Moultonborough Taxes
 

So today in the mail I got the Real estate bill for the second half of 2023.... putting both payments together my Tax has gone up about 1700$ over last year.... I am wondering if others are seeing such an increase

The tax rate is still low in fact I believe it to be slightly lower or the same as last year, so the increase is completely do to the new inflated Tax Valuation, that were processed this year.

With that said, has town spending really increased that much?
Or is this more about trying to force long time seasonal and full time residents out, to push more initiatives to modernize the area....

Don't get me wrong I am not grumpy, and will pay the additional amount.... but much like has happened before, are we seeing a sharp increase because people aren't getting the desired results for the initiative they want to push...

Taxes don't increase unless town meeting or state politicians vote to increase them. Valuations can result in small increases or decreases due to the reapportionment of burden that comes naturally with valuation changes. In other words, waterfront may appreciate quicker than mainland property resulting in a hike. But $1,700 sounds excessive for that. I'm not completely tuned into the politics of taxes here, hopefully someone more knowledgeable of where the increase came from will tell us.

So I did the math, the increase is completely from the hike in property value... Which town wide seem to go up this year in a exponential fashion...

If the town was hurting for money, I would and could understand this.... but Moultonborough is pretty well off as far as funding goes...

Do they have any future big projects in the pipeline? Maybe they are planning some major projects.

According to the newsletter that came with my M'boro tax bill, "The results of the 2023 revaluation indicate an approximate overall increase of 15.8% in the town-wide value." From the valuation numbers shown on my bills due July and December, my valuation went up 15.2%. This suggests that, without any change in budgeted town expenditures, my share of the total tax burden would change very little. However, when I look at the tax rate per $1000 numbers, the bill due in July is based on an annual tax rate of $4.78/1000, while the bill due next month is based on an annual tax rate of $5.70.

Here is the breakdown of the rates:
Rate/1000 July % of total December % of total
Municipal 0.63 26.36 1.86 32.63
Local School 0.88 36.82 1.77 31.05
State Edu. 0.48 20.08 1.19 20.88
County 0.40 16.74 0.88 15.44
Total 2.39 5.70


[someone please tell me how to get columns of such numbers to line up visually - I tried everything!]


So the distribution of the various parts of the total rates varied a bit, notably from school to municipal, but I don't know why, if the budgets weren't changed. But the annualized tax rate went from 4.78 (twice the 2.39) to 5.70, an increase of 19.2%, along with the valuation increase of over 15%. That seems like "double-dipping" to me. As a result, my annualized tax bill has gone up 37%, and I'd like to know why. Normally, without any increase in town budget, the seemingly high jump in valuation is simply offset by a lowered tax rate, so that the actual increase in annual tax reflects the change in total budget times the new individual share of the burden.

The alignment throws me off a bit, but it looks like the municipal rate jumped from .63 to 1.86

The school rate also went from .88 to 1.77

It is plausible that some other funding source - State or Federal declined so the budgets may have moved very little, but with the other source of revenue gone... the revenue requirements had to be made up by the property tax.

Those rates for the July bill are for half a year; double them to compare with the rates for the December bill. So that 0.63 becomes 1.26 to compare with 1.86 on the new bill. And as I noted, I tried everything I could, with fonts, etc, to get the columns of numbers to line up when posted. No matter how I juggled things, with strings of spaces, fonts, etc., when I hit "Submit" or "Preview Post,", the displayed form condenses out the spacing.

Outrageous
 

:fire:

Any rate the previous posters have suggested is outrageous! The waterfront properties have gone up in value but so has the other properties. I can’t access my tax bill online but if these rates are true, I think the town wants everyone to sell their homes to the super rich because they won’t care how much they pay in taxes.

Recreation Complex. With indoor and outdoor swimming pool. Indoor and outdoor tracks. All with a small room dedicated to the elderly - so it can be marketed as a senior center.

i had a big increase also. Usually for me the second half is much closer to first half this time the second half was 75% higher. So in May will the first half for next year be equal to the second have number if so yikes

omg the HUBBERs will be back

So for those of you who want to get into the real details, following are my calculations for what changed:

First, the tax rate for last year was $4.78. To understand the numbers, you first have to recalculate that number using the NEW assessed valuation. That said, had the assessed valuations been know, the rate for last year would have been $4.14. This is key to now understand what changed to get to $5.70. The increase of $1.56 is caused by the following:

