HB1068

My family opposes this bill, HB1707, which along with HB1580 and HB1068 would place an egregious situation to keep our family owned summer residences which we use ourselves and also rent to afford already high property taxes. Our family home which is unoccupied would also place an oppressive pressure on us. Passage of these bills would be like a way to “take” by over taxing, forcing us to sell our inheritances. These properties have belonged to our family for as many as 130 years in which we have been NH citizens. Property taxes in general have become a tax on families irrespective of ability to pay and keep. I have grown up on these properties with my family, and hope that we will be able to hold onto them for my son to experience the same joys. Respectfully submitted,

Please vote against this bill!

Thank you for reading this statement. I believe that. redefining what a short term rental is, making it similar to a hotel could lead to potential issues. If you do not draw a distinction between commercial property and residential property, it could lead to problems such as zoning and regulatory issues.

Also the second homeowners are good for business they pay people to plow their driveways they pay people to mow their lawns they pay people to maintenance their houses and they do not put a drain on our infrastructure penalizing them will do nothing good for our economy it will not help anyone. And a simple Zillow search will show that there is an ample amount of rentals on the market as well as houses for sale on the market new houses are not going to come down in cost with the cost of building new houses skyrocketing as inflation has gone through the roof since 2020 The cost of building a new house has effectively been doubled.

My name is Haley McMahon. I am a full-time New Hampshire resident living in Nottingham, and my family owns a short-term rental in Lincoln, NH. I am writing to respectfully oppose HB1068, HB1580, and HB1707. Our Lincoln home is not an investment property—it is a place our family uses and cherishes. We would not be able to afford to keep this home without responsibly renting it on a short-term basis. Hosting helps us cover rising property taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs. Like all STR owners, we already collect and remit the Meals and Rooms Tax, contributing directly to the state. HB1580 and HB1707 unfairly target families who own second homes by imposing excessive and punitive taxes based solely on home value or how many months a family occupies their property. A proposed 100% additional tax on “unoccupied” homes would make ownership financially impossible for many New Hampshire residents like us. HB1068 further complicates matters by redefining short-term rentals as hotels, even though STRs are already appropriately taxed and regulated. This creates unnecessary confusion without clear benefit. Short-term rentals support local businesses, provide flexible lodging options for visitors, and help sustain tourism-based communities like Lincoln. These bills threaten responsible homeownership and New Hampshire’s tradition of fairness and property rights. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Haley McMahon

Dear Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, My name is Benjamin McMahon. I am a full-time New Hampshire resident living in Nottingham, and I own a short-term rental in Lincoln, NH. I am writing to respectfully oppose HB1068, HB1580, and HB1707. My Lincoln property is not a speculative investment. It is a home my family uses regularly for our own enjoyment, and one we would not be able to afford without responsibly operating it as a short-term rental. Income from hosting helps offset rising property taxes, insurance, maintenance, and utilities. Like all STR owners, I already collect and remit the Meals and Rooms Tax, contributing directly to state revenues without increasing demand on local services. HB1580 and HB1707 would unfairly penalize property owners based solely on assessed value or how many months a family occupies their home. These bills single out second-home owners and STR hosts for disproportionate taxation and undermine New Hampshire’s long-standing respect for property rights, fairness, and limited government. A proposed 100% additional tax on so-called “unoccupied” homes would make continued ownership financially impossible for many families like mine. HB1068 introduces unnecessary and confusing changes by redefining short-term rentals as hotels, despite STRs already being properly taxed and regulated. This creates regulatory uncertainty without addressing a demonstrated problem. Short-term rentals play a vital role in communities like Lincoln by supporting local restaurants, shops, tradespeople, and tourism jobs. Guests choose STRs because they are homes—not hotels. I respectfully urge you to oppose these bills and protect responsible property owners, family use of homes, and New Hampshire’s tourism-driven economy. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Benjamin McMahon Nottingham, New Hampshire

This bill adds nothing but bureaucracy and could have inadvertent consequences. Airbnb and VRBO (presumably the online platforms referred to) already automatically collect and remit the hotel and occupancy tax. Our STR cabins are not hotels, and calling them that could lead to other intended regulatory issues.

