Committee questions state step after Nashua residents received 7-day reassessment notices; bill sent ITL

Senators and representatives on the New Hampshire House Municipal and County Government Committee heard competing views Monday on Senate Bill 225-FN, which would require municipalities to provide advance public notice before reassessing property values for local tax purposes.

Senator Kevin Avard, the bill—s prime sponsor, told the committee the bill responds to recent reassessments in Nashua that arrived with a seven-day challenge window. "That's not fair," Avard said, recounting that some homeowners received a mailed reassessment notice giving only seven days to challenge and describing one constituent whose tax bill rose roughly $700. Avard said he originally sought a 90-day notice period and accepted a senate amendment setting 45 days.

The bill would change current notification language so municipalities must provide individual notice to affected property owners and also public notice by newspaper, municipal website and other regular public posting places. Multiple members raised logistical and cost concerns about turning optional notification methods into mandatory requirements.

Representatives pressed specifics about what the individual notice must contain and how the proposed timing would align with municipal budgeting and tax-billing schedules. "Could you explain exactly what such notification is going to contain?" asked one committee member, noting the difference between a generic announcement that a revaluation has occurred and a customized notice showing the new assessed value for a specific property. Avard said the intent is to give affected taxpayers more time to review and, if necessary, challenge an assessment.

Several representatives said the Nashua example appears to be unusual and asked whether the city—s process or a court order prompted the snap reassessment. Representative Olm, who identified himself as both a Nashua resident and a property owner there, said Nashua—s short-notice reassessment followed an atypical, court-ordered or third-party reassessment and that the city—s residential valuations rose more sharply than commercial valuations after COVID. "It—s become a very desirable place to live," Olm said, describing rapid residential price increases and uneven impacts across property classes.

Brial Deshais of the New Hampshire Municipal Association opposed the bill at the hearing, arguing the shorter 45-day timeframe had been adopted in the senate after considering assessor testimony and that some municipalities face tight seasonal timelines to issue tax bills. Witnesses cited Hudson as an example of a municipality that shares advance estimates with taxpayers; Hudson was reported to send 60-day advance estimates.

In executive session, the committee voted 18-0 to recommend ITL (inexpedient to legislate) on SB 225-FN, sending the committee—s recommendation against passage to the House. Committee members who spoke during the executive-session roll call voted in favor of the ITL recommendation.

The committee chairman said sponsors may refine the bill language and return with clearer definitions of required notice types and content if they choose. The committee record shows concerns concentrated on (1) specifying what an individual notice must include, (2) whether all methods of notice should be mandatory rather than optional, and (3) the budgetary and timing burdens on municipalities that must produce notices and still meet tax-billing deadlines.

The committee also heard other bills in executive session later in the day; several received committee recommendations (see separate articles on committee votes).