1. Last year there was a very large amount of town unassigned cash thrown back to offset the tax rate. It was made up of two things...$700,000 from a year earlier that the Board of Selectmen held back from refunding the money to taxpayers in hopes that town meeting would stuff it away to help a community center. That motion failed at town meeting, so there was that extra $700K to give back to taxpayers. Secondly, the town had just shifted from an 18 month budget to a 12 month budget. During that process, the budget for the 18 month process was knowingly set high to be sure there was enough money to cover the 18 months. With sound management of the town coffers, the town under-ran the budget by $2 million dollars. So last year there was a total $2.7 million throwback to help the tax rate. Unfortunately, this was a one time occurrence and did not recur this year. So the tax rate actually went up by $.47 just for this item. Some could argue the town could have held back some of that refund and used it to offset expenses in the future. However, it is really excess tax money that should go back to the taxpayer and let future cost items stand on their own for justification in the tax rate. A very theoretical argument but I think it makes sense to return what was asked for if they asked for too much. Kind of pay as you go.
2. Town revenues from all sources (lower than last fiscal year) increased the rate by $.10
3. Budgeted expenditures increased overall across schools ($.25), town ($.21), county ($.19) and the state school rate ($.35) all increased by a total of $.99 (rounding). The state was higher because a favorable credit in last year did not repeat, the county was higher because they had the same issue as the town with no longer a large unassigned cash account to throw back to towns, and the schools were higher due to added costs and less one time grants.

So the math is a start rate of $4.14 plus $.47 for the unassigned fund balance decrease, $.10 for less revenue, and $.99 for more expenses you get the $5.70 rate

Bottom line...make sure you go to town meeting and schools town meetings to. be sure you agree with all the cost being proposed, because it all ends up in your tax rate.

The prior analysis is from my records and may not be what town officials say.

Yes, the spring bill is always an estimate which is half of your December bill. The state doesn't set the tax rate until late fall so they don't know in the spring what your bill is going to be.

Just checked mine and I am up about 35 percent over last year. Not sure how they justify that.

it goes to show a million here a million there it adds up to real money.

When is enough, enough? Municipalities establish a percentage mil rate that they use to assess property. Depending on where property valuations are the town moves the mill rate up or down. Of course, they balance that against the recent sales values in our neighborhoods. That process seems reasonable however the majority of property owners just want to use their property. We generally don’t buy and sell every year.

The old way of collecting property taxes is outdated. There should be a rate that allows municipalities to collect a higher tax value on resale property. Properties that are dormant could occur smaller increases. It is always an interesting topic when people think your wealthy because your property appreciates. Yes, it does feel good however the majority of us are property poor. Maintenance and taxes continue to rise. We benefit on the sale.

Some states are taxing property when a sale exceeds a dollar value. They are using these funds to assist the homeless. Maybe that tax should just go back to the town.

Just my thoughts. I really don’t like any new taxes. I have always believed that municipalities are poorly managed.

No municipalities do not establish a percentage mil rate to assess properties.
No the town does not move the rate up or down.

Management of the municipalities - i.e. budgets - are a function of the residents. For towns, this is a direct vote on the budgets. For cities, it is a representative format whereas the residents can change direction very quickly if they choose to.

We residents set the budgets directly/indirectly. The assessors set the value of each property. There are checks and balances for both. And the State sets the mil rate.

Some States have used a ''homestead'' exemption; but those would just shift taxes from resident-owned primary properties onto others.

And the State of NH has a Real Estate Transfer Tax that covers ever dollar... not just the sale of high end property.

Thanks for the notes, at the end of the day we are looking at a 38% increase in tax revenue..... if I take out the $0.47 unassigned adder we still see a 26% increase.......

Some how the NH way just isn't working if there needs to be a year to year increase of this much...... I have lived many places and only once before have I seen a property taxes increase year over year like this.... And oh wait a minute the previous experience was also in NH......

I have always wondered if the towns keep on spending if there will become a point where people will sell believing that for the few months they use their lake home they just don't want to pay those kind of taxes-whether they can well afford to pay or not. It just might not make sense to a lot of people at some point.

Response to TIS
 

Tis, thank you, your suggestion certainly creates significant thought.

I believe most residents (seasonal/permanent) were caught off-guard by the astronomical % tax increase; our taxes went up 46%. With inflation forcing costs up on everything, geo-political issues, a government in disarray, a wide open board, fentanyl epidemic, and wages not keeping up with previous stated inflation, there can be no doubt this ridiculous tax bill will force many to reconsider the risk/reward of ownership.

Unfortunately, the previous tax bill created a sense the euphoria would continue...."Surprise, Surprise, Surprise" Gomer Pyle USMC.

This is a great explanation of the budget side of things.

But much of this increase is not due to local issues and not subject to local control. People are upset that expenses are not being controlled locally but out of control Federal spending has driven equally out of control inflation over the last couple years. That has driven labor costs and material costs up. It takes time for these costs to ripple through the system and HERE THEY NOW ARE.

Sure you could go to a meeting and vote down the school increases but that simply places the town in an uncompetitive position compared to other districts who recognize the realities of the economy and raise salaries. It would also force delays in needed physical plant repairs and maintenance and THAT always is bad.

