From tummyman's numbers... it came from no longer having excess funds lying around that you can buy down the tax rate with.

If I tax you $1M in excess one year, and then the next year return it to buy down the tax rate, you can guess that the third year is going to go up without the buy down.

That would mean the tax rate from 2021 and back would be higher than necessary... not specifically this one. As those would be the rates that created the surplus for the buy down to happen last year.

Same here. The cottage was built by my great-granddad in 1892. A 2 BR fishing cottage as you see on "Golden Pond". When the education mess started rearranging tax evaluations in the '90s, taxes tripled! We never made any major improvements and we were on a dirt road shared by a dozen cottages that the town will not take responsibility for. During the recession in the late 90s. It was the last straw; the family sold the heirloom. The family bought a condo off Lake Winnisquam, although 3 streets from the lake we had beach rights. Today, because of taxes we are yet again forced from our retirement dreams. It is never-ending!

By the way, the guy who bought the cottage built a McMansion, ran afoul with wetlands, and put it on the market. Eventually, he sold it at auction. Payback!

You made my point.

Here in Meredith, still waiting for my bill, my assessment went up 33%.
Hopefully my bill doesn't go up that much.:(

The ''education mess'' did not exist. It is only in the mind's of a few that aren't educated on the subject. At the time that the State Ed tax was added, around $20 million was being transferred from around 60 communities in the State to other locations... not a sizeable transfer... so Governor Lynch was willing to get rid of it in 2011 - even when it was more, but not much more than the original $20M

The assessing method is to use what it would currently sell for.
Our buildings went up in value because the cost of replacing them with a like structure has skyrocketed..
In 2016, we sold #1 2x4x8 common studs for a little over $3, by 2018 that had increased to the point that the same stud would go for three times that amount.
I had to change several window and door options out when framing costs skyrocketed after the softwood tariff imposed against Canada. In 2019, Covid hit... thousands/tens of thousands of summer homes became the primary residence for refugees from the big cities to our south and a building boom went from hypersonic to lightspeed. It caused lead times to move from weeks to months and created a complete shortage in pressure treated lumber. None could be found anywhere for any amount of money. We sold the year's supply before June.
We now have material somewhat moving down... some shortages and delays... as most builders could tell you... but we have no labor pool - so the cost of the labor to build is much higher and moving higher every day.

Regardless of how old a building is... the assessor is probably only going to depreciate it by 50% at best. And if kept in good shape... a lot less than that... because an existing building is still better than one that may not exist for another two to three years waiting for the labor and having to meet the new code. The demand for existing in any shape is now phenomenal, and anything near the lake that might be occupied and renovated has doubled to tripled in the last year or so... even on the smaller lakes.

It is doubtful that assessments will go down as more Boomers retire to the area. The demand for existing homes and renovations I suspect will continue throughout this decade, and the shortage of labor should worsen to the point that new builds will slow even further..

So where did the money for the buy down of the tax rate come from last year? Someone told me it came from the capitol reserves, which needed to be replenished this year.


I looked at the town annual report for last year, and of course, there was a nice graph in there of the tax rate. Totally useless and meaningless by itself, no wonder people confuse the relevance of this number. Almost by design.

A much more useful graph would be the total town expenditures year to year along with total school expenditures year to year.

Since county and state numbers are included in the report, more graphs showing how much Moultonboro money is collected for each of those categories year to year would be very helpful.

About a 10 year look back would give a great picture of how we got here.

The capital reserves come from taxation during the previous years.

If you add the 2021 to the 2022 rate and divide by two for the average, it is a little higher than the rate for 2023. Other variables could easily account for that difference.

See my prior analysis. However, the "refund" of $2.7M last year came from money originally budgeted (conservatively) to accomplish the 18 month change in the fiscal year that was ultimately not spent ($2.0 million) plus $750,000 that should have gone back to taxpayers in the prior year but was held by the Board of Selectmen who had hoped to set up a Capital Reserve account for a down payment deposit on a potential Community Center, to show public support. This was Warrant Article #8 in the FY22 Town Meeting that was not passed, so this taxpayer money was then available to return as a reduction in the tax rate.

Money used to offset the tax rate.....December 2021 = $2.0 Million
December 2022 = $2.7 Million
December 2023 = $ 0

There are lots of theories out there as to how this "Unassigned Fund Balance" should be used. I subscribe to the theory that all excess funds should go back to the taxpayers and not held in a kitty. Taxpayers fronted the money for the budget and if the town does a good job in under-running the costs or if there were delays in hiring, or if revenues come in stronger than anticipated, etc .etc., then the money gets returned the next year and all new fiscal year expenses stand on their own at Town Meeting....kind of like pay as you go. Others think this money should be held in a kitty to offset certain expenses at Town Meeting instead of charging the tax rate and that certain items may be easier to get through Town Meeting if the funds are coming from this account instead of taxation.
In reality, both theories end up at the same place as long as you do it consistently. But I think when people see any expense is coming from Taxation that it brings closer attention than from some kitty.

