Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is about the funding formula and method for taxpayers to cover the cost of education - not the cost of education itself. The state has backed itself into a corner and something is going to give.
One estimate and proposal I have seen to fairly share the cost of the program among all taxpayers (since it is a state program -- and to keep it in it's current form - same extremely low CU valuations resulting to lower taxes for some property owners) - it would add an additional .77 to your tax rate regardless of what town you live in - even if there is very little property in current use in that town (like Nashua). If you have a home that is assessed at 300k - that is an additional $231.00 to your tax bill in a city like Nashua.
So in rural municipalities where most of the CU land is, the local property tax would go down far greater than the new $.77 state tax for a net reduction in taxes. On the other hand, Municipalities that do not have much CU land (costing them pennies on the dollar today), would see an increase by as much as the full $.77.
Last edited by illtaketwoplease; 06-05-2020 at 01:31 PM..
This is about the funding formula and method for taxpayers to cover the cost of education - not the cost of education itself. The state has backed itself into a corner and something is going to give.
One estimate and proposal I have seen to fairly share the cost of the program among all taxpayers (since it is a state program -- and to keep it in it's current form - same extremely low CU valuations resulting to lower taxes for some property owners) - it would add an additional .77 to your tax rate regardless of what town you live in - even if there is very little property in current use in that town (like Nashua). If you have a home that is assessed at 300k - that is an additional $231.00 to your tax bill in a city like Nashua.
So in rural municipalities where most of the CU land is, the local property tax would go down far greater than the new $.77 state tax for a net reduction in taxes. On the other hand, Municipalities that do not have much CU land (costing them pennies on the dollar today), would see an increase by as much as the full $.77.
I don't quite understand this. If this proposal adds .77 to my tax rate, then how do my taxes go down at all? Or are you saying CU owners won't receive their current tax break? Give us a couple of examples, urban vs rural...
Nashua taxes (tax base $9.9B)
Municipal........8.68
County...........1.15
State Ed.........2.13
Local Ed.........9.80
Total............21.76
Grafton taxes (tax base $113M)
Municipal........8.11
County..........1.93
State Ed.........2.08
Local Ed........19.65
Total.............31.77
I will try to get you that info... might take a bit. Suffice it to say that rural towns with a lot of land in CU will see their tax bills go down (because they will receive money from the state to offset their lost revenue) - and cities that don't now share the cost will pay more (taxes up).
Here is what the School funding petitioners are asking for - nearly tripling the state funding for education per pupil. The court, or a legislative committee, will have to determine the actual amount set -- if the state loses it's appeal of the lawsuit.
Quote:
According to the Petitioners, the actual cost of an education—based on Department of Education data—is approximately $18,901 per student. In this case, the Petitioners are asking the Court to set the base adequacy amount at $9,929 per student for fiscal year 2020 and $10,843.60 for 2019. RSA 198:40-a,II(a) sets the current base adequacy aid award for all schools at $3,562.71 per student, based on a formula determined by a legislative committee in 2008. The parties agree that not a single school in the State of New Hampshire could or does function at $3,562.71 per student
I still don't see how that's going to lower my tax bill. My state educ contribution will increase by nearly $1000, and unless the school district reduces its rate by the same amount, I'll be paying more. Show me one entity that's subsidized by taxes that ever voluntarily reduces their request for money.
My understanding of the school funding lawsuit appeal -- is that various school boards want the court to set a new base rate of funding - while the state wants legislators to set the rate. How they fund the new rate is up in the air and it could be through a combination of fee increases or new taxes - or an increase in the state tax rate across the state. Some towns will likely see an increase in their school tax contributions to offset other towns who are financially overburdened due to disparities in property values. But that is just a guess at this point and people should do their own research and talk to their state reps.
We can't afford to subsidize large property owners anymore.
But those with large undeveloped acreage cost towns much much less in infrastructure costs, and much less than a family on two acres of land with two school-aged children. Adding houses and rental units cost towns a lot of money, lands in CU don't.
Newmarket's property taxes are low because of the income stream from the shopping malls. But NH can't support shopping malls in every town. And with the death of retail due to Amazon, who knows what will happen to Newmarket in the long run. But the area also has large office and manufacturing business spaces also because of their easy access to I-95.
I’ll admit I am newer but looking at potentially buying in New Hampshire and so I am trying to follow the school lawsuit tax implications and understand them better as obviously I wouldn’t want to buy then have my property tax significantly increase. Obviously parents wouldn’t support it but why can’t we just do better to consolidate schools? I’d say maybe even a minimal use tax but it’s probably not legal to tax people using schools more. I understand the importance, at the same time when they are so out of balance with funding it seems to be too much of a burden. Consolidation would be best it seems for some areas but that probably has to be agreed to on local levels. Thoughts? I like where I live but I would probably not want to live here if the property tax increased 40% as an example especially when I don’t even have kids using those services.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
