Howdee everyone,
Because the benefit is small and the other negatives of the bill are more severe we are against the entire bill.
Important Updates:
SB247, Lead Law
04/12/2017 at 10:30 AM LOB Room 205-207
Level of Response: Attend hearings. Call, Email Legislators
Property Owner Position: For As Amended By Senate
As you saw in the last legislative update the full Senate voted 15 to 7 pass the amended bill. This means the version including the $3 million dollar lead remediation fund has survived which is very good news.
You can see each senator’s vote in the roll call immediately below this email.
Right away this bill has been assigned to the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs committee.
Remember this version was extremely paired down and all tenant advocates, lead advocates and landlords said they would support the amended bill and also agreed to keep this version in place for the rest of this legislative cycle. So we need to support it in the house.
This version, As Amended By The Senate, is attached so check it out, (same as last week). If you get this update directly from a source that does not forward attachments use these links. If you would like to get the update directly please contact us.
170316 SB247 AsAmendedBySenateWithLineNumbers.pdf
170316 SB247 AsAmendedBySenateWithoutLineNumbers.pdf
We are continuing to monitor the bill to be on guard for any detrimental changes. So stay tuned.
Separately, this is “crossover” time when Senate bills go to the House and House bills go to the Senate. Many bills have just crossed over.
Action items this week:
1. Right now set aside time in your calendar to attend the hearing, Wednesday 10:30am. (This is likely to be the last time we need you so show up in person for this legislative season. Show up strong).
2. This is it! Time is now! Get your input to the committee this weekend and Monday!!
3. Review the talking points and detailed summary of SB247, Lead Law, immediately below.
4. Contact the House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs committee, by email and phone, and ask them to vote to pass the bill as amended by the Senate with no further changes.
HHSEA@leg.state.nh.us; will email to all committee members
Contact info is available at
5. Show up at the hearing and sign in FOR the bill as amended by Senate.
At lease sign in on the “blue sheet” saying you’re in favor of the bill as amended by the Senate (just that really helps). If you’re up for it sign on a pink card to speak and give you’re testimony supporting the bill.
See more info in Summaries & Full Detail for each bill further below. (includes property owner position, contact info, Talking points, and more).
(to jump right to bill detail, use Control-F, Find).
Many of the bills have an updated status
See Bills Updated Status summary below
In particular note the status of bills where we have a position For or Against that bill.
Hearings this week:
04/11/2017 at 10:00 AM LOB Room 301
SB168, Increase Veterans Tax Credit from $500 to $1000
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide
04/11/2017 at 10:30 AM LOB Room 307
SB80, Veterans Tax Credits
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide
04/11/2017 at 11:00 AM SH Room 100
HB215, Marijuana Study Commission
Level of Response:
Property Owner Position: For
04/11/2017 at 01:15 PM LOB Room 306
SB53, Regulation of Appraisers
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide
04/12/2017 at 09:00 AM LOB Room 102
HB568, Taxability Of Lease Interests In Public Property
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide
04/12/2017 at 10:30 AM LOB Room 205-207
SB247, Lead Law
Level of Response: Attend hearings. Call, Email Legislators
Property Owner Position: For As Amended By Senate
04/13/2017 at 01:00 PM LOB Room 202
SB74, Economic Revitalization Zone Tax Credits
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide
04/13/2017 at 02:00 PM LOB Room 202
SB185, Tax Relief Coastal Property
Level of Response: You Decide
Property Owner Position: You Decide
Hearings next week:
None scheduled so far
Further below is:
Bills Updated Status summary
Full details on all bills above
(Which includes property owner position, contact info, talking points, and more)
Love & Light,
Nick Norman
Director of Legislative Affairs
==============================================
SB247 Senate Vote
| ||||
Vote Date:03/30/2017
|
Vote#: 97
|
Question/Motion: Ought to Pass
| ||
Party
|
District
|
Vote
| ||
Republican
|
12
|
Yea
| ||
Republican
|
19
|
Yea
| ||
Republican
|
3
|
Yea
| ||
Republican
|
14
|
Yea
| ||
Democrat
|
20
|
Yea
| ||
Democrat
|
15
|
Yea
| ||
Republican
|
23
|
Yea
| ||
Republican
|
6
|
Yea
| ||
Democrat
|
5
|
Yea
| ||
Republican
|
24
|
Yea
| ||
Democrat
|
10
|
Yea
| ||
Democrat
|
13
|
Yea
| ||
Democrat
|
18
|
Yea
| ||
Democrat
|
4
|
Yea
| ||
Democrat
|
1
|
Yea
| ||
Republican
|
11
|
Nay
| ||
Republican
|
7
|
Nay
| ||
Republican
|
2
|
Nay
| ||
Republican
|
22
|
Nay
| ||
Republican
|
17
|
Nay
| ||
Republican
|
9
|
Nay
| ||
Republican
|
8
|
Nay
| ||
==============================================
=======
Talking points and detailed summary SB247, Lead Law
As Amended By The Senate
SB247 Lead Law. Notes for House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs committee. 04/12/2017 at 10:30 AM LOB Room 205-207
Property Owner Position: For As Amended By Senate
1. Support SB247 As Amended by the Senate. No changes. Keep present balance of the bill.
The 3 year NH Lead Commission has been meeting for about a year and a half with many stake holders from all sides of the lead issue represented.
SB247 As Amended by the Senate, represents a balance which stake holders from all sides of the issue have agreed upon. It is a movement forward to solving lead elevations in children and NH’s housing stock. Lead is a complicated issue with many ramifications. It is difficult to agree on a balance. One seemingly small change can result in the balance completely lost. It is important to keep the bill as amended by the Senate.
Landlord’s were originally extremely opposed to the original version of the bill which was an extreme over reach in legislation for an issue which is already being solved with present law.