Thanks Tummyman. I agree with you. It would be interesting to see how much spending increased last year and this year combined. Returning the money as it was done last year, hides the increase in spending for last year, and maybe some of the increase in spending for the year before. With that return done, I suspect we are feeling the impact of 2 years additional spending this year.

Watch the School Board Meeting of Nov 14th...just last week...where discussion was held about a list of some $23 MILLION dollars of deferred maintenance projects that just got surfaced a few months ago. There is still no agreement on what projects will be undertaken, when, and at what cost. And the School Board has not provided any financing plan. But rest assured it will cost you many dollars in higher taxes...many !!! These projects are at least 33% over what was asked for as a Community Center project last year. And this is not the only "new" program being proposed. Feeling good now...???? Your bank account is going to be hit again and soon ! Folks better start paying attention to what is going on in the Schools as well as the town side. Remember, schools have a separate Town Meeting....early in MARCH... that last year I understand approved a $17 million dollar budget...much bigger than the town budget.... in less that 9 minutes with zero questions. Still feeling good...???

And here I though we were overpaying for our town and schools... wow.

Here is the question, even if I attended the Town Meetings, would I be able to vote, as I am not a legal Resident of the town or the State for that Matter, only a land owner?

I think this is the rub for many of us....

For me it isn't really about the money, as much as it is about justifications behind the money.......

Correct, I do anticipate that that amount, is the amount going to the State and getting dispersed else where for "education funding"...

No, you can't vote. I've been in your boat for 23 years here, but now I can vote since I move up here full time and am a resident now. Like me before I became a resident, you chose to own here as a non-resident. It is what it is.

But you can go to the deliberative session and I THINK they will allow you to speak even though you can't vote.

Non-residents at Deliberative Session
 

Generally they will allow non-residents speak, particularly if they are taxpayers in town. The procedures might be slightly different from town to town, but it would be worthwhile to check the town ordinances to see if it requires petitioning the Town Moderator/Board of Selectmen in order to speak at Town Meeting. Or check with the Moderator and/or Selectmen.

Speaking from personal experience, I owned property in Alexandria and before I resided there I attended Town Meetings. Prior to the start of the meeting I requested - in writing - for permission to speak during the meeting to ask questions about a number of warrant articles. They never denied my request. Could be because I was a taxpayer in town.

Moultonboro has been doing an information session in the summer for non-voters for a while usually in July.

The "business section" of the town meeting in Moultonborough does usually allow anyone who asks, to speak. See Paul, the moderator.

Not to get too technical, but for the sake of which day, the town does not have a deliberative session. It is not an SB2 town. Deliberative sessions (SB2 towns and SB2 school districts) occur about 30 days before voting (yes, on the Tuesday ballot). Moultonborough is a traditional town meeting where the business session voting on warrant articles occurs after the Tuesday ballot vote, for electing officials and zoning ordinances., and only other items allowed on the ballot by statute.



https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/Doc...-Procedurespdf

You are right, I apologize, I forgot Moultonborough is not an SB2 town so doesn't have a deliberative session. But yes, whichever, as you said at the "business" discussion part of the meeting, people are usually allowed to speak. And if somebody is a taxpayer, I can't imagine a moderator not allowing them to speak.

Then you would be incorrect. No property tax is sent to the State for to be redistributed; that has been the case since 2011.

Then can you explain why the school portion of our tax bill is broken into two parts-state tax and local tax? I don't have a tax bill in front of me but I am pretty sure that is the cases.

Yet another Education hike!
 

Compelling LTE in LDS
 

There is a most interesting and compelling letter in today’s Laconia Daily Sun, written by one of our posters. The proposals being presented for renovations to Moultonborough’ schools are stunning, and will run in the $44 to $45 MILLION
taxpayer dollar range! Very few voters bother to show up for the March meeting when votes are cast regarding the school budget. The poster’s point is well taken: don’t complain about your taxes; SHOW UP and vote! Otherwise, the bloated school budget will be rubber stamped, as usual, and the insane spending will continue.

https://www.unionleader.com/news/cou...399970b34.html


https://www.laconiadailysun.com/opin...1ee7d7c90.html

Educational funding has been at the heart of many conversations around Property Taxes for years. Despite John Mercer's statement that Money from property Tax, doesn't go to the state I don't believe it. Otherwise why is there a State Education line item.

From the beginning when education funding became a poblem, band-aids are all that have ever been applied.... NH has never created a structure that will effectively ensure education is properly funded....

