Jeanne Donahue

Members of the Committee, Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony in opposition to HB 1580-FN-LOCAL. I am a New Hampshire property owner who operates a short-term rental in a rural, tourism-dependent community. I care deeply about the health, affordability, and long-term sustainability of our towns - not only for visitors, but for the full-time residents who live and work here year-round. While I appreciate the intent behind this bill - to ease the property tax burden on primary residents - HB 1580 ultimately misses that goal and instead creates new financial, administrative, and economic harm that will negatively affect both second-home owners and full-time residents across the state. 1. This Bill Will Raise Costs for Full-Time Residents—Not Lower Them The surcharge proposed under HB 1580 will not exist in a vacuum. Many non-primary residences - particularly short-term rentals - support local economies and services in ways that directly benefit year-round residents: * Short-term rental owners already pay full property taxes, local fees, meals and rooms taxes, and often higher insurance and maintenance costs. * Many of us hire local tradespeople, cleaners, landscapers, snow removal services, and contractors - often year-round. * Increased operating costs from a new 0.75% surcharge will inevitably be passed on through higher nightly rates, reducing demand and ultimately shrinking local tourism spending. When tourism spending declines, local businesses suffer, municipal revenues from meals and rooms taxes drop, and towns are forced to look elsewhere to fund schools and infrastructure - often back to full-time residents. In short, this bill risks shifting, not solving, the property tax burden. 2. HB 1580 Disincentivizes Responsible Property Use and Hurts Housing Supply The bill creates a blunt classification system that treats all non-primary residences the same - regardless of how responsibly or intensively they are used. As a result: * Owners may be pushed to leave homes vacant rather than operate short-term rentals or seasonal housing that supports local economies. * Some owners will be forced to sell, often to higher-income buyers or institutional investors - not to local families. * Others may convert properties to informal or unregulated use, undermining transparency and enforcement. Ironically, by penalizing second homes broadly, the bill may reduce housing availability and increase prices, making it harder - not easier - for local residents to buy or rent homes. 3. The Bill Penalizes Seasonal and Rural Communities Disproportionately Many New Hampshire towns - particularly in the Lakes Region, White Mountains, and North Country - are built around seasonal occupancy. These communities rely on second-home owners and short-term rentals to sustain: * Local employment * Small businesses * Property values that support municipal budgets Imposing a statewide surcharge ignores the regional realities of these towns and removes local control. A one-size-fits-all tax structure does not reflect how differently communities function across New Hampshire. 4. Significant Administrative Burden with Unclear Enforcement HB 1580 creates new bureaucratic obligations for both property owners and municipalities: * Annual certification requirements * Residency verification using utilities and personal records * Creation and maintenance of a non-primary residence registry * Increased appeals to the Board of Tax and Land Appeals The fiscal note itself acknowledges: * Unclear implementation timelines * Ambiguity around penalties * Indeterminable administrative costs This complexity increases the risk of errors, disputes, and inequitable enforcement - particularly for seniors, seasonal workers, military families, and those with blended residency situations. 5. This Bill Does Not Address the Root Causes of High Property Taxes New Hampshire’s property tax challenges stem from broader structural issues: * Limited state-level education funding * Rising municipal costs * Infrastructure and service demands * Workforce housing shortages Targeting non-primary residences may feel politically expedient, but it does not address these root causes - and may, in fact, make them worse by shrinking local tax bases and economic activity. Conclusion HB 1580 risks undermining the very communities it aims to help. It places disproportionate financial and administrative burdens on responsible property owners, weakens local economies, and ultimately threatens to raise - not lower - costs for full-time residents. I respectfully urge the committee to oppose HB 1580-FN-LOCAL and instead pursue solutions that: * Preserve local control * Encourage responsible housing use * Support tourism-dependent economies * Address property tax pressures holistically and sustainably Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully submitted, Jeanne & Justin Donahue