2. Present lead law is working.
NH has seen a 91% drop in BLL >=10ug/dl from 1999 through 2015
Data captured for the range of >=5 to <10ug 2013="" dl="" shows="" span="" starting="">
2013 1019 elevations
Clearly what we are doing is working.
3. Landlords on commission have always said “No money, No bill”.
Lead is a societal issue and a money issue. The government was very complicit in its use. Present landlords did not put lead in their properties and they purchased the properties when government rules were far less strict.
All landlords want to eliminate lead from their properties.
No landlord wants to see a child harmed.
Eliminating lead is very expensive. We need the money to make it happen.
We need a large continuing annual allotment until all the lead is removed.
The $3 Million fund in this bill is a critical component of the balance of the bill which is why it is tied to the portions of the bill that will cause more abatement orders and dramatic costs to the housing industry.
The lead remediation fund is also our best proactive, preemptive solution to elevations in children. The return benefits to society as a whole are said to be $17/$1 or much more for every investment into lead remediation.
Again “No money, No bill”.
4. Lead testing in Water is unneeded
This is why the amended version of the bill only tests for water if a child has an elevated lead level.
DHHS has in 2016 been doing water testing during the abatement order process. They have conducted about 40 water tests. They say none have been above the EPA limit. In fact none of them have tested above the detectable limit.
When water is delivered to the property without lead and containing the correct corrosiveness factor then there is no issue.
=======
Previous notes on original bill. (most likely no longer needed).
SB247 Lead Law. Notes for Senate Health and Human Services Committee
02/21/2017 at 01:00 PM LOB Room 101
Nick Norman, Legislative Initiative Landlord Tenant Law, NickNorman@yahoo.com, 603-432-5549
Please vote Inexpedient to Legislate on SB247 Lead Law
Major areas of concern (full detail on entire bill further below)
1. The bill is very imbalanced and had very critical details withheld during important commission discussions of the bill. What was previously “negotiated” is no longer valid.
We have since found out that the so called “carrots” for the landlords either are already available in current law or likely not to happen or
have an extremely small benefit.
2. Present lead law is working.
NH has seen a 91% drop in BLL >=10ug/dl from 1999 through 2015
Data captured for the range of >=5 to <10ug 2013="" dl="" shows="" span="" starting="">
2013 1019 elevations
Clearly what we are doing is working.
3. Landlords on commission have always said “No money, No bill”.
Lead is a societal issue. The government was very complicit in its use. Present landlords did not put lead in their properties and they purchased the properties when government rules were less strict.
All landlords want to eliminate lead from their properties.
No landlord wants to see a child harmed.
Eliminating lead is very expensive. We need the money to make it happen.
We need a large continuing annual allotment until all the lead is removed.
The $3 Million fund in this bill is said to be not likely to pass. The idea of a paint can fee is said to be “dead on arrival” (already tried in previous legislative sessions). That leaves a general fund allocation for only 2 years. Then we are back to “No money” but would have all of the new regulations and bureaucracy. Again “No money, No bill”.
4. Are DHHS costs accurately included in Fiscal note?
To implement these additional bureaucracies DHHS has estimated another 14 or more full time employees. The commission has asked the DHHS to give us those numbers for months yet they are still not added the fiscal note in the bill.
Based on lack of disclosure of the cost of the employees we would be concerned about the accuracy of the fiscal note.
5. Essential Maintenance Practices, EMP, is unneeded.
This is another bureaucracy with fiscal cost and not needed.
Vermont has run an Essential Maintenance Practices program for years. It only gets 20% compliance. Vermont has had a 75% drop in BLL 1999 to 2015. NH with out EMP has had a 91% drop in BLL 1999 to 2015.
6. Changing abatement action from 10 to 5 ug/dl is a drastic overreach that is unneeded and will cause huge financial ramifications in the rental market.
As stated above the present system is working well. BLL in the range of 5 to 10 ug/dl have dropped 46.2% in just the 2 years that this range has been tracked. NH has been reliably applying for and receiving HUD grants in the range of 9 million every 3 years. While these grants do have problems with too many “strings attached”, they are increasing the number of lead abated units. Plus landlords have been steadily replacing windows, doors, covering trim and much more. Unfortunately, every year many properties are lost to fire. However, when those are rebuilt they no longer have lead.
All in all there is a large amount that happens every year already that is dramatically reducing lead elevations in young children.
In 2015, 59 children measured >=10ug/dl while 548 measured >=5 to <10 dl.="" span="" ug="">
The commission also wants to increase screening rates from 16 to 85%.
Combining that and action level reduced to 5 ug/dl the amount of actionable
BLLs would likely change from 59 to (59+548)/16*85 = 3224. 3224/59 = 5,464% increase. Clearly that is an extreme overreach in regulation for a system that is already working.
Another point to consider is that if this provision passes every property built before 1978 that has not had the lead fully removed would loose value, some dramatically. It could be likely that banks would stop lending on older multi families. These properties would validly be entitled to a property tax abatement thereby reducing town budgets across the state.
7. Lead testing in Water is unneeded
DHHS has in 2016 been doing water testing during the abatement order process. They have conducted about 40 water tests. They say none have been above the EPA limit. In fact none of them have tested above the detectable limit.
When water is delivered to the property without lead and containing the correct corrosiveness factor then there is no issue.
It is clear that this section is putting a cost on to landlords to address a problem that does not exist.
8. State run RRP. Another bureaucracy that is unneeded.
Currently the EPA runs the RRP program. There is no need for the state to pick up the tab for running the RRP. Although the bill may have a clause to prevent the DHHS from tightening the existing federal rules it would provide another domain of rulemaking which could become very troublesome. In addition, we certainly don’t want the DHHS to have “one foot in the door” to then come back in later years to change the law to tighten those rules even further.
Additionally, the DHHS has shown that they are quite “fee happy”. The RRP program allows for a $37,500 fine per violation. A violation is not defined.
