In The News

What to do about property taxes?

April 21, 2014 by in Featured, In The News
What to do about property taxes?

The age-old dilemma still has no clear-cut answers

By Daymond Steer
CONWAY – This municipal budget season had residents and officials alike wondering what can be done to keep property tax growth under control.
A study by town assessor Tom Holmes show that property taxes went up by, at most, 25 percent between 2004 and 2013. However, they have gone up about 50 percent since 2003 when a reevaluation year is included. The discussion about taxes began in earnest after tax caps were proposed for the town and school district. Both failed at the ballot box on April 9.
Selectmen began looking for non-tax revenue sources and the town manager Earl Sires has identified about $300,000 that could be raised by increasing various town fees. Selectmen have also discussed lobbying the legislature in order to get a greater share of the state’s rooms and meals tax. Selectmen also mulled the possibility of imposing a local tax to catch tourist revenue.
Sires told selectmen that the state only makes public the rooms and meals revenues by county. He suggested the first step may be to find out how much money Conway generates.
“I would be amazed if they can’t figure it out by zip code,” said selectman Carl Thibodeau of the state’s Department of Revenue Administration.
Selectman Mary Carey Seavey strongly opposed the idea of a local tax because she said it would have a “huge impact” on tourism.
A reporter asked Conway’s lawmakers for their ideas about how to bring property tax relief.
State Senator Jeb Bradley (R-Wolfeboro) said the question of where municipal revenues should come from has been an “age-old debate” in New Hampshire.
“A lot of people that support an income tax or a sales tax support it with the hope that revenues that go back to towns and school districts would be used to mitigate property taxes,” said Bradley. “I have to question, not only in the short run, but in the longer term, if that would be effective.”
Other New England states have those other taxes and they still have substantial property taxes.
“I certainly hear people complain about property taxes in Maine, Vermont, Massachusetts and Connecticut,” said Bradley.
Bradley and Rep. Gene Chandler (R-Bartlett) pointed to a study by the Tax Foundation that shows New Hampshire is among the states with the lowest overall tax burdens in the country.
The Tax Foundation recently reported that New Hampshire has the seventh lowest tax burden in the U.S.
“Using the most up-to-date data available, the report shows that taxpayers in New Hampshire paid 8.0 percent of their collective incomes in state and local taxes in 2011,” stated a press release from the Tax Foundation. “The national average was 9.8 percent.”
Bradley seemed pleased with New Hampshire’s ranking. Bradley thinks the government is more likely to spend the extra revenue from any new taxes rather than using it to offset property taxes. Bradley says New Hampshire also has a relatively low unemployment rate compared to other states with higher taxes.
“I think that’s a good place to be in,” said Bradley of New Hampshire’s ranking. “If we had an income tax or a sales tax, realistically those are the only two that would offer the kind of revenue that could be used to reduce property taxes.”
A state gaming bill that passed the Senate provides revenue sharing with the towns. Bradley said the annual impact is about $25 million. The previous position of the Senate was to have the money go toward to the the highway fund.
“The impact it’s going to have on lowering tax rates is going to be negligible,” said Bradley who has legislation to make sure that if the gas tax is to be increased all the new money would be dedicated to roads and bridges.
Bradley also seeks to end the diversion of highway fund dollars into the department of public safety.
But Rep. Tom Buco (D-Conway) supports the expanded gambling bill and said Conway would receive $128,000.
“This would be a direct relief to property taxpayers,” said Buco.
Bradley’s empathy for property taxpayers was the reason that he fought for reform of the New Hampshire retirement system. Bradley believes the changes to the retirement system will have a “very beneficial effect” over time.
He explained that cities, towns, schools and counties are part of the New Hampshire retirement system. New Hampshire had a $5 billion unfunded liability that was causing rates to go up. Bradley said his reforms asked employees to pay a little bit more and work a little longer before they can retire. It also stops public safety workers from padding their final compensation package to inflate their retirement.
“It’s starting to work because rates have stabilized,” said Bradley. “That was one big thing we did.”
Bradley said people in this economy are working longer and harder to make ends meet.
“I totally get why people are feeling trapped,” said Bradley adding he hears tax complaints in Wolfeboro too.
When asked about gambling, Bradley said he thinks proponents are too optimistic about the revenue it could bring in. He said there’s only so much money that people have to gamble with.
Local taxes are a function of local decisions made by majority will at the annual meetings, said Chandler.
“Those issues are solved on the local level,” said Chandler adding if people think taxes are too high, they should “go to town or school meeting and vote no.”
The state legislature has made it easier for tax caps to be adopted at the local level, said Bradley.
“I think it’s a tool for taxpayers to make sure that there’s more accountability,” said Bradley. “There are override provisions in it and if towns don’t like it they don’t have to adopt it.”
Another recent Tax Foundation study found that New Hampshire will be the 33rd state to reach “Tax Freedom Day” – which is described as “the day on which New Hampshirites have collectively earned enough income to pay off their total federal, state, and local tax bills.”
This year’s New Hampshire Tax Freedom Day fell on April 19. Representatives from the Tax Foundation cautioned against comparing one year’s state Tax Freedom Day to the previous year’s state Tax Freedom Day because their analysis is based on federal statistics and the feds revise their methodology from time to time.
When asked if property taxes are causing residents to come to a breaking point, Rep. Mark McConkey (R-Freedom) said Carroll County has an aging population and “many” residents, who paid off their homes, face a property tax bills that exceeds their former mortgage payments.
“Unfortunately their retirement income is not sufficient to pay this ever-increasing liability and many are forced to sell their nest egg and relocate to a lesser accommodation,” said McConkey. “For those involved in local government and state legislators that say an increase to taxes is warranted, I suggest that they are out of touch with our aging population. Our towns, county and state have a spending problem.”

