Committee debates bill requiring state agencies to report permit counts, timelines; staff and software needs cited

House Finance Committee members heard detailed testimony on House Bill 74, which would require agencies that issue permits involving real property to track how many permits they issue and how long those permits take to process. Representative Carol McGuire (Merrimack 27) introduced the measure and said it aims to create data lawmakers and managers can use to evaluate timelines and fees.

"House Bill 74 requires agencies that issue permits involving real property ... to track and report how many they issue and how long it takes," Representative Carol McGuire said. "We think this is something that those agencies should be tracking already since it's a significant issue."

The bill targets permits issued primarily by the Department of Environmental Services (DES) — for wetlands, shoreland, alteration of terrain and related matters — and by the Department of Transportation (DOT) for driveway and right‑of‑way permits. McGuire and several committee members said they have heard examples of multi‑year waits for driveway or related permits and want data to determine whether statutory timelines and fees are appropriate.

Adam Crapo, assistant commissioner at DES, described the practical challenges of producing the statutorily required report with current systems and staff. "We have many disparate databases that house this data," Crapo said. He told the committee the agency has more than 90 different permit types and that some of the permitting records remain manual; a recent capital appropriation funded work to bring Land Resources Management (LRM) permitting online but other programs remain on older systems. Crapo said DES could comply but would request two part‑time positions to extract and compile the data until more programs migrate to a modern platform.

Susan Clausen, director of operations at DOT, told the committee DOT implemented Salesforce last August and already has application timestamps and correspondence in that system. She said the department can produce many metrics but that some of the detailed reporting requirements would need software enhancements or manual effort. "We have the data in Salesforce," Clausen said, "but some of it is in text fields in the system. We would need some system enhancements to capture that data in a presentable format." She noted DOT currently shows 109 open applications older than the 90‑day threshold in its dashboard and estimated two software sprints — roughly $175,000 per sprint in the department's fiscal note — to build reportable extracts.

Committee members pressed agencies on who causes delays, how submission dates should be recorded, and whether the bill's 90‑day reporting threshold and the statutory reporting deadline are realistic. Agency witnesses said some delays result from incomplete applicant submissions that sit with applicants for extended periods; DES estimated about 90% of review delays relate to applicants needing to provide additional information. Both agencies warned that compiling historical data to meet an early reporting deadline would require time and resources and could draw staff away from current permit review work.

Lawmakers discussed options including narrowing the scope (for example, requiring only DES reporting), delaying the first report to allow agencies to collect data prospectively, and targeting the report to specific permit categories rather than all permit types. Representatives suggested amendments and asked for a planning report on capabilities and costs.

Rather than advancing the bill on the spot, the committee left House Bill 74 open for further work and amendment; members said staff and sponsors could prepare targeted language and fiscal detail to address database, staffing and deadline issues. The committee agreed to revisit the bill the following week.