Legislative Schedule - Feb 13th - Feb 17th

This week 3 real estate bills are scheduled to be heard.
Full detail with contact info is further below)

HB1649 02/13/2012 at 10:20 AM LOB 207; Please contact legislators.
Title: relative to collection of the education property tax and establishing a program to rebate certain excessive property tax payments of eligible taxpayers.
Property Owner Position: Oppose

Summary: The bill establishes a program for the rebate of excessive education property tax payments made by eligible taxpayers in the state.

Link to Committee Info:

Email to Committee: ~HouseSpecialCommitteeonEducationFundingReform@leg.state.nh.us

Link to Bill Text:

Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill transfers the authority to collect the education property tax from the municipalities to the department of revenue administration. The bill establishes a program for the rebate of excessive education property tax payments made by eligible taxpayers in the state. Claims for rebates shall be made to the department of revenue administration and qualifying claims shall be paid from the interest which accumulates on education property taxes collected by the department.

Talking Points:
Claims for rebates shall be made to the department of revenue administration and qualifying claims shall be paid from the interest which accumulates on education property taxes collected by the department.
This is a complex bill which first requires taxpayers to pay education tax, that is being billed to them by the local municipality, to the Department of Revenue Adm. It also changes the procedure for education property tax relief. According to the Dept of Revenue analysis at the end of the bill, it will seriously increase the cost to the state if this bill is enacted.(The Dept of Revenue estimated 16,000,000)
This looks like it will grow the state government at the expense of the taxpayer.
To speak very intelligently on this bill we would need a much deeper analysis.


SB204 02/14/2012 at 09:00 AM LOB 102
Title: adopting amendments to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code relative to secured transactions.
Property Owner Position: No Action

SB342 02/14/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 101
Title: including standards for log homes in the New Hampshire building code.
Property Owner Position: No Action


What we need from you:
1. Please email, or call the legislators regarding these bills & bills not yet decided, express your opinions (you can reword ideas from the talking points below)
2. Please email, or call the legislators
3. Please email, or call the legislators
(guess what we really need you to do).
4. If you speak to a legislator or any one else and learn something not already captured below please notify me so I can continue to get as much info out to every one as possible.

Perhaps the most critical bill to support is SB301.
Legal Assistance is sending pages of notes to the committee in strong opposition to the bill. Please respond in favor of the bill to increase our chance to get this or at least parts of it passed.

A short summary of critical bills is immediately below.
Please email, or call the legislators
SB301 (Committee has not made a decision yet)
Title: relative to landlord-tenant remedies.
Summary: Many improvements to eviction and eviction-small small claims
Property Owner Position: Support

Email to Committee:
To: matthew.houde@leg.state.nh.us; sharon.carson@leg.state.nh.us; fenton.groen@leg.state.nh.us; jim.luther@leg.state.nh.us; james.forsythe@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: SB301 Support

HB1602 (Committee has not made a decision yet)
Title: removing the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing.
Property Owner Position: Oppose

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseExecutiveDepartmentsandAdministration@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1602 Oppose
…
HB1462 (Committee has not made a decision yet)
Title: relative to the eviction process.
Property Owner Position: Support

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1462 Support
…
HB1532 (Committee has not made a decision yet)
Title: relative to trespass on land which is not posted.
Property Owner Position: Oppose

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseCriminalJusticeandPublicSafety@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1532 Oppose
…
HB1405 (Committee has not made a decision yet)
Title: relative to refugee resettlement.
Property Owner Position: Support

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseMunicipalandCountyGovt@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1405 Support
…


Further below is:
Present Status (that we know)
Full details on all bills (still active)
Which includes “To” & “Subject” for email to legislators
Talking points, much more

Love & Light,
Nick Norman
RPOA Director of Legislative Affairs
==============================================
Present status:

Please contact the governor’s office, 271-2121, or http://www4.egov.nh.gov/governor/goveforms/comments.asp
And ask him to approve HB648:
HB648
Title: (3rd New Title) relative to eminent domain by public utilities and establishing a commission to investigate the procedural rights of the landowner when a petition is presented to the public utilities commission by a utility seeking eminent domain, develop a framework for the state to provide use rights to transmission developers on state owned rights-of-way, develop policies to encourage burying such lines where practicable, and establish a structure for payment.
Property Owner Position: Support as Amended
PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT

SB222
Title: relative to property and casualty insurance.
Property Owner Position: Support
REPORT FILED
Majority Report: Ought to Pass Amended

SB335
Title: establishing a procedure for certain condominiums to waive portions of the state fire code.
Property Owner Position: Support
REPORT FILED
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1565
Title: establishing a committee to study landlord-tenant law and practice.
Property Owner Position: Support
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

HB1429
Title: enabling municipalities to adopt a property tax credit based on home renovation costs.
Property Owner Position: No Action
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

SB306
Title: relative to the commercial and industrial construction property tax exemption.
Property Owner Position: No Action
REPORT FILED
Majority Report: Ought to Pass

HB1286
Title: relative to the installation of sprinklers.
Property Owner Position: Support
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE

HB1210
Title: applying the procedures of the eminent domain procedures act to cases of eminent domain concerning public utilities.
Property Owner Position: unsure of our position; we need to know more.
REPORT FILED
Majority Report: Refer to Study

