Local control means “no” counts
This November, Greenville voters will be asked whether to cap local school property taxes. We voted on a school spending cap article in March and rejected it, 136 to 87.
Under HB 1300, the state requires towns to put the question on the ballot this year and in 2028. If we vote no, we get asked again. If we vote yes, it’s binding. When only one answer sticks, that isn’t local control.
Supporters say this puts taxpayers in charge. But the state wrote the terms: the inflation-plus-new-construction formula, the 6% limit on SAU spending, the 60% threshold. HB 564 goes further and dictates where the SAU article sits on our warrant. Compare that to 2024, when residents petitioned for a cap, argued over it at deliberative session, and tried to amend it. That was local control.
The state should focus on paying its own share. The NH Supreme Court has already ruled in the ConVal case that the state is falling short of its constitutional duty to fund an adequate education and leans too hard on local property taxes. Mascenic is entering its third straight year on a default budget. Capping what we can raise while the state’s share is unsettled pushes more of the burden onto districts like ours.
Superintendent Pogorzelski says districts still can’t get clear answers on basics like whether capital reserve deposits count toward the cap. We’ll build next year’s budget before we know if it applies, and reduced special education aid alone could push us past the inflation limit.
Whatever you think of tax caps, this isn’t how it should be decided. Vote how you see fit, but ask Concord why we have to answer the same question twice, and why it isn’t paying its share first.