==Legislative Update, 2024 #10== Major bill win. Major bill work session. Class scheduled for EPA RRP crack down in Manchester.

0
Comments

 

Howdee Everyone,

Big win. HB1368, Anti-algorithm Rent Pricing
Committee voted to recommend ITL 20-0.

HB1320, Flood Disclosure has work session scheduled. Communicate to Committee now.

We did create a class focused for housing providers, managers and their maintenance for lead paint EPA RRP.
See more on the above in the Update Summary below.

Next House Session
Thursday, March 14, 2024 at 10:00 am
Next Senate Session
Call of the Chair

Update 2024 10 ActionMap
***

Update Summary
Note: some links have changed. Always use latest links in latest update.
Also note that we often keep previous update info on items still active because there are often new members signing up and receiving the updates. So we want them to have the info. Please have your housing provider partners and friends join us. The more members the stronger we will be.

EPA Crackdown on RRP in Manchester, NH
Big heads up to be sure you, your partners and subs are in compliance.
Are you prepared? Or will you be paying gigantic fines to the EPA?

We have heard from several of you that want to avoid those big fines, be prepared and renew your EPA RRP certifications so we indeed have created a class focused for housing providers, managers and their maintenance for EPA RRP certification. We plan for this to provide an opportunity for you to ask the specific questions you need answered regarding lead paint, EPA and RRP certification.

The class is Monday 4/1/24 at a very landlord friendly Manchester, NH, location.
Contact us for more info and to join the class. By EPA regulation the class will have a limited enrollment and appears to be half full already from those that already responded.

We have tentatively reserved space for 4/3/24 for overflow reservations.

EPA is doing concentrated enforcement in Manchester, NH, for compliance with lead disclosure on rental and sale of property, as well as disclosure on renovation.
They have already started. Landlords have received letters like this asking to set up EPA inspection visits. Generally, compliance inspections are complaint driven, but this initiative does not involve complaints - they seem to be randomly selecting companies for inspection.
EPA is planning on a high number of inspections and is hiring extra help to conduct the inspections.

We will likely arrange for a short special class on the minimums to be prepared and have your documentation Renovator and Firm certification lined up. We are likely to also arrange some RRP classes in case you need to update your RRP certification.

Let us know if you would like to be included in the special class and RRP Recertification.

Major bills (follow action items in Action Map above):

HB261, Lease Termination Domestic Violence Victims Or Newly Disabled
Property owner position: Against
Here is the previous analysis and our notes.
We may be asking to clarify the “relative to” clause, 540:11-b I (b).
Next this goes to the House so they can concur or ask for committee of conference.

(same as last update)
SB519, Restrictions On Renovation Evictions
Property owner position: Against
The bill is very unworkable. Initial public hearing has past.

Study our concerns and analysis and communicate to the committee right now.
“The other side” is in communication with us about potential changes but their changes still look bad. Stay tuned.

(same as last update)
SB518, Section 8 Incentives
Property owner position: For
Study our original concerns and analysis, amendment 2024-0518s, and notes for contacting the committee. We have not studied the amendment yet.
We need the bill to itemize a listing of the expenses of accepting Section 8 that “shall” be reimbursed by the incentive program.
It would also be helpful if you told the committee the extra costs that you have experienced having used the program in the past or present.

Lastly, please write back to us telling your stories of extra costs you experienced in using the program. We don’t need stories of extra maintenance costs, which can happen with any tenant, but rather extra costs because of the program itself.

HB1320, Flood Insurance
Communicate to the committee now asking them to kill the bill.

Property owner position: Against
There is a subcommittee work session scheduled for 3/13/24. However, there are so many bills scheduled for that work session that we believe it is a mistake. Check the Interim Update where we will store new knowledge as we get it.

There is an active amendment, 2024-0196h, from the sponsor that moved the rental section into prohibited acts of RSA 540. Here is our advance copy of 2024-0196h, not available on the website. We studied the amendment and updated our analysis. The amendment pulls in penalties of $1000-$3000 per day or 3 times damages per day.

This would make a mandatory flood disclosure requirement. It has provisions that are very troublesome and could give tenant’s rights to immediately terminate a lease if there is one spec of damage, makes requirements on housing providers they may not be able to do and possibly gives immunity to tenants from paying lawful charges on their lease.

See the Action Map. Here is our updated and original analysis. Study our concerns and analysis, look over the amendment. Prepare to communicate to the committee on the amendment.

HB1115, Lease Expiration As Ground For Eviction
Property owner position: For
Committee vote 12-8, ITL, Kill the bill.
See the Action Map. See Committee roll call vote. Study our concerns and analysis and, if not already done, communicate to the committee now.

Stay tuned. We don’t see it scheduled for full House vote yet. So for now prepare to communicate with your Representative.

Important Bills: (control-F to find info in Full Detail below)
SB392, Lead Hazard Remediation Fund
HB1281, Occupancy By Unrelated People

HB1144, Septic System Disclosure
Subcommittee Work Session: 03/13/2024 01:15 pm LOB 302-304

HB1635, Short Term Rental Rooms & Meal Tax
Subcommittee Work Session: 03/13/2024 01:15 pm LOB 302-304

HB1368, Anti-algorithm Rent Pricing
HB1065, Limiting Sprinkler Requirements
HB1229, Shoreline Minimum Standards Disclosure


To increase our and your advocacy effectiveness, be sure to complete the landlord survey. All responses are kept confidential. No individual response info will be shared. Complete survey here


Big thank you to those that donated. It really makes a positive difference to keeping this Legislative Initiative going. Donations have ranged from $15 to $500.

If you feel we are providing benefit, you can send donations to 16 Crescent St, Derry, NH 03038 made payable to Nick Norman.

1. General Updates
In between publishing the weekly Legislative Update, we will occasionally put interim updates here: Interim Update

Logistics For Testifying
If action map says to contact committee:
See Legislative Committee Communication & Testifying In Person Procedure, Physical & Email addresses

If action map says to contact your Representative and full House or your Senator and Full Senate:
See Legislative Full Senate and Full House Communication Procedure
See Find Your Legislators

See Standard Email/Letter Format


2. Major Bills:

See Action Map table & Update Summary above.
(Remember: to jump right to bill detail, use Control-F, Find)


3. Federal Update

None so far. We’re still concentrating on the flood of new state level legislation.

4. Minor bill updates are included in bill status section further below.
See Bill Status summary below.

5. Media.
With so few apartments available, Concord Housing to pause voucher waitlist.

See more info in Summaries & Full Detail for each bill further below. (includes property owner position, contact info, Talking points, and more).
(Remember: to jump right to bill detail, use Control-F, Find).


Hearings this week:

None so far


Hearings next week:

None so far


Future Hearings:

None so far


Love & Light,

Nick Norman
Director of Legislative Affairs
AANH Government Affairs Chair
NHRPOA Legislative Affairs Committee Chairman
|==============================================|
Bills Updated Status summary:
We only list the committee reports on the most important bills affecting the real estate business. If you want to get the committee report on one of the other bills contact me & I will show you how to get them on line. It's not terribly hard to get but not straight ahead either.

HB1068, Blood Lead Test Before Entering School

Title: relative to establishing a blood lead level testing requirement for children entering day care and public schools.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Senate Status:

HB1362, Local Rent Control

Title: relative to authorizing municipalities to stabilize rent increases in rental housing.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Senate Status:

HB1449, Prohibiting Board Of Tax & Land Appeals From Ordering Retroactive Re-Appraisals

Title: relative to prohibiting the board of tax and land appeals from ordering retroactive re-appraisals outside of the years in question or relying on the department of revenue administration to provide investigative services.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Senate Status:

HB1672, Housing Authority Must Accept Tenant Successfully Completing a Rehabilitation Program

Title: relative to tenants in section 8 public housing.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Senate Status:

HB283, Application Fee Limit & Refund

Title: (New Title) relative to rental application fees charged to prospective tenants.
Property Owner Position: Against original bill, for amendment 2023-2041h
General Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status: none

HB261, Lease Termination Domestic Violence Victims Or Newly Disabled

Title: (New Title) relative to rights of tenants in cases of domestic violence.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT

HB379, Indigent Tenant Eviction Notice of NHLA

Title:
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status:
House Status: none
Senate Status: none

HB1154, relative to property tax exemptions for certain disabled veterans.

