Moultonborough Taxes

[LIforrelaxin]

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...

[ITD]

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.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by ITD

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...

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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.

[DickR]

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.

[John Mercier]

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.

[DickR]

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.

[Pineedles]

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.

[phoenix]

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

[tis]

Originally Posted by phoenix

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

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.

[DesertDweller]

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

[searay]

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.

[John Mercier]

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.

[eyenotall777]

Originally Posted by Pineedles

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.

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

https://nhtaxkiosk.com

[TheProfessor]

Originally Posted by Biggd

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

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.

[phoenix]

omg the HUBBERs will be back

[tummyman]

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.

[phoenix]

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

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by tummyman

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.

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......

[tis]

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.

[ACME on the Broads]

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.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by tummyman

So for those of you who want to get into the real details, ...

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 ...

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.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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.

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.

[VitaBene]

Originally Posted by tummyman

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.

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

[longislander]

I have never seen year over year property tax swings like I have seen in NH...

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

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

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.

...as indicated it is really meaningless other then showing the tax rate over the last several years..

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.

[thinkxingu]

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

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by thinkxingu

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....

[tummyman]

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.

[phoenix]

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

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LIforrelaxin

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....

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.

[phoenix]

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

[John Mercier]

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.

[longislander]

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

[ITD]

Originally Posted by longislander

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.

[John Mercier]

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.

[longislander]

Originally Posted by ITD

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

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.

Originally Posted by ITD

Taxes don't increase unless town meeting or state politicians vote to increase them.

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-

[Descant]

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.

[longislander]

Look at different town rates here:

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

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by Descant

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. --snip--
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.

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.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by longislander

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-

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.

[John Mercier]

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.

[BroadHopper]

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???

[sky's]

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.

[tis]

Originally Posted by sky's

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.

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.

[longislander]

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.

[longislander]

Moultonboro has turned into a small Boston Suburb.

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.

[tis]

Originally Posted by longislander

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.

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.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by longislander

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.

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.

[longislander]

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.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by ITD

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.

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.

[ITD]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

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.

[jeffk]

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.

[tis]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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.

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?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by tis

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?

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

[tis]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

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

That is assuming there continues to be buyers.

[jeffk]

Originally Posted by tis

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'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.

[rsmlp]

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?

[Biggd]

Originally Posted by jeffk

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 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.

[longislander]

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.

[LIforrelaxin]

Originally Posted by longislander

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

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...

[The Real BigGuy]

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

[marya]

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.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by marya

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 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.

[WinnisquamZ]

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

[Biggd]

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.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Biggd

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.

I look at it as more of paying it forward.
But if someone wants to think about it... someone else probably paid for their early education. So it is like paying back what was advanced to us.

My only concern is if they are mandating the right things?

We have gotten ourselves into a heck of a mess by pushing out young families with children and pulling in as many retirees as we can get our hands on.

Booming demand... a good thing, but simply not enough labor to do justice to the customer.

[longislander]

Moultonborough
Reference School District Annual report, March 2023
page 22: actual enrollment 2022-2023 is 487; Projected 2023-2024 is 489
page 33 Proposed budget $17,402,067 less revenue of $740,046 = $16,762,021 (is also 2023 NH DRA MS-26)

Go back to :

NH Dept. of Education posted earlier in this thread

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

cost per pupil
1999-2000 .... $15,418
2021-2022 .... $29,469


Happy Turkey Day!

[John Mercier]

We rank 47th in State Aid to education and 6th in outcomes for K-12.
So even if the numbers are off, we seem to be doing pretty well.

The only results we can't see is if a student goes to private school or is homeschooled... they have to choose to use the standardized formats.

