Bill to let towns impose affordable‑housing investment fees draws sharp debate

Representative David Preece described HB 11‑45 as a local‑option tool that allows municipalities to impose a carefully structured and transparent fee on development that fails to meet inclusionary requirements, with proceeds restricted to affordable‑housing programs and subject to public reporting and audit.

Supporters including Brody Deshaies (NHMA) argued the fee could fill gaps left by recent state budget reductions and be designed to meet constitutional nexus tests. “We could live with a cap,” Deshaies said, noting municipalities could demonstrate need and propose reasonable relief mechanisms.

Opponents, including housing provider Chris Freeman and the Home Builders Association, said the fee risks making market‑rate development uneconomical, could become a de facto tax on housing production, and lacks explicit statutory caps or proportionality standards. Freeman urged the committee to find the bill inexpedient to legislate unless tightened: “If you make it uneconomical to build housing for high earners, you don’t create more affordable housing — you just reallocate pressure across the market.”

Why it matters: The bill would change municipal financing tools and could affect development economics, permitting, and legal risk if fees aren’t limited or tied to a demonstrable nexus between the development and affordable‑housing needs.

What’s next: Committee members asked about caps and guardrails; sponsors and municipal representatives indicated willingness to discuss amendments that would add clarity and constitutional nexus language.