Title: relative to property tax exemptions for certain disabled veterans.
Property Owner Position:
General Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE

SB392, Lead Hazard Remediation Fund

Title: relative to lead paint hazard remediation.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: SENATE
House Status:
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE

SB519, Restrictions On Renovation Evictions

Title: relative to evictions based on the owner's intent to renovate the property.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: SENATE
House Status:
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE

SB518, Section 8 Incentives

Title: relative to incentivizing landlords to accept housing choice vouchers.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: SENATE
House Status:
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE

HB1105, Determine Amount of Local Tax Cap

Title: relative to application of a local tax cap.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE

HB1140, Homeowner Septic System Self-installation

Title: relative to requirements for homeowner installations of septic systems.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE

HB1281, Occupancy By Unrelated People

Title: relative to zoning restrictions on residential rental property.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1144, Septic System Disclosure

Title: relative to requirements for sewage disposal system information to be disclosed during real estate transactions.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1320, Flood Disclosure

Title: relative to real property and flood risk disclosure.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1635, Short Term Rental Rooms & Meal Tax

Title: relative to the definition of short-term rental.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1203, Charitable Organization Rent

Title: relative to prohibiting the charging of rent to charities by charitable gaming facilities.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: PASSED
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status:

HB1229, Shoreline Minimum Standards Disclosure

Title: relative to the purchase and sale of any interest in real property abutting public waters.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: INTERIM STUDY
Senate Status:

HB1286, Merging The Board Of Land Surveyors And The Board Of Professional Engineers

Title: relative to merging the board of land surveyors and the board of professional engineers.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1504, Architectural Paint Recycling

Title: relative to architectural paint recycling.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1115, Lease Expiration As Ground For Eviction

Title: relative to the termination of tenancy at the expiration of the tenancy or lease term.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1368, Anti-algorithm Rent Pricing

Title: prohibiting termination of a tenancy based on a tenant's failure to pay rent that was increased by certain price fixing programs.
Property Owner Position: Against
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1168, Study Impact Of The Housing Crisis On People With Disabilities.

Title: establishing a committee to study the impact of the housing crisis on people with disabilities.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1065, Limiting Sprinkler Requirements

Title: relative to fire sprinkler requirements in residential buildings.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:

HB1053, Allow Residential In Commercial Zones.

Title: relative to permissible residential units in a commercial zone.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status:
|==============================================|
Full Details on all bills above:
HB1068, Blood Lead Test Before Entering School
1/10/2024 at 9:45 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:45 a.m.
Title:

Summary:

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H09

Email to Committee:
To: Gerri.Cannon@leg.state.nh.us; Leah.Cushman@leg.state.nh.us; Mary.Freitas@leg.state.nh.us; king4nh@gmail.com; Seth.King@leg.state.nh.us; staterep@jimkofalt.com; Erica.Layon@leg.state.nh.us; elephantsmarching@msn.com; james.mackay@mygait.com; Lisa.Mazur@leg.state.nh.us; mark.mclean@leg.state.nh.us; merchant4nhhouse@gmail.com; James.Murphy@leg.state.nh.us; David.NagelMD@gmail.com; Fran.NutterUpham@leg.state.nh.us; William.Palmer@leg.state.nh.us; Yury.Polozov@leg.state.nh.us; Joe.Schapiro@leg.state.nh.us; Trinidad.Tellez@leg.state.nh.us; lwmcv@comcast.net; ; ;
Subject: HB1068

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1068
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:

|=====================|
HB1362, Local Rent Control
1/30/2024 at 2:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:30 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill creates legislation that would enable local municipalities to restrict residential landlords of a covered property, generally restricted property as defined in RSA 540, the eviction statute, from raising rents above an allowable percentage over a 12 -month period.
Rent increases must be at least 5 per cent plus the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for the New England Region over the preceding 12 months, as published by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics.
Municipalities must establish boards to make this determination once a year on a set date each year. Landlords who can demonstrate that specified operating costs exceed the allowable rent increase can petition the local board for a larger increase. Appeals from such a petition would go to the city council and not the courts. The board would also have the authority to have Landlords give tenants up to a 120-day notice of rent increases.
Ordinances under this bill shall expire 5 years from the date the effective date of the ordinance. But then the bill says the 3-year period shall not run while the municipality is enjoined from enforcement. However, the enabling legislation itself does not sunset.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18

Email to Committee:
To: HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1362

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1362
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Concerns:
Rent control in New Hampshire is not the right solution to high rents. We must create more housing.

~Rent Control Doesn’t Work.
~Creates A Pressure To Build Less Housing And Worsen The Housing Shortage.
~Creates Increased Admin Costs On Towns Which Will Put Pressure To Raise Rents.
~”Similar Ordinances” Is Ambiguous
~Appeals Process Is Unclear
~No Sunset, Unclear Time Frames
~Federal Reserve Paused Rate Hikes The Percentage Of Inflation Is Down
~See Previous Notes And Studies On Rent Control. It Doesn’t Work.

Analysis:
~Rent Control Doesn’t Work.
For instance, 3/23/22 St Paul, Minneapolis, enacted a rent control and new construction was down 80% after rent control passed despite original forecast that it would be up in 2022.

This is a rent control bill. Rent control doesn’t work. The bill should be immediately killed. Rent control has no place in the market place. It is especially an anathema to the Granite State's history of a "live Free or Die" approach to legislation.
Rent control does not solve a housing shortage. In the long run it only makes it worse as developers do not want to build new rental housing when there is rent control.
Rent control has been proven over and over, time and time again to not work. Go study economists reports and find out for yourself.
Rent control leads to less rental housing, less production of rental housing, deterioration of rental housing, gentrification and a general worsening of the situation it attempts to solve,
Recouping the expense of more than rudimentary repairs and improvements requires too much paperwork, documentation, and time to make such improvements worthy of the investment.

It can not work to only control the income of the business and not control the expenses of a business. If the government wants to control the income then it must also control the costs of every other expense.

The answer to high rents is more housing stock. The legislature is already considering many means of doing so by way of incentives to developers and the reduction of locally imposed roadblocks to construction. We need to support those bills.

The last we counted, 37 States in the USA have preemptions against rent control.

If you want to solve the housing shortage and you are not looking to create new housing then you are looking in the wrong place.

~Creates A Pressure To Build Less Housing And Worsen The Housing Shortage.
The only way to solve a housing shortage is to build more housing, and not create reasons not to build and invest in New Hampshire.
We are in a housing shortage. It can only worsen the situation by creating a pressure to build less housing.

~Creates Increased Admin Costs On Towns Which Will Put Pressure To Raise Rents.
Each municipality that enacts such an ordinance will have to form a board, with staff, write rules and regulations, and pay the costs of such. These costs will have to be paid by taxpayers, further raising property taxes and apply pressure to raise rents.

~”Similar Ordinances” Is Ambiguous
In section I(d) of the bill, the definition of net operating income methodology is "as that term is used in other jurisdictions with similar ordinances." This is an ambiguous standard and does not give sufficient guidance to any board or to landlords affected by this bill.

~Appeals Process Is Unclear
The bill does not have a clear appeals process beyond petitioning city council, board of alderman, mayor or board of selectmen. Do appeals after that go to Supreme Court or the Superior Court? Nothing is specified in this regard. Nor does the bill address the time frames of when appeals should be filed and decided.

~No Sunset, Unclear Time Frames
A bill like this should sunset, and that is not specified in the bill. Also, the bill has two different time frames in the last paragraph that are not consistent. This paragraph is also ambiguous - once an ordinance expires can it be reenacted under this bill. It's not clear.

~Federal Reserve Paused Rate Hikes The Percentage Of Inflation Is Down
The Federal Reserve has paused rate hikes as the percentage of inflation is down. Until there are new surveys seeing how the reduction in inflation is affecting rent increases, a bill like this should not be enacted. This could ease pressure on rising rents.
However, the real concern is that there is not enough housing supply. We must create more housing.

~See previous notes and studies on rent control. It doesn’t work.
Attempts to manipulate the marketplace for any one group will exacerbate the problem it seeks to fix, in this case, a shortage of affordable housing. Crimping the supply pipeline will increase the shortage of housing. The State should be working on incentives to increase unit production, not establishing disincentives.