The history of the EPA has been to fine in a reasonable manner that fits the situation and resources of the property owner. The DHHS has been shown to be overzealous in ordering abatement onto property owners and we have no trust that giving DHHS administrative control of the RRP program will result in anything good for property owners.
Much more detail below.
Again the present system is working.
The bigger detail on the bill:
There could easily be major confusion regarding the lead bill, now SB247, released 2/9/17.
What was released is the original bill before the many amendments worked out in the last sessions of the lead commission. The lead commission attempted to have the office of legislative services, OLS, release the amended bill but OLS did not get to it in time and released the original bill.
Therefore, the amended bill was planned to be substituted at the first Senate committee hearing. The original bill is far worse for landlords. We have heard that the original bill may be left with the amendments not presented.
If the original bill is moving forward then landlords would be even more against the bill.
The comments below were based on the amended bill.
The bill has an enormous amount of sections and detail. To walk you through the bill we have divided the bill in to categories. In each category you will see the section numbers of the amended bill & original bill (for comparison) that relate to that category.
After much analysis, a short summary of the bill is that there is very little benefit to property owners and many provisions that will hurt landlords and the rental real estate industry.
Therefore, the landlord position on this bill is to kill the entire bill.
The lead commission has 2 more years so there is absolutely no rush to push through anything.
Note:
EMP = Essential Maintenance Practices
BLL= Blood Lead Level
This bill can be broken down into the following categories covered below:
Schools, Day Cares
Water Utility Companies identify & disclose lead, prevent lead in water
Sales disclosure relating to lead
BLL Testing, increase screening rates
Restrict DHHS "belief" authority to conduct investigations (which trigger lead abatement orders)
Notification of any positive blood lead level
$3Million fund to pay for lead remediation. (Remediation of Lead in Water and Rental Housing Fund.)
Essential Maintenance Practices
Change Whole Building Approach to Phased Approach >=10ug/dl
Change abatement action from 10 to 5 ug/dl
Lead testing in Water
Landlord & Tenant 540-A requirements & remedies
RRP Information - Building permit
State run RRP
Effective Dates
Schools, Day Cares
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 14
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 15
EMP is mandatory for child day care.
Original bill section 10, section 11
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 23
Original bill section 19
Schools have to address lead in drinking water.
This is not directly our area of concern. However, whatever comes about for schools and day cares will eventually be imposed upon landlords as children spend more time at home than anywhere else.
Schools should be held to the highest drinking standards. Won’t affect most schools since most were built after lead solder was banned and certainly after lead pipes were discontinued. Finally, lead in the environment is a societal issue, not one created by landlords. Schools are owned by society.
Water Utility Companies identify & disclose lead, prevent lead in water
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 24
Original bill section 20
Public Water Systems and Privately Owned Redistribution Systems
Even though this will largely assist landlords in getting good water delivered to the property it is a small benefit at a cost to the water companies.
Because the benefit is small and the other negatives of the bill are more severe we are against the entire bill.
In other words, make sure the water being delivered to our properties is good before we are required to remediate lead in water which might not be from our building but actually delivered to us with lead in the water already or leaching from distribution systems because the water it too corrosive.
However, the wording seems weak. Water systems have to make reasonable efforts but don’t have to excavate to prove anything. Still it is a good start.
Makes no sense to address the effect (water in the property) without addressing the cause (water delivered to the property). An easy source of lead to identify and a broadly distributed product that requires quality assurance.
There will be additional costs for compliance.
Sales disclosure relating to lead
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 22
Original bill section 18
Modifies the existing disclosures given on the sale of real estate to include more information about lead.
We have no issue with informing buyers about lead.
This is a very low cost item to implement, and more information being given to buyers, many of whom maybe first time buyers looking to start a family could help reduce lead poisonings. Children who live in single family homes are a significant percentage of the children who have been found to have high blood lead levels.
BLL Testing, increase screening rates
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 4
Original bill section 4
Move all NH municipalities to universal testing meaning all 1 & 2 years old children would be tested for lead. Screening rate in NH are exceptionally low in the range of 16% are tested now. The legislation creates a push to get the rate closer to 85%.
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 5
Another provision makes it so no child admitted to public school without having had a prior lead test. However, parents may choose to refuse to have the child tested.
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 16
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 17
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 18
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 19
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 20
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 21
Original bill section 12,13,14,15,16,17
Insurance must cover blood lead testing.
Historically landlords have stood aside on the issue of testing. Higher testing rate will increase the number of detected BLLs and consequently result in more lead abatement orders. However, it is smart for the child’s health to know if they are or are not having an issue with lead.
Restrict DHHS “belief” authority to conduct investigations (which trigger lead abatement orders)
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 3
Original bill section 2 Not addressed in original bill.
Because the benefit is small and the other negatives of the bill are more severe we are against the entire bill.
Common knowledge is that abatement orders are only triggered when a child measures at or higher than the action level (presently 10 ug/dl). What is not known is that present law says DHHS commissioner may to conduct investigations when there “is reason to believe” a lead hazard exists. The department has said
“several years ago we were contacted by EPA to visit a residential job site that where there were construction activities that we not being conducted with Lead Safe work practices. During the visit a very young child was identified in the mist of the construction debris. The child was observed licking the windows in the middle of all that construction dust and debris. The HHLPPP conducted an investigation and issued an Administrative Order of Lead Hazard Reduction. This is the only case that I have knowledge of in the history of the program.”
Regardless we don’t like that the law can give an option as drastic as an abatement order based on reason to believe.
An offer was made to change that portion to probable cause. Not a great change but at least something.
We would also like to see language to allow landlord to get info about what constituted the “probable cause” so the landlord could possibly challenge it if a challenge seems warranted.
Notification of any positive blood lead level
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 6
Not in original bill.