.

N.H. Senate to decide on death penalty repeal

April 16, 2014 by in In The News

N.H. Senate to decide on death penalty repeal

Some say Senate tie is possible

By John Toole
[email protected]

—- — CONCORD — The state Senate takes up the death penalty repeal tomorrow.

“We think it will be very close,” said Arnie Alpert, spokesman for the New Hampshire Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty.

Two Southern New Hampshire senators are among those who repeal proponents believe are on the fence: Nancy Stiles, R-Hampton, who represents Newton, and Russell Prescott, R-Kingston.

Stiles earlier this month said she has opposed repeal in the past and believes it is a deterrent to crime, but would listen to advocates.

“It’s fair to say a number of senators are giving deep thought to repeal,” Alpert said. “I would say if you are giving it deep thought, you are more likely to come down on the side of repeal.”

Some are wondering if this is the closest of votes, a tie.

“There is talk among the legislators that this may be a tie,” said Paul Lutz, a member of the repeal coalition from Derry.

A tie isn’t good enough for repeal proponents.

“A tie is not a majority,” Lutz said. “The status quo would prevail.”

Sen. Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, opposed repeal in a 3-2 committee vote.

Alpert said Sens. Chuck Morse, R-Salem, and Jim Rausch, R-Derry, are believed to be leaning against repeal.

But he said Morse, the Senate president, and Republican leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro, have taken the position this is a vote of conscience and won’t insist the GOP stand together for a partyline vote in the Republican-controlled Senate.

Proponents see Bradley as a no vote as well.

In the Judiciary Committee, Sen. David Boutin, R-Hooksett, joined with Carson in voting against repeal.

Sens. Betty Lasky, D-Nashua, Donna Soucy, D-Manchester, and Sam Cataldo, R-Farmington, voted for repeal.

“There’s a lot going on,” Alpert said of these days leading up to the vote. “People are being encouraged to contact their own senators.”

Lutz, a retired Derry police officer who is now a teacher, said he has called lawmakers.

“I’m doing what anybody else can do, contacting legislators to let them know there’s serious opposition to the death penalty,” he said.

Lutz, a Lutheran, said he is opposed on religious grounds.

“I don’t think the state or any other entity that’s human has the authority to take someone’s life,” he said.

Lutz, as a former police officer, also draws a line between enforcement and justice, while pointing out the incongruity of people saying they oppose violence, but embrace the death penalty.

“My opposition to the death penalty isn’t love and compassion for the person who did it,” Lutz said of murderers. “It’s not true justice.”

He sees the death penalty as society acting out anger and vengeance in a violent way.

“This really perpetuates the very thing we abhor,” Lutz said.

The Rev. Jonathan Hopkins, pastor of Concordia Lutheran Church in Concord, who grew up in Derry and attended Triumphant Cross Lutheran Church in Salem, has testified at House and Senate hearings in favor of repeal.

“My hope is we will repeal the death penalty in New Hampshire,” Hopkins said. “I know it’s going to be a close vote.”

Hopkins said he is hoping senators on the fence realize the death penalty is not something the state needs.

“This is not the way to help our community be spiritually fit,” he said.