Such controls are a failed concept rejected by city after city. Even Massachusetts has turned back rent control laws and has a preemption for city and county rights to enact rent control policies of their own.
In March of 2022, it is reported that in St Paul, Minneapolis, which imposed their version of rent control, new construction was down 80% after rent control passed despite original forecast that it would be up in 2022.

In addition to control the annual increase in rents by cities and towns, this is a bill designed to allow increase in the notice period landlords must give tenants of rent increases.

We cannot predict what will happen in the future with costs associated with rental property ownership. Taxes, insurance, utilities, labor and materials have all increased. Without the ability to offset these increased costs with revenue increases, many property owners will find themselves in default of loans and/or unable to make needed repairs and improvements. Any municipality that adopts a strict policy regarding rent increase amounts will find that investors and developers will avoid these towns due to the uncertainty of future costs and the uncertainty of being able to offset costs with rent revenue. NH needs more housing to solve the housing issue and bills like this will worsen the issue.

This bill will be a disincentive for developers to build more private rental housing, as it adds both limits on the ability to pass cost increases on to the consumers, and adds more administrative labor for the landlord in both keeping track of each municipalities rules and regulations, applying for rent increases or appealing the amount allowed under this statute.

As there is currently no cap for annual increases in property tax, water & sewer rates, overhead costs, etc, it is unfair to institute a cap on rent increases as rent incorporates all of these items.

General concern about Rent Control:
Economists overwhelmingly agree that price control on rent are inefficient, counterproductive and
lead to serious negative impacts for housing markets.

While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative spillovers on the surrounding neighborhood.

When rent control is put in place Landlords are converting properties out of rent control and reducing the supply of affordable housing, those moving into the area are forced to pay higher rents.

Rent control fuels gentrification.

House stock deteriorates from deferred maintenance. As the assessed value of rent controlled properties decline so does the property tax taxes they generate.

The last we counted, 37 States in the USA have preemptions against rent control.

Rent control also discourages the development of new rental housing which is crucial to restoring the
balance between supply and demand in local housing markets.

The Stanford San Francisco Rent Control Study noted:
“rent control limits renters’ mobility by 20%”
Caused market to “reduce rental housing supplies by 15%”
“the lost rental housing supply likely drove up market rents in the long run, ultimately
undermining the goals of the law.”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c4qf7grzgrx1lu0/Stanford%20San%20Francisco%20Rent%20Control%20Study.pdf?dl=0

The Brookings report determined that:
Rent control “imposed $2.0 billion in costs to local property owners, but only $300 million of that cost was transferred to renters in rent-controlled apartments.”
“If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit.”
https://www.dropbox.com/s/8qj8285bhfn8psd/Brookings%20Rent%20Control%20Literature%20Review.pdf?dl=0

The document “NAA Rent Control Literature Review.pdf” summarizes 17 different studies all showing strong issues with rent control and that it is a failed policy.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ntpgo9zaqvxw4p/NAA%20Rent%20Control%20Literature%20Review.pdf?dl=0

The “Rent Control General Talking Points.pdf” document lists bullet points as well as references to 15 studies on rent control.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/6ntpgo9zaqvxw4p/NAA%20Rent%20Control%20Literature%20Review.pdf?dl=0
|=====================|
HB1449, Prohibiting Board Of Tax & Land Appeals From Ordering Retroactive Re-Appraisals
2/7/2024 at 3:00 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 3:00 p.m.
Title:

Summary: Relative to prohibiting the board of tax and land appeals from ordering retroactive re-appraisals outside of the years in question or relying on the department of revenue administration to provide investigative services.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18

Email to Committee:
To: HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1449

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1449
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1672, Housing Authority Must Accept Tenant Successfully Completing a Rehabilitation Program
2/21/2024 at 10:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would require housing authorities to take as a tenant a family member who has satisfactorily completed a substance use disorder treatment or rehabilitation program as a tenant, but a violation of the terms of the family member's tenancy allows the housing authority to restrict the family member's tenancy. This would be for section 8 tenants as well as tenants in public housing.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Email to Committee:
To: Joe.Alexander@leg.state.nh.us; Louise.Andrus@leg.state.nh.us; Shelley.Devine@leg.state.nh.us; Charlotte.DiLorenzo@leg.state.nh.us; Jeffrey.Greeson@leg.state.nh.us; Timothy.Horrigan@leg.state.nh.us; Cam.Kenney@leg.state.nh.us; Katelyn.Kuttab@leg.state.nh.us; Judi.Lanza@leg.state.nh.us; rjlynn4@gmail.com; zoe.manos@leg.state.nh.us; Rebecca.McBeath@leg.state.nh.us; Mark.Paige@leg.state.nh.us; Kristine.Perez@leg.state.nh.us; msmithpen@aol.com ; Walt.Stapleton@leg.state.nh.us; dave@sanbornhall.net; richard.tripp@leg.state.nh.us; Eric.Turer@leg.state.nh.us; Scott.Wallace@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB1672

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1672
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
1. The rules and regulations of the housing choice voucher program, section 8, are from HUD, a federal agency. A state generally can make more restrictive rules than a federal agency, but not less restrictive. This bill, therefore, may be unenforceable if not unconstitutional.
2. The bill allows a housing authority to take a tenant. It is ambiguous if a landlord who takes section 8, would be required to take the family member.
3. It is unclear in the bill if past bad conduct of the family member can be considered by the private landlord or the housing authority when deciding to accept the family member as a tenant. This needs to be considered as the family member could have been disruptive or violent.
|=====================|
HB283, Application Fee Limit & Refund
1/25/2023 at 1:00 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:00 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would limit application fees to 35 dollars or the cost of conducting a background check of the prospective tenant, whichever is less. Any other fees charged by the landlord shall be refunded to the tenant or applied to the security deposit at tenant’s choice, but shall not exceed $250.00. This bill would amend RSA 540A, which means a violation could subject a landlord to daily damages charges.

Property Owner Position: Against original bill, for amendment 2023-2041h

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=40

Email to Committee:
To: Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; Shannon.Chandley@leg.state.nh.us; William.Gannon@leg.state.nh.us; Denise.Ricciardi@leg.state.nh.us; Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB283

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB283
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
The $35 limitation is an arbitrary number. It does not reflect the actual costs that can be incurred in screening tenants. A landlord/company can easily spend an hour to several hours conducting a search to obtain current and prior landlord references, confirm employment, get and review tenancy reports and landlord references and rental history as well as researching falsified rental applications. Many landlords use a professional service and/or a management company to vet tenants in an attempt to have a straightforward, professional, and non-discriminatory process. Their costs would easily exceed the cap required under this bill. All of this can take quite a bit of time and money to follow through to completion.

All of that time is an hourly cost, even if spent by an assistant, plus the costs of a credit report & landlord tenant report, can very easily far exceed $35 dollars.

Applicants already agree to non-refundable fee before applying:
This bill does not understand that prospects agree up front to an application fee, and that the purpose of an application fee is to cover the costs of getting the reports and processing the application and is nonrefundable. People freely enter into these application fee agreements and understand that they are not refundable.

Only a portion of applications get denied, usually because the tenant was dishonest on the application.

The bill also does not deal with inflation. There is no cost of living adjustment included so as costs invariably go up, landlords go further behind.

The term background check is ambiguous. Is it the time spent checking references, researching falsified application and finding the true landlord, getting the landlord tenant report, getting references from landlords or is it a formal credit report only?

Penalties are unreasonable in light of the potential harm to the applicant:
Compared to the cost of the application, the penalties under RSA 540A are extremely excessive, which can be in the amount of $1,000 and a judge can award up to three times that amount on a finding of a willful or knowing violation, plus an award of attorney fees and court costs.

Extensive background check is called for before relinquishing control of an asset worth 100s of thousands:
An extensive background check is called for at applicants expense just like applying for a loan.

Mandates returning additional processing fees to people who falsify applications:
Many applicants falsify their rental application particularly with false landlord references which takes time for the person processing the application to verify. Also, tenants frequently say they have no eviction history when in fact they do. If a company spells out their criteria and a candidate, after a thorough processing, does not meet the criteria, they should not be entitled to a refund of that expense, nor should it be credited to a deposit. It is a cost, voluntarily entered into by a prospective tenant and should be retained by the landlord or property management company. The bill is essentially saying, the applicants that lie should have their additional processing fees returned after wasting hours of the landlord’s time and effort.