[squeeks]

Many have already posted how the numbers got to where they are now. Bottom line is we do not have the bulk of the taxpayers attending the Annual School Town Meeting in March. The people who attend are those wanting the new budget to pass each year. It goes up EVERY year, despite the number of students dropping every year. It is insane to be paying 17M/year for 480 students, when our whole town (separate budget) runs on 10M. That tells you how out of control our school costs are.
Go to the School Town Meeting in MARCH and vote the budget down. While you are there vote for SB2 for next year so everyone can vote through a ballot at the annual elections. This way if you are not here in March, you can send in an absentee ballot and still have your voice heard.
BTW, Moultonborough students are very low in Math proficiency in NH. Let's also get our schools to focus on Reading, Writing, Math and Science and quit all the Social Engineering and Mental Health programs. Parents are responsible for raising their children to become social adjusted adults. Don't take that away from them; they know and love them the most.

[Wishbone]

In addition to attending the meetings, we also need to elect people that are going to be Fiscally Responsible. Given the revenue that Moultonborough can generate, we need people who actually propose what the town needs, and not some of these pie in the sky proposals like we had at the last town meeting.

[John Mercier]

Moultonborough is spending a lot per pupil as compared to others. I think the highest in the State for traditional public schools.

But you are for high school rankings 16 out of 85
Newfound is 26
Gilford is 28
Prospect (Alton) is 38
Kingswood (Wolfeboro) is 40
Belmont is 41 (still in the top 50 percent)
Inter-lakes is 43
Winnisquam is 58
Laconia is 69
Franklin is 84

What I found impressive is that Moultonborough moved from 41 last year to 26 this year.

Their graduation rate is down... but I suspect that is due to the high pay of the trades in the area.

[longislander]

In addition to attending the meetings, we also need to elect people that are going to be Fiscally Responsible. Given the revenue that Moultonborough can generate, we need people who actually propose what the town needs, and not some of these pie in the sky proposals like we had at the last town meeting.

The people who attend are those wanting the new budget to pass each year. It goes up EVERY year, despite the number of students dropping every year. It is insane to be paying 17M/year for 480 students, when our whole town (separate budget) runs on 10M. That tells you how out of control our school costs are.

RIGHT-ON!

I believe the MoBo school board has announced March 9, 2024 as the next annual school district meeting date. That is a Saturday. MoBo voters need to attend and vote.

While you are there vote for SB2 for next year so everyone can vote through a ballot at the annual elections. This way if you are not here in March, you can send in an absentee ballot and still have your voice heard.

Rumor has it that there's a petition for SB2 adoption for the school district. Another reason to attend the school district meeting. For all of the SB2 naysayers that say SB2 prevents being informed, where were you for the school district meeting!

[ITD]

Originally Posted by longislander

RIGHT-ON!

I believe the MoBo school board has announced March 9, 2024 as the next annual school district meeting date. That is a Saturday. MoBo voters need to attend and vote.




Rumor has it that there's a petition for SB2 adoption for the school district. Another reason to attend the school district meeting. For all of the SB2 naysayers that say SB2 prevents being informed, where were you for the school district meeting!

SB2 removes the ability to modify line items at town meetings, one of the best tools to stop crazy spending. It's a bad move for this town especially with the pressures to increase spending. Regardless of what the school committee votes, it still needs to be voted at town meeting and the amount can still be changed on the floor if the majority desires. That ability goes away with SB2.

I wasn't at the school committee meeting, maybe you can fill me in with your experience there?

[longislander]

ITD

I wasn't at the school committee meeting, maybe you can fill me in with your experience there?

Sure!

Did you mean annual school district meeting or the Nov. 14 school board meeting. And, there are many different school committees. I attended both the annual and the Nov. 14th meetings.

The annual school district meeting, that is what we are talking about, was sparsely attended. I actually stood in the far aisle at the end of that meeting and counted 50-70 potential voters. A lot of them were/are school staff. There appeared to be more young kids then adults (sic).

Without getting too technical...