Further, while the town recognizes a increase in property valuation, it is not distributed equally. Lake property values have exploded and off lake property not nearly as much. This shifts more of the tax burden to lake property owners. You can complain about it but the origin of the current system is the thought that someone who owns an expensive house can better afford to pay more taxes than someone who has a cheaper house, which is USUALLY TRUE. Suggestions that people that HOLD property should be shielded from tax increases and the burden shifted to people who BUY expensive properties has been tried in California. It was a disaster. Since the people that HOLD property (the majority of people) are protected they felt free to vote costly increases in. The cost of property AND the taxes on the new owners soared and made it impossible to find reasonably priced housing.

There is also talk about sales taxes and income taxes to "balance" things out. However, that just explodes spending as the state finds itself with a money spigot that they can hand out. Overall, the total NH tax burden is VERY low AND the spending, as much as it can be, is controlled locally, where voters have the most voice and influence.

If you really want to have a long term impact on costs, vote people into the federal government who don't think it is OK to spend more than the government takes in in taxes. THAT is the cause of inflation AND is a significant contributor to the increase in local budgets.

Though my tax bill is very small compared to most here, I was also surprised at its increase.

That being said, costs have gone up on everything the last couple years, so it makes sense that spending and taxes would as well.

I guess I'm mostly weirded out by how it happened—with a really low rate for two bills and not much communication about whether that was real or not.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Don't be weirded out by it, it is the New Hampshire way. When the state runs out of funding they know where they can get more money and they always do. The way the state funds education is at the top of the list for Horrible ideas. While great in theory to take from wealthier communities and give to poorer ones, the issue is that the monies aren't tied to education...

I am also concerned at all the work being done on the highways in NH, and the fact that the state hasn't come around to the convention of exit numbers being associated with mile marker numbers, as all other states of done.. This was a mandate and likely means money to keep up the interstate system in NH from the federal government is not happening.

At the end of the day, I was not surprised to see an increase.... I knew last year was to good to be true. It is the amount of increase that I am seeing that is alarming. I have seen this before, and for similar reasons the state got themselves into a funding pickle, and hiked everyones property tax to get through it. Then slowly the tax bills decreased to get people over it. We will likely see the same thing here again.

NH's tax scheme continues to run amuck....

Saw last nights Moultonborough School Board meeting where they are advocating for some $23 MILLION of capital improvements to both school buildings that was just recently disclosed a few weeks ago. SURPRISE!!!! This is 44% more cost than what was proposed for the Community Center last year. They want to put it on the warrant for the upcoming School Meeting in March. For those who are concerned with property taxes, you need to pay attention to what is going on, as this may well hit tax bills over the next 20 years.

and the number of students keeps dropping. maybe time to merger with interlakes for high school

The federal budget can not be cut... so that would mean higher taxes.
The loss of the one time grants is most likely the end of a federal spending program... other cuts would impact the State budget directly, and result in the transfer of higher costs locally.

The labor issue was forecast for us by Ronald Reagan. The fact that people either didn't pay attention in school, or thought that day would never come, well, we are here.

NH made it worse by promoting the aging of the State.

The fix is an influx of younger workers... something that we don't have the option on.

So something that causes seniors to give up their homes, is the market solution. It isn't soft and friendly, but the markets never are.

The State doesn't take from wealthier communities and give it to the poorer ones. No shifting of the State Education Tax has occurred since 2011.

Also, the State didn't hike your property tax.

real reason for huge increase vs last year was the use of two large one-time credits last year . compared to 2022 my increased taxes were about 20% so large but being on the water my assessments went up big time

To look past the credits that caused last years rates to be below normal, maybe a look back.

But I don't think there is any escaping the the Lakes Region is a high demand area for many retirees to at least own a summer home in.

5.50 is the second lowest tax rate in 35 years, last year's 4.78 the lowest, with probably the highest assessments ever. A million$ + was returned to the taxpayers lowering that rate last year.

Year total Muni. County State Ed. Local ed.
2023 $5.70 $1.86 $0.88 $1.19 $1.77
2022 $4.78 $1.25 $0.80 $0.97 $1.76
2021 $6.98 $2.33 $1.01 $1.67 $1.97
2020 $7.13 $2.11 $1.15 $1.78 $2.09
2019 $7.15 $2.18 $1.10 $1.96 $1.91
2018 $7.72 $2.44 $1.23 $2.10 $1.95
2017 $8.22 $2.46 $1.35 $2.29 $2.12
2016 $8.74 $2.77 $1.43 $2.28 $2.26
2015 $9.01 $2.85 $1.42 $2.54 $2.20
2014 $8.86 $2.85 $1.22 $2.53 $2.26
2013 $8.69 $2.77 $1.13 $2.66 $2.13
2012 $8.56 $2.73 $1.11 $2.52 $2.20
2011 $8.33 $2.77 $1.06 $1.97 $2.53
2010 $8.12 $2.63 $1.05 $2.32 $2.12
2009 $7.70 $2.22 $1.03 $2.31 $2.14
2008 $7.66 $2.32 $0.97 $2.21 $2.16
2007 $6.99 $2.07 $0.79 $2.01 $2.12
2006 $6.71 $1.89 $0.75 $2.34 $1.73
2005 $6.79 $2.05 $0.77 $2.58 $1.39
2004 $7.99 $1.66 $0.78 $2.87 $2.68
2003 $12.18 $2.35 $1.14 $5.15 $3.54
2002 $12.11 $2.33 $0.89 $5.55 $3.34
2001 $10.06 $1.99 $0.74 $4.63 $2.70
2000 $9.55 $1.89 $0.61 $4.69 $2.36
1999 $14.58 $2.72 $0.92 $3.80 $7.14
1998 $10.24 $2.92 $0.94 $6.38
1997 $9.69 $2.66 $0.94 $6.09
1996 $9.24 $2.57 $0.90 $5.77
1995 $10.80 $3.20 $0.98 $6.62
1994 $10.56 $3.14 $0.99 $6.43
1993 $10.24 $3.14 $0.98 $6.12
1992 $9.70 $2.64 $1.06 $6.00
1991 $9.37 $2.75 $0.91 $5.71
1990 $9.67 $2.91 $0.91 $5.85
1989 $8.61 $2.56 $0.87 $5.18