Hopkins is encouraging people to call senators and said he believes everyone can still make a difference.

He said he called his senator, Democrat Sylvia Larsen of Concord, even though he knows she supports repeal.

“The more our senators hear from us, the better,” Hopkins said.

Other repeal proponents are meeting with undecided senators to try to convince them to vote for repeal, Alpert said.

Adding meaning to the vote for some of the proponents is that it falls on Holy Thursday, the day in the Christian church calendar that commemorates the Last Supper of Jesus and his apostles.

Alpert said the World Coalition Against the Death Penalty had convened this weekend in Concord for its regular quarterly meeting.

“Other states, other countries are paying close attention to this vote,” Alpert said.

The repeal bill, House Bill 1170, passed in the House last month, 225-104.

Gov. Maggie Hassan, a Democrat, has said she will sign the bill if the Legislature approves and sends it to her.

A University of New Hampshire poll conducted this winter showed a majority of residents supporting the death penalty, 58 percent to 29 percent.

But when given a choice between the death penalty or life in prison for someone convicted of murder, the split was 48 percent for death and 40 percent for life in prison.

Alpert said in the Senate Judiciary hearing 52 people spoke in favor of repeal, with just eight in opposition.

Those favoring repeal included the Catholic and Episcopalian bishops, representatives of the New Hampshire Council of Churches and the American Friends Service Committee, former state Supreme Court justice John Broderick and former state Attorney General Phil McLaughlin.

Opponents included Manchester police, state police, chiefs of police and the New Hampshire Police Association..

Senate panel endorses death penalty repeal measure

April 10, 2014 by in In The News

Senate panel endorses death penalty repeal measure

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday revisited the idea of repealing New Hampshire’s death penalty and recommended that it pass, setting up a potentially historic vote in the chamber next week.

The bill represents the most energetic recent effort to repeal the state’s centuries-old death penalty. It passed the committee by a 3-2 vote, days after the same panel issued a tie vote that could have sounded the death knell on the repeal effort

The House has voted resoundingly for repeal, and the governor supports it. The April 17 vote in the Republican-controlled Senate is said to be too close to call.

‘‘I think it will be a tight vote,’’ Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley told the Associated Press. ‘‘I think it will not break down all that much on party lines.’’

‘‘It’s a vote of conscience,’’ said Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican who opposes repeal.

The Senate Judiciary Committee voted 2-2 Tuesday with one member absent, an outcome that would have automatically sent a message to the Senate to kill the repeal measure.

The committee reconsidered the issue Thursday in deference to Democrat Donna Soucy of Manchester, who missed Tuesday’s meeting due to a family medical issue. There was no debate.

Sens. Soucy; Bette Lasky, D-Nashua; and Sam Cataldo, R-Farmington, voted for repeal; Sens. Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry, and David Boutin, R-Hooksett, voted against.

The state is the closest to repealing the death penalty that it’s been since 2000, when both houses of the Legislature approved repeal, but then-Gov. Jeanne Shaheen vetoed it.

Democratic Gov. Maggie Hassan has said she would sign the repeal measure, because it wouldn’t affect the death sentence of Michael Addison — convicted of killing Manchester Police Officer Michael Briggs in 2006. Addison is the only death row convict in a state that has not seen an execution since 1939.

Death penalty opponents greeted Thursday’s vote with cautious optimism.

Rep. Renny Cushing, a Hampton Democrat whose father and brother-in-law were murdered in separate crimes, has not wavered in his opposition to the death penalty through nearly two decades of sponsoring repeal measures.

‘‘Everybody’s a swing vote,’’ Cushing said after Thursday’s vote.

‘‘It’s not a party issue,’’ he added. ‘‘There are a lot of senators genuinely wrestling with this.’’

The worldwide Coalition to Abolish the Death Penalty is holding its quarterly meeting in Concord this weekend, and its members are meeting with Senators to urge repeal.

‘‘They see this as a historic vote,’’ said Arnie Alpert, spokesman for the New Hampshire Coalition Against the Death Penalty.

The House last month voted 225-104 in favor of repeal. The vote in the 24-member Senate — with 13 Republicans and 11 Democrats — could come down to a one-vote margin. A tie vote would kill the measure.

.