HB1288
Title: relative to protection of private property from the use of eminent domain.
Property Owner Position: Support
REPORT FILED
Majority Report: Refer to Study

HB1407
Title: allowing towns to establish a firefighter commission.
Property Owner Position: No Action
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1161
Title: establishing a committee to study permitting nonresident property owners to vote in local elections.
Property Owner Position: Support
INEXPEDIENT TO LEGISLATE
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate

HB1317
Title: relative to certifying electricians as fire supression equipment and alarm installers.
Property Owner Position: No Action
INTERIM STUDY
Majority Report: Refer to Study

HB1619
Title: relative to the assessment of property taxes on the value that exceeds $50,000.
Property Owner Position: Oppose
REPORT FILED
Majority Report: Inexpedient to Legislate
==============================================
Full details on all bills (still active):

HB648
Title: (3rd New Title) relative to eminent domain by public utilities and establishing a commission to investigate the procedural rights of the landowner when a petition is presented to the public utilities commission by a utility seeking eminent domain, develop a framework for the state to provide use rights to transmission developers on state owned rights-of-way, develop policies to encourage burying such lines where practicable, and establish a structure for payment.

Summary: This bill with newest amendments prevents private business from taking property by utility eminent domain.
To protect property rights:
The property owners involved highly recommend the Bragdon-Forrester Amendment (which passed) they feel the DeBlois-Bradley amendment may leave a loop hole for private business to reorganize themselves as a public entity and still take the property by eminent domain.

Property Owner Position: Support as Amended

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB0648.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill prohibits public utilities from petitioning for permission to take private land or property rights for the construction or operation of certain transmission facilities.

Talking Points:
There was a newspaper article from Senators Forrester & DeBlois protecting private property rights from threat of eminent domain by a private developer or project. I can send you a copy if you want.

Notes from Nick’s conversation with Senator Tom DeBlois.

This relates to the Northern Pass project.
Hydro Quebec is a private development company aiming to install a high power transmission line from Canada, through the NH White Mountains and tying into the electric grid futher down in NH.

They have the ability to use existing PSNH easements for a large part of the transmission length. However there is a 40 mile length of land missing.

There is a lot of debate over this project with many many bills on eminent domain in the legislature this season. A large amount of the debate is over having huge 80 to 135 towers as a blight on the NH mountains or to put the cable under ground. It is also said that PSNH would receive $50 million annually for leasing its land to Hydro Quebec.

We have not heard all sides on this issue but have heard enough to recognize that it is bumping up against NH constitution article 12a relating to individual’s property rights.

Did you know that under present NH law a private utility company can forcefully take an individuals property using its own eminent domain procedure separate from the government procedure for eminent domain?

Right now NH generates more power than it needs and exports to the grid. So we don’t need or would we receive this power now.

2 power plants in MA & one on Vermont will go off grid in the next few years. 1 is in Marlboro, MA another near the cape in MA, and also Vermont Yankee or course in Vermont.

Some believe the Northern Pass project will end up financially benefiting NH eventually but probably not right away. I encourage all of us to learn more about this project.

There are other solutions to the Northern Pass project, none of which we are well versed on yet. One is to bury the cable, another is to bury the cable along I93 so NH could receive the $50 million. Burying the cable is said to eliminate electromagnetic health risks entirely and though it would likely be more expensive initially it would save future repair and maintenance cost of tower and above ground transmission lines.

We have not heard enough yet to take a strong position on the Northern Pass project. However, we feel it is inherently wrong that a private for profit business entity could use eminent domain to take other’s property for their own profit.

We therefore strongly urge you to contact the entire senate body (only 24) and urge them to protect NH private property rights by voting for SB648 as amended to protect NH private property rights from eminent domain procedures of private business.

…….
Below is an email from a one of the affected property owners and speaking out against the utility eminent domain procedure.

Hi Nick,

I enjoyed meeting you and the other Rotarians.

As I explained yesterday, we oppose the Northern Pass Project as it is proposed to be on Steel Towers, 85 to 135 feet tall every 800 to 1,000 feet for 180 miles through NH.

We want PSNH to bury the cables as is being done or proposed in many, many projects worldwide, including in New York State, Connecticut, and Maine.

The evils of the above-ground cables include:

1) increased chances of childhood leukemia and neurotransmitters and pacemakers fail to work within 100 feet of towers
2) destruction of property values
3) inability to get mortgages or reverse mortgages
4) higher maintenance costs for cables on towers
5) subject to ice storm damage as well as damage from lightening.
6) destruction of vistas and scarring of the White Mountain National Forest
7) will require the use of eminent domain

Thank you for your help and your concern,
Mike
…
Mike Marino said you could send question for further info to him at marinolee@aol.com.
=====================
HB1602 01/19/2012 at 01:30 PM LOB 306
Title: removing the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing.

Summary: This bill as stated removes the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing meaning our maintenance staff and ourselves will have to be licensed. This means maintenance personnel will not be able to spray over the counter pesticides to handle simple exterminations. The is very troublesome for property owners and maintenance staff. Please oppose it and follow it closely.