Applicants can already review their situation with landlords before applying:
If a prospective tenant doesn’t want to loose application costs then they can carefully review their situation with the landlord before they even apply, including showing the landlord their credit report before applying.

Those people can also help themselves by asking, when they are about to apply, what are the landlord's requirements to have the application approved. If they do not meet those requirements, they should simply not apply and not pay the application fee.

Are that many landlords charging high application fees to warrant this bill? What actual studies or surveys are going to be presented to the legislature to show that a bill is even needed?
The extent of the number of people who have applied for and paid multiple application fees in order to obtain an apartment is not known. This bill maybe for a few people, who most likely have bad credit or bad landlord history. A bill should not be passed to help those few people.
Tenant with failing applications need to fix what's causing the denials.

Again the issue is a housing shortage in New Hampshire and other areas of our country.

Please vote Inexpedient To Legislate.
|=====================|
HB261, Lease Termination Domestic Violence Victims Or Newly Disabled
4/11/2023 at 10:00 a.m. Location: State House Time: 10:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would give tenants who are victims of domestic abuse or stalking or a tenant who's household member is such a victim, and tenants who suffers a disabling illness or accident the ability to terminate a lease within 30 days of notice to the landlord and not be subject to any charges or penalties for such termination. The tenant terminating the lease would have to provide written notice to the landlord and documentation showing the abuse, sexual assault or stalking which would include an order from a Court based upon a petition for protection from abuse, a police report reflecting that the tenant or a household member, who can be a child was such a victim, both have to be dated no more than 60 days before the notice of termination.

The tenant who suffers a disabling illness or accident must provide the landlord with written notice which describes the reason for termination of the rental agreement and be accompanied by written documentation indicating how, as a result of disability, the rental property is no longer enjoyable or suitable for the tenant.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=40

Email to Committee:
To: Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; Shannon.Chandley@leg.state.nh.us; William.Gannon@leg.state.nh.us; Denise.Ricciardi@leg.state.nh.us; Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB261

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB261
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
See https://drive.google.com/open?id=1SC_z-YRxsxMiMg3zcL2ABZ0-MZ0byvRz&authuser=nicknorman003%40gmail.com&usp=drive_fs
|=====================|
HB379, Indigent Tenant Eviction Notice of NHLA

Title:

Summary: Summary on Amendment 2023-0252h: It replaces the entire text of the bill with only the following:
The eviction notice shall clearly state that an indigent tenant may be eligible for assistance from New Hampshire Legal Assistance for legal counsel in the eviction proceeding and shall include instructions on the process for contacting and obtaining such assistance. This paragraph does not guarantee a right to legal assistance.

Summary on original bill as introduced:
The bill would require the Courts to appoint an attorney to indigent tenants, people who's income is equal to or less than 200% of the federal poverty guidelines, upon the tenant requesting such an attorney. The bill would require that the eviction notice shall clearly state that an indigent tenant may be provided with court-appointed counsel for the eviction proceeding and include instructions on the process for obtaining such counsel.
The bill would establish a fund for the payment of attorneys for indigent tenants, but only funds it with $1.00.
The eviction notice shall clearly state that an indigent tenant may be eligible for assistance from New Hampshire Legal Assistance for legal counsel in the eviction proceeding and shall include instructions on the process for contacting and obtaining such assistance. This paragraph does not guarantee a right to legal assistance.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info:

Email to Committee:
To:
Subject: HB379

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB379
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Most tenants already know they can consult with NH Legal Assistance, especially after the recent eviction changes during the pandemic.

Statute should not refer to a non-governmental organization by name. NHLA is a nonprofit law firm. The state should not be in the business of advertising for them.

The amendment does not give the indigent tenant any additional rights than the tenant currently has. However, there is a concern that this could be interpreted as a tenant’s right to know about legal service and there may be more cases of the tenant claiming the eviction notice is defective.

Landlords cannot be expected to know the process for contacting and obtaining assistance from NHLA. That's not the landlord's job.

For those reasons, we want the court to develop the form including providing the correct info with a link to the info on line. If the contact info changes the court can be responsible to keep the link up to date.

We need to make clear that if the contact info for the tenant services changes or other tenant services become available then the eviction notice is not made defective and the eviction continues.

Analysis on original bill as introduced:
Summary:
The bill would require the Courts to appoint an attorney to indigent tenants, people who's income is equal to or less than 200% of the federal poverty guidelines, upon the tenant requesting such an attorney. The bill would require that the eviction notice shall clearly state that an indigent tenant may be provided with court-appointed counsel for the eviction proceeding and include instructions on the process for obtaining such counsel.
The bill would establish a fund for the payment of attorneys for indigent tenants, but only funds it with $1.00.

Analysis:
This is redundant to Legal Aid services.
The overwhelming majority of evictions are for non-payment of rent. Most of these cases are because the tenant has not paid rent, and cannot become current before the hearing on the merits. As a result, the bill will have limited effect in protecting the tenants, other than potentially delaying an eviction if an appointed attorney is not available.

Like Small Claims actions, landlord tenant matters are not generally in need of legal services. Ample notice of tenant rights is provided, all they need to do is show up in court and challenge any landlord errors. The Circuit Court Judges are very cautious of tenant rights. The Judges explain the law and the tenant’s rights to the tenant. They also make sure the landlord proves their case, as the landlord has the burden of proof in any eviction. Judges are also highly trained in confirming if the landlord made any errors in their forms.

This bill does not have any real funding for the appointment of counsel. This would include the additional burden on the clerks of court, payment to the attorneys and the administration of the payments. Future funding will undoubtedly be made by a surcharge on landlord tenant entry fees for which the tenant would end up being responsible.

|=====================|
HB1154, relative to property tax exemptions for certain disabled veterans.
1/9/2024 at 10:40 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:40 a.m.
Title:

Summary:

Property Owner Position:

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=41

Email to Committee:
To: Daryl.Abbas@leg.state.nh.us; Keith.Murphy@leg.state.nh.us; Rebecca.PerkinsKwoka@leg.state.nh.us; James.Gray@leg.state.nh.us; Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB1154

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1154
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:

|=====================|
SB392, Lead Hazard Remediation Fund
1/9/2024 at 1:10 p.m. Location: State House Time: 1:10 p.m.
Title:

Summary:

Property Owner Position: For

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=32

Email to Committee:
To: Regina.Birdsell@leg.state.nh.us; Cindy.Rosenwald@leg.state.nh.us; Jeb.Bradley@leg.state.nh.us; Lou.Dallesandro@leg.state.nh.us; James.Gray@leg.state.nh.us; Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us; Howard.Pearl@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: SB392

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
SB392
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:

|=====================|
SB519, Restrictions On Renovation Evictions
1/16/2024 at 9:15 a.m. Location: State House Time: 9:15 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill restricts evictions based on renovation. The bill says:
I. ‘An eviction notice, in restricted property, based on the owner's intention to repair, renovate, or rehabilitate a dwelling unit in restricted property shall be required to:’
(a) Provide the tenant with no less than 60 days notice to vacate the premise; and
(b) Describe with specificity the work that the owner intends to have done on the dwelling unit, and the approximate time frame during which the work will be performed.

II. TO PREVAIL AT THE HEARING ON THE MERITS of the possessory action, the owner shall establish that:
(a) The work cannot be safely performed while the unit is occupied;
(b) The work on the unit is expected to take more than 30 days; and
(c) The tenant has been offered a dwelling unit with the same number of bedrooms as are in the unit from which he or she is being evicted, at a rent that does not exceed the tenant's current rent. This provision shall not apply if no such unit is available.

In addition: in cases based on the landlord's intention to repair, renovate, or rehabilitate the premises, or the landlord's intention to remove the dwelling from the residential rental market, the court shall have the authority to grant a discretionary stay of up to 6 months.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=40

Email to Committee:
To: Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; Shannon.Chandley@leg.state.nh.us; William.Gannon@leg.state.nh.us; Denise.Ricciardi@leg.state.nh.us; Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: SB519

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
SB519
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Concerns:
~The bill is intended to solve a perceived, but not substantiated problem
~The issue is not renovation evictions, the issue is the housing shortage
~Up to 169 days under present law is already enough
~Up to 291 days under the bill is far too much
~Many renovations are unfeasible, would be too delayed, costly or unsafe for tenant to reside in the unit while the renovation is being performed
~The section of the bill about prevailing at a hearing is subjective, puts an expensive difficult burden of proof on the owner and not workable
~ language about finding another apartment for the tenant is ambiguous

Analysis:
~The bill is intended to solve a perceived, but not substantiated problem
~The issue is not renovation evictions, the issue is the housing shortage
We need to focus on solving the housing shortage, not restricting housing providers from creating quality housing and putting additional pressure on increased costs and increased rents.

