NH committee hears contentious proposal to move local tax‑cap questions to November ballots

CONCORD — A proposed non‑germane amendment to House Bill 1,300 that would place property‑tax cap questions on the November ballot for towns, cities and school districts drew hours of questioning and broad public testimony Wednesday before the House Election Law Committee.

Representative Berry, who introduced the amendment, said the measure is aimed at shifting decisions from low‑turnout town meetings into higher‑turnout general elections so “we can actually find out what the voters want.” He told the committee, “We have a huge problem in New Hampshire where property taxes are out of control,” and described a framework in which a yes vote would place a two‑year tax‑cap tied to inflation and new growth on a locality’s revenue stream while excluding capital projects and allowing limited bonding for long‑lived assets.

Supporters argued the change would protect taxpayers who are being “taxed out of their homes,” while preserving local choice by letting each locality opt in or out on a recurring schedule. Berry said adoption in November would use the same adoption threshold already used at the town level: a 3/5 (60%) vote, and that the amendment includes an override mechanism the legislature still needs to finalize.

But municipal officials, education leaders and other witnesses warned the committee the amendment raises sharp implementation and fiscal problems. Tom Schamberg, a selectman and former Ways and Means member, testified that the amendment would “materially constrain our town’s local revenue authority,” citing greater exposure to state mandates, new administrative burdens and misalignment between CPI‑based limits and actual local cost drivers. Margaret Burns, executive director of the New Hampshire Municipal Association, told the committee the bill’s design would create “confusion and chaos” at the local level and questioned how the proposed timing and calculations would reconcile with budget schedules and Department of Revenue reporting deadlines.

School officials and parents warned of service and staffing cuts. Heather Robitaille, chair of a Merrimack school budget committee, said her district had proposed a round of cuts that included more than a dozen teaching positions because of reduced revenues and rising health‑care costs, and argued the amendment could force unsustainable reductions. Brian Hawkins of NEA New Hampshire said the proposal would impose an “artificial formula” that does not capture the state’s role in funding education and could jeopardize local services.

Committee members pressed the sponsor on legal and procedural questions, including why an election‑law panel was handling what some members view as a municipal finance issue. Representative Berry responded the amendment is drafted into RSA 6:63 (Questions to Voters), which places the item under election law because it would appear on the general election ballot. Members also asked about the missing fiscal note: Berry said the amendment was introduced as a Wilson amendment and an LBA fiscal note could be requested after committee action.

On specific mechanics, lawmakers debated whether the November ballot question should be presented as a single jurisdictional question or separated by school district, county and municipal lines, and how to define “new growth” and the inflation metric for the cap. Critics pressed for mandatory local hearings before a November vote and asked whether the proposed override threshold would unfairly let a small group overturn the will of a larger turnout election.

The committee did not take action Wednesday. Berry said he would continue consultations, and multiple speakers urged the panel to hold additional work sessions. The hearing included dozens of public witnesses and multiple requests for technical fixes; officials from municipal government and school districts urged the committee to resolve structural and reporting issues before the amendment moves forward.