Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Low Income Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears mixed testimony on SB 173 to standardize taxes for low‑income housing projects
Summary
SB 173 would clarify how low‑income housing projects are taxed by specifying a 10% of gross rental income method for certain projects; developers and housing advocates supported the predictability, while municipal associations warned of potential tax‑shift and local revenue impacts.
Senator Keith Murphy, prime sponsor: The committee opened SB 173, legislation intended to clarify the calculation method for tax assessments on properties participating in the low‑income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program. Senator Keith Murphy told the committee the bill would standardize use of a 10% of actual rental and other income approach for qualifying low‑income housing projects to reduce widely varying local calculations and provide predictability.
Supporters: Matt Mayberry, CEO of the New Hampshire Home Builders Association, urged support, telling the panel SB 173 ‘‘updates how towns and the Department of Revenue Administration calculates the assessment and taxes levied against residential buildings that are used to provide safe housing for low income neighbors.’’ He said the preferred approach — 10% of audited rent rolls and other income — is what would be taxed and that the method would be audited and verified.
Housing advocates: Nick Taylor from Housing Action New Hampshire and representatives of NeighborWorks Southern New Hampshire supported the bill, saying LIHTC projects face unique long‑term affordability constraints and need assessment predictability to remain financially viable. They noted LIHTC projects typically remain affordable for decades.
Opponents and municipal concerns: Brody Deshaies and Bernie Deshaies of the New Hampshire Municipal Association testified that the current statute (RSA 75:1‑a) provides two alternative calculations (an income approach or 10% of actual rents) and that the taxpayer typically elects the method that results in the lower assessed tax burden but remains liable for the greater amount as written. Municipal representatives warned SB 173 as drafted could reduce assessed values for at least 10 years, shifting tax burden to other property taxpayers and creating local budget pressure. Questions raised included how the bill alters existing statutory provisions and whether the federal LIHTC eligibility rules and other program specifics would limit local oversight.
Clarifications in testimony: Betsy Patton, chair of the Assessing Standards Board, said the 10‑year look‑back is already present in statute (RSA 75:1‑a) and that proponents sought predictability because prior income‑approach calculations had produced unpredictable tax bills for LIHTC projects.
Next steps: The committee closed the public hearing after testimony; no action or committee vote was taken on SB 173 at the session.
