventing planning boards from requesting additional changes to ensure compliance with local requirements, which could lead to accepting incomplete or non-conforming plans. He highlighted ambiguities in terms like 'stamped,' 'initial review,' and 'accept,' unclear placement in the zoning board statute instead of planning board sections, conflicts with existing posting and hearing requirements under RSAs 675:7 and 91-A, and unrealistic timelines for review, public hearings, and newspaper postings. This could promote poorly planned development, force denials of fixable plans, create confusion in application, and increase litigation risks without benefiting housing supply, instead causing rushed processes and mistakes.
SB653: Support 02:16:40.978 - 12:12:21 PM; Senator Lange presented SB 653 as enabling legislation allowing counties to opt for biennial budgets instead of annual ones, shifted to the off-year of the state budget cycle to reduce workload for newly elected representatives unfamiliar with delegation duties and to ease administrative burdens on county officials like sheriffs and attorneys. County commissioners can vote before September 1 in an election year to place the question on the November ballot for voter approval; if passed, budgets would be set every two years in the non-state budget year. This maintains supplemental appropriations for unforeseen needs without prohibiting other delegation actions, and he noted support from the New Hampshire Association of Counties.
SB653: Information Only 02:30:36.917 - 12:26:17 PM; Ms. Horgan stated the association has no position on SB 653 but provided clarification that all 10 New Hampshire counties currently use annual budgets, not biennial as previously thought; any prior references to Rockingham or Strafford likely related to transitions like from calendar to fiscal year (e.g., an 18-month budget). She noted four counties use calendar year and six fiscal year, supporting flexibility for each county to choose what fits best, and affirmed the association's history of backing changes to budget cycles as needed.
SB495: Oppose 02:33:32.666 - 12:29:13 PM; Senator McConkey introduced SB 495 but requested it be found inexpedient to legislate (ITL), explaining that the bill stemmed from past issues in Carroll County with untimely and improper audits, leading to a legislative limit of $1,000 on commissioner transfers of appropriations. While commissioners had considered raising it to $10,000, they now requested withdrawal due to improved county management, making the increase unnecessary.
SB585: Support 02:37:42.109 - 12:33:23 PM; Senator McConkie introduces SB585, which amends RSA 530-G:10 to allow communication districts to petition the Department of Revenue Administration for exemption from annual audit requirements if annual revenues do not exceed $50,000 or are less than $2,000,000 and the district has no taxing authority. He highlights the case of Carroll County Communications District, where audit costs exceed operational expenses, citing $3,500 for audit versus $2,500 in costs, calling it wasteful. He defers detailed questions to Selectman Hilliard.
SB585: Support 02:40:24.590 - 12:36:05 PM; Rick Highland supports SB585 on behalf of the Carroll County Communications District, formed under RSA 53-G to facilitate broadband access with ISPs, achieving 99% high-speed internet coverage in 16 towns. The district, operating on grants and donations, spends excessively on municipal audits due to certification requirements. They sought exemption from Revenue Administration but needed legislation. The bill provides oversight while allowing exceptions; he notes current budget around $7,000 and willingness to adjust thresholds lower if needed, emphasizing fiscal conservatism and redirecting funds to education and internet security.
SB440: Support 02:49:12.058 - 12:44:53 PM; Senator Innes introduces SB440, building on last year's SB4 streamlining CPACER funding for commercial and multifamily housing. The bill allows municipalities to adopt CPACER via opt-in selectboard hearing rather than annual town meeting, clarifies public notice, and provides opt-out procedures to expedite development without slowing processes.
SB440: Support 02:51:11.045 - 12:46:52 PM; Brody Deshaies supports SB440, drafted with BFA legal counsel. It enables governing body adoption through public hearing or traditional town meeting, with 25 voters able to petition for warrant placement. Balances flexibility for governing bodies with legislative oversight, addressing stakeholder requests for quicker opt-ins while maintaining local control and rescission options. Existing agreements remain protected.
SB440: Support 02:52:13.590 - 12:47:54 PM; James Key Wallace supports SB440 as an optional addition to town meeting adoption, providing flexibility for towns to opt into CPACER via selectboard in response to projects. All private funding; clarifies processes depend on municipal structure, with rescission possible by governing body or petition. Ensures legislative body retains authority to force questions or rescind districts without affecting existing contracts.
SB435: Information Only 03:06:17.728 - 1:01:58 PM; Representative Walker briefly introduces SB435 relative to zoning board of adjustment variance criteria.
SB435: Support 03:07:42.871 - 1:03:23 PM; Brody Deshaies supports SB435 as Senate-amended, which rewrites the fifth variance criterion (hardship) to 'unreasonable restriction' for clarity, aligning with existing law and case law without changing application. It restates the two-part test: literal enforcement unduly restricts spirit/purpose of ordinance, and granting won't alter neighborhood character or threaten public health/safety. Prevents arbitrary variances, balancing property rights and community goals. Handout provided on criteria; NHMA crafted with land-use attorneys at Senator Gray's request, opposing original and unvetted amendments.
SB435: Information Only 03:11:43.089 - 1:07:24 PM; Brody Deshaies continues his testimony by addressing concerns about potential lawsuits if the law changes without aligning with existing case law, emphasizing the bill's intent to clarify and avoid new interpretations. He explains to Representative Colby that the term 'unreasonable restriction' does not deem zoning ordinances unreasonable but allows variances in specific circumstances where literal application might unconstitutionally limit property rights, focusing on hardship due to land characteristics rather than personal convenience. Responding to Representative Gilman, he clarifies that the bill applies to any zoning ordinance provision, but applicants must still meet strict criteria including hardship. To Representative Stavis, he notes the term 'unreasonable restriction' was chosen by the Senate committee for clarity, equivalent to 'unnecessary hardship' under current law. Further to Representative Gilman, he specifies the bill only affects local zoning variances, not state laws like cemetery setbacks. He confirms the bill restates and clarifies existing law to align with case law without changing it, making it more accessible. Deshaies concludes by noting the bill updates RSA 674:33 to be consistent with court findings and easier for applicants and ZBA members to understand.