Jeb fighting for lower cost for electricity

April 9, 2014 by in In The News

Electricity deregulation 
bill moves toward approval

By DAVE SOLOMON

New Hampshire Union Leader

CONCORD— The state Legislature is headed toward approval of a bill that would direct the Public Utilities Commission to start a process that could lead to the sale or closure of PSNH power plants, completing the deregulation of the electricity market in New Hampshire that started more than a decade ago.
 Testimony on HB 1602 before the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee on Wednesday was mostly favorable. The bill passed the House, 185-134, on March 25.
 The bill does not order the sale or closure of the power plants. It directs the PUC to conduct hearings on the matter and empowers regulators to order divestiture if they conclude it is in the best economic interests of the state.  Read the full article here

.

Senate strikes a compromise

April 2, 2014 by in In The News

Senate strikes a compromise

Bill would study Citizens United

This vote came after senators defeated proposed language calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United. The amended language was voted down 12 to 12, falling short of the needed majority in a near party-line vote.

“This begins the process of looking at Citizens United on a New Hampshire-specific basis,” said Sen. Jeb Bradley (R – Wolfeboro) in an interview on Monday. “SB 307 is a study bill with a chance to take into consideration all of the different issues that are at stake.”

The bill comes on the heels of an election season where New Hampshire residents passed petition articles at 48 town meetings across the state calling for the state legislature to support a constitutional amendment to overturn the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The ruling gave corporations permission to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections.

Local towns that passed warrant articles calling to overturn the ruling include Francestown, Dublin, Jaffrey, Rindge, Hancock (where it passed by just one vote ) and Sharon. Peterborough will have a warrant article at its town meeting on May 13.

Some proponents of the petition articles have said the Senate bill does not reflect the wishes of the majority.

“People in New Hampshire have made it very clear that they want a change. We see this committee as a way of not acting,” said senior organizer Jonah Minkofs-Zern of Public Citizen, an organization that has been heavily involved with the issue of campaign finance reform. “New Hampshire is calling for a constitutional amendment. The House needs to amend the bill’s language to reflect that.”

Thirty-six of the 48 towns in New Hampshire that voted to pass a resolution were in Senate districts held by Republicans, which proponents say shows bipartisan support for a constitutional amendment.

The proposed committee of legislators will be comprised of two senators and two house members, according to Bradley, and will offer equal representation to both political parties. The bill calls for the committee to present its findings and recommendations to the state legislature by Nov. 1.

“Then we will know whether or not there should be further finance reform,” said Bradley.

SB 307 will now moves to the N.H. House of Representatives for a vote. The House has the opportunity to amend the bill to include the statement that the legislature recognizes the need for a constitutional amendment.

State Representative Jill Hammond (D-Peterborough) does not know how big of an impact the state can have on a national level.

“Campaign finance reform is a national issue. Any efforts we make here at the state level are pretty ineffectual,” Hammond said recently. “It’s a murky issue. I’m wondering what we do after the committee looks at it. I’m generally in favor of campaign finance reform and limiting big corporate money. I think the deeper problem is the power of corporations and the concentration of money they can wield.”

Hammond believes that the state benefits from campaign finances in some ways.

“New Hampshire is unique because we are the first state to vote in the primaries,” she said. “Lots of candidates visit and we benefit financially from that.”

Sen. Peggy Gilmour (D- Hollis) weighed in on the bill in an interview on Monday.

“The bill is very important,” Gilmour said. “I come from a town that had this as a warrant article. At Town Meeting, people were shocked that anyone would oppose such a warrant article. People have been scratching their heads for four years on this issue.”

Sen. Nancy Stiles (R-Hampton) is in support of forming a committee.

“I supported the bill, I have no problem looking into anything. Putting time in to further understand an issue is never a bad thing,” said Stiles.

When asked for her thoughts on the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Stiles said, “I have to respect what the court does. If I had a problem with it, I would have fought it beforehand.”

Sen. Jeff Woodburn (D-Dalton) believes fighting for campaign finance reform is common sense for New Hampshire.

“Anything that we can do to get away from special interest groups is good,” Woodburn said on Tuesday. “The ballot box is where everyone is equal, no matter how much money they have. New Hampshire does democracy better than anyone else.”

.

Senate Bill Calls For More Transparency On Political Spending

April 2, 2014 by in In The News

Senate Bill Calls For More Transparency On Political Spending

As the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a major campaign finance ruling Wednesday, a New Hampshire House committee heard testimony on a bill that would no longer allow some political groups to spend money on state elections without disclosing it to voters.

The proposal, which cleared the Senate by a 19-4 vote February 6, would require any organization that spends more than $5,000 on so-called electioneering to filed detailed reports with the Secretary of State’s office.