Property Owner Position: Oppose

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: HB1602 Oppose

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1602.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill removes the exemption for janitors from pesticide applicator licensing.

Notes: Some of our information on this bill comes from direct convesations with the prime sponsor. The bill is now in subcommittee and you have time to contact the legislators to get in your input. Write to the entire committee with the email listed so as to be sure to the get the subcommittee and every one else. These bills can move very quickly so get in your input to oppose this bill now.

Talking Points:
As mentioned above, if this bill passes, with out a license, a maintenance person can not set off a flea bomb, set ant traps, spray Raid on a roach, spray wasp killer on a yellow jacket at an apartment where occupants are deathly allergic to bee stings.

This will cost more money and aggravation for maintenance staff and property owners. Or will landlords just give the over the counter pesticides to tenants who can apply it themselves with out a license, and most likely less care for its proper use, or will landlords simply just not treat because of the added headache.

The license will require a $20 annual fee, studying material and passing a test then taking 15 hours of continuing education every 5 years which I’m sure you would have to pay for. According to the information we’ve been given a supervisor could be licensed to supervise staff but the added requirements for that level of licensing makes it better to have every person licensed.

So in the end every maintenance person or landlord applying over the counter pesticides would have to get and maintain this license.

You probably are aware how bureaucracy grows. So if we start with this level license now where do we end up in 10 years?

More notes from the prime sponsor directly below.
…….
Notes from Nick’s phone conversation with prime sponsor Rep. Suzzane Smith

Intent of HB1602 is to make it so that Janitor is required to have a Commercial not for hire pesticide applicator license.

Not for hire is a classification of people that are not in the business of extermination and is the least stringent license requirement.

This DOES mean that maintenance staff will NOT be allowed to apply over the counter pesticides that you would buy at hardware stores, walmart, etc with out the license. However, she says it would not apply to cleaning products.

It seems the impetus behind the bill is from inexperienced people putting down pesticides to attempt to handle the bed bug issue and tenants getting sick.

Suzanne said the essentials of the license are $20, I don’t know if that is per year or once, reading some literature and taking a test plus 15 hours of continuing education every 5 years.

She said there are some provisions for business to have one person licensed and supervising other non-licensed workers. However, there may be a requirement that the supervisor must be on site.

Link to more info on Commercial not for hire pesticide applicator license provided in separae email below from Suzanne. That license is administered by the Agriculture Department.

Interestingly from my reading of the bill and law with other landlords, it would seem that tenants would not have any licensing requirement for treating their own space.

Suzanne said she would email me more info.
She also said the Agriculture Department wanted to administer this idea through rules and that this legislature tends to be against additional licensing.

The bill was heard and has gone to a subcommittee of the EDA, Executive Departments And Administration Committee. So if we act quickly we still have time to get in our input.
=====================
HB1153 01/20/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 302
Title: relative to fire protection of floors in certain detached dwellings.

Summary: Requires new minimum fire protection standards for floors in new const OR substantially rehabilitated one or 2 unit dwellings. Looks like this could be costly for those rehabbing properties.

Property Owner Position: Varying view points on this. Please review and let us know your thoughts and real life experience.

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H43

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseCommerceAndConsumerAffairs@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1153

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1153.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill establishes minimum fire protection standards for floors of detached single and 2-family dwellings.

Talking Points:
This bill will require for all single family and two family dwellings built or renovated after January 1, 2013 to put 1/2 sheetrock or other fire retardant materials under the floor joints and to seal the penetrations. This is probably submitted by the fire marshal’s office since sprinklers are not going to be required in these buildings. It basically outlaws only having a suspended ceiling except for 80 square feet per story. The intention appears to prevent fires from spreading so quickly that firefighters do not have a chance to arrive and evacuate the building.

Caution: we start by allowing this. What increased requirements happen next year?

(Position 1)
I feel that we should not take a position on this bill. It effects builders and buyers of new homes and new duplexes. It does make buildings safer, and since most rooms have sheet rock ceilings in new construction, I do not feel that it adds heavily to the costs of construction. Given the safety issues involved, and that 1/2 sheet rock is said to be less expensive now than 3/8 sheetrock and is common practice, Since the only new expense is o have all penetrations sealed with a fire rated sealant, I am not sure how much it will raise the cost of construction vs the potential loss of life. Sheet rock is also more pleasing to the eye than suspended ceilings.

(Position 2)
This has to do with requiring owners of existing (substantial renovation), and builders of single and 2 family dwellings to install fireproofing on floors. Although I am not a fire expert, this sounds like an annoying and overreaching law. It could cost a few multi family owners extra money.

We have varying view points on this. Please review and let us know your thoughts and real life experience.
=====================
HB1634 01/24/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 306
Title: (New Title) establishing a committee to study the implementation of United Nations Agenda 21 into the state, counties, regional commissions, towns, and cities.

Summary: prohibits the state and political subdivisions from implementing programs of, funding, receiving funding from, or contracting with, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).

Property Owner Position: Support

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: HB1634 Support

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1634.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill prohibits the state and political subdivisions from implementing programs of, funding, receiving funding from, or contracting with, the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI).

