Senate Commerce hears 'HOPE Act' to transfer unused state parcels to towns, with $20M infrastructure grants and owner-occupancy deed restrictions

Senate Commerce received testimony on Senate Bill 82, the HOPE Act, which directs state agencies to identify unused state-owned parcels that could be repurposed for workforce housing, permits the state to transfer eligible parcels to towns at no cost provided they develop housing within a set timeframe, and creates a $20 million infrastructure grant program to assist municipalities.

Senator Denise Ricciardi, sponsor and state senator for District 9, introduced a replacement bill focused on state land and described three central features: (1) identification and submission of surplus state parcels to the governor and executive council for potential transfer, (2) transfer at no cost to municipalities that commit to development within a specified window and to income-restricted owner-occupied units, and (3) a $20,000,000 municipal infrastructure grant program to fund roads, water, sewer and other development needs. The bill links eligibility to income caps based on state median income and uses deed restrictions to require owner-occupancy and prevent conversion to rental or short-term rental use.

Matt Mayberry, chief executive officer of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, testified strongly in favor and described the bill as a tool to support workers such as police, firefighters, nurses and teachers. Mayberry said towns could receive up to $5,000,000 per county toward infrastructure under the bill’s current limits and argued the program would generate economic activity and long-term tax revenue. He described the measure as one part of a broader suite of initiatives needed to address the state’s housing shortage.

The New Hampshire Municipal Association (NHMA) testified as neutral to the bill but raised technical and process concerns. Brody Deshaies (NHMA) said the association had not yet reviewed the current draft and sought clarity about the local adoption process for accepting transferred land (whether by governing body or legislative body), the definition of “reserve land,” and whether very small parcels (e.g., one-tenth acre in some drafts) are practical given soil and septic limitations. The NHMA emphasized that municipalities need clear authority, adoption steps, and protections for infrastructure responsibilities.

Jim Michaud, the town assessor for Hudson, described a set of administrative questions: whether tax-deeded property would be eligible, how residency/work requirements would be enforced, why homeownership verification is required every two years rather than annually, and how exemptions from current-use taxes would be applied and whether the bill’s language uses the correct statutory terms. Michaud also noted possible impacts on local conservation and land-use-change tax revenues.

Mayberry and other proponents emphasized the program’s design intent to move land quickly for housing development and to avoid “banking” of land proceeds by towns; the sponsor and proponents said towns would be required to use proceeds for local property tax relief or housing-related purposes rather than retaining them indefinitely. Municipal officials asked for clearer adoption steps, definitions, and implementation details, and warned of potential fiscal and administrative burdens if the state requires towns to accept and develop parcels without additional guidance or funding.