At the same time, the bill broadens significantly the definition of independent expenditures – spending that is not coordinated with a political candidate yet is clearly intended to influence the outcome of an election.

“I think this is a good step in the direction of transparency and something that, as we look at the changing landscape of campaign finance, would be an enhancement to New Hampshire,” said Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, (R-Wolfeboro), the main sponsor of the bill.

The committee was still listening to testimony on Senate Bill 120 when that landscape changed again.

The Supreme Court’s decision in McCutcheon v. FEC strikes down limits on how much an individual donor can contribute to federal candidates and political parties. Coming four years after the Citizen’s United ruling, which erased restrictions on spending by corporations, unions and special-interest groups, the McCutcheon ruling will likely only add to the estimated $7 billion that was spent on federal elections in 2012.

In New Hampshire, candidates, party groups and political committees – defined as two or more persons organized to influence an election – are all required to register with the Secretary of State and file reports detailing their receipts and expenditures.

But when it comes to independent political groups, the law has been difficult to enforce.

During the 2010 gubernatorial contest, the Attorney General’s office investigated complaints from Democrats that two groups, Americans for Job Security and the National Organization for Marriage, had funded ads attacking Gov. John Lynch without first registering as political committees.

Republicans waged an identical complaint, alleging that Citizens for Strength and Security, which had run ads attacking GOP nominee John Stephen, had failed to report its activities as required by state law.

The attorney general declined to take action. In the case brought by Democrats, the AG ruled that because neither group’s “major purpose” involved telling people which candidate to vote for, they could not be designated as political committees.

Under the proposed bill, what constitutes a political committee would change.

Organizations that raise or spend at least $2,500 in a calendar year for the “major purpose” of electioneering for or against a candidate or measure would be required to register and file reports. Groups that do not have as its major purpose the success or defeat of a candidate or measure would have to register if they spent $5,000.

The bill would not require tax-exempt groups, such as 501(c) 4s, to report their donors — a concession that was necessary to gain broader support, said Sen. David Pierce, (D-Hanover), who helped craft the latest version of the bill.

“There were groups who did not want to identify their donors for fear of, one, their funding running dry, which really is not my concern, and, two, their not-unreasonable fear that their donors could be identified as supporting a particularly volatile issue,” Pierce said. “I think it’s a reasonable compromise.”

About a half-dozen people spoke in favor of the bill, including two representatives of the Coalition for Open Democracy, a Concord group that supports public funding of elections in New Hampshire.

Olivia Zink, the coalition’s program director, told committee members that independent political groups, including some that never registered with the Secretary of State, spent $19 million on the 2012 governor’s race – nearly five times as much as the candidates themselves.

“Much of this money is from out of state,” Zink said. “As a lifelong resident it disturbs me to realize my local elected officials are beholden to out-of-state associations and organizations. We have a right to know and need to know who is influencing our elections.”

Representatives of three groups – New Hampshire Right to Life, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition and Cornerstone Policy Research – testified against the bill, arguing that it could be interpreted to require organizations engaged in non-political activity to register as political committees.

New Hampshire Right to Life President Kurt Wuelpe asked whether the NHRTL Committee, which lobbies for pro-life laws, would have to adhere to the same reporting requirements as the organizations political action committee. “When we send out communications, which we do on a very regular basis, are we now going to be subject to reporting under this statute’s new definitions that we are not subject to currently?” he said.

Shannon McGinley had the same concerns. McGinley is chair of Cornerstone Policy Research, a conservative 501(c)3 organization that is prohibited by law from political activity, and Cornerstone Action, a 501(c)4 that is allowed to participate in some electioneering, and which has a political action committee registered with the Secretary of State.

“When you start getting into C4 activity, it starts to get very, very muddy,” McGinley said. “I respect the need for transparency with outside money coming in to New Hampshire, absolutely, but I’m very concerned with how this bill is written and how it is going to impact grassroots organizations like ours that have been here in New Hampshire for 12 years and are not just about a campaign cycle.”

Pierce said the changes in the law would only apply to groups that advocate on behalf of candidates and ballot measures.

“I think the bill is carefully crafted to make sure we’re not reaching into issue advocacy,” he said. “But when a group spends money in our elections in order to sway the success or defeat of a candidate or measure or trying to dictate public policy at an election I think the reporting should kick in.”

.

N.H. Legislature considers new guidelines to regulate state wind energy

April 2, 2014 by in In The News

N.H. Legislature considers new guidelines to regulate state wind energy

If the wind turbines had been there, “I would have never bought this property,” Marino said. “If you keep allowing these windmills to ruin our beautiful mountaintops, it is really a disgrace.”