We have heard anecdotal stories without verification. We don’t see evidence of any large issue.

Is this really a continuing problem? Especially since the few stories that were printed in the new papers were of new owners to a property. Given the small number of units for sale today, it would be a small number of new purchase renovations. Multi unit property today is being sold at a high price. It should be a property owners right to buy a property, renovate, create quality housing and adjust the rents accordingly without the burden this bill would place.

The bill will not do anything to increase housing, which is needed to get supply and demand back into balance. The bill would discourage owners from renovating units and keeping the housing stock up to date, as it makes it difficult to move forward with renovations and major repairs. It will also increase costs and put pressure on increasing rents.

~Up to 169 days under present law is already enough
Tenants, under this present active law, would receive 30 days notice to move. If they don't, there is then a 5-7 week eviction process, which is 35-49 days minimum, if there are no delays. There are often additional sheriff delays. The judge already has the authority to grant a 90 day extension for good cause.
The net result in present law is 30+49=79 days without discretionary stay & 79+90=169 days with discretionary stay from the original notice and the lockout.

~Up to 291 days under the bill is far too much
Tenants, under this bill, would receive an original 60 days notice to move. That means 60+49=109 days without discretionary stay & 109+182=291 days with extended discretionary stay from the original notice and the lockout. That is 80% of a year.
There could also be tenant appeals which could greatly extend this time frame.
This is way too much loss for the housing provider.

Do you mean if an owner wants to renovate their rental unit so their daughter can move in then the owner and daughter has to wait more than 3/4 of a year before the renovation can even begin?
The time frames resulting from the bill are very unreasonable and will only delay what is undoubtedly very necessary renovations. Quality housing stock should be a goal and policy of the State.

What if the needed repair is so dire that some key system in the unit is highly likely to fail within the 6month stay? Would the landlord be liable for damages even though their expressed intent is to get the problem avoided?

~Many renovations are unfeasible, would be too delayed, costly or unsafe for tenant to reside in the unit while the renovation is being performed
Daily access by contractors, dust, tools, debris, mixed with tenant's pets, children, loss of privacy, noise, and their loss of access to the area are significant. Extended renovations while a tenant is residing in the unit but not home means the area would have to be ""secured"" (cleaned up and tools put away) at the end of each day. This is a terrible loss of efficiency for workers significantly increasing the time and cost it takes to complete the work.
In fact, some tenants want to be home when work is performed. This could so greatly limit the ability to get the work done that no contractor would do the job.
To further delay the process, the tenant could also claim he or she would put up with the dust and the dirt of the work, and construction and other trades people coming and going from the apartment. But it would not be good for the tenant to have that construction debris, potentially lead dust and debris, getting into their personal belongings.

~The section of the bill about prevailing at a hearing is subjective, puts an expensive difficult burden of proof on the owner and not workable
~It will be a further burdening the courts with additional and extended hearings
First, proving that the work cannot be done with the apartment occupied is, in many cases, subjective.
If the kitchen needs to be remodeled, the tenant can claim he or she can cook with a microwave and wash dishes in a bathroom sink. However, it would be a violation of building codes.

How are reasonable expected delays in construction work to be addressed in an eviction hearing? Do they count toward the 30 days it will take to complete the work? For example, plumbers in winter can expect emergency calls for frozen pipes or heating systems failures.
The landlord would have to bring contractors into court to testify the work would take more than 30 days. These witnesses would have to be paid, adding costs to the work. The extra containment and daily cleanup would add to the costs. Are the tenants going to reimburse that costs?

Contractors are not readily available. The eviction process itself takes time and is not predictable. To add an additional six months to the process, would make it almost impossible to hire contractors until the tenant has actually vacated the apartment. Then the contractors may not be available for a significant time months, leaving the unit vacate, which further exasperates the housing shortage and puts significant pressure on increasing rents.

I (b) Describewithspecificitytheworkthattheownerintendstohavedoneonthedwelling & time frame
Remodeling is almost always a "can of worms" scenario. An example of the intent to "replace the sink" can end up with headaches like needing reframing, or replacing far more extensive plumbing pipes, or an inability to match a current product so an entire new set of that product has to be implemented. Does the landlord have to take time out of the project to go back to court in the middle of demolition to state things did not go as planned and get the tenant out at that point? Unworkable and frequently unpredictable in older housing stock, which is the majority of NH buildings.

II (a) The work can not be safely performed while the unit is occupied
It is extremely rare that any remodeling of an apartment can be done while occupied. The amount of debris, noise, and space needed for tools and trash created is usually pretty constant. It requires both hearing protection and respirators. Creating a plastic tent does not stop the potential physical harm to a tenant who is still living in the unit. Vapors from finishes can be toxic, and timing for their use is often weather-dependent, leading to the inability to predict when and how long remodeling tasks take.

(b) prove the work will take more than 30 days
This is an arbitrary timeframe. For instance the plan is to gut the only bathroom and is a planned 25 day process. It is uninhabitable so it meets II (a) but the housing provider would fail the assumed time test.

~ language about finding another apartment for the tenant is ambiguous
Does that mean any apartment in the State of New Hampshire, New England, the United States or the world? What if the rents are different for other units because the tenant was severely under market? If the term of the lease has expired, can the landlord raise rent with proper notice for the new unit?

II (c) would the housing provider be responsible for pushing a tenant into another landlord's property, even though the tenant doesn't meet the creditworthiness minimum, just because the available unit is on the market? Would there be repercussions?
|=====================|
SB518, Section 8 Incentives
1/16/2024 at 9:30 a.m. Location: State House Time: 9:30 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would establish a program to encourage more landlords to lease housing units to voucher recipients, Section 8, and to assist voucher recipients with costs associated with securing a lease for a housing unit, including but not limited to security deposits.

The bill would establish a fund to give incentives to landlords to rent to Section 8 tenants. The fund would be run by the authority, a term that is not defined in the bill, but presumably the NH Housing Finance Authority, although RSA 205-C, which authorizes the NH Housing Finance Authority is referenced in the bill.

For a landlord to be eligible to receive a grant, the housing unit to be leased to a voucher recipient, Section 8 tenant, must not have been leased to any voucher recipient within the preceding three years, unless the property has changed ownership during that time and the current owner does not have any financial connection to the prior owner. The authority may further limit landlord eligibility to those landlords who have not previously rented a housing unit to a voucher recipient.

The bill also authorizes the authority to use funds to provide training and support to voucher recipients. There is no further definition of what the training and support would be. The authority would have the power and obligation to adopt rules for this program.

One million dollars would be appropriated in the 2023 fiscal year to fund the program, with the authority limited to spend 10% of the fund for program administration, which may include reimbursements to public housing authorities for their administrative costs.

Property Owner Position: For

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=32

Email to Committee:
To: Regina.Birdsell@leg.state.nh.us; Cindy.Rosenwald@leg.state.nh.us; Jeb.Bradley@leg.state.nh.us; Lou.Dallesandro@leg.state.nh.us; James.Gray@leg.state.nh.us; Daniel.Innis@leg.state.nh.us; Howard.Pearl@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: SB518

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
SB518
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Instead of forcing housing providers to accept section 8 tenants, this would give housing providers who have never rented to voucher holders, funds to offset the additional costs incurred when dealing with all the additional time and paperwork the housing choice program requires. There are limited funds, but it's a start to address housing advocates concerns that there are not enough rental units available to housing choice voucher holders.
We need to champion for the program to reimburse costs for all housing providers that accept Section 8 on goingly, not just housing providers that are new to Section 8.
As written this would not appear to be a particularly effective enticement for housing providers. Still, it is a step in the right direction and certainly is better than a mandate that we accept vouchers.
|=====================|
HB1105, Determine Amount of Local Tax Cap
1/17/2024 at 10:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill provides clarification that all recommended appropriations in the warrant are included when determining the estimated amount of local taxes to be raised for the fiscal year under the local tax cap.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=41

Email to Committee:
To: Daryl.Abbas@leg.state.nh.us; Keith.Murphy@leg.state.nh.us; Rebecca.PerkinsKwoka@leg.state.nh.us; James.Gray@leg.state.nh.us; Donna.Soucy@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB1105

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1105
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1140, Homeowner Septic System Self-installation
1/24/2024 at 1:00 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:00 p.m.
Title:

Summary: Homeowners will be allowed to reinstall septic systems without permit in their own homes.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=31

Email to Committee:
To: Debra.Altschiller@leg.state.nh.us; Sharon.Carson@leg.state.nh.us; Carrie.Gendreau@leg.state.nh.us; Howard.Pearl@leg.state.nh.us; Rebecca.PerkinsKwoka@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB1140

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1140
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
This bill does not seem to effect rental property.

