Senate committee backs amendment sending one‑time property tax‑cap question to voters, adds DRA rulemaking authority

The Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee voted to report HB 1300 "ought to pass as amended," approving an amendment that would place a one‑time question on a general‑election ballot asking voters whether to impose a fixed cap on certain local administrative property tax growth and adding express rulemaking authority for the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA).

Committee members debated whether the measure protects voters’ choice or overrides local control. A committee member in favor of the amendment argued that property taxes remain voters’ top concern and that a one‑time November question would give a broader electorate the chance to decide whether to cap growth, rather than leaving the choice to lower‑turnout town meetings. "The number one thing that we're hearing from our voters is property taxes, property taxes, property taxes," the member said, urging that voters be allowed a single definitive say.

Opponents said the proposal effectively mandates a statewide override of local decisions and would add administrative work and election costs for municipalities. One member said the state should not impose mandates on cities and towns and noted cities already can address tax caps under RSA 32:5‑b; they warned the bill would create extra ballot printing and voter‑education costs for local clerks.

Disagreement also centered on drafting and implementation details. Critics said key terms in the bill — including how to calculate "net new taxable property growth," which items qualify as "bonded capital costs," and what constitutes "school‑based services" — are ambiguous and could leave voters unclear about what they would be approving. "We're putting in front of the voters a question that's poorly drafted at minimum and harmful, you know, at maximum," one member said.

DRA staff told the committee that explicit rulemaking language would remove uncertainty. Jennifer Ramsey, tax policy counsel for the Department of Revenue Administration, said adding express authority "would help make things more clear" and suggested the committee include language requiring the DRA to adopt rules and promulgate forms necessary to implement the chapter pursuant to RSA 5:41‑a. Bruce Kanur, supervisor of the municipal bureau at the DRA, said the agency could perform a narrow certification by reviewing municipal submissions, but a broader role — auditing books and records to verify reported numbers — would require additional staff and changes to reporting forms.

The amendment sponsor walked members through amendment 18‑43s, describing textual edits that remove recurring two‑year requirements and strike a sentence that would have forced a rejected local question to reappear on a subsequent ballot. The sponsor also said the amendment replaces references to the DRA "commissioner" with "governing body" so that local officials, not the commissioner, would make required budget reductions when a tax cap is exceeded.

The committee approved the committee amendment to add DRA rulemaking authority (language referencing RSA 5:41‑a) and later voted to report HB 1300 "ought to pass as amended" after final discussion. A voice vote carried the measure; one member recorded a "nay." The amendment sponsor said they would carry the bill forward for further consideration.

What happens next: With the committee reporting HB 1300 as "ought to pass as amended," the bill moves to the next legislative stage in the Senate calendar for further action. The committee highlighted that implementation details (definitions, reporting forms and whether the DRA's role will be narrow certification or broader verification) may require rulemaking and additional guidance from the DRA.