Talking Points:
The bill does exactly what the stated analysis says, prohibiting that state and municipalities from being involved with the ICLEI. We googled the organization, and there are articles both in favor of the organization and against it. In two articles against the organization the authors felt that this international council directed (perhaps dictated) green type policies to communities stepping on individual rights.

If communities become members of this organization, more restrictions could eventually be imposed upon us, including reducing emissions from our heating systems, use of pesticides, and even sanding and salting our parking lots. Given the type of projects listed in one of the articles, changing a 4 lane road to two lane and two bicycle lanes, would potentially increase our taxes, when the money needs to go to schools, police and fire protection.
=====================
HB1501 01/25/2012 at 10:00 AM LOB 305
Title: establishing a fund to upgrade wastewater treatment plants.

Summary: $25 donation per toilet collected through property tax.

Property Owner Position: Oppose

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: HB1501 Oppose

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1501.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill establishes a fund to upgrade wastewater treatment plants, replace failing septic systems, and reduce nitrogen discharge.

Talking Points:
This will require every municipality when mailing tax bills to ask taxpayers to voluntarily contribute $25. per toilet into a fund that would help utilities upgrade wastewater treatment plants, replace failing septic systems and reduce nitrogen discharge. Would anyone actually contribute to this fund? Cities and Towns would incur the costs of soliciting the money, and if any is collected, the accounting costs and forwarding the funds to the state.

What about the excessively large number of people who’s property taxes are escrowed with their mortgage payments. Would their bank not even look at the bill and end up paying the donation leaving the property owner paying higher taxes with out knowing it. The property owner would now need to know to intercept the bill and communicate to the bank servicing agent to not pay or not pay the donation. What a hassel, fraught with problems and communication difficulties.

Is it really practical? Will the municipalities collect more money than their costs? This may raise our taxes without any real benefit other than reducing the unemployment rate as new people will be needed to administer the funds.
=====================
HB1618 01/31/2012 at 02:30 PM LOB 205
Title: relative to fire safety standards for community living facilities.

Summary: This bill repeals RSA 126-A:21 which dictates single family home fire codes to be applied to community living facilities housing 3 or fewer clients.

Property Owner Position: No Action

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

Email to Committee:
To: ~HHSEA@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1618

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1618.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill repeals the law regarding standards for fire safety in community living facilities housing 3 or fewer clients.

Talking Points:
This is a one line bill that reads: Repeal. RSA 126-A:21, relative to fire safety standards in community living facilities housing 3 or fewer clients, is repealed.

Community living facilities according to RSA 126-A are for people with developmental disabilities or mental illness. RSA 126-A:21 states: Notwithstanding RSA153:5, 153:10-b, or any law to the contrary, the fire code applicable to single family dwellings, as defined in RSA 153:1, X, or, where applicable, single rental units in multi-unit dwellings, as defined in RSA 153:1, IX-a and VI, respectively, shall be the fire code applied by the state fire marshal and local fire departments to community living facilities housing 3 or fewer clients.
Surprisingly the bill actually negates the requirements for smoke detectors that we have in apartments.

Since most of us are not in the business of running community living facilities we decided not to take a position on this bill.

If the bill does affect you and you would like support responding to the legislature, please let us know.
=====================
HB1252 01/31/2012 at 03:00 PM LOB 208
Title: relative to required documentation of ownership in foreclosure proceedings.

Summary: Would require holders of notes to be foreclosed to have the clerk make copy of actual deed and sign to authorize foreclosure sale.

Property Owner Position: Support if amended

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1252 Support if amended

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1252.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill requires the copying of the deed of a property to be foreclosed and the signature of the clerk before a foreclosure sale can take place.

Talking Points:
This bill should not be enacted until it is amended. Whoever wrote it, appears to have not read RSA 479:25. In addition, the bill is so unclear, we can not understand what the actual intent of it is.

RSA 479:25 is the statute that specifies that if a mortgage deed includes the language of power of sale, foreclosure can be done without court actions and by auctions. We believe most foreclosures in New Hampshire are by power of sale. (Notices, advertisements, sale at auction on the premises).

RSA 479:25 currently is so well written that it is a step by step instruction on how to foreclose. The bill seeks to amend the statute by adding a new requirement that : No foreclosure sale shall be valid until the holder of the deed presents the actual deed to the clerk, the clerk copies it and signs the authorization for the foreclosure sale to take place. Any bank that does not comply with this paragraph shall be fined $1,000 per day of noncompliance.

Problems with the amendment are that we do not know who is the holder of the deed, and who is the clerk. Are we to assume that the clerk is the clerk of the corporation that owns the bank that is foreclosing? Does holder of the deed mean the owner of the property that is being foreclosed upon. However, the intent was probably that the holder of the mortgage deed have to present the actual deed to the clerk of the corporation to effectuate the foreclosure to prevent the abuse that has occurred since the beginning of the recession.

As investors in real estate, and potentially buyers of properties that have been foreclosed upon, we would want to support bills that reduce or help prevent fraud in the title to real estate. However, we think that this bill needs to vbe amended to eliminate unclarities before we can support it.
So, unless it is amended we would oppose it.
=====================
HB1263 02/02/2012 at 09:30 AM LOB 208
Title: repealing the law requiring landlords of restricted residential property provide service of process information.