Good morning, My name is Marc Terry. I write in opposition to the several bills being considered relating to the regulation/taxation of short-term rentals. I, along with my wife and two other family members, purchased a single-family home in Gilford in May of 2024. We purchased the home as a step toward having a true second home in the Lakes Region to enjoy ourselves. We rent it as a short-term rental (STR) to help offset the cost. It is the only STR we own. It is the only STR we intend to own. We oppose the several bills being considered - all of which would certainly raise the cost of ownership - and which we believe would have multiple negative impacts. First, as a practical matter, operating a STR has proven to be less profitable than we expected. With an STR that has rented beyond expectations in terms of volume, we will almost certainly operate at a loss. This is simply because of expenses, including existing fees to AirBNB/VRBO, the cost of a professional property manager and the cost of operating a home. Increasing taxes only increases our costs. Second, although we appreciate the need for additional revenue to the state, we believe these bills would not have the desired result. If our costs increase, we may need to sell our property. We suspect other individual owners may feel the same way. This would result in a glut of houses coming on the market for sale, a drop in real estate value and, with it, a drop in actual revenues. Third, if STR's become less attractive to operate and individuals pull out of that model, the net result is fewer locations for tourists to stay and less business into the area through overnight stays. Again, less revenue for the state (we already pay the state hotel tax). With less competition, this will also like allow true hotels to charge higher rates, which makes the cost of staying in the area prohibitive. Again, fewer tourists and less revenue. Last, we can appreciate that there are major corporations that buy homes to operate as business only. We are not that and never will be. If the legislature feels the need to address STRs as a policy issue or simply sees an opportunity for increased revenue, we strongly encourage it to consider an option that exempts individuals who own one or a small number of homes and addresses only the corporate take-over of communities for profit-making purposes. Quite frankly, we see these bills as supporting that practice as they are better able to pass on costs to renter and balance risk across states. Thank you for your consideration of these points.

Dear Committee, My short-term rental is an in-law apartment attached to my home. It previously housed my mother-in-law until her health required a move to an assisted living facility. After leaving the unit vacant for more than 15 months for emotional reasons, my wife and I had to renting it approximately seven months ago to help with her assisted living costs, which currently exceed $7,400 per month and are expected to rise to nearly $12,000 as her care needs increase. I respectfully plead that you avoid overregulating and overburdening New Hampshire residents who are simply trying to manage real-life financial pressures. Please do not turn NH into Massachusetts! Thank you for your time and for your service in helping keep New Hampshire a great place to live. Sincerely, Ray Tetu Laconia

Subject: A plea against HB 1068: Protecting NH’s Future Retirees and Local Economy Dear Committee Members, I am writing to urge you to vote against HB1068. As a University of New Hampshire graduate and a property owner in Ossipee, I view this bill as a penalty on those who have maintained a loyal connection to the state for over 26 years. The Human Element My wife and I purchased our home in Ossipee to give our children a connection to nature and to secure a place for our eventual retirement. When my job relocated us to Texas six years ago, we made the difficult financial decision to keep our NH home. We did this because we cherish every moment we spend there during the summer months. The Economic Reality HB1068 (as well as HB1707 and HB1580) threatens to push out families who are net-contributors to the state economy. • Tax Revenue: We pay full property taxes yet utilize zero municipal services (such as schools), effectively subsidizing the year-round community. • Local Employment: We employ local tradespeople for landscaping and maintenance year-round. • Local Spending: We spend our discretionary income in NH all summer, supporting local businesses and children's camps. The Housing Supply Misconception While I acknowledge the housing shortage is the primary motivator behind this, forcing the sale of vacation homes in rural areas like ours will not solve the crisis for first-time buyers. These properties often do not align with the needs or price points of the workforce housing inventory the state desperately needs. We are not landlords nor do we operate a hotel—we rent our home for only three weeks a year to help cover maintenance. We are future retirees trying to keep a foothold in the state we love. Please do not punish us for maintaining our connection to the great state of New Hampshire. I respectfully request that you vote against HB1068. Sincerely, N Raj

I oppose HB1580 because it creates an unjust and unwarranted surcharge based solely on where a property owner resides, unfairly singling out certain homeowners. The bill adds complexity and uncertainty without reliable data. There are already concerns about unclear implementation and increased administrative burdens on municipalities, making this bill more likely to create confusion than any sort of tax relief.

I am a New Hampshire homeowner and short-term rental operator writing to urge you to oppose HB1068. HB1068 seeks to redefine short-term rentals as “hotels” under state law. This is a fundamental misclassification. A residential home rented occasionally or seasonally is not a commercial hotel, and treating it as such would impose commercial-level zoning, building, and safety requirements that are neither appropriate nor practical for owner-occupied or small-scale residential properties. If enacted, this bill would have several direct consequences: Force many compliant, well-maintained homes out of operation due to cost-prohibitive commercial regulations Reduce available lodging in rural and tourist-dependent areas where hotels do not exist Harm local homeowners who rely on short-term rental income to offset rising property taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs Negatively impact local economies that depend on tourism spending at small businesses, restaurants, and service providers Short-term rentals already operate under local regulations, health and safety standards, and tax requirements. Municipalities are best positioned to address local concerns without a one-size-fits-all statewide redefinition that treats private homes as commercial hotels. New Hampshire has long supported property rights, small business owners, and responsible tourism. HB1068 moves the state in the opposite direction by penalizing individual homeowners and concentrating lodging options into large commercial operators. I respectfully ask that you oppose HB1068 and support balanced, locally driven approaches that protect communities without over regulating residential property owners. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Timothy MacAdams Bartlett, New Hampshire Short-Term Rental Owner

