Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Tax Caps topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor says municipal tax cap would limit local increases; committee probes formula and private right of action
Summary
Representative Jordan Uldery told the committee CACR18 imposes a formulaic cap (inflation moving average plus population change, up to 2.5%) on local annual spending increases and creates a private right of action when towns exceed it. Members questioned fee-shifting, attorney‑fee multipliers, and city vs. town implementation.
Representative Jordan Uldery introduced CACR18 as a constitutional amendment to constrain local taxing districts’ annual percentage changes in spending by tying allowable increases to a four‑year moving average of inflation plus the prior year’s population change, with an upper cap around 2.5%. Uldery said the measure is intended to protect residents from "oppressive taxation" and to give communities a formula and a legal remedy if local governments exceed that formula.
"You get the government you pay for it," Uldery said, arguing residents should know in advance the likely scale of increases and that municipalities should be guided by a predictable budgeting formula.
Committee concerns and specifics: Members pressed about how the formula would apply in cities (where there is no town‑meeting vote), whether reductions in one tax and increases in another would be treated as net increases, and how the statute’s private right of action — including a proposed 20x award of attorney fees to prevailing citizens — might explode litigation and burden municipal budgets. Uldery said the fee provision is intended as a deterrent to unresponsive local governments but acknowledged the concerns are “scary” and would be debated further.
Fiscal and implementation issues: Members repeatedly asked for more precise drafting on definitions (what counts as a local taxing district, how population change is calculated) and for a fiscal analysis of the effect on municipal budgets and debt service. The public hearing record includes city and town officials and municipal‑finance questions on how rainy‑day funds, bonds and pension obligations intersect with the cap.
Next steps: The hearing closed after iterative questioning. Committee staff were asked to review statutory interactions (current statutes like SB2 and RSA 79) and to provide a fiscal note addressing distributional impacts across towns and school districts.