Summary: do away with the requirement that owners of restricted property supply their contact information to the towns.

Property Owner Position: Support

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1263 Support

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1263.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill repeals the requirement that landlords of restricted residential property provide service of process information to the municipality in which the property is located.

Talking Points:
This requirement has been a big inconvenience for landlords and the towns. The towns have to set up a registry and constantly update it and landlords have to pay to register and in most cases the same information is already on file with the town. In addition the impetus for the original passing of the law was that towns were having a difficult time getting in touch with banks about properties that had fallen into disrepair. Why inconvenience everyone when the main problem is with a small percentage of the overall property owners?
=====================
HB1462 02/02/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 208
Title: relative to the eviction process.

Summary: Allows landlords to correct a writ of summons for simple errors, may allow for increasing the small claims portion if another rent has come due during the eviction process.

Property Owner Position: Support

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1462 Support

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1462.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill permits the landlord to file a motion to amend the writ of summons.

Talking Points:
This bill could allow for landlords to correct a simple typo and keep an eviction active rather than loose in court over a simple and obvious mistake.
It may also allow for addition to the claim for rent that has come due since the original LT-Writ was drafted.

This bill could save landlords and the courts a lot of money and time because cases that are thrown out for grammatical errors and other minor mistakes will not have to be heard and filed twice. Also, the tenant still receives their opportunity to be heard in court.
=====================
HB1463 02/02/2012 at 11:00 AM LOB 208
Title: relative to abandonment of the tenancy and relative to property abandoned by a tenant.

Summary: establishes a procedure a landlord can follow if a tenant has abandoned an apartment and the landlord wants to retake possession of the apartment without going through the formal eviction process.

Property Owner Position: Think we support but we need to get more clarity on ramifications and landlords. 4 of us study it talk on Tuesday.

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseJudiciaryCommittee@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1463

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1463.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill:
I. Establishes a procedure for a landlord to establish that a tenant has abandoned the tenancy.
II. Provides that the landlord is not obligated to store personal property that has been abandoned by the tenant. Personal property shall be considered abandoned if it is of no apparent value or if the tenant has indicated to the landlord that he or she does not intend to recover it.

Notes: The legislator that is sponsoring this bill and said that this bill was submitted to him by a landlord group. He said that it is based on the abandonment laws in other states.

Talking Points:
(Position 1)
The procedure in the bill is only available in very limited circumstances. First, the tenants must have vacated the premises without notice to the landlord and do not intend to return which is evidenced by the tenants removing substantially all of their personal property AND the tenants are 5 days or more in arrears or have expressed they do not intend to occupy the premises after a specified date (Question - isn't that notice to the landlord and how does the landlord prove that the tenant gave such notice?)

If the tenant has abandoned the unit, the landlord would have to send written notice by certifed mail and post notice at the premises stating that the landlord believes the tenants have abandoned the premises and that the landlord will be taking possession within 5 days of receipt of this notice (Question - what if the tenant does not pick up the certified mail or refuses it?) and that if the tenant does not contact the landlord then the landlord will dispose of the tenants possessions within 7 days of the notice if the tenant does not claim these items.

The final paragraph of the bill modifies RSA 540-A such that a landlord does not have to store personal property of a tenant if it has been abandoned and in the judgment of the landlord has no ascertainable or apparent value or if the tenant has expressly indicated to the landlord that he or she does not intend to recover the property.

The advantages of the bill is that if a landlord in the limited circumstances outlined above follows the procedure, the landlord does not have to serve an evicition notice and a demand for rent, nor does the landlord have to go though the court system and spend both the 30 to 60 days to regain possession or the unit or pay the court entry fees of $101 or the sheriff fees that vary by distance and the number of people who have to be served.

The disadvantages of the bill are ambiguities. 2 are noted above. Another question, what if a tenant has abandoned a unit, leaves nothing in the apartment, has the utilites turned off, mail fowarded, is 5 days or more behind in rent, and the keys on the kitchen counter and a landlord does not follow the procedure outlined in the bill. In this clear situation of abandonment, is the landlord liable under RSA 540-A for improper entry? This bill could establish place an additional burden on landlords that we currently do not have.

Another issue is what if a tenant does not contact a landlord during the 5 day notice period, but later claim he or she did by verbal communication. If there is a 540-A action brought by the tenant, it is up to the judge who to believe. (nick-named these truth telling contests). The bill needs a procedure that the tenant must communicate with the landlord in writing by certified mail so that there is clear proof of the communication.

A landlord must follow the notice provisions exactly as outlined in the bill or he or she can not use the bill, if it is enacted, as a defense to a RSA 540-A action. Since it is basically only a two step process - notice in writing posted (whatever that means-why not abode service as with eviction notices?) at the premises and the same notice sent certified mail to the tenants, most landlords should be able to comply if the bill becomes law. It is not any more difficult that serving a demand for rent or an eviction notice.

Final issue with the last paragraph of the bill in regard to the landlord deciding if a tenant’s property left in an apartment after a tenant has vacated has no ascertainable value. First, what if the landlord is wrong and the property does have value? Since we only have to hold onto tenant stuff after they move for 7 days, I would advise another landlord to hold the stuff for the 7 days. Further, under the recent change, the landlord is only on the hook for the actual value of the property discarded in the 7 days, plus attorney fees, not a $1,000 a day fine.
Probably better to leave this last paragraph provision out.

