Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor seeks municipal option to tax some large charitable properties; nonprofits warn of service cuts
Summary
HB 12‑93 would allow municipalities to tax charitable organizations with property valued above a threshold (proposed $1,000,000) or to adopt locally negotiated pilots; municipal officials said the measure would help address local budget inequities, while nonprofit groups and hospitals warned it could reduce community services.
Representative Bill Bolton introduced HB 12‑93, a bill to let municipalities choose to tax charitable organizations whose property valuation exceeds a statutory threshold (the sponsor proposed $1,000,000), or to adopt local exemptions or payment‑in‑lieu‑of‑tax (PILOT) agreements.
Bolton said many towns face a growing imbalance when large nonprofit landowners hold valuable property exempt from local property taxes while still benefiting from municipal services. "When property in the town is owned by a nonprofit organization that qualifies for tax‑exempt status, that land does not contribute to the town's tax base," he said, and the bill would give towns flexibility to address that imbalance.
Municipal representatives and some selectmen testified in support. Eric Shaw, a selectman from New Hampton, described one private school that owns roughly 8% of his town’s tax base yet pays a small fraction of the property tax burden; he said the town had tried repeatedly to negotiate a PILOT but had been unsuccessful.
Nonprofit and charitable organizations—represented by the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits, Catholic Charities, hospital and YMCA representatives and conservation groups—opposed the bill. Kathleen Reardon, CEO of the New Hampshire Center for Nonprofits, warned that taxing charities would reduce capacity to provide essential services such as childcare, affordable housing and elder care and would undermine the historic partnership between governments and charities.
Hospital representatives noted that nonprofit hospitals provide large community benefits and many already enter into voluntary PILOTs with towns; they warned the bill could produce uneven results because a fixed valuation threshold would pick winners and losers among charities that provide similar services.
Municipal and nonprofit witnesses also agreed the state lacks transparent, aggregate data on how much property is exempt across municipalities; assessors urged the committee to seek a clearer inventory before adopting a broad rule. Several witnesses suggested raising the exemption threshold or adding carve‑outs for medical facilities, childcare or other mission‑critical providers.
The committee closed the public hearing after extensive testimony and asked staff to consider data collection, statutory clarifications on definitions (charitable vs. nonprofit), and options to prevent capricious or unequal treatment of organizations across towns.
What’s next: Work sessions will consider possible amendments including higher thresholds, explicit carve‑outs, or a transparency requirement so the committee can better measure statewide exposure before any vote.