John, if you could provide some RSA number the show that your statement about no local funding going to the state for education, I would be more inclined to accept the statement.

Because the State uses it for accounting purposes.
Should a school district not raise enough from the State Ed Property Tax to cover the per pupil education grant number with modifiers from the State, the State sends money (usually collected from Business Taxes... but other non-dedicated sources can be used) to cover the difference.

The ConVal lawsuits, I put them together but they are separate, argue that the State education adequacy numbers do not cover the mandates as required; and the other argues that allowing the district to retain excess State Ed property tax is unconstitutional.

You will know when it changes... the State Ed rate will jump by an estimated three to four times the current amount, and your School rate will increase for the offset of what it does not get to retain.

It sounds like more of you need to pay attention to your taxes and what they are being used for.

That is the case... as explained above.

Each school district based on the number of pupils and specified modifiers in the law is to receive a State grant equal to that number. In a school where the State Ed rate raises enough, or more than enough, money... the school is sent no grant.
In a school where the State Ed rate does not raise enough money, the State sends a grant from other sources.

The State Ed grants are used to offset the Local School portion of the tax. In a school where the State Ed rate raises more than necessary... the money is retained and further offsets the Local School portion.

There is two ongoing lawsuits over the current method as the change in 2011 was found to be unconstitutional; and the current adequacy levels are being challenged as to whether they cover the mandates.

The State of NH lost the first round in both. The NHSC heard the case, but deferred it back to the lower court.

https://fairfundingnh.org/lawsuit-conval/

We are dancing around semantics here.... and accounting practices... bottom line is money does go to the state, and then is supposed to be funneled back to the town..... The thought is it never leaves the town, and on paper is drawn that way.... I will agree with that

However as I have been looking at the numbers for Moultonborough, I can see that there is more going to the state then needs to, because of where the state set the rate for Moultonborough... Now this is because the numbers are likely adjusted to account for a percentage of property Taxes not getting paid etc., in short accounting in the margins....

There is gray area between what you state/believe and reality, just like there is gray area between what I state/believe and reality....

I have been following the ups and downs of the Property Tax on my families property since we bought in 1994, I have never seen Property tax fluctuate Year to Year the way I see it happening in NH... At the end of the day, that is what speaks volumes to me... It isn't always about education, although that is what we have focused on here. There are many factors involved, NH has a cash cow, which is non-resident second home owners.... and they tap into it at will....
They have no reason to worry, because we desire to own our property and when we decided to no longer desire it, there are plenty of people waiting in the wings.... This has lead to poor money management....... I have lived in a variety of different places, and own property in a variety of different states.... Why is it Property Tax in NH is always a hot topic? IMHO, because NH needs to revamp properly many of their funding schemes, from infrastructure, to schools, to the government itself, etc.

I agree with you Lifer, it's semantics. If it goes to the state and the state decides where it goes, to me it is a state tax, and we around the lake are probably mostly still donor towns, although I don't know that.

There have not been donor towns since 2011.
I already told you that.

On November 20th, Judge David W. Ruoff in Steven Rand et al vs State of NH ruled the system that allowed State Ed taxes to be kept by the town.
It will now go to the NHSC and if upheld, donor towns will return to the mix.
The excess money collected will be sent to the State for redistribution.

He also has a ruling that the current State Ed Adequacy Grant is only about half of what it should be.
Because we are working to lower business taxes in the State to stay competitive with New York (Northeast Quad), and are dissolving the D&I, the most likely out come of the new funding requirement, should it hold up in the NHSC, is a instead of raising half of the money from SWEPT is to raise three quarters or more from SWEPT... thus increasing the State Ed rate by about three or four times.

I have been pointing this out for months.

NH is generally a conservative State - Yankee Frugal - it taxes consumption/recreation, but not production/savings.

I know you told us that. But when the state takes taxes from the town and funnels (LI's word) it back to other towns that didn't raise enough, I'm not sure there is a lot of difference, just in the name.

The money marked as the "state education" component of the property tax (SWEPT - StateWide Educational Property Tax), since 2011, stays with the town it is collected in. It is labeled "state" because the state REQUIRES that the town collects it. The state requires this because the state constitution requires that the state must provide for an adequate education (a continually debated amount). SWEPT discharges the state's responsibility.

When SWEPT was created, it was determined that $363 million annually would be needed to FUND "adequate" education. The state property tax assessed rate is set, based on total current state property values, to raise that $363 million, however, the money is NOT sent to the state. It remains in the town that collects it as the state's "contribution" to the town's needs for an adequate education.

Since 2011, IF the local SWEPT amount received exceeds the local school budget for the town (voted locally), the excess is KEPT by the town and can be used to defray other tax liabilities thereby lowering the other tax rate components.

