Proposal targets aid and eliminates the statewide property tax. Lawmakers have yet to determine how to fund it.
The plan adopted by the house merges ideas from three of the 10 plans lawmakers had considered.……In urging support for the bill, Hooksett Republican David Hess, implored colleagues to view it in its totality -- and not as a mix of specific provisions.
"It's not perfect, but is accomplishes the things we in the education committee believe are most important and that we understand that you believe to be most important."
Prime among those important things, argued Hess is the plan's basic fairness.
"It send more money to our poor town and cities than we've ever sent before…..It provides for predictability and stability so our mid tier towns can plan and prepare for the loss of money they receive…..and it provides for enhanced property tax relief."
By and large, the plan mixes ideas taken from the proposals of House Finance committee Chairman Fred King and Governor Lynch. Like the King proposal, the bill mandates that local property tax payers raise a basic per pupil amount of about $4500…The state would also provide 153 million dollars to help towns that are unable to raise that money…….Like the Lynch plan, the proposal distributes another 300 million dollars in aid, based on factors like household income, the number of poor and non-English speaking students, and school performance…..While the proposal won strong majority support, it was not without it's dissenters.
"Calling this bill a good thing, no matter how desperate we are does not make it a good thing."
That's Manchester Republican Steve Vaillancourt. He doubts that without the statewide property tax that the proposal will withstand legal challenge. He quoted the court ruling from the second Claremont decision.
"To the extent that the property tax is used in the future to send and adequate education……The tax must be administered in a manner that is equal in valuation and uniform it rate throughout the state. That's not what's happening in the governor's plan and that's not what's happening in this plan…..If the question is is this constitutional?…..It is not."
Another more immediately pressing question is how the plan will be paid for……. ……As passed, it would cost 527 million dollars……..That's roughly 100 million dollars more than the state has to spend in non-property tax revenue…..It will be up to the house ways and means and finance committees to make up the difference by next Thursday…….During the same period those committees must also complete their work on the state's operating and capital budgets, and a Medicaid long term care bill…..They have to make the numbers add up and they have to make sure they are constitutional……One committee member admitted as much may prove a very tall order….