(Position 2)
This is a detailed law and one that everyone should read. The text of the new law starts out by saying that a tenant abandonment means the tenants have vacated the premises without notice to the landlord and do not intend to return, which intention may be evidenced by the removal by the tenants or their agent of substantially all of their possessions and personal effects from the premises and either:

(a) Nonpayment of rent for more than 5 days; or

(b) An express statement by the tenants that they do not intend to occupy the premises after a specified date.

Right away I get the sense that opponents of this bill will say that assuming that an abandonment of the unit has occurred just because a tenants is 5 days late on their rent is reckless and wrong.

The bill then goes on to detail some steps that a landlord should take to make sure that they will not be defeated in court if a tenant challenges an eviction.

Proposing legislation about the clarification of abandonment has always been a priority of landlords but how to go about it has always been a conundrum for us. The problem is if you define it and put in a protocol to deal with it is that a good thing or a bad thing for landlords. In the final analysis, over the past 20 years we have usually defaulted to not pursuing legislation because the devil is always in the details and the language of a law that is beneficial to us is usually heavily opposed by NH legal aid.
=====================
HB1674 02/02/2012 at 01:30 PM LOB 301
Title: reducing the interest rate on late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes.

Summary: This bill lowers the interest rates applicable to late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes enforced through the lien procedure.

Property Owner Position: Support

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: HB1674 Support

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1674.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill lowers the interest rates applicable to late and delinquent property tax payments, subsequent payments, and other unpaid taxes enforced through the lien procedure.

Talking Points:
The bill changes a number of sections of the RSA s dealing with interest rates on unpaid taxes, including past due amounts on leases with the Pease Development Authority (18% to 9%), municipal taxes from 12% to 6% (per current law not including resident taxes whatever they are), and a number of other sections. The bill also makes the sections that are amended gender neutral by including the words or her after the word his.

It brings down interest rates that appear to have been established during the Carter years of high inflation. The existing rates, compared to the rates charged by banks or paid on savings accounts are excessive. In addition, with a goal to try to reduce foreclosures, lowering the interest rates reduces the amount a property owner would have to pay if he or she fell behind in tax payments. Especially if a bank is collecting taxes and interest as part of a mortgage payment.
=====================
SB301 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 101
Title: relative to landlord-tenant remedies.

Summary: Many improvements to eviction and eviction-small small claims

Property Owner Position: Support

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H10

Email to Committee:
To: matthew.houde@leg.state.nh.us; sharon.carson@leg.state.nh.us; fenton.groen@leg.state.nh.us; jim.luther@leg.state.nh.us; james.forsythe@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: SB301 Support

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0301.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill:
I. Requires 7 days notice for eviction from residential property, regardless of the grounds for the eviction.
II. Allows the landlord to amend a writ of summons to correct minor procedural defects.
III. Increases the amount of damages available in landlord-tenant disputes from $1,500 to $10,000.
IV. Requires former tenants to execute a financial affidavit and provide a forwarding address if they have been found liable for damages to the landlord.

Talking Points:
The Analysis stated in the bill above indicates four changes by roman numerals but the actual text of the bill has 6 significant changes numbered 1 – 6.

1. Under current law a landlord can give a seven days eviction notice in limited circumstances, basically for non payment of rent, substantial damage to the premises by a tenant or his family or guests, or behavior of the tenant or members of his family which adversely affects the health or safety of the other tenants or the landlord or his representatives, or failure of the tenant to accept suitable temporary relocation due to lead-based paint hazard abatement, but not guests of the tenant. In all other circumstances the notice must be 30 days.

The current law can be confusing, and there are circumstances where it is unclear which notice is appropriate. Examples, a tenants guests drink in a common hallway and always move inside the apartment when the police arrive if called by other residents of the building. It disturbs other tenants. Is it harm allowing a 7 days notice ? A tenant brings in a pet without permission - the pet can cause major damage to an apartment and bring in fleas. What about a dog that constantly barks disturbing other tenants. Tenants continuously have marital discord that disturbs other tenants is this harm to the other tenants or other good cause.

In addition there are many instances where the 30 days notice is unfair as financial harm does occur to a landlord. A tenant brings in a roomate without the permission of the landlord and the new person uses water, hot water at the expense of the landlord without paying for his or her use of these utilities that a landlord pays.

There is also no real reason for the difference in the notice provisions. Even after the notice period ends, it still takes a minimum of three to four weeks for the eviction process to work its way through the courts. The tenants have more than adequate time to find other housing. However, during this entire process the tenant do continue their behavior that is the cause of the eviction to the detriment of the landlord and the other tenants.

2. This amendment prevents an eviction from being dismissed if there is a minor error in the demand for rent or eviction notice. As long as a tenant is notified of the eviction action, how to avoid it if it is a non payment case, an eviction should not be dismissed if, for instance, the tenants name is spelled incorrectly. Since only minor errors will be allowed, the tenant’s rights would not be prejudiced.