https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/Doc...x-Rate-History

That's pretty much meaningless. A better list would be the total amount collected for each of those categories for each of those years.

I think it clearly shows what tummyman pointed out.
Last year was an unusual year with offsets that created a false low in the tax rate.

The amount raised for each category would also be wonky due to the offsets being present over time.

Each time the State or federal government supplied funds to a specific category, the amount need to be raised in property taxes in that category would be lower.

The specific budgets would be more accurate... but since those would be a decision of the residents of the town, no real blame outside of their choices could be inferred.

Now that is meaningless ... and that's being kind!

Taxes aren't paid by each category. Do you make four payments for one tax bill?

Those numbers were used at the recent selectboard meeting where the 5.70 tax rate was approved. The unassigned balance was being discussed. The town administrator showed 13.1% and we debated with two selectboard members that it was a good decision to give back $million+ to the taxpayers, last year. The same two selectboard members had wanted to save it for "The Hub".


https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/Doc...nce-PDF?bidId=

Now, I'm surprised nobody picked the typo of 5.50 instead of 5.70
With all the whining about how the tax rate is too high. The taxes rates are not too high ... look at your assessments. The taxes are higher, but not due mainly to the tax rate.


Town meetings don't vote on taxes. They vote on expenditures. The tax rate is set by the NH DRA in the Fall.

https://support.axiomnh.com/support/...tting-process-

What am I missing? The Gilford tax rate in 2022 was $12.25; haven't seen the 2023 bill yet, but waterfront values must be similar to Moultonborough. In many other towns the rate is any where from $14 to $22. A few years ago, a realtor pointed out to me that we had only 1 $1MM dollar home in town. The town next to us had 51 and Moultonborough had 286. There's a lot more that goes into the tax base/total assessed valuation, but it doesn't appear to me that Moultonborough taxpayers have much to complain about. A $1MM house in Gilford pays more than twice what a Moultonborough homeowner pays, but they're not complaining because they believe they're getting value for their dollar, I think. If you're not getting value for your dollar, go to Budget meetings, start a FB group, go to the deliberative session, run for office, etc. etc. Stop whining and crying.

Look at different town rates here:

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...-tax-rates.htm

It's meaningless. What counts is the amount of money voted at town meeting, yes, expenditures, that are funded by tax dollars. Then you have the state expenditures, also voted on by reps and senators, added to the bill, all paid for by taxes plus some fees. Those appropriations, or voted expenditures, are used to set the tax rate. The tax rate is just a number, calculated to raise the money that is to be spent that year.

The information needed to figure out what caused this is available, you just need to look for it, it would be nice if the town and state put it in an easily digestible format..... but that would kill the incorrect assumption that property tax increases are caused by rising property values, the assumption that politicians, at least the ones who understand it, love, because it lets them off the hook.

Were that assumption (taxes rise because of valuation increases) true, in down years, when valuations slacken, taxes would decrease. That doesn't happen. Instead the tax rate would be increased to cover what was appropriated and eventually spent. If the appropriation were increased by the respective votes, taxes would still increase in a year, or period valuations decreased.

The answer is in the spending, not the tax rate. It's pretty simple, but many people are fooled.

I think you mean the county. The county would be representatives in that county.

The State education portion of the bill is not collected and redistributed... it just offsets what your school tax would actually be.

The State, or even the federal government, may choose not to make a discretionary grant to the town. But that effect can actually be measured.

That would be State senators, the Governor, Congress or the President stopping the flow of those revenues.

The town receives - and this is not an inclusive list - a portion of State gas taxes, Meals & Rentals, and BPT/BET (should they get educational grants or have individual students using EFA or charter schools).

Other than the push/pull of having a high year then offset of a low year that created a false marker... I think as tummyman pointed out, it really is more of the movement of value toward the water.
Every property may be going up in value, but those are going up faster.

I have a lot of job sites that I am supplying some very high end materials to, and they are all near the water.

