HB 1691

Committee — INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

Rep. Marie Louise Bjelobrk

This bill restricts eligibility for current use property tax assessment based on parcel size, zoning, and sustainability criteria, and limits municipal approval percentages. This bill also imposes retroactive tax liability for violations. This bill mandates that no person or entity, including LLC members or shareholders, can enroll more than one lot in the program. Current use statute was first established in 1973. The current RSA permits municipalities, via their assessors or select boards, to have broad discretion to approve current use enrollments under RSA 79-A, based on local needs and interpretations. This bill would reduce local control over land use and property taxation decisions in New Hampshire, resulting in a loss of municipal autonomy with regard to their ability to tailor the program in line with local economic or environmental priorities. This bill delineates strict rules concerning allowable acreage and land maintenance. In semi-rural zones, individual lot size is limited to 40 acres, with any acreage beyond that size paying full market value taxes. In developed, suburban, or high-density zones max lot size is 10 acres if it abuts conservation/watershed land. High density land is required to allow public recreation per RSA 79-A:4, II to qualify as well as sustainability requirements that would be mandated. The prime sponsor and supporters of this bill testified that current use is a tax break for wealthy landowners, cited environmental concerns, and also discussed how property taken out of current use could be made available for much needed housing. Testimony was presented by property owners and organizations in opposition to this bill. This testimony indicated that land in current use does not present a financial burden to municipalities while providing recreation access to visitors and maintaining the open space beauty that has been historically characteristic of New Hampshire. Other testimony reaffirmed that current use assessment is just one method of assessment and not a tax break for wealthy property owners. Additionally, this bill would create a patchwork of tax assessments resulting in disparity across different municipalities. A representative of SPACE (Statewide Program of Action to Conserve the Environment) testified that current use is an essential public policy that “keeps the fabric of the state as it is;” this individual also testified that this bill would dismantle current use law and it’s unknown how many of the 3 million acres owned by 42 thousand different landowners would be eliminated from the current use program if this bill passes. Also, once disqualified from the current use program, all municipalities affected would lose the “change in use tax” assessed, which could result in tens of millions of dollars lost. Land in current use does not require services, and, for a municipality to decide which properties to remove from current use, would be an administrative nightmare. A representative for the Society for the Protection of NH Forests testified that open space has tangible economic benefits through recreation and tourism. He presented the results of a survey of current use landowners, indicating they are not “super wealthy,” revealing that 51% of landowners in this category have household incomes under $125,000/year. This bill may violate multiple aspects of the NH Constitution. It imposes a retroactive penalty for violations of the new sustainability and operational requirements and could violate Part 1, Article 23 of the NH Constitution, that describes such laws as “highly injurious, oppressive, and unjust.” The unequal taxation based on zoning and ownership restrictions could conflict with Part 2, Article 5 which requires taxes to be “proportional and reasonable.” Reduction in local control and home rule could infringe on Part 1, Article 39 or broader principles of local governance under Part 2, Article 100. These issues alone would invite litigation against the state if this bill were to pass. This bill undermines 50 years of current use policy in an attempt to force private landowners to limit acreage so more land can be made available for housing, without considering the constitutional violations or private property rights. Vote 17-0.