In present law we already get notices from 5 and above. This would give us something we have asked for over many years, notification at any positive level of a venous blood test.
However, the negatives of this bill far out weigh the tiny benefits. It is better to oppose the entire bill, kill it now and add back benefits in another version that has real benefits for landlords.
None of us want to poison children and we will take appropriate proactive & corrective actions when we know there is a problem! Let’s catch the problem as early as possible. Good for the child; good for the landlord.
We cannot address a problem if we do not know it exists. If any landlord makes sure that at the commencement of a tenancy there is no peeling, caulking or flaking paint, but over time, use of the apartment, and damage to the paint surface creates a lead hazard, the landlord would most likely not know about it until the tenant informs the landlord, which tends not to occur if the tenant caused the damage, an inspection of the apartment, the tenant vacates, or the notification on the positive level.
The sooner the lead hazard is remedied, the better it is for child not to be injured from the lead exposure.
From the Bill:
“…if a venous blood test demonstrates the presence of lead at a level less than 5 micrograms per deciliter is found in the child’s blood. Such notice to the property owner shall specify that it is neither a finding that a lead exposure hazard exists in the property nor is it an order for lead hazard reduction. Such notice shall include information about the health hazards of lead poisoning, state standards for identifying and eliminating lead hazards, and the federal Renovation, Repair and Painting Program, and Essential Maintenance Practices. It shall contain information about the lead exposure risks associated with not complying with lead-safe renovation, repair and painting practices as well as information about requirements that will come into effect in the event a child is documented with a venous blood level of 5 micrograms per deciliter or higher.”
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 7
Notification to the parent
From the bill
“…Such materials shall inform parents who are tenants to work with the property owner and advise against engaging in renovation, repair or painting activities themselves.”
$3Million fund to pay for lead remediation. (Remediation of Lead in Water and Rental Housing Fund.)
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 33
Original bill section 6, keeps original fund of existing law but adds “and other designated activities”.
Original bill Section 7 creates new remediation fund.
Original bill Section 28 make general fund allocation
Present landlords did not create this problem, the government authorized and in some cases required use of lead paint. Landlords should not be entirely responsible for fixing it. Some fund, from someplace, needs to be established so that society can pay for society’s problem.
Presently there is no state provided funding for lead remediation and the HUD grants administered by Manchester, Nashua & the state have strings attached that sometimes make the money unavailable .
The paint can fee previously talked about has been dropped because several contacts in legislature have said the paint can fee which has previously been charged is dead on arrival. It is not in original bill and also not in the amended bill.
The remediation fund would be established by a $3 Million allocation from the state general fund for the fiscal year ending 6/30/18 & next ending 6/30/19.
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 9
Not in original bill.
There is a proposal that this fund be administered using a simple voucher system that would effectively give landlords a flat price per window, per door etc. The target is reimbursing approximately 50% of average labor and materials. The reimbursement would be for landlords that voluntarily comply with Essential Maintenance Practices and are proactive at remediating lead hazards.
It would be available for property owners that voluntarily complied with the EMP program.
It would not be available for property owners who have a child with an elevated level or an enforcement action by DHHS.
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 11
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 12
Section 11 & 12 establish the fund
Original bill Section 8
We would want to have put into the statute that the fund could not be used for administrative or other uses outside of lead remediation. We would also want landlord input on creation of the rules. We would also want to see Non-profits restricted from its use because they already get grant funding.
Also use of this fund is tied to complying with EMP. The original plan was to have a paint can fee or other funding mechanism that would be on going. This proposal would only have money for 2 years and leave the landlords with the new EMP bureaucracy. The landlords on the commission have often said "No money no bill"
Essential Maintenance Practices
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 13
Original bill section 9
An EMP program has been active in Vermont for several years. There it is mandatory with a small release of liability incentive. It is said that only about 20% of property owners comply.
Vermont has had a 75% drop in BLL 1999 to 2015. NH with out EMP has had a 91% drop in BLL 1999 to 2015. Why do we need another bureaucracy when NH is doing far better than Vermont?
In the original meetings of the lead commission, EMP advocates were adamant that EMP would be mandatory but this final version has EMP voluntary unless a child had an elevated lead level.
II. There will be a training which presently is thought to be something simple on line with the idea that most everything in the EMP is already taught in the RRP.
The requirements are: (From the bill)
(a) Annual visual inspections of interior and exterior surfaces to be conducted by the
owner or his or her delegate to identify lead hazards.
(b) Safe repair of any lead hazards identified during annual inspection as soon as
practicable and no later than 60 days following annual inspection.
(c) Installation of vinyl window-well inserts in windows with wells or sashes containing lead-based paint.
(d) Specialized cleaning at the time of tenant turnover, after any work that disturbs painted surfaces, and at least annually in interior common areas.
(e) The removal of visible paint chips from the ground of outdoor areas within 10 feet of the building, including outdoor porches and stairs, and from any play areas.
(f) Compliance with the federal Renovation, Repair and Painting Program in the event of renovation, repair or painting activities.
(g) Annual certification by the owner that essential maintenance practices have been implemented, with such certification to be notarized and retained for a minimum of 3 years.
(Current plan is the owner self certifies and holds the records).
III allows for owners to make a plan to come into compliance over time and still qualify for the use of remediation fund.
IV. Lead paint must not be left exposed.
Need to define what exposed means which would be something left to rule making.
It just says:
“IV. Exposed lead-based paint on any interior or exterior floor, including, but not limited to, stairs and porches and stairs, shall not be permitted.”
V. EMP mandatory for licensed child care facilities and properties where child measured >=5ug/dl BLL.
EMP shall not apply where a licensed lead inspector has certified that no lead-based paint is present.
VI EMP shall not be required for an owner occupied dwelling unit.
