Committee considers requiring advance public notice before townwide property reassessments; assessors cite timing constraints

Senate Bill 225, which would require municipalities to provide public notice — including a mailed notice to property owners — before a townwide reassessment of property values for local tax purposes, drew a mix of support and caution during a public hearing.

Tricia Malillo (Majority Caucus Director) introduced the bill and said it would require a 90‑day notice for any townwide reevaluation and a 90‑day posting in multiple locations, including a letter to the property owner. Senator Kevin Avard, the bill’s prime sponsor, told the committee he filed the bill after constituents described “surprise evaluations” that left homeowners with only a few days to appeal in some cases.

Jim Michaud, Hudson’s chief assessor, testified as a technical witness and supported the concept of sending mailed notices and posting values, but he said the bill’s 90‑day timing could be unworkable for many communities. Michaud explained that New Hampshire’s assessment date is April 1 and that assessors rely on sales data that accumulate after that date to set values. For larger towns, he said, the workload and the limited number of contractors who perform townwide revaluations make completing final values and noticing property owners before a 90‑day window impractical. He recommended a shorter notice period (30–45 days) and said communities that use a calendar fiscal year may otherwise face cash‑flow problems and be forced to issue tax anticipation notes (TANs).

Public comments included residents and college‑area speakers who said surprise tax changes create hardship and called for clearer advance notice. One resident argued assessments tied to an April 1 valuation date do not capture the state’s spring real‑estate market and urged the legislature to reconsider the April 1 assessment reference.

Several senators said they favored the bill’s goal of transparency but were open to reducing the notice period. The committee did not adopt final language at this hearing; senators asked for a drafting change to shorten the required notice (45 days was discussed) and indicated they would return the bill to committee for further work rather than advancing it as written.