Valuation
 

John is right. My condo may not be on the lake but I have deeded right to lake access. Tax valuation is based on nearby property sold. I bought my property in 2007 for 98K. My goal is to retire here. Now tax evaluation is $400K! My taxes did not increase fourfold but it more than doubled.

A friend of mine lives near town. In 2009 he paid 85K for his home. He does not have access to the lake but uses the town beach. His valuation today is only 149K. He sees his tax decrease. He's in a better position to retire!

There must be a better way to tax assessment. Perhaps square footage and acreage???

as a builder in this area you dont need to use fancy words or numbers. the population has exploded and all the poison is moving into this area and has been for several years. the municipalities will need to be be increased to support fire, first responders etc. this is reality folks Moultonboro has turned into a small Boston Suburb. enjoy.

Assessment's are based on market values, no matter whom your town utilizes or contracts to determine those values.

Assessments x tax rate = Tax

Should be easy to understand.

Tax rates do go up and down. Take another look at the 35 year MoBo history. Facts, not opinion.

NH DRA sets the tax rate. The town voters set the appropriations.

The MoBo history included, has the 35 year relevant history for all 4 elements of the tax rate:

Municipal + County + State Ed. + Local Ed. = total tax rate


Shouldn't be that difficult to comprehend.

Some of us attended a Moultonborough school board meeting Tuesday. The meeting was different than usual because it was requested to have the school board, selectboard, Capital Improvements Program Committee, Advisory Budget Committee get together to discuss the school board's activity to renovate the schools .... out of the blue. They hired a consultant to tell them what is wrong with the school buildings. They're kicking around a number of $44-$45 million. The school has a declining student population; around 480 "kids" k-12 presently. The buildings, a couple of them, are 20 and 40 years old, I think.

The school board has no clue on a plan. The school board is a separate legal governing body, with it own Wishlist of expenditure's.

You MoBo residents need to plan on attending the annual school district meeting and vote on the warrant articles the school board will submit. That annual meeting is in March. The town annual meeting is in May.

The annual school district meeting had about 70 of us that bothered to attend. It lasted all of 8:58 minutes for a $17 million dollar budget! It's on youtube. The town meeting meeting had to be re-scheduled because too many voters showed up to vote on The Hub. The town budget was $10 million.

You'll note that local ed. is part of the tax rate, although the annual town meeting doesn't vote on those expenditures ... the annual school meeting voters do. Yes, the same potential voters but voters that attend the school meeting have been under the radar.

Why are people "entitled" to a house on the lake or a house with lake access?

I bought a Moultonborough lake house in 1994 and I knew the tax structure then (it had already worked the way it does for quite a while). I knew that waterfront property would escalate in value and shift ever more tax proportionately to me. I planned to retire to the lake but my personal situation changed and I couldn't afford the lake house in retirement. I sold it, got a nice chunk of change for my retirement, and now live in a nice house (not on the lake) in Center Harbor. It quite nicely fits my retirement budget and, as observed, my taxes are much more stable and affordable. Friends of ours did the same thing and have been very happy in their non lake house with affordable taxes in Meredith for many years.

Why should lake owners be entitled to shift the taxes to other people so that they can keep their preferable house? Should the rest of the taxpayers be required to set aside some cash to allow lakefront owners to buy a Mercedes because that's more preferable than a Toyota?

The present property tax structure is reality and is unlikely to change. The state would have to decide that "helping" a small number of advantaged property owners and shifting the tax burden to non advantaged property owners would be workable. Since there are a LOT more NON advantaged property owners AND voters than advantaged owners, it would NOT be politically smart to consider this.

Confront the reality of the tax situation and do what you have to to fit your personal situation.

I have no problem with fire, police etc. What I have a problem with is all the frilly things that IMHO should not be part of a town budget. But everybody has their favorite little project and that's how it builds. And I think the schools are out of control. It's probably a lot because of government regulations but we have more administration in schools than we do teachers. We spend more than ever on schools and education is not better.

I bet most of the times the rate went down is when the assessment went up. I would like to know if it ever went down when assessment DIDN'T go up. Also when assessed higher and the rate goes down it just gives them a chance to gradually each year go up and up and still brag that they have a low rate.

This is exactly what I worry about, that eventually many will decide they can't or won't pay the taxes any more so will sell. Then what will the towns do?

I agree, but I do think long time residential owners should get some kind of tax reduction.
People that have owned waterfront property for many years shouldn't be forced to sell because they can no longer afford the taxes, no matter how much their property has increased in value.
In my hometown in Ma, because we have so many rental properties, residential owners who live full time in their properties get a 20% reduction on their property taxes. If you have a multifamily and you live in one unit you get a discount on that portion of the property.

Personally, I've never been a lakefront owner; lake access yes, on Longisland. Bought the property in1974, built a house, sold it five years ago; neighborhood went to hell. I should change my handle from Longislander to Moultonboro Necker. Prefer to look at the ever changing view of the mountains, especially Mt. Washington than the lake.