VII There are two incentives “carrots” for property owner that voluntarily comply with EMP:
1: some release of liability
“the owner shall not be liable for breach of warranty of habitability release to lead-based paint and shall also be entitled to a rebuttal presumption of having exercised due care relative to preventing lead hazard exposures, provided the property owner demonstrates having complied with essential maintenance practices during the time period relevant to a lead-based legal action.”
2: use of a new easy to use lead remediation fund to pay approximately 50% labor & materials for small to large project work.
While most of the requirements for the EMP is fairly minor, the covering of exposed lead paint on floors could be quite costly to landlords. Use of the fund to pay half would be helpful but still could cost a sizeable amount for some landlords and we don’t have any such requirements now. Additionally, the liability release is so weak it is almost useless.
This is yet another regulation and bureaucracy. It also establishes another duty of care that could be used to civilly sue a landlord. Of concern is that a visual inspection can be challenged. For instance, does the landlord have to move furniture to check baseboards? Some people rearrange furniture so a baseboard behind a couch or bed may become exposed.
Some are concerned that there is another area where " the department may adopt rules including but not limited to"… Will these rules be difficult and costly to comply with?
Change Whole Building Approach to Phased Approach >=10ug/dl
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 3
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 8
Original bill section 5 (left to rule making, later was defined in amended bill)
This changes the lead order process from the present abate entire building with abatement rules all at once method (whole building approach) to a method of abating the primary unit and units with children and pregnant women plus common areas accessible only to those units right away then the remainder at tenant turn over but no later than 5 years. (phased approach).
We originally negotiated this important benefit for landlords thinking we were getting a positive change but have learned and confirmed that in fact present law already allows for a variance process that can accommodate a “phased” approach with no time limit or other restrictions. This option is not in the law but rather in the rules.
It is better to have an advantage in law over having it only in rules. However, this “phased” approach in the law has limitations that are not in the present rules variance process.
To get the variance a property owner would need to make a definite plan, keep children safe, and make positive progress on the plan. The DHHS is already having some property owners using this phased method successfully.
Since we already have a variance process that is better than what is offered in this bill it does not make sense to accept more restriction with the version in this bill.
However, at some point we may want to attempt defining the variance phased approach into the law so that DHHS can not take it away in the rules.
Change abatement action from 10 to 5 ug/dl
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 2
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 10
Original bill, section 2, has no creative work plan approach. Rather full whole building lead abatement order immediately.
Landlords currently have no mandated requirements between 5 and 10 ug/dl. The amended bill would establish requirements but they would be very flexible.
In 2015 there were 59 children measuring >=10ug/dl. There were also 548 children measuring 5 to <10ug dl.="" span="">
If screening rates move from 16% (ballpark present rate) to 85% (desire goal of the lead commission) then the number of cases requiring some action in the 5 to 10 range could approximate 548/16*85=2911.
The total number of abatement orders could be increased from 59 per year to over 3200 per year. These extra orders are mostly in the range of 5 - 10 ug/dl and is a guilty with no chance of proving innocence sentence by DHHS. In this low range of 5 - 10 ug/dl it is much easier for the cause of the elevation to NOT be the property yet all units in the property could be forced to be abated at an enormous cost to the property owner with out any clear evidence that the property was actually the cause.
If the 3200 elevations were in 3 families and we take an average cost of $10,000/unit (a number often used in the lead world) then
3200 * 3 * $10,000 = $96 Million per year. The current HUD grants received by NH are not guaranteed to be continued and currently are about $9Million per 3 years. Obviously, the cost of the abatement would fall on the property owner and is clearly, untenable.
Originally, this was considered by landlords on the commission because it offered a creative approach to BLLs between 5 to 10 and we were going to get the $3Million annual fund and a big advantage with phased approach for case >=10 ug/dl.
This “deal” is falling through because word in the legislature is that we will not get the money and if we do it is only for 2 years and not annually,
the phased approach is giving us nothing because we already have a variance process better than that in present law.
Also there is a high fiscal note cost for DHHS to administrate the new provisions of this bill.
We feel it would be too costly for the state and too costly for landlords to go to 5.
As we said before “No money, No bill”.
This provision is explained below:
DHHS provides notice to parents that advises the importance of periodic blood lead level testing. If the parents are tenants of a rental property, the notice shall also include information about actions that the property owner is required to take, and about the importance of cooperating with such actions.
DHHS provides notice to property owners of the requirements in this section (5 – 10ug/dl).
The notice shall also contain information about the risks associated with not complying with lead safe practices.
Additionally, the property shall be subject to the essential maintenance practice requirements established in RSA 130-A:20 and associated rules.
Lead testing in Water
Original bill section 24
Landlords shall test for the presence of lead in drinking water prior to leasing a residential unit to a new tenant, or at any time a child tests positive for lead.
Amended bill Section 28
Landlords shall test for the presence of lead in drinking water no later than 365 days after the effective date of this section and at any time a child tests positive for lead.
Present law has no requirement for testing lead in water. There is a huge push across the nation for something to be done about testing for lead in the water because of “Flint, Michigan”.
Landlord core team is against this provision because as stated in the first section:
Make sure the water being delivered to our properties is good before we are required to remediate lead in water which might not be from our building but actually delivered to us with lead in the water already or leaching from distribution systems because the water it too corrosive.
Some background information:
DHHS has in 2016 been doing water testing during the abatement order process. They have conducted about 40 water tests. They say none of those have been above the EPA limit. In fact none of them have test above the detection limit.
It seems to us that this section is putting a cost on to landlords to address a problem that does not exist.
We understand that the state has a lab in the DES building that could do the test. How about having them do the water test at no charge for any landlord or tenant at no charge?
What’s in this section:
Landlords, under the bill, are required to test for lead in drinking water within one year of the bill passing, and at any time a child tests positive for lead. If lead is found to exceed EPA standards, the landlord shall notify the tenant and prospective tenants within 60 days of receiving the water test results, and take reasonable remediation steps. This can be installing a certified water filter on the kitchen sink. Using a water filtration pitcher may also be acceptable.