To emphasize, NO money from SWEPT goes to the state. Since 2011, there are no longer any "donor" towns. Any addition aid assistance (food programs, etc.) is provided by the state from non property tax revenues (see below).

The Local Education Tax simply pays for any excess beyond the money provided by SWEPT as passed by the individual town in their school budget.

Beyond SWEPT and an adequate education, the schools also report additional AID required on a per student basis, such as supplemental meal assistance. The state assists (at a small proportional amount) with such costs by using money from other state sources of revenue, such as the Business Enterprise Tax. The remaining AID funding is provided through local school property taxes.

The demand for more money for education is unending, even in other states with income and sales taxes. It is hard to determine what benefit these states get for all their additional revenue dedicated to education as compared to New Hampshire. The forces for education spending are continually launching legal assaults on New Hampshire's limited funding methods to pry additional funds and additional revenue methods (income tax, sales tax) from NH citizens.

The dependance on property taxes creates stress on some property tax owners but the reality is that most owners of expensive, highly taxed properties can afford the tax. "Solutions" like income or sales taxes come with a plethora of ills, especially a revenue source that can be tweaked by the state to provide more money any time they want to spend on some idiotic venture to "buy" campaign funding from grateful businesses. Check Vermont, who went full boat into taxation to "relieve" property owners. They are much worse off for it, especially their citizens.

There is no utopian solution to paying taxes. All approaches have their down sides. As tough as property taxes can be for some, they are the best solution for local control and controlling spending.

State Education
 

JeffK is right about the education portion. The town collects the money.

The state should fund at least $7,356 per pupil – not the current $4,100 – the judge holds.

You will see this amount will almost double when the state implements the court ruling. I'm trying to find the article that states the amount per pupil average is around $13,000 statewide if you include administrative, property, and special education expenses.

And this debate will go on and on and on...................

NH Dept. of Education
Posted: January 06, 2023


https://www.education.nh.gov/news/ne...continues-rise

https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g...-2000-2022.pdf


Add more controversy

https://nhcharterschools.org/faq/

So we know M'boro spends way more per pupil than the state or the judge considers for adequate. M'boro is in the $40,000 + range per student. And last year the SWEPT was $1.22 per thousand from the state. The question is.....what will the tax rate impact be if M'boro has to return money to the state? Is it just that taxes would go up be $1.22 or is there some sort of fancy calculation that I cannot seem to find. HELP !!

the average per pupil expenditure of $19,399 across the state as per court.

https://www.nhbr.com/judge-nh-school...onstitutional/

First, with rough numbers, a recent report of student numbers is 501 and the school budget for 2022/23 was $15,541,613. This yields $31,021 per student, not $40,000+. Plus, I suspect this budget includes aid programs like free school lunches which is technically outside education funding.

"If M'boro needs to return money to the state"? This would only happen if the court cases were successful and, frankly, the contortions needed to address any new legal requirements are unknown and unknowable. It's legislative sausage making and who knows what will come out of the grinder. Also, it's a ways out in the future. The court cases will not be easily resolved and any resolution will be challenged to the State Supreme Court. Then, there will be some grace period to accomplish a change through the legislature. No matter what some judge would like, trying to immediately ram through any funding changes NOW would be a fiscal nightmare. The state Supreme Count would not let it happen so abruptly.

There is no "calculation" to find because, CURRENTLY, there is no mechanism for return of ANY SWEPT funds to the state. ALL SWEPT funds are retained by the town. Period.

Regardless of $31K or $40K per student funding calculation.... If the courts dictate that the State Governing body kick more into the towns, it would like be a give and take type issue.... While that State Fund line item would go up, the local portion could come down. I also wonder if that straight calculation isn't flawed when it comes to per student educational funding... As I agree that the school budget might be hard to interpret, because of funding for things like school lunches etc. and other "non" educational line items, some of which also get federal funding... I read the other day, that School Nurses don't fall under the envelope of being required for proper education...

Now with all that said.... we continue to go around and around on the education issue.... And the laws may not have donor towns any more, and I thank Jeff K. for his information on the subject... But if the State is not funding schools at an acceptable level, causing hard ships on the towns, that is just as bad.... and negatively effect our property Taxes.... Which leads me to the same ultimately conclusion, that financially the State of NH has funding problems that they are willing to pass the buck on. Towns like Moultonborough or any of the towns on the lake form what I have seen get a break, because of the seasonal home ownership that can help offset the expenditures, and don't drive additional costs....

If the State would start to better understand its strength and weakness in terms of revenue generation, the system could likely be made a whole lot better....

With all this money per pupil given to each city and town what is the number that parents can hold schools accountable for the poor numbers the state receives for public education?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

It amazes me how people don't feel responsible for funding a quality education for their children and grandchildren. Give a child a fish feed him for the day, teach him to fish and feed him for life.