I don't begrudge lakefront owners. Their choice.

Moultonborough, according to gov't census, has around 5,000 residents' about 1,000 increase from the 2010 to 2020 census. What the censuses don't show is the summer influx of second homeowners and renters. The town blooms, like cyanobacteria, to 25,000-40,000 folks, mainly out-of-staters.

Happy to see the out-of-state plates. They cannot legally vote, but help the local economy.

I appreciate this list.... but as indicated it is really meaningless other then showing the tax rate over the last several years..... you need to know when valuation changed, and also what the town collected in taxes total on a yearly basis to make some meaning out of all of it....

I have not problem with the Tax Rate itself.....However its increase with the Re-assement increase, is a combination that leaves my stomach sour..... I will again use my situation as an example.

My old valuation and the new tax rate:
~750K x 5.70 per thousand = ~4.2K
This would have been 300$ above my 2022 total tax and inline with my 2019 and 2020 taxes

the extra ~300K I was just assessed for added
~300K x 5.7 per thousand = ~1,710

Now you can talk about inflation etc. and give back in 2022 etc.... but 1710$ increase in taxes just doesn't added up.....

Now add fuel to this agrument, taxes in 2021 where the highest I have record of at ~5.2K, this years total tax at ~5.9K is still a 13% increase... which is still an incredible increase......

Once again I stick to the NH way is not a sound way..... I have never seen year over year property tax swings like I have seen in NH...

You are correct! Our taxes in this town are ridiculously low.

That's because there have not been those kind of swings in assessments due to the swings in market values.

You are also correct. The tax rates being low but assessments being higher than ever.

The "list" is relevant in exposing the fallacy that tax rates are too high.



If you have been a taxpayer since 2006 on Longisland, regardless of lakefront, just review your own assessment. The other property assessments are their assessments.

Just go to the town website, to the tax/gis maps, if you haven't already, and the property card gives you the last three years assessment/tax for both property and buildings. You can see there the upswing, alone, never mind prior. Maybe you can get some meaning from numbers.


https://www.axisgis.com/moultonboroughNH/

For those of you that are not MoBo'ers just "search" any address, last name etc. Smith ... Jones etc.

Go to "Documents and Links', and then "property card". On the right side you see the last three years of assessment and taxes.

Better yet, for you lakefront folks, when the map comes up don't bother with "search" just zoom-in on a lakefront property, click on it, and then go to the property card.

Ok, apparently this is difficult to understand. How is the tax rate calculated, what determines how much tax is collected? Let's start with the town and then work our way up the chain.

The towns are required to submit to the NH DRA many forms, with data before tax rates are approved.

Then, Tax rates ... by the NH DRA ... then ....

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...ation-data.pdf

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...-tax-rates.htm

I'm heading out the door to Wolfeboro, but will take a look back at the forum later this evening, if we can chat some more.

Tax the people that buy them.
For a property to be sold, there must be a buyer.

Each category has a budget that is enacted. The category also has offsets - other revenue (grants/etc). The DRA takes the budget minuses the offsets and that supplies them with what must be raised by the property tax.

That amount is then divided the total property tax within the district (gets a little more complex with multi-district schools due to agreed upon funding formulas).

So if the town needs to raise $50M per budget, but has offsets of $5M, then the property tax must raise $45M. The DRA takes the $45M and divides it by total property valuation within the town. That sets the municipal rate.

The DRA continues down the line until each category rate is set. The category rates added together is the total rate that we are looking at.

The total rate is multiplied by assessed value (fair market value) divided by 1000 and that is your tax.

So a town budget can stay exactly the same... but the loss of a revenue offset can make the amount to be raised by property taxes higher.

The same can happen with the school and county budgets.

The town budget always goes up. But to your point, the tax rate is a ratio calculated to collect what " must be raised by the property tax." The tax rate is a meaningless number to determine if or by how much taxes have gone up or down.

Once again, this is a very important point. All the taxes we pay are voted into being, or law, by either town meeting or our representatives. Taxes do not increase due to new assessments. That is unless your property has appreciated faster than the average of everyone else's increase, but that's another discussion.

That is assuming there continues to be buyers.

There are always buyers, it's just the amount of $$$$$ that change.
Sometimes it goes up and sometimes it goes down, but it's always feels like it's too much when you're a buyer and not enough when you're a seller!

There always have been buyers. But will taxes reach a point where there won't be enough buyers ?

If a property is to be sold... there must be a buyer.

What you are asking is will market value have to fall (sell for less) to get a buyer.

That would be an equilibrium. The falling fair market values would create a lower assessment and begin shifting the ratio away from waterfront.

So far, it hasn't happened even in other surrounding towns that have higher tax rates.
Interest rates could play a role, but long cycle dynamics are in opposition to that outcome.

John - please message me
 

John - if you can private message me I would appreciate it. Thanks

Prime waterfront will always be in high demand because there's a limited supply. Unfortunately, it will only be the wealthy that will be buying.