Hi, I am writing in opposition to the following bills HB1580, HB1707 and HB1068. I wanted to outline my situation and story as to why these bills are a problem for small business owners like myself and how this puts me in jeopardy as a property owner. I understand and completely agree with the fact that NH is having an *Affordable housing crisis. The key to this is affordable. NH is becoming too expensive to live because the mean housing price is $1 million and the property taxes are way too high. Going after short term rentals is not the answer. The argument for bill HB1707 is to make short term rental property owners pay a surcharge tax or open it up to the rental pool. It sounds simple but we are trying to help add affordable housing for people who cant get a home and these homes are vacant at times. This is not a logical method of offering more homes to people who don't have them. Most of the rentals are in resort areas like the ski resorts or coast and these homes would be thousands to rent to be put into the rental pool as the mortgages need to be covered and these mortgages are for multi million dollar homes and there are other expenses such as utilities, maintenance, etc. Most people rent out their vacation homes to short term rentals because they can't afford the home otherwise. Someone such as myself, I made the investment into a 2nd home that I love so I would have an investment for retirement, and I cannot affords this home without renting it to short term rentals. I already pay a huge property tax, (it went from $20k to $26K per year in North Hampton), I pay a 9% meals and rooms tax which is almost $15k per year and I pay the state a tax for having and running a business. This is about $46 to $50k per year to the state. And now they want to impose an additional tax? I can barely afford the property as it is now because home owners insurance has gone up, it has doubles from 5k per year to 10k per year, and it is hard even finding home owners insurance that will even insure short term rentals anymore. And my utilities keep going up, I can't raise my rates because of all the competition in the area. My prices are pretty high as it is because my expenses are so high. I have landscaping expenses, external laundry service, mortgage, taxes, utilities, repairs and maintenance and supplies. everything keeps going up. I am a mom who owns this property as a business that allows me to be with my children more after school. These tax proposals act like because we have 2nd homes that we have all this extra money laying around. If any of these bills go through it will jeopardize my ability to own and pay for the home and I will be forced to sell which will take away the meals and rooms tax and business tax revenue for the state, So would you rather recieve some tax money or lose it entirely? I heard one of the sponsors for the bill 1707 say to someone as we were walking out of the hearing (I attended Monday) "We need to punish people for having vacant homes". I was appalled by this. Why would it be okay to "punish" people for having a second home? We have the right to own real estate and shouldn't be penalized for this. This bill is being out forward to literally "punish" home owners and business owners. I got to know Sununu during his time as Governor and his objective was to help create more NH business and help them flourish and these bills will help destroy business owners. Home ownership is so expensive and adding more taxes will cripple the ability to own these homes. The answer to affordable homes is to change the laws on density (Allow more homes on less than 2 acres) incentivize builders to build small homes that can be sold for less than $400k. There isn't a lot of profit in these homes, but give grants and work with towns on eliminating their red table to help create affordable home developments, You can build a starter 2 bedroom home within a 1,000 square foot footprint. You can find land still in rural areas like Brentwood, Epping, etc and build 10 or 15 of these homes on 1/2 acre each. This would solve the housing crises. Going after short term rentals will only complicate things. These homes will be sold and taken out of the rental pool and vacation homes in resort areas are not affordable homes and don't fit into this profile at all. I heard another sponsor of the bill say during the testimony that these vacation home owners "need to pay their fair share" we are paying more than our fair share and contributing to the community. We pay property taxes like everyone else which pays for the communities expenses. These vacation homes that are over $1 mil are paying a higher amount in taxes. This is a ridiculous statement that we don't pay our fair share. Between the property tax, meals and rooms tax and business tax, we pay more than anyone else. This is my argument against HB1707, and HB1580. As for HB1068 - this is why this is a bad idea, for one, the label "Hotel" falls under another large set of regulations and safety that isn't necessary for single family homes. Single family homes are not zoned for hotel use which is commercial and we could be subject to forcing us to either stop renting or selling the property. Some short term rentals are used by the home owner for the times it isn't rented, it is used as a short term rental part time for if the home owner lives in two places. This changes the use of the single family house and puts it subject to completely different set of rules which are unnecessary for home ownership. If the property operated like a hotel, maybe, but most of the single family homes are exactly that, homes that we let people use when it isn't being used. Single family home owners should not be forced to fall under a commercial category such a hotels and have to be forced into the same guidelines as a commercially run operation. Most times short term rentals are not rented all the time are used as a short term rental to help pay expenses and fill in the gaps of when it is unoccupied. Being labeled a hotel and being forced to meet the guidelines and expectations of a hotel are extreme for home ownership and it doesn't make practical sense.