Marino was one of many people who testified at a House hearing yesterday in support of a bill that would establish new guidelines for future wind energy projects. The legislation passed the Senate last month.

The bill would give the state’s Site Evaluation Committee, which is tasked with approving energy projects, a series of guidelines to address when siting new “large wind energy systems” that have a generating capacity of more than 100 kilowatts.

According to the proposed guidelines, the SEC would need to consider the effects of wind farms on homeowners, natural scenery, wildlife and the visual impact of the turbines within a 10-mile range, among other things. It also calls on wind projects to provide a fire protection plan and use the best available science and technology in construction.

Wind power has become a divisive issue in the state. Recently, several towns have voted to establish local rights to rule over renewable energy projects.

New Hampshire already has a few operational wind energy projects, including Granite Reliable Power wind farm in Coos County, Lempster Wind and Groton Wind. There are no wind projects currently in the siting process, said Timothy Drew of the state’s Department of Environmental Services.

The majority of residents and lawmakers who spoke at the hearing voiced support for the bill and raised concerns about wind power, including loud noise, decreases in property value and tourism revenue and destruction of the natural habitat.

“There may be a place for wind in New Hampshire,” said Rep. Suzanne Smith, a Hebron Democrat who said she has heard complaints from her constituents about the whirring sounds and vibrations of the turbines. But without the criteria, it is creating “frustrated residents, dissatisfied developers and an overworked SEC.”

Members of the House Science, Technology and Energy Committee, which hosted the hearing, raised questions about the size of wind farms regulated by the bill and whether the guidelines would serve as a way to block all future wind development.

It’s “not meant to be a moratorium,” said Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican and the bill’s sponsor. “It’s meant to have some criteria in place for the SEC to judge whether (the wind farms) are in the public interest or not.”

Concord-based attorney Doug Patch, representing Wagner Forest Management, a company with ties to wind energy, said he worried the bill could act as a moratorium and that it could drive away developers.

Patch, along with a few other opponents of the bill, said this legislation overlaps with Senate Bill 99, which the Legislature passed last year calling on the SEC to adopt rules by January 2015.

“The language instructs the SEC to ‘address’ nine additional specific topics, many of which are highly subjective and which would be included in the SB 99 process,” he said. “For many of these nine, there is no guidance given and thus this bill serves to increase uncertainty rather than decrease uncertainty.”

Testimony on the bill lasted more than four hours, with representatives taking a break in between and coming back in the afternoon to accommodate more speakers.

(Allie Morris can be reached at 369-3307 or [email protected].)

.

Capital Beat: Reading the tea leaves on casino gambling (and more)

March 30, 2014 by in In The News

Capital Beat: Reading the tea leaves on casino gambling (and more)

By KATHLEEN RONAYNE

Monitor staff

Sunday, March 30, 2014
(Published in print: Sunday, March 30, 2014)

When a bill legalizing a single casino lost by 29 votes in the New Hampshire House two weeks ago, Steve Duprey, a leading anti-casino voice, called the vote a “silver stake” in the heart of casino proposals – a final defeat in a 16-year battle to bring casinos to New Hampshire.

But nothing is every truly dead until the legislative session is over, and casino supporters suddenly find themselves with one last shot to push a bill through. Thursday was the deadline for the House and Senate to vote on bills and send them to the other chamber, a period known as crossover. In their very last vote of the day Thursday, senators gave casinos one last breath of life, voting 15-9 in support of a bill to legalize two.

It’s one of many bills that faces an uncertain fate in the other chamber. The House did speak against one casino, but it looks as if the vote on this two-casino bill could be a bit closer. In addition to legalizing two casinos, the Senate bill includes all of the regulations in the House’s one-casino bill and restores $25 million in revenue sharing for towns and cities.

If the same number of lawmakers who voted on the House proposal show up to vote on the Senate proposal, supporters will need to flip about 16 votes. But there were 71 members who didn’t vote on the House casino bill, meaning the fate of the bill could also depend on who shows up next time.

During debate on the one-casino proposal, a number of House members stood up to say they wouldn’t support the bill because it created a monopoly. Rep. Dan McGuire, an Epsom Republican, was one of those members. He doesn’t plan to support a two-casino bill either. The Senate bill includes a 10-year moratorium on new casinos beyond the first two, and McGuire says limiting the number of casinos like that still creates a monopoly. But he said having two locations might make some anti-monopolists switch their votes. Revenue sharing is also a key aspect of the Senate bill that could flip votes. The state froze revenue sharing in 2010, and this bill would send a total of $25 million in property tax relief to communities across the state.