Landlords are against this section feeling that first efforts at lead in water should be with the companies supplying the water.
There is also planned to be the $3 Million remediation fund established that would give money at 50% labor and materials that could be used for lead remediation including lead in water for property owners voluntarily complying with EMP. The fund is planned to be simple to use with very little strings attached.
Landlord & Tenant 540-A requirements & remedies
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 25
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 26
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 27
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 29
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 30
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 31
Original bill section 21, 22, 23, 25, 26, 27
Unlike other prohibited practices, such as shutting off a utility where the improper action is clear and easily discernable, there is an evidentiary issue of proving that chipping, pealing or chalking paint contains lead, and what would have to be alleged in the petition to obtain an ex-parte or temporary order. How is a judge to know if there is lead? A person with training should do the testing, such as a building inspector or a DHHS employee, and not the tenant.
This section does award damages to a tenant for a willful violation by the landlord, but does not award a landlord damages for a willful violation by the tenant.
Section 29 Landlord must comply with lead law.
Well that is obviously already the case.
This could be used as weapon by tenant against the landlord when relationship with landlord is strained or tenant is behind in rent. Also could be used to set up a retaliatory eviction defense.
We recommend leaving this to a neutral third party like a building inspector using present systems.
Section 30 & 31
No damages, except for willful violation, if landlord not complying with lead law but landlord would still be subject to injunctive relief and failure to comply could result in contempt of court.
Damages for tenant’s willful violation not included.
Section 25 gives no real benefit because willful (knowingly) creation of lead hazard would have to be proved.
Additionally
We already have ability to seek court order to enter an apartment to perform maintenance using RSA 540-A:3 V & 540-A petitions.
Here is a summary of this category’s sections:
These provisions are not in present law.
The section numbers at the end of each paragraph are the section numbers in the bill.
These sections amend RSA 540, which contains the rules regarding evictions, and RSA 540-A, which is the Prohibited Practices Act. The sections increase both landlord and tenant responsibilities, and gives both the ability to seek a court order to enforce those responsibilities.
Landlords cannot willfully fail to comply with the applicable laws concerning lead. (Section 29)
Tenants will have to:
1. Comply with the reasonable written instructions of the landlord, the landlord’s agent or contractor, to prepare the unit for remediation of a lead hazard (also insect or rodent infestation) as long as the instructions are given to an adult member of household and the tenant has a reasonable time to prepare the unit, which has to be at least 72 hours. (Section 26)
2. The tenant cannot refuse to allow the landlord to enter the unit after 48 hours’ notice, to evaluate if a lead hazard exists, when the landlord has been notified by the tenant or a public health official of a potential hazard. (Section 27)
Although landlords and tenant will be able to seek a court order to enforce the above using RSA 540-A, which is the simple fill in the form petition to the court, neither will be able to seek the $1,000 fines that can be imposed for other violation of that statute, except when a landlord willfully violates a court order. In that situation the landlord is subject having to pay damages, costs and attorney fees. (Sections 30 and 31). However if a tenant willfully violates a court order, the tenant is not subject to damages, costs and attorney fees.
The bill also includes a provision that it will be grounds for an eviction, with a 7 days’ notice, for a willful creation of a lead hazard exposure, as defined in RSA 130-A:1, XVI, by the tenant, members of his household, or guests (Section 25).
A lead hazard exposure is defined in RSA 130-A:1, XVI as follows:
"Lead exposure hazard'' means:
(a) The presence of lead base substances on chewable, accessible, horizontal surfaces that protrude more than 1/2 inch and are located more than 6 inches but less than 4 feet from the floor or ground;
(b) Lead base substances which are peeling, chipping, chalking, or cracking or any paint located on an interior or exterior surface or fixture that is damaged or deteriorated and is likely to become accessible to a child;
(c) Lead base substances on interior or exterior surfaces that are subject to abrasion or friction or subject to damage by repeated impact; or
(d) Bare soil in play areas or the rest of the yard that contains lead in concentrations equal to or greater than 400 parts per million of lead in bare soil in children's play areas or 1,200 parts per million average for bare soil in the rest of the yard.
RRP Information - Building permit
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 32
Because the benefit is small and the other negatives of the bill are more severe we are against the entire bill. Some landlords are against anything that adds to the building permit process.
This will educate owner occupied residences as well. Children who live in single family homes are a significant percentage of the children who have been found to have high blood lead levels. In addition, RRP already exists. If everyone disturbing lead paint was using RRP we would have less lead hazards, less children with elevated BLLs and less lead orders.
Initial phase would only be handing out info on RRP to applicant.
In the second phase building permit would require a certification that RRP will be used if RRP would be required.
Please note that everyone disturbing lead paint who receives compensation (like receiving rents) should be already be using RRP methods.
Also please note that this does not require more building permits than what is presently required.
State run RRP
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 1
Original bill section 1
Presently the EPA runs the RRP program for the country and NH. 14 state in the country have decided to run their own RRP program.
In this provision NH DHHS would take over running the RRP including some rule making authority.
Notice that the bill addresses one of our concerns by limiting DHHS so they can not “tighten” the RRP rule but would allow DHHS to enforce it which includes certifications, fines and fees.
Landlords do not want to see another bureaucracy created and don’t want to give DHHS “one foot in the door” and have them come back in a few years and tighten the RRP rules. The RRP rules as administered by the EPA are quite reasonable and we don’t need to provide opportunity for the state to make them worse. As originally designed by the EPA a contractor with EPA certification can work in any state. With state taking over running the RRP these same contractors would have to acquire certification in each state. We have seen DHHS quite over zealous in applying their rules and are concerned to give them yet another domain to control.
