Written by Andrew Horn of Amherst, NH.
 |
According to the House calendar, the Municipal and County Government Committee will hear seven bills tomorrow.
If you can’t make it in person, you can submit testimony online.
 |
HB 84 - Fees for recreational vehicles
AN ACT allowing municipalities to collect fees for certain recreational vehicles located on campground properties.
Bill text (PDF), modifies RSA 72:7-d
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Barrett Faulkner (D)
Co-Sponsor: Sen. Donovan Fenton (D)
Selected quote from bill:
“each municipality may elect to impose a fee, not to exceed $200, on all campground owners for each recreational vehicle at the campground that does not meet the criteria described in subparagraph I(a),” which refers to “I(a) … a valid motor vehicle registration and current number plate, having a maximum width of 8 feet and 6 inches while being transported.”
Other law mentioned in bill: RSA 75:3
Analysis: This bill appears to allow cities and towns to tax recreational vehicles that are larger than a certain size or don’t have a valid registration or license plate.
My guesses at potential arguments for and against:
For: This allows cities and towns to tax recreational vehicles that are already effectively used as domiciles. This replaces the property tax that they cannot otherwise collect from these residents.
Against: This is an unneeded, new tax on the poorest of our constituents.
Hearing: Monday, Jan 13 at 10:30am in Room 301-303 in the Legislative Office Building.
HB 86-FN-LOCAL - Increased cost civil forfeiture of dogs
AN ACT increasing the cost of service for notice of civil forfeiture of unlicensed dogs to the rate for certified mail.
Bill text (PDF), modifies RSA 466:14
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Charlie St. Clair (D)
Co-Sponsors: Rep. John Sellers (R), Rep. Timothy Soucy (D)
Selected quote from bill:
“The cost of service shall not exceed the United States Postal Service rate of certified mail with return receipt, or $10 for delivered in-hand or left at the abode of the dog owner [$7].”
Analysis: It appears the sponsors feel $7 is not sufficient compensation to the city or town that needs to serve the notice of civil forfeiture. The bill appears to increase the maximum fee to the rate of certified mail or $10 for notices delivered into the dog owner’s hand or at the dog owner’s place of residence.
My guesses at potential arguments for and against:
For: This bill allows cities and towns to be properly reimbursed for the cost of serving notices of civil forfeiture.
Against: This bill is an unneeded raise on government fees on dog owners who may already be struggling to pay the bills.
Hearing: Monday, Jan 13 at 10:45am in Room 301-303 in the Legislative Office Building.
HB 92 - Prohibiting serving on both zoning board and planning board
AN ACT prohibiting an individual from simultaneously serving on the local zoning board and planning board.
Bill text (PDF), modifies RSA 673:3
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Joe Alexander Jr (R)
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Jim Maggiore (D), Rep. Lisa Mazur (R), Rep. Richard Lascelles (R), Rep. John MacDonald (R), Rep. Sheila Seidel (R), Rep. John Sellers (R), Sen. Dan Innis (R), Sen. Keith Murphy (R)
Selected quotes from bill:
“No member of the board may also be a member of a planning board.”
“no member serving on the planning board shall also be a member of a zoning board of adjustment.”
Analysis: It appears the sponsors believe no one should serve on a city or town planning board and zoning board at the same time.
My guesses at potential arguments for and against:
For: We need to prevent too much power pooling in the hands of too few individuals, encouraging greater public participation in local governance.
Against: This is a good idea in theory, but in practice, this will just force more vacancies on planning boards and zoning boards throughout the state. This may lead to increased vacancies, which local boards want to avoid.
Hearing: Monday, Jan 13 at 11:00am in Room 301-303 in the Legislative Office Building.
HB 99 - Cities and towns can exempt disabled veterans from property taxes
AN ACT relative to a waiver from property taxes for disabled veterans.
Bill text (PDF), modifies RSA 72:35
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Michael Moffett (R)
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Jess Edwards (R), Rep. Terry Roy (R), Rep. Sheila Seidel (R), Sen. Howard Pearl (R)
Selected quote from bill:
“The optional tax credit for service-connected total disability, upon adoption by a city or town pursuant to RSA 72:27-a, shall be an amount from $701 up to [$4,000] 100 percent of the property tax.”
Other law mentioned in bill: RSA 72:27-a
Analysis: It appears the sponsors want to give cities and towns the power to exempt disabled veterans from property taxes.
Online Testimony:
Goffstown Assessor Scott Bartlett submitted neutral testimony.
Selected quote from Bartlett’s testimony:
My concern with this bill is the range of a credit of up to "100 percent of the property tax." A credit by its very nature is a set amount. Prior to setting the tax rate, the Town is required to report to the DRA the total amount of credits for the tax year. The Town does not know the tax rate until after submitting its information to the DRA; therefore, the amount of the credit would not be known. If not known, how could the Town then report to the DRA? If the finding is that the current credit limit is not sufficient, my suggestion would be to increase the current upper limit of $4000.