We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1281, Occupancy By Unrelated People
1/24/2024 at 1:20 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:20 p.m.
Title:

Summary: Some municipalities restrict the number of unrelated people in a dwelling. An occupancy limit can be calculated by the number of bedrooms. This bill says that two unrelated people, such as an unmarried couple, can occupy one bedroom, for the purpose of that calculation. So a three bedroom house could be legally occupied by more than three people who are unrelated by blood or marriage.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18

Email to Committee:
To: HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1281

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1281
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Some towns have recently eliminated the "unrelated persons" zoning law. This may be a good trend that we can follow in New Hampshire. If you have single family properties that you want to be able to rent to a group of roommates, this bill would enable you to rent to a wider market. This bill will provide more housing opportunities to renters and benefit landlords in the process.

We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1144, Septic System Disclosure
1/25/2024 at 1:15 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:15 p.m.
Title:

Summary: Septic system disclosure

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=29

Email to Committee:
To: HouseCommerceAndConsumerAffairs@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1144

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1144
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Some properties are sold "as is" and the burden of due diligence is the responsibility of the buyer. This might be the case if the owner of the property died or did not want to warrantee the property. HB1144 would eliminate that seller option because it requires disclosure of a septic system's functional history. There does not appear to be any enforcement mechanism for the law so would it do any good? Does this bill add to the paperwork burden at real estate closings?

We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1320, Flood Disclosure
1/25/2024 at 1:45 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 1:45 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would amend RSA 477:4 and require restricted residential housing providers to disclose, in writing, if the unit is in a flood zone, has been or is subject to flood at the time of application and prior to signing a lease or renewal. Housing providers will have to disclose with requirements specified in the bill, including if the property and parking lot is in a FEMA floodplain, special 100 year floodplain or 500 year moderate risk flood hazard area, if the property while owned by the current housing provider has been flooded and when.

A specific language notice to tenants of the availability of flood insurance, and that renter's insurance does not normally cover flood damage.

If the housing provider fails to comply with this section, and the property is in a moderate risk or higher risk area, the tenant gets an automatic right to terminate the lease with a 30 day notice.

If the housing provider fails to comply with this section and there is one spec of damage to the tenant's property, the habitability of the property or limits access to the property, then tenant gets an automatic right to immediately terminate the lease. Termination of a lease under this subsection is effective when the tenant surrenders possession of the dwelling.

There is a similar section of the bill that imposes similar disclosure liability on sellers of real estate. Before a buyer becomes obligated under any contract for the purchase of the property, the buyer is to be given a rider with the disclosures. Unlike housing providers, this bill does not appear to have any provisions if the seller fails to provide the disclosures.

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=29

Email to Committee:
To: HouseCommerceAndConsumerAffairs@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1320

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1320
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
The sponsor lives in Hampton, NH which is stated to be is vulnerable to flooding both from high tides and from storm surges. Why then subject the entire state to the need for additional research and paperwork at every lease transaction for all time?

Concerns:
~New language in wrong statue will cause confusion
~Having the government provide easily accessible information is much better than burdening all property owners throughout the entire state for all time.
~Requirement for a witness is unneeded & unusual.
~Is this the beginning of an unending stream of disclosure requirements that will render them useless
~Where there is no imminent danger or a repeated history of flooding there is no disclosure need.
~Is 1%, 100 year, and .2% 500 year flood zone too restrictive?
~The bill encourages housing providers to not have applications or a lease.
~If moving forward a standard form should be developed by the state
~Tenants can readily look up flood information themselves.
~Would there be an increase in insurance rates or increase lack of multi family insurance?
~Experienced any flood damage has no time limit
~Tenants would be allowed to terminate immediately if there was insignificant damage
~There is no requirement for tenants to have flood insurance
~Language for notification at application and lease signing is awkward
~Tenant is released from all lawful charges if there is one spec of damage
~Refund to tenant has extremely unclear language
~Section VI exempts sellers from liability but punishes housing providers.
~For Housing Providers there are some strict penalties but none for sellers.
~For sales there are already disclosures and review of flood information

Analysis:
~New language in wrong statue will cause confusion
The new section is misnamed.
It is named as 477:4-i Flood Risk Notification Required, Purchase and Sale of Real Property
Yet it is for both Purchase, Sale, and Lease. Someone searching the RSAs could miss the leasing provisions.
This is one large bill for both rental and the sales of property. Most of the statutes regulating residential property rentals is in RSA 540, 540-A, 540-B, 540-C.
Having one misnamed bill for both types of transactions in a different statute than for sales and rentals will lead to confusion, oversight and is a very large mistake.

~Having the government provide easily accessible information is much better than burdening all property owners throughout the entire state for all time.
Utilizing the department of business and economic affairs through its floodplain management program to provide online flood information which they likely already have is a great idea.
Flood maps are constantly changing. It is better to have the government departments that do this any way keep the information current.

~Requirement for a witness is unneeded & unusual.

Rental forms even court forms do not require a witness and a witness is often not available.

~Is this the beginning of an unending stream of disclosure requirements that will render them useless
If we add this to lease and addendums, what else will be required? where does it end? Do we end up with a 50 page lease & addendum that literally nobody reads.

~Where there is no imminent danger or a repeated history of flooding there is no disclosure need.
~Is 1%, 100 year, and .2% 500 year flood zone too restrictive?
What is the level of concern by mortgage loans for flood risk?
II(c) & (d) 1% and .2% sound too restrictive. Notification of these levels is required by the bill.
In other words, every tenant and purchaser would have to notified if they are in a 500 year flood zone. That seems excessive.

~The bill encourages housing providers to not have applications or a lease.
III(c) If there is no application and no lease then notices are not covered by this bill.

~If moving forward a standard form should be developed by the state
Although the Department of Business and Economic Affairs is required by the bill to help property owners with information, it is not required to develop a uniform form to be used by landlords or sellers. There are a number of disclosures required for both landlords and sellers. Forms should be provided by the state to both inform tenants and buyers, and to have landlords and seller comply with this bill.

~Tenants can readily look up flood information themselves.
It is troublesome that landlords are required to provide information to tenants that the bill states is readily available on the internet. Meanwhile, the tenants have no obligation to obtain the information themselves. That is unreasonable. Tenants can be proactive to verify information themselves. Besides wouldn’t a prudent tenant or buyer want to get third party independent unbiased information?

~Would there be an increase in insurance rates or increase lack of multi family insurance?
There would be an increase in liability for landlords which could make insurance companies drop more clients or increase errors and omissions insurance rates which would put more upward pressure on rents.

~Experienced any flood damage has no time limit
Housing providers may not have records or remember past flooding. How long ago does this apply?
50 years?
Why is a 50 year ago 1 time event something that needs disclosure or even remembering.

~Tenants would be allowed to terminate immediately if there was insignificant damage
III(g) says “results in damage to a tenant’s personal property”. There is no qualifier. That is totally unreasonable. As written a housing provider may not have knowledge of a past flood, not disclose anything about it and a tenant could have a tiny spec of damage and then the tenant would be allowed to immediately terminate their lease

~There is no requirement for tenants to have flood insurance
Tenants can investigate flood risk and ought to have tenant’s insurance if there is a significant risk.

~Language for notification at application and lease signing is awkward
II( c) “Each new tenant shall be notified pursuant to this section in writing at the time of application and prior to the time that the lease of the rental unit is signed.”
With “and” does this mean the notification is required twice.

