Board of Tax and Land Appeals urges restoration of appraiser funding, proposes fee increases and venue flexibility for eminent domain hearings

The Board of Tax and Land Appeals told the New Hampshire Senate Finance Committee on the record that it needs restored budget funding to fill a long-vacant review appraiser role, and offered fee changes and statutory tweaks to reduce costs and speed case resolution.

The board’s presentation, led by board member Eric Wind and Executive Director Anne Stelmack, focused on three options: the governor’s budget request that leaves one vacant position funded; a slimmed-down plan that would eliminate that position while increasing fees to raise revenue; and a willingness to discuss broader structural changes to the board’s mandate and jurisdiction if the Legislature pursues them in House Bill 2.

Stelmack told senators the board receives roughly 400 appeals a year and that its budget is 80% salary and benefits. “We used to be a staff of eight, and we are now a staff of three,” she said. She and Wind said the currently funded-but-vacant review appraiser position has been open about three years and that market salaries make hiring a licensed municipal appraiser difficult.

Why it matters: The board adjudicates property tax appeals, eminent domain matters and other specialized tax issues assigned in statute. Officials said losing a review appraiser reduces technical capacity for appraisal-heavy matters and can lengthen the time required to resolve complex eminent domain and reassessment cases.

Details of proposals and impacts

- Appraiser funding: The board asked that the appropriation for the review appraiser position (position number 14583 in House Bill 1) be restored so it can recruit or reclassify the role. Stelmack said personnel suggested reclassification to capture duties and that the governor’s budget left the position in place to permit that work. If the position cannot be restored, the board said it could accept elimination but requested statutory language be changed because the current law makes the review appraiser a statutory position.

- Alternative staffing: If a full-time licensed appraiser is unaffordable, the board proposed a hybrid classification or contracting for specific appraisals. Wind and Stelmack noted they have previously used contracts (class 102) but that timing and lapse of funds sometimes limited effectiveness. As an alternative, they proposed hiring a lower-grade hybrid investigator who could collect data and perform analyses without a professional appraiser license.

- Filing fees: The board reviewed filing fees established in 1992–93, most of which remain $65. Applying an inflation adjustment produced fees near $140; the board proposed a rounded $125 for most cases and a tiered approach (a higher fee) for appeals of properties with assessed valuation above $1,500,000. Stelmack said the board modeled a scenario in which fee adjustments could raise average fee revenues from roughly $19,000 per year to about $58,000 per year, assuming that 20% of tax abatement caseloads would otherwise go to Superior Court. She told the committee that neighboring states’ filing fees vary, with Maine and Vermont under $100 and Massachusetts using a tiered structure.

- Venue for eminent domain hearings: The board asked to amend the Eminent Domain Procedure Act so it may hold hearings in its Concord hearing room when county courthouses are unavailable. Stelmack said the board struggles to obtain courthouse space and that the House passed a companion change (House Bill 268) allowing the board to hear cases in Concord when local court space cannot be found.

- Case timelines and workload: Stelmack outlined the board’s priority dockets and typical timelines: many property tax appeals are resolved within a year; exemptions, credits and deferrals generally resolve within six months; equalization cases are decided within 60 days as required by statute; eminent domain and reassessment matters can take longer due to appraisal backlogs or court transfers. She said the board can open dockets on its own authority and has jurisdiction under about 77 statutes.

Quotes from the record

- “We have roughly 400 new appeals that are filed with us each year,” Anne Stelmack, executive director, said.

- “We used to be a staff of eight, and we are now a staff of three,” Stelmack said, describing reduced capacity.

What the board asked the committee to do

The board requested that the committee restore funding for the review appraiser position in the final budget or allow alternative approaches: (1) retain funding for a reclassified/hybrid position, (2) permit contracting for appraisals when needed, or (3) approve fee changes and the eminent domain venue change included in House Bill 2.

Outstanding clarifications

Stelmack cautioned revenue projections for fee increases rely on assumptions about how many cases would otherwise go to Superior Court (the board used a 20% estimate). She also said current data on the number of cases in Superior Court is out of date.

Next steps

Board staff said they have drafted language for fee changes and would provide that draft to the Legislative Budget Assistant if the committee requests it. The board advised that any statutory change removing the statutory review appraiser must be enacted for the board’s structural proposals to take effect.