Effective Dates
“170131 LeadBillAmendedByCommission ToReplaceOriginalBill.pdf” Section 33
Original bill section 29
Insurance coverage
I. Sections 16, 17, 18, and 20 shall take effect October 1, 2017 at 12:03 a.m.
Health Services Corporations, Health Maintenance Organizations coverage
II. Sections 19 and 21 shall take effect January 1, 2021 at 12:02 a.m.
III. The remainder of this act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
This bill is so large and complicated that expecting everything to occur in 60 days is not going to happen. If the bill survives make it become effective on January 1, 2018.
=======
==============================================
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.
HB415, Establish an Income Tax, Reduce or Eliminate Other Taxes
Title: reducing business taxes, repealing certain taxes, establishing an income tax, and requiring payment by the state of a portion of retirement system contributions of political subdivision employers.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Senate Status: none
SB78, Tax Records Confidential
Title: requiring audit records related to payment of business profits tax to be confidential.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED
SB229, Eminent Domain Pipelines
Title: relative to appraisals of residential property, procedures in eminent domain proceedings, and expenditures from the energy efficiency fund.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: REPORT FILED:
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
HB150, Property and Casualty Insurance
Title: relative to property and casualty insurance.
Property Owner Position: You decide
General Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status: REPORT FILED:
HB501, Access To Minutes Of Meetings Of Condominium Unit Owner's Associations
Title: relative to access to minutes of meetings of condominium unit owner's associations.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status: REPORT FILED:
SB168, Increase Veterans Tax Credit from $500 to $1000
Title: relative to increasing the maximum amount of the optional veterans tax credit.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED
SB80, Veterans Tax Credits
Title: (New Title) relative to implementation of the all veterans' tax credit, and relative to applications for recovery from the FRM victims' contribution recovery fund.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
HB215, Marijuana Study Commission
Title: establishing a commission to study the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana.
Property Owner Position: For
General Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE
SB53, Regulation of Appraisers
Title: relative to regulation of appraisal management companies by the real estate appraiser board.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
HB568, Taxability Of Lease Interests In Public Property
Title: relative to the taxability of lease interests in public property.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED/ADOPTED
Senate Status: IN COMMITTEE
SB247, Lead Law
Title: preventing childhood lead poisoning from paint and water and making an appropriation to a special fund.
Property Owner Position: For As Amended By Senate
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED
SB74, Economic Revitalization Zone Tax Credits
Title: relative to economic revitalization zone tax credits.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED
SB185, Tax Relief Coastal Property
Title: extending the community revitalization tax relief program to coastal properties subject to storm surge, sea level rise, and extreme precipitation.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
General Status: HOUSE
House Status: IN COMMITTEE
Senate Status: PASSED/ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
==============================================
Full details on all bills above:
SB78, Tax Records Confidential
01/25/2017 at 09:00 AM SH Room 100
Title: Title: requiring audit records related to payment of business profits tax to be confidential.
Summary: This bill would require that all taxpayer records obtained by State
be kept confidential.
Property Owner Position: For
Link to Committee Info:http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H28
Email to Committee:
Subject: SB78
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/SB0078.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
There is no reason why a business's tax records should be public. Please support this bill.
=====================
SB229, Eminent Domain Pipelines
03/15/2017 at 01:30 PM LOB Room 304
Title: Title: relative to appraisals of residential property, procedures in eminent domain proceedings, and expenditures from the energy efficiency fund.
Summary: The legislative services analysis of the bill is an accurate summary of the
bill. It states (Via copy and paste) I. Allows an owner of residential property to have an updated appraisal completed at the expense of a pipeline company seeking to acquire the property by eminent domain.
II. Allows certain owners of property subject to a permanent partial taking under eminent domain to require a pipeline company to take the entire tract of land.
III. Provides for the awarding of relocation, temporary housing, and legal expenses in gas pipeline eminent domain proceedings.
IV. Requires the site evaluation committee to file as an intervenor in Federal Energy Regulatory Commission proceedings involving siting of high pressure gas pipelines.
Property Owner Position: For
Link to Committee Info:http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H24
Email to Committee:
Subject: SB229
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/SB0229.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
Owners of residential property, which generally are single family homes and duplexes, would have the ability to have their property appraised, at the pipeline company's expense, if it is threatened to be taken by eminent domain action by a pipeline company, as well as forcing the company to take the entire parcel of land, in certain circumstances, and be paid for temporary housing. Since many homeowners do not have the resources to fight the valuations of the pipeline company, this does level the playing field. The state also would be required to appear in any action before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to protect the interests of New Hampshire, and hopefully, its residents.
These things make sense to ensure a property owner is adequately compensated for their property if taken by eminent domain for pipeline purposes. NH desparately needs pipeline capacity to bring low cost natural gas to bear, and this could help get opponents of pipeline infrastructure onboard.
=====================
HB150, Property and Casualty Insurance
04/04/2017 at 01:00 PM SH Room 100
Title: Title: relative to property and casualty insurance.
Summary: This is a bill that amends the statute for property and casualty insurance. It seems to have little impact on us.
Property Owner Position: You decide
Link to Committee Info:http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S37
Email to Committee:
To: sam.cataldo@leg.state.nh.us; david.pierce@leg.state.nh.us;donna.soucy@leg.state.nh.us; represcott@represcott.com;jeb.bradley@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB150
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/HB0150.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
We're basically just letting you know this bill is here incase you think it may impact you. Not sure we have the knowledge to take a position on the bill. If you learn more please let us know.
=====================
HB501, Access To Minutes Of Meetings Of Condominium Unit Owner's Associations
04/04/2017 at 01:45 PM SH Room 100
Title: Title: relative to access to minutes of meetings of condominium unit owner's associations.