~Tenant is released from all lawful charges if there is one spec of damage
II(g) “results in damage to a tenant’s personal property”
And “tenant shall only be liable to pay for rent through the effective date of the lease’s termination.”
Means any previous damage, utility costs, legal costs, etc and any other lawful charge outside of rent are erased.

~Refund to tenant has extremely unclear language
III(h) “shall refund…other amounts paid in advance”. Need to clarify “paid in advance”. Does that mean a rental period that is paid for but has not happened yet? Does it mean application fees?
Does it mean utility costs that could have be prepaid and already used?
It is not clear that termination means vacating and giving possession back to the owner.
What if the termination date has past and the tenant stays. As written the housing provider is required to give money back to the tenant and the tenant is no longer required to pay rent with no recourse.
This is unclear language

~Section VI exempts sellers from liability but punishes housing providers.
What is the rationale to exempt owner from disclosure liability but nail Housing providers for it?
This makes no sense.

~For Housing Providers there are some strict penalties but none for sellers.
Why is that?

~For sales there are already disclosures and review of flood information
Banks require flood information to be reviewed.
|=====================|
HB1635, Short Term Rental Rooms & Meal Tax
1/25/2024 at 2:45 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:45 p.m.
Title:

Summary: Changes the definition of length of time for short term rental.
If you run an AirBnB type business this may effect you.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=29

Email to Committee:
To: HouseCommerceAndConsumerAffairs@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1635

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1635
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
HB1635 adds to definition of short term rental
in a building that is otherwise used as a residence.

Perhaps someone thought
“single-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or timeshare, or owner occupied residential home” didn’t capture all the residential uses.

Change in 78-A:3
means Rooms and meals is now based on 30 days instead of 185 days.

You can compare HB1635 with existing law below.

HB1635
V. "Short-term rental" means any individually or collectively owned single-family house or
dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or timeshare, or owner
occupied residential home, that is offered for a fee and for less than 30 consecutive days in a building
that is otherwise used as a residence. The term "vacation rental" shall have the same meaning as
"short-term rental." For purposes of this chapter, a short-term rental is a residential use of the
property and does not include a unit that is used for any nonresidential use, including retail,
restaurant, banquet space, event center, or another similar use

Existing law 48-A:1
"Vacation rental" or "short-term rental" means any individually or collectively owned single-family house or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or timeshare, or owner occupied residential home, that is offered for a fee and for less than 30 consecutive days. For purposes of this chapter, vacation rental and short-term rental are residential uses of the property and do not include a unit that is used for any nonresidential use, including retail, restaurant, banquet space, event center, or another similar use.

HB1635
"Short-term rental" means any individually or collectively owned single-family house
or dwelling unit or any unit or group of units in a condominium, cooperative, or timeshare, or owner
occupied residential home, that is offered for a fee and for less than 30 consecutive days in a building
that is otherwise used as a residence

Existing law 78-A:3 XXIII.
"Short-term rental" means the rental of one or more rooms in a residential unit for occupancy for tourist or transient use for less than 185 consecutive days.


HB1635
(b) Rooms in hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes, and other dwellings rented as shortterm rentals as defined in RSA 78-A:3, XXIII for recreational or vacationing use.

Existing Law 540-V:1 II
(b) Rooms in hotels, motels, inns, tourist homes, and other dwellings rented for recreational or vacationing use.

We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1203, Charitable Organization Rent
1/30/2024 at 10:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:00 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill prohibits the charging of rent for facilities or equipment to charities by primary game operators.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info:

Email to Committee:
To:
Subject: HB1203

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1203
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
This bill may have a limited impact on landlords of commercial buildings.

We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1229, Shoreline Minimum Standards Disclosure
1/31/2024 at 2:00 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:00 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would require that prior to the sale, lease or transfer of any shoreline protected property, the seller, lessor or transferor, or their agent, shall provide the “minimum standards" document, as published by the shoreland section of the department of environmental services, the shoreland water quality protection act. The buyers, lessees or transferees shall acknowledge by signature that they have read and understood the document. Failure to comply could result in a $1,000 fine for the first offense and $2,000 fine for subsequent offenses.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H22

Email to Committee:
To: HouseResourcesRecreationandDevelopment@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1229

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1229
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Analysis:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills. Here as some thoughts from our core team.

It adds more paperwork to leasing or selling property. Buyers do have an obligation to see what restrictions there are on the property they are purchasing or renting. Does this bill also cover short term rentals, such as Air BnB?

Not a major concern for most LLs and not a particularly egregious requirement. Still, continues to heap conditions, forms, and potential penalties onto the simple transaction of selling property. Sellers and subsequent owners still have to adhere to legal requirements, with or without this new addition. Why add to the transaction's burden?

No one needs any more government forms at a closing. There are so many forms that home buyers in a closing don't have time to read them all and they get snowed over by paperwork. This law only seeks to insure that shore land residents know the shore land laws. Not that they comply with them. It is an education bill. The potential penalties are very high for non-compliance with HB1229. It means that you if haven't registered your form with the Department of Environmental Services you get fined $1000. Are these shoreline laws even enforced? Probably not. Will this law do any good protecting shoreline waters? Probably not.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1286, Merging The Board Of Land Surveyors And The Board Of Professional Engineers
1/31/2024 at 3:00 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 3:00 p.m.
Title:

Summary: Relative to merging the board of land surveyors and the board of professional engineers.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=3

Email to Committee:
To: HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1286

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1286
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1504, Architectural Paint Recycling
2/6/2024 at 3:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 3:30 p.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill establishes an architectural paint recycling program administered by the department of environmental services

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H06

Email to Committee:
To: HouseEnvironmentandAgricultureCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1504

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1504
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1115, Lease Expiration As Ground For Eviction
2/14/2024 at 9:45 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:45 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would make the termination of a lease 6 months or longer, or the termination of a lease that extended the time of the tenancy of 6 months or more as grounds for eviction.

Property Owner Position: For

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Email to Committee:
To: Joe.Alexander@leg.state.nh.us; Louise.Andrus@leg.state.nh.us; Shelley.Devine@leg.state.nh.us; Charlotte.DiLorenzo@leg.state.nh.us; Jeffrey.Greeson@leg.state.nh.us; Timothy.Horrigan@leg.state.nh.us; Cam.Kenney@leg.state.nh.us; Katelyn.Kuttab@leg.state.nh.us; Judi.Lanza@leg.state.nh.us; rjlynn4@gmail.com; zoe.manos@leg.state.nh.us; Rebecca.McBeath@leg.state.nh.us; Mark.Paige@leg.state.nh.us; Kristine.Perez@leg.state.nh.us; msmithpen@aol.com ; Walt.Stapleton@leg.state.nh.us; dave@sanbornhall.net; richard.tripp@leg.state.nh.us; Eric.Turer@leg.state.nh.us; Scott.Wallace@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB1115

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1115
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Please vote “ought to pass” on this important legislation.

As you know, the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held in Aimco Properties LLC v Dziewisz (2005) that a tenancy does not end at the termination of a lease. Essentially, despite the fact that the duration of the lease was mutually agreed upon by both parties prior to execution, one party to the contract is given the right to continue or end the contract, while the other party is not provided the same right. This runs counter to the very principles of contract law and is inherently unfair to one party to the contract.

HB 1115 seeks to reverse this ruling for original or renewed leases of 6 months or longer. This is a good compromise that protects both tenants and housing providers.

While HB 1115 is at its core about fairness and putting the contract rights of both parties back onto equal footing, there are also very practical concerns for reversing this ruling. In a tight housing market, such as we are in today, housing providers are able to pick and choose tenants without fear of units going unrented. This means that prospective tenants with less than perfect applications are more likely to be passed over for open units. Housing providers are simply unwilling to take on a risky prospective tenant knowing that they are unable to say with certainty that if a contract does not work out as expected, that they can end it at the mutually agreed upon date.

The situation addressed by the bill is an uncommon one, but is one that has very real consequences when it does come up. We believe that it is important that the legislature, and not the courts, are making these important decisions. We hope that you will vote OTP on HB 1115 to restore balance to the parties to a lease and to allow housing providers the certainty that when they sign a contract, it will be executed as agreed upon by the parties.

A bill summary and more concerns and analysis are listed below in much more detail.