3. The third amendment is similar to the previous paragraph, but allows a landlord to amend a writ by motion, within 7 days if the landlord made an error in preparing the writ. This prevents an eviction from being dismissed if a error is corrected quickly, within 7 days, and it does not prejudice a tenant as the correction will be well before a hearing date is scheduled in the eviction process.

4. This paragraph provides for an automatic procedure for periodic payments and could eliminate the need of a landlord to file, after judgment, a motion for periodic payments and have a hearing. It reduces the paperwork for the Courts, it reduces the amount of times that a judge has to review and rule on a case, and it reduces costs for both the landlord and the tenant as each has to take additional time for every court appearance and there are court fees that one or the other has to pay.

5. This bill just increases the limits of the amount of damages for unpaid rent a landlord can seek from $1500 to $10,000. This is similar to the increases that have been made in small claim procedures. With many apartments and single family houses renting for more than $1000 per month, it is easy to exceed $1,500, especially if a landlord tries to work a tenant who is having financial difficulties, for unpaid rent, by the time the writ is prepared. In commercial transactions, it is easy to see the need for higher upper limit.

In order to save time and expense for both the Landlord and the Tenant, the entire amount of damages for unpaid rent could be litigated once when the case is heard on the L & T writ.

Just understand that under this section, if the landlord alleges damages in excess of $1,500 then the tenant can request a jury trial. We are unclear if the possessory action stays in the district court (now known as the Circuit Court) or if the entire action is transferred to the Superior Court where it can take YEARS for a civil jury trial to be scheduled.

6. Jurisdiction is mostly restricted to district court.

In all cases where a jury trial is not requested jurisdiction will stay with the District Court.
This is good for us because District Court has the easiest & quickest procedures.
=====================
HB1532 02/02/2012 at 02:00 PM LOB 204
Title: relative to trespass on land which is not posted.

Summary: This bill amends the current criminal trespass bill to allow a public college or university law enforcement officer to enter or remain on the property of another if the officer has probable cause to suspect criminal activity.

Property Owner Position: Oppose

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H26

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseCriminalJusticeandPublicSafety@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1532 Oppose

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1532.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill amends the criminal trespass statute in circumstances where the property is not posted with no trespassing signs.

Talking Points:
Basically, we oppose the bill because we believe it invades the constitutional protection of preventing unreasonable searches and seizures. The bill is too broad, and if it passes, it will most likely be challenged and ruled unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court.

This bill first makes the crime of criminal trespass gender neutral. The bill then adds a new subparagraph to the criminal trespass statute. That paragraph is A law enforcement officer may enter or remain on the property of another if the officer has probable cause to suspect criminal activity. No cause of action shall lie against any person or entity if the officer obtains information in violation of this paragraph. This paragraph shall apply to the investigation and enforcement of disciplinary actions initiated by a public college or university.

Potential problems with this bill:
If an officer has probable cause to suspect criminal activity, then he or she has the ability to obtain a search warrant. Second, this language is unclear, can an officer enter any building or just common areas open to the public? How long can the officer stay? What information can he or she obtain, where does the right to privacy or the expectation of privacy end. Total immunity if an officer obtains information in violation of the paragraph? Since nothing seems to violate the paragraph, it is total immunity.

Does the last sentence of the paragraph mean that an officer can enter any place in a public college or university, including dorm rooms, at any time, without a warrant, on his belief that he has probable cause to suspect criminal activity?

This bill may not withstand a constitutional challenge if it is enacted. As a property owner, do you want the police to be able enter your building anytime they think they have probable cause to suspect criminal activity?

As property owners, even if we think we do not need a police officer on our property, and the tenants want the officer to leave and are not committing any crime, as we read the bill, the officer can remain on the property if he has reason to suspect criminal activity. I have tenants who smoke a lot of cigarettes. The smell can be confused with the smell of burning pot. We have been in the apartment, without prior notice, but by knocking on the door and entering with the tenants permission, and there was no signs of drugs. In this instance, a cop could stay in the apartment, without any warrant just because the officer suspects a criminal action.

Please send emails to the legislators expressing our concern that this bill could subject us and our tenants to abuse, and further, that evidence obtained by relying on this bill could be excluded if the bill is challenged.
=====================
HB1405 02/02/2012 at 02:15 PM LOB 301
Title: relative to refugee resettlement.

Summary: allows local governing bodies to establish moratoriums on refugee resettlement in New Hampshire communities.

Property Owner Position: Support

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: HB1405 Support

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1405.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill allows local governing bodies to establish moratoriums on refugee resettlement in New Hampshire communities.

Talking Points:
The bill amends RSA 161 which is the statute establishing the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department's duties, its rule making authority, the appointment of and the duties of the Commission of the Department, the administration of the food stamp program, other duties (child welfare issues, foster homes, child support enforcement ect), and under RSA 161:2 XVIII

XVIII. Refugee Resettlement. Administer the New Hampshire refugee resettlement program as funded by and in cooperation with the United States Department of Health and Human Services under the Refugee Act of 1980.
The bill adds three new sections to RSA 161. The first section basically defines, for the bill, absorbtive capacity, The New Hampshire Refugee Program, and the New Hampshire Refugee Coordinator.

The second section sets forth the duties of the New Hampshire Refugee Program.

The second section of Bill 1405 requires the Program to meet at least quarterly with local governments to plan settlement of refugees in advance, plan with agencies regarding settlement of refugees by letter of agreement, and at least quarterly submit to various members of the legislature copies of the letters of agreement and plans for settlement and absorption.

The third and final section of Bill 1405 requires the Program to accept applications from local governing bodies for a moratorium on new refugee settlement activities where the local governing body has determined that the community lacks sufficient absorptive capacity. This decision is made after the local government body consults with the state refugee coordinator, holds public hearing and concludes settlement of additional refugees would be adverse to existing residents.

The Program, if the application is accepted, shall suspend additional settlement activities until the state refugee coordinator and the local governing body have jointly determined that the community can absorb additional refugees. However, no moratorium or extension shall exceed one year.

The bill does not state that a community can not apply for back to back moratoriums.

Note the bill only limits government efforts in settlement of refugees in communities whose applications have been accepted. If people in the country wish to move to a community without the aid of an agency or a non-profit that is works directly with the Program, they are free to do so.

The bill does give a community the chance to say: we just can not place additional refugees this year. We need a break. And if you agree, mr or ms state government program, you will stop your efforts, for up to one year, to place additional people in our community.

Clearly, the communities that do not have the ability or as the bill calls it absorptive capacity, should have a way to stop the state from trying to place additional people in that community. We can only seat a limited number of children in a class room, each community only has limited funds to help students learn English, no community has unlimited low income housing, and all services from Police and Fire to sewer treatments have limited capacity. Clearly once these services are stretched to the limit, it will be adverse to everyone in the community, both not having the services available, and the higher tax burdens to increase the capacity of all municipal services.

Here is a link to some information regarding these refugee resettlement programs and their negative effect in the local economies.
http://american-rattlesnake.org/2012/01/the-fugees/
=====================
HB1649 02/13/2012 at 10:20 AM LOB 207
Title: relative to collection of the education property tax and establishing a program to rebate certain excessive property tax payments of eligible taxpayers.

Summary: The bill establishes a program for the rebate of excessive education property tax payments made by eligible taxpayers in the state.

Property Owner Position: Oppose

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/house/committees/committeedetails.aspx?code=H46

Email to Committee:
To: ~HouseSpecialCommitteeonEducationFundingReform@leg.state.nh.us
Subject: HB1649 Oppose

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/HB1649.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill transfers the authority to collect the education property tax from the municipalities to the department of revenue administration. The bill establishes a program for the rebate of excessive education property tax payments made by eligible taxpayers in the state. Claims for rebates shall be made to the department of revenue administration and qualifying claims shall be paid from the interest which accumulates on education property taxes collected by the department.

Talking Points:
Claims for rebates shall be made to the department of revenue administration and qualifying claims shall be paid from the interest which accumulates on education property taxes collected by the department.
This is a complex bill which first requires taxpayers to pay education tax, that is being billed to them by the local municipality, to the Department of Revenue Adm. It also changes the procedure for education property tax relief. According to the Dept of Revenue analysis at the end of the bill, it will seriously increase the cost to the state if this bill is enacted.(The Dept of Revenue estimated 16,000,000)
This looks like it will grow the state government at the expense of the taxpayer.
To speak very intelligently on this bill we would need a much deeper analysis.
=====================
SB204 02/14/2012 at 09:00 AM LOB 102
Title: adopting amendments to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code relative to secured transactions.

Summary: Updates Commercial Code for changes in technology, legal entities, etc.

Property Owner Position: No Action

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S37

Email to Committee:
To: represcott@represcott.com; raymond.white@leg.state.nh.us; tom.deblois@leg.state.nh.us; matthew.houde@leg.state.nh.us; andy.sanborn@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: SB204

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0204.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill makes changes to Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code, relative to secured transactions, as proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.

Talking Points:
Dropped from our watch list. If this affects you please continue to follow it and respond to legislators.
The bill merely adopts changes in the code proposed by the body who originally wrote the code. When the code was written, there was no internet, computers were not used as they are today, and Limited Liability Companies did not exist. The changes, without spending hours of study, deal with the changes in technology, legal entities, and doing business.
=====================
SB342 02/14/2012 at 10:30 AM LOB 101
Title: including standards for log homes in the New Hampshire building code.

Summary: This bills amends the definition section of RSA 155-A:1. In the statute the New Hampshire building code is defined by incorporating by reference various national and international building codes such as The International Building Code 2006. The Bill adds the Standard on the Design and Construction of Log Structures 2007 as another code incorporated by reference.

Property Owner Position: No Action

Link to Committee Info: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/Senate/committees/committee_details.aspx?cc=S27

Email to Committee:
To: jack.barnes@leg.state.nh.us; jeanie.forrester@leg.state.nh.us; dboutin1465@comcast.net; amanda.merrill@leg.state.nh.us; nancy.stiles@leg.state.nh.us;
Subject: SB342

Link to Bill Text: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2012/SB0342.html
Analysis Stated in Bill: This bill includes standards for log homes in the New Hampshire building code.

Talking Points:
Although building codes can apply to our buildings, no action is recommended on this bill as it is unlikely any of us will build an apartment building from logs.