Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 79 E Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews properties and rules as Hooksett’s 79‑E term nears expiration
Summary
Staff presented a candidate list of commercial properties to consider for inclusion or removal from the town’s 79‑E tax‑exemption list and reminded the committee that the 2021 authorization automatically expires five years after approval unless renewed by the council (March 2026).
Staff presented a preliminary list of commercial and industrial parcels that the committee might add to or remove from the town’s 79‑E tax‑exemption program and explained key eligibility rules.
Grant (S6) identified properties under consideration — examples named in the meeting included 47 Thames Road, 1 CityView Drive, 108 Mammoth Road, 1010 Bell Ave (Welcome Home Motel), 9 and 17 Londonderry Turnpike, 1371 Hooksett Road and 1244 Hooksett Road — and noted the program approved by the council in 2021 automatically expires after five years unless the council renews it. He emphasized that any property that already received an exemption would be grandfathered if the council did not renew the program for others.
Staff reiterated the program’s core eligibility rules: exemptions currently apply to commercial or industrial improvements (not residences), applications must be filed before construction begins, decisions are made on a case‑by‑case basis and awards are tied to a public‑benefit finding the council defines (for example, new jobs or tax revenue). Grant summarized a potential change discussed previously — raising the maximum exemption from 25% for five years to 30% for seven years — and cautioned that, because of the way tax years fall, a true seven‑year benefit might need to be written as eight years to avoid losing the first year in practice. "The $75,000 that's a minimum to put in to be eligible for this exemption gets reduced to something like $10,000" for properties listed on the state register of historic places, Grant said, noting that creating a historic district carries additional design requirements that some members worried would not align with committee priorities.
Committee members asked for additional detail on the candidate parcel list and agreed Grant should return with more precise information about each property and whether an owner has already applied; no formal recommendation to the council was made at this meeting.