My guesses at potential arguments for and against:
For: This gives cities and towns the ability to relieve those who were wounded in the line of duty while in service to our country.
Against: This might disproportionately shift the tax burden onto non-veteran property owners, including those who are also struggling financially.
Hearing: Monday, Jan 13 at 11:20am in Room 301-303 in the Legislative Office Building.
HB 101 - Exempting elderly homeowners from property taxes
AN ACT relative to exempting certain elderly homeowners from paying property taxes.
Bill text (PDF), modifies RSA 72 including sections 29, 33, and 34
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Mike Belcher (R)
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Michael Moffett (R), Rep. Matt Sabourin dit Choinière (R), Rep. John Sellers (R),
Selected quote from bill:
An elderly homeowner exemption, based on assessed value for qualified taxpayers, shall be granted for a different dollar amount determined by the town or city to a person 72 years of age or older. To qualify, the person shall have been a New Hampshire resident for at least 10 consecutive years and have owned the real estate individually or jointly for 2 consecutive years. In addition, the value of exemption a qualifying taxpayer is eligible for shall not exceed $530,000. Under no circumstances shall the amounts of the exemption for any qualifying taxpayer be less than $5,000.
Analysis: It appears the sponsors want to exempt elderly homeowners from property taxes if they are 72 years or over, have lived in New Hampshire for at least 10 consecutive years, and have owned the real estate for at least 2 consecutive years. They set a minimum and maximum for the tax exemption.
My guesses at potential arguments for and against:
For: With property taxes continuing to rise, this gives cities and towns the ability to alleviate this tax pain for our elderly Granite Staters.
Against: This could result in tax exemptions for wealthy elderly residents from paying property taxes. This is effectively a tax cut for the rich.
Hearing: Monday, Jan 13 at 1:00pm in Room 301-303 in the Legislative Office Building.
HB 110 - Allowing counties to establish revolving funds
AN ACT authorizing counties to establish revolving fund accounts.
Bill text (PDF), modifies RSA 23
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Douglas Trottier (R)
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Matthew Coker (R), Rep. Mike Bordes (R), Sen. Timothy Lang (R), Sen. Howard Pearl (R)
Selected quote from bill:
The money in the fund shall be allowed to accumulate from year to year. The county treasurer shall have custody of all moneys in the fund …. Such funds may be expended only for the purposes for which the fund was created.
Analysis: It appears the sponsors want to allow counties to have revolving funds.
My guesses at potential arguments for and against:
For: Revolving funds generate their own revenue through user fees, charges, or other income, reducing dependence on general tax revenue or annual appropriations.
Against: Once established, these funds operate with less direct input from the legislative body, potentially leading to misuse or mismanagement.
Hearing: Monday, Jan 13 at 1:20pm in Room 301-303 in the Legislative Office Building.
HB 78 - Ensure that Strafford County commissioners reside in the districts they represent
AN ACT requiring a person to have a domicile in the district from which they serve as county commissioner.
Bill text (PDF), modifies RSA 655:9
Primary Sponsor: Rep. Len Turcotte (R)
Co-Sponsors: Rep. Claudine Burnham (R), Rep. Kelley Potenza (R), Rep. Aidan Ankarberg (I), Rep. Michael Granger (R), Sen. James Gray (R)
Selected quote from bill:
the counties of Rockingham, Belknap, Grafton, Merrimack, Hillsborough, Cheshire, Sullivan, Coos, [and] Carroll, and Strafford
Analysis: It appears the sponsors want to make sure county commissioners in Stafford county live in the district they represent.
Online Testimony:
Julie Smith of Nashua voiced her support for the bill.
Sen. Timothy Horrigan (D) submitted online testimony neither for nor against the bill.
Selected quote from Sen. Horrigan’s testimony:
One simple change which could be made now to future-proof the current bill would be to simply reword the second sentence of RSA 655:9 to say “In addition, to hold the office of county commissioner, a person must have a domicile in the district from which he or she is elected at the time of his election.” The list in the bill as introduced is not in alphabetical order, but it encompasses all ten counties. It would be simpler, in my opinion, to delete that list, since the phrase “district from which he or she is elected” would still apply if Strafford County (or any other county) switched at some point to having a single at-large district.
My guesses at potential arguments for and against:
For: Strafford county commissioners should be bound by the same rules as other counties.
Against: Existing domicile requirements are sufficient for ensuring accountability and representation.
Hearing: Monday, Jan 13 at 1:35pm in Room 301-303 in the Legislative Office Building.
Autistic Poem of the Day
 |
I’ve Seen Ghosts by Public Universal Fiend
Decay has now become the law
And time its referee