Donor Towns Push Amendment

By Josh Rogers on Tuesday, February 5, 2002.

listen: No audio currently available. Order on CD (pdf).

Since 1997?s Claremont 2 decision, the legislature has considered and rejected a sheaf of constitutional amendments pertaining to school funding?..It will mull several more this session??.Including one that would eliminate donor and receiver towns by capping property rich communities portion of the statewide property tax

CACR 35 would ensure no community pays more in statewide property taxes than the total it needs to fund its own schools. In one fell swoop the amendment would ?hold harmless? the 57 communities that now pay more to the state than they get back in education funding?.. Ted Jankowski, deputy city manager of Portsmouth say the amendment addresses a situation that?s been getting worse ever since the 1999 passage of the statewide property tax...

'Taxes in donor communities are going up seven times faster since the passage of this bill than the rest of the state?.On average donor towns are paying 111 percent more in property taxes every year?.These are straight facts from the department of revenue administration numbers.'

Given those numbers, it?s perhaps natural that the measure?s prime sponsors, including House speaker Gene Chandler, and Senate Democratic leader Beverly Hollingworth, represent donor communities. But according to Hollingworth the amendment is about far more than whether or not one happens to represent a donor or receiver community??.She says it?s also about providing a check a legislative branch with a habit of not living up to it?s word.

'We haven?t funded the augenblick formula?..we didn?t repeal the statewide property taxes we promised we would?.So this is an attempt to try to bring attention to how unfair the property taxes are?.and to try and make sure the legislature doesn?t do a bait and switch again.'

Amherst Republican Paul Speiss shares Hollingworth?s frustration with the legislature?s pattern of inaction?..even though his community benefits under the present donor receiver system.

'I certainly am sympathetic with the donor towns feeling that the tax is regressive?.And I believe that it?s appropriate to support any initiative to better balance the obligations of the people who pay and the people who receive.'

If Speiss sees the amendment as a necessary stop on the way to overhauling the state?s school funding scheme??.Claremont communities attorney Andru Volinsky says given the legislature?s track record?.doing anything that creates a 32 million dollars school funding budget hole would be a step in the wrong direction.

'What is going to be used to fill the revenue gap?.You know it would be more credible if another tax was passed to become effective on the passage of this constitutional amendments.'

Volinsky also says getting rid of donor towns is somewhat beside the point?..not only in the eyes of courts?..which have ruled New Hampshire is a single statewide educational system?.but also in terms of permanent property tax relief. He points out that the amendment only gets rid of donor towns??it doesn?t cap the tax itself.

'Right now the statewide tax is 5.80 or something. There is nothing if this is passed that would prevent the state from repealing the business taxes raising the statewide property tax to seven dollars and then giving the relief to the then 50 donor towns. Which results in recreating the same system that we had in 87.'

The House Ways and means committee is scheduled to take up the proposed amendment tomorrow.