“Shall the [name of municipality] limit property tax growth for [name(s) of school district(s)] under RSA 32:5-i. If adopted for a two-year period: (1) the local property tax levy may not grow beyond the prior year’s amount, adjusted for inflation and new construction; (2) SAU central office spending may not exceed 6 percent of total school district appropriations; and (3) bonded capital costs are excluded from both limits. These caps apply only to administrative operations of the SAU central office and do not affect classroom instruction, school-based services, or other municipal expenditures. These limits may be overridden as provided in RSA 32:5-i. Adoption requires a three-fifths (3/5) majority vote.”

In their ongoing crusade to dismantle our public schools, Free State Republicans have withheld state funding. (Instead they've given vouchers for private education and tax breaks to wealthy individuals and corporations.) NH is last in the nation in the share of state funds it commits to education. This means that every year the burden falls more heavily on local property taxpayers.  

GOP leaders blame schools for spending too much, when the real problem is that the state spends too little.  HB 1300 would harm schools further by imposing a statewide limit on school budgets, forcing cuts at the local level.  There is no way to predict the impact those cuts would have on classrooms and school services. 

1. It's not really because school boards are on a spending spree. Since 2007, the state's share of paying for public education here has dropped from about 35% to under 26%. That's not a typo — the state used to cover more than a third of the bill and now covers about a quarter. Guess who picked up the difference? Local property taxes, which have climbed from 54% to over 63% of school funding over that same stretch. Special ed is even worse — local property taxpayers are covering over 83% of those costs even though the state is legally supposed to be funding that.
2. So when this cap says the local levy can only grow with inflation and new construction, here's the part nobody's saying out loud: it doesn't account for the state cutting its share again. And the state has been doing exactly that — a program that used to cushion towns from losing aid (Hold Harmless) is being phased out right now, and 145 towns already saw less state money this year alone. If that keeps happening while our local levy is frozen, the money has to come from somewhere, and "somewhere" means cutting staff, programs, or services — because we legally won't be able to raise the local match to cover it without another supermajority vote.
3. A couple more things worth knowing before you vote:
4. * This isn't the old town-meeting tax cap process where you can vote to undo it later if it's not working. Once this passes, it appears to lock in for two full years with no off-ramp.

* It bypasses the existing local process entirely — a process only 2 out of 162 districts in the whole state have ever successfully used — and puts a state-written question on every single ballot instead, whether your town asked for it or not.

*One of the bill's own sponsors has said part of the point was to drive turnout for the general election. This isn't the neutral, apolitical "let's all agree taxes shouldn't rise too fast" question it's being sold as.

I'm not telling anyone how to vote. I just think if you're going to vote on this, you should know it's really a vote about whether Concord gets to keep cutting its share and handing us the bill — not just about whether your local school board can be trusted with money.” Steven J Snelling

He isn’t telling you how to vote, but I’m asking you to vote “no.”

We would like to show your neighbors that voting NO on November 3rd is a vote for sensible public education.

Pick yours up at 14 Johnston Drive in Enfield or call 603/448-1119 to get a sign delivered to your home.