If casinos supporters cobble together enough votes to pass the Senate bill as is, Gov. Maggie Hassan will be in a tough spot. She campaigned on legalizing one casino as a crucial source of new revenue and has never voiced support for two. The House could also amend the bill, which would likely bring House and Senate members together in a committee of conference to come up with a bill that works for both chambers. Any casino bill passed by the House is highly likely to get support in the Senate.

“I think that with casinos, it’s always going to be a close vote on the floor,” said Rep. Katherine Rogers, a Concord Democrat and casino supporter.

The casino bill isn’t the only bill with an uncertain fate in the next few months. The Senate is almost certain to kill a House bill to raise the minimum wage, and a bill to increase the state’s gas tax to fund road and bridge projects should make it through the House. But bills to repeal the death penalty, decriminalize marijuana, ban cell phones while driving and create a process for annulling mental health records will be trickier.

Decriminalizing the possession of up to one ounce of marijuana probably won’t gain support in the Senate, but senators could look at reducing penalties, Senate Majority Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican, said.

“I don’t think that the Senate will go for just a traffic ticket for marijuana; however, I don’t think we want to see first time offenders with a lifetime’s worth of problems,” he said.

A House bill to ban the use of handheld cell phones while driving should get a debate, but passage is uncertain, Bradley said. He said the state already has a strong distracted driving law that touches on everything from using a cellphone to eating while driving. Likewise, a bill raising the juvenile age for criminal punishment from 17 to 18 is a tossup. Bradley said he’s interested in hearing all the facts, such as whether raising the age in the 1990s deterred youth crime, before making up his mind.

A vote on repealing the death penalty could go either way in the Senate as well. Last fall, senators were divided on the issue when interviewed by the Monitor. At least one Republican plans to support repeal, while at least one Democrat plans to vote against it. Party leaders aren’t pushing their members to vote either way, Bradley said.

On the House side, lawmakers will take up a bill passed just last week in the Senate that creates a process for people to annul their mental health records and regain the right to purchase guns.

The House failed to pass a bill strengthening the background checks system earlier this session.

Still, it’s hard to see a bill that could put guns in the hands of the mentally ill pass through the Democratic-led chamber without careful consideration and a lengthy debate.

A bill that’s certain to go to a conference committee is one dealing with how to spend a $15.3 million surplus from the last budget. Democrats, and therefore the House, want to put $7 million into the Department of Health and Human Services, while Republicans, and therefore the Senate, want all $15 million to go to the Rainy Day fund.

The House and Senate must act on all bills from the other chamber by May 15 before lawmakers head to committees of conference. Let the wheeling and dealing begin.

.

Senate holds hearing on buried lines bill

March 20, 2014 by in In The News

Senate holds hearing on buried lines bill

By ALLIE MORRIS

Monitor staff

Thursday, March 20, 2014
(Published in print: Thursday, March 20, 2014)

To bury or not to bury. That was the question yesterday at a Senate hearing on a bill that says the burial of electric transmission lines is preferred.

The legislation that has already passed in the House would cover future projects, including Northern Pass, which would run transmission lines through the state to bring hydropower from Canada.

During the two-hour public comment session, opponents and supporters disagreed on the feasibility and aesthetics of burying the lines.

“It provides a layer of protection for the tourism industry,” said Grafton County Commissioner Linda Lauer, who supports the legislation. She said she doesn’t want to see her scenic region overtaken by power lines, and she said she believes the state needs the bill to protect power lines from ice and wind damage.

Arielle Wolfe, with 6-year-old daughter Hazel at her side, said she doesn’t want future generations to face economic hardships brought on by the loss of tourism. “It’s pretty simple. Bury the lines, you can still get the power through the state,” she said.

But it may not be so easy.

Tiler Eaton, a representative of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, said the state’s rocky, mountainous terrain makes this type of burial project ill-suited.

“Underground transmission projects in places like New Hampshire are rare precisely because of the engineering challenges they present.” Burial can multiply costs anywhere from three to 30 times, he said.

Supporters asserted the technology is accessible and already used in similar environments.

Northern Pass critic Nancy Martland, a resident of Sugar Hill, said several extensive underground projects have already been proposed in New England and New York. “States on either side of us have materially same conditions as we have,” she said. “If they can bury their lines as it appears they can, why can’t we?”

The House passed the bill in January. It directs the state Site Evaluation Committee, a body that approves energy projects, to give preference to plans that bury transmission lines and build them along public rights of way. Last week the Senate tabled a similar bill that would have mandated burial of the lines.

The House bill “represents suggestions, not a mandate,” said its sponsor Rep. Laurence Rappaport, a Colebrook Republican, at the start of the hearing. It’s “not trying to mandate outcomes, only to provide guidance.”

Under the legislation, any transmission line “not required to system reliability and not proposed to be substantially buried will have an unreasonably adverse effect on aesthetics.”

At the hearing, some opponents said that language makes the bill problematic.

“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder,” said Rep. Robert Backus, a Manchester Democrat. It “would be a very difficult thing for the committee to administer.”

Sen. Jeb Bradley, a Wolfeboro Republican who sits on the Energy and Natural Resources Committee that held yesterday’s hearing, said after the meeting that he will take a second look at his tabled Senate bill. “We’re probably not going to be able to get a mandate through,” he said. “What the people in this room are looking for us to do is find a way to mitigate the damage. And so I want to try to create a win-win that allows the power to come into New Hampshire . . . but doesn’t harm these good folks.”

 

(Allie Morris can be reached at 369-3307 or at [email protected].)

 

.

N.H. lawmakers may OK draft beer to go

March 14, 2014 by in In The News

N.H. lawmakers may OK draft beer to go

Senate bill would permit sale of sealed growlers

By Doug Ireland[email protected]

Beer lovers who want a draft beer outside a bar or restaurant might soon be able to get one to go.

The state Senate is considering a bill that would allow them to take out a growler of their favorite draft brew.

If passed by the full Legislature, Senate Bill 257 would permits bars, restaurants and stores to sell draft beer to go, as long as the container is sealed.

But an amendment yesterday would prohibit the growlers from being sold at restaurants and bars. The Senate is expected to vote on the amendment March 27.

The Senate tabled the bill yesterday and will take it up again later this month.

The delay was prompted by concerns from the hospitality industry that public safety could be jeopardized if patrons were allowed to walk out with containers of beer, co-sponsor Sen. Sharon Carson, R-Londonderry.

It’s those same public safety concerns that make some local establishment owners hesitant to support the proposal, including Andy Day, owner of Cask and Vine in Derry.

Day said it’s a unique concept that would please customers and increase business.

“I know people who have joked that they would love to take home some of the beers we have here,” Day said.

Those are beers he offers on tap that are not commonly found on store shelves.

But, Day said, he would be concerned about liability and those who chose to drink the beer while driving home, putting themselves and others at risk.

Mike Cook, manager of Whippersnappers restaurant in Londonderry, agreed the bill seems like a good idea, giving patrons a chance to take home a growler of their favorite draft beer.

He’s also concerned about public safety and a restaurant being held liable.

“If they take a beer and drink it in the car, we are still responsible,” Cook said. “I’m kind of torn about that.”

The bill was sponsored by Senate Majority Leader Jeb Bradley, R-Wolfeboro. It was intended to help small stores that sell beer, but are not licensed to serve alcohol.

Sen. Russell Prescott, R-Kingston, is among those who back the bill, saying it would benefit businesses and consumers.

Carson said she co-sponsored the legislation because state law only allows wine to be sold in that manner.

“It’s about parity between wine and beer,” she said. “You can do this with wine, but you can’t with beer.”

The Senate Commerce Committee unanimously supported the bill following a hearing in January

Beer distributors have opposed the legislation, citing concerns about public safety and the reputation of their industry. There’s also been concern about strict public health standards that must be enforced if beer is sold in growlers.

The distributors include New Hampshire Distributors in Concord, which sells beer to customers throughout Southern New Hampshire.

“As a wholesaler and a father, I look at these things as a public safety and a public health concern,” said Chris Brown, New Hampshire Distributors president. “The quality of the product also isn’t going to be as good than if you drank it there.”

The New Hampshire Liquor Commission backed the initial legislation, but doesn’t support the amendment that would allow restaurants to sell beer to go, according to chief operating officer Craig Bulkley.

“We supported it because we thought it was to help small businesses,” he said. “But now we see it as a real health problem, a real safety problem — we think it’s a dangerous precedent.”

.

Paid for by Friends of Jeb Bradley for State Senate, Saylee Dugas Treasurer. 630 South Main Street, Wolfeboro, NH 03894

© 2024 - Jeb Bradley for State Senate

Powered by Nessit