It probably will, but none of us knows if there is a point of no return when even people with plenty of money will decide they don't want to pay those kind of taxes for a couple of month a year which will drastically reduce buyers. It's just that I hear lots of people with the ability to pay discuss this and I wonder if it will ever come to be.

I'm not sure that this is a concern for the towns. Whoever BOUGHT an expensive lakefront property should also have the ability to pay the higher taxes. So far there seem to be plenty of buyers, even at high prices.

At some point, there will be a market slump. Current owners will still be able to sell, just at somewhat reduced prices. As the lower lake values are factored in, some of the tax responsibility will be shifted away from the lake owners to the non lake residents. Then you will hear non lake residents groaning about their taxes going up, ... until the next boom cycle.

Effectively, rising lake home prices guarantee that taxes will proportionately shift more to those houses. The silver lining is that if you DO need to sell, you will get more for your lake home without having to do anything to improve it.

In fact, if you are in the position of not being able to afford the taxes, NOW is a time to consider selling while prices are still high and you can get the most benefit. Also consider, every year that you spend in a house with taxes you can barely afford, you are depleting your resources, never to get the money back. Say you are pulling $5,000 out of savings every year to pay taxes. After 10 years, you are down $50,000. That money could have been spent on some nice vacation getaways. Or money for a needed new car. Some future planning may show you would be smart to get away from the high taxes NOW, rather than later after all the tax damage is done. Also, is your lake house needing big repairs (new roof, septic, flooring ...) that you cannot afford. If you sell, you can afford another house in great condition. It's a personal choice BUT it's also driven by hard economic realities.

moultonboro tax
 

been a lakefront owner since 1997. taxes/ unit of market value are quite low in 03254 compared to other towns and reasonable compared to other states. it seems like people are complaining that their property values have increased and they don't like that their taxes have increased commensurately.

move?

There will always be buyers for waterfront property. They aren’t making any more waterfront. Off waterfront may be a different story.


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

I have no problem with Property Values going up, and I have no problem with Taxes going up.....

What I do have a problem with it both taking place in the same year, at the rate in which they did... That tells me that somewhere something is not be kept in check.... Once again I will stick to the math of it all.......

using the Figures from Tummyman, and starting with the Tax rate, we would have had last year with this year property values $4.14

We add the addition of "extra cash" and the reduced income which I am fine with and can understand we get too 4.71 and ok that is reasonable and I would have a tax bill of ~5200$ which is inline with my 2021 tax bill..... And to me that is reasonable. But I do know the cost of things have gone up, so I expect a increase from there....

Where we start to encounter questions is from the additional $0.99..... on a personal level for me I see that as an $1000 of additional Taxes.... But now lets play that out further at the Town of Multonborough level, which has $5.6B worth of property value.... That is over 5.5M dollars worth of additional funding.....

I don't care who you are that is a lot of additional Cabbage, So where is it all going.... What is being done with the money.... Have the towns spending needs changed that much? I would be very suprised by that....

Now had the tax increase been 1/3 of that 99 cents so 33 cents... which would have been 1.8M dollars of additional funding at the town level and 363$ passed on to a homeowner... I wouldn't have batted and eye.... I probably would have rationalized 50 cents per thousand additional....

I do agree that overall the Tax rate for Moultonborough is very low... which is what leads to the property especially on the water being so desirable... And why in my estimation, there will never be a problem selling waterfront property in Moultonborough.... The Town and the State know this... And Moultonborugh isn't the only town that sees this overall all the Winnipesaukee towns have a low tax rate.... Mostly because there Municipal and Local Ed. needs are minimal, do to the very low permanent resident population. I think locally the spending in Moultonborough is very frugal, and I don't have concerns at that level, I do have concerns at the County and State levels however, which come down and have an effect on our property Taxes....

Here is the food for thought once again with Numbers, According to publicly available forms, the valuation of property for all of New Hampshire is ~$200B..... an increase accross the board of 33 Cents per thousand is ~$100M.....

Access To Tax Bill Online
 

You should be able to access here, many towns are listed:

https://nhtaxkiosk.com

What the heck!! My tax bill went up 42% from 2022 to 2023.

Apparently the town assessors is getting bombarded with questions. This needs to be addressed at next years annual meeting. The town does not need 42% more in taxes.

The county would be your State Representatives voting on the county budget... and the State ED hasn't changed to my knowledge, and the money never leaves Moultonborough.

If you think the number is off... that the municipal budget and divide it by total town property valuation. From what tummyman stated, you do not have a ''buy down'' of the taxes this year like you did last year; so that simple math should be reasonably accurate in the final number.

The town does not get another 42% in taxes unless the local voters voted to increase the budget by 42%... which didn't happen according to the figures.

Moultonborough taxes
 

Every year the question of taxes is beat to death on this Forum, and after a while, people finally begin to realize he complexity of calculating the tax rate, and that each Town, for the matter, each property, the tax rate is unique. To really know about taxes year after year, drag out your last year's checkbook and see what you paid - if it is more, your taxes went up, if it is less, your taxes went down. And that is the simplest explanation possible.