SB2 removes the ability to modify line items at town meetings

No it doesn't. The warrant discussed at the SB2 deliberative session can and is modified/changed by the voters attending. The Tuesday ballot cannot be changed. Traditional meetings decide the warrant then and there and vote. "Reconsiderations" can be done till the end of the meeting, especially if folks have already left the meeting. MoBo is wise to that and will vote a motion to "not reconsider". Rules are set by moderator/ state statute.

Here's the town stream of the 2023 annual school district meeting. The camera folks used an wrong title ... deliberative session... it was not unfortunetely.

https://townhallstreams.com/stream.p...id=51&id=51684


Note the total time it took for a meeting with a $17 million budget: 8:58 minutes, and if you bothered to view, how many questions/motions at the mic ... zero!

[John Mercier]

But it is very hard to compare the systems and outcomes.

Moultonborough had 19.4% of students on free/reduced lunch... while a higher ranking Sunapee (10th) had 15.9% on free/reduced lunch.
Sunapee spent about $1400 less per student... but its ranking is going down, while Moultonborough is going up.

Sunapee has 12 less students. So the overall bill would be pretty close.

Inter-lakes has about twice as many students, a slightly lower free/reduced lunch percentage (17.7) spent about $5300 less per student, but dropped 26 places in the standings from last year.

[longislander]

It is not difficult, or shouldn't be, comparing needed capital expenditures to "wish lists" by "unmonitored" officials, no matter the system; non-sequiture.

Free lunches to kids compared to free lunches to administrators and officials wanting to give their "kids" EVERYTHING ... well.

I know. Well ... a deep hole in the ground ... like they're trying to do to our wallets!

https://www.education.nh.gov/who-we-...-lunch-program

[John Mercier]

Without knowing what the State will deem adequate sort of is.

Anything beyond adequacy is a ''want''; that the town has to determine it is willing to pay for under the Local ED rate.

[longislander]

New Hampshire law requires that all public schools provide an adequate education to all students.

One definition:

An adequate education in New Hampshire is defined as one that provides all students with the opportunity to:

Master the core academic subjects of reading, writing, mathematics, science, and social studies. This includes developing the skills and knowledge necessary to be successful in further education and the workforce.

Develop critical thinking and problem-solving skills. This includes the ability to analyze information, solve problems, and make rational decisions.

Become effective communicators. This includes the ability to read, write, speak, and listen effectively in a variety of contexts.

Develop positive social and emotional skills. This includes the ability to work cooperatively, respect others, and manage emotions.

Is that with or without cell phones?


Then again...NEW HAMPSHIRE EDUCATION LAWS UNANNOTATED
—————————
2021–2022 EDITION Page 317

"193–E:2 Criteria for an Adequate Education.
An adequate education shall provide all students with the opportunity to acquire:
I. Skill in reading, writing, and speaking English to enable them to communicate effectively and think creatively and critically.
II. Skill in mathematics and familiarity with methods of science to enable them to analyze information, solve problems, and make rational decisions.
III. Knowledge of the biological, physical, and earth sciences, including environmental sciences that investigate the complex interaction of physical, chemical, and biological processes that take place on the earth, to enable them to understand and appreciate the world and the engineering, socio economic, and geopolitical challenges around them.
IV. Knowledge of civics and government, economics, geography, history, and Holocaust and genocide education to enable them to participate in the democratic process and to make informed choices as responsible citizens.
V. Grounding in the arts, languages, and literature to enable them to appreciate our cultural heritage and develop lifelong interests and involvement in these areas.
VI. Sound wellness and environmental practices, including outdoor recreation, to enable them to enhance their own well-being, as well as that of others.
VII. Skills for lifelong learning, including interpersonal, environmental education, and technological skills, to enable them to learn, work, communicate, and participate effectively in a changing society and environment.
Source. 1998, 389:1. 2005, 257:15. 2007, 270:3, eff. June 29,
2007. 2020, 29:12, eff. Sept. 21, 2020. 2021, 210:2, Pt. V, Secs. 1 and
2, eff. Oct. 9, 2021.

https://www.education.nh.gov/sites/g...d-complete.pdf

And now hang a dollar figure on it. Maybe they will say bitcoin must be used to pay!

