HB 1614-FN-LOCAL – AS INTRODUCED
2006 SESSION
06/10
HOUSE BILL 1614-FN-LOCAL
AN ACT relative to bonding requirements for certain roads.
SPONSORS: Rep. W. P. Campbell, Straf 3
COMMITTEE: Municipal and County Government
This bill requires a planning board to accept a bond from a road contractor in lieu of a developer for the completion of roads in a subdivision. This bill also requires a planning board to obtain an erosion control bond before any road or site work may be done in a subdivision.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Explanation: Matter added to current law appears in bold italics.
Matter removed from current law appears [in brackets and struckthrough.]
Matter which is either (a) all new or (b) repealed and reenacted appears in regular type.
06-2922
06/10
STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
In the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Six
AN ACT relative to bonding requirements for certain roads.
Be it Enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Court convened:
1 Subdivision Regulations; Performance Bond; Road Contractors. Amend RSA 674:36, III(b) to read as follows:
(b) Shall provide that, in lieu of the completion of street work and utility installations prior to the final approval of a plat, the planning board shall accept a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or other type or types of security as shall be specified in the subdivision regulations; provided that in no event shall the exclusive form of security required by the planning board be in the form of cash or a passbook. The security may be provided by the applicant or the applicant’s road contractor. As phases or portions of the secured improvements or installations are completed and approved by the planning board or its designee, the municipality shall partially release said security to the extent reasonably calculated to reflect the value of such completed improvements or installations. Cost escalation factors that are applied by the planning board to any bond or other security required under this section shall not exceed 10 percent per year. The planning board shall, within the limitations provided in this subparagraph, have the discretion to prescribe the type and amount of security, and specify a period for completion of the improvements and utilities to be expressed in the bond or other security, in order to secure to the municipality the actual construction and installation of such improvements and utilities. The municipality shall have the power to enforce such bonds or other securities by all appropriate legal and equitable remedies.
2 New Subparagraph; Subdivision Regulations; Erosion Control Bond Required. Amend RSA 674:36, III by inserting after subparagraph (c) the following new subparagraph:
(d) Shall provide that before any work may be done on the land included in a plat, the planning board shall require an erosion control bond in the amount of $.10 per square foot of area of topsoil to be disturbed, payable to the municipality and posted by either the applicant or the applicant’s road contractor.
3 Site Plan Review Regulations; Performance Bond; Road Contractors. Amend RSA 674:44, IV(b) to read as follows:
(b) Shall provide that, in lieu of the completion of street work and utility installations prior to the final approval of a plat, the planning board shall accept a performance bond, irrevocable letter of credit, or other type or types of security as shall be specified in the site plan review regulations. The planning board shall accept the security from the applicant or the applicant’s road contractor. The planning board shall have the discretion to prescribe the type and amount of the bond or other security, require satisfactory evidence of the financial ability of any surety or financial institution to pay such bond or other type of security, and specify a period for completion of the improvements and utilities to be expressed in the bond or other security, in order to secure to the municipality the actual construction and installation of such improvements and utilities. The municipality shall have the power to enforce such bonds or other securities by all appropriate legal and equitable remedies.
4 New Paragraph; Site Plan Review Regulations; Erosion Control Bond Required. Amend RSA 674:44 by inserting after paragraph V the following new paragraph:
VI. The site plan review regulations of the planning board shall require that an erosion control bond in the amount of $.10 per square foot of disturbed area of topsoil, payable to the municipality, be posted by either the applicant or applicant’s road contractor.
5 Effective Date. This act shall take effect 60 days after its passage.
LBAO
06-2922
11/15/05
HB 1614-FN-LOCAL - FISCAL NOTE
AN ACT relative to bonding requirements for certain roads.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The New Hampshire Municipal Association and Office of Energy and Planning state this bill will have an indeterminable fiscal impact on local expenditures in FY 2006 and each year thereafter. There will be no fiscal impact on state, county, and local revenue or state and county expenditures.
METHODOLOGY:
The New Hampshire Municipal Association states this bill would require a planning board to accept security from either an applicant or the applicant’s road contractor in lieu of the completion of street work as a condition to final approval of a subdivision or site plan. Current law requires the board to accept the security, but does not specify who is authorized to provide it. This bill also provides that a planning board must require an erosion control bond in the amount of $0.10 per square foot of topsoil to be disturbed before any work can be done pursuant to an approved subdivision or site plan. Allowing an applicant’s road contractor to post the security that is already provided for in statute is unlikely to result in any municipal fiscal impact. Requiring erosion control bonds may result in a net positive fiscal impact for some municipalities by avoiding municipal expenses to remedy soil erosion, however, this would depend on individual cases. It is impossible to predict how often such cases would arise and what costs would be involved, and therefore the Association is unable to determine the exact fiscal impact at this time.
The Office of Energy and Planning states this bill could have a fiscal impact if the actual costs of restoration exceeded the $0.10 specified in this bill. Common local practice is to base the amount of such bonds upon an engineer’s estimate of costs.