So I just found some interesting reading , regarding the town of Moultonborough, expenditures and overall budget...

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/Doc...ant--Budgetpdf

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/Doc...Town-Budgetpdf

What did this help me understand?
- The School Budget is not accounted for as part of the Town Budget...
- A clear run done of all the proposals from last year... Not sure what was voted down, beyond the HUB... but I am sure I can find those results somewhere... all the the rest of it seemed reasonable....
- The town and school budgets combined come out to around $27M
- Already Known, amount of taxes to the County ~$5M
- Already known, amount of Tax Revenue from Property Tax is ~$34M

So at this point there is somewhere in the neighborhood of 1-2 Million dollars unaccounted for.... This is closer to what John M. has been trying to preach then I thought... But tells me our property Tax money isn't all accounted for at the local level...

Do I feel any better about the current situation, no absolutely not... I feel like there where parallel efforts going on, and the impact of both resulted in this issue. The effects of the Increase in valuations, was not fully understood before setting the Tax Rate.... It will be interesting to see what happens next year...

Gilford Tax Rate
 

Gilford's new tax rate is $10.30 with the following breakdown:

School (Local) - $4.72
School (State) - $1.20
Town - $3.39
County - $0.99

Total assessed valuation for 2023 = $3,506,841,980
Total assessed valuation for 2022 = $2,601,781,920

Valuation went up 34.8% over 2022 and the tax rate went down 15.9%.

The upcoming budget battles will determine just how much our town will spend versus this year. If folks want their taxes to go down or at least stay the same then they need to get involved with budgeting and make sure they vote at Town Meeting. It's OK to vote 'No' on spending measures. It's how we keep control.

So, 27 for town and school and 5 for the county. How much for the state wide education fund? That should be the amount you're missing.

Results of town meetings on town website. Been available a long time.
UNH also has online annual reports for most towns going way back

Town
https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/402...eeting-Minutes
https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/254...rrant-Articles
https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/Archive.aspx?AMID=44

"Proposed Budget
Moultonborough
For the period beginning July 1, 2023 and ending June 30, 2024"
The NH DRA form MS-636 for the town is on page 43

The ABC, advisory budget committee is just that, advisory to the select board. The select board may or may not follow advice.
The 2023 annual report comes out early 2024 showing 2024 warrant with the 2023 town meeting results.

Since the school board is a legally separate "governing body", just as the select board is the legal "governing body" of the town, it has its own budget and legally required annual meeting (analogous to town meeting).

School
https://drive.google.com/drive/folde...oscUask58kYlst

Click on download file, like the 2023 annual report
The download file (from cloud) for the school district takes a while.
For the 2023 annual report and budget see page 32; the MS-26

The town reports give an accounting of what was actually spent. It should follow pretty closely to what was voted on the year before. A nice summary from year to year would be very helpful, but it generally takes cajoling from the public to make that happen. Everything spent is voted on at town meeting for the town expenses. There are no surprises, no bonus money brought forth by rising values. Rising property values do not increase the amount collected. What does come in extra is new properties added to the tax rolls in a given year. But technically that should not be spent unless it is voted on.

I hate to keep beating this horse, but it is very important for taxpayers to understand, not a penny is spent with out a vote from town meeting. The only exception to that would be some immediate emergency that does not allow enough time to put into a budget and voted. Those should be few and far between.

Once again, there are politicians that like it when they aren't held accountable for rising taxes because the public thinks assessments cause the increases. Then there are politicians who don't understand either.

https://www.moultonboroughnh.gov/252...l-Town-Reports

Okay here is my complaint. Although my tax for waterfront property, owned since 1882 is now 45% higher than last year, I don’t like it but it is what it is. My second bill is 117% higher than last year’s, but that’s not it. My complaint is that they want this amount a full month before their normal billing cycle. People have to budget things! That’s what really riles me!:fire::fire:

One last thing mr. assessor I know the land value goes up but please don’t tell me my building has appreciated in value. It’s a 141 year old lake cottage, uninsulated, not heated, and only occupied 4 months out of the year. If it wasn’t owned by a group of descendants of the original builder it would have gone the way a lot of lake cottages have gone. Torn down and a McMansion put up.

If the town voted for the increase... it really isn't the politicians.

I'm sure over time the desire for lakefront on Winnepesuakee will cool. It is just as easy to leave I-93 and end up on Newfound or Winnisquam.

Being leery of awakening the forum "opinion-appraisers/assessors", thought I'd submit my last comment on this thread (I know ... thank God!).

https://www.revenue.nh.gov/mun-prop/...asb-manual.pdf

Has a lot of "stuff" with links that might be interesting when bored or glassy eyed. No ... I'm not trying to get in the last word ... and don't believe it will be.

Where do you suppose the idea for the increase came from?

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.