Some MoBo folks are inclined to Taj Mahals. Is that adequate.

[John Mercier]

The Legislature will need to decide what the new figure for adequacy is...
But requiring payment in bitcoin is forbidden by the US Constitution.

[longislander]

The comment about bitcoin was a joke.

However I'll bite:

Whether or not requiring payment in Bitcoin is forbidden by the US Constitution is a complex question that has not been definitively answered by the courts. There are a number of arguments that could be made on both sides of the issue.

Arguments in favor of the constitutionality of requiring payment in Bitcoin

The Coinage Clause: The Coinage Clause of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to "coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and to fix the standard of weights and measures." This clause has been interpreted to give Congress the power to regulate all forms of currency, including digital currency like Bitcoin.

The Legal Tender Act: The Legal Tender Act of 1933 made it illegal to refuse payment in US dollars for any debt. This law has been interpreted to apply to all forms of currency, including digital currency like Bitcoin.

The General Welfare Clause: The General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution gives Congress the power to "lay and collect taxes, pay the debts of the United States, provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States." This clause has been interpreted to give Congress the power to regulate all aspects of the economy, including the use of currency.

Arguments against the constitutionality of requiring payment in Bitcoin

The Contracts Clause: The Contracts Clause of the US Constitution prohibits states from passing any law that "impairs the obligation of contracts." This clause has been interpreted to mean that states cannot pass laws that make it more difficult for people to pay off their debts. Requiring payment in Bitcoin could make it more difficult for people to pay off their debts, especially if they do not have access to Bitcoin.

The First Amendment: The First Amendment of the US Constitution protects the right to freedom of speech. This right has been interpreted to include the right to use any form of currency that you choose. Requiring payment in Bitcoin could restrict people's freedom of speech by limiting their choices of currency.

The Due Process Clause: The Due Process Clause of the US Constitution prohibits the government from taking away someone's property without due process of law. This clause has been interpreted to mean that the government cannot take away someone's money without a valid reason. Requiring payment in Bitcoin could take away people's money without a valid reason, especially if they do not have access to Bitcoin.

The ultimate question of whether or not requiring payment in Bitcoin is forbidden by the US Constitution by the court system will probably not happen any time soon.

How about Dunkin Donuts gift cards ... any better!

Also,
The Constitution can be amended.

[John Mercier]

US Con Art One Section 10.

The States have no authority to make anything other than Silver and Gold a tender in payment of debts.

A State can choose to accept other formats of payment, but can not require them.

It has actually been hashed out... with several people going to prison.

Same with this...
The State may not mandate any expense upon a local subdivision - even a public school - so the requirement to provide an adequate education is a State financial responsibility.

That is why they lost the current two rounds of traditional public school funding lawsuits.

Now we wait for the NHSC. Should they concur with the Superior Court, then it is up to the Legislature.

The Legislature can balk; and stall to an election year.
That is what they did the last time.

Or they can get to it during this session, and have something placed into law so that come election time they can say they upheld their constitutional duty.

I'm betting on the first.

[longislander]

Article I Legislative Branch
Section 10 Powers Denied States
Clause 1 Proscribed Powers
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

It says no state ... it doesn't mention federal gov't.

The Coinage Clause of the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 5) does not explicitly prohibit the federal government from making anything other than silver and gold a tender in payment of debts. However, the Supreme Court has held that the Coinage Clause does implicitly limit the federal government's power to make legal tender.

In the 1884 case of Legal Tender Cases, the Supreme Court held that the Coinage Clause does not grant Congress the power to make anything other than gold and silver coins legal tender. The Court reasoned that since the Coinage Clause only grants Congress the power to "coin money" and "regulate the value of foreign coin," it did not intend to grant Congress the power to make paper money legal tender. The Legal Tender Cases primarily involved the constitutionality of the Legal Tender Act of 1862, 12 Stat. 345, enacted during the American Civil War. The paper money depreciated in terms of gold and became the subject of controversy, particularly because debts contracted earlier could be paid in this cheaper currency.

The Court's decision in Legal Tender Cases has been criticized by some scholars, who argue that the Court's interpretation of the Coinage Clause is too narrow. They argue that the Coinage Clause simply grants Congress the power to regulate the currency, and that this power includes the power to make paper money legal tender.

Despite this criticism, the Court's decision in Legal Tender Cases has never been overruled, and it remains the law of the land. As a result, the federal government is not prohibited from making anything other than silver and gold coins legal tender, but it is limited in its ability to do so.

Secondly,
Is reference is being made to the recent two decisions of the ConVal case by a single judge Ruoff, or the two Claremont decisions?

Probably the ConVal case. That is, presently, a Rockingham County case and is not yet binding on the state. It will be binding on the state, if and when, the NH Supreme Court grants certiorari and decides on the case. If it doesn't get heard by the NH Supreme Court, then what. Legislature v. Judge Ruoff? Or, is it binding only in Rockingham county? It would be surprising if the NH Supreme Court would not intervene, but nothing requires it to do so.

Federal and NH state constitutions can be amended.
Federal:An amendment may be proposed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, or, if two-thirds of the States request one, by a convention called for that purpose. The amendment must then be ratified by three-fourths of the State legislatures, or three-fourths of conventions called in each State for ratification.

NEXT!

[John Mercier]

Why would the federal government make you pay your State level taxes?
And why would the federal government decide that it should be in bitcoin?

[longislander]

Why would the federal government make you pay your State level taxes?
And why would the federal government decide that it should be in bitcoin?

The federal gov't has no jurisdiction on state taxes.The federal gov't is in Bitcoin, but not as currency.
"Uncle Sam’s stash of some 200,000 bitcoin was seized from cybercriminals and darknet markets"


https://www.wsj.com/finance/currenci...llion-78ce0938

[Weekend Pundit]

Originally Posted by squeeks

Many have already posted how the numbers got to where they are now. Bottom line is we do not have the bulk of the taxpayers attending the Annual School Town Meeting in March. The people who attend are those wanting the new budget to pass each year. It goes up EVERY year, despite the number of students dropping every year. .

Maybe it's time to take a lesson from Croydon.

Just enough people attended the School District Meeting to amend the school budget, cutting it to less than half the proposed amount and then approving the amended budget. Of course those who couldn't be bothered to attend were outraged. But it also taught them a lesson: Attend the town/school district meeting. If you don't you have little right to complain about the results.

Gilford is an SB2 town for both Town Meeting and School District Meeting. For us it has worked. It isn't perfect. But then traditional Town Meeting/School District Meeting had low attendance. The deliberative sessions for both aren't all that well attended - less than 100 in general - but during voting we'll see between 1300 and 2000 townsfolk casting votes. Are they informed when they cast their votes? Maybe.

[longislander]

Maybe it's time to take a lesson from Croydon.

Great points.
It took a special town/school meeting in May, to overturn the March school district budget cuts (50 voter petition not 25 for special meeting).

But then traditional Town Meeting/School District Meeting had low attendance.

Same for MoBo, except when a Recreation Center shows up on the warrant.

The deliberative sessions for both aren't all that well attended - less than 100 in general - but during voting we'll see between 1300 and 2000 townsfolk casting votes. Are they informed when they cast their votes? Maybe.

But at least the Tuesday ballot voters should know what happened at the deliberative session and have around 30 days to find out more before having to vote. Not like traditional, forced to vote on what the boards say, or someone with an agenda at the mic and then required to vote.

I guess ... what is informed. Is reading the ballot with no prior knowledge good enough. The wording maybe?