Summary: The bill would require all condo associations to take minutes of all meeting held, and make the minutes available within 15 days to any condo owner
Property Owner Position: For
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S37
Email to Committee:
To: sam.cataldo@leg.state.nh.us; david.pierce@leg.state.nh.us;donna.soucy@leg.state.nh.us; represcott@represcott.com;jeb.bradley@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB501
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/HB0501.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
There is no reason why condo owners should not have access to meeting minutes, especially since his or her finances and investment are directly affected by the actions of the condo associations. This provide transparency and helps owners know what went on without attending the meetings.
Unfortunately there is no enforcement mechanism if the law is not followed. The condo association could ignore any request.
=====================
SB168, Increase Veterans Tax Credit from $500 to $1000
04/11/2017 at 10:00 AM LOB Room 301
Title: Title: relative to increasing the maximum amount of the optional veterans tax credit.
Summary: The optional upper limit of the veterans tax credit would increase from
$500 to $1,000.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
Link to Committee Info:http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H18
Email to Committee:
Subject: SB168
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/SB0168.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
The analysis team has varying opinions on this bill.
This is a bill that aids veterans and a thank you for your service from all of us.
If SB80 passes there will be more Vets applying for tax credits. Doubling the amount will unfairly increase the burden on remaining tax payers.
=====================
SB80, Veterans Tax Credits
04/11/2017 at 10:30 AM LOB Room 307
Title: Title: (New Title) relative to implementation of the all veterans' tax credit, and relative to applications for recovery from the FRM victims' contribution recovery fund.
Summary: The bill would give municipalities authority to phase out an older veteran's tax credit over three years and use the newer credit.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
Link to Committee Info:http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H43
Email to Committee:
Subject: SB80
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/SB0080.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
This bill appears to be a house keeping bill, giving munipalites the ability
to change over the veteran's tax credits
=====================
HB215, Marijuana Study Commission
04/11/2017 at 11:00 AM SH Room 100
Title: Title: establishing a commission to study the legalization, regulation, and taxation of marijuana.
Summary: Establish a commission to study the impact of legalization, regulation and taxation of marijuana without input from residential or commercial landlords.
Property Owner Position: For
Link to Committee Info:http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S10
Email to Committee:
To: bette.lasky@leg.state.nh.us; gldaniels@myfairpoint.net;david.pierce@leg.state.nh.us; sharon.carson@leg.state.nh.us;sam.cataldo@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB215
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/HB0215.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
Again many mixed thoughts on the analysis team which are included below.
It is inevitable marijuana will eventually become legal due to the way surrounding states treat this issue.
People already smoke it, its legal in ME and MA, why not develop some new tax revenue?
This is a gate way drug that we should not legalize. Make it a fine to be in possession of so much of it, de-criminalize it.
There are way too many people incarcerated for small marijuana related offenses
The only issue to landlords is the nuisance factor. Odor will go to other apartments. We need something to allow landlords to react to complaints. Could lead to new “sin tax” which could lower property tax.
Most of us are a least FOR studying the issue because it is obvious that it won’t go away so we might as well study it and hopefully come up with a reasonable plan for addressing it in NH and learning from other states that have gone before us.
We would like opportunity for landlord input on the commission.
=====================
SB53, Regulation of Appraisers
04/11/2017 at 01:15 PM LOB Room 306
Title: Title: relative to regulation of appraisal management companies by the real estate appraiser board.
Summary: Seems to have little impact on landlords.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H07
Email to Committee:
To: HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB53
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/SB0053.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
We have not studied this bill and are basically just letting you know this bill is here incase you think it may impact you. If you learn more please let us know.
=====================
HB568, Taxability Of Lease Interests In Public Property
04/12/2017 at 09:00 AM LOB Room 102
Title: Title: relative to the taxability of lease interests in public property.
Summary: Seems to have little impact on landlords.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S27
Email to Committee:
To: 0; dboutin1465@comcast.net; bette.lasky@leg.state.nh.us; nancy.stiles@leg.state.nh.us; molly.kelly@leg.state.nh.us; ;
Subject: HB568
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/HB0568.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
We have not studied this bill and are basically just letting you know this bill is here incase you think it may impact you. If you learn more please let us know.
=====================
SB74, Economic Revitalization Zone Tax Credits
04/13/2017 at 01:00 PM LOB Room 202
Title: Title: relative to economic revitalization zone tax credits.
Summary: Seems to have little impact on landlords.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H28
Email to Committee:
To: HouseWays&MeansCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB74
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/SB0074.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
We have not studied this bill and are basically just letting you know this bill is here incase you think it may impact you. If you learn more please let us know.
=====================
SB185, Tax Relief Coastal Property
04/13/2017 at 02:00 PM LOB Room 202
Title: Title: extending the community revitalization tax relief program to coastal properties subject to storm surge, sea level rise, and extreme precipitation.
Summary: The legislative services analysis of the bill is an accurate summary of the
bill. It states (Via copy and paste) This bill allows municipalities to adopt a program for tax and other relief for coastal properties subject to storm surge, sea level rise, and extreme precipitation, under the community revitalization tax relief program.
Property Owner Position: You Decide
Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H28
Email to Committee:
To: HouseWays&MeansCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: SB185
Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2017/SB0185.html
Analysis Stated in Bill:
Talking Points:
This is a bill where someone with more knowledge and understanding that we have should do the analysis.
=====================
===========================================================
Next legislative update
BIG changes from HUD announced yesterday. New dust clearance levels as of 4/1/17
floors 10ug/ft2 (currently 40)
window sills 100ug/ft2 (currently 250)
window wells 100ug/ft2 (currently 400)
porch floors 40ug/ft2 (currently no standard as far as I know)
This will be nationwide, effective 4/1/17 and NHHFA has already announced that they will comply. I believe Nashua and Manchester will do the same - so will all section 8 and public housing- I don't think they will have a choice.
From Kate Kirkwood.
==============================================
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.