Also opposed to HB1580 and HB1707

I oppose to this bill because this bill dramatically redefines hotels to include properties that were never intended to be treated as commercial lodging. It places new financial and administrative burdens on everyday homeowners who rely on occasional rental income to make ends meet. There is no evidence that this broad expansion is necessary, and it threatens both small property owners and New Hampshire’s tourism economy.

For many homeowners, short-term rentals are occasional and supplemental, not commercial enterprises.

If this bill goes into place, I would be unable to rent my small studio for a short term rental as I make only enough to cover expenses.

This bill would cripple my ability to own my rental property and cause me to sell the property I also oppose bill HB1580 and HB1707

This bill would cripple my ability to own my rental property and cause me to sell the property

My family and I have been property owners in Lincoln, NH since 2001. The property is located in Forest Ridge. During the time of our ownership, we have seen a lot of people come and go. This property is not a primary residence, we use it periodically throughout the year to spend time in the White Mountains and go skiing with family. The bills being proposed would likely force us to sell the property. This would be detrimental to the overall health and status of Lincoln, NH in that it would create two classes of citizens - primarily being investors who can afford these extreme tax changes being proposed. It would remove the middle class citizens who have owned property up there for many year and replace them with investors who don't care how much the taxes cost. I urge you to reconsider and not pass this bill. Thank you

Hello, I'm writing to express my firm opposition to proposed bills HB1068 and SB634. Collectively these bills would in essence redefine short-term rentals as “hotels,” blurring the line between residential and commercial property and opening the door to zoning, regulatory, and enforcement issues, in addition to adding potential fees to these properties. As a small, independent property owner who occasionally rents out my property, I would unlikely be able to continue to do so if these bills were to pass. I spent a lot of time growing up in NH, and was fortunate enough to buy a small property years back. My small family loves NH, and to be able to afford this property we have to rent it out for some of the year. This has in turn supported a number of local residents and businesses to help run my property, including cleaners, trash services, construction workers for maintenance, snow removal and a host of other folks who help me out. In addition to this, the revenue generated by the families who stay at my property go straight to the local businesses that they enjoy on their vacations. Financially, I barely break even as it is, and some years lose money, but we love the area so much that we're willing to take the gamble each year to enjoy the beauty that NH as to offer on our visits. This bill (and SB634 as well) would likely cause undue regulations, fees and requirements that would make it impossible for me (and likely many other owners) to continue. Please don't let this bill ruin a long standing tradition of responsible rental owners in the state that ultimately benefits NH residents writ large. Thank you for your time!

Subject: Opposition to HB1068, HB1580, and HB1707 – Harmful Impact on Lincoln, NH Dear Members of the House Ways and Means Committee, I am writing to respectfully oppose HB1068, HB1580, and HB1707, scheduled for hearings on January 12 and January 14. I professionally manage approximately 30 short-term rental condominium units in Lincoln, New Hampshire, working closely with homeowners, HOAs, local vendors, and service providers. My comments reflect direct, on-the-ground experience with how short-term rentals function within Lincoln’s economy. The owners I represent are families, not corporations. These families split their time between enjoying Lincoln and responsibly offsetting the substantial fixed costs of ownership through short-term rentals. For many, this income is a critical part of household finances—and in some cases, the only source of income supporting that property. Short-term rental revenue allows these families to pay HOA fees, property taxes, insurance, utilities, and ongoing maintenance—expenses that exist regardless of occupancy. Real and Predictable Consequences of These Bills The consequences of HB1068, HB1580, and HB1707 would be immediate and unavoidable: Some families would be forced to stop renting, leaving units vacant for large portions of the year because long-term rentals are not feasible under HOA rules or seasonal demand. Some families would be forced to sell, often at a loss, once additional taxes and penalties make ownership financially unsustainable.. These outcomes would not create affordable housing; instead, they would reduce visitor capacity and economic activity in a town that depends on tourism. Direct Impact on Jobs and Local Businesses I employ a large housekeeping team and work with numerous local service providers, including maintenance staff, contractors, and tradespeople. These jobs exist only because short-term rentals exist. Each year, the properties I manage host thousands of guests who contribute directly to Lincoln’s economy by: * Dining at local restaurants * Shopping at local stores * Visiting local attractions, ski areas, and recreation sites When short-term rental inventory is reduced, those visitors choose other destinations. The result is lost revenue for local businesses, reduced work hours for local employees, and lower tax collections. Why This Matters Specifically in Lincoln Lincoln is a tourism-driven town, not a commuter or workforce-housing community. Condominium-based short-term rentals are a foundational part of its lodging infrastructure. Penalizing them through expanded taxation or non-primary residence surcharges will: * Reduce peak-season lodging availability * Shrink tourism-related employment * Lower meals and rooms tax revenue over time * Discourage continued reinvestment in properties Conclusion Rather than strengthening communities, these bills would lead to vacant units, distressed sales, job losses, and declining economic activity in towns like Lincoln. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to find **HB1068, HB1580, and HB1707 Inexpedient to Legislate (ITL)**. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, Arthur Alford Short-Term Rental Property Manager Lincoln, New Hampshire

Agenda

Many homeowners offset their expenses with short term rental income. They purchased the property with the understanding they could generate this income on their own property. The renters are taxed the 9% on all rentals. The NH economy would be impacted with diminished availability of short term rental revenue in all facets of the tourist industry, including diminished meals & rooms tax.

Public Comment in Opposition to Proposed Short-Term Rental Legislation in New Hampshire I am writing to express strong opposition to several proposed bills that would materially harm short-term rental (STR) owners, property rights, and New Hampshire’s tourism-driven economy. This legislative session, four bills have been introduced that directly affect STRs: • HB 1707 – expanding local authority to restrict STRs • HB 1580 – imposing a new surcharge on non-primary residences valued over $500,000 • HB 1068 – redefining short-term rentals as hotels • SB 634 – allowing municipalities to impose a new local occupancy fee on STRs Two of these bills (HB 1707 and HB 1580) were voted on in the House, with the remaining two scheduled for consideration this week. Taken together, these bills represent a piecemeal but coordinated shift away from New Hampshire’s long-standing respect for property rights, small business owners, and limited government. STRs Are Not Hotels Redefining STRs as hotels (HB 1068) is factually and economically flawed. The vast majority of STRs in New Hampshire are single-family homes or small multi-family properties, often owned by local residents, retirees, or families supplementing income. Hotels are purpose-built commercial operations with centralized staffing, infrastructure, and zoning impacts that are not comparable to STRs. States and municipalities that have attempted to regulate STRs as hotels have consistently faced: • Reduced housing utilization efficiency • Higher compliance costs for small owners • Increased legal challenges and enforcement costs Economic Impact on Tourism and Local Businesses Tourism contributes billions of dollars annually to New Hampshire’s economy. STRs play a critical role in rural and seasonal areas where hotels do not exist or cannot scale during peak demand. Guests staying in STRs support: • Local restaurants and shops • Outdoor recreation businesses • Seasonal employment Independent studies in other New England states show that STR guests spend more locally and stay longer than traditional hotel guests, particularly in rural markets. Taxation and Fees Are Already in Place STRs in New Hampshire already collect and remit the Meals & Rooms (M&R) tax, contributing directly to state revenue. Proposals like HB 1580 and SB 634 amount to double taxation or punitive targeting of a specific class of property owners without evidence of proportional public cost. There is no demonstrated data showing that STRs: • Create higher municipal service costs than long-term rentals • Require additional enforcement beyond existing local tools • Justify new surcharges or occupancy fees Housing Affordability Requires Data-Driven Solutions STRs are frequently blamed for housing shortages without rigorous evidence. In New Hampshire, housing affordability challenges are driven primarily by: • Lack of new construction • Restrictive zoning • Labor and material costs • Population growth outpacing supply Blanket restrictions on STRs do not create affordable housing; they simply reduce property value, discourage investment, and shift ownership toward institutional buyers. Support for Balanced, Statewide Advocacy I support the work of the New Hampshire Vacation Rental & Tourism Alliance (NHVRTA), a statewide nonprofit advocating for reasonable, data-driven policy that protects both communities and property owners. Organizations like NHVRTA are essential to ensuring that legislation reflects real impacts, not assumptions. Conclusion These bills, individually and collectively, move New Hampshire away from its core values of: • Property rights • Local entrepreneurship • Predictable, limited regulation I urge legislators to reject these proposals and instead work collaboratively with STR owners, municipalities, and advocacy groups to address concerns using existing enforcement tools and evidence-based policy. New Hampshire can protect neighborhoods without punishing responsible property owners or undermining tourism and small businesses.