Graham, Donna
From: ee ee ieee
Sent: Saturday, June 12, 2021 8:00 AM
Ta: Board of Aldermen; Mayor's Office Email
Ce: Lopez, Thomas; NashuaNews@unionleader.com
Subject: My public comment about SB52 at the 6/8 BOA meeting
Attachments: Comparing Caps.png
CAUTION: This email came from outside of thé organization. Do not click links/open attachments if source is
unknown.
Dear Mayor Donchess and Members of the Board,
I am following up on my public comment about SB52 at the June 8 Board of Aldermen meeting.
Attached is a list of the NH towns and cities whose caps were under threat and would be protected by SB52 and
below is the majority report from Rep. Diane Pauer on the NH House Municipal and County Government
committee explaining how the bill protects caps across the state.
. SB 52, Relative to municipal charter provisions for tax caps
' Rep. Diane Pauer for the Majority of Municipal and County Government.
_ This bill clarifies legislative intent and resolves technical issues in current state statute.
. First, this bill validates tax or spending caps adopted by municipalities before July 5, 2011. When NH laws
_ were revised in 2011 to authorize cities and towns to locally adopt a cap on taxes or spending, subject to
an override provision, the clear intent of the NH legislature was to protect previously adopted tax or
spending caps “of any kind” with a grandfather provision in RSA 49-B:13, II-a.
. In 2019, the N.H. Supreme Court ruled with a 3-2 split decision that the last sentence in RSA 49-B:13,
_ Tl-a invalidates this grandfather provision, thereby threatening the validity of all tax or spending caps
: adopted by municipalities prior to 2011. SB 52 reinforces the legislature’s unambiguous intent that tax or
_ spending caps adopted, revised or amended by municipalities before July 5, 2011 are valid, legal and fully
_ enforceable after that date.
| Second, this bill addresses a technical issue in RSA 49 Sections C and D relating to budget items not subject to
| the cap. According to the 2011 statute, a tax or spending cap adopted by cities or towns allows for specitic
- enumerated budget items, such as enterprise funds, to be excluded from the cap. SB 52 adds additional budget
items that may be excluded from the cap, namely interest and principal payments on municipal bonded debt,
and capital expenditures.
Both the exclusion provision and the override provision lower the limit of the municipal budget subject to the
cap. At present, state statute is silent with regard to the vote requirement for exclusion. SB 52 requires that any
_ municipal action that redistributes excludable budget items from within the limit of the capped budget to
- outside such limit shall require a supermajority vote which is the same supermajority vote requirement to
_ override the cap.