Summary:
This bill would make the termination of a lease 6 months or longer, or the termination of a lease that extended the time of the tenancy of 6 months or more as grounds for eviction.

Here is the explanation of legally how it is that a NH Housing Provider is not allowed to terminate when the lease terminates but the tenant can terminate.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/16qecKdl8vsFyrR4TksRPk5RT-LAJELjD/view

Concerns:
~Do NH legislators truly want the court making law instead of the legislature?
~A housing provider shouldn't have to sell a property or close the rental business to alleviate the issue of a bad tenant
~Landlords do not want to evict
~It only makes sense that when a contract is up then the contract is actually up
~Tenant’s and landlord’s abilities ought to be balanced

Analysis:
The bill was drafted by former Supreme court Justice Lynn to recognize the sanctity of a contract, a lease is a contract with a beginning and an end reversing the NH Superior court case that removed the landlords right to end the contract relationship at the end of the contract/lease .

~Do NH legislators truly want the court making law instead of the legislature?
Combining RSA 540:2 with the Aimco NH Supreme Court case, a landlord can easily be forced into a perpetual contract with a bad tenant. See Understanding Why A NH Housing Provider Is Legally Not Allowed To Terminate A Lease At The End Of The Lease Term

~A housing provider shouldn't have to sell a property or close the rental business to alleviate the issue of a bad tenant
who pays rent but otherwise creates hate or fear in other tenants. Housing contracts are about a landlord creating a safe and harmonious place for families. A housing provider needs to be able to walk away from a bad contract at its expiration at the housing provider’s discretion without burdening the courts or creating a great expense which eventually increases rents.

~If this bill isn't adopted we have continued a perpetual contract by court fiat, not by federal demand or legislative approval.

The bill allows a landlord to operate the business as needed. Leases can be crafted for automatic renewal terms including extended notification terms if both sides agree.

~Landlords do not want to evict
Landlords know evictions are not in anyone's interest. For the tenant, they would have to obtain another home, but the eviction on their record could make it much more difficult.
If tenants don’t want to be evicted at end of the lease then they can be good tenants.
Repeating above, no landlord wants to evict a tenant.

For the landlord, it is expensive, many times rent does not get paid during the eviction period, there is a large potential for damages because the tenant is getting evicted anyway, there are significant costs in fixing up the unit for re-rental, there is vacancy during the fix up period, and the labor costs in showing and leasing the unit.

~It only makes sense that when a contract is up then the contract is actually up
In present law if the landlord gave the notice to terminate the lease and the tenant refuses then the landlord may NOT evict the tenant solely because the lease is over.

~Tenant’s and landlord’s abilities ought to be balanced

Tenants can and do leave at the end of a lease. A landlord should be afforded the same. A lease has a specified ending which should be enforced the same for both parties to the contract.

|=====================|
HB1368, Anti-algorithm Rent Pricing
2/14/2024 at 10:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 10:30 p.m.
Title:

Summary: The bill restricts the use of revenue management software in determining rent in multi-family property. This bill is intended to prevent landlords from using computer programs to work together to raise rents on existing tenants with the intent to fix prices or competitive terms; or that adversely impacts prices or competitive terms. The landlords would be prohibited for such actions. Enforcement would be by preventing landlords from evicting tenants who do not pay the rent as increased. The bill first says that upon a showing that rent was increased by using an algorithmic pricing tool or software provided by a property management company there shall exist a prima facie presumption that the action against the tenant is unlawful and shall be dismissed for vertical price fixing. Although this reads as if the tenant must make that allegation, the bill then says the presumption of vertical price fixing can be rebutted by the lessor disclosing his or her property management software records and algorithmic pricing tool records whichever or both were in place when the rent was increased and showing an alternate basis for the disputed rent increase. The landlord shall also produce the source code with these disclosures. Otherwise, the eviction is dimissed,

Property Owner Position: Against

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?id=5

Email to Committee:
To: Joe.Alexander@leg.state.nh.us; Louise.Andrus@leg.state.nh.us; Shelley.Devine@leg.state.nh.us; Charlotte.DiLorenzo@leg.state.nh.us; Jeffrey.Greeson@leg.state.nh.us; Timothy.Horrigan@leg.state.nh.us; Cam.Kenney@leg.state.nh.us; Katelyn.Kuttab@leg.state.nh.us; Judi.Lanza@leg.state.nh.us; rjlynn4@gmail.com; zoe.manos@leg.state.nh.us; Rebecca.McBeath@leg.state.nh.us; Mark.Paige@leg.state.nh.us; Kristine.Perez@leg.state.nh.us; msmithpen@aol.com ; Walt.Stapleton@leg.state.nh.us; dave@sanbornhall.net; richard.tripp@leg.state.nh.us; Eric.Turer@leg.state.nh.us; Scott.Wallace@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB1368

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1368
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
Several thoughts in no particular order:
Revenue management software assists property owners in determining fair market rent, setting rental prices and renewal rates. The software analyzes historical data, competitor data and current vacancy rates in real time and helps determine what is fair. The system can recommend rent increases and decreases. The software works the same way as a traditional market analysis does when done manually. Rent increases still require a 30 day notice and allow property managers to make independent decisions to accept the result or intervene and set an alternative rental rate. It is unclear what this bill solves, as managers can analyze data and still make an independent decision. Software providers would need to agree to provide source code which may be proprietary. Property owners using this software do not have access to source code. Few property owners in NH use this type of software.

There is not an industry today that does not use computer maintained data bases in their various business decisions. We live and breath in "The Market Place". If we price too low, we do not maximize our profits, every company's objective, and we fall behind on our expense ratios. If we price too high, we lose customers. How are we to know without using all the tools available to us. Collusion among competitors is a nasty business and an anathema to free markets, but a clearing house of information is not that. It is simply a resource and a tool, not just for housing providers, but for every business. Would using the NHHFA annual survey be considered vertical price fixing?

1. Is this a problem in the State of New Hampshire? How many landlords have access to such computer software that communicates with other computers?
2. Prices are still mostly market driven. There are hundreds of landlords in the state, with many owning 4 to 20 apartments.
3. Given the wording of the bill, it opens the door to a new defense in every eviction for non-payment of rent after the initial term of the lease. It will increase costs for all landlords which will eventually be paid by the tenants.
4. If the legislature makes it harder to evict then landlords will be even more careful on who they accept as tenants, making it harder for those with lower credit scores, past evictions or bad references to find housing.
5. This bill will put more pressure on rents whenever an apartment is vacated. Since the bill does not apply to new tenants, the best time to push up rents would be when renting a vacant unit. This would make it more difficult for people who are struggling with rent to locate another apartment. |=====================| HB1168, Study Impact Of The Housing Crisis On People With Disabilities. 2/16/2024 at 9:00 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:00 a.m. Title:

Summary: This bill establishes a committee to study the impact of the housing crisis on people with disabilities.

Property Owner Position: You Decide

Link to Committee Info:

Email to Committee:
To:
Subject: HB1168

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1168
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
We have not properly analyzed the bill because we focus more on the "major" bills and much less on the minor bills.

If you learn anything about this bill please email it to us. Thanks!
|=====================|
HB1065, Limiting Sprinkler Requirements
2/16/2024 at 9:30 a.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 9:30 a.m.
Title:

Summary: This bill would prevent the requirement of sprinklers or other fire suppression systems in existing buildings with 4 or less residential dwelling units if the building is in compliance with the state fire codes, including, but not limited to, barriers and means of ingress and egress. Currently this restriction is for buildings of two units or less.

Property Owner Position: For

Link to Committee Info:

Email to Committee:
To:
Subject: HB1065

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1065
Analysis Stated in Bill:

Talking Points:
1. The cost of adding sprinklers to existing buildings is high, in addition to annual maintenance and back flow prevention inspections by a licensed professional. If a landlord has to install such systems, rents have to be increased substantially, which would take the building out of the work force rental market.
2. The building would also have to be vacated while the work is being preformed, reducing the housing stock during the renovations.
|=====================|
HB1053, Allow Residential In Commercial Zones.
2/21/2024 at 2:30 p.m. Location: Legislative Office Building Time: 2:30 p.m.
Title:

Summary:

Property Owner Position: For

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18

Email to Committee:
To: HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1053

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/bill_status/results.aspx?adv=2&txtbillno=
HB1053



Be the First to Comment: