Relative to combining the board of tax and land appeals and the housing appeals board.
Impact
The proposed merger is expected to have fiscal implications, potentially resulting in a decrease in state expenditures. By consolidating the two boards, the state anticipates a reduction of more than $81,000 annually starting from FY 2025 due to the removal of overlapping administrative expenses. However, the precise impact on revenues remains uncertain, hinging on the volume of appeals processed annually. There is an estimated revenue generation possibility of $0 to $10,000, which assumes a specific number of appeals and applicable filing fees. The bill aims not only to enhance operational efficiencies but also to ensure that appeals involving housing and land use are managed effectively and decisively, providing necessary remedies that might otherwise be unavailable.
Summary
House Bill 1651 seeks to combine the Housing Appeals Board (HAB) with the Board of Tax and Land Appeals (BTLA) into a single entity known as the Land Appeals Board. This legislative change is aimed at streamlining the appeals process related to land use and taxation in New Hampshire. The bill proposes to amend existing statutes to reflect this merger and enhance the administrative efficiency of handling appeals concerning housing developments, municipal board decisions, and property taxation. It also emphasizes a more robust governance structure within the reconstituted board, which will entail the appointment of members specialized in relevant fields such as land use law and taxation.
Sentiment
The sentiment towards HB1651 appears generally supportive, particularly among those advocating for government efficiency and reduced bureaucratic redundancy. Proponents believe that merging the housing and tax appeals processes will simplify the appeals landscape for residents and municipalities alike. However, those critical of such consolidations express concerns that combining functions could dilute the specialized focus and responsiveness previously offered by two separate boards.
Contention
Key points of contention surrounding HB1651 involve the implications for local governance and the potential loss of specialized oversight regarding housing issues. Opponents argue that simplifying two critical appeals processes into one may hinder the board's capability to address nuanced housing matters, particularly for disadvantaged communities or unique local cases. Concerns have also been raised regarding representation and whether a consolidated board could adequately handle the depth and breadth of relevant appeals that previously necessitated the specialized attention of two boards, potentially compromising the interests of local stakeholders.
Relative to least cost integrated resource plans of utilities; municipal hosts for purposes of limited electrical energy producers; the cost of compliance with disclosure of electric renewable portfolio standards; repealing the energy efficiency and sustainable energy board; and procedures for